Barack Obama accepted the Democratic presidential nomination for the second time on Thursday night. But the Obama that spoke in Charlotte was a very different candidate then the one who was hailed as the harbinger of a new era of American politics in 2008. The president was cheered wildly by the Democratic faithful in the arena, but the speech was only a faint echo of his 2008 triumph in Denver or his breakthrough address in Boston in 2004. His text was well delivered and he may yet be re-elected. But there is also no question that the “hope and change” messiah has left the building.
After four years in office the president labors under the burden of having a less than stellar record and that has made it impossible for him to recapture the fervor that catapulted him into the White House. With the country still mired in a downturn that he tried and failed to fix, his list of achievements is slim. Based on the speeches given in Charlotte, they consist mainly of the auto bailout and the killing of Osama bin Laden (the president said virtually nothing about ObamaCare and nothing at all about the stimulus). That left him with a speech that recycled a laundry list of 2008 promises that fell flat. Those who are devoted to his cause applauded what they heard. But while the president is still an impressive political actor, this was a pedestrian speech that fell far short of the mark he needed to hit to have an impact on voters.
Oddly enough, the great orator seemed to be outstripped by Vice President Joe Biden’s rambling, overlong speech that preceded his moment in the spotlight. Biden’s exaggerations and fibs will have the fact checkers working overtime tonight and he flubbed some lines, but his was a passionately partisan rant that probably did more to shore up the Democratic base than Obama’s often lukewarm effort.
It is perhaps unfair to judge Obama’s speech by the high standard he set at the last two Democratic conventions. Yet what he produced in Charlotte was not so much a statement of vision as a rerun of some of his less than exciting State of the Union speeches. Given the opportunity to make the case for his re-election, he did little to explain to voters why things happened as they did during his administration or to give them any real idea of how he could achieve any of the goals he set for himself in 2008 or this year. The result was a standard compendium of Democratic campaign talking points that often fell flat and didn’t answer the big question facing the country. After a week of Democrats speaking of what they now call the “Great Recession” that Obama inherited, the president wasn’t able to make a case that might persuade voters he will do better in his second four years than he did in his first four.
The president did engage in his standard rhetorical tic that consists of setting up straw men to be knocked down. In the world of Obama, his only opponents are always unreasonable extremists rather than people with opposing ideas. He also claimed Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan had presented no plans about how to fix the economy. Considering that his party has been running against Paul Ryan’s plan for reforming entitlements, that takes his campaign slightly off message. But none of this moved the debate forward in a way that could help Obama win over undecided voters.
After spending much of his speech attacking those straw men, Obama concluded by returning to some of the familiar “hope” rhetoric of the past. But by that time there was no way to reignite the passion of the country on his behalf. Whereas in 2008 he was a historic figure challenging the nation, in 2012 he has been reduced to a standard issue politician spinning his record and putting down his opponents.
Hanging over Obama’s speech is the monthly jobs report that will be issued tomorrow. No matter how well Obama’s speech was received nothing he said on Thursday night was going to affect the race as much as news about the economy. But there’s no question that his address was a missed opportunity to try to get back the magic. If he loses in November, we may look back on this evening as the moment when that outcome became inevitable.
Four Bore Years! Fore Bore Years! n nBut the best comment of the night was at Hot Air: God was greatful he wasn't invited.
Yeah, Romney'd already had his convention. The guy who thinks he's God had already spoken.
First Biden sets him up as the Messiah, pratically stating that the world would have ended had it not been for Barack's super human acts of bravery, courage and bravado. Then, BHO comes out and gives a small, pedestrian, recycled speech. I thought the evening was pretty sureal.
Obama by 8% points over Romney in November.
Barack Obama will continue to take advantage of white guilt. That is the biggest thing he has going for him. I don't think it is enough—but I could be wrong.
Romney will continue to take advantage of white scapegoating the poor, the black, the elderly, women, etc. As Napoleon said, religion is the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich
At this point he should pretend he's not President and run to 'throw the bums out".
A key phrase here: n n… His text was well delivered and he may yet be re-elected… n nAs Joe Scarborough said Obama said nothing better than Romney said nothing. So if the D convention had the twin goals of enthusing the base and making a rhetorical case for independents, which Clinton did, then objectivity compels the conclusion that the Ds won the convention battle. n nOn substance the Rs have the better case. But, as D. H. Lawrence said, "Politics is a mug's game." n nOn to the debates.
Romney said nothing at all. He's the Invisible Man of politics. Obama laid down specifics. Romney said he'd cut 5 trillion in taxes for the wealthy and….somehow…somewhere over the rainbow make up the difference. Just like Bush said. n nHow'd that work out?
Affirmative action is as affirmative action does. A profoundly stupid man who is convinced he is a genius. A worthless Precious Token who has been handed up the ladder from one white person to another white person and who has been handed everything in life on a sliver platter. This sub-90 i.q. Precious Token was born on third base and is convinced he is Ted Williams. Probably literally the lowest i.q. of any president and certainly the only president to be actively anti-American. A true worthless piece of garbage of epic proportions. Choom-out!
Lowest IQ? He's obviously never heard of George Bush who bankrupted the country while killing 4400 US troops in a worthless war. Oh well…Gaius is conservative. Res ipsa loquitur.
Interesting watching Tobin attack the President who , as Ornstein, Mann, Sulilvan, Posner, inter alia, have pointed out, is the victim of having to deal with the most radical right wing party in the western world. A record number of filibusters.Extremist failed economic policies (supply side economics, along with Grimm's fairy tales, is not serious material for adults). n nSo my recommendation is that you grow up, learn some economics, perhaps get a political reality check and c'mon back to play with the grownups. 'Cuz you ain't one now. n n
The GOP, the party of Marie Antoinette's legacy, I understand is stocking up on cake to celebrate their impending victory.
Four years ago, Obama had almost no experience to make anyone with brains think he was likely to be qualified to be President. Those that thought he was the Messiah had taken leave of their senses. Now, he has had four years of screwing up America, but does not seemed to have learned much.
Michelle Obama gave a good speech until she added the whopper that Barack doesn’t care if you are Republican or Democratic, Rich or Poor. We know that was a lie So one must treat everything she said with great suspicion.
In a few months the world is going to have disaster!Either Iran will get the nuclear bomb, or a war with tens of thousands of rockets will happen when Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear facilities.(Or Both!)
I did not hear any mention of this by the Speech makers, or by any pundits!
"he may yet be re-elected…" n nYes, and he probably will be re-elected. And for that we have only one entity to thank: the Republican Party, which has irrevocably lost its way and can no longer deliver top-quality candidates for presidential elections. The national GOP is disliked by too many Americans, for its racist past, its indifference or outright smugness over extending civil rights to citizens, for its strange alliance with the Religious Right (which narrowly, if at all, skirts the clear prohibition against too much coziness between religion and government), its hostility to gays, hispanics, blacks and others. We need a party that can avoid the trap of the "abortion debate," which invariably pits pro-life types like me against women! Granted, the GOP has changed: or I wouldn't be a Republican! But it may be too much to ask the American public to put aside their earlier impressions from the 1960s onward. I happen to believe it is too much to ask of them! n nWe need a new party, a replacement party, a Conservative Party, one wide and broad enough—and generic enough—to welcome everyone who believes and desires smaller government, lower taxes, and a love for the American spirit of individual responsibility, maximum freedoms, and entrepreneurial passion. We are not like other nations, despite what Barack Obama and those like him may think. And we need a party that can effectively and powerfully represent those of us on both sides of the center—right and left, black and white, Asians, gays, men and women, rich and poor—who love this nation more than we love our own self-interest. n nAnd, we need a party that can hold religious and non-religious alike, and help to bridge the gap of understanding between the two. We cannot have one party conspicuously antagonistic to religion, while the other does all it can to ignore the First Amendment! Same with the abortion issue. More than half of America's women support "a woman's right to choose." Surely, we cannot indulge in the kind arrogance that flips our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts and girlfriends—the bird! What do we expect women to think about Republicans? Anyway, the abortion issue is for the states, not political parties to decide. As with gay marriage, so with abortion. It is the states who issue both marriage licenses and birth certificates. That's where the action belongs for these arguments! n nMitt Romney is not a good candidate for the presidency. He is a mediocre candidate. And this, in an election year where the whole future of this country may hang in the balance! How could this have happened? Why did the GOP hold those ridiculous "debates" early in the year? And what don't they understand, when it comes to the pivotal moment in American history we are facing today? n nMitt Romney? Who is he? By what criteria does he belong in the long line of America's finest presidents and statesmen? What evidence do we have that he even understands the presidency, its history and its importance? All we've heard so far from him is "jobs" and "I know how to run a business." What kind of governor was he in Massachusetts? Evidently, not a very good one. As for his success with the SLC Winter Olympics—what does that tell us about Mitt's presidential qualifications? Why, it tells us nothing at all. Nothing. n nSo we have been blindsided by our own party, at least by those who run the party. They don't represent us. They haven't for decades. They gave us George W. Bush, who together with Obama has all but ruined our country, bankrupted it, cost us tens of thousands of American lives lost and maimed in wars that were fought badly—if they should have fought at all! Bush inspired no one except those of us who wanted retribution for 9/11. Otherwise, his two terms produced little in the way of new directions and renewed insights. n nBarack Obama and George Bush share one other unfortunate quality: they are equally unable to invigorate the American people, to spur our creativity and sense of adventure—the way JFK did, for instance. We have been ashamed of ourselves as a result. We can no longer look confidently into the eyes of Europeans and Asians and say: Follow our example. You'll be glad you did! n nMaybe Mitt is a better politician than I give him credit for. But given, that there are so many fabulous Republican governors and senators to choose among, why did the GOP give us this guy? What didn't they "get" about John McCain, who also ran an inarticulate, confused presidential campaign for the GOP? n nWe must have a new party, a Conservative Party. The GOP no longer represents our values and aspirations, our political and social ideas, nor our national will. Enough is enough.