See my three DNC posts for details. I agree with you that the speech was very good, I just thought in terms of what they needed to do for themselves, Hillary and Bill hit homeruns. I called Obama’s a double, in which he reached third on an error (several errors, in fact…)

* Based on what I’ve heard about GHWB in the last eight years, the first reason why you won’t see him on a convention stage is because he disapproves of what W has done as president, and doesn’t have the political chops to effectively fake it. The second is that, regardless of whether you believe that W buys into the Oedipal Destruction Myth, the Republicans certainly do.

* So was Ronald Reagan. Once. ISBS LOL line of the year.

* The current Republican party will have to completely implode upon itself before Giuliani will ever be anything more than a pet attack dog. For the vast wing of the party that will require triple doses of Xanax before voting McCain, there aren’t sufficient pharmaceuticals on the planet to get them to vote for Guiliani.

* I wonder: if they felt they needed a woman to be vice-president, why did no one consider Cindy McCain? Aside from the general mind-bendingness of the concept, the 12th Amendment requires the Prez and VP picks to be from different states. Granted, with seven homes, this was doable. Cf. “Dick Cheney doesn’t really live in Texas” in 2000.

* I’m personally flabbergasted that anyone thinks that Obama’s speech was “anticlimactic.” I thought most of it was excellent, and the exceptions were the parts that gave me chills. Last time I remember having a similar contemporary political sensation was 1992; usually when I need a dose of that, I’m turning to historical speeches.