Way to go Joe

Wow. And you thought the Clintons were good?

Joe Biden -- your table is ready. And it might be at the Naval Observatory/V.P. Mansion.

Make no mistake about it, this was the speech that a Vice President needs to give. "That's not change, that's more of the same." "We don't need a good soldier, we need a wise leader." Biden laying out the contrasts in stark terms, and making the choice the obvious one it probably should be.

Look, I'm a conservative, but Bush has led the Republican party so far away from anything resembling conservative principles that is impossible for me to support the Republican party. There is no way, no reason, and no rational reason for giving the Republican party four more years. Sorry, John McCain -- but it's time for the Republican party to prune itself of the dead policies and dead limbs of the Bush administration, and return to its conservative roots. And the only way to do that is to vote Obama.

But Biden -- wow. Great speech. Great contrast, great fire, and great "red meat" argument setting out why people should vote for the Democrats, and Obama-Biden.

Applause lines?

Brian Williams says that Hillary worked "thru" applause lines.....

Okay, I LOVED her speech. But she STEPPED on a lot of her best lines. So, as an independent viewer -- I'd say a solid, good speech by Senator Hillary Clinton, but she could have done better if she had let the applause lines continue, or just gone along with the sentiment without stepping on the line.

Hillary did set a high bar for Senator Biden. He should/will pass it....but she made it difficult.

A nit-pick, but a pick nonetheless.

Chad

Back to delivery...

...okay, I was going to make this point earlier, but here it is:

Someone needs to give the Democrats a lesson on live speech-making.

Not to say any speech I've heard was bad. But figure out how to work with a live audience. Wait for the "call and response" lines. Pause. Let the good lines flow.

Seriously, the Democrats should make every potential speaker go thru a "live audience training session." If they cannot pause appropriately, to get the audience in the room (as well as the audience at home) to applaud with them, they should be cut off.

That is all. Seriously, though, find some professional public speakers (both in big audiences and on television).

Apologies

Is it wrong that after a few minutes of Hillary Clinton's speech that I said "Hillary, you have my vote next time?"

It probably is. I'm a conservative, after all.

But, and maybe I'll explore this more fully soon, but Hillary arguably deserves more respectful treatment from me (and others). I gave her a lot of flack for being controversial/dirty from the Clinton years....but, at a certain point, I think we need to give her slack, or, at least, acknowledgement that she has been proven guilty of nothing.

Anyways, the "no way, no how, no McCain" line deserves some props. As does her passion for America, a la my earlier post about Kennedy. (I won't give her the same level of deference that I gave Teddy Kennedy, but I do not doubt that Hillary Clinton loves America, even if I disagree with her politics or her campaign, etc.)

The Democratic Convention, and Public Speaking Classes

I'm watching the Democratic National Convention. Admittedly, this takes a lot of commitment for me -- I believe in small government, in free markets, in states' rights, in the 2nd Amendment. In other words, I'm having to swallow my tongue a lot in my living room just to sit thru this, all in support of my candidate, Barack Obama -- a candidate, I should add, that I'm wishing would sound more "accountable" and less "electable" right now (more on that in a minute).

This post, though, is inspired by what I've seen on cable the first two nights of the Democratic Convention so far. First, let me give some props to Ted Kennedy. I disagree with Ted Kennedy on many, many, MANY political issues. Let's face it, he's a "liberal" lion, and I'm a "conservative" (not Republican) bear. But the man loves America, and I can embrace, respect, and honor any man or woman that loves America, even if I disagree with their politics.

Second, let me say on the record that James Carville is an idiot. You win one election (let's ignore 1996 -- really, the country was gonna elect Bob Dole?) and you're a wise man in your party? Northwestern got to a Rose Bowl in 1995, but no one is saying they are a year-in powerhouse....yet. Carville -- you're an idiot. The campaign did the right thing Monday night, getting people to understand Obama the family man, and the Obamas (Michelle and Barack) as being the embodiment of the American dream. The American people won't buy contrasts that Obama makes regarding himself and McCain unless they TRUST Obama, and that's what Michelle Obama's speech did last night. So let's raise a toast to Michelle Obama -- she emotionally and powerfully made the case that her life, and Barack's life, was the American dream that speaks to all of us. Parents loving each other, parents working hard, parents sacrificing for their childrens' future, education along with family support being the key to an improved future....these are UNIVERSAL themes that appeal to ALL of us, conservative, Republican (note the difference), independent, or Democratic. So good for you.

Third, I'd like to note that Mike Barnicle is the one pundit who noticed in last night's coverage what the most important moment was -- Barack's daughter Sasha (I think) saying "Hi Daddy!" to his face on the screen. Look -- elections in the end are about voting who you are comfortable with. And in that one moment, America thought "Wow, here is a family man, with loving daughters." And don't for a second underestimate the idea that Americans would LOVE to see young children in the White House again. America is, and always has been, a young nation, a nation of futures rather than presents or pasts. It's why Camelot is so beloved, in part. And Sasha (or Malia) made that point powerfully, in one little exchange.

Okay, on to the "accountability" issue. My mom (a lifelong Republican, who strangely enough is considering, though probably won't vote for, Obama -- I hope to sway her) said this earlier this week, and I agree. In the early 1980s (late 1970s) we had gas rationing, and the country lived thru it. And in WWII we had scrap metal drives and victory gardens. Yet ask people today, and the country is in the worst shape it has ever been.

So where is the call for sacrifice? For national sacrifice (born in equal or proportional measure) to address these problems?

The problem with McCain AND Obama (let's be clear, both campaigns have not done this, but I'd say McCain's is a little worse off than Obama), is that they never asked the American people to sacrifice to save this country.

As I write, of course, Mark Warner of Virginia is giving a POWERFUL speech on this very issue, calling Bush on the carpet for failing to ask for sacrifice. We are a SMART nation -- tell us the sacrifice, and we'll meet it. We have serious problems. We ALL know this. But cutting taxes and increasing spending, giving away more and asking less -- we ALL know that this cannot work. Republican, Democratic, liberal, conservative -- we GET reality. (By the way, Mark Warner? He'll be the next Democratic Presidential nominee....this speech is unbelievable.)

So here is how to win the campaign, for either party -- level with us. Identify the problem, tell us how to solve it, what we need to sacrifice to get there, and how you'll ensure our sacrifice will not be in vain. GIVE us this truth that we all recognize. And then? Well, you'll win in a land-slide, and our country will be the better for it.

The brilliant George Will...

...on today's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos":

"There is a four-letter "f"-word that is tearing apart the Democrats. And that word is "fair." I used to forbid my children in the hope of keeping them from becoming liberals."

Amen, George.

Does Cabernet or Merlot pair best with a Taquito?

Sign seen today on the door of the 7-11 I stop by every day to get a Diet Dr. Pepper:

"Wine Tasting Today -- 3-5 P.M."

I'm hoping they allow tasters to enjoy the wine with cheeses of the string and nacho variety.

Legal Pop Campaign Advice Corner #1: Obama on Clinton's Lack of Tranparency

Welcome to the Legal Pop Campaign Advice Corner (CAC), a semi-regular feature in which your intrepid blogger offers advice to a current presidential candidate on an issue confronting that campaign.

This week, for the inaugural CAC, we're going to offer advice to Legal Pop's endorsed candidate, Barack Obama. The advice is in the form of a speech (or portion thereof) that the candidate and his surrogates should use to attack Clinton - not personally, but on the issues - regarding her failures to disclose her tax returns, donations to her husband's foundation, etc.

"Ladies and gentlemen, throughout this campaign I have attempted to avoid the old politics of distrust, fear, and vitriolic attacks, and replace those tactics with honesty, hope, and a fair dialogue with you, the American people, on where I stand on the issues. I owe it to you as a candidate, and you deserve it as voters in this country, to know exactly where I stand on the issues - even if we disagree, I will listen to you and consider opposing viewpoints, and you in turn will know my reasons and principles for my stance on certain issues.

Transparency and honesty, you see, are important to leadership. And all elected officials owe it to you to be transparent on their beliefs, their stance of the issues, and their backgrounds and qualifications for holding public office. My campaign has been and my presidency, if elected, will be always honest and transparent with the American people.

Senator Clinton and her campaign have not been transparent with you. She has not disclosed her and her husband's tax returns since they left the White House; I, on the other hand, have released all of my tax returns, and will release my 2007 tax returns once I file them. She has claimed 35 years of experience, and yet has not released her schedule and records from meetings she participated in as First Lady, making it impossible for you, the voters, to assess that experience. She has taken more money from special interests and lobbyists than any other candidate, Democratic or Republican, in this race, and has withheld records related to donations made to her husband's foundation, making it impossible for the American people to evaluate who or what organizations are going to be influencing policy decisions if she were to be elected.

Last night, I was watching television, and it occurs to me that Senator Clinton is playing "Deal or No Deal" with the American people in this election. She's hiding her tax returns, records of her supposed experience, and the identities of persons or organizations that might have powerful influence over her administration behind locked suitcases, and asking all of you to play along and vote for her anyways.

Well, this election is not a game show. It's an important decision. A decision between working towards a new future where Democrats, Republicans, and Independents pull together in my campaign to solve the challenges of our country, or a bridge to the past and the old politics of personal attacks, deceit, backroom deals, and a lack of transparency with the American people.

I've opened my suitcase, Senator Clinton, and millions of Americans of all political beliefs, races, ages, and creeds have united behind my candidacy, because Americans want and deserve honesty and transparency in leadership. I think it's far past time for you to open yours."

Ohio & Texas: Really?! Come on!!!

I've always known in my heart of hearts that there was a clear reason why I would never be a Democrat, regardless of my embrace of Obama in 2008. It took Ohio and Texas last night to confirm it.

Look, I understand there are reasons -- misguided in my personal view, but reasons nonetheless that should be respected because intelligent people hold them -- for voting for Hillary Clinton as a Democratic nominee.

But to paraphrase the late-great William F. Buckley, I'm going to stand in front of the train of Clinto-mentum and shout "Stop!"

Let's examine the facts:

1) Senator Clinton lost 11 (or 12, if you count Vermont's early call last night) straight states from February 5-March 4. Name one candidate in modern media history who has ever survived such an onslaught without being buried by the press as a loser. Still looking? Well, that's because it has never happened. Face it: Clinton has been the BENEFICIARY of the "Clinton mystique" and its hold on the press -- it's the only thing that kept her campaign afloat during a month of blowout losses.

2) Senator Clinton continually cites her 35 years of experience, and her experience in international relations as a plus. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but this is patently ridiculous. She was First Lady for 8 years, a position that I'll grant does carry some international relations-related components, but face it -- it's more protocol/being cognizant of local mores and customs/philanthropy, not negotiating treaties and trade agreements. She's served less time in elected office than Obama (sure, some of his experience was in the state legislature). And her 35 years? That includes time on Walmart's board, time at the Rose Law Firm, and time as First Lady and First Lady of Arkansas -- experience, but not really experience as an elected official. How she is regarded as the "experience" candidate compared to Obama is comical.

3) Senator Clinton has continually questioned Obama's past dealings as evidence that he may have skeletons in the closet that make him unelectable. For a press that is supposedly "in the tank for Obama" (according to Clinton and SNL, which has shamed itself as a legitimate comedy institution by basically airing the same pro-Clinton opening skit two weeks in a row), the fact that Senator Clinton hasn't been called to the mat for this is laughable. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that Obama probably should expose more of his Rezko-dealings, but please mind that there has been to this date no showing of anything improper, and all money that Rezko raised for Obama has been returned/donated to charity.

Let's look at Senator Clinton, though. We have Whitewater (how Clinton has raked Obama through the mud for a real estate deal is the stuff of rich irony). We have her closed-door mangling of health care reform. We have her continuing refusal to produce tax returns (seriously, how hard can it be?). We have the shady investors to the Clinton library (her husband's deal, but if she's going to run using her time as his First Lady as "experience," it's discoverable in my opinion). The stone-walling regarding National Archives materials and her meetings as First Lady. Questions over her true opinions on NAFTA. Refusals to admit the Iraq war vote was a mistake.

I will always be bewildered at how Senator Clinton is skating on this (under the theory that she's already been "vetted") while Obama is somehow shady because a guy who he had very little contact with overall helped him buy the house he lives in? Seriously? Come on!

4) Senator Clinton is more "electable" than Obama, or she's won more "big states" that Democrats need to carry. This is arguably the biggest lie I've seen in the campaign. Senator Clinton's campaign continually survives because she has support amongst traditional Democrats. In other words, she wins the very people that will vote Democratic regardless of who the candidate is.

Compare that with Obama. Yes, he's winning college-educated rich professionals (traditionally Democrats) and African-Americans (ditto). But he's also motivating unheard of numbers of young voters (meaning his candidacy stands for potentially permanent voter realignment in favor of Democrats amongst the rising electorate), Independents, and yes Republicans (count me and my family amongst the multitude that would vote or strongly consider voting for Obama, but will sprint to McCain if Clinton is nominated). As George Will has pointed out, Clinton has a ceiling of 52% of the vote in a general election, and that is only if everything goes well for her campaign. Obama's ceiling? Who knows? The point is, if Democrats want to win (and create a generation of Democratic voters) he's their candidate.

One more thing: Obama clearly puts Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and the heavily African-American South in play in ways that Clinton never could. The only "arguably" swing state Clinton has won is Ohio -- where she hemorrhaged support while Obama campaigned.

5) The phone in the "3 A.M." ad rings 6 times. This is perhaps a cheap shot, but I'd like my Commander in Chief to answer that within 3 rings.

The Top Gun election

Tomorrow night Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island get their say in the Democratic campaign (and, as a sideshow, McCain can clinch the Republican nomination).

Now that it appears Obama may be (knock on wood? Disclosure - I'm supporting Obama right now) the Democratic nominee, I thought it might be time to discuss a campaign side-angle that I think is interesting: namely, the fact that this stands to be the Top Gun election.

On one side, we have John McCain, a.k.a. "the" Maverick. He cannot be contained by party label - he thinks for himself, and party identification be damned. He is reliably anti-tax, yet resisted the Bush tax cuts; he claims to be against government power/influence but supported McCain-Feingold's astonishing restrictions on speech. He is, in short, as unpredictable as Tom Cruise's character in Top Gun - a guy who doesn't fit the labels, but we like because frankly he "feels" what is right and does it (even if we sometimes disagree). Like Maverick, McCain survived dark moments of insurmountable odds (for Maverick, the loss of Goose; for McCain, the dire days of his campaign in the fall of 2007). And now American is ready to tell him that he can be our wingman, anytime (okay, that last one is a reach).

On the other, we have Barack Obama, a.k.a. "Iceman." He is inherently cool -- he doesn't lose his temper, he plays perfect tactics on the campaign trail, and responds to every attack immediately and thoroughly. Like Iceman, he is supported by "Hollywood" (or, in this case, will.i.am and the rest of the "Yes We Can" Hollywood-video crew). He's a formidable competitor, a brilliant politician (fighter-pilot)....and let's not forget: Iceman won the Top Gun competition.

Now, for the sake of our country, I hope this campaign doesn't involve a shirtless volleyball match between oiled up candidates.