Well, first of all, this has not yet been Senator Obama's campaign to lose, and we won't really be able to make that assertion until mid-september when the primary noise has quieted down and the GE train is rolling along.

Second, it occurs to me that Bush and Cheney could give a resounding set of mea culpa's combined with energizing conservative mumbo jumbo about their favorite hot-button issues. Don't put it past the RNC to pretend like the negatives simply don't exist and go about their business as before.

Except for the "Obama's campaign to lose" part - I'll believe a black Democratic President only when I see it with my own eyeballs - I agree with this post.  It may be the wishful spinning of partisans, but Wolfson doesn't seem like a mince words, forced optimism type of guy.

Even with the fact that conventions are made up of the faithful, I can't see how watching Dick Cheney will somehow inspire the nation.  Bush has natural charm and somehow always manages to confound Democrats with it, so I'm going to say his speech with be one of his oddly successful moments.  But enough to become excited about more of the same destructive ideology?

Oy vey, I pray not.

I'm an old white man whose supported Obama since before he announced, but I have always held that the seldom talked about race dimension to his candidacy will mean he'll have to campaign all the way to the last minute.  I was stationed in the deep south in 1962-63 and numerous times since and know how much that part of our nation has changed.  It's up north (where I'm from originally) that has not - Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio are great examples of still being mostly stuck in the 60's as far as race is concerned.  Even western Maryland is backward compared to the old capitol of the south, Richmond, VA.  Barak's skin color causes too many responses based on unidentified and worrisome emotions, rather than fact or research in middle-aged and older Americans.  I believe Barak will win, but it's not going to be a blow-out, in spite of how many times John shoots himself in his foot.

Yes WaltB - the unspoken wildcard all along remains there.  Wolfson knows that darn good and well too, which, after I thought about it over my coffee, made me suspicious of the "his to lose" meme that keeps seeping out of Clinton HQ.  

I have nothing against anyone preparing to run for whatever they want, including Hillary in 2012, and I don't want to dwell on the past.  

But Wolfson of all people knows that those hard working white people WaltB mentions may not be able to get over Obama's race no matter what Obama says or does.  And that Hillary and Co used that.  So please Wolfson, lets leave that "his to lose" line behind, Its too obvious an attempt to cleanse the campaign of that stain.

I'll support whatever Democrat gets the nod whenever they get it, including Hillary and I know and support that competitive people can be fierce when under pressure, but there simply is no cleansing that stain.

At what point in the last year did Howard quit asserting "This is still Senator Clinton's campaign to lose."?

Not that I don't agree with the argument, and I believed the same about the Patriots in last year's Super Bowl...But I'm too cautious, superstitious and maybe too skeptical.

In any competition I think it's best to think one is the underdog because the worst that can happen is one will over perform.

I'd not tell these lazy-ass kids and first time voters anything that will give them an excuse for not showing.

Why tell people who never thought their vote counted anything that sounds like, "It's in the bag." When they may choose to hear, "We not need ya after all."?

I'd prefer the message is, "We are losing and if you stay home we'll lose big. If you show, we stand a chance." (Toss in a reminder that confidence got Hillary nowhere...so run scared and run, run, run)

Smart, wandrey.  I think the analysis in your second post is very smart.

Means the world from you drdannyu...

I'm NOT trying to pick a fight with anyone.

I wonder of Palin plays in Michigan. That picture of her holding a salmon on another post suggests that McCain might use her "sportiness" (guns, hunting, fishing...) to  appeal to the Upper Peninsula folks, and her western roots/libertarianism might make her appealing in Mountain West states that Obama is targeting, especially in Montana, Nevada and Colorado. McCain's pick of her is obviously a naked attempt to win the PUMAs, but she might have some electoral heft that needs more attention.

Also, before we abolish the vice presidency, can we please get rid of the electoral  college? It is a product of long-discredited 18th-century Federalist thinking and makes a mockery of the idea of "one person, one vote" that should matter in a mature democracy. The VP succession, even in this heinous scenario, is less important than that.

Once again, I'm curious about *why* the older white population in the MI/PA/OH region WaltB mentions are "stuck in the 60s" when it comes to race.  It's not clear what the root causes of this are:  for example, one reason that we've heard is that people think Obama will "favor" blacks ahead of white folks.  This is clearly a bit weak, as there aren't that many African-Americans in the U.S. to be so favored, and it's not like the president will be opening up the steel mills again and giving blacks preference for the skilled jobs.  That's more like a public explanation hiding a more complex one.

I have been thinking about a possible dislike of the combination of racial identity and intelligence -- that there are people who are not disturbed so much by Obama's race per se, as by what they see as an athropologically illicit combination:  being black and being smart just ain't supposed to be.

It's difficult to know how to counter that kind of 19th century belief -- but I think an Obama-Biden-Clinton small-venue tour of the NE, Appalachia etc has to be mounted.

I'll do some polling in Indiana bars this weekend. I'm minutes from the MI state line so it's not the 'rest of IN demos' that are very different from the NW corner.

But I think she won't get to Barack's base and I'll be surprised if she plays well with the males he's had trouble nailing down. She's little more than an MILF to that group and guy's who have issues with Barack might feel less able to see her as an authority figure. She may be just what was needrd to push the recalcitrant male demo to the Obama-Biden camp.

I know this is harsh but what people say in taverns doesn't get picked up by the polls. Serve beer to a focus group and you'll get different opinions...As early as last late Summer '07 I was convinced Barack's tide had turned and it was earlier than any polls reflected. Alas, all the witnesses to my prediction are not going to admit they caved to Barack 90 days after I told them they would.

Howard Wolfson writes:

--  In exchange, McCain ceded the experience argument against Obama and brought questions about his own health and age into play.

More importantly, McCain played into the Obama meme that McCain has poor judgment. In his first significant decision as putative President McCain has mocked the nation. The selection of Palin reminds me of Bush's "I looked the man in the eye" misjudgment of Putin.

I agree with Wandreyecer and the others with thought it ridiculous that this is "Obama's campaign to lose." The daily tracking polls from Gallup remain incredibly close with Obama typically ahead by less than the margin of error. Indeed, McCain was ahead in one tracking poll a few days ago. It is irresponsible for any Democrat to suggest this is Obama's race to lose.

ndmackenzie:

I like the idea that you developed. This was a first test of McCain's presidential judgment and he chose to make a naked political play, which seems particularly cowardly when one considers that YOU KNOW he really wanted Ridge or Lieberman, The question is: how to exploit Palin's  lack of fitness for office without being too aggressive? Her appointment makes me sad about Obama's decision to deny the fact that McCain makes decisions on the basis of political calculus. He did that to get the nomination, and he's done it in choosing Palin. This case needs to be made.

Rescind the offending statement sir!

It's worth asking, does the Bush turn off more people than he attracts with this speech (and seal of approval on McCain)? Would it not perhaps be wiser to keep him away from the convention like LBJ in '68? I'm talking straight-up numbers here. If McCain ran as a Bush-rejecting Republican, would it really alienate more voters than it attracted? I mean, most Republicans I know flat-out don't like Bush.

Guys, I agree that this is no time for chest-thumping or out-and-out triumphalism.  I grew up in the heartland, and I know that a black President will, for many, be a very, very hard sell.  But after reading the NYT background on Palin (the pic sez it all  -- how '50's Playboy can the GOP get? beauty queen? check.  beehive? check. bearskin?  whoo baby, yes, yes, yes!), I think people will point back to yesterday as the moment McCain definitively threw it away.  Her husband literally works for an oil company.  The current mayor of Wasilla called her "a PTA mom who got involved."  I'd guess that will appeal to some people -- but in the age of Al Qaeda and Iran, it will scare the bejesus out of many others.  The many intelligent, hard-working women in my life are complaining right now -- they feel the stinging hand of tokenism.  It's not like the Republicans don't have smart, tough, experienced women they could have showcased:  Whitman, Fiorina, Snowe, Hutchinson, Dole, etc.  To go with this inexperienced nobody -- like Scoblic says, arrogant.  Like I say:  stupid.

ironyroad, RE, "...older white population in the MI/PA/OH region..."?

First, it is a larger age group (over 40+) and not anti-black. This group in the auto-steel states can be defined by less income-education and Barack isn't doing much worse with this group than Gore-Kerry.

One can almost tack on 30 years to a group than fled the party from Nixon to Reagan. They were motivated by the GOP snatching issues as varied as law & order to being hawkish. Carter's failed to secure the release of Iranian hostages and they on they way when Reagan takes the oath...still recalled as proof the Dems were weak.

But they even bailed on Democrats since the '70's as unions were whacked, hourly wages took a hit and the class (no college, 40+) was stepped on by the GOP. So, Barack's race may not hurt him much more with the group you cite and I believe he did better in IL which is more like the industrial mid-west than WV, KY and the Old South. But Barack is seen as a product, supporter and current link to the all who were seen as on the wrong side, beginning with Nixon. They're a lost cause and haven't moved much for 30 years so I expect it will take a demo born past the mid-60's to counter their numbers.

But it's easier to divide current voters by age-income and education because whites with a degree and a few bucks are among Obama's early supporters. His win in Iowa broke all the rules and it's more of a puzzle why he carried purely white states.

It seems like using Palin to get the Hillery constituency is like using Clarence Thomas to recruit African Americans. The remarkable thing about the Democratic race this year is that it pitted a black man against a woman, both of whom earned the right to be there because they did the work to get there. Thomas and Palin, on the other hand, are both are the worst kind of affirmative action appointees who took their jobs from more qualified non-tokens.

Michael - have you ever been to Oregon?  Those people are almost wierdly kind and good, smart and funny too.  

Whenever I change planes midway on my way to Newark or JFK, I always notice the difference in the crowds going to Oregon, Washington - orderly, patient lines of people chatting amiably, mostly white.

Then, you look over at the flights going East.  People yelling at the reservation agent, tense, incredibly diverse, snazzy, irritable, noisy.  Without evening checking, I know that's the one I have to get in.

I dunno how that translates in to Obama, but my Mom's an Oregonian, a smart nice white lady in her late 60's and she and her entire church group love Obama, have raised a good amount of money for him, rented a bus to see him speak.  

She's always intricately up on the issues, especially the economy, but I suspect she likes him most because of his manners and temperment.

I think the joke writers will have a field day with Palin and define her along with her silly convictions which will paint her as too far right of center.

Obama can afford to watch for a couple of weeks, let the joke develop along with her own irrationality. The far right will keep her but Obama may not need to risk her obtaining sympathy with any negative attention if she and third-party critics keep her in the far-out box.

Consider, MCain could have picked Coulter and we'd not be worried. Palin may have stuck McCain with policies that can be attacked but one need not target her specifically. So he faces a crap-shot if he thinks he can juice the right because he is going to kiss off a hunk of the center and may rile more women on the left than he imagined. The net result is far from a guaranteed plus. He could have done better with a more moderate female with more national cred.

I still contend if she's allowed to prove her oddness, Obama-Biden won't need to do much but hit hard on the new and more radical McCain-Palin policies.

Wandreycer1, a quick guess is that the North West was never won over by the GOP's politics of division that began with Nixon. Even their GOP was the last holdout for moderate Republicans.

Again, those states did benefit from the migration of the 'wisest' from the East. One only needs to see how Portland and Seattle have attracted the most progressive new residents.

WaltB

I think Michael makes a fine point.  I remember reading something Senator Jim Webb had stated in response to a question regarding Obama's perceived problem with certain segments of the white vote in states such as OH, PA, and WV.  His answer suggested that the challenge wasn't so much just Obama's skin color, but that his presence reinforces the long held beliefs many whites in these states have toward the government's attempts of affirmative action as creating opportunities for every other group while ignoring the plights of their own depressed communities.  In short, they feel he might have gotten an advantage they never would have been afforded strictly due to his race.  Webb went on to state that he felt that there were ways for Obama to break through that paradigm given enough time, but Obama has had the additional burden of having to grapple other potential headaches such as party unity, what roles the Clintons play from this point, etc.

Whether he attempts to make inroads again with this group depends on what states he feels he has the best chances in to achieve electoral victory in the end.  Personally, I think his problem with whites isn't so much a broad one as it is just a regional one being mostly confined to Appalachian areas, so if a state like WV or KY is already polling in high double digit leads for McCain, it's hardly worth the effort for Obama.  But MI and OH have been hit hard by the effects of inadequate anti-worker Republican economic and trade policies and by and large would be more likely to vote on other reasons besides strictly race, so that might be where Obama chooses to tell his personal story and make a sustained case for himself.  

"I'm curious about *why* the older white population in the MI/PA/OH region WaltB mentions are "stuck in the 60s" when it comes to race."

Well, to the degree that northern whites are "stuck in the 60s" re race--and I don't necessarily say/know that they are--it's probably to do with the fact that unlike the lowland South--where I'm from--in the Northeast and northern Midwest whites and blacks don't actually live with each other.

The student body at my public high school in the Virginia Tidewater was 50% white, 45% black, and 5% other.  I somewhat doubt you'll find very many similarly well-integrated school districts in MI, OH, or PA.

In the final analysis, is Sarah Palin capable of being the President of the United States?

Can I just say -- or rather type -- that I'm getting pretty freakin' tired of watching my fellow democrats mock the stupidity and ineptitude of their loyal opposition while consistently getting their asses kicked.

Palin's clearly a woman who's learned how to capitalize on consistent underestimation … and "not experienced enough" hasn't really been a winner of an argument this year.  Yeah, I think Obama has the advantage -- there are half a dozen states within a point or two and he has a ground game from hell. But underestimating republican scandal Teflon is a mistake, underestimating Plain's potential to galvanize a republican turn-out machine [read: religious right] that would otherwise be indifferent to John McCain is a mistake and underestimating the power of identity politics is a mistake – I mean, the onslaught of small town stewardess jokes I've heard outta the left isn't going to win Barack many votes.

Arson: you're right, but I don't think anyone is underestimating her or the Republicans.  Right now people are discussing her strengths and weaknesses - you don't develop a strategy without at least understanding the weaknesses - and, of course, the strengths - of your opponent.  She's been named barely a day ago.  Let's see how Obama handles it.

"The Palin pick changes the storyline away from Senator's magnificent speech and might limit Senator Obama's convention bump somewhat, but it doesn't change the underlying fundamentals of the race: This is still Senator Obama's campaign to lose."

I thought the consensus had developed that it wasn't a particularly good speech.  Certainly seemed like not much to me as I listened.  Don't confuse what you read into it with what's on tape.

Agreed that Obama will be the next president unless he falls flat on his face before November.  And that's fine with me, though I'm certainly not overjoyed about it.  Fingers crossed.

dsmith wrote, "I thought the consensus had developed that it wasn't a particularly good speech.  Certainly seemed like not much to me as I listened.  Don't confuse what you read into it with what's on tape."

I don't know if the 38 million viewers tuned-out after five minutes but the audience was larger than US TV's tuned to the opening ceremonies for the Olympics.  It would be fair to conclude that considering the attention span of most people, by any measure that is an impressive audience for an acceptance speech. I am comfortable with both those numbers and their interest and it can be deduced that they would not have had the patience if it were not "a particularly good speech". Plus, reports from those viewers (a consensus) is very positive.

I have watched it two more times and was pleasantly surprised that a few days later it held my attention for the 45 minutes. Most impressive is that he didn't allow the crowd to slow his pace. Considering it was over 4,500 words in that atmosphere? Many speakers would have been halted by the applause, gone on for an hour and lost focus.

While it is not a measure of a 'good speech' I did read the transcript and urge others to do so. <http://tinyurl.com/5bu9nw>

Depending on the formatting it's less than ten pages and each argument is concise and succinct. In reading the text I believe one will conclude it was not only good, but it would have been impressive had it been delivered by a less skilled person. And well, it's a pretty good read...

Obama should never be the president.

He is the worthy of it.

He did not travel a noble path.

His handlers control a movement, filled with demagogy and has a cult appearance.

They selected Obama, and forced him on America.

A decent American, with intelligence should be the president.

Unfortunately, indecent cults can be invented and financed in all colors.

Not glory, decency is needed.

Color does not matter to me.

Honor and integrity are good things.

The Obama handlers and cult followers are getting meaner by the day.

I do not like the collection of hedge and mutual fund managers who financed the Obama campaign and hold him hostage.

mutualfunds.about.com/.../hedge-fund-political-contributions-to-obama-and-clinton.htm

Hedge funds supporting Barack Obama: Citadel Investment Group, Dan Loeb (Third Point LLC), Boston Provident, and Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones.

Hedge funds supporting Hillary Clinton: Farallon Capital Management, Avenue Capital Group, and Och-Ziff Capital Management.

Hedge funds switching their support from Clinton to Obama: D.E. Shaw, Renaissance Technologies, and George Soros.

Ariel Capital Management, Chicago is also in the game.

Point of information: The 38 million television viewers of Obama's speech is impressive, but it's a lowball number. Uncounted others (including me) watched the convention online. The same thing presumably will happen with the GOP convention. So the accurate formulation in reports of viewership is "at least" or "more than" [Nielsen numbers] watched the conventions.

"Hedge funds switching their support from Clinton to Obama: D.E. Shaw, Renaissance Technologies, and George Soros."

Whoo-hoo!  At last!  I was wondering how long they were going to dick around being all miffed and such.

Just heard that neither President Bush or Vice President Cheney will be attending the convention, due to the impending arrival of Hurricane Gustav. The Republicans are going to be competing for media coverage with a category 5 storm, which will slam into the same region devastated by Katrina 3 years ago. No matter how hard they try to get the media spotlight, reporters are going to be focused on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, seeing if government has learned the lessons from the Katrina debacle.

s4200:

This is not Western Union [stop]

Writing a complete paragraph is allowed [stop]

You may not be a cult follower but you write like a robot [stop]

Include a fact or two with your opinions and plant a discussion, not your slogans [stop]

I won't be voting for McCain but I don't hang out with his supporters and insult them [stop]

Many posters oppose Obama but they haven't abandoned critical thought for spit balling [stop]

I agree, "Honor and integrity are good things." [stop]

well said [stop]

michael, from what I've read so far on Palin, I disagree with your prognosis. She will be a vigorous campaigner. If she says something controversial, criticizing her may backfire, if her reputation as having a teflon-like immunity bears out. It may be McCain (&/or those advising him) made a shrewd choice, who gives the impression of authority and command without conventional political experience or credentials (a big plus with many conservative voters, who are suspicious of credentials and higher education). She can dismiss and make fun of her opponents for their seriousness by projecting determination and resolve in the face of conventional (liberal) reasoning. Etc., etc. Democrats discount her political skills at their peril.

Election round-up