The McCain speech

[tagryn]

full transcript here. I will say that my expectations going in weren't particularly high for this one; McCain historically hasn't done prepared stand-up speeches well, his forte' is the town-hall setting where he's fielding questions from audience members. I was nodding off during the first part, frankly. There were a lot of details on things like the economy, health care, and education (vouchers!) that aren't easy to make interesting. One part that I thought was astonishing, though, was this:

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.

That's a major party's candidate talking to their convention, a more partisan crowd you're not more likely to find, and still calling them to task, saying "we screwed up" and promising to fix things. I can't recall anything like this happening at any political convention, at least in my lifetime.

I don't think McCain is comfortable talking about his experience as a POW and how it changed him; I believe he realizes all too well that many others suffered as well, and many never came back, and so doesn't want to make it sound like what he went through was especially remarkable (even though it is). I'd heard his story told by other POWs, but this is the first time I'd heard him tell it. It was incredibly moving, especially the part when he admitted that he'd broken under the torture, but his fellow prisoners had supported him and lifted him back up.

Other reactions:
* An Undecided Voter Listens to McCain’s Speech
* Professor Bainbridge
* Andrew Sullivan
* An analyst on CNN said it was "one of the worst speeches I've ever heard an national candidate give, probably the worst since Jimmy Carter."

So where does this leave the campaigns? Hard to say. I think after the different convention bounces settle down the polls will remain tied, just as they were before the conventions (how's that for a daring prediction?). Before the past couple of weeks, I thought McCain would put up a good fight, but Obama's natural gifts in oratory would prevail in the end. Now, I'm not at all sure, I think its a definite tossup. There's the general national fatigue with the GOP after eight years of Bush (hence the "Bush III" meme that Obama's campaign has been pushing) vs. the uneasiness with Obama's inexperience. Hard to say how it'll all pan out. I do expect we'll get the usual demonization of both candidates by the other side, since that's what national elections seem to inevitably devolve into nowadays, whereas I think the truth is that the two candidates are basically decent politicians with different visions of how to address the problems facing the nation.

Last point: James Fallows did a follow-up to his insightful '04 analysis of Bush and Kerry's performances in debates with this one of McCain and Obama. That's worth going through for the thoroughness of his research, but the most insightful point I took from that issue came in a separate article on bipartisanship, right at the start where Brownstein writes:

American voters nearly always elect a president who responds to the flaws they have found in his predecessor. Jimmy Carter was more honest than Richard Nixon; Ronald Reagan tougher than Carter; George H.W. Bush “kinder and gentler” than Reagan; Bill Clinton more in touch than Bush; George W. Bush more morally upright in his personal life than Clinton. In November, whether most voters pull the lever for John McCain or for Barack Obama, they’re likely to get a president who’s more competent than Bush.

True, and I think 'competency' is the underlying theme of this election. At some point I'll write a post-mortem on Bush II and explore further why that is, but that's for another day.