The Clintons are rich, right?

I really don't think Joe Biden should be emailing my broke ass to pay a millionaire's debts:

We want to be ready to go, and that's why I'm asking you to help us honor an outstanding commitment we made during the election.

Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton -- one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State -- retire her campaign debt. That's the money her campaign owes to the vendors across the country that make our political process possible.

Barack and I had the deepest respect for Hillary as an opponent on the campaign trail. Her undeniable intellect, talent, and passion strengthened Barack as a candidate and tested our movement for change.

We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise.

(deleted link)

I saw your generosity and commitment to this team throughout the election, and I know we can do it.

In the general election, Hillary was one of our strongest advocates. She traveled the country and did more than 70 events, raising money and bringing new supporters into our campaign.

As Secretary of State, she will be indispensable in furthering Barack's agenda for change.

Let's welcome Hillary to the team and thank her for her efforts in support of our campaign by helping to retire her debt to the hard-working individuals and small businesses that were a part of the election:

(deleted link)

Your support and generosity got us this far, and I know I can count on it now.

Thank you,

Joe

Forget all the reasons I supported the Obama candidacy instead of Hillary Clinton's, forget the massive amounts of cash she spent prolonging her campaign when the writing was on the wall, and forget that the debt is owed to Mark Penn.

Today, it was announced that the last time so many jobs had been lost in a month was 1974.

And I'm kinda trying to look for a job right now.

Hillary, step up and retire you're own damn debt.

Barack Obama donors need to be funding soup kitchens right now instead.

Let's Stop Talking About Palin

I've been mulling over lots of different thoughts since John McCain's announced his VP choice.

I thought at the time that it reflected a desperate lack of judgment on the part of Senator McCain and exposed some real control issues within his campaign. How, I asked myself, could they not even vet her? Why would they undercut the 'experience' theme they've been building for months? How could McCain choose someone he'd only spoken to once or twice?

And then when the details began to emerge, from her daughter's pregnancy to the state trooper firing scandal to the bridge to nowhere lies, I thought to myself that McCain's gambit had totally backfired. Here he's elevated this total political novice without fully vetting and it's backfiring right in his face.

And maybe it did sort of happen like that. McCain's advisers and GOP stakeholders knew he needed to shore up the evangelical base not just if he was going to have a chance at bridging the so-called 'enthusiasm gap' but also because there would be no grassroots basis for 2010 or 2012 if McCain had had his way and picked Joe Lieberman. They convinced John McCain to go with Palin, assuring him that the positive aspects of a ratings draw for the ticket would far outweigh whatever gaffes she may commit or bad positions she'd previously taken.

Democrats and especially a lot of online progressive news sites walked into the unintentional trap. Immediately there were many questions about Sarah Palin's ultraconservative ideology, her poor performance as Mayor of Wasilla, and the trooper scandal. There were even more questions about what the selection said about McCain's judgment, whether or not he himself had a basic familiarity with Governor Palin, whether or not he'd known about the family preganancy. I'm not sure that I 100% buy the argument that the 'unintentional trap' was the typical GOP wagon-circling and push back against the elite media though certainly this was the party response. I don't think that the left is entirely caught off guard by that tactic anymore, as it had certainly been employed at various junctures by the McCain camp already.

Rather, the 'unintetional trap' that Democrats stepped into was Palin's personality.

The GOP push back against the 'liberal media' was in full swing in the days before Palin's acceptance speech but it did not necessarily yield any kind of response from the public. I anecdotally remember seeing many numbers indicating fairly disparate national favorability numbers for Palin, shockingly low considering that VP picks are supposed to poll positively right after their selection. As I recall, roughly 38% of respondents indicated that Palin had made them more likely to vote for McCain and pretty much the same number indicated that Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain.

Once Palin flashed that smile on stage in St. Paul and told her story, her place on the ticket was solidified beyond a doubt. The two most often quoted lines from that speech illustrate what her selection was really all about. Can you remember anything she said she'd do politically? No. You remember the line about hockey moms and lipstick, you remember the brilliantly delivered cutesy line about putting the state jet on EBay, you remember all the small town America nonsense. The whole speech was about imagery, identity, personality, and relate-ability.

Then, when it was kicked back to the Left's pool of tv pundit talent or to the progressive blogosphere, the pointed questions kept being asked - and it looked like this 'everywoman' was being bullied around on her first day at school - never mind that she's been lying about her record.

And since the convention wrapped, criticism of Palin continues dominate the headlines, even on progressive blogs. I know she's being isolated from the press and being briefed over and over again because she has little command of the issues Americans face in this election. I know she's lying about the bridge to nowhere.

But who cares?

Is it really more important to highlight Palin's lies than it is to contrast McCain's blank speech to Obama's extremely detailed agenda? Shouldn't we be highlighting the ridiculousness of McCain's calls for change?

Palin brings ratings. And she brings them to a Republican ticket that was really struggling to generate any kind of interest or excitement.

This Dick Polman piece, which is excellent, examines this theme by critiquing the poor political sense of those clamoring for the use of Hillary Clinton as a foil to Palin:

The Clintons may be exasperating figures to roughly half the Democratic electorate, but they do know a few things about politics and how to play the game. The McCain people have made a politically smart move by picking Palin - her lack of preparedness is another matter entirely - because they have created buzz for the Republican ticket, allowing the GOP to focus on personality and thus distract voters from the Republican policy record of the past eight years. If Hillary was to take on Palin directly, in a battle for the sisterhood, she would be fighting dumb, on the new Republican turf - personality versus personality - while failing to focus voters on the Republican policy record of the past eight years.

And consider this: If Hillary went mano a mano with Palin, how long would it take for this kind of imagery - courtesy of James Bond cinema - to be the talk of the nation?

Wolfson, wise to the imperatives of popular culture, and the allure of so-called "cat fights," put it this way: "For whatever reasons, editors and news executives are convinced that two women fighting sells magazines and attracts eyeballs. You can imagine the thinking. If Angelina Jolie vs Jennifer Aniston, and Britney Spears vs Christina Aguilera sell copies, what could be better than Hillary Clinton vs Sarak Palin...(That) might drive ratings and sell magazines, but it wouldn't be good for the Democratic party or the cause of women's rights."

You see, the McCain camp became wise to the fact that Americans are really bored by John McCain. They realized that McCain's understated public persona, awkward mannerisms, inability to fluidly read a teleprompter, and increasingly common 'senior moments' really exacerbated the age issue and turned off voters on the right and in the middle. The McCain camp is happy to have Palin bump McCain's TV time. Her appearance alone makes her inherently better able to connect with average Americans than John McCain. Notice that Palin and McCain continue to stump in tandem. It may be, as many on the Left snicker, because Palin needs more prepping before she's allowed to do her own photo ops recite her own talking points. However, it is much more probable that the McCain campaign strategists are purposefully working to obscure Americans' views of the ticket by putting Palin out front. It ensures that media coverage of any McCain campaign speech is as much coverage of Palin's barbs as it is anything the actual nominee says. It ensures that Biden and Obama will continue to be pressed to respond to this Palin quote or that Palin quote. It ensures that the progressive blogosphere continues to rip apart all of her misstatements and distortions.

She sells ad shares, she drives web traffic. Palin is getting pretty good mileage out of the same one-liners written for her convention speech whereas Barack Obama's extremely detailed, persuasive, and historic argument for progressive change has generally failed to generate residual coverage.

It's what the McCain camp is banking on.

I actually think the Obama campaign has really played this pretty good. Neither Biden nor Obama have really mentioned Palin by name and continue to hammer away at McCain's proposals that expand upon the Bush administration's disastrous policies.

Unfortunately, however, the progressive netroots is being called to action to clamor on and on about the media's refusal to report accurately on Palin. That's a mistake, it's not something worth leveraging progressive muscle for.

Call out her lies, highlight her distortions, and continue to uncover her insufficient qualifications but stop making her the focal point of the response to the McCain campaign. She should be treated as though she is completely irrelevant because she's essentially being put forth to distract Americans from the actual proposals of the GOP platform and of the McCain campaign.

It's also extremely frustrating as a resident of New Orleans. So much energy went into going after Sarah Palin, who is still essentially a NOBODY, that few bothered to question the 'gee Louisiana really dodged a bullet with Gustav' narrative that allowed the GOP to go back to partying in Minnesota while a huge swath of America barely hangs on.

What Does That Biden Guy Bring To The Ticket Anyway?

On the campaign trail only this kind of stuff:



That's at an event in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, which is in the Philadelphia Metro Area. Because much of the state of Delaware is in Philadelphia's expansive media market, if you live anywhere in Southeastern Pennsylvania and have paid any attention to the news over the last 30 years, you know Joe Biden and you probably like his attitude too. For instance, my parents were Biden supporters before they were Obama supporters. My dad - who I still catch mumbling about Reagan - hasn't been this excited about a Democratic nominee since, well...

I heard lots of Goopers talking about how Sarah Palin would help in Pennsylvania but everyone should just forget all that.

Pennsylvania will be voting for Barack Obama just as it voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. That it is still considered a swing state by the mainstream press is almost amusing. When you look at the recent voting history in statewide elections (replacing Ridge with Rendell, replacing Santorum with Casey), the effectiveness of progressive reform efforts within the Democratic Party, demographic changes in the Philadelphia suburbs, and the seismic shift toward the Democrats in the state legislature, the Republicans would be wise to move on.

The last poll that showed McCain in the lead in Pennsylvania was one taken in April, just days after the contentious Democratic primary. Since then, every poll has yielded a lead for Barack Obama, many of them comfortably outside the margin of error.

So to recap:

Biden is the man and is going to give us great stuff on the campaign trail. He's going to help in Pennsylvania not just because he has roots in Scranton and gets media coverage in Philly but also because his speech patterns and, above all, attytood will always make him something of a darling native son.

Pennsylvania will be voting for Barack Obama by a very comfortable margin over John McCain and probably would have regardless of Joe Biden's role on the campaign trail.

For whatever reason, many prognosticators still consider Pennsylvania to be up for grabs.

Those Speech-Giving, Convention-Having, Truth-Telling, Liberal Elitists

They have some nerve pointing out the obvious to the voters of America. It's as if they think people are so stupid that some of them might actually still vote for John McCain after seeing the GOP's true colors on full display for the last eight years.

Seriously though, I think this convention has been excellent and relegated the GOP talking heads to either jumping on board with their sincere praise or flailing helplessly with rumors of discord between the Clinton camp and the Obamas. And they look like fools stoking up those divisions because the speeches by the Clintons were perfect. Had they heaped on any more praise or been any more strident in their calls for the election of Barack Obama, they would have been ripped apart for going over-the-top or for mocking the nominee. Mission accomplished by the Clintons.

I was not disappointed one bit with the Big Dog's speech. Oyster highlighted his favorite parts. I can see why President Clinton wanted so badly to go into the economy during his speech. There was a lot of buzz early in the week about Bill not being happy with his speech topic or whatever. I think this was a load of bull. Do you think the Obama camp, after all the work that's been done to heal the primary wounds, went to Bill Clinton and told him what he had to talk about? Did people expect the Obama camp to be so stupid that when Bill Clinton came to say 'I'm going to absolutely roast the GOP on the economy during my speech,' he was told no?

Totally worth watching.

For all the talk about the wounds of Clinton supporters not being sufficiently heeled after the primary campaign, what about all the insults absorbed by Obama supporters after the borderline Rovian campaign run by the Hillary camp?

I'm generally not a holder of grudges but I lost a lot of respect for the Clintons during the primary season.

They needed to earn back that respect from me as a young Obama supporter just as much as the Obama camp needed to heel wounds with the Clintons. That wasn't the dominant media storyline but it's true.

Anyways, both Bill and Hillary's speeches were superb and really castrated the media make-believe over the seriousness of the supposed rift. Was there supposed to be some sort of armed coup? Give me a break.

The Clintons praised Obama, they praised his ideas, they went after McCain, and they excoriated his agenda. They challenged the Democrats to propel Senator Obama to the Presidency.

I'm ready.

--

Hillary Clinton's best line: "Was it really just about me?"

Bill Clinton's best line:

It was really more of a moment. Go see Oyster's highlights. I think it came at the end of Oyster's orange. President Clinton speaks to "the example the Republicans have set" and absolutely roasts them.

American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than ¼ as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage.

Then he pivots emotionally, getting angrier while still preserving an appropriate enthusiasm, showing that authenticity that have the GOP fits for so many years. He brought down his finger and said with an inflection that suggested he was gritting his teeth in outrage:

I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

America can do better than that. And Barack Obama will.

But first we have to elect him.

That crescendo was perfect. Here's the video, the passage in discussion hits at around the 11 minute mark.



And of course, Jeffrey is right about the line about "Katrina and cronyism." I'm happy with it, not just because it was placed to get a big audience pop, but because it is a catchall that implicates Ray Nagin (an unequivocal embarrassment to national democrats) as a friend of the Bush administration just as much as it does Halliburton and the Shaw Group.

===

The DNC box score thus far:

Home Runs: Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama, Malia Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

Josh Marshall is also all about John Kerry's speech. It was excellent.

Key line: "Are you kidding me folks?"

Watch it:




There were late rumors of Kerry maybe being vetted as an Obama veep. I think the Biden choice is better but Kerry would have been pretty compelling given how toughened he has become. John Kerry is a good Democrat. In 2016 when Tim Kaine or one of the Udall boys from out west or Donna Edwards (if we're lucky) is the Democratic nominee for President, he or she could pick John Kerry as the 'experienced attack dog' running mate.


A Double Down the Line: Joe Biden

The life story telling went well. The family photo ops went well. The delivery was solid. It just wasn't as well-written as some of the others. Biden just got called up off the bench, it's hard to get a good swing on the ball when you've been riding the pine. So Biden took the pitch he was given and went the opposite way, blooping one over the first baseman's head and hustling into second base. I have full confidence in Joe Biden's talent. He'll be swinging a hot bat the whole rest of the summer and will be batting cleanup by the World Series this October.

Strike Outs: The DNC farm system.

The rookie call ups were nervous. Mark Warner can give a good speech and the substance within probably works well in centrist swing Virginia. But as the key note, there wasn't so much to wow over. Brian Schwietzer showed some promise out of Montana but needs some more seasoning. I expected more polish from Missouri's Claire McCaskill.

It's not as if the DNC is devoid of young talent. I would have enjoyed to seeing Udall out of Colorado or Udall out of New Mexico. Rep. Donna Edwards out of Maryland brought down the house at Netroots Nation; I would have loved to have seen her get in a few swings at the DNC. What about giving a shot to a few long-shot Senate candidates from this cycle that maybe could use some cash. We're really threatening to get 60 in the Senate. Why not give Noriega from Texas an opportunity to close the gap on Cornyn. Or what about Allen in Maine? Or Cowboy Kleeb from Nebraska? Or Rice from Oklahoma? Or Hagan from North Carolina? Look how close the Dems are to 60 in the Senate. They just need to push a little bit harder to get there and they could have used the convention pulpit to help out in Oregon, Maine, North Carolina, Texas, etc.

Also it would have been nice to have a John Edwards speech at this thing. Too bad he blew that for us.