Hmmm...to quote Jigga, "he's alright, but he's not real." I just didn't get much emotion of his speech. Love the points, but I didn't feel much electricity. He got better toward the end. Picked up some steam. Tell me I'm wrong people. I'd love to hear why.
UPDATE: Maddow just went ballistic, but I think she nailed it. That was a speech that offended no one, but probably earned no votes.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'd like him better if he were speaking about the creepiness of too much botox.
Looked fine to me. Built up nicely to a strong finish, made some good points. Damn sight better than Sebelius the Somnifier.
you are right.
i hate to be age-ist but i think passion in a political speech is inversely proportional to age. by that analysis michelle's speech would be second best (after obie won: isn't he younger than her?).
No, you are exactly right. The guy is super stale.
You are right. Even the finish was emotionally lackluster.
Yeah, I thought the speech itself had some fine lines, but his delivery was lousy. Picture Biden giving the same speech.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The entire time I heard the speech I kept thinking, "Yes, good point." I found the speech very cerebral (perhaps at least in delivery), and lacking in the emotion/passion to allow people to connect to the message.
Strickland is pretty sucky, too. I think I heard him saying "there's no speech!", referring to the teleprompter I suppose.
I never thought I say this but I just wish Hillary Clinton would speak already.
At the end of the day Warner is running for senate from Virginia. He has a moderate record and he is not going to risk that even if he should.
You are so right. Watching all these people affirms my joy that Obama picked Biden. They are putting me to sleep.
MSNBC is ripping Warner as well. But you know, he is a Democrat and extremely popular in Virginia. He is a manifestation of the post-partisanship that Obama's rhetoric points toward.
So many of my fellow Dems and the pundits are out for blood and seem to think that excitement and negativity are the same thing. I mean, one of the major pieces of post-partisanship is that you will often speak respectfully of people--or at least avoid trashing them--who are not liberal Democratic activists.
Maybe post-partisanship is just boring.
I like Casey more, only for his 'four more months' and 'thats a sidekick line.' Give me a no must no fuss punchline I can post around the internets!
Finished strong, but man, what a lame opening few minutes. I guess he's a problem-solver and pragmatic governor, but not exactly cut out for the whole speaking thing. Maybe I'm spoiled because the only other "keynote" address I've ever really heard was Obama's. But that wasn't rousing.
Why not Jim Webb instead? A real, eloquent speaker.
As a side note, am I the only one watching the convention online? Surprisingly high-quality stream here: http://gallery1.demconvention.com/ Looks great even in full screen.
It let's me chill by laying on my couch with my laptop. I guess I could pay for basic cable...
This is what drives me crazy - and how the cable news coverage ultimately fails...
As Olbermann, Maddow, etc. are tearing down Warner for not being an attack dog, and how the convention isn't going on the attack, Gov. Deval Patrick is attacking McCain on education. *But* MSNBC isn't showing him taking on McCain, because they're too busy talking about how the Dems aren't taking on McCain...
Thank goodness for CSPAN.
Mark Warner was supposed to be the next big thing in Democratic politics---until a guy by the name of Barack Obama showed up. Maybe this safe speech was a way of hedging his bets in case Obama sucks wind in November.
You're right - Warner sucked. I thought he picked up a bit of steam at the end - but to be honest I think the flatness of the convention thus far is kinda the Obama team's fault. If you've ever seen Warner deliver a speech, you'd know that's about what he's capable of and he's not an attack dog.
Makes me think this convention was never really set up to be the crazy partisan environment we'll see at the GOP next week - and perhaps that fits with Obama's overall style too. But for the partisans, I think we get a little wistful that we had one mean old bastard in our party who is unafraid to light the GOP up at least once. Throw a freakin' punch, act like you want it a little.
(ps: Schweitzer was actually pretty good...)
Hmm. Nice point PhillyG. Obama has been a counterpuncher all the way through the campaign.... Not only that, but some of these counterpunches he has been waiting for...
"See those crazy Republicans, this is exactly the kind of divisive politics I have been talking about all campaign.... and, what do you know, McCain didn't have the courage or the honor to tamp it down...."
Is he looking for an opportunity for "there you go again?"
Really? I thought his delivery was stiff at some points, but he evoked some very powerful ideas, particularly the part about America's opportunities in a new economy and the bit about China going for gold. I thought he had a few good anti-Bush lines--"we'll have an administration that believes in science"--and he offered more substance than many other speakers. I'd say he gets at least an A-, especially if we're grading on a curve.
I think he's an excellent speaker in style and polish and weaves important ideas together in ways that show how they matter to regular people. He was rightfully seen as the future of the party; right now it's looking like he'll always be that. But I would have listened to much more of what he had to say, I had no idea he was that excellent a communicator, and had he run he would have given Barack Obama a run for his money to win my vote.
I'd advise all the Mark Warner folks to find another political standard-bearer. Warner hasn't got it; he's Gore 2.0. Schweitzer, on the other hand........
Warner will be fine as a senator, and was a very effective governor. But he wasn't exactly known for his public speaking skills before the keynote speech. It was a baffling choice for a keynote speaker. He isn't exactly the person who you want to set the tone for the convention.
Have to agree with bperk. Warner's career has not been in politics but business. He was very effective as governor of Virginia (where I live), but I wouldn't have chosen him as a keynote speaker. Props to him, though, for agreeing to take on the job. How could anyone hope to top Barack's keynote from four years ago.
My only knock on Warner: he name one of his daughters Madison.
I think you all are missing the point. I hear everyone screaming that people are not bashing Bush and McCain enough in the Democratic convention. The Maddow rants are a great example.
Thats what diehard democrats want to hear maybe. But aren't they going to vote for Obama anyway. As an informed independent though, telling me Bush was bad and McCain has voted similar to (i.e. agrees with the policies of) Bush is not news.
As a matter of fact, hearing a less than liberal democrat like Warner actually was refreshing and somewhat vote swaying. Listening to Kennedy, Clinton and gang, bang away at the Republicans and exhaulting in saving everyone and everything under the sun from the evils of society only makes me think of one thing -- How much more money is the government going to tax away from my daughters education fund and steer toward social welfare and revised plans for social engineering.
To me Warner was saying we can be smart, choose our battles wisely, be inventive and entreprenurial and ask for sacrifice from everyone (instead of just taxing the wealthy to fund these solutions). While that may not fill the "I told you republicans were wrong (look at their recent record) democrats policies obviously work better" needs that seems to be prevalant in many of the democrats I know, Warner is plenty comforting to an independent like me.
Steering the country back to liberal policies from the "conservative" Bush years will only lead to more of the same waste (although be it potentially affecting a different set of people). The country does not need this and this is the reluctant appeal of Obama. Independents like me truly want a different direction ... and thats not a 180 back to Kennedy and Clinton type liberalism (the fear of Obama), its more in the direction of Warner and his much criticized speech (the hope of Obama).
In summary, the more democrats I see like Warner and the less like Clinton and Kennedy, the greater the chance my swing state vote makes it into the Democratic column (because the more I associate Obama with middle ground policies in lieu of left ones).
After watching Wednesday night's proceedings, I think Tom nailed it.
This convention is all about getting all the Hillary Dems back into the fold and presenting a nice, cheery, acceptable alternative family oriented face for the few informed fence sitting independents (like Tom), and the greater number of conservative independents who voted twice for Bush and now feel remorse.
Oh, and for those Chafee type GOPers who feel remorse about allowing their party to be taken over by Rove and Cheney.
The Obama camp strategy is obviously to go light on the big body slams on McCain & the GOP and just try not to look too much like the nasty scary lefty Dems that will frighten away these groups. The Obama brain trust likely figures they have the votes with the registered Dems and just have to pull in enough of these normally McCain type voters to carry the day.
Not particularly satisfying for Dems who want the red meat, and risky but calculated to win.
I'm sure they'd also like for Biden to push McCain's buttons so the GOP nomminee lets loose with a few F-bombs in front of a live camera/audience or maybe calls a persistent female reporter by a less than pleasant slang anatomic term.
I wonder if Obama will start wearing colorful sweaters on the campaign trail when the autumn air turns cooler?
Stay tuned as they say.