-Believable: To me his speech was more believable then Obama's because he didn't make empty promises and he only focused on what he knew he could do in the White House. He had conviction and was certain of his plan. 4/5
-Ownable: It was a little disheartening to hear him talk about change this and change that. It almost felt like rather than fight the Democratic Party platform he thought he would just take bits and pieces. Who knows maybe that will work for him in this election and change doesn't just belong to one parties platform. Still I got the feeling that instead of being himself he was trying to be more like Obama and that doesn’t work. 2/5
-Relevant: I thought it was one of the more relevant speeches. He addressed many of America's concerns like employment, gas prices, and the economy with a straight forward answer. He didn't address problems with promises he addressed them with a plan. A plan is more important than a promise of one. 4/5
Overall: I think his speech could've been more of an authentic McCain voice but, I can understand why it might not have been. I liked his substance and his plan. I thought he presented himself in the correct light as an American hero, and I have to say I love that he is addressing the party’s theme as fighting party. It suits him and his party well. Not to mention it adds that something extra to brand McCain. 4/5

The Republican conventions have always been a bit more boring when compared to the Democrat conventions - but it seems to never inhibit their ability to win elections. There seems to be no direct correlation between a convention going so well that it gives a party momentum to seize the White House.

I think McCain gave a good speech and one that seems to be very much in
character for him... calm, humble, no histrionics, no hyperbole. He came
off well. He gave no substance, but still it was a good rallying speech.

Starting out saluting Obama and the Dems as fellow Americans was a touch of class, which McCain has and Palin sorely lacked in her talk Wednesday night. I know I'm not her target, but to me, she came off as exceptionally nasty -- not a nice person at all. But I digress...

The middle of McCain's talk was dull, but he finished on a rousing note. I hadn't expected fireworks, since he's known to be a mediocre speechmaker.

Will it get him new votes? Maybe a few, but it will be interesting to read
the polls in the next day or so. Of course, we know the polls can change like the tides.

I'd give McCain 4 stars.

David: interesting analysis done here on the "nastiness quotient" comparison between O and Sarah P over at Instapundit -- http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/023887.php.

FYI -- interesting read.

My "marketing analysis" is above, but another string is worth discussing here (Cam may accuse me of 'flip flopping' on my promise not to mix marketing and politics, but if Steve Cone can devote a third of Powerlines to political slogans, I'm entitled... to a degree...):

While viewing the speech last night, I flipped between ABC, MSNBC and Fox. The first two routinely showed McCain from behind, *showing the teleprompter.* I found this to be a questionable decision.

And lastly, I found it utterly disgraceful that McCain wasn't shown the respect that Obama was given -- being interrupted so often in the first five minutes. This reflects poorly on Obama, his supporters, and his party -- particularly given the strong bi-partisan message McCain delivered.

Branding takeaways:
. You're either "reporting the news" or you're "24/7 op/ed." The problem is that no one (except CSPAN) seems to be the former anymore.
. If your supporters act like idiots, it rubs off on you. Be careful how you train your evangelists.

"And lastly, I found it utterly disgraceful that McCain wasn't shown the respect that Obama was given -- being interrupted so often in the first five minutes. This reflects poorly on Obama, his supporters, and his party -- particularly given the strong bi-partisan message McCain delivered."

This totally backfired. It make Obama supporters look terrible, and it gave McCain one of the best moments of his speech as he asked the crowd 'not to pay attention to the noise'. It was a great chance for McCain to show some spontaneity, which has always been his weakness in delivering speeches. Not sure what the protesters were trying to accomplish, but I think they actually HELPED McCain and HURT Obama.

Now if Obama was smart, he would come out today admonishing the protesters, and say that 'if you want to protest against John McCain, the best way to do that is to vote for Obama/Biden'. THAT would be a great response by him. I also think Obama missed an opportunity by not running an ad congratulating Palin on her historical nomination as VP, as McCain did with Obama last week.

Mack: unfortunately, there's already a track record of Obama's surrogates acting in this fashion, while he quietly admonishes them later. It works once or twice, but not much more than that. I don't think you can re-leash his splinter groups. The best he can hope for is no more actions of a similar nature.

Re running a Palin ad, I think that he's so wound up in how not to step on his own feet here that the Dem's are in a state of partial paralysis -- attacking her further offends 50% of his own party who voted for Hillary. Did you see the post-Palin discussion on CNN? Fantastic discussion, with half the moderators (females) bristling at Camp Obama's use of the word, "shrill," with poor Wolf Blitzer trying to suggest that they probably were refering to Giuliani. I wrote about this over at Note to CMO -- it's a strategic quandry for the Dem's and a fascinating move by McCain.

I agree with all of you. :)

Actually, I found this speech too be exactly what he needed, to be honest. He's clearly been under a good amount of coaching since the green screen debacle, but still stayed within himself. He came off as well-intentioned and conciliatory. This was never going to be a game-changer, but he went out and did what he needed to do. I imagine it'll do well for him.

The latest Gallup overnight poll, reflecting Sarah Palin's speech BUT not yet reflecting McCain's,shows a tightening, with Obama now ahead by 4 points. Here's the link:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110065/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Now-Points.aspx

To me, a key question is how the public (i.e., consumers) will react to a politician (i.e., brand) who in a short time frame (i.e., convention) is first vitriolic and divisive (i.e., day 3) and then compromising and sweet (i.e., day 4). Does such back and forth confuse consumers? Taken out of politics and into the world of brands and consumers, I would think consumers would get rather confused.

I also questioned why the nets showed the protester in the audience. It turns out, though, that the nets all take their video from a pooled feed. After McCain's speech, one of the anchors -- I think it was Brian Williams on NBC -- apologized for showing the protester and explained it's not their own video and that they (NBC) has no control over it.

Same goes for the shots of McCain from behind. The nets -- those eastern, liberal, biased networks -- had no control over the video. Sorry to burst the bias bubble some may hang onto.

"'flip flopping' on my promise not to mix marketing and politics"

Politics isn't inherently a dirty word. Governing philosophy aside, electioneering is so inexorably linked with marketing that it would be impossible to credibly claim they have nothing to do with one another.

And of the governing philosophy front -- examining that has its uses from a marketing standpoint, because depending on the philosophy it may impact on how things can be planned, manufactured, or marketed.

I got off a plane this evening or I would have joined this fascinating round two earlier.

Anyway, I think McCain did what he set out to do:

By going with the maveric/change theme and choosing a maveric for VP he both distanced himself from the Bush Administration and "Washington."

He further solidified his support with the conservative base while starting to reach out to moderates. A theme, by the way, that Palin talked about in her speech: both talked about their experience working with Democrats and Independents.

I think the reason he told the POW story again was because many watching were hearing some of the details for the first time. The North Vietnamese offered him early release for propaganda purposes when they found out his father was an Admiral. He refused to go home ahead of his fellow prisoners. It is a powerful story so it is probably wise to repeat the story until it becomes tiresome. It is right at the edge of tiresome so he should probably ratchet it back.

He invoked the sort of leader he wants to be, which include many icons of his party, including Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

He looked presidential. Not a classic American political speech but I think it is accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish. He can't write a speech like Churchill or deliver line like Reagan and he probably knows it.

Cam, I think that politics is the marketing and the sales.

Policy is the product or service.

What makes people so cynical about politics is that the marketing and the sales pitch often do not match the services (policies) that are ultimately delivered.

When it comes right down to it, what is said during an election has some connection to the policy delivered but there are so many factors involved. Getting policy through Congress and the courts, bureaucracy, and special interests aggressively pursuing their interests.

Even politicians who start out well meaning can be captured by the sort of rent seeking interests that rule Washington. In the real story, Mr. Smith goes to Washington and gets wined, dined, charmed, dazzled, and corrupted.

@Stephen
“And lastly, I found it utterly disgraceful that McCain wasn't shown the respect that Obama was given -- being interrupted so often in the first five minutes. This reflects poorly on Obama, his supporters, and his party -- particularly given the strong bi-partisan message McCain delivered.’

Are you kidding me? Stephen, from strategically minded you, I expected better ;-).

What you call interruption, I call a gift. Think I’m nuts? Go ahead (you won’t be the last). But hear me out on this one...

Yes, the protester--I'm mainly focusing on the very vocal woman protester as the others seemed politely quiet--was disgraceful. I hate that it happened. He didn’t deserve it. And she damned her own cause and looked like a freakin’ wreck. And believe me pal, it would be easy to think that the “other camp” would secretly support her. I get that strategy. But both sides have enough smarts (and enough style) to know that when they plant disruption (yes, they’re even called “plants”) they wouldn’t hinge their hopes on such an absolute lunatic.

What’s more? The disruption resulted in far less attention on the "happening," far more on the man who handled it all in stride. A man that, at 72, in front of a huge convention…in the first 5 minutes of his speech (the first 5 are the hardest on nerves)…did remarkable by being so unremarkable and at ease. 3 things:

1) It made us feel terrible for McCain—and made us angry at the depth of disrespect he was shown. I was on Twitter and there were a lot more left than right commenting and they agreed that it was despicable. But it made us feel for him…to “feel for him” is a first for many.

2) It allowed him to walk his talk. Let’s face it, during a speech one is usually only afforded talk. But he got to "walk" during his time at the podium. He reacted not by ignoring it and continuing to read. But by accepting it and not missing a beat. He showed that “hey, that’s nothin’, I’ve been through far worse…let’s keep going because that’s what America does.”

3) It helped him prove a point. He then said “nah, let it go…haven’t we all had enough yelling?”. And how could we, in the face of what we had just witnessed, not take a step back and agree with him? Yep, McCain, you got a point, too much bickering and bitterness; time to get on with business.

He had plenty of time to practice that speech—and teleprompters in his face reminding him of every word. But he was his best when he was caught completely unrehearsed. It was a gift that won him some respect. Funny things happen when you start respecting someone. Because you find yourself starting to like them.

PS: What would have been brilliant is if she were planted by his own team.

And now having watched the speech twice and having read the speech's text twice, I can tell you it was a beautiful piece.

No. It was TWO beautiful pieces.

The problem with Brand McCain isn't humility; it's one of perplexity. (WHAT is he exactly?) And that's why he still gets a 3 from me.

My issue from a “marketing analysis” is that his brand is two distinctly different things. And while a person is, in fact, a complex set of many different things, a brand has a hard time...if not an impossible time...being two distinctly different things. Because one can't line-extend themselves. They can, however, reinvent themselves.

But, like Madonna, they gotta be fully committed to one style/genre/gimmick at a time.

McCain is an honorable war hero. And the military is regimented with rules that are not in place for red tape but for survival. Moreover, in the military you’re on a team.

But a maverick blazes his own trail. There's no 'i' in team; yet there's certainly one in maverick.

And we have all this talk of maverick and then all these signs of 'country first' which are patriotic and thusly, evoke military because we fight for our country to be first.

So I am left not knowing if he’s military hero or maverick, and therefore left with neither (though I gotta say, with the brutality he endured, I think military hero trumps maverick). It's gotta be hard to choose when you have the blood, sweat and years of doing both things so deeply and with such conviction. He was a POW for 5 years. And he's been a maverick since Reagan times and still recently with disagreeing with Bush.

But a brand standing for military AND maverick? Never the twain shall meet.

Neil - I suspect you're right about most cynics.

As for me, I'm disappointed by the promises themselves, where politicians on both sides make promises with other people's money.

We're supposed to be grateful at the politician's magnanimity, forgetting, as we tend to do, that it is not within their (or any government's) just responsibility to execute the promises they make.

"But a brand standing for military AND maverick? Never the twain shall meet."

If you understand the military culture, you'll know that there are exceptions. Special Forces (Green Beret, Seals, Recon) and pilots can be mavericks.

Haven't you ever seen "Top Gun??" ;)

And McCain certainly has gone against the grain. That's not a matter of positioning by advertising, that's a matter of historical record.

Not everyone is as mesmerized by that as the media are or McCain wants them to be.

I didn't want to participate but you brought up the military--I was a maverick in the military and remain so. And many others, including McCain when he served, are mavericks. One can be disciplined and still think outside the core. Nothing contradictory in that at all.

CK,

I think the definition of a hero is one who goes beyond just one of the team. His story goes beyond just being a team player to being a hero. No training could have prepared him for how he handled the Hanoi Hilton. People in the audience chanted hero, hero, hero, indicating by there choice of words a "hero" (a maverick that stands apart in a good way).

Also, he was a pilot. Not exactly lost in the ranks. There are even jokes about this:

Q. How do you know if there is a fighter pilot at your party? A: He'll tell you.

In addition, military and maverick do not necessarily contradict each other. There are places in the armed services (e.g., special operations) that value the maverick. The Navy SEALS expect it.

Cam, I am not sure of your politics but I am grateful for some government just not pie-in-the-sky promises.

Part of the reason we have "relatively" clean air, safe food, drinkable water, and even highways is because of government. Where those functions do not work well or at all, you have places like China where you cannot breath, nearly all the water is foul, and the food can contain who knows what. You only had to look at the last minute Herculian effort the Chinese put in to make the Olympics even possible. If they had done nothing, you certainly would not have able to say, run a Marathon, without collapsing from the air.

While U.S. agencies are not perfect (and need a lot of improvement), I am grateful for the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the National Parks Service, the armed services, and yes even the CIA and FBI.

Cam, if you want a taste of anarchy, maybe you should try living in a place with a none functioning central government for a while? Have you looked at moving to Somalia, perhaps?

George W. did give us a taste of non-functioning and whether a Democrat or Republican gets elected, I want competence above all else. I think both candidates will be an improvement in just raw competence and bringing in goods, smart people not incompetent flunkies.

"Was the speech “ownable”: was it true to the candidate's brand's personality and unique strengths?"

The speech and McCain's delivery were both boring in my view. I don't think his personality came through as strongly as it could have so I'd give him a goose egg for ownability.

Hey Folks: thanks for continuing this convo; I hate that I couldn’t participate again until late yesterday. Luckily this blog is open 24/7 ;-).

I've no doubt that McCain as a person is both a military hero and a maverick. As said above I recognize that he has the blood, sweat and years to prove it. I’m not questioning what he’s done to serve his country in times of war and in times of internal conflict when he’s gone against the status quo. And to many of your points, there are absolutely examples of military men/women who have been both.

But I'm talking "Brand McCain" and the platform/theme of this campaign--particularly the convention and specifically the speech.

And we need one really strong theme. I feel we have two.

Both are strong, both have honor. But both have positions in the mind all their own (the teamwork and regimented precision of the military and the blaze one’s own trail of maverick). And while “country first” can nestle both of his qualities because it's country not man above all else, I am still struggling to position him in my mind. During a convention when the objective is to communicate one strong theme (so as to energize the base and get the undecided votes), we need more clarity and less complexity.

Am I saying he won’t win? Nope. Happy to say that I think this race is gonna be neck-and-neck and one of the most exciting I can remember. I do think that this convention made him more likable, trustworthy and accessible. Because he’s humble and soft-spoken and true to his country (but his VP sure is a firecracker) while his opponent is much more celebrity and looking to blaze a new era of change. (That is not a knock on Obama calling him “celebrity,” he’s just got that star quality about him).

Now, what Alan hit on is correct that they needed to distance McCain as not "McSame" (many have been calling him this due to aligning him with Bush). I think his humility is what is working best to that objective.

@Cam: what is this "Top Gun" that you speak of?

Cam is talking about the 1986 movie staring Tom Cruise as "Maverick."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/

CK, I couldn't agree more. This is the most exciting presidential race I can remember.

I have to say that I take some solace in the knowledge that whether McCain or Obama wins they are going to be very careful to bring competent people in around them in key positions. Neither wants to make the same blundering mistakes as George W.

Neither McCain or Obama will say "way to go" to some flunkie while a city drowns or whatever awaits us in the next 4 years. They both will take things seriously and have competent people to turn to quickly.

Both candidates recognize that the middle class and working class standards of living have fell in the last 8 years. They may have different prescriptions for how to deal with this fact but both recognize it as a reality and we will hear what they have to say over the coming couple of months.

Both candidates realize our standing in the world has dropped like a rock and will work to repair our relations with the rest of the world.

Both candidates recognize the importance of education and the environment. Again, they have different ideas on how to deal with these problems but neither pretends they do not exist.

"Sorry to burst the bias bubble some may hang onto."

Huh?

David, I'd send you a link, but Google shows 2,490,000 of them. And I can't type "knowhow" that many times.

The media, absent Fox, has taken a hard left in American politics. We don't have to debate this, do we?

The MSM has lost the confidence of the American viewer because they have consistently delivered a poor product, replacing "news" with "opinion", overwhelmingly from a far left standpoint. Their declining viewership and readership reflect this, not to mention the rise of citizen journalists like us.

If your dog food stinks, dogs won't eat it -- regardless of your commercials and packaging. This is basic marketing and a branding lesson that is replayed time and time again in all industries worldwide.

You can read more about this if you're interested, but t his link is a good place to start: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash.

And, I should mention, both candidates recognize that out of control health care costs and a broken insurance system are in danger of really running middle and working class families standard of living into the ground. Whether the cost of born by businesses or the individual it is a HUGE drag on prosperity.

I hope to hear more details on their proposals but ignoring this issue is national economic suicide.

@Neil: Speaking of global change (as the world around us has changed), I want to refer you to the best 'marketing' book of the year...which is not about "marketing best practices" but the rise of new markets. Because globalization is truly the story of our time (yes, climate change is the "issue" of our time). Our administration, whomever it is, will need to embrace that our country is far from the only superpower and if you think this election is great I believe you'll find so many prominent superpowers even more exhilarating (it doesn't frighten me, I'm thrilled as new markets are always a good thing--complex but good).
http://www.ck-blog.com/cks_blog/2008/06/this-marketer-r.html

And I, too, feel much better regardless of whom wins. That's NOT saying I don't have concerns--it means I feel better. Mainly because the public is SO involved again...and we not only have America, but the world watching. We're both accountable and participatory again. That alone is something remarkable.

Sorry 'bout that, I was giving Cam some well-intentioned grief over mentioning Top Gun ;-).

I may a bit of an idealist because I think a lot of peace and prosperity can be achieved through trade and firm diplomacy. So, like you, I am excited about the future.

Though I also have to agree with George Orwell's statement that, "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

BTW, thanks for the book recommendation your blog link. It looks fascinating.

@Stephen: While I think David was referring to the base feed that was rebroadcast...the question, as I understand, is whether that base feed was inherently biased. Actually, the issue is whether the media is biased overall.

Now, I do find Fox to be right-biased but then I must turn to myself (hi, self!) and ask if so many other media isn't left biased--and to your point if they aren't left-biased just at the Conventions but overall. I'm so used to Time being left and Newsweek being right that I need to take a step back and look at the 'aggregate' of the others. That is an action point for me. Just FYI: I'm mainly a "CNN" watcher and reader. Tell me which is the most "fair-based" in your opinion and I'll watch that for a month so I can really assess it from a daily standpoint.

One of those ancient sayings: All stories are fundamentally about life, death or sex. One of those meatloaf sayings: Two out of three ain't bad.

The republican convention, and McCain's speech in particular focused on major subtextual themes key to their age-old formula for winning votes: fear and death, wrapped in the context of the perception of the american dream.

To those who commented about confusion, don't forget that this is a key strategy employed by Rove to perfection again, and reminiscent of the same kinds of confusion and fear campaigns run by both AT&T (remember all those 10-10-savings numbers they flooded the market with to retain share?) and Verizon's "can you hear me now?"

So yes, the message was the same convincing combination of death, fear and consumption that has proven to win with US voters. The Aesthetics and the delivery however may prove to make this speech a turning point where McCain allowed Palin to steal a pivotal scene needed to continue the suspension of disbelief.

More often than not, memorable presidential campaigns are marked with slowly speaking short sentences. McCain had trouble controlling his cadence, rhythm, or any other part of the delivery that would have controlled the studio audience and helped them make his forensic points emotional punctuation in an impassioned march towards the White house.

But he flubbed that potential, along with any other hope at a performer-audience relationship with nutty facial expressions, bad vocal intonation/emphasis, and rushing every delivery. My favorite was "Electric Auto-mobiles?" as though he was asking if these really existed at the end of a list of energy alternatives to create independence from foreign oil.

[Though I must say we got all up in this foreign oil after discovering that the Industrial era's coal-driven energy plan wasn't really efficient or good for breathing. A century ago.]

Aesthetically, the creative leaders may have lost him the election alone with their choices of backdrop video. Did they see An Inconvenient truth? The Obama speech? Not even from a partisan standpoint, but from the basic understanding that there are three kinds of shots: Wide, medium, and close. The imagery, colors, and subtextual meaning complementing the subject MUST work for all three. In this speech, they only worked sometimes, and only in a few wide shots.

The close-up shots of that speech are like the putting green in golf. That's where you ring the register. All of the emotion you're trying to convey comes together when the camera closes in on a point the speech is making. Too often McCain was enveloped in bright, contrasting colors like green or blue that were so hot against the color of his skin they bled over, blurring the definition of the shape of his face. Even the best cameramen and technical directors can't make up for that.

What's worse, when shows try to spoof it as green screen, putting in their own images in the background, you can see the problems of uneven color values in those ugly bight hues. So even post-production folks will be cursing while they try to find a way to wrap a new, more convincing color scheme around these awful live blunders.

If being a maverick means poorly staging a rushed speech fashioned around death, fear, and consumption: mission accomplished!

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)

"Cam, if you want a taste of anarchy,"

No thanks. There's a good ground somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy with many stages in between.

A government that confines itself to its just and properly enumerated powers is sufficient. I'm not sure we'll ever get there, but we can certainly get closer than we are now.

As decided by whom? It is not so cut and dry as you might think. Note that the Internet itself started as a government project funded by what was then called the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA). In fact, it was initially called ARPANET:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet

You, my friend, are benefiting from the fruits of government funded research and development. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay off the Internet?

Do you drive on the Interstate highway system? Do you drink relatively clean water? Do you breathe relatively clean air? Is your food supply relatively safe? Etc.

It is just one of many examples of how research and development that starts with government backing spins off into the private sector or for the benefit of the private sector. The Interstate Highway system is another example but there are numerous other examples.

Often the sort of basic research and development that the government can do is not *immediately* profitable so not possible by the private sector alone. Much scientific, engineering, and medical research falls into that category.

Basic infrastructure: roads, bridges, train tracks, etc., are public goods and areas where the market fails. You need a LOT of money to keep it maintained and to build it up.

The market fails when it comes to protecting the environment and other needed regulatory functions.

I advocate limited government but the line by some extreme libertarians that only national defense is a proper functions of the federal government is a flat-out kooky idea.

The corrupt, special interest driven system we have now must be reformed for us to succeed as a nation. Our hard earned tax dollars must be spent responsibly. This has not been the case and, frankly, the last eight years have been probably those most irresponsible in history. We cut taxes and increased spending on everything under the sun -- including many, many, bridges to nowhere type projects -- with little accountability, all while fighting two wars.

This has been absolutely irresponsible and it was both Democrats and Republicans who participated in this outrage though I have to say that the Bush Administration spent like a drunken sailor and the so-called conservative Republicans who dominated both Houses, joined right in the on the feeding frenzy. If Republicans can't be fiscally responsible, then what are they good for?

I think there are good, competent people in both major parties and I hope that whoever gets elected picks the smartest, most competent people he can possibly get. We can't afford another 4 years of sheer incompetence.

From the firing of Shinseki for saying that he would need 500,000 troops to properly conquer Iraq and then the inexcusibly incompetent and arrogant mis-handling of the wars aftermath is beyond the pale. It was absolutely shameful. I just got back from Silver Spring Maryland near Walter Reed Hospital that takes care of many vets and you see people's kids walking down the street with prosthetic limbs. Billions squandered.

Maybe we did have to go in with a sledge hammer and bust the place up but that was the easy part, it was inexcusable not to plan for the aftermath. No excuse.

There was no excuse for letting a city drown and patting some flunky on the back and saying, "way to go." No excuse. None.

There is not excuse for turning the largest surplus into the largest deficit. No excuse. None.

There was no excuse for arrogantly running our international standing, carefully built since WW II into the dirt. No excuse. None.

I think both McCain and Obama have observed and learned: Don't just bring in a bunch of flunkies. Find some smart, competent people and and run a responsible, adult administration.

I have talked to responsible, adult, thoughtful liberals, moderates, and conservatives but the idealogues who parrot this or that thing they heard on Fox or MSNBC or some party platform drive me nuts. Do some of you own thinking.

"ou, my friend, are benefiting from the fruits of government funded research and development. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay off the Internet?"

"Do you drive on the Interstate highway system? Do you drink relatively clean water? Do you breathe relatively clean air? Is your food supply relatively safe? Etc."

No doubt your argument could greatly benefit from knowing what my political philosophy actually is.

That statement at ARPAnet and Internstate highway system was directed at you (and others who seem spasmodically anti-government) but the rest of my post was *not*. I should have made that clear.

Please tell me your political philosophy? The bits and pieces I have gotten seem to place you at the hard right, anti-government camp. Perhaps the Constitution Party or something like that.

I could be way off.

"Please tell me your political philosophy?"

That's a long post. I've voted for CP and LP candidates before on occasion, but I don't subscribe to all of their ideals or actions.

I vote case-by-case, based on what I know of the candidates.

My ground zero for forming my philosophy was upon reading Common Sense and Rights of Man. From there, 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and studying the Constitution by a thorough reading of it, plus the DoI, the Federalist Papers, other supporting (and detracting) documents, biographies, history, case law, etc.

But, God willing, I'm always learning something new that forces me to challenge what I know and the process by which I came upon that knowledge.

I was never a Bushite, but I don't think he's the epitome of evil, either.

I don't think he is the epitome of evil. In fact, I think he probably has good intentions and has done some good things, too.

Cam, to be clear, I respect you because -- while we do not see eye to eye on politics -- at least you are a thinker. The post was more a rant against the Bush admin and a call for competent leadership in both the White House and Congress, not an argument with you.

It was also a rant against excessive partisanship and ideology. Yes, some partisanship and ideology is needed because frankly, on some things, there is not all that much compromise. You are either for it or against it.

But some things have stalled because of hard positions taken by both sides and as a result the problem festers out of control. That is unacceptable.

And it is completely unacceptable to waste tax payer money on things like earmarks and clearly failed government programs or those that just benefit some special interest or another. There are a lot of subsidies that the government pays just because of a strong lobbying savvy. That is flat-out wrong.

Americans have to absolutely insist the next administration and Congress put a stop to that. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Thoughts Several days later from the convention.

I just read both blog on Obama's speech and McCains.

McCain's Veep pick trumped Obama's night of speech. Look that Round 1 blog comments. It did not take long for the focus switch from Obama's historic night to McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. Same thing happenend in other media venue.
Kudos to the Republicans: They got the momentum (for now) and the buzz.

McCain and Palin were here in Kansas City area yesterday, they had 6000 people show up just to see them. I have to admit I have not seen anything like this in any political campaign since I started paying attention and voting 30 some years ago.

Ad Age ran commentary on Political "brand" as well Front page 9/8/08.
Most interesting comment: Believes Obama's trying to tie McCain to "another 4 years" (Bush 3rd term) should be dropped. McCain Maverick reputation against is own party (at times) works against that. Suggested that they tie the McCain from 2000 is not the same McCain form 2008. Comments on that?

And just for fun. The Sarah Palin "Facts" web site. People are having a lot of fun "creating facts" on Palin.

http://www.palinfacts.com/?paged=4

Carol Doms
Nicholson Kovac

Good points on the shift in conversation, Carol.

I have said from day one of McCain's choice of Palin, as have others here such as Alan Wolk, that McCain choosing her was a brilliant tactical move.

Whether it translates into an electoral victory remains to be seen...

@carol: "McCain and Palin were here in Kansas City area yesterday, they had 6000 people show up just to see them. I have to admit I have not seen anything like this in any political campaign since I started paying attention and voting 30 some years ago."

Very telling on the attention-level and core interest (a marketers' dream!) that this election is garnering. But on a purely personal note, I'm thrilled to see so much involvement. Whomever wins, it gives me confidence how much people are caring, and still very much care.

Let's see.
Who owns Alaska? Exxon, Chevron, etc.
Ergo, Who owns Sarah Palin?
Big oil.
Do you Republicans and undecideds really think the Arabs, Russia and Venezuela are on your side?