I haven't seen the speech yet, but a few points after having read your commentary.

@CK He already has the vote of the Democratic Party? He is their presidential elect, but the party is hardly united in supporting him. what about all the Clinton fans who have said they'll now vote for McCain?

I do agree this speech was more about the undecided than the 70,000 already supporters in the stadium.

@Drew I'm not sure I agree. We all know what Obama stands for, this speech was his chance to give substance to the populistic slogans. Everyone can see what's wrong with a country and yell they want change, but that won't make them a good president. From all reports I've read he's done well to convey that message.

I didn’t get to watch this specific speech but I always liken Obama’s speeches to the late night infomercials we all see. The infomercial makes all these amazing promises and even has “customers” not paid actors to tell how amazing it truly is. So you shell out the cash only to discover when you get it home that you have been duped. It’s not that amazing and was a waste of money. Now you have a useless appliance that you don’t need sitting on your counter reminding you why it is you don’t buy from late night infomercials. They always make promises they can’t really keep.

I give him a 3 for flash and charisma, but 0 or 1 for substance…Just because you can make promises doesn’t mean you can keep them, and that’s a key point of any good marketing campaign…keeping your promises.

I agree with Drew that Obama has always been about aspirations and inspired oration. But you still have to get beyond cute slogans to the question, "where's the beef?" Since he doesn't have a track record of significant accomplishments, he's going to have to propel his brand as a counterpoint to the status quo. And hope that gullibility, in the face of thin evidence on the ability to deliver, is alive and well.

@Daan: Yup, the Hillary supporters have been a challenge for Obama (and there are Hillary supporters who have migrated to McCain--have you seen those ads yet?). But, by and largely, he has the Dems--especially given Hillary's battle cry behind Obama. In my (marketing) eyes, this speech was for those on the fence who needed to know that he has the strength to serve, and what, exactly, he means by "change".

And I need to say that I found Hillary's speech very impressive--it's just that above we only analyzed Obama's. I wish we could have analyzed Hillary's too--but that would have made for a very, very long post!

PS: McCain's pick of a female VP is quite interesting--oh what marketing fun next week will be, too :-).

I'm not sure what rating to give. It was a good speech; it got tough on McCain, which is something his supporters have been waiting for him to do; he threw in some emotion and a little bit a "the dream."

I'm a Democrat, so he's my choice (by default, but still my choice). His speech did get into some of the specifics that I found lacking in earlier speeches and in the debates, which is making me feel more comfortable with him as my choice. I am not sure if he won over any Republicans or fence-sitters, which is a crucial objective of the convention and the speech. Judging from the scores of some of my friends who wrote above, it looks like he may not have met that objective.

Good chat here, ck and all.

Re McCain's vp pick, I so far am not at all impressed by her resume that I saw on the AP. Maybe I'll feel differently as I learn more about her and hear her speak, but it comes across to me and a few people I polled here in the office that it's blatant pandering to women and young people. My first impression, anyway.

"it's blatant pandering to women and young people."

David - You missed one group. By all accounts, she seems more conservative than McCain is. That means he's pandering to conservatives, too.

She does have a maverick streak. She's not afraid to take on the establishment (from the right, though, not the left, as McCain tends to do). McCain may have missed that little detail or perhaps he realizes that's exactly what he needs.

@David: Regarding McCain: I, too, have a lot to learn about Palin. I do feel a woman was a smart choice given he wants to be positioned as a "maverick" (a position I still can't buy into personally or professionally--that's not a knock, it just doesn't stick with me). I also think a woman VP makes him less "the same" to Bush and Cheney (an older male). And he needs to shed as much of the McSame stigma as he can in the coming weeks.

Brand Barack is "change."

Brand McCain is "experience."

I think Barack did move the ball forward on the change.

On McCain, he attempted (and this will continue) to re-frame McCain's experience as a negative: 4 more years of Bush. He also tried to re-frame McCain's experience as old and tired: experience as stuck in the past and not applicable to today's problems. He did set the tone for further attacks on that theme.

He addressed the Hillary supporter problem by using feminist language (e.g., opportunity for my daughters and yours). In that he started the process of winning over the bitter Hillary Clinton voter who felt her candidate was treated unfairly by the Obama campaign and the media. He has some work to do there but he did advance the ball. BTW, McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is an attempt to both outflank Obama with women and to shore up his support among social conservatives (a large part of the Republican base).

Since Reagan, Republicans have owned the family values and national security concepts. Obama wants those concepts. He spoke of strong families, present fathers, and so on. That's what he needed to do there.

On national security, he gave sort of a blood and iron plan for the Hindu Kush to crush the Taliban and go after the remnants of Al-Queda where they are hiding and planning. He seeks to re-frame national defense as something he can do better than Bush and by extension McCain. He invoked JFK and FDR as examples of the Democratic tradition of being strong on national defense.

I think his speech was a combination of speaking to his base and reaching beyond it to the center. He did that.

I now look forward to McCain's speech and brand experience.

@David - it's blatant pandering to Wal-Mart America and a brilliant political move by McCain.

Palin is 44 and has 5 kids. The oldest is 19 and in the military-- not college. They youngest has Down's Syndrome. She was a beauty pageant contestant and comes from a small town in Alaska, a blue collar state if ever there was one. She went to the U. of Idaho- not Harvard or Princeton.

She is someone all the non-Whole Foods shoppers can relate to on a human level. Her bio is much closer to theirs.

But more than that, she will be Exhibit A in the GOP's attempt to paint the Obamas as effete, out of touch, Ivory Tower liberals whose Whole Foods and Arugala lifestyles are completely out of touch with those of the great mass of Americans.

You and your co-workers in NYC may see it as pandering. I suspect elsewhere it will be seen as "finally, someone like us." I mean her kids even have the sort of names that are regularly pilloried on upscale NYC mommy boards like Urban Baby as "Wal-Mart names" - Trig, Track, Willow...

First of all, Obama's speech – the event, the moment – was historic. I watched it with my 15 year old son and he quickly understood that he would someday be telling his own children and grandchildren about the moment he and his father watched the first acceptance speech by a black man. And how his dad kept receiving text messages throughout the speech from his 50-something republican friends about how much they liked Obama’s speech.

Secondly, I followed closely all the commentary during this week about how much hate (yes that word, “hate” was even used by the New York Times) permeated the convention hall because of disenfranchised women / Hillary supporters. And, how much despondency there was…the Democrats were setting themselves up to lose again.

In answering the question, “what about the speech?": as I always tell my clients about advertising and marketing programs, the issue is most definitely NOT whether you LIKE it, it’s whether it addresses the objectives.

So, I think Obama’s key objective was to communicate to the faithful in Denver that he was going to go out and fight…to take on McCain and the republicans. Time to get away from the soaring rhetoric a little bit and serve notice that if McCain wants a fight over patriotism or judgment or experience or some such, he can have it and he’ll be dealing with someone who can turn his national inexperience into a strength: He learned political street fighting on Chicago’s South Side.

Finally, I think Obama’s secondary objective was to officially take charge of the Democrat Party and put the Clinton era behind it.

I think he clearly achieved those objectives. Now the ball is in the McCain / Palin court.

Oh, and my son will also be telling his kids someday about how his father, a lifelong republican, voted for that first-ever nominated black man in the ensuing election.

John

John -
Is the real story that you're voting for a black man or that you're voting for a Democrat?

I tepidly appreciate the historical significance of the moment, but if we're to honor MLK, mustn't we look past the color of his skin?

Cam:

You are absolutely correct in asking the question. And the answer is that the big story is that I am voting for a Democrat. Only one other time in my life have I done so, and that was for Clinton in '92 when he ran against W's father. Something about the Bushes turns me into a Democrat!

That something is...betrayal of REPUBLICAN principles and campaign promises. Bush's dad raised taxes, ran huge deficits, and fought the first Gulf War and W, well, everyone knows what W has done.

Anyway, I became a Republican when it was the PEACE party, arguing strenuously against the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War. The republican position, in those long ago days, was that America best serves its own citizens and the world as the shining example on a hill and should do everything it could to avoid getting involved in third world cesspool civil wars. They end up in quagmires and bankrupt the Treasury,

After Tet, I guess, the parties switched sides! Now the democrats are the party of balanced budgets and avoidance of foreign engagements! And W is, well, as I already said...W's performance is well known.

John

John - There's always Chuck Baldwin. ;)

Cam:

Interesting thought, but I think I'll stick to the conventional candidates.

John

Great discussion here. As with any message, there is no unanimity in our responses.

John, sounds to me your son has a father to be proud of.

So much attention is being placed on EXPERIENCE -- who has it and who doesn't it.

I would like to see more attention placed on PROJECT MANAGEMENT SKILLS -- who has it and who doesn't.

After all, much of the President's role is that of a Project Manager ... assigning and working with certain people/groups responsible for delivering assignments and recommendations on time, on budget, and on strategy.

Janine:

Thanks. You're very kind. I suppose that is every father's hope.

John

Good site plese visit to site!
http://fukall.net/
http://killing-loneliness.net/
thank you!

This is the time where America has to decide whether to take a step forward or two giant steps backward. All McCain will do is drag us into another Iraq, costing us trillions and force us to get deeper in debt to China and the Middle East. He'll work to strip women of their freedom and fill the courts with Conservative Judges. Obama is a risk only in that he doesn't have as long of a track record. McCain's track record only tells us what a terrible President he would be.

Re. McCain's VP pick -- I haven't had time today to really examine her credentials, and I hear what you're saying, Alan, about the NYC perspective, which I know is not representative of big chunks of this country. That aside, I still wonder if McCain couldn't have found a young woman with a little more relevant experience. The lack of experience will, no doubt, be played up by the Dems. After all, she's only a heartbeat away from the top job. Yes, she has life experience as a mom and as the parent of child with Down's syndrome. But I don't see that as the best experience for the top job.

Again, I may be proven wrong as I learn more about her in these next few days, but I'm not so sure.

Will this make McCain's brand McWTF?

I would like to see this us put politics aside and get back to the the marketing merits. That is what CK asked about originally.

We all have our political opinions but CK has presented us a fantastic opportunity to discuss the marketing merits sans politics. I don't know about you but I have more than enough opportunities to have pure political discussions.

It would be pretty hard for Obama to play the experience card. He's light in that area himself.

Then again, the gambit also makes it hard for McCain to play the experience card.

That leaves the battle being fought on governing principles or for the mushy middle. My guess is that it will be for the mushy middle.

What is the "mushy" middle, Cam? If you mean centrist politics -- most Americans are centrists -- then why would you not try to capture those votes?

To be hard right or hard left and cater only to the respective ideological bases would be a sure way to lose.

That would be bad politics and bad marketing...

Question: how do you folks feel about the backdrop of Obama's speech? (I mean the columns that, I think, were to depict the Lincoln Memorial, White House or the Capitol).

I thought the stadium was a homerun but the backdrop--while I understand they were placing him in a position of "authority"--felt stifling to me. His brand is so inspirational that I would have placed him in front of a huge LED screen of a billowing flag that changed graphics as he went to different "chapters" of his speech (not too much movement, just a few core graphics). I would have gone more for "American Dream" look and feel than "stature". Just interested to see what others thought as it looked wrong to me. Felt confined vs. open/free as I associate with Brand Obama. Yes/no?

Neil - The "mushy middle" consist of those who don't believe in anything, so they'll fall for anything.

Neil -
Also, I should mention that America will get the government she deserves.

The goal of a statesman shouldn't be to make whatever promises he needs to get elected, but to represent his philosophy and governing principles as forthrightly and as succinctly as he can, so that when the time for election comes, the people can represent their conscience accurately at the voting booth.

When a politician lies or makes haphazard promises he can't keep JUST because it may attract those in the mushy middle who have no consistent governing philosophy (i.e., constitutionalist, "living document theory," etc.), he robs the people of their only reliable opportunity to make a just judgment that is necessary to sustain the principle of self-government.

Thus, I hold the highest contempt for populist politicians who seek the favor of the mushy middle by promising them great rewards for their faithful vote, for they are poison to the republic I hold dear.

I too have contempt for politicians of either party who make haphazard promises and lie.

That said, your framing this as the mushy middle is not correct. There are those on both the left and right who fall for mush, often couched in an ideological language.

The middle is where most Americans stand so to ignore them would be flat-out irresponsible and, well, bad marketing.

Those empty promises are most often made to the right or left not as much to the so-called mushy middle. Think back about all the broken promises made to either the left or right. You do not have to think back very far at all, Cam.

CK, good points all on the back drop but perhaps they were going for the raw patriotism that the Republicans seem to have owned in recent election cycles.

Back to the convention itself, I think it was strange that half the people in the audience had McCain signs. They had some sort of anti-McCain slogan but they still they got the McCain brand in front of the cameras a LOT.

And Clintons on two nights. Jeesh. Brand Clinton got a lot of time on stage but I guess it was needed to help win back the Hillary Clinton voters.

"Think back about all the broken promises made to either the left or right. You do not have to think back very far at all, Cam."

Oh, I do, which is why, by the way, I expressed to CK that while I couldn't be objective, "I'd hate everyone more or less equally."

But the mushy middle is a special bunch of people receptive to populist politics. Their favored politicians will often switch positions because they find it's has become unpopular to hold a position (not because he's had a change of heart, mind you).

They fall for it constantly because they don't want think about it. It's a conscious decision they make to not care.

I prefer these people stay home on election day, but that's become more and more rare as the media makes people feel guilty if they don't vote (not if they don't do the appropriate research).

I never said to ignore the mushy middle, by the way. The statesman's job is to communicate with them. To connect with them on a level that they can understand and, hopefully foster a spirit of involvement that was heretofore unknown to them.

But that's hard work. It often doesn't work. Which is why we have the he said/she said of meta political electioneering. Pretty soon it will all be about whose ads are the most disrespectful, not about the issues they address.

In fact, that's already started, so it's not so much a prediction as it is an observation.

@Neil: very good point; I honestly didn't catch any of the McCain signs at O's speech but I'll review the recording. If the crowd did it (vs. the organizers) then they just weren't thinking of their branding implications, unlike we marketers ;-)

I just found that background against brand. He's uplifting and it felt forced--plus the LED sign behind him could have shown powerful images of patriotism and people.

Btw, of all his speech's gems I most appreciated "We are a better country than the last 8 years." Many liked "My campaign has never been about me. It's been about You." Very good, too.

My personal favorite was the disconnect between "I am my brother's keeper" standard and the fact that his brother subsists on less than $1 per month.

What he REALLY meant was, from all his proposals, "YOU are my brother's keeper."

What a swell guy. ;)

CK, it was not so much during his speech at the stadium as during the regular convention. There were a sea of McCain signs. They had some sort of rhyming anti-McCain slogan but that was sort of lost in brand McCain on the signs.

Cam, that people fall for mush is absolutely correct. That mush is the province of the middle is where you go off the rails.

In fact, the hard left and hard right seem more taken in by symbols, slogans, empty rhetoric, and broken promises. Blind ideology, without much thought, is what makes it hard to get things done in Washington.

Ideology creates enough hot air to solve our energy crisis...

@CK: Backdrop, oddly enough, proved sort of irrelevant. Most of the networks were close up on Obama's face during the speech, with cutaways to close-ups of audience members (with emphasis on the Black audience members, at least on CNN.)

Point being that we really didn't see the background at all, except at the very end. No sense of the size of the audience either, thanks to the camerawork.

As requested by more than one commenter, let’s get back to CK’s original question about the speech from a marketer’s perspective. In that spirit, I would offer that Obama’s post-convention poll “bounce” appears to be about 6 to 8 points. Here’s a link to the Gallup report:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx

The average bounce over the past several years has been, as I understand it, from 8 to 12 points. So, Obama came in at the low end of the average performance. On the other hand, that average is just that – an average. The trend has been down. My recollection is that Kerry got virtually ZERO bounce, so Obama clearly beat Kerry and other recent Democrat performance.

So, remembering Harry Truman’s primal scream of a request that someone please send him a one-handed economist, we can flatly state that the strength of Obama’s performance depends on how you look at it: he beat the most recent tracking data (Kerry) but was below the long-term average.

@Thanks so much John. I read through the piece and it appears that it doesn't yet reflect feedback from the night of the "big" speech (by Obama), but does for the 3 nights' prior.

Now, that said, we had a big event on the GOP side occur the following day (with McCain selecting Palin) and I personally saw many more articles and buzz on that then I saw of articles discussing O's speech. It was one of the quickest moves to redirect buzz that I've ever seen in politics.

But then again, as we've learned, buzz doesn't always lead to votes (be it buzz for the left or right). One thing seems clear: it's gonna be a very close race. Will people vote for platform or for the person they most relate to? Will people vote for "change" or for "country first"? What will people find to be most symbolic of America--a man who has served for the United States during war time or one who wants to re-unite the United States during one if its most divided times? Will they favor the change/experience ticket (Obama-Biden) or the experience/change one (McCain-Palin)? And the questions go on and on and on...and that's just in my head ;-)

CK:

On your first point, you are, of course, correct. Having now read through the Gallup article with greater diligence, I can see it clearly states that the data precedes the big speech, but takes account of Hillary’s and Bill’s. A lesson to us all – or at least, me – to get the facts straight before I go around pontificating about them!

On the second point (will voters choose change and youth versus age, experience, and “Country First”) I’ll make the following prediction: Most of the commentary and analysis from here on in will be about tactics, not big themes. Who is up in Ohio? Florida? Colorado? Why? Who won the week? Why is Obama losing support among left-handed Arabic-speaking Latinos in Grand Fork, Nebraska? Why is McCain losing among realistic young conservative mature risk-taking idealists? Etc. Actually, I expect this is the correct thing to focus on right now. Anyone who was going to be swayed by the big themes has made up his/her mind…everyone KNOWS that Obama is about “change” and McCain is about “experience.” So, the remaining undecided swing voters will likely be swung by last minute, grass roots efforts. Or, as we marketers refer to it, “guerilla marketing.”

I do believe, in all seriousness, that the issue you raised will obsess future historians for a very long time: What was it about America and the world that led US voters way back in 2008 to choose A) youth, energy, and change or B) age, experience, and war-hero status? The importance and implications of that choice, of course, can only be judged in light of ensuing events…I don’t think voters expected either FDR or W to being remembered as wartime presidents.

@Neil: Just watched some of the convention again and, yes, they did have anti-McCain signs (I was watching part of Hillary's speech where she did the "No How, No Way, No McCain" bit). I would not have suggested that as I agree it got his brand in front of the cameras too much. Granted, they were saying McCain a lot but I wouldn't have added unnecessary visuals.

Thanks for pointing that out--good brand lesson there ;-)

@John: Good point about tactics--really good point. We've moved from the sky-high to in the trenches; that makes a lot of sense.

And I'm sure the historians will obsess--and I've got a feeling we're gonna see A LOT of made-for-TV and silver screen movies about this election. And now we move to the GOP...which I'll be watching as faithfully as the DNC.

I have to say that MCain's choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate was a bold move. He excited the conservative base, and put moderates (and probably some former Hillary Clinton supporters) back in play. In addition, she clearly appeals to Reagan Democrats.

Some might call it a cynical attempt to woo the bitter Hillary Clinton voter (and that was part of it) but he was largely playing an aggressive offense here not defense.

It was a bold, risky move but that is what McCain had to do. An establishment Republican would not have done it.

@Neil: Ah, the Sarah move. It was quite bold and strategically brilliant. But risky for the American public. At the moment of writing this I have had so much Sarah Palin overload that I'm in need of more signal and less noise on her (today was the baby news on top of "troopegate"). But a terrific discussion I'd like to point you to on her is right here with a ton of great commentary and views: http://tangerinetoad.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccains-brilliant-maneuver.html

PS: And having her debut interview in "People Magazine" was brilliant, too. Now she's an 'accessible celebrity' (vs. being in "Time") to a very important segment. And the Evangelicals love her now too, as per this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

Yes, it was a brilliant marketing move. Yes, you are right, we do need more signal and less noise on her readiness for the job.

Her resume is a bit thin, which clearly weakens brand McCain being about "experience." Now, it seems to be evolving into "Country First" and I suspect they will downplay the whole experience thing quite a bit. The Democrats had better be careful about going after her on experience as Obama's resume is a bit thin, too, and he is the top of that ticket.

Ironically, her trials and tribulations are going to make many people like her more. For example, that prenatel tests showed problems, she opted to have the Down's syndrome child. That has the social conservative community in tears of job as they think of her as someone who "lives" pro life and does not just take it as a political position.

The social conservatives will come out in mass on election day, which is a crucial part of the Republican electoral coalition.

Photos of a strong woman looking through the scope of an AR-15 will excite more than just NRA members. A lot of working moms will say there is a woman who gets what she wants out of life.

Obama/Biden will still get a lot of the left and part of the middle but with Bush's popularity at about Nixon levels, it is amazing that the Republicans have managed to be so competitive.

On a purely marketing point of view, they have put forth two maverics who have fought their own party. Palin has fought corruption (though she has a bit of her own). That is going to play well.

This is going to be a real horse race. Let's see how the Democrats respond. They are going to have to run a tight ship on the campaign trail and move sharply to the center.

I meant to say that social conservatives are crying tears of joy over the Palin pick. Typo above.

McCain's political instincts are not tin ear -- or at least he is getting good advice.

He is now attacking the media for their coverage of Palin. Brilliant to go after the NYT et al as many Americans think of those as the house papers of the so-called liberal elite.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080902/pl_bloomberg/as77ueg2jfbq;_ylt=Aiqol5FgkOGkFk2wZ0KSrdKs0NUE

@Neil: here is CNN's latest on what McCain has to accomplish this week: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.analysis/index.html

I believe tonight will be when the GOP convention gets underway since Laura Bush and Cindy only spoke briefly last night due to Gustav (and I'll be watching all week, just like w/ the DNC last week).

And, yes, NYT is part-and-parcel to the liberal elite. That's why People Magazine was oh so smart.

Lastly, Palin's experience is a tough one to touch due to Obama's. Perhaps both sides will have to agree (somewhat) that experience isn't the only essential for the White House. I took a step back this week and wrote on all the "firsts" happening in this election (over at my blog: http://www.ck-blog.com). Whatever ends up happening, it truly is a remarkable election.

And. Oh. So. Much. Fun. (tho' I'm glad we only have 9 more weeks of it ;-)

BTW, CK, the link to your blog does not work because you put some extra characters into the URL itself at the end. Easy enough to fix.

And yes this is turning out to be a very interesting election. If McCain had picked some of the others on his short list it would have been yawn, yawn, yawn all the way to November at least on the Republican side.

If nothing else, we have to give McCain some credit for stirring things up a bit!

@Neil: I don't know why that didn't work. (Geez I get my own blog wrong, ha!). It's at: http://www.ck-blog.com

Oh yes, this is one for the books. And while I know which way I'm voting, I'm really (truly!) enjoying vetting the strategy, the speeches and the upcoming debates with all of you. And both sides continue to inspire and baffle. Ain't that grand?

McCain will be next up so be ready for Friday...although I have one post on Obama in-between (well, it's not just about Obama but he's helped to inspire the thought).

The backdrop question is a fascinating glimpse into these two characters:

Obama puts himself in front of 75,000 Democrats in what can only be described as the most pompous and self-indulgent display of political theater in our lifetimes.

McCain cuts his convention short because Gustav is bearing down on New Orleans.

One says, "This was never about me..." and clearly doesn't mean it.

The other says, "America First," and evidently, does mean it.

This is a nuance, but a very telling one.

Here's the link to the proper Gallup polling data, AFTER the speech:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109954/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-6Point-Lead-49-43.aspx

@John: Thanks for posting this, and for coming back with some numbers.

@Stephen: You are 100% correct.

Now, flip it, and you'd be 100% correct again.

Objectively speaking there's a mass of people who feel Obama inspired and made history and have lifted so many people that, well, only a stadium would fit them. Then there's a mass of people who felt that only a stadium was large enough to fit his ego.

Then we have those that are heartened by McCain's acts of Gustav support and others who feel he's exploiting the photo opportunity--and feel that by Bush and Cheney staying in the White House is only a strategy to distance themselves from McCain. Because McCain needs distance to prove he's not McSame.

And thus, through the polls, they are neck-and-neck. But AT the polls is the BIG question.

With Bush's popularity at Nixon levels, the McSame label is an Achilles' heal. The other is how the Sarah Palin move works out. Does she do well on the campaign stump? And because the McCain camp made the decision very quickly will some things come back to haunt them? Time will tell.

Obama has absolutely inspired many, many people, including a lot of young people. The fact that he won the nomination and is running as the "Democratic" nominee not the "black" candidate shows we have come a long way from Jim Crow and even a long way from the last time Jesse Jackson ran.

The fact that Obama is not running as the black candidate brings us one step closer to MLK's dream of a color blind society. We need many more steps in that direction. I am tired of labels.

Obama swung left to pick up the base and the nomination and now he will tack toward the center to win the general election. Expect to see McCain tack toward the center, too.

The candidates have a delicate game to play: they have to get their respective bases to the poll in mass, while capturing as much of the middle as they possibly can.

I too am tired of labels. And we've come much further. Still have a ways to go but progress is all around us.

But the media is still getting it wrong in referring to Obama as black. He's biracial--which, in a diverse country, is truly reflective of our diverse culture. I like to focus on the issues and the platform, not race. But it's peculiar to me how much they get it wrong when he's been upfront about having a white mother and black father. It was a moving part of his "American Story" speech back in March. But that's a subject for a whole different post...that's coming soon.

And yes, the election is a fight for, as Cam said, the mushy middle.

He self identifies himself as black even though he bi-racial so it is natural the media would follow his lead there.

I have heard him call himself a black man in speeches but it is rare enough to make me think he does take up the mantle of MLK who dreamed of color blind society.

However, since the nomination of a black man for President is so monumentally historic, it is impossible not to have some discussion of his race.

Your grand parents could have known someone who was alive during the Civil War and when Lincoln manumitted the slaves. It was not that long ago. It was even closer in history where MLK rode and marched for freedom.

Now, we have a black man nominated for President. Even though he is not descended from slaves, having him rise to such heights (even if he loses the election itself) provides some absolution from the great original sin of America: Slavery.

It also shows we practice what we preach: You can be President some day.

I think, ... and I'm no marketing pro, I'm a Libertarian with no use for either party, ... that I'd score his effort a four point nine five.

They say the VP is the first Presidential decision the candidate makes. If so, wow. All he had to do was not screw it up.

I think every time he wanted raise his arms to wave and couldn't, communicated a visceral message of his sacrifice. I think there was a TON of non-verbal communication there. Also, he even managed to scoop O on the war issue, with "the soldier hates war".

Authentic, honest, tough old bird!

I think, and have blogged about, the whole convention, the Palin pick, and McC's speech was a sales pitch to the self-disenfanchised women.

Basically half don't vote. Of that half, half are women. The race assuming that the faithful all vote is probably 25-24 coin flip. I think the crafty old warrior took a page from Sun Tzu. It's all about getting that 25% of women who don't vote to come vote for Maverick McCain & Baracuda Sarah. I think his speech was aimed at them.

If they come out, as they might after that show, the race IS OVER.

Instead of fighting for the party faithful or the swing vote, I think he was trying to get say 40% of those women who don't even bother to register to vote to come vote for him.

Bring in the reinforcements.

Think of every state that was close in the last Prez election and mark it in McC column.

If that happens, big 'if', this could be the biggest landslide since Ronald. If that 40% is 60-75%, then you could have the first sweep of the Electoral College since George Washington. What a mandate for change that would be!

I think that was the true purpose of a very low key, almost neighborly, speech.

For that reason, I think it's a 4.95. If it works, it's a 6 on a 5 scale.

IMHO,

Now let me go adjust my tin foil hat. I need to get better reception.

:-)

Folks I’m adding these to BOTH the candidate discussion threads in the comments because I added the text from each of the speeches to both the discussions. It’s just nice to keep a record of all—if for nothing but posterity’s sake…

Here’s what McCain’s speech promised:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/mccain.highlights/index.html

Here’s what Obama’s speech promised:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/obama.promises/index.html

(that’s it, just wanted us to have them)

I think it was very smart for Rebublicans to have Palin be the VP. I have listened to many news/ talk radio shows lately and am convinced that no one has any dirt on her. Sign me up!