1. In a setting resembling Mt. Olympus, this is the speech in which Barack Obama decided to come down from the mountaintop. Understanding that his uplifting but empty rhetoric no long works, Obama gave a speech that was, in its conceit, politically intelligent, aggressive, at times misleading, and, as promised, largely workmanlike. Obama looked in command of himself and of the moment, delivering the address with self-assurance and ease.
The press reviews, not surprisingly, have been overwhelmingly positive. CNN’s David Gergen declared it to be a “political masterpiece.” He even went so far as to say it was more than a speech; it was, Gergen declared, a “symphony.” Over at MSNBC, thrills seemed to be going up both of Chris Matthews’s legs and throughout Keith Olbermann’s entire body.
In the short term, the speech will help Obama. But its positive effects may be evanescent. And it’s possible that it might, in some important respects, prove to be counterproductive. The Obama of last night was, in important ways, quite different and far more conventional than Obama of four years ago and even of six months ago.
2. In this speech, Senator Obama wanted to define, in a concrete way, what change means. That is why his speech resembled, in many respects, a State of the Union address. It was programmatic, wide-ranging, undisciplined, and without a captivating theme. It came across to me as a series of poll-tested policies, each one given equal billing and equal priority (meaning no priority). And what he said was often at odds with Obama’s past statements and legislative record.
One came away from this section of the speech feeling as though Obama was in favor of everything and committed to nothing. And for Obama to talk about “tough choices” and state his eagerness to eliminate programs, without offering a single program to cut, is a tired rhetorical trick. And with a Democratically-controlled Congress, it is an impossibility.
3. Until now the election has been framed as a referendum on Senator Obama. His intention last night was to turn the tables and make the election about John McCain. Obama’s case against McCain was relentless and at times effective; saying that McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time is a clever way to link McCain to the President and tap into the deep discontent in the country. (Obama failed to mention that while in the Senate he voted with Majority Leader Harry Reid more than 95 percent of the time, and that the Democratic-controlled Congress is significantly less popular than the President. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a five percent chance on change.)
In making his case, Obama came across as forceful. But at other times, he came across as personally affronted, agitated, and even angry. It’s obvious that Senator Obama’s political advisers told him that he needs to come across as “passionate” and that he needs to jettison the detached, cool, professorial demeanor. He clearly did that, and the party faithful gathered at Invesco Field loved it. But for much of the rest of America, I suspect Obama came across as too confrontational, too “hot,” and too cutting. There’s a thin line between looking formidable and looking ticked off, between being fired up and looking fed up, between standing up for yourself and appearing prickly and defensive. On Thursday night, Obama crossed those lines.
4. What last night’s speech demonstrated above all is that the New Politics that was at one time was at the core of his campaign – the belief that Obama would be a unifying, post-partisan, page-turning, bitterness-ending politician – has, like so many other people and positions we once associated with Obama, been thrown under the bus. Obama’s speech was strikingly partisan and at times slashing. Is this what qualifies as “a new politics for a new time”?
And for a man who promised to “transform our political culture” and has portrayed himself as a nuanced thinker and intellectually sophisticated, Obama made some claims that were simply unserious, such as saying that within 10 years America will, under his leadership, finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East; misleading, such as saying that John McCain would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement away; and untrue, such as saying that Senator McCain defines as middle-class someone making under $5 million a year.
Having assured us that he’s not accusing Senator McCain of not caring, Obama went on to say just that, tethering him to a Republican philosophy that Obama described as saying “tough luck” to laid off workers and “you’re on your own” to people born in poverty. He mocked the GOP approach as “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots.”
This is the kind of stale tactics that are not all that uncommon in American politics, but which Obama has promised to completely do away with. There was nothing in this speech to lead one to think that Obama would help us to “find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.” Obama’s speech didn’t bridge any divides with people who hold views different than Obama; it merely deepened them.
5. The most startling thing to emerge from this convention – from speeches about Obama to Obama’s own address – is that there is simply no substantive, compelling case to be made on behalf of Barack Obama. His public record is so thin, his governing achievements so few, and his experience so limited, that Democrats were reduced to making assertions instead of offering arguments on behalf of Obama. He is ready to be president because, well, he’s ready to be president. The examples of him authoring significant legislation, of commanding armies or running companies, of standing for principle when there was a clear cost, of engaging in impressive acts of bi-partisanship, are simply non-existent.
When you get right down to it, then, the case for Barack Obama rests on his words. They are words he uses to make fantastic promises and create moods and emotions. In that sense, the setting for Obama last night was perfect: a huge and adoring crowd, a stage resembling a miniature Greek temple, complete with off-white columns, with music, videos, and a fireworks display that were unlike any we have ever seen at a political convention.
It was theater – impressive and captivating theater for sure, but theater nonetheless. Now politics has always had elements of theater; Ronald Reagan knew that as well as anyone who has ever run for office. But politics has also always been about more, far more, than theater.
Watching Barack Obama deliver his speech last night and in the days to follow, it may begin to hit home with voters, with some force, that they are being asked to entrust the presidency to a man who is as unprepared for the job as any person in our history. What commends him for the most important office in the world are Obama’s words. Sometimes they are elegant, well-crafted, and moving words. But they are still only words.
