If viewers thought Democrats might tuck in their tails and run away from the president’s record, they were mistaken. The speakers gave full-throated, bare-fanged defenses of Barack Obama — rattling off hours of his accomplishments — and they used that record to draw a stark distinction with the plans of Mitt Romney, whom they attacked with unfettered ferocity.those are the words of Charles M. Blow of the New york Times in this piece, which like all of Blow's work, is well worth your time to read.
The Democrats came to the party ready for a fight.
For those who are younger than geezers like me (I am 66), the title is the clear reference to a 1958 movie of that title, starring Sydney Poitier and Tony Curtis as two escaped prisoners originally chained to one another, one black, the other a white racist. Both of them were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, both of whom won other awards. At the end of the film the character played by Poitier makes it on to a train, but when he cannot lift Curtis up with him, rather than escape, leaves the train and is holding his now friend when the sheriff catches up with them. Their bond is developed by learning that to survive they have to cooperate with one another. Given the history of the 2008 primaries, the title is a very interesting reference - to ensure re-election, Obama needs the visible and vocal support of Bill Clinton. To guarantee his own legacy, Bill Clinton needs Barack Obama to be re-elected, hopefully with Democratic control of both chambers of the United States Congress.
Please keep reading.
This piece is not just a summary of last night. It covers speeches on the first two days of the Democratic Convention. He quotes from Deval Patrick and Bill Clinton, and offers an analysis of Michelle Obama's speech. He writes of her
To soften the first night it took the first lady, who, in dulcet tones but to devastating effect, delivered an exquisitely crafted speech that linked her personal love for her husband to devout Democrats’ endless love affair with both of them. And her speech did something that Ann Romney’s failed to do: it gave listeners an inside look at how her husband approached problems and worked through them.and follows that by saying of Clinton that he
wrapped the evening up as only he could: delivering a wonky speech with the passion of a southern preacher and keeping the crowd rapt the whole way through.and adds
Whatever Clinton’s faults, oration is his gift. No speaker at the Republican National Convention even came close.Blow does not conclude whether or not the speeches so far will win converts from the Republicans, but notes that they will 'stiffen loyalists' spins" which in a severely divided electorate may be all that is needed.
Of course, we have not yet heard the President, whose words tonight can really seal the deal for his reelection to a point that absent something over which he has no control (a total meltdown of the Euro zone, for example) or a real disaster in the debates (not realistic) can lock down the 270 electoral votes necessary for his re-election.
Read the Blow piece. In fact, you should read all of Charles Blow's pieces, because he is that good a writer, that perceptive an observer, that good an analyst.
I did not see Blow referenced in the Pundit roundup.
I thought people should read his words.
Hence this post.