TPMCafe
« The Future of the Democratic Party: "Circumstances May Change, But . . ." | Home | Vice President Sarah Palin: It Is Over! »

Obama's Speech Showed Exactly How He Will Win: He Knows When To Retool

user-pic

He did it.

And he did it by listening to the critics and delivering not soaring rhetoric but detailing an agenda, bashing John Mc Cain and explaining precisely how he differs from the Republicans

What a change. I desperately wanted Al Gore and John Kerry to win. But they disappointed me over and over again by not changing when their message and the manner of its delivery were failing. Gore kept being Gore and Kerry kept being Kerry.

But Obama has watched and listened over these past weeks and months, seen what works and doesn't work, heard the critics and delivered big time.

In other words, Obama listens, learns, and, when necessary, retools. And that is why he is not Gore and Kerry, but FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton.

He's a resilient, deft politician and he's going to win. He will do what he has to do, just like he did tonight.


47 Comments

| Leave a comment

You finally got something right. Barack delivered big time tonight. I can't wait for the contrast with the GOP snoozefest next week.

user-pic

To be fair, I suppose I wouldn't be so critical if I agreed with him politically, but Hon. Sen. McCain is possibly the worst public speaker I've ever heard and I'm surprised that this gets so little attention in the media. I don't often listen to him in other than prepared, so-called major addresses, where he is wooden and looks uncomfortable (though this has been remarked upon in the press); but even his so-called strength, the stump speech-town hall arena—if what I saw Saturday was typical—he couldn't complete a single full sentence without starting upon the next bit of boilerplate (which I could have said myself I've heard and read the phrases so many times), and would often string two or three of these fragments before coming to a pause. If I hadn't been familiar with the rhetoric, I wouldn't have had the faintest idea what the man was talking about (which might be a feature, since his ideas are often less than rational to my ears, but that's just me).

user-pic

Yeah, McCain could not have enjoyed watching this speech.
Happy to agree with you.

user-pic

OK he finally won me over. He always had my vote, but not my enthusiasm.

I had to laugh at his seeming slam of Biden's bankruptcy bill though, might as well let him know up front who is in charge.

I heard that too, but I wonder if it was really a slam or simply an acknowledgment of a bad bill that couldn't be derailed. Here is an interesting blog on this very subject that gave me a little perspective that I was missing.

since I'm always ready with a harsh word for both Obama AND MJ, I'm delighted to report that I have no such words tonite. Obama nailed it, and he's convinced this former PUMA to vote my party rather than my irritation.

dijamo, the question is whether we can all stay awake for the snoozefest, as I suspect we'll see Mitt Romney announced as VP tomorrow.

funny comment from the ravingly right-wing townhall.com: "this just in. John McCain reserves Phoenix Room at the Ramada Inn West for his acceptance speech. Film at 11."

my god: we could just win this thing.

user-pic

Thanks for your reassuring post. Glad to have you on board!

gretz,
LOL, now that McCain has nominated Sarah Palin; does that make you change your mind back to McCain?

user-pic

I think part of the speech's success was that it was like one of those long programmatic Clinton State of the Union's. Hillary also followed that model.
The Repubs mock Obama for high-faluting rhetoric so he just messed them up!

Nicely put.

That's probably the biggest difference between the two candidates: one is able to learn, and learns fast, while the other has learned all he knows decades ago.

And the ability to learn is perhaps the most underrated quality a president should have. Nobody ever says the president should be able to learn. But that's the very definition of intelligence! Intelligence IS the ability to learn and adapt. I wish people would realize that...

user-pic

The thing I thought was communicated much more effectively in this speech than any other Obama speech I have seen was a stunning quality of verve or fight. You really had the sense that here's a guy who knows exactly what he wants to do, is incredibly determined, and will keep fighting until he gets it done. It really overcame any lingering feelings I might have had that he might be big on hopes, vision, brains, and the right ideas, but deficient in intestinal fortitude. He was a champ.

I think this is the first time I didn't just agree with the high aspirations in an Obama speech, but I really came away firmly thinking, "Yes, if this guy is elected, we will be independent of Middle East oil in ten years; we will totally transform our energy economy."

It was almost as though he declared a patriotic holy war on all the things that are weakening and wrecking our country. "Enough!"

He got right in McCain's face, but somehow did it without any bitter resentment, or hatred, or even contempt. The message was simply "John McCain, you just don't get it, and are on the wrong side of the issues and the demands of the times."

And one of the things I have always really liked about Obama, and that came through again brilliantly tonight, is that he really does represent a new generation, and doesn't seem to struggle with the crippling insecurities and self-doubt of so many men of the boomer generation. This guy has no doubt at all that it's awesome to be a Democrat, and that being a Democrat puts him on the side of America and the American way. He doesn't dance around touchy points; he doesn't avoid the attacks; he doesn't whine about unfair treatment from the media; he doesn't sound like he's trying to talk himself into something he's not sure he believes. He just faces down the criticisms and communicates his absolute certainty that the critics are dead wrong. He stood up for Democratic honor.

Beyond that, the guy just has so much panache and dignity, it's incredible.

well now, DanK, we know you haven't needed convincing for awhile now! but I'd go easy on the "crippling insecurities" of those old folks, the Boomers. Some of them are really quite terribly enthusiastic about being Democrats, Bill Clinton and Al Gore included.

we need EVERYONE on this, and I think we've all had enough divisiveness already...

user-pic

I feel like for most of my adult life, I've been watching Democrats making gestures of submission to Republicans on foreign policy, going along with some damned stupid things in order to prove their "toughness", while Republicans called the shots, and that the cloud of Vietnam, draft dodging, deferments, dirty un-American hippies and all that counterculture stuff hangs over many of them like a guilty secret or lasting shame. Those conflicts just seems like an alien world to Obama, since they weren't any part of his formative experiences.

I'll give you that one. But out in the trenches there were a lot of us Boomers being outraged and irritated and really angry about our party and about our leaders. Now my energy is more productively spent in getting this guy elected President.

Democrats aren't the only ones angry at their leaders. There has been a leadership deficit in this country for forty year, liberal and conservative.

user-pic

O yee of little faith, Obama always had it in him but unless you were paying attention back when the Prime Minister of Australia attacked him the day after he announced his run, you missed a seminal moment that displayed Obama's ease at punching back "above his weight".

Lucky me, I happened to catch him in action; smacking down PM John Howard as a reporter caught him on the run.

Obama did the dozens on McCain tonight and I suspect it was the plan all along. Obama played it his way, in the time of his own choosing.

gretz, this statement is a classic:

"he's convinced this former PUMA to vote my party rather than my irritation."

Salud.

It was expected that Sen. Obama would lay low for the summer... He spent the summer, not campaigning, but organizing, and staying just barely ahead of McCain in the polls.

Now, the starting gun has gone off, and he's out of the blocks. In 42 minutes, he dismantled two months of Republican progress in "labeling" him. His organization is spread out across 50 states, and registering new voters daily. His speech was seen by more Americans than the opening ceremonies in Beijing.

I don't think he altered course because of the critics, I think he altered course because this was the time to change tactics.

And yes, his shot at the Australian PM was beautiful.

user-pic

This was the speech I had been waiting for. I loved it!!! No more 'turn the other cheek' type of democratic candidate...to use a boxing analogy he caught McCain with a campaign equivalent of a left hook flush to the jaw. The McCain camps dazed and confused response was even ridiculed by Tom Brokaw.

Obama was looking for a way to tell his story and connect with the American people? He just did. And I think the American people will admire how he got right back in McCain's face...

I am very happy... :-)))))

user-pic

Overall, I thought Barack Obama did an excellent job on his acceptance speech -- with only a couple of caveats.

First, I really had to groan out loud at his cheap, throwaway bear-baiting of "Russian aggression." It betrayed a complete and simplistic misunderstanding of not just the situation regarding South Ossetia and Georgia, but of America's active belligerence in trying to encircle and threaten Russia with needless NATO expansion. I sure hope that those Russian astronauts who keep repairing, supplying, and operating our "international" space station for us have the sophistication -- which I suspect they do -- to recognize political hot air when they hear it. Someone needs to explain to candidate Obama the true nature of American national interests. Russia counts as one of them. Georgia's pipsqueak napoleonic fantasies don't.

Second, I realize that Obama felt he had to publicly genuflect and do the obligatory smootching of hirsute Hebrew hindquarters; but fortunately he kept the grovelling and fealty-pledging to Israeli Zionism short.

Third, since the prosperity of the Clinton years owed mainly to the once-in-a-lifetime "peace dividend" from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the corresponding DECREASE in America's bloated Warfare Welfare spending, Obama's pledge to "rebuild" America's platinum-plated (and spectacularly ineffective) military only promises to make any other domestic spending proposals of his non-starters. The corrupt and wasteful American military needs a radical downsizing and subjection to at least minimal standards of management before any domestic agenda worth the name can stand any sort of chance whatsoever.

Other than the three small quibbles above that mostly negate everything else Obama said or promised, I found his speech ... well ... nice. Given the pathetic John McBush and the Geriatric Old Poops to run against, I'd say Barack Obama ought to have a decent shot at a narrow victory in November.

You seem to know less than nothing about the military, so I take the rest of your comment with the grain of salt it deserves, though I agree that Clinton gets a little too much credit for simply not screwing the good times up.

Rebuilding the military and stopping waste in the system are not autonomous goals. Spending money on people and effective systems is not the same paradigm we have had for years. We can cut our military spending in half and STILL fix the military. We can spend a third of what we currently spend and still have the type of forces we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century - from natural disasters to man-made ones.

As for Russia and Israel, neither of those two snippets have the slightest effect on Barack's long-term goals for those regions of the world nor do your snapshot denunciations somehow make those issues less relevant to the long-term stability of the international community. Putin has been waving his dick for years and has now invaded an ally. What would you do? Ignore it or muster our allies to offer a little rhetorical push back.

Mostly I find comment lacks all common sense or sense of history. It is an anemic regurgitation of extreme left talking points even as it tries to be profound

Especially when we are spending $150B/yr in Iraq. That isn't fixing anything...

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Look up what the Seawolf submarine or B-1 bomber projects have cost over the last 15 years. Look at what we spend keeping bases open all over the world while the ones in the US turn to dust. I would hazard a guess that fully two-thirds of the defense budget is riddled with fraud, waste and abuse.

You all think he is going to win the election based on a speech?
He is going to lose. The fact that the polls show that the race is close in spite of the fawning media coverage and general public dissatisfaction with Bush, the economy and the war in Iraq, shows his weakness.
You can claim that the he shouldn't have kow-towed to "Republican-type" muscular foreign policy because "really" the Russians are the aggrieved party in their conflict with Georgia due to the mistaken expanison of NATO into their "turf". How many voters look at it that way? People remember that Russia is a traditional rival to the West and that it is an authoritarian regime. They remember that it was a strong American and Western stand that help bring about the peaceful collapse of Communism.

"O" says he is going to end American dependence on foreign oil. He also wants to fight the "global warming" boogey-man. All these things are going to caust hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions. HOW IS HE GOING TO DO THIS? WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? Does he have the guts to tell the people that their standard of living is going to decline as a result of his policies in these areas? Saying people should have "hope" and that you are for "change" is not enough.

user-pic

Hehehe...

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.


If he wins the election, which I think he will, it'll be directly because of tonight's speech, where he didn't tell but showed the American people he is ready to fight with them to make things better in this country. Americans like people who will fight with them rather than against them and for corporations.

And what does McCain have to offer? 4 more years of the last 8.

I hate to tell you this, but you "progressives" are a minority in the US. Yes, most people are not happy with the way the US is going, but that doesn't mean that most people attribute this solely to what the Bush Administration has done. Many, in fact, attribute it to the influence of "progressives" in the media, education system, the Universities, etc.
There is more to being President than making nice speeches, although there is importance to this (e.g FDR's "All we have to fear is fear itself"). The question is whether most Americans believe Obama has the leadership qualities needed to lead the US in uncertain times. He has not proven this at all. He is basically inexperienced and everyone says in his limited time in the Senate , he has not shows this. His voting record there is far to the Left of the American mainstream. You also forget that McCain (unlike Gore in 2000) is not a member of the current administration and he can, and has to some extent, distanced himself from it. People who want political change can vote for McCain and a Democratic for Congress or the Senate. The New York Times wrote that McCain is one of the leading crafters of legislation in Congress so he knows how to work with people from both parties.
Don't forget that the Republicans get the last word in the Party Conventions and a lot can happen between now and election day that will push Obama's speech out of people's short-term memories.
The fact is that Obama lost 9 of the 16 primaries he ran in AFTER he had already locked up the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination, and Hillary got 600,000 more votes than him in that period. Instead of rallying around him as the presumtive nominee, most Democrartic primary voters expressed their displeasure with him. Sure most will vote for him in November, but again, card-carrying Democrats and "progressives" are a minority in the US.
Since World War II, only two openly liberal Presidential candidates won, Truman in 1948 and LBJ in 1964. Kennedy did NOT run as a "Liberal", his main campaign theme was that the US was falling behind the Communist world in technology, military power (the infamous "missile gap") and economic leadership. None of these allegations were true, by the way. Obama , on the one hand, is trying to claim he is "post-partisan" and yet has his super-Liberal background. He won't be able to sell this, since McCain is the one who is more "bi-partisan" and is perceived as having the experience and leadership qualities lacking in Obama.

You are just another mindless robot who has been convinced by the neocon Republicans that it is raining, when they have been pissing on your head for forty years. There is so much falsehood and outright fantasy in this post that I don't know where to begin, so I will end my critique before it starts.

Suffice to say, John McCain has been one of the most absent and absent-minded members of Congress for at least the last ten years. He gets by on his "war record" because no one has taken the time to punch it full of holes. Obama can't, but rank and file republicans certainly can.

You don't speak for me or any of the republicans I know in the real world, all of who are voting for Obama because McCain is not only a weak-ass candidate but is crazy as a shit-house rat to boot. I have been to SERE school (look it up) and can verify that five years in a POW camp wouldn't leave a man like McCain with all his marbles.

"Bomb, bomb, Iran..." Giggle. Does that sound like the sane and competent president that the country needs right now? I think not.

Good luck with this tactic because it isn't working and sends more of my republican brothers and sisters toward the only common sense candidate this year - Barack Obama.

Just so.

user-pic

Obama will win if Americans vote their interests. If they vote their fears and prejudices, he loses.

It's 50-50.

It's maybe 65-35 at this point, given how many republicans voted for Barack in the open primaries. This race is not as close as the political pundits and bully pulpits would have you believe.

user-pic

I tend to agree, although I'm determined not to get overconfident. The fact that McCain has been considering so many VP candidates that are further to his right, especially on cultural issues, says something about how concerned they are about their base, and the softness of some of the support in the polls. He appears to be very worried about Obama's organizational abilities, and proven track record of getting each and every supporter out to the polls. The Republican get-out-the-vote machine is largely rooted in conservative churches, and if McCain goes with a cultural conservative, that m4eans he is deeply worried about that machine working this time.

Of course, if he goes to his right we should rejoice, since it means he is abandoning some crossover efforts in the middle to shore up a crumbling base.

I agree that Palin may stem the hemorrhaging that started during the primaries, but doubt she brings back centrists republicans back to McCain who went to Barack in the primaries.

Also, much of the "religious right" have changed their priorities since Bush was their golden boy. They are looking beyond single issues this year toward a broader based vision that confronts poverty and climate change and global social issues.

I think the evangelicals just might surprise the GOP this year, which makes Palin a choice that doesn't help as much as they might think.

Obama isn't running as a liberal. I have a feeling that you haven't been paying attention to anything but GOP talking points, because frankly, your rant is not based in reality.

user-pic

Are you talking to me?

38 million (and then some) people tuned in to watch a 42 minute political speech from a Democrat. That's a record-- actually, it's not just a record, it's incomprehensible.

Too many people are paying attention this time, and Karl Rove and Mark Penn and their micro-targeting won't work. Small issues won't get it, small groups won't get it. This is an issues election, and the issues are huge.

And Sarah Palin isn't what the Republicans need. Would be even better if there's a revolt next week, and the Republicans nominate someone else for VP.

user-pic

Sure most will vote for him in November, but again, card-carrying Democrats and "progressives" are a minority in the US.

Sorry, but as far as party ID is concerned, you don't know what you are talking about. Even Rasmussen, I'm sure you are aware of Rasmussen, weighs party ID as follows:

"For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated (see party trends and analysis)."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I'm not so sure that this wasn't planned. The holding back of his exact specifics and end-run campaign strategy in order to completely confound the other's campaign. We'll see. Explains the calmness during the dipping poll numbers. Then blammo. A severe sucker-punch. Now what does McCain Inc. do? They have less than a week and a hurricane-in-the-making.

I posted a similar sentiment below, before I read your thoughts.

user-pic

Now as an article in yesterday's Boston Globe stated Obama has to overcome white racists, negative Republican ads, and angry Hillary supporters. I think he can do it but it will be a heckuva fight.

Right, except I don't think he did it by listening to the critics. I don't find it at all surprising that Obama was the one to deliver the most direct attack on McCain's entire platform. The 'old politics' of having surrogates and VPs deliver the attacks while maintaining the high road isn't his style. He believes in having the debate, directly, personally, assertively. And he let McCain flail away with a bunch of attacks and smears that he made look childish and immature last night when he showed McCain how a grown up dialogs. I suspect McCain still won't get it, but a bunch of thoughtful Indies will see the real maturity of Obama's style vs. the snideness of McCain's

Exactly right. He picked the most effective time and place with the biggest audience to deliver the counter-punch he'd been saving while playing the Rope-a-Dope.

The pundits and critics and all the rest of the Raging Left and Right have nothing to do with the Obama campaign's strategy and tactics. He is playing chess while the rest of the American establishment (including the corporate media) world is still playing checkers.

M.J. is right, but for all the wrong reasons.

user-pic

One of Obama's strengths is that he listens to his critics. He listens, period. He wants to make sure he "gets it". And by listening he knows he improves his chances.

Listening to critics hardly means mindlessly reacting to them, by either embracing whole hog or rejecting whole hog what they're saying. He listens to them and learns from them.

user-pic

I agree with your take on this, MJ. Obama treated his speech as one key moment in the ongoing volley, to address and try to preempt what he sees as his biggest vulnerabilities going forward, while filling in the blanks on his positive program as well.

If James Carville were asked today what was "the message" from the Democrats I wonder what he would say? I bet he would say there was no message, as he was saying earlier in the week.

Time will tell whether the approach actually used this week will work well. What I heard was amplification, elaboration, and filling in the blanks on themes Obama has emphasized since he came on the national scene. I did not hear one single message, as in "Putting People First". I think he and his people certainly were capable of doing that kind of Convention where the primary aim is to impale on the heads of viewers what the one single "message" is.

But, you know, even people who were around during the '92 campaign are hard pressed to tell you what Bill Clinton's "message" was. One of his strongest supporters at this site gave an answer ("It's the Economy, Stupid") that conflicted with Carville's, who said it was "Putting People First". What people took from Clinton's campaign was that here seemed an energetic, positive, capable person who seemed to share their values.

In this, as he has in other ways in his career so far, Obama bet on the side of the American public that is a little more sophisticated than to be looking for one single, simple message above all else in a campaign. He pitched to the better angles of our nature, if you will, the part of us that knows that politics, no matter how cheaply and cynically practiced, is about our lives as individuals and as a people and is therefore too important to cheapen if we really want to address our problems.

That's an elevated approach--some would say too elevated, that the simpler, down-and-dirty, demonize-your-opponent approach is what works. We'll see.

He talked about what he wants to do, instead, in a way which reinforced his many explicit references to his values. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but that seems to me to be what people really want to know when you come right down to it: who is this person and what do they want to do? This year, people know our country is in trouble and that who we pick as president can matter a lot to their and our lives. They don't have to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer to get their attention.

But this break with the conventional consultants' wisdom that "It's the Message, Stupid", as the most important measure of a successful Convention, is something that struck me.

user-pic

Well-put, A-D

Obama SAID ....yeah, I GOT IT!

So, did the rest of us.....

So, I'll go back and stick to my election predictions of a 9 to 12 point electorial win over McCain and the Republicans....

I'll set up my web counter to keep track of how many times McCain mentions "I was a POW for 5-1/2 years...."

And he did it by listening to the critics and delivering not soaring rhetoric but detailing an agenda, bashing John Mc Cain and explaining precisely how he differs from the Republicans

Or perhaps it has been the strategy of the brilliant Obama campaign team all along. And perhaps laying low during August, the month when the Rep smear machine traditionally escalates, was also part of the plan. Perhaps those TPM readers who posted analogies to the Ali rope-a-dope strategy were correct.

I think, generally, folks have consistently under estimated Obama, Axelrod et al.

Sadly, McSame doesn't WANT to know anything else, regardless of how the world has changed!

Obama doesn't just listen, he THINKs. He knew that he didn't need to worry about the 'falling' polling numbers. I share the opinion of many others that his polling numbers are underrated (I can't wait until he hits 50%!). He knew that his convention was coming up including his VP pick and the Clintons. Throughout this entire campagin, Obama has listened to the smart people in his campaign and inner circle and has done what needed to be done when it needed to be done.

He will govern accordingly. Its the Change We Need.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address