Will he dare declare?

[angus]

I don't think he'll request that she end her candidacy or say anything that suggests impatience with the Clinton campaign, although the impatience must surely be real.  I think he will declare victory.  He won't be offensive or impatient with Clinton, and in fact he'll probably talk about what a wonderful, magnanimous person she is and how great her senate record has been on all those things important to progressives, humanitarians, and the other enlightened members of the species.  But he'll basically thank Iowa for the "opportunity" and talk about "faith" and "values" and generally talk about "moving forward" although he may not actually use the word "victory."  In fact, if I were advising him, I'd suggest that he strongly and unambiguously declare victory and focus on the general election campaign, but avoid actually using the word victory (Too militaristic.  It's a Republican's word, really.  Focus on gratitude and humility, I'd advise him.) 

I also think he'll focus on the general election campaign, but only after he's finished with the obligatory show of gratitude and the effervescent nationalism embodied in his claims about how only in America can a one-eyed, freckled, jackrabbit whose mother is from Venus and whose father is from Mars receive a major-party nomination for President.  I think he'll refer to "the Republicans" and the "Bush policies" much more in his speech than to "Senator McCain" since they're both going for the upbeat crowd.  If he does mention McCain by name, it will only be to say what a wonderful, magnanimous, patriotic war-hero he is.  I think Obama will smile quite a bit too.  I really think he should wear the Stevie Ray Vaughan hat.  It offsets his enormous ears, and, quite frankly, he looks sexy in that hat.  Like most Americans, I'm looking for a candidate who looks good in a tank top, smiles quite a bit, talks about "values," and makes me want to have a shot and a beer with him.  If he wears the black hat, I'll be impressed.  If he wears a tank top, he'll win my vote.  If he takes a shot of an American-made grain beverage and chases it with a premium domestic ale such as a Sierra Nevada or Saint Joseph's Ale, then I'll even put up a sign in my window. 

So he'll declare victory by saying "thank you" to all those who "made this nomination possible" and talk about November, but he'll studiously avoid any hint of impatience with Clinton.

[angus]

I love your signature.  Couldn't help thinking of AHduke99's post in the Ron Paul thread when I saw it.  Gives new meaning to the term "obama hack" doesn't it? 



edit:  nevermind.  I'll gloat after it's all over.

[angus]

WaPo on-line front page top led this morning with the following headline:

     "Obama Claims Majority Of Pledged Delegates"

in big font.  Then, in smaller font, a few lines later:

     "McCain assails Obama's readiness."

Then, somewhere way down the page: 

     "Clinton Wins Easily in Kentucky."

So it's obvious that the press still like Democrats a little better than Republicans, and that they like Obama much better than they like Clinton. 

The aforementioned article uses the word "victory" in its second sentence, by the way, but I don't think Obama used it in his speech.  He did use the phrase "John McCain" six times, by my count, and "George Bush" five times.  "Senator Clinton" was uttered only once, as far as I could tell.  "Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age."  I actually liked that line.  It was a touching, artful way of mentioning her gender and the fact that she's a glass ceiling-shatterer.  No mention of her husband, though, whose policies probably went a long way for a black guy to come so far.  Prior to 1992, the word "welfare" was toxic, and pitted whites against blacks just as much as it pitted Democrats against Republicans.  But his welfare reform made the Democrats look a little more determined to deal with the "welfare queens."  Also, crime was a major issue.  The white folks of the late 80s wanted tougher penalties for all sorts of crimes, whereas blacks (and democrats) usually thought of the laws as disproportionately hard on black people.  Especially the death penalty.  But Clinton comes along, and not only vows to put a hundred thousand more cops on the streets nationwide, but also goes out of his way to fly back to Arkansas in the midst of a heated campaign in 1992 to witness the execution of a black man.  How's that for a "new" Democrat?  Turned the tables a bit, he did.  Made the Democrats look tough on welfare, and tough on crime, and therefore appeal to white "working class" folks in many other ways that they hadn't since the early sixties.  So if you're going to mention Hillary, then you also have to mention Bill.  But, oh, wait, he actually didn't use the word "Hillary" but rather "Senator Clinton."  Ah, well, that is a bit of a psychological difference then.

The speech started well, by the way, the the obligatory tribute to Kennedy.  (I'm not a fan, but I suppose those Iowans in attendance were, judging by their applause.)  The key moment was when he said something like, "...in the fullness of spring, with the help of those who stood up from Portland to Louisville, we have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people."  I thought that might be a declaration of victory, but then he tempered it with, "and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America."  That way we can still argue about whether it was truly a declaration of victory.  I say it was such a declaration, but was done in typical Omamaesque style.  He's very particular and very sensitive about his choice of words, and I think the tempering of the declaration was his idea and his idea alone.

Mostly white, mostly "working class," and mostly Democrats, the crowd seemed to like his speech.  Especially when he went after John McCain by comparing his policy positions to Bush over and over.  (four times by my count).  Note that the only other mentions of McCain were praise.  Patriot.  Hero.  That sort of thing.

But it trailed off into irrelevance after that.  And it was a tad short.  Don't you think?  I'd say it was a decent speech, but not one of his best.  A victory speech should be less ambiguous.  maybe he's saving that one for the morning of Wednesday, November 5.

[angus]

"picking iowa"

The phrase puts me in mind of the quote from the Manchester Union Leader just after New Hampshire voters chose Clinton and McCain for their candidates, “In Iowa they pick corn; in New Hampshire they pick presidents.”  You'll recall that a couple of weeks earlier Iowans had chosen Obama and Huckabee.  So the proverbial empty glove has been offered to the face, French style, and it has become a matter of great moral imperative to see that at least one of Iowa's picks goes to the general election. 

When it's all over, if you don't like the choices, then you can blame them for McCain, I suppose, but you can blame us for Obama.  I voted for Ron Paul, of course, but I have long admitted that Obama was my second choice after Paul, and I have been personally rooting for him for about a year now.  So I guess I'm a typical Iowa resident in the sense that I really want to see him win his party's nomination. 

Picking Iowa.  Picking corn.  Picking cotton.  Picking a fight.  Picking my underwear from my between my cheeks.  Picking my nose.  It's a very provocative word, don't you think?

And I'll concede that it wasn't a "victory speech" but I still say that in the speech he declared that he was victorious in achieving one of his goals.  I really think the next battle comes in November, and that this one is settled.