I always hated that "turn the page" phrase. It was terrible and I hope Obama never uses it again.  

I think that Obama had a great speech but Edwards was the best of the night.

Obama had the best placement and so the buzz is at the end.

Also I kept hearing Obama echo Edwards themes.  Nonetheless I really liked his speech
and looked at both again this morning and Edwards is still the better one in my opinion.  

It is reassuring to note that Senator Obama's speech was received in the spirit in which it was intended, as not only a compelling case for his candidacy but a rallying point for the Democratic party.  My favourite bit was this:

This party - the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy - has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose - a higher purpose.  And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that's the party America needs us to be right now.

Senator Barack Obama - 10 Nov 07

A very definitive call for renewal of traditional Democratic values which we are arguably otherwise willing to spurn for the sake of victory.  Well, not in Obama's vision for the Democratic party, or mine either.  Acting like Democrats is a winning strategy.

I am feeling uplifted by the positive news and blog reports.

I don't see how anybody can believe in somebody with no experience, no record, no ideas and no substance who campaigns solely on the basis of one "judgment" he was too uninformed and unimportant to make, but that's just me.

using Clinton's weakness as an argument against her and for himself, which is something John Edwards, for all of his hard hitting rhetoric against Clinton, has failed as yet to do.

I think Edwards is making an argument for himself, not just against Hillary. He has a long history of taking on big corporations, and he has a long history of not taking money from DC lobbyists. When he gets to the part of his stump speech about how to get the big change we need in Washington, he does make a case for himself.

When that misjudgement cost over 3000 American lives, tens of thousands of others' lives and a wrecked economy, it pretty significant. The dead (unlike Senators) don't get a second chance to make things right.

It would have been a better speech if he had delivered it at a Republican dinner:

a) Democrats are corrupt

b) Democrats are neocons

c) The last Democratic Presidency was a failed administration.

Republicans would have eaten that stuff up.

others Dem's use Republican slurs like "triangulate". It's great you and David love this stuff, but I was much more moved by Hillary, Edwards and even Richardson's speech.  They really defined what it is to be a Democrat.

you are moved by Rchardson ouhhhhh? may be because he has become the mouth piece of Clinton.

It seems to me most of the time Yepsen's analysis has been wrong consistently and he obviously has no great love for Clinton , so I don't know why most people take Yepsen's word as gospel.

Obama's speech didn't cut it for me , he basically attacked both Clinton's and the 90's , nothing much in there for me.

Edwards/Clinton had better speeches . He drew the best spot of the night and he failed to make the best use of it .

So I really don't bother myself with what Yepsen syas.

I agree with Todd.

This was , by far , Barack Obamas best speech and it was so perfectly balanced that he managed to draw distinctions between himself and his rivals, attack the Republican opposition and still maintain a unifying message overall. Why? Because he does not generalize groups. He specifically targets and addresses who's causing the problems in both parties. Examples of NOT generalizing.

Obama rejects the Clinton's polarizing politics of the 1990's - not the entire generation that they are a part of.

Obama will take on Bush Republicans - not attack and discourage fellow citizens who are registered Republicans from voting for him.

Obama rejects cowardly Democrats who vote like Bush Republicans- not the entire Democratic Party.

That's how you address things. Not by triangulation and polarizing rhetoric because you alienate people who would have been open to you and open to the Democratic Party as a whole.

You can't tell someone that they are nothing but a ruthless POS and then after the Primaries , ask them for their vote. You wont get their vote and you wont unite them. Obama doesn't do that which is why he has swarms of Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans switching parties to vote for him and caucus for him.

...Obama was great on Meet the Press... Russert didn't lay a glove on him...

Aren't you an avowed Obama backer, Todd? If so, seems like that might be something worth mentioning in a post that's basically your largely unsupported opinion that Obama rocked. Y'know, full disclosure and all that. I mean, when I write a pro-Edwards diary I generally try to make a point of noting that I'm already an Edwards backer. Seems like it might behoove you to do something similar (assuming I'm remembering correctly about you being an Obama backer, of course).

Obama rocked at the JJ dinner.  Yepsin confirms that.  

I felt that Obama and Edwards shared the night, but that's just me.  

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11325.php

From the above link, by Jeff Dinelli: The Left Coaster

Last week I noticed locals inviting people to sign up for a November 10th bus trip to Iowa. It was a puzzling idea, since the University of Illinois football team wasn't playing in Iowa yesterday (they actually played at number one ranked Ohio State, a game in which they somehow won). Someone told me it was "some kind of a political trip," so I called around to a couple of Democratic offices and found out it was a Barack Obama supporter trip to the Jefferson Jackson fundraiser in Des Moines. The busses were coming from Chicago, and I live on I-80, so they were hoping to fill up seats on the way. I probably should have jumped on board, but the price was a little steep, and truthfully I'd rather hang with my kids than a bunch of Chicago political insiders.

So when the esteemed David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register declared Obama the winner in part for a speech that "inspired the crowd like no other," it was no suprise, really. Joe Biden called it what it was when he hit the stage, saying "Hello, Iowa" and then waving at the section of Veterans Memorial Auditorium packed with the Obama supporters and shouting, "Hello, Chicago!"

In fact, Obama's speech wasn't any different than any other he has offered over the past couple of years. "I was against the Iraq war from the start," "There is no Blue State and no Red State," etc. Anyway, one gets the feeling that Obama could stand in front of a mic and read the Des Moines phone book and Yepsen would be tripping over himself trying to find his thesaurus to best describe how inspiring a speech the senator had delivered.

Headlines across the nation speak only of Obama and Hillary Clinton, who took her share of shots on this night, but attempted to turn the discussion toward Republicans and the White House. "I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America," Clinton said. "And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans. They deserve all the heat we can give them."

Indeed. We really can't afford to lose this one. Four more years of these vengeful half-bright rich boys in the White House will drive a whole generation out of politics. It's time to win, and the hell with heroes on white horses, they can ride mules or Harley-Davidsons for all I care. We're talking about winning.

Oh just don your white hoods already.

Let's get this Social Security proposal straight: he proposes raising the cap, maybe with a "doughnut hole." Right now, if you make over 100K, you pay nothing on the excess. The rest of us pay on our entire income. Just a small adjustment to the cap will shore up Social Security for generations. It's fair and the vast majority will no change in their tax rate.

Otherwise, I think it was a brilliant speech. I liked Edwards speech, but it's too late for him. If wanted to be a populist firebrand, he should've done that in 2004 and while he was in the Senate.

Not that you're interested in the facts but the one trillion figure is for no cap, which is not what Obama is proposing.  But it is the rhetorical hand grenade which Hillary lobbed into the fray recently with the intention of arousing the fears and prejudices of the less-informed part of the electorate.  From your reaction she was apparently on to something.  Fancy that.  Or are you just selling us a pup?

Only Obama wants to raise taxes Hillary, Edwards and the other candidate who are real Democrats do not want to do this.  Obama is an amateur who would like to put President on his resume but he is clueless about solving the problems of average Americans.  Don't give up our party give up Obama.  

It didn't sound like he sprang anything new.

While Yepsin may have said it was the best, remarkable seems like a stretch.   The reviews I read of all the candidates speeched previous to your seems pretty ho hum.

Brilliant, my ass, especially if he's still saying stuff like this:

I am running for president because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.

I don't give a shit he's calling out Hillary Clinton.  He can find a more creative way to do that without running against the Democratic Party.  He's been criticising them even before he officially declared.  

Hard to say he wants to lead the United States of America and sing kumbayah about how he loves being a Democrat when he never gave a damn about the party to begin with.

Page 1, Washington Post, Monday

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101732. html?hpid=topnews

I concur with the Senator Obama detractors.  I believe his behavior is often naive, if not childish.  

Anointed by the MSM early on (the MSM lives to hate the Clintons, which is why the former Mayor of New York, hated by much of his own city, and with an indicted former Police Chief as a best friend, remains, after all, their true candidate), Senator Obama behaves as though he is a change candidate.

His autobiography THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, ceaselessly argues that both the Clintons and Bushes are equally the problem.  In that sense, many bloggers are silly in their passion for Obama.

In truth, the Clintons left the White House in a time of both peace and prosperity.  Then Vice-president Al Gore (now a deserved Nobel Peace Prize winner) was the most environmentally conscientious high official in United States history.

It was the Clinton plan (as explained by former FED Chairperson and lifelong Republican Alan Greenspan) which, while costing the Democrats the Congress in 1994, precipitated that long reign of peace and prosperity.  It was a plan that required a delicate middle road between Democratic protectionism and the GOP's affinity for enriching the rich and leaving everyone else behind.

Only one of both the brilliance and political mastery of Bill Clinton could have finessed it.

For that effort, he received no accolades from the MSM, nor even for his peace initiatives from Ireland to the Middle East.  While much of the world adored him, the MSM at home continued to loathe him, his wife, and indeed his whole administration.

This explains why the MSM fueled the flames which culminated in his impeachment, the only popularly elected president to be impeached.  The MSM treated the Clintons as though they were criminals.  Did they kill Vince Foster?  Did they cheat through the Rose Lawn firm?  Was their marriage mysteriously open?

For all their remaining years in the Clinton White House, the MSM drove the Ken Starr inquisition.  At the end of the Inquisition, with mega-millions spent and a dragnet that searched as far as the Clintons ever breathed, virtually nothing was found to implicate them on any charge, however absurd.

Of course there were no apologies. The MSM continued its hate-the-Clintos path.  They argued that Hillary Clinton could never win as a New York Senator.  Yet she did win, and won again, both times decisively, and maintains high approval there.

They argued that former President Bill Clinton could never have his reputation rehabilitated.  Yet he left the presidency with sky-high 70-plus percent approval and is today, through his Global Initiative, the most popular politician in the world.

Today the MSM and many bloggers both fawn over Senator Obama, because, of course, he is very obviously not with the Clintons.  Senator Obama's own often ridiculous ineptitude, double-speak, missed votes, and hypocracies, are simply glossed over.  And the cardinal fact that he is clearly not experienced enough to be President matters to them not at all.

If a Hillary Clinton staffer plants a question, the hammering of the Clinton campaign never ceases.  Likewise, if a waitress hadn't received a tip on time, then, by Jove, Senator Clinton is to be excoriated.

But if lobbyists for former Senator John Edwards and Senator Obama are unseemly; if Senator Obama misses the very vote on Iran by which he would condemn Senator Clinton for her vote cast--why,
expect from the MSM the kid-gloves treatment for all who oppose the Clintons.

Today we find that former Mayor Giuliani, who would govern the nation as "America's Mayor," is detested in his own city.  And we find that his #1 police officer and best friend has been indicted.  If these two points unto themselves do not instantly disqualify Giuliani, then certainly the fact that he worships at the altar of GWB, widely acknowledged to be the worst of all possible United States presidents, should.

But the MSM, led by the Clinton-hating venom-spewing Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, and their merry gang, simply must prevent another Clinton from entering the White House.

Much of the world pines for a return to those golden years.  But not so the MSM and Obama and Edwards folk--no indeed.

They have so long hated the Clintons, they would have the public deny what they themselves lived through.  But peace and prosperity did happen for most of those years, and progress was made on many fronts, international and domestic.

The Obama folk, and their fans in the blogosphere, would have you "turn a page."  But turn a paqe toward what, and away from what?

They offer you some murky analysis; they offer no specifics.  

Indeed, they argue along the same lines that candidate GWB argued in 2000--he was "folksy" to the MSM (even to Oprah Winfrey, whose softening of his image on her program dangerously made him palatable to a larger segment of the public, not realizing what a Reign of Terror he would preside over), whereas Al Gore was stiff, and a would-be Alpha-Male.

The MSM bloggers would have you believe that Edwards and Obama gave passionate speeches before the Jefferson-Jackson Day gathering in Iowa.  In truth, their speeches were not so thinly veiled swipes at the Clintons.  

As such, they were not uniters, but leathal dividers--very good fodder for the GOP and their sympathizers in the MSM.

I once admired the passion of both Senator and Mrs. Edwards; I once equally admired the intelligence and rhetoric of Senator Obama.  

Today I know I speak for many of my fellow Clinton supporters (indeed much of the nation) when I comment that I could not now support either of these candidates.

In their zeal to destroy the Clintons they have made a mockery of the Democratic Party itself.  

The Republicans have nothing but hero-worship for Ronald Reagan, who presided over huge deficits and the Iran-Contra War by which hundreds of thousands were victims of genocide, and who even denied the existence of AIDS.

From FDR onward, only one Democrat wes successful in obtaining two terms in the White House.  Only one Democrat presided over a reign of peace and prosperity.  Only one Democrat showed his fellow Democrats how to break the Republican lock on the White House, and how to withstand the barbs the GOP would throw.

Former President Bill Clinton taught us how to succeed, and how to endure.  Now Senator Hillary Clinton was an inextricable part of that success and endurance.

If thirty-five years as an advocate for children's rights, universal health care, fiscal responsibility, and global crusading does not now qualify her for the presidency, then no one else is, or perhaps ever was, similarly qualified.

Unlike candidates Edwards and Obama, who talk the talk, the Clintons have walked the walk.  Millions of Americans like myself know what we lived through.

We, and much of the rest of the world, want that page turned backward--desperately.  The United States is nearly in shambles.  Its very existence demands Senator Clinton's experience, and knowledge of how to both endure and succeed.

If the United States is to endure and succeed, then the MSM and their fellow Clinton-haters in the blogosphere, must fail.

I really don't get what all the fuss is about. I thought Obama's J-J-Speech, delivered in that distinctly untrendy subwoofer senatorial voice, lacked focus and was totally self-absorbed and unwieldly. In his zeal to whack Hillary, he is losing sight of the voters needs. Not once did he distinctly lay out his program or try to overlay or weave it into the speech. Frankly, with his tired criticism of the Democrats, Obama sounded more like a pundit, a better educated Tim Russert or Chris Matthews. Obama summed up his entire reason for running as follows:

"I am running for president because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans."--Obama

That's it? That's why he wants to run this clunking great declining superpower which has sprung more leaks to its economy, not to mention the increasingly fragile condition of the health and welfare of its people?  And all he wants to do is to rearrange the "image" of  Democrats vis-a-vis George Bush? Even Dennis Kucinich has a more cogent sense of the country's urgent needs than this. Golly gosh, Obama is "sick and tired." Boy that will scare those thuggish little Republicans silly! You can just see the puditocracy's favorite new comic, Guiliani, taking a riff off of that.

Obama's language and mindset is that of our effete, coddled, urbane, pundit class (no wonder they like him). He talks like someone who is completely at home in the rarefied hot air of the MSNBC Green Room and is not coming out any time soon. "I'm sick and tired" says Mr. Obama. Well, safe to say, your average voter doesn't have the luxury of being "sick and tired," things are a good deal more desperate than that. But not to worry, only believe, have faith in Obama, we are told. He only has to speak and it will be. The  oceans will part and people everywhere will worship America once again. How do I know? Because I've been told by pundits like Jepsen Sullivan and Mica Breszinki.