Eveyone hears what they want to hear in a speech and most voters forget it entirely within days, if they even listened in the first place.

I thought Obama was pretty tough on McCain and a lot of commentators are saying the same thing -- "out of touch?" Sure, he criticized him on policy, but the criticisms made McCain sound old, uninformed, out of touch, etc.

Tonight Obama made a start on a campaign that's based not just on talking points (though there will be plenty of those), but on a sustained assault on modern conservatism and a sustained defense of modern liberalism.

More to the point, it's the beginning of a campaign that's not about winning the election, it's about leading the country.

He said he wanted to be a transformational President in the manner of Reagan. Reagan didn't attack Carter's personal characteristics as much as he attacked liberalism.

This man is shrewd.

Mark Schmitt is one small reason the Democratic Party is in bed with corporate interests.
Schmitt spent a decade battling liberals instead of Republicans

Obama made it clear that we have work to do, and we are the only ones up to the task.

McCain, get out of the way. We have work to do, and no more time to waste on character assassination, faux patriotism, or bullshit international bluster over military might.

Get. Out. Of. The. Way. Real work needs to get done.

You can't deliver the coup de grace to Republicanism while talking up bi-partisanship. My biggest complaint during the spring was all the love Obama was showing Republicans and Reagan. Effective for winning the primary but makes his task for the fall more difficult

It's exactly the opposite. Movement conservatism has a chance to reemerge only if Democrats win the election and show what a disaster liberalism can be.

If he takes a few chances and does that, though, he'll not only win, he'll win with a public behind him that's actively sold on a genuinely liberal agenda.

Kevin, you're dreaming. Don't you recall the research you posted from the Third Way folks which went into a lot of detail on voter characteristics? Those who self-identify as conservative outnumber self-identified liberals by about 50%, so Obama has to reach into the middle and convince a whole heck of a lot more folks that warmed over Marxism is more appealing than good old American gumption.

In 2000 and 2004 the electorate was fat and happy, so they didn't pay attention to the huge policy differences. All indications, and I base this on looking at a wide range of economic indicators, are that people are feeling economic pain and likely to feel more of it down the road. Does that give them the motivation to sit up and pay attention? I don't know if that is going to happen or not, but Obama is clearly counting on that phenomenon.

I hope, for our sake and for that of our deficit burdened children, that Obama is right. Obama did a great job of calling McCain on his childish campaign tactics. But that only works if McCain has a conscience. Republican strategy is based on the cynical calculation that voters are not capable of understanding policy debates. It worked for them before and as any good strategist knows, you keep doing what worked before until it is very clear that it has stopped working. They seem to believe that losses in 2006 are not enough proof yet that their cynicism has reached its limits.

I have noticed one major difference in doctrine between Conservatives and Liberals.

Liberals believe in empowering individuals and in working for individual rights and freedoms. Liberals consider capitalist institutions (e.g. companies) as tools to help society and would give them only enough power to help them achieve that goal.

Conservatives believe in empowering capitalist institutions to pursue profit for the capitalist. They consider society a tool to help capitalist institutions pursue their profits. Individual liberties and freedoms take a back seat to the primary goal.

The contrast is stark. Liberals empower people and regulate/control capitalist institutions. Conservatives empower capitalist institutions and regulate/control people.

Let's work to put people first.

Good speech, but I'm more anxious than ever.

Yes, yes, go ahead and savage the conservative agenda. But, take away McCain's armor. Expose his many character faults and the fact that he's not a maverick, not a straight talker, not the person he claims to be.

Only the reach and frequency of advertising can strip away the false persona the media has conferred on him. If team Obama continues to let the media and the McCain campaign define who John McCain is, I'm afraid the result will be catastrophic.

TangoMan neglects to tell us that the largest group of voters call themselves moderates. In fact, moderates and liberals in combination outnumber self described conservatives by 2 to 1.
How did Social Security privatization go over with the American people, Tango? How did people respond to the tragic Terri Schiavo mess? What's Little Ricky Santorum doing these days? Polls show overwhelming preference for Democratic positions on issues from top to bottom.

"Warmed over Marxism"? My God, don't you right wingers EVER get tired of spouting that same lying vomit?

"Begin"? I think Obama's been tilling that field for a good long time, with his fifty-state strategy and putting organizers into states like Texas where he's unlikely to win but his organizers are likely to contribute to the victory of a few members of Congress and a lot of legislators.

Liberals believe in empowering individuals and in working for individual rights and freedoms.

What universe are you inhabiting? There is no way to reconcile individual rights with the identity politics that forms the basis of contemporary liberalism. Black rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc all look at group identity and ignore individual rights.

Conversely, conservatives pay far less heed to group rights and construct coalitions based on those who find policy appealing. If you favor less nanny statism then it doesn't matter if you're black, a woman, or gay, you're welcome to join and advocate for an individualist based policy.

Conservatives believe in empowering capitalist institutions to pursue profit for the capitalist.

Keep spinning these fantasies, you know, with Rich Uncle Pennybags who lights his cigars with $100 bills being the archtypical Capitalist. The largest class of shareholders in the American financial system are retirement funds. Are you prepared to chastise schoolteachers and government workers for desiring healthy retirement annuities built on solid portfolios filled with equities from profitable and stable corporations?

Republican strategy is based on the cynical calculation that voters are not capable of understanding policy debates.

Actually, it's the reverse. Liberals seem to neglect the compounding effect of growth rates and prefer static analysis. Further they minimize behavioral changes that result from changed incentives. Creating a high tax environment at the margin curtails economic growth. Liberals seem to think that people don't respond to incentive. If you're worried about the fate of our children, then if would behoove you to support policies which enhance economic growth rather than policies which are known to stifle growth. If we project 50 years into our children's future, the difference in their standards of living in an economy that grew at 2% per year for 50 years versus an economy that grew at 3% for 50 years is staggering. A $40,000 GDP/capita today grows to $175,000 at 3% but only 108,000 at 2%.

In fact, moderates and liberals in combination outnumber self described conservatives by 2 to 1.

Why would you assume that moderates are simply undeclared liberals? If this was really the case the Democratic Party would have no need for the Blue Dogs and they could instead count on the Legions Of Kos and Move-On acolytes.

"Warmed over Marxism"? My God, don't you right wingers EVER get tired of spouting that same lying vomit?

The whole core of the Obama platform is simply a variation of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Expansion of program mandates, creation of new programs, more reallocation of the nation's wealth, simply based on people not having equal allocation of goods and services. A person's need determines all and the requirement that a person align their needs/desires to their means is thrown completely overboard. That's a fundamental precept of Marxism.

I wrote this on my own blog back on Aug 2,

The real debate here is about how Obama should be placed in the meta-narrative of the election. One school of thought is that after the last eight years everything should be about how awful Bush has been and how McCain is just like Bush. It is a theory based around retrospective voting. This school wants the electorate to punish the ruling party by rejecting its policies and choosing the other guy. I think it is a strategy formed on desperation. It is a strategy from a party out of power that is so scared of losing that any way back into power is ok. Do not get me wrong winning is the goal but to govern with a progressive majority and to gain a mandate Obama needs to do more.

There is a very good reason Obama would want the election to be about him. If it is a referendum on him and his Ideas, the win becomes more powerful. It is not merely a rejection of the other but an embracing of Obama. An Obama win when the election is about him shows that the American people want his ideas and policies and that Congress should get in line and pass them. If there is any hope for a transformative election I think that the election needs to be more about the prospective. Prospective voting would be an acknowledgment that Obama is the right direction.

When it comes down to it I think that people vote on the future not the past making the current Obama strategy more sound. It will not leave questions about what Obama plans to do. No lingering, "Yeah Bush Sucks, but what do you plan to do?" Building a strategy around the future is better than building one around the past. It may be a little more risky if only because there is so much to punish the GOP over but the reward is greater. Obama also seems like the type of person who wants to win on his own merits and gain the confirmation that he is being chosen because of who he is and his policies.

Tangoman, you are confused.

Black rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc all look at group identity and ignore individual rights.

These are rights for individuals. For example, the right of gay couples to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. Look at the conservative agenda as practiced the last 8 years. It was all about intimidating individuals in the name of terror, religion, and flag. It was straight from the playbook titled "1984."

Conversely, conservatives pay far less heed to group rights and construct coalitions based on those who find policy appealing...

If you haven't noticed, conservatives for the last eight years didn't have any policies. It was all about politics.

Keep spinning these fantasies, you know, with Rich Uncle Pennybags ...

Yes, the working public's funds have been steadily diverted to supporting the rich folks' capital investments. Look at the average American's balance sheet. Look at the debt and look at their "investments." Debt grew while investment returns shrank.

Growth? If you haven't noticed, most of the so called "economic growth" in the last 8 years came from inflation, not from organic growth. Showing "GDP growth" is meaningless when there is no progress on basic human needs such as healthcare, education, and job security.

All ideologies look good on paper. Even communism works well, theoretically.

You don't judge an ideology on the strength of its theoretical promise. You judge it based on its practice. Look at the last eight years to see conservative ideologies in practice. It is all about incompetence, greed, dirty politics, and avoiding personal responsibility. That's conservatism in practice and most conservatives cheered the conservative ideology and ideologues all the way.

Here is a preemptive strike.

There is a good chance the stock market will close in the Red on Friday. Of course you will hear the likes of Kudlow blaming the decline on Obama's speech.

That is fantasy. Reality, of course, is that Dell disappointed big time on Thu after market close and as a result major index futures slumped enough afterhours to erase most of Thu's gains. That happened well before Obama's speech.

Be prepared for the mindless "people don't like Obama's speech so they sold their stocks" argument. To be fair, if the markets end up on a positive note, I wouldn't attribute that to Obama's speech. The markets are marching to their own tune and nothing that has happened in Denver this week was a surprise worth playing.

Tonight Obama made a start on a campaign that's ... a sustained assault on modern conservatism and a sustained defense of modern liberalism.

Posted by Kevin Drum

I don't even know what that means. Modern conservatism and liberalism are mental constructs -- with varying definitions -- that mean nothing to voters.

If McCain attacks Obama personally -- and he has already begun -- and Obama responds by attacking "modern conservatism" or touting "modern liberalism", he loses. If he responds by attacking McCain's "policies" -- which the MSM will claim are virtually the same as his own -- he loses.

This will come down once again to character, likability, and trust or judgment. If Obama can't attack McCain's "character" -- war hero and all -- he will have to undermine his likability, trust, and judgment with voters.

He has begun to do that by pointing out that McCain has been wrong on everything that Americans find important.

Obama spoke of "judgement and temperment", which to my mind is getting at the heart of the problem with McCain. And it is hinting at defects in John McCain's character which render him an unacceptable risk.

For one thing, W himself did not attack Kerry's character--his surrogates did. I was surprised that Obama was aggressive as he was, and I thought Biden was going to be more aggressive.

For another thing, painting his opponent as honorable but out of touch worked quite well for Bill Clinton twice.

"warmed over Marxism"

LOL!

You mean like the interstate highway system? the internet? the CDC? The Veterans Administration?

Why does TangoMan hate America?

TangoMan--in addition to the other comments here, I think that conservative/liberal self-identification stuff is far more a matter of brand identity than much else. And brand sympathy/loyalty can change remarkably fast. As of last night Obama did a huge amount to resurrect the "liberal" brand, or whatever term people use for it in their own heads. And given what a very very thin thread the "conservative" brand is hanging by right now (or again, whatever term people use for it in their own heads), I think the Old vs New, Past v Future thematics, along with a guy who seems strong and confident in confronting the Old Guy who's the right's standard bearer (bad bad choice, brand wise, in much the same way Kerry was for us last go-round), I wouldn't rest too easy on those self-id studies.

What Rational said!

I didn't think Obama's speech was as moving as it could have been, but he is doing what needs to be done. Linking McCain to the last 20 years of failed conservative policies.

We'll see if this works. But remember that Bush and Kerry were pretty similar. Both in the war, but with questions raised on both sides (legit or not, the dueling war record narrative deflated the effectiveness for either). Both from patrician lifestyles. Generally pretty dull guys.

This year, you really can't attack McCain personally. You can attack the flip flops, but you can't really argue that he hasn't honorably served the country. Compare that to Obama, the young, but relatively inexperienced black dude with the funny name. If we run on personalities, we lose.

I thought it was not the best he can do--and not as thrilling as Hillary's speech. More like Michael Jordan on a slightly off-night but still good enough to dominate.

It was a difficult job that he had, and I think he accomplished it. He had to cover a lot of ground, and was not always very compelling in doing so.

I particularly liked the way he took on John McCain. Obama showed some steel tonight, showed he could throw a punch.

I also liked the brief portion on social issues, the suggestion that some common ground could be found in an area that has been a playground for divisiveness.

I feel I know Obama better now, better than I did after reading "Dreams From My Father". I think he really is a calm, contained, rational person who looks to find solutions and defuse conflict, but who can be a tough fighter when necessary.

I believe he will grow in office, and hope he gets the chance to.

"This is why conservatives have so far been apoplectic about his speech tonight: if he continues down this road, and wins, they know that he'll leave movement conservatism in tatters. He is, at least potentially, the most dangerous politician they've ever faced."

I remember feeling that way in 1992. But the conservatives found Clinton's two Achilles' heels:
1) his sex life
2) the media
( the media establishment did not take to an Arkansas hick was was so clearly smarter than they were and the upper echelons contained a lot of people who's taxes got raised)

Obama does not appear to have either of these problems, but Billy Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are not dead issues yet.

We've now had 8 years of unchecked Dubya and lousy governance, so let's hope 2008 is different.

Kevin - I think the attack on Kerry was a little bit more nuanced. It wasn't that Bush just attacked Kerry's character. It was that he sold the idea that Kerry is a flip-flopper and thus his POLICIES are irrelevant because you can't trust what he says. The Bush meme was that the american public had a choice between a jovial redneck who would at least do what he said and a Massachuesetts liberal who would change his policies as the political winds blew.

Given the choice, the country *barely* voted to stay the course with the guy who they could trust in - even if they didn't agree with everything that he stood for.

McCain *doesn't* have that edge which is why Obama is so much more dangerous. Not only was his speech last night truly awesome, he was believable - he came across as trustworthy. And with the 2008 McCain not even resembling the 2006 McCain, I have a feeling Obama is going to win a landslide.

He is, at least potentially, the most dangerous politician they've ever faced.

We'd better make sure he doesn't fly anywhere with Paul Wellstone.

oops. I'm "anonymous" from the line above.

Obama is also going for a big mandate geographically. In concert with Howard Deans 50-state strategy, Obama is spending and campaigning in states that we thought of as deep red. He might win Indiana, for god's sake!