Here's my dispatch on Barack Obama's acceptance speech, first posted at MotherJones.

It was a historic speech on a historic night--in a remarkable setting. A crowd of tens of thousands of Americans, filling an entire stadium in the middle of the country, waved American flags and signs calling for "Change." Never in the nation's history had more Americans attended such an event. Never before had an African-American accepted the presidential nomination of a major party in the United States. And the speech of Barack Obama matched the moment.

He connected his own history--the history of a not-quite-ordinary American family--to the mythical promise of America. His rhetoric soared--as usual--but it was tethered to reality: in particular, the stark differences between how Obama would approach the challenges the nation now faces and how John McCain would do so. Obama laced his criticism of the Bush years and the possible McCain years with a dose of populism, which gave portions of the speech a sharp edge. And he brought his pitch for hope and change down to the ground with a succinct description of policy ideas he would work for as president.

Obama, as convention dictates, began with a high-minded theme: America is a land of promise, but, he declared, that promise--especially for hardworking Americans--is in jeopardy, placing the nation at a critical juncture. "These challenges are not all of government's making," he said. "But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this." Given that polls show that at least seven out of ten Americans--maybe more--believe the country is on the wrong track and a similar number of Americans disapprove of Bush, his criticism was not at all radical.

In one of the more important passages, Obama, taking a populist turn, made the case that his opponent does not understand this:

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives--on health care and education and the economy--Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors--the man who wrote his economic plan--was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement? It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

Obama blasted McCain for embracing the "that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." He proclaimed that it was time for GOPers, "to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States."

He did not say--as Hillary Clinton did during the primaries--that he was running to fight for you. His is still a campaign of collective action--us, not me-- and that might continue to make it hard for voters facing tough economic times to identify with Obama. (Some people desire a champion slugging for them, not a movement to join.) But on tax cuts, health care, outsourcing, energy independence, and education, Obama vigorously outlined the stark differences between him and McCain--and he presented those differences in language designed to appeal to working-class voters.

On national security, Obama ceded no ground to McCain. "If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have," he said. None of his arguments were new--he blasted McCain for being overly eager to go to war in Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan--but he did so with great confidence. "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives," he remarked.

Obama sounded strong; he looked strong. "If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice--but it is not the change that America needs," he said. Obama warned McCain to stop questioning his patriotism: "I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first." And, he said, don't go pulling the same-old, Rove-like stunts, accusing Democrats of being nothing but tax-raisers and national security weaklings:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

Throughout the entire speech, Obama's delivery was powerful. He stuck with his now-familiar message of hope and change. He reiterated his call for a politics that transcends pettiness and distractions. But he really took it to the other side--issuing specific charges and offering specific ideas for policy changes. Obama still has one failing as a great speaker: he does not quite step out of the moment of the Grand Speech to talk directly to the individual on the couch who is watching and weighing. He seeks to inspire and attract support with political poetry--but there's a touch of abstraction to the exercise.

Nevertheless, what was in the speech was far more important than what might have been missing. Anyone watching could see that Obama has an economic vision. He showed he had no reluctance to challenge McCain on national security. He linked the policy debates of the moment to the noble currents of American history, noting that this day was the fortieth anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech of Martin Luther King Jr. He soared high. He punched hard. He was tough without being mean. It was a near-perfect--or maybe perfect--blend of positive and negative.

Can an acceptance speech make a difference in an election? This was one with the potential to do so. And as the Democrats' convention concluded with fireworks exploding at Denver's Invesco Field and stately orchestral music playing from the loudspeakers, Democrats were entitled to look at their once-improbable leader and say, Mission Accomplished. But the Republicans will have their chance to rip Obama apart at their convention next week--and in the weeks following that. This will be a fierce and bloody election. There will be no more big speeches for Obama, though the debates between the candidates could end up mattering much. Yet on a night when the fast trajectory of Obama's extraordinary life intersected with the slow trajectory of American history, Obama made a passionate and forceful case for himself, for his campaign, and for his view of America and what must be done to serve its citizens. He gave his supporters cause for hope.

Soon after I wrote yesterday's posting--in which I questioned whether the Democratic convention was producing enough red-meat attacks against John McCain--I ran into Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and No. 2 in the Senate. I asked whether the Obama people planning the convention had made the slightest of strategic errors by not striking at McCain in a harsher manner. No, no, no, said Durbin, who has been one of Barack Obama's most enthusiastic supporters in Democratic officialdom. "They're cutting ads right now that will be a lot sharper," he noted, referring to spots that would come out after the convention. "We need to come out of here with a positive message."

Well, we'll have to see how strong those ads are. But on Thursday night, the main speakers at the convention generally stuck to the usual practice: praise McCain's heroism, courage and service to the country and then say the problem with him is that he has a few bad ideas. Joe Biden, who as veep-mate is supposed to be the lead attack dog, went on about how McCain's courage "amazes" him and noted that his friendship with McCain transcends politics. As I've written before, this strategy of heaping praise on McCain the man and then questioning McCain's ideas may place the Dems in a corner. McCain attacks Obama for being a traitor. He says Obama is so ambitious he is willing to lose a war to win an election. That's a damn ugly charge. It's a vicious indictment of Obama's character. What do the Obama-ites do? They say McCain is a man of solidity but they disagree with his policy notions. Not very even, right?

So don't the Dems then have to ratchet up? Show voters he's a phony maverick or a warmonger or completely out of touch (with the Internet, the economy, take your choice)? After all, if the choice for the voters is a good man with some bad ideas or a bad man with some good ideas, wouldn't many choose the former?

Hours after Biden's speech, I found myself in a hotel restaurant at closing time with an assortment of reporters and political ops. I raised this point, and a Democratic political consultant (not the one I mentioned yesterday) disagreed. This person said that there had been a loot of private polling done on the Democratic side that indicates that on-the-fence voters would not buy a direct slam on McCain and that they would not absorb any negative information about him unless the attacker paid tribute to McCain's military service. The consultant was adamant on this point. S/he maintained that the polling did show that voter perceptions of McCain could be changed to benefit Obama, if the attack was crafted the right way and McCain was not merely blasted.

I don't have access to this empirical data. It could be overwhelmingly convincing. (My table-mate did not reveal who had done this polling.) But if the Democratic assault on McCain has to be nuanced and tempered with praise, that could be quite tricky for the Obama campaign to pull off. It's clear that the McCain attack on Obama ain't gonna be subtle. Not next week in St. Paul. And certainly not in the weeks after that.

For my review of the third night of the convention, click here.

Following Hillary Clinton's get-over-it speech on Tuesday night at the Democratic convention, I was at a swanky party, and a political consultant I've known for years--a smart fellow who has been essential to the careers of several prominent Democratic legislators--walked up to me and said that the Barack Obama campaign had made a serious strategic mistake. "We've had two soft nights," he complained.

The first evening was the warm-and-fuzzy celebration of Michelle Obama. Then came Hillary Night. Throughout both evenings, some shots had been taken at George W. Bush and John McCain, but no real fusillade had been launched against the two. (Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had a good line on Tuesday when he quipped, "It was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple. Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base, and then he stole second.") This consultant noted that four years ago he had argued against the stay-positive approach of John Kerry's convention. The Kerry crew's decision to not pummel Bush throughout the four-day convention is now regarded by many political pros as a major error. And this consultant was worried that the Obama camp was repeating history. "We've lost two nights," he said.

He knew that on Wednesday night, Senator Joe Biden would take after McCain. That's what veep candidates do. They play the attack dog. And every Democrat and journalist in Denver was expecting Biden to do so with enthusiasm. But regardless of how well Biden would do in this role, it did seem that the Obama campaign had relegated its assault on McCain to something of an "attack hour," rather than integrate it fully into the convention's narrative. (And Biden's attack would have to compete for attention with Bill Clinton's much-anticipated speech that night.) Though the Obama campaign did have to go through several compulsory exercises on the first two evenings--"humanize" Michelle, hail Teddy Kennedy, and pacify Hillary Clinton--it's not hard to imagine an alternative schedule that would have featured speakers or films that ripped into McCain to make the point that this election presents a fundamental choice and that a vote for McCain would be one damn serious mistake.

Obama did win the nomination by promising to rise above partisan potshots. But not every shot has to be a cheap one. The Republicans and their allies, of course, are doing what they can to make Obama seem like The Other. They question the American-ness of Obama and his wife. They lie about his tax plan. Their goal: to delegitimize Obama. The Obama campaign should not follow the GOPers into the gutter. But it does need to persuade those I-don't-know-yet voters that McCain is not only an ex-POW and self-proclaimed maverick but a fellow who--due to his conservative policy positions, connections to corporate lobbyists, cluelessness about the Internet, combustible temperament, eagerness for military confrontation and more--would be a bad president for the country. Up to now, much of the Obama campaign's assault has focused on tying McCain to Bush. (Hillary Clinton's one zinger against McCain played off this point.) But this line of attack will only go so far. On Election Day, voters will be deciding between Obama and McCain. For Obama to win, voters will have to believe McCain himself--because of his own views, his own traits--is dead wrong for the job.

Has the Obama campaign blown it? Hyperbolic questions like this cannot be answered until after the votes are cast and counted. But let's consider another question: will the Republicans at their convention next week begin with two soft nights and not try to rip the hide off Obama from the start? Perhaps. But if I were an Obama adviser, I wouldn't count on that.

Among the politerati gathered in Denver for the Democratic convention there is a question some are whispering: do you have a sinking feeling?

There has certainly been a profound mood shift for Democrats and journalists who fancy Barack Obama since the days of early summer when Obama, having vanquished Hillary Clinton, seemed a dragon-slayer with a clear path toward the White House, never mind that old guy who kept saying dumb things and whose campaign was undisciplined and disorganized. This week, at parties and receptions, in the hallways of the Pepsi Center (and does anyone else think it is odd that a major political party picks a possible next Leader of the Free World in an arena named after a beverage?), and on the street corners of Mile High City, people are asking if the Democrats--yet again--can blow it.

There is reason for worry. Recent polls have been not so hot for Obama. One CNN survey found that the number of Hillary backers who say they will vote for John McCain over Obama in the fall has increased in recent weeks. (That number was supposed to decrease.) A Quinnipiac poll out today shows McCain ahead of Obama in Florida 47 to 43 percent. Obama had a two-point lead there in late July. Yet that poll also found that Florida voters say they prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the White House by a 44 to 39 percent margin. That is, a generic Democratic candidate beats a generic Republican in the Sunshine State. Yet McCain leads Obama. Any theories? (Race--there I said it.)

In Ohio, according to the Quinnipiac survey, Obama has a one-point advantage over McCain. In Pennsylvania, he holds a seven-point lead, the same as it was in late July. In both of these states, there is also a tremendous yearning for a Democrat in the White House. In Pennsylvania, the poll found a 50 to 32 percent margin, and in Ohio, it was 44 to 35 percent. It seems that throughout Swing-state-land, voters want a D to reside in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But that desire is apparently not translating into strong support for Obama.

There's more: pundits keep punditing about Obama's inability to connect with working-class Americans (meaning, white working voters). Such talk--which may have validity, given these polls--is spooking Dems and Obama fans who know that for years the Republicans have been able to succeed in part by slamming Democratic candidates as out of touch, elitist, and effete (even when the GOP's candidates were plutocrats and handmaidens of the well-to-do). These Dems and journalists say--apparently rightfully--that Obama has not yet passed the I-feel-your-pain test.

And there's more: the ghost of John Kerry. The Democrats' 2008 convention is only one day old and already Dems and journalists are wondering if it will be a replay of last time. As the 2004 convention ended, the Kerry campaign and Democrats were on a massive high. Many believed the convention had been a success and had placed Kerry on practically an undeniable route to the White House. It didn't turn out that way. This time around, there's hypersensitivity on this front.

No doubt, there's plenty cause for concern (but not panic--not yet) for Obama fanciers. The race, as depicted in the polls, is much tighter than might be expected, considering the external circumstances (a lousy economy, a lousy president). And the Obama magic does seem less magical these days. A nineteen-month-long campaign has taken its toll. But there's much to happen in the next ten weeks that could determine the outcome. This could end up a blowout in either direction, or a narrow win by either side. Which is why, despite the hoopla of convention week, some Obama-ites within the political set appear to be preparing themselves for the possibility of déjà vu all over again.

For my take on the first night of the Democratic convention, see this dispatch here.

Too much Clintons at the convention?

There will be a lot--perhaps more than needed. On Tuesday, Senator Hillary Clinton will have her time at the podium. But first, reportedly, convention-goers (and viewers at home) will be treated to a film about her, presumably in the style of the Man From Hope biopic shown at the 1992 convention. Then she will speak. No doubt, she will talk about her historic run for the presidency. The question for a Clinton-cynic is how much of her address will be about her and how much will be about Barack Obama?

This will be her night--which she deserves. But then the Clintons get a second night. On Wednesday, Bill Clinton will get his turn. He is supposedly disappointed that he has been relegated to "Securing America's Future" night, when speakers are supposed to tout Obama's potential as commander in chief. Clinton would rather speak on a wider range of issues. I can understand the Obama camp's concern. Remember his convention speech in 1988? (Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's communications director during her campaign, argues that the Obama campaign still must soothe the hurt feelings Bill Clinton has after the campaign. What is this? High school? Wolfson adds, "President Clinton has his part to play as well. He needs to offer a strong argument in favor of Barack Obama's candidacy on Wednesday night, and remind everyone why he is one of the most gifted campaigners in our generation between now and November.")

Also on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton will again be in the spotlight, when her name is placed into nomination, thanks to the munificence of the Obama campaign. So of the four nights of the convention, the Clintons will have major roles on two. Not bad for the second-place finisher. Even though Hillary Clinton racked up a lot of votes, pundits can--and will--wonder if this is excessive, given that the whole point of the convention is to move forward with Obama. Wouldn't one night have sufficed? Start with a film on HRC. When it's done, the lights go up and...there's Bill Clinton. He introduces her. And then she comes on. A nice package--all in one. Then for the next two nights, the convention would concentrate on Joe Biden and Obama.

That's not how it's going to be. Perhaps all this Clinton programming will help ease the resentment of the Hillary Hold-ons (whom I wrote about here.) If so, it will be worth it. But is it possible those die-hards cannot be satisfied and that a Clinton-drenched convention will deliver a less-than-consistent message (Obama, Obama, Obama)? Your guess--or calculation--is as good as mine.

Wow. This just in:

Breaking the mold of traditional political Conventions, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) today announced that Senator Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States at Denver's INVESCO Field at Mile High. INVESCO Field can accommodate more than 75,000 people and will be the site of the 2008 Democratic Convention's final day of programming on Thursday, August 28, 2008.

So on the final night of what is expected to be a no-news (as is now routinely the case) convention, the Dems will not mount the typical Nominee's Big Speech in the convention arena but hold an Obamapalooza in a stadium, with the seats filled not merely by delegates, operatives, and contributors but by regular folks. That will add some grandeur to the climactic night--which will be occurring on the 45th anniversary, to the day, of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Talk about big nights. What's John McCain going to do to match all this? Rent a battleship for his acceptance speech? Announce--prematurely--the bombing of Iran?

Might we have to wait until the first ballot at the Democratic convention at the end of August to know who will be the Democrats' presidential nominee?

It's already a much-noted mathematical fact that it is virtually impossible for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to win enough pledged delegates (via the primaries and the caucuses) to grab 2025 delegates, a majority of all the delegates (pledged delegates plus superdelegates). So the nearly 800 super Ds will be a decisive bloc.

The superdelegates, of course, do not have to say for whom they expect to vote at the convention, though they are free to do so. HRC has been faring better than Obama among the superdelegates who have committed publicly. But Obama has been steadily closing this gap, and Clinton leads 248 to 213 in the superdelegate race. Now that it seems possible--and probable--that this close Obama-Clinton race will continue on competitively through the final primaries in June, there is incentive for those 300-plus undeclared superdelegates to stay mum and see how the contest plays out.

Come the end of the primary and caucus season, even with the declared superdelegates factored in, neither candidate may have enough delegates to claim the prize. At that point, more undeclared superfolk may start proclaiming their preferences--or they may not. Which means that for June, July, and August--when the elections and debates are long done--the race may be shaped by the public and not-so-public hunt for superdelegates. The media will try to track the SDs, as the campaigns pursue them with vigor.

But remember that a committed superdelegate does not have to keep his or her word. They can flip. So even if one candidate claims a majority of delegates based on the public declarations of superdelegates, that will not mean that he or she has the nomination in his or her pocket. Life is change, right? External events--or internal deals--could intervene and cause committed superdelegates to reconsider for the best or worst of reasons. Whichever candidate is in second place in total delegates will have a strong incentive to remain in the race (as long as the gap is not so large) until the convention, just in case anything happens.

So prepare yourself for several months of waiting and jockeying and perhaps even....suspense at the Democratic convention. In a close race, it will be hard to call the contest on the basis of superdelegate pronouncements. A commitment is not a vote--especially for politicians.