More on this as I digest it, I expect. My short response is that it was an impressive speech and my initial reaction is that it likely accomplished what he needed to do–inspire, attack, and provide specifics.1
Now to the questions of bounce, McCain’s veep and the RNC next week.
Sphere: Related Content- I will say that I need to go back and look at the speech to decide how specific the specifics were, as some of it still struck me as vague/platitudinous in terms of how some of the specifics would come about. [↩]
Filed under: 2008 Campaign, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
You want more specifics in a 45 minute speech? Keep the Rovian talking points going. There are a lot of details out there for anyone willing to read.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Now, now, not Rovian. Mostly I was reacting to the MSNBC guys extolling the great details of the speech, and I am not sure that it was that detailed. And really, all I said in the footnote was that I needed to go back and look at the details.
So, no need to get insulting
August 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
It was a good speech. There were contradictions, such as the first half of the speech insulting McCain and Bush versus the last few minutes saying “but we can disagree without resorting to personal attacks.” Or saying the economy is in the tank, and the solution is to raise the cost of doing business (requiring paid time off).
There were also misrepresentations. For instance he suggested that McCain’s energy plan is drill drill drill, without any other goals. Truth is McCain’s plan is to drill and also to pursue alternative energy and also to pursue conservation. In fact, it’s a lot like the plan Obama talked about, clean coal and safe nuclear and all.
But overall, yes, he achieved his goals, and yes I think that he will get a bounce. That bounce will probably wear off if he doesn’t follow up with substance to a lot of his remarks.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:41 am
[...] –Political Scientist Steven Taylor: More on this as I digest it, I expect. My short response is that it was an impressive speech and my initial reaction is that it likely accomplished what he needed to do–inspire, attack, and provide specifics. [...]
August 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
David Axelrod earned his paycheck with this speech. It did all of the things it had to do and touched on all of the issues that are near and dear to the hearts of hard-core democrats. Obama’s delivery, as predicted, was also very good. He has great tempo and annunciation, and his mode of speaking is pleasant on the ear. It was a great speech.
However, it is hardly an unassailable masterpiece. The Republicans are going to attack it in these ways:
1. Doing the math. They’re going to add up the costs of all the things Obama promised (health care for everyone, clean, domestically produced energy in 10 years, no jobs going overseas), and get a number. Then they’re going to set that number next to Obama’s promise to cut taxes for pretty much all working Americans, and they’re going to say that it’s just not possible. This is going to be at the core of the attacks against Obama between now and November. It’s a strong line of attack because it is not personal, it is not based on emotion, and it is quantifiable. Everyone can see that this huge number can’t be obtained without doing the opposite of Obama’s promise, and raising taxes. Republicans are going to try to make this as simple and easy for people to see as possible.
2. On keeping jobs in America - Obama plans to do this by eliminating tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas, and giving tax breaks to corporations that do not. Republicans will say that problem with that line of thinking is that corporations already enjoy enormous tax breaks just for being corporations, and in cases where jobs are going to Asia and the Indian Subcontinent, you could eliminate taxes for those corporations altogether, and it would still be cheaper to ship the jobs overseas because of currency exchange rates, lower or nonexistent minimum wage rules, and the absence of occupational safety and environmental regulations. Republicans are going to say it is always going to be cheaper to employ people in India than the US, no matter how you tweak the tax code.
3. Ending dependence on foreign oil in ten years. Republicans are going to say that this is an unrealistic goal, and they are going to be right. There is no way we can even come close to this goal.
4. On the environment, Obama walks a slippery slope. On the one hand, he is promising clean, renewable energy in to replace foreign oil in ten years, but none of the things he suggests to replace it are realistic and/or palatable to the environmental lobby. For example, Obama cited wind, solar, and nuclear power as ways we can pollute less and use domestic energy. Republicans are going to say that wind and solar power, being dependent on the weather, are unpredictable sources of power that can never be used on a large scale (a solar or wind plant might make 2 megawatts today and 15 tomorrow, making it impossible for engineers to plan for the needs of the grid). That leaves nuclear power, which is prohibitively expensive because of the lobbying efforts of the very environmental organizations Obama is trying to swoon. Groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have been against nuclear power for several decades, and their efforts have caused the cost of building and operating a nuclear plant to exceed what it is able to sell electricity for. Most companies who own nuclear plants want very badly to get rid of them for this reason; they are money pits. If he moves to loosen regulation to make nuclear power profitable, he will raise the ire of the environmental bloc. He has very much painted himself into a corner on energy policy and left himself so vulnerable to attack that the Republicans won’t need to attack him here - the Greenpeace will do it for them.
5. On the general accusations that John McCain is out of touch with the average american, I think the speech went a little too far. The strategy of trying to twist McCain’s greater experience around and turn it into a liability can very easily backfire on him. At one point Obama suggests that the last 30 years have not been that great, and McCain has been around for 26 of those years; but he also says that the Clinton years were virtually utopian. McCain was around during that time, too. McCain is going to remind us of this during his campaign. I also think that most folks believe all politicians are “out of touch” to some degree, witness Dr. Taylor’s earlier post on elitist candidates. I don’t think this is an effective line of attack. It’s just personal he-said, she-said, which can go in both directions. And it will.
6. Obama’s characterization of the Clinton years as utopian. Republicans are going to say that the economic policies of the 90’s created the unstable bubble economies that have ruptured in recent years, and tell us that it was in the Clinton years that many of the irresponsible financial practices that are now widespread really took root and grew.
Also along this vein, the Republicans are going to remind us that Afghanistan became a refuge to Al Qaida during the Clinton years; that Osama Bin Laden was in our sights multiple times during the Clinton administration and the administration failed to take decisive action to get him; and that when the Clinton administration did use military force, it was disastrous and ill-conceived (Somalia). Republicans are going to say that the Clinton years were not the blissful image of peace and prosperity that Obama painted them as. Republicans are going to criticize the Clinton years as a period where America failed repeatedly to assert itself against terrorist organizations and bully states. This will also be a strong line of attack because it can be backed up with facts from history that is recent enough for people to remember. Republicans are going to say that if we roll back to Clintonian policy, we will create a world where our enemies are stronger, bolder, and more aggressive. This will be an effective line of attack because it will frighten people.
Overall, for what it was (an acceptance speech) I give it an A-. Obama did what he needed to do - ignited and unified his core. It’s not an A or an A+ because the specific suggestions he made are easy to assail, and he left himself vulnerable to very strong lines of criticism (the strongest of which, I think, will be the numbers game that I cited as #1).