This is not about his website, for crying out loud – it’s about the biggest audience he’ll have (with the possible exception of the debates) between now and the election…

What about McCain’s agenda? Not being a “celebrity”? Does that count?

Fargus, no need for apologies, it’s cool…I don’t quite agree with you guys, though, on substance. It’s one thing if all the other speakers are light on substance…but a candidate HAS to have some. Obama must, must, must lay out an agenda. Talking about change is not going to do the trick. We KNOW he is the ‘change’ candidate – now he must define what change is. He can do so in broad terms, and leave the wonkery aside, but the agenda must be there…

I too doubt we will hear any great oratory next week (I won’t be watching either way), it is one of the least common traits among the GOP leadership. But, that fact hasn’t prevented them from winning the white house… Reagan was elected less because of his oratory and more because of his vision – to the extent they are separate – and the contrast with Jimmy Carter’s “malaise”.

It will also be interesting to see if the Democrats can crash the GOP convention in the same manner that the Republicans are crashing this week’s party: setting up a Denver office, getting air time for the attack dogs, creating ads designed to split the other party (will the Dems run ads trying to split McCain from the social conservatives?). In years past, each party traditionally was quiet during the other party’s convention. No longer.

Apologies. I don’t know how I misread your post that badly, and I’m sorry I mischaracterized it. I guess the point about details still stands, and I appreciate that you and Chris have both said that you’ll be critical of the Republicans if they don’t offer any details. But as a practical matter, conventions are about rallying people to the cause, exciting the base, etc. I don’t particularly blame anyone from either party for going light on specifics at a convention when their goal is simply to get people fired up.

What I am looking for are speeches with clear themes and narratives, and which lack obviously false rhetoric. To put it another way, I’m looking for speeches that cut through all of the cognitive dissonance that inevitably surround elections. Present a clear, honest, believable contrast that allows voters to make a choice on your–on Democratic—terms. I have seen some decent speeches so far, but I haven’t seen that.

She did a nice job – which was totally expected – and did what she was supposed to do, also totally expected by me. The talking heads had an interest in spinning the would she or wouldn’t she toe the party line and support the party’s choice, but i never had any doubt…

I, for one, will criticize the RNC speeches if there are no specifics. However, let’s not kid ourselves. This whole race is about Obama. It’s not about John McCain. It’s not about who has the best energy plan. It’s not about the war on terror. It’s not about the economy. I might wish it were about those things, but it isn’t.

It’s about whether or not Obama can convince enough of the voters that he is worthy of their vote. We know his messages resonates with voters. The voters definitely want “change”. And, frankly, I’m thrilled to hear a Democrat talk about “hope” for once. I usually find their speeches very depressing. But, the message hasn’t been enough. Voters still aren’t sure about this man, for whatever reason. Maybe they’re racists. Maybe it’s his lack of experience. Maybe it’s lack of specifics. Maybe it’s that this is the first Democratic ticket in 44 years with no military experience. Maybe it’s because he “has a funny name”. Maybe it’s because he has brown eyes and big ears. I don’t know.

This is why the comparisons with 1980 are apt. Reagan faced similar issues. People really responded to his message of change. But he did give specifics, and he had a bit more experience than Obama, despite being “just an actor”. But they weren’t sure about him. In the end, in the last weeks before the election undecideds broke heavily for Reagan and he won in a landslide.

As long as the number of undecideds remain high, and they’re currently around 10% according to RCP, the race is still about Obama.

And as long as it’s about Obama, Republicans must attack. It’s not the job of Republicans this cycle to convince people to vote for McCain. It’s their job to convince people not to vote for Obama.

I should clarify, btw. I don’t think that 10% undecideds is very high by historical standards. I don’t know what the numbers were in 2004 and 2000 at this point, but I imagine that in 2000 at least it was somewhat higher. But, if the race is a 2 point one, and 10% are undecided, 10% is huge. If you believe that Obama will get 2/3 of the undecideds, then the race moves from a 2 pt race to 5 1/2 points or so. Which would be pretty big.

FWIW, I don’t really approve of the “vote for me because I’m not X” campaigns, and they don’t generally work out well either. Ask John Kerry.