Commentary: Palin is brilliant, but risky, VP choice

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor

 

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of Mike Huckabee's campaign. For a rival view of the Palin pick, read here.

Ed Rollins says Sarah Palin has a compelling story and has immense potential to attract women voters

NEW YORK (CNN) -- John McCain's brilliant but risky "Hail Mary pass" choice for vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, has the political world saying first: Who? And then: Why? More...

The "who" is a young, articulate, smart, tough, pro-life woman who is the governor of our northernmost state. She is conservative and a mother of 5, including a son in the Army who is set to be deployed to Iraq on September 11. Her youngest child has Down syndrome.

The "Barracuda" nickname came from her aggressive basketball play on the state championship basketball team. She is a hunter, pilot and lifetime member of the NRA.

She is blunt, outspoken and charming. And don't assume she can't stand toe-to-toe with Joe Biden. She is a great debater. And she was runner-up for the Miss Alaska title, won Miss Congeniality in that contest, and plays the flute.

She also has a compelling story and is a most interesting choice. She will be known by all in 24 to 48 hours in this instant media world and I am betting she will be well-liked.

The "why" is she is a governor and outside the Beltway. Conservatives love her and she shares John McCain's value system. She is also known for taking on the establishment and ethics is her forte.

She defeated the longtime senator and Republican governor in a primary and then went on and defeated the former Democratic governor.

I don't believe people vote for vice president but only for president. That said, I think she is every bit as good a choice as Biden. Alaska has three electoral votes and so does Delaware -- so that part ends up being a wash.

I think the potential for her to attract women voters is immense. And I am betting, win or lose or draw, she is a future star of a party in desperate need of young people and women role models.

And by the end of this campaign, she too will be a celebrity and her life will never be the same again. I hope that's all for the good.

Speaking of celebrities, Barack Obama proved why he is one at INVESCO Field, home of the Denver Broncos, last night before 85,000 crying, cheering adoring fans. And what's wrong with that? He is a real talent and he excites and inspires his supporters.

Those of us who are not supporters need to step back and quit watching in awe and prepare for battle. Obama's natural and developed speaking style is unchallengeable.

I've been in politics for 40 years. I had the privilege of serving Ronald Reagan as his White House political director and campaign manager and during those years I heard him give hundreds of speeches
And no one was ever better. His words enlightened, gave comfort, inspired and made Americans feel good about themselves again. He also had a core of beliefs developed over a long period of time that led to a very effective agenda.

The Democrats now have their own version of an RR orator. And, like Reagan, Obama's speeches are his own words. Whether he will be elected president or will have the accomplishments RR did only time will tell. But his gifts of speech and ability to inspire his supporters are impressive and should not be underestimated.

Saying all that, and putting the emotion of "mile-high Denver" euphoria aside, Ronald Reagan became a great president because of his many other skills. He knew where he wanted to take our country and had the courage to stick to his beliefs.

We still don't know what Obama and the Democrats want other than George Bush back in Crawford Texas, and their party controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
We now know the tickets: Obama-Biden; McCain-Palin.

Biden is an asset as a foreign policy adviser. Palin will be an asset on domestic and energy issues. All have compelling stories. But ultimately this race is about McCain's experience and world view and Obama's ability to excite his base.

We have one more exciting convention (now with a new player in Gov. Palin) and then 60-plus days to go at full speed. The winner gets the toughest job in the world with the most difficult agenda we as a nation have faced in decades.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer

Obama as Nero

August 29, 2008 - by Bridget Johnson

As Barack Obama leaves Denver, I hope he remembers to fetch his fiddle: He’ll need something to play while the Democratic Party and its high hopes crumble, and he waxes poetic about the adoration of the masses he felt while perched a mile high at Invesco Field.

So, yeah, the palatial columns that made up the gaudy “West Wing” stage at Obama’s acceptance production reminded me of the cheesy set design in swords-and-sandals epics. But what really popped into my head was the image of Peter Ustinov as Nero in “Quo Vadis?” — “Do I live for the people or do the people live for me? … These people expect me to shine both day and night!” The left would have it that only the Republicans regard the masses as plebs, but Obama knows these masses as his loyal flock. More...

So loyal, in fact, that style was an easily accepted substitute for substance at this week’s convention. On a stage that looked like an Oscar for Best Performance by a Long-Winded Politician (Biden!) was going to be handed out any minute, the loyal masses saw a well-scripted throwing in of the towel by Hillary Clinton, in shots that made you wish there was an open mic on her, Bill, or even an at-times steely-faced Michelle Obama. The Republican crossover speech from former Congressman Jim Leach was a snoozing counterpoint to Zell Miller at the 2004 Republican National Convention or even how we know Joe Lieberman will be received at next week’s RNC.

And the policy points? Stunning! Bill Clinton intimated that Republicans hate autistic kids. John Kerry showed his hide is still plenty chapped over that Swift boat thing. Joe Biden struck the obligatory pro-war concession (Afghanistan) for the anti-war party. And Barack Obama drove home the point that he won’t be upstaged by anyone, essentially snagging Biden’s spotlight night Wednesday with a surprise appearance and impromptu speech at the Pepsi Center.

Was the weeklong production enough to net an Obama win in November?

One thing apparent in Denver was that the far left thinks the moderate-left platitudes put on for the media show aren’t left enough. A protester on every corner reminded you about the evil Republicans, but also chided the Democrats as traitorous to their “anti-imperialist” causes. And as amusing as many of the protests were, there were some stomach-churning undertones: A woman promoting abortion and defending Iran at the same literature-laden booth. A bumpersticker for sale that proclaimed “Satan’s a Republican.” Chants that lumped the F-bomb and America in the same sentence. A silk-screen display showing the faces of Iran (translation: “don’t attack, you evil U.S.!”) yet didn’t include a single imprisoned journalist, tortured democracy activist, or devious mullah in the happy, smiling bunch.

 It also became clear in my conversations with visitors just how much a significant portion of the African-American community are investing in this Obama run. One Obama button seen for sale on the 16th Street Mall showed Martin Luther King Jr. saying “My dream is now reality,” though I can’t believe the legendary civil rights leader would have pinned all of his hopes and dreams for racial harmony on one candidate. Another button seen on a partygoer showed Obama and a giant fist, with the words “Obama said knock you out” (think the LL Cool J song). If Obama loses, how many will blame the message (or lack of details in it), and how many will let that sting sow seeds of greater divisiveness?

One night while riding the light rail, an Obama supporter stood in the middle of the train with a bullhorn, yelling random things to cheering response: “Cheney! Halliburton! KBR! Ted Haggard! Larry Craig! Slavery is over! Obama is here!” As others kvetched about John McCain, two young men wearing Obama T-shirts began fighting and calling each other the N-word. How ironic, I thought, considering the use of that slur is something that really needs to be changed in America.

I chatted with the passenger across from me, who wore an Obama button and a pendant of his parents’ picture, pre-Civil Rights era, on a dog-tag-style chain.  “I want change,” he said. “We just need change! I’m voting for change! I don’t care what happens in any other country. I just care about what happens here. Only in America.” Words that could have come from any America Firster backing Ron Paul, but are clearly a trend among those who would just like to hear Obama’s current focus on domestic social-justice issues such as taxing the rich.

The problem is that globalization is about a lot more than economies. What happens abroad will continue to directly affect American families more than ever before. And as we were aided to our independence by the French so many years ago, we just can’t falter on moral clarity in our global responsibilities, as well. Would a President Obama have come to the aid of Rwanda, or would the isolationist tone that edged him past the foreign-policy-minded Hillary Clinton win out, winning the adulation of the masses on the left?

As Obama ascended his perch over the plebs Thursday night, before a crowd that endured an hours-long line to get in to see their exalted leader, he bellowed the change refrain and tried to paint John McCain as an ignorant elitist. The feel-good celebration and laundry list of promises — you’ll all get health care, get college paid for, socialist redistribution of wealth be damned (oh yeah, it was tax cuts for “95 percent of working families” — who draws the working-class lines?) — rallied the liberal base, but will have done little to entrance the moderates who, as polls show, got really nervous about Obama over the Russia-Georgia crisis.

It seems that Obama’s soaring rhetoric and preaching to the choir — a wasted opportunity for him in a spotlight week — could have just served to burn his party in order to create an epic.

---

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-as-nero/

Post-electable incoherence

Posted on August 29, 2008 by riverdaughter , reposted here to share

Before I get started, I admit that I haven’t listened to Barack Obama’s speech.  He has now achieved the unenviable position in my mind of having a voice even more irritating than George Bush’s.  At least with Bush, his mannerisms are so well known and predictable that they were  “almost” endearing in their mindless stupidity.  With Obama, the wounds are still too raw.  The mannerisms that make him quite possibly more mockable than Bush are currently surrounded by ideas that make me want to smack him.

Both Heidi Li and Anglachel have commentary on Obama’s speech.  I will listen or read Obama’s speech later but from what these two have deconstructed, it isn’t difficult for me to piece together what Obama was trying to convey.  The bottom line is that the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble not merely because they have selected a man who is supremely unready for the job but because they find themselves trying to hold their own base together without a clue of how they got to a divided party in the first place. More...

Heidi Li reports that Obama lifted whole sections of Hillary’s speeches without attribution.  This is not really a surprise.  We have seen the content of Obama’s character.  Schmoozers are experts at taking other people’s ideas and passing them off as their own.  It’s how they keep climbing the rungs of success.  The difference here is that half of his Democratic base is watching and we still have the votes to truncate his rise to the top.  I think this is what drives the Obamaphiles insane, as we have witnessed in the past couple of days as the trolls descend on us and pull the “If you don’t give us what we want, it will be YOUR fault if we lose” routine.  They just can’t believe they have to stoop down to us and ask nicely for our vote.  If we were as smart as *they* are, we would just give it to them to do for us what they know is best for us.  Can’t we see they desperately want Obama to win?  Why are we making their lives so difficult?

So, Obama sighs in resignation and incorporates parts of Clinton’s agenda in his speech.  “There!”, he seems to say, “I’m a Democrat.  Are you happy now?  Now, shut up and hand the votes over.”  But then, according to Anglachel, he reveals the reason why he will fail to win the White House in November.

For 40 years, since 1968, the American political landscape has been dominated by the most compact, fanatical, ideologically radical party in the West today. They have brutalized their opponents and despoiled the nation. The crises of our nation (vs. some rather pedestrian political screw ups) have been caused by this group that simply does not agree that we should be a democratic nation. This is not “gridlock” - this is political survival. They have over-reached and now is the time to seize a political opportunity.
From the langauge I have heard through the campaign season and particularly in the last few days, this group is quite cheerfully positioning itself in a weaker position than the Clintons took in 1992, when it seemed impossible that anything could stop the Reagan Revolution juggernaut. They have eagerly taken on the superficial trappings of the Right - pandering to religious kooks, backing down on civil rights, abandoning even the pretense of social and economic equity, flatly saying they will not entertain an ambitious health care reform plan - and have no sense of the depth of change they could accomplish if they would trust to their own party’s philosophy.
The speech was all surface and ended by denying its own opening claims, cutting off its deepest, strongest roots.

He seems intent on negotiating Clinton’s agenda away in the name of post-partisanship.  He embraces high-Broderism, that media construct that says that Americans really want the parties to get along and if only the Democrats would stop being so stubborn about their core principles and learned to work with Republicans, then we would all sing in perfect harmony.

The problem is that if Democrats abandon their core principles and Republicans don’t abandon theirs, any attempts at negotiation and compromise ends up pulling us more to the right.  The DC Village is perfectly happy pulling the Democrats to the right because it doesn’t rock their little boat and what is good for them, MUST be good for the rest of the country.

What we in the neglected half of the party can’t understand is why we are buying into the Villager narrative.  This was supposed to be our year.  After 8 years of unfettered movement conservatism and radical Republicanism when there was absolutely nothing standing in the way of Republicans enacting every Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society initiative in their arsenal, the country finally woke up and rejected what the Republicans were selling.  This year was supposed to be a cakewalk for Democrats.  The country is dying for a strong Democratic push-back and what Obama is proposing is about has bold as tapioca.

So, we have the strength of the Clinton agenda blunted by the call for bi-partisanship.  This is the Change! that we’ve been waiting for?  No, this is what the Villagers want.  They want a Democratic party without any teeth.  And the Democrats are going along with it because they have learned helplessness in the face of the Republican juggernaut.  Recently, I got a clue about what is going on in the heads of the liberal elite Obamaphile when I heard an interview Terry Gross did with a pension and retirement specialist who recommended that the government start a pension account for every American.  Terry whined about how the Republicans are never going to let that happen.  So why bother?  This is Obamatics.  Give up before you even start because vigorous resistence against Republicans has been unsuccessful in the past 8 years.

Grover Norquist and Karl Rove must be ecstatic.  They had always hoped to defang the opposition and now they are successful beyond their wildest dreams.  The Democrats have spent so much time banging their heads against an immovable object that they have completely forgotten what it was they were fighting for in the first place.  To them, politics is one endless series of compromises.  With Obama elected, the Democrats continue down the path of making the party irrelevent. And they Obama faction, for the most part, is too young and affluent to realize that what is required of it is struggle.  They are willing to surrender before a single bill is proposed.

What Clinton offered was the coherence of core Democratic principles with which we would strengthen our bargaining abilities.  She understood the American electorate and how it had been hurt economically and socially by movement conservatism.  She wanted to restore the social safety net of the New Deal and rally the public to fight for themselves.  That is bold.  That is change from what we have had from Democrats in the past eight years.  That is scary.  That’s not what we’re getting with Obama.

Obama does not have a core.  That is why his speech is incoherent.  It doesn’t stick together because he doesn’t believe in core Democratic principles.  He is merely mouthing the words because he knows he needs us onboard. But he will never get us onboard because we understand the hollowness of his policies and as a result, he is not only post-partisan, he is post-electable.  He is a failure before he has even started, along with the rest of the current Democratic party leadership.  They threw away their champion for a schmoozer and will be handed their asses in November.
The sooner the better.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• DNC Convention: The Finale, The Nomination Acceptance, The Democratic Platform
• Air Pollution On My Television
• Week 3: Obama and me

Articles /Blogs Thursday, August 27-31

Articles/ Blogs Sunday, August 31

**Sarah Palin vs, Barrack Obama, AudacityOfHypocrisy.com
Where Palin Made Her Name
How the Left Will Try and Diminish Palin - Dean Barnett, Weekly Standard
Sen. Clinton's Campaign Journey Sparks New Women's Movement, Boston Globe via Clinton Dems
They can't Help it - Reclusive Leftist, LondonAmerican
RU Experienced? - Noah Millman, American Scene
Who is Prepared to be President? Nobody - Richard Reeves, RealClearPolitics
More...

Articles/ Blogs Saturday, August 30
Obama And His Campaign Are Being Hypocrites.
A Chicagoan's Perspective on Obama, Rezko and Corruption
The Game Changer - John Avlon
Bad for Obama - Mark Steyn
Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska - Fred Barnes, Wall Street Journal
With Pick, McCain Reclaims Maverick Image - Dan Balz, Washington Post
Why the Left is Scared of Sarah Palin - Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
A Reform Ticket - Wall Street Journal
The Story Behind the Palin Pick - The Politico
McCain's Brilliant Trap - Kirsten Powers, New York Post
McCain Makes Calculated Bet
Transcipt: Palin's Speech

Articles/ Blogs Friday, August 29
Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie - Robert Tracinski, TIA Daily
McCain to Obama: 'We Can Too' - Dan Schnur, New York Times
An Extraordinary Choice - Hugh Hewitt, Townhall
A Wasted Convention - Toby Harnden, RealClearPolitics
NAFTA bashing off of Obama's Agenda, Philip Elliott, Real Clear Politics
Obama Desperately Trying to Keep Lid On Bill Ayers Story
A Speech to the Delegates - David Brooks, New York Times
Obama's New, Old Politics Clash - John Harris & Jim VandeHei, Politico
Obama Gives a Non-Celebrity Speech - Steve Kornacki, New York Observer
He Remains the Perfect Stranger - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
And If Obama Loses? - Pat Buchanan, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Democrats Talkin' like the GOP, Debra Saunders, Rasmussen Reports
**PUMA PLAN FOR NOVEMBER**


Articles/ Blogs Thursday, August 28
**PUMA PLAN FOR NOVEMBER**
The Audacity of Hypocrisy, nobamablog
Did Biden Worsen the Mortgage Crisis? - McQ, QandO
Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Race - Juan Williams, Wall Street Journal
Obama tactics used to stifle and intimidate its critics, National Review Online
The Separation of Church and Pelosi - David Reinhard, The Oregonian
What Hillary's Women Want - Geraldine Ferraro, New York Daily News
Big HRC Donors Giving to McCain, Marcus Baram, ABC News
Dems Are Stupid to Equate McCain and Bush - Dick Morris, The Hill
The Big Contradiction from the Denver Dems - Michael Medved, Townhall
Democrats Work to Minimize Stadium Speech's Risks - New York Times
Would You Hire Barack Obama? Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard
Biden's Exaggerations - Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard
Obama's slender record - William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Brand New McCain Ad: Democrats on Obama's lack of Experience, thejtandbearshow.com
Where is the 2004 Barack Obama? - Jon Gurwitz, San Antonio Express News
Pomp and Circumstancee of the Campaign Process You Just Can't Make Up, Associated Content
Democracy -- Sponsored by Corporate America - Ralph Nader, The Hill
AT&T has high profile presence at Democratic Convention, Jim Kuhnhenn, Real Clear Politics
Hillary Can't Fix What Dems Broke - Froma Harrop, Providence Journal
Scratches in Obama's Glitter - Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe
Biden's Experience in Foreign Policy Poses Problems - Charles Lipson, CT
Why Obama Was 'The Most Liberal' - Charles Green, National Journal
Congress Is a Perfect Target for McCain - Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal
Avoiding A Long, Disappointing Fall - John Judis, The New Republic
Bill Clinton Endorses John McCain Sort Of (Video)
Behind the Scenes at the Building of the Greek Temple of Obamis (Video)
Explosive Video: Bill Clinton on Obama's Lack of Experience

Articles/ Blogs Wednesday, August 27
Why Bill Is Mad - Capehart, Washington Post
Problems on Mt. Olympus - Mike Murphy, Time
The Obama-Not Hillary Ticket - Dick Morris'
Would you have given a Harvard graduate a position of CEO right after graduation?'Obama Needs More Than Change - Philip Klein, The American Spectator
The Obama-Biden Pork Partnership - Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Obama's Ayers Problem Deepens - Michelle Malkin
Which is the Real Michelle Obama? - Mona Charen, National Review
Obama's Stage: Has He Lost His Mind? - Charles Krauthammer, Wash Post
Hillary Gets a Good Start on 2012 - Michael Barone, US News & World Report
Has the Convention Helped Obama? - Jay Cost, RealClearPolitics
What Clinton's Body Said - CBS News
Walks of Shame - Savage Politics
Hillary Clinton's Stock Up, Most Would Like to See Her Run Again - Gallup
Women Have the Skills, Why Not More Top Jobs?
Obama Wins on Empathy, McCain on Experience
Celebrities for McCain - by Stephen F. Hayes
Gallup Daily: Race Still Close With Obama 45%, McCain 44%
Clinton: An Endorsement of the Democratic Party But Not Obama - Purple People Vote
(Still) Party Unity My A**Submitted By indy1207
Obama, Bill Clinton Remain Distant - Washington Post
Clinton's Address to the DNC (Video)
Gallup: Conservative Democrats (& Republicans) Peeling Away From ObamaVoters Must Wonder Why He Didn't Pick Hillary - Kirsten Powers, NY Post
The Denver Group Reception - NoQuarter
Chaos on the Convention Floor - The Washington Post
Fighting Against Obama's Thugs - By Michelle Malkin
Obama Parrots McCain on Georgia - The London American
She was Right - London American
The Unease of Election '08 - Jay Nordlinger, National Review
The Better Hillary Does, the Worse for Obama - Dick Morris, The Hill
The Arrogance of Nancy Pelosi - Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com
Cognitive Dissonace - LondonAmerican

New, old politics clash in speech

Listen closely to the 46-minute address, however, and you heard two speeches crushed somewhat violently together."

By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI, Politico

DENVER - That was one more bravura performance from Barack Obama Thursday night, and 85,000 supporters in the football stadium here—and no doubt millions watching on television—were ecstatic over the oratorical flights of the newly crowned Democratic nominee.

Listen closely to the 46-minute address, however, and you heard two speeches crushed somewhat jarringly together. More...

The first half, one suspects, was the speech that Obama felt he had to give: a traditional partisan appeal that, for all his sonorous cadences, read like it could have been stitched together randomly from speeches delivered on any given day from rank-and-file Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There were denuciations of outsourced manufacturing jobs and promises to save Security Security and frequent baiting of John McCain for being the candidate of the rich and a weakling against Osama bin Laden.

The second half sounded like the speech Obama wanted to give: a plea for a new brand of politics, one in which politicians don’t attack each other’s motives or character, and Washington calls a ceasefire in such drearily familiar fights as abortion and gun control.

Obama did not acknowledge the two halves of his address—the partisan top and the post-partisan close—much less try to reconcile them. Blurring inconsistencies under clouds of polished language is the right of any politician. What’s more, a convention acceptance speech is not the time for a seminar.

Even so, it was notable that Obama’s speech offered countless rhetorical stanzas but not much in the way of a  sustained argument aimed at convincing people who are not already enthusiasts, or for whom the charge that McCain would represent four more years of George W. Bush does not by itself close the deal.

He chided McCain for being a slave to his party’s orthodoxy. But Obama did not find occasion to challenge any Democratic orthodoxies, or highlight places where he breaks from his party’s interest groups.

Indeed, he made almost no effort to place himself in any particular spot on the Democratic ideological spectrum. The result was to leave a default impression that he is a standard post-Clinton Democrat—wary of big business and the ill effects of globalization and free trade, motivated most intensely by antipathy to Bush and the Iraq War.

The speech included some moments of plain hypocrisy—nothing out of bounds by the standards of normal campaigning but out of step with his pleas for a more unifying and less manipulative style of politics.

Obama said “what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes,” because “the times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook.”

Over the course of this year Obama and other Democrats have suggested frequently that McCain abandoned his once independent positions in order to appease conservatives in his race for the Republican nomination.

He also invoked most of his party’s favorite gotcha moments against McCain. The thrusts were well-turned and mostly above-the-belt (though sometimes a bit distorted). But there is nothing more familiar than making politicians pay for their gaffes. This is precisely the same practice that Obama denounced last spring as old politics when it was used against him when he slipped by saying poor white voters “cling” to guns and religion because of job losses.

Obama accused McCain of considering everyone under $5 million as middle class – a reference to a clumsy comment McCain recently made at a forum. He said McCain wants to privatize Social Security, which is somewhat misleading. McCain has supported allowing workers to put a small percentage of their Social Security taxes in private savings accounts – but not to privatize the program.

He said McCain “has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investment in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels." That’s not entirely true: McCain has been supportive of measures in all of these areas though he has also voted against many Democratic versions of these plans.

The speech was more programmatic and less biographical than many of Obama's most celebrated speeches. Notably, he touched only glancingly on his history making status as the first African-American nominee.

The speech also highlighted a contrast between Obama and the last Democrat to win the presidency. Even on big occasions like acceptance speeches or State of the Union addresses, Bill Clinton usually aimed for a conversational tone. More often than not, he also liked to pretend he was grappling genuinely with the other side’s honest positions, if only to show why they were wrong.

Obama strives for a more elevated and elegant tone in his language. But his basic case is more straightforward denunciation. “For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else,” Obama said of McCain.

This may not go far toward creating a new brand of politics, but it will please many of the Democratic elected officials here. All week, many of Obama’s colleagues in interviews said his most important job was to be a fighter—to tie McCain to Bush at every turn, and to show that when hit over his patriotism or his credentials as commander in chief he will hit back harder.

If those Democrats were right—if that was indeed Obama’s most important job—than the speech that wrapped up the 2008 Democratic convention probably succeeded both as both rhetoric and as politics. Still, even the finest phrases don't change the reality that it's hard to practice new politics and old at the very same time.