Obama's sorta kinda victory speech

Here is Obama's speech in Iowa last night:

Mark Halperin calls it "one of the best-written (and delivered) speeches of the campaign." I guess there's something in the water in Iowa: the guy always gives a great speech there. :)

Comments

[FormerBrendanReader]

:Rolling my eyes: Here we go, more of Brendan's schilling for Obama. Clearly he drank the punch.
Does he cover anything else these days?

[Marty West]

GOOOOOOO HAWKEYESSS!!!!!!

[Joe Mama]

Brendan would be much better served to stick with Lieberman.

[Braylon]

:Rolling my eyes: Here we go, more of Brendan's schilling for Obama. Clearly he drank the punch.
Does he cover anything else these days?

Yeah, I saw in a comment thread a few posts back how he claims he's not decided between Obama and McCain in November. I spit out my soda I laughed so hard.

[Brendan]

With the exception of a couple of unnecessary potshots that detract from its seriousness ("a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American," "Democrats seem to have become confused about...the difference between America's friends and America's enemies"), that's a good article by Joe. I am inclined to largely agree with it.

The problem is, while the Democrats' approach to foreign policy is wrong, the Bush model isn't exactly working swimmingly either. Lieberman is right that there has been some overreaction to the fact that "total victory did not come quickly in Iraq," but one reason for that overreaction is because of the Bush Administration's massive underreaction (at least until last year) to the real problems and obstacles that have arisen. That underreaction is, I believe, in large part a product of their overconfidence in the infallibility of their own ideological approach, which hasn't worked in real life they way it was supposed to work on paper. In other words, both sides are wrong.

I haven't heard McCain articulate how his approach would be different -- a more pragmatic, sensible version of the Bush Doctrine, if you will. Instead, he (and, alas, Lieberman) have jumped full-throatedly aboard the "Diplomacy = Appeasement" bandwagon, as well as the "HAHAHA YOU GOT ENDORSED BY HAMAS! I JUST TOTALLY PWNED U!!" school bus. Basically, McCain and Lieberman are doing exactly what they rightly accuse some Democrats of doing -- putting political warfare ahead of, um, the war. Their rhetoric thus far, unfortunately, seems to suggest that they, too, would govern with the "who gives a crap about hearts & minds and moral authority" philosophy that has so weakened Bush's otherwise promising commitment to advancing democracy and freedom.

I'm not torn between Obama and McCain because I think they're both strong on foreign policy. I'm torn because neither of them has convinced me, yet, that they have a workable overarching plan to fix the mess we're in. Whichever one can articulate something that makes a modicum of sense will most likely get my vote.

[Brendan]

Braylon, I am undecided. In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now and made me choose, I think -- *think* -- I'd vote for McCain. But it's really entirely up in the air how I'll vote in November. I like and admire Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he'd make the best president. The best Democratic nominee, yes, but that's only because his opponent is such a lying, conniving, deceitful [bad word]. Against McCain, he doesn't have such an obvious "character" advantage (both candidates are, as best as I can tell, generally good, decent and honest, though of course not pure or perfect), and I'm not at all sure who I think is, on balance, better on policy.

Honestly, I don't know where this "schilling [sic] for Obama" business is coming from. I could understand that criticism back in January and February, when my blog was arguably infected with a bit more Obamamania, but these days, almost everything "pro-Obama" on my blog is actually more "anti-Hillary." I mean, just look at my obsession with Hillary's fraudulent vote-counting machinations. That has nothing to do with Obama as such; it's purely a criticism of Clinton. She could be running against Tom DeLay and she'd still be just as wrong. It's her math that I take issue with, not the fact that she's using it against my, uh, beloved Barack, or whatever.

I've criticized Obama a bunch of times when I felt he deserved it, and most of my recent posts about the election have been either neutral/analytical, satirical, or anti-Clinton. I don't actually heap fulsom praise on Obama all that often these days, and when I do say something unabashedly positive, it's usually something fairly obvious, like "he gives good speeches" (this post) or "he knows how to draw a crowd" (a couple posts back). Are you seriously arguing with those statements?

Alas, just as Bush Derangement Syndrome has led many of the president's critics to conclusively presume that anybody who defends Bush is just a partisan shill, Obama Derangement Syndrome is having the same effect in reverse. Just because somebody expresses something other than utter revulsion for Obama, and defends him when he's unfairly attacked (see: "appeasement"), doesn't mean that person is some sort of cultist. Grow up.

[Joe Mama]

Speaking of cultists, David Archuleta had by far the better performance on Idol last night.

[kcatnd]

I agree with the last two statements.

[Shaun]

Brendan,

looks like that "lying, conniving, deceitful [bad word]" (and i agree with such a description) did much better than expected in KY and WV, at least in terms of vote margin. granted, OR is only 88% in so far, but his lead is down to 133,956 by my count (assuming your calculation that he had a 436,213 vote lead on 5/12 was correct). maybe it'll jump back up to 140,000 once the rest of OR reports.

projecting the next 3 primaries, i think it's reasonable to expect HRC to win Puerto Rico by 250,000 votes and lose MT and SD by a combined 40,000 votes. that would give her a 70,000 vote lead at the end. i don't see HRC winning by less than 200,000 in PR or losing by more than 50,000 combined in MT and SD, so i'd say she's got a lock on the popular vote.

now, i'm not one of those people who thinks the winner of the popular vote should win the election... delegates are and should be the only deciding factor. having said that, i think that if you want to go by the rules, then go by ALL of the rules. just because Obama will win the pledged delegate count doesn't mean he should automatically get the nomination. the rules include superdelegates, and if their votes turn the nomination over to HRC, then that's perfectly legit.

the main point is that, although she's using inaccurate and unreasonable math now, she WILL most likely end up winning the popular vote... so if that's going to be her way of trying to convince the superdelegates to support her, it'll be a truthful argument.

the only questions that remain: will the superdelegates buy her argument that she's better suited for the general election?... and IF they do buy it, will it be enough to convince them to support her over BHO, which would almost certainly anger a good chunk of dems?

[JO]

Braylon, I am undecided. In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now and made me choose, I think -- *think* -- I'd vote for McCain

I knew you were a partisan Republcan hack!!! :-D

[kcatnd]

In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now and made me choose, I think -- *think* -- I'd vote for McCain

There he goes again...more schilling for McCain. I don't know why I bother reading this blog anymore.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh.

[David K.]

if you put a gun to my head right now

Well sure, but if you vote for Obama then you wouldn't have to worry about bitter people and their guns!

Huh?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - "Honestly, I don't know where this "schilling [sic] for Obama" business is coming from." - I think that the "schilling" reflects a perceived Austrian influence ... I see you, however, as more influenced by Japan - with your "yen" for Senator Lieberman ...