A Hill aide points out this Seattle Times article, which reports that Democratic congressman Brian Baird is still a pariah in his own party for deciding to back the surge last August:

Brian Baird was lonely enough back when all his Democratic friends thought he was wrong.

But now that it appears he was right — that the Iraq war was going better, as he claimed, and President Bush's troop surge was working — the Southwest Washington congressman is even more of an outcast.

Now nobody much wants to talk to him about Iraq at all.

"After all that extraordinary outrage directed at me, not one person has called me up and said 'Hey, Brian, it looks like you might have had a point after all,' " said Baird, in Denver for his party's national convention this week.

"We say Bush is so blinded by ideology that he ignores the facts in the real world, and that's true," Baird said. "Aren't we doing the same thing? We're being just like Bush."

Baird touched off a furor last August when he effectively switched from the anti-war side by coming out in support of the troop buildup, which Democrats almost universally were trying to block.

I went down to Vancouver last summer to see Baird explain himself to his angry constituents. It was, I wrote, "one of the most severe tongue-lashings I've ever seen administered to a public official, at least face to face."

Six hundred people — from veterans to teachers, from a Columbia River boat captain to a lady who plays bagpipes at soldier funerals — spent nearly four hours calling Baird a sellout, Bush's lap dog, a neocon pet. Some told him to resign.

For all the grief he's taken, it's surprising that Baird is offering sound advice to his colleagues:

"We ought to just say that it worked. People were understandably skeptical of the administration at the time. But we have to acknowledge reality. Do you stay with a political position because it's popular even if it doesn't square with the facts?"

Baird's view is that if "the people in our party advocating for an immediate withdrawal of troops last year had gotten their way, it would have been disastrous for the U.S."

The McCain campaign has some wardrobe recommendations for those of us going to Invesco Field tomorrow.

Denver
After visiting the Manifest Hope gallery, I did a dispatch with tons of pictures of the new Obama iconography. Some of it has to be seen to be believed.

I was so moved by the change and the hope, that I dropped $20 on an Obama T-shirt:

As you can see, this is more of an Old Testament Obama, watching over His people in stern judgment.

Charles Krauthammer and others have noted the odd grandiosity of Obama's creation of a miniature Greek temple for the backdrop of his acceptance speech tomorrow.

But it seems to me that what Obama is likely trying to do is not suggest an Olympian setting, but rather to invoke the Lincoln Memorial, putting himself in MLK's place since we're marking the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream Speech."

This would be perfectly in keeping with Obama's modus operandi, which is to consistently invoke the words or symbols of other leaders instead of creating his own.

Here's Dave Barry on Joe Biden:

"The transformation of Joe Biden is one of the best story lines at this convention. A week ago, people would sprint from the room when Joe entered for fear he would start a sentence that might not end until Halloween. Now, suddenly, he is a towering stud muffin of charisma. His every move is big news. On Tuesday, the Rocky Mountain News ran a story headlined 'Would-be veep eats at Boney's.' It stated that Joe went to a Denver restaurant called Boney's Barbecue, which had been alerted in advance by the Secret Service (I am not making this up) to have smoked turkey legs ready. However, when Joe got there, he went with the pulled-pork sandwich. He's for Change!"

Seen in a storefront window close to the Pepsi Center: “Liberal Markdowns: 50 to 70% Off.” Ah, something liberal in this Democratic week that you have to like.

Denver
Georgian Ambassador Vasil Sikharuldize is one of the busiest men at the Democratic National Convention, hopping from meeting to meeting to seek American aid for his embattled country. When I caught up with him Monday night, he told me that the need for $1 billion in economic assistance from the United States—to help rebuild both Georgia’s civilian and military infrastructure—has been a focus of his talks with Democratic leaders, such as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

“What we’re talking about are strictly defensive capabilities,” he said, arguing that it would be “unimaginable” that Georgia’s small military would confront Russia. “We need new radars, new air fields, new military bases.”

Though Sikharuldize said the sale of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons from the U.S. to Georgia was not a measure currently being discussed, he told me: “We believe as a matter of deterrence this kind of equipment may be very helpful for us.” The ambassador also believes that “security cooperation,” including “frequent visits of U.S. officials to train Georgians,” is of the utmost importance, whether conducted “bilaterally or through NATO.”

Amb. Sikharuldize said that Russia’s belligerence demonstrates why Georgia ought to be admitted to NATO. He argued that the NATO's Article 5—which states an attack on one member country shall be considered an attack against all—would “serve as a deterrent.” As we discussed how the recent conflict may complicate Georgia’s bid for NATO membership, Sikharuldize said: “We will not enter NATO with any deal that treats South Ossetia or Abkhazia as special areas”—meaning that those areas should be viewed “as full parts of Georgia as any other part of Georgia.” In other words, an invasion of South Ossetia or Abkhazia would require a response by NATO members under Article 5, which would, the ambassador argues, deter a future attack.

Minneapolis
While Democrats prepare for night three in Denver, Republicans kicked off their pre-convention week in Minnesota yesterday. And with the recent polling and the media spending the first half of the Democratic convention debating whether Obama can win over Clinton supporters, the activists and delegates here are increasingly enthusiastic.

The convention will take place at the Xcel Energy Center in downtown St. Paul. Construction workers are busy transforming the sports/concert venue into a political convention hall. The floor of the Xcel Center--home of the Minnesota Wild hockey team--is a sea of new, red industrial carpet covering the ice rink. Workers are assembling chairs, building a podium, and running miles of cable. It looks like Extreme Home Makeover-Political Edition.

About 10 miles west, at the Minneapolis Convention Center, Republican delegates and party officials will finish drafting the GOP platform today. I sat through the deliberations yesterday and today and had a chance to talk to some of the participants.

The platform is being billed as the most grassroots-driven document in convention history, receiving over 10,000 ideas and comments through the first-ever online input process. But despite the contributions, the document is only about half the length of the 2004 platform. It’s divided into six major themes: 1. Economy, 2. National Security, 3. Spending and Government Reform, 4. Energy and the Environment, 5. Crime and American Values, and 6. Healthcare and Education. While the drafting and amending process has been rather smooth, delegates did conduct spirited debate over immigration, stem cell research, and global climate change. All of these issues, however, were resolved to the satisfaction of those involved, including the McCain campaign. There will be no minority reports or substitutes offered on the floor next week.

A convention veteran told me this: “The McCain campaign did a very smart thing. They let the delegates work their will and didn’t try to impose a heavy hand and just say no to every little change in the platform. The document will be something the party and the candidate can strongly support.”

The lack of platform fireworks is a welcome development.

"I’ve been to every convention since 1980,” a seasoned former congressional aide told me. “There have been many times where delegates caused a lot of trouble and it looked like the party was divided. This time they feel we can win--despite all the negatives--and we’re very unified. That’s why this platform process is moving ahead so smoothly.”

Another platform staffer said, "The parliamentarian seems really bored. We like it that way."

That's the claim that author Derek Chollet makes in this blog-post. A friend of mine isn't convinced. He writes:

"Chollet tries to argue that an Obama administration will follow the same centrist foreign policy that President Clinton pursued in his second term, which he characterizes as resting on three pillars: 'Embracing globalization and trade; promoting democracy; and developing a concept on the use of force that turned the usual liberal debate about using military power on its head - instead of the burden of proof falling on those advocating intervention, the burden fell on those who advocated doing nothing in the face of aggression (as we saw in the Balkans). By the late 1990s, and still today, these ideas framed the mainstream of Democratic foreign policy.'

"Although this is a fair characterization of the way the Clinton administration saw the world in the late 1990s, it bears little resemblance to where the Democratic party is today – which has drifted pretty far left over the past eight years under the influence of Moveon.org.

"First, with regard to trade, Chollet acknowledges that Obama and Biden 'have criticized some of the specifics of trade agreements, but have been steadfast defenders of an open global economy.'

"Let’s reflect on this for a moment. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, calling it a 'bad deal.' He has opposed every significant trade agreement that has come before Congress since he was elected to national office, including trade deals with key U.S. allies like Colombia and South Korea. To say that Obama has 'criticized some of the specifics of trade agreements' but is otherwise a 'steadfast defender of an open global economy' is like claiming that, other than his 36 years in the US Senate, Joe Biden is a fresh face in American politics. It’s absurd.

"Chollet’s next point point: 'Although strong critics of the Iraq war, Obama and Biden are hardly doves - they have called for doing more to end the genocide in Darfur and have advocated the use of force to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.'

"Seriously? The new litmus test for foreign policy toughness is ... a willingness to use force to kill Obama bin Laden? And 'doing more' about Darfur? "More" of what, exactly?

"And the final kicker: 'And [Obama and Biden] have made clear that they believe the U.S. must remain a steadfast defender of democracy around the world - as their response to the Georgia crisis demonstrates.'

"Perhaps Derek wasn’t paying attention, but Obama’s initial response to the Georgia crisis was to apportion blame equally between Russia and Georgia. It was explicitly not to draw a distinction between an authoritarian aggressor and a fellow democracy that was being victimized.

"I feel genuine sympathy for Chollet and his kin – hawkish foreign policy Democrats who have been hiding out at think tanks for the past couple years, eagerly awaiting their return to executive power, whereupon they hope to sweep left wing nuttiness from the party. Alas for them, the netroots aren’t going anywhere – and by all accounts, the presidential candidate they are about to nominate is closer in foreign policy instincts and temperament to the Daily Kos bloggers than he is to the liberal internationalists at the Center for a New American Security and the Brookings Institution."

For what it's worth, I am more favorably inclined to Chollet's interpretation than my friend - the realities of a dangerous world will likely lead President Obama to embrace the use of force and intervene abroad more frequently than his supporters believe (and hope). But it is also true, as my friend points out, that Obama's initial response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, and his passionate willingness to negotiate with dictators around the globe, suggest that his instincts are closer to MoveOn than Brookings.

At its midpoint, it looks increasingly like the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be seen as a strategic failure. Michelle Obama's speech and the appearance of the Obama daughters worked well, but that was quickly overtaken by Hillary Clinton's launch of her 2012 presidential candidacy. And tonight Bill Clinton will dominate the network broadcasts and commentary, overshadowing vice presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Americans watching the Democratic National Convention have seen and heard relatively little of the Democratic candidate for president. Instead, they are watching another chapter of their favorite political drama - The Clintons - unfold before them. Meanwhile, the nationally televised speeches have had few direct assaults on John McCain and President Bush - fewer, at least, than one would have expected. And with the unveiling of his own Greek temple at Invesco Field, Obama will play into the McCain campaign's "celebrity" critique.

Obama's nominating speech will be a historic occasion that will no doubt receive plaudits from the press, deserved or not. It will be a moment to remember. So many other moments during this convention seem like wasted opportunities.

Denver
It sounds like a joke: How many pro-life Democrats can you fit in a room? All of them! This afternoon, about 60 people gathered for a town-hall meeting of pro-life Democrats. Of this group, about eight were speakers and another dozen (at least) were media. Maybe the joke is right.

That said, the pro-life Democrat caucus is admirable, in its own way. Rep. Heath Shuler (who will run for national office some day, count on it) gave a pretty impressive accounting for life issues, not only attacking abortion, but making a point of noting that life spans from conception to natural death.

The most impressive of the pro-life Dems, however, was Rep. Lincoln Davis. Like the other pro-life Dems, Davis didn't talk much about Roe v. Wade (except, oddly enough, to blame Republican appointees on the Supreme Court for not overturning it). The pro-life Democratic position is now centered around reducing the number of abortions, with questions of law to follow at some later date.

And to this end, Davis hauled out a very interesting bit of data: In 1973, the year of Roe, 9 percent of pregnancies to unmarried women resulted in voluntary adoptions. By 2000, that number had collapsed to 1 percent, with abortion taking the hindmost. Davis and the other Democrats see the active promotion of adoption as a workable, immediate pathway to reducing abortion.

It's a good place to start.

Denver
Following a panel hosted by Democrats for Life of America, I asked Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey Jr. if he would filibuster any bill that would provide taxpayer funding for abortions through Medicaid or insurance coverage of abortion through a national health care plan--measures that Barack Obama has said he will enact as president. Casey replied that he and Obama "obviously disagree" on taxpayer funding of abortion, but he declined to say if he would support a filibuster: "I'm not going to make prognostications about legislative strategies on this or any other issue."

Democrats have been trying to reach out to pro-life voters by arguing that as president Barack Obama would do more than John McCain to reduce the abortion rate by funding government programs to prevent unintended pregnancies and support pregnant women. But taxpayer funding would likely do much more to increase the number of abortions than these programs would reduce them.

Following the November elections, in all likelihood, the only way to prevent abortion-funding legislation from passing the Senate would be a filibuster that has the support of pro-life Democratic senators like Bob Casey Jr. and Harry Reid. Casey's refusal to state his position on such a filibuster should be of great concern for anyone committed to reducing the number of abortions.

Mark Leibovich asked delegates to the convention: Who would be greeted with "more contempt"? Joe Lieberman or John Edwards?

"'Lieberman, definitely,' said Lola Hopper, a delegate from Texas. 'If he showed his face, he’d have to leave town in the back of a trunk.'"

His quick take: "What's the finish? Maybe Obama’s got Zhang Yimou to do the hidden-rope trick, and have him lifted, Beijing-style, to the heavens when he’s done. Will he reappear three days later at the Bird’s Nest?"

After all, he is a citizen of the world.

When John Kerry tabbed John Edwards as his running mate in 2004, certain members of the pundit class swooned. They figured Edwards’ immense political skills would dramatically bolster Kerry’s chances. Me, I was perplexed. If John Edwards was in fact such a magnificent political talent, how come he had just lost a race to John Kerry? As law school lecturers like Barack Obama like to say, “Res ipsa loquitur.” Unsurprisingly, Edwards went on to serve as a lackluster running mate. If you don’t believe me on that score, I encourage you to check out Bob Shrum’s catty, tell-all memoir.

Now it’s Joe Biden’s skills that are being unjustly lionized by the gullible among us. The Politico reports:

Democrat Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as a running mate is complicating Republican John McCain’s analysis of his prospective vice presidential contenders.

Biden will make his formal debut Wednesday with a primetime address. McCain is expected to announce his pick after Obama accepts his nomination here on Thursday.

Some insiders are pressing McCain to make a strategic selection, one that beefs up his economic strength, enhances his chance to grab a state or amps up the partisan firepower.

“McCain knows Biden well. He knows how good he is as a knife fighter. He’ll take McCain apart,” said one Republican operative.

But a review of the much-rumored McCain shortlist clearly exposes the weaknesses each person on it might bring if matched up against the six-term senator from Delaware.

If Biden is such a gifted political knife fighter, how come he got less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, a result that chased him from the race? True, he did better than Dennis Kucinich, but has that become our gold standard for campaigning excellence?

Biden is a lackluster choice because he is a lackluster politician. His defenders will of course point to his 36 years in the senate as a selling point, but what good is experience if it doesn’t beget insight? Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq remains the single most cockamamie contribution to the Iraq war debate over the past five years. And that’s no small accomplishment.

But please – no one in the media should allow my negativity to alter their narrative of Biden as a political Ubermensch. America should expect a veritable Cicero when the garrulous gaffe machine takes the stage tonight. And woe to the poor Republican who has to debate this formidable figure with the nation watching this Fall.

Montana governor Brian Schweitzer's speech to the Democratic convention last night brought the crowd to its feet. Schweitzer's performance was excellent. He bobbed and weaved, stretched words like taffy, and had the audience hanging on his every word. There's a problem, however. It's this line: "Barack Obama understands the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use."

Anti-carbon activists may not like it, but the fact is the global economy runs on fossil fuels. It will be a long, long time before those fuels are replaced by alternative energy, government subsidies notwithstanding. Using fewer barrels of oil requires constraining human behavior. This is not a winning message for the Democratic party.

Jay Cost on night two: Obama "is the nominee. He could have given Hillary the vice-presidential nomination. Choosing her would have totally changed the convention for the better. But Obama didn't choose her. He tapped Joe Biden instead. As a consequence, he's lost control of his own convention."

Read the whole thing, as they say.

From the New York Times, “High Anxiety in the Mile High City” by Maureen Dowd

On the occasions when Maureen Dowd is good (which admittedly are rare), her work officially rises to the level of “guilty pleasure.” So smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, because here comes MoDo at her best:

I’ve been to a lot of conventions, and there’s always something gratifyingly weird that happens.

Dan Quayle acting like a Dancing Hamster. Teresa Heinz Kerry reprising Blanche DuBois. Dick Morris getting nabbed triangulating between a hooker and toes.

But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied…

(Hillary) offered the electrifying fight that the limpid Obama has not — setting off paranoia among some Democrats that they had chosen the wrong nominee or that Obama had chosen the wrong running mate. “It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together in the Twin Cities because these days they are awfully hard to tell apart,” she said.

Afterward, some of her supporters began crying, as they were interviewed by reporters, saying that her speech had proved that she would make a better president than Obama. And, as one said, she would only give him “two months” to prove himself.

One video that’s been receiving much play lately is Suzanne Malveaux’s CNN interview of an upset Clinton supporter following the former first lady’s speech last night. Not to get all Ghost Hunters about it, but did anyone else wonder what happened at the tail-end of that interview? The distraught woman ends her thought (about Obama’s résumé) around the four-minute mark and in the background you hear a man’s voice say, “Let’s go.” As the camera pans out, behind Malveaux is a man in a blue shirt who then talks to the supporter with very firm hand gestures. Could he be one of the Obama whips we’ve all been hearing about? (Or a fellow delegate just hungry for dinner?)

Jonathan Martin, who looked dashing in his pink oxford at the Politico party last evening, reports that John McCain told supporters in San Diego that he intends to compete in California. Several of the supporters I spoke to in Beverly Hills on Monday said that McCain promised them the same thing. And virtually every single one thought it was A) very unlikely, and B) very foolish if true.

Republican presidential candidates say this kind of thing every four years, of course, and rarely follow through. Martin is right when he says that "compete" can be interpreted broadly.

This excellent essay and the film snippet above provides insight into Obama buddy William Ayers, while casting doubt on the candidate’s typically sly evasion of his moral responsibility for hanging around with such a cretin.

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night…

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

Personally, I don’t think Obama’s association with William Ayers says anything about where he wants to take the nation. There’s no reason to infer that Obama sympathizes with the Weathermen’s agenda, and to suggest otherwise is more than a touch overwrought. Then again, given the attempt on his family’s lives, Murtaugh is entitled to being more than a touch overwrought. The Obama/Ayers relationship does, however, say a great deal about how Barack Obama is a conventional thinker and actor who thoroughly and meekly reflects the values of his environment.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Dan Gerstein has a phenomenally obtuse op-ed positing that Obama is “an independent-minded, orthodoxy-challenging, gutsy leader.” The orthodoxy in Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood was to embrace the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. Now let’s say there was an aspiring politician in the neighborhood who was a truly "independent-minded" and gutsy leader with proper moral bearings. That guy would have eschewed the opportunity to befriend William Ayers. Famously, the putatively gutsy Obama did no such thing. Barack Obama embraced Ayers with particular gusto.

Closely associating with William Ayers was a moral decision and a wretched one at that. All Obama has left to do in regards to this issue is deny the obvious - that it was indeed a moral decision. For the morality of cozying up to such a figure will strike most people as indefensible.

HT: Jonah Goldberg, Allah

The podium at Invesco kind of looks like Jordan's Temple of Hercules, where Obama delivered a speech during his world tour:

Eagle-eyed reader (and Iraq War veteran) JB Smith emails that if the Republicans feel it necessary to counter Obama’s master stroke of tapping Joe Biden as vice-president, there’s only one serious option – Trent Lott.

Think of it. Both have comical pseudo-hair. Both gravitate to the career-ruining gaffe. Both talk too much. Scratch that – both talk way too much. And both have been around Washington since the earth cooled (although it feels like longer).

Fortunately, it doesn’t appear the McCain campaign should have any reason to feel the need to counter Joe Biden. Bad news for Trent Lott, good news for the rest of us.

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic Convention, and technically threw her support behind Barack Obama. But bloggers agree with Real Clear Politics's Tom Bevan, who says that while she hit "almost all the right notes tonight...she did not say Obama was ready to be Commander in Chief."

Townhall's Matt Lewis says, "She endorsed Obama--but she didn't embrace Obama ..." TNR's Jonathan Chait explains that "she did not say anything positive about Obama as a person. Her reasons for supporting Obama were all ways of saying that Obama is a Democrat."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the Obama camp might not be thrilled with her speech because "Hillary was looking great and communicating one message: But for our crazy rules, I'd be the nominee and we'd be 15 point ahead." Ace explains, "So she's announcing 'Yeah, I'll do the minimum required of me, but gee, if you wanted me to be an attack dog, you should have made me Veep, and if you wanted my full support of the Democratic nominee, you should have made me the Democratic nominee.'" And at The Corner, Rich Lowry concludes, "Nothing she said tonight will be incompatible with what she'll want to say if Obama loses in November: 'Told you so.'" Still, Power Line's John Hinderaker notes, "She was intensely annoying. You could just about hear the sound of television sets clicking off all across America. Good night, Hillary."

For the record: The orange pantsuit looked fantastic, especially against the blue backdrop, and Hillary's never looked better--the infamous bags under her eyes are gone!

Regarding living Americans involved in politics whom Hillary Clinton referred to in her speech, in order of mention and excepting Obama and of course the despised (by Democrats) Bush and her own husband Bill, here is how she described them:

--Michelle Obama will be “a terrific partner” for her husband and “a great First Lady for America.”

--Joe Biden is “a strong leader and a good man,” besides being “pragmatic, tough, and wise.”

--Jill Biden is Joe’s “wonderful wife.”

--John McCain is “my friend.”

And how did Hillary describe Barack? What adjectives did she use? Which nouns? She didn’t say Obama is a “terrific” or “great” or “wonderful” person or would make a “terrific” or “great” or “wonderful” president.” She didn’t say that he’s been “a strong leader” in the Senate. She didn’t say he has proved himself to be “pragmatic” or “tough” or “wise”. She didn’t say he is “my friend.” Nor did she use any other nouns or adjectives in describing Barack, save for her silent inclusion of him in her reference to “a great team for our country” made up of the foursome of Barack and Michelle, and Joe and Jill.

Even so, Hillary declared herself “a proud supporter of Barack Obama”--just as she has always been and always will be of any Democratic nominee for President.

I’d say the distance remains, an ominous sign for Obama as he tries to close the deal this fall with skeptical Hillary supporters.

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

While dominating the last several news cycles by selecting Joe Biden as his running mate and holding the first night of his convention, Barack Obama still managed to lose four points in the Rasmussen tracking polls. Today, John McCain actually holds a one point lead. These results jibe with my theory that Barack Obama has become overexposed. Having been overexposed, a spell of All-Obama-All-the-Time like we’re in the midst of right now only exacerbates His problems. Obama has become a political version of a past its prime teen band.

Lest conservatives get over confident, Thursday will play to Obama’s strengths – the man can deliver a speech. It will be a surprise if Obama doesn’t get at least some benefit from the Invesco spectacular. But if at the end of the week, the Obama campaign remains stuck on hope, change and a visceral dislike for George W. Bush, John McCain will have a great chance to set the tone for the rest of the campaign when he takes over the spotlight on Friday.

Our four day national nightmare is now half over. Herewith, some thoughts on day two of the DNC.

1) I was doing commentary last night for New England Cable News last night, so I got to watch Hillary Clinton’s speech in the company of a couple of co-panelists who were devoted Hillary Clinton fans. This was a pleasure I don’t normally enjoy. They adored it, and adored her. One or both of them kept saying “Go Hillary!” at various junctures during the oration; I can’t remember whether it was one or both of them because by that point in the evening, the whiskey to numb the pain had officially kicked in.

Hillary did well for herself last night. She speaks decently – as well as your Chris Dodd or John Kerry type, not as well your John Edwards type, and nowhere near as well as your Barack Obama type. But still she stood out because her speech had substance, or at least a lot more substance than Barack Obama has conditioned us to expect. Careful observers will have noted that 85% of the speech would have worked just fine as a Hillary stump speech. It was a good stump speech by her standards, but it’s hard to imagine how a Hillary Rodham Clinton stump speech at this point benefits Barack Obama. I would wager a lot of Democrats around America compared her smooth effort to Obama’s recent stumbles and concluded, “We should have nominated her.” And I would double my bet that Hillary wouldn’t mind such sentiments receiving widespread public attention.

Like I said, she did well for herself last night. If Obama should lose in November, Hillary will be even more of a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination in 2012 than she was this year.

It also must be said that the film preceding her speech was excellent. Her film was made by her Hollywood friends; Monday’s dreary tribute to Ted Kennedy came from Ken Burns who normally works for PBS. Advantage free market! Of course, the mini-epic was all about her, and didn’t even pretend to have anything to do with Barack Obama. Still, I’m sure George Stephanopoulos and Paul Begala both gushed simultaneously on different networks last night, “What a team player!”

At the risk of sowing discord in the Democratic ranks, allow me to offer that Hillary did not do all that she could have done for Barack Obama. Indeed, she did the bare minimum. The speech was only a success for Obama if you considered it a possibility that she would come out and explicitly endorse McCain. Think of it this way – she and Obama have been senate colleagues for four years and spent 18 months together on the campaign trail. And she still couldn’t manage to offer a single anecdote of why she liked him or thought he should be president? Every time she said “Barack Obama,” you could have slid in “Our Generic Nominee” and the speech would have worked just as well. If she really was into all this team player stuff, she would have told America why she now appreciates the error of her ways and knows that Barack Obama should be taking that 3-in-the-morning phone call.

Putting aside Hillary’s half-hearted effort at teamwork, the whole exercise, like most of the convention to date, was pointless. Her supporters don’t belong to her – they’re not hers to “give” to Barack Obama. (Since the dead-enders simply don’t like Barack Obama, a personal endorsement from her might have helped in that regard but once again, that was obviously too much for her to muster.) If Obama is to make headway with these people, he’ll have to make the sale on his own. Maybe his umpteenth speech on Hope and Change on Thursday will get the job done.

2) It would be easy to pick on Mark Warner for giving such a dreadful speech last night that it should have been titled “No Cliché Left Behind.” But instead, let’s pick on the Democratic party. How clueless and desperate have the Democrats become? Their search for a narrative is going so poorly, they allowed Warner to give his senate stump speech as its convention’s keynote address. Maybe the Democrats have just given up on putting forth a coherent and consistent message. Brian Schweitzer was at least entertaining, albeit a touch crazed.

3) Since I was commentating for a Boston-based station last night, I got to watch Massachusetts’ beloved regent (with the Bushian approval ratings) Deval Patrick give his address. As I understand this is a thrill that eluded those watching the national networks, let me fill you in on what you missed. Patrick speaks extremely well, talks a lot about his own inspiring biography, and offers a lot of vagaries about “hope” and “aspirations.” He is seemingly allergic to specific policy pronouncements, instead focusing on the really important stuff like the need for us all to come together as “a community.” Sound vaguely familiar? During the campaign, you probably remember Obama lifting material from one of Patrick’s stump speeches. It is thus somewhat ironic that with last night’s speech, the diminutive Patrick has established himself as the lanky Obama’s de facto Mini Me.

4) With the convention half done, the Obama campaign is still desperately seeking a narrative. Have you noticed how every speaker has mentioned how much they love America? That’s new for the Democratic party. However touching these displays of patriotism have been, this is playing on McCain’s home turf. As the Republicans will probably remind America next week, John McCain has shown his love of country by actually serving it, Obama by talking about when it became politically convenient to do so.

According to the New York Post, our occasional contributor and star of Weekly Standard cruises, Mike Murphy, was bumped from MSNBC Monday night, and a TV-watching friend didn’t see him anywhere on air Tuesday night. This after MSNBC had touted the signing of its new contributor, who has starred in semi-regular appearances on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and who would provide some welcome political diversity, and wit, to MSNBC’s broadcasts.

Could it be that MSNBC is uninterested in diversity—or wit?

Reuters reports that "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple."

To which a McCain adviser quipped: "Is this from the Onion?"

No, you really can't make this up:

(Photo by Congressional Quarterly, whose great collection of convention photos can be found here.)

One of Obama’s closest contemporaries, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, made only one point worth noting: that the Democrats don’t deserve to win just because Republicans deserve to lose--that the Democrats need not just better programs and policies but also a better (than Republicans) vision. But what is that vision? Patrick said he survived the “broken” south side of Chicago because “we had a community.” And the vision Obama has, said Patrick, is “to rebuild our national community,” which presumably is also “broken.” Patrick may have been anticipating a theme of Obama’s acceptance speech Thursday. Maybe then Obama will finally describe what the rebuilt national community will look like and how he will go about doing the rebuilding. One thing you can count on for sure is that, like most reconstruction, it will not be an inexpensive project.