Discourse.net

Apparently you are wrong about the moment-of-history thing. The media this morning is all about the sports event of who is the McCain VP pick and the disciplined way he had misdirected them. Obviously Obama's speech should have mentioned some media surprise for this morning, like a super special celebrity guest on the stump (Kobe Bryant? Dakota Fanning?) so that his own sports moment, some speech, would have had a half life of more than an evening. We would then at least have a graphic of Dakota Fanning on our TVs this morning with running negative factoids about her (Kathy Griffith set off a firestorm when she suggested at Oscars that Fanning was in rehab), and some analysis of whether that would help to blue out either of the dakotan states or the building in NYC. Wait, now they are at least mentioning Obama's speech and the compartment they have decided to use is that it was an MLK moment, and interviewing black people on what it meant to them in light of King, this way we don't have to also take it seriously as a real speech by a real candidate for real office because it is really just an achievement that he got this far--you know, the sports analogy to Rocky I that he is going to be an admirable loser in the general, it says something great for America that he got this far, but of course let's not discuss the substance of his speech or even the possibility of his presidency. I guess we will need President Palmer from 24 to sell that image.

It was a great speech. I wonder if it could have possibly isolated the majority segment though, or a small slice of it? It seems to me that Obama was born with the black vote. His job, in my mind, is to pull in the white vote. It's sad that this even has to be considered, but true. Great speech none the less.

I was here in Denver visiting family during the convention. Thankfully, Dobson's and other Christian crazies' prayers for severe storms during Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco weren't answered.