That Jeter photo and video of the pitch was a thing of beauty. Even better was the voice-over quoting Jeter saying 'you pitch from the mound in New York.' Think people will remember Kerry's weak effort at Fenway? I think Bush put New York in play. Particularly so given that Kerry's opening remark in his spectacularly lame midnight-at-the-oasis moment was to gloat that the Red Sox were only 2 1/2 games out of first (sorry oj, its true -- great news for you but politically stupid for Kerry).

I liked the Israel reference. Coincidence?

Pataki's roll call of assisting states was interesting. All of these mini-roll calls throughout the convention always involved swing states. Tonight it was 1000 hotel guests from Oregon (Oregon!!) and quilts from Iowa, as well as kids' donations from Pennsylvania. Any guesses as to what the Republicans' internal polling is showing?

Fred:

Supposedly their polls show them around 280+ electoral votes and a 6 to 8 point lead before tonight.

What's amazing to me is how the Democrats are so weak, they're letting Bush completely dictate the conversation. They haven't forced him to spell anything out to the point that any voters will get queasy about the details. Meanwhile every subject embarrasses the Democrats.

Fred:

Here's Zogby, a generally anti-Bush poll, which shows a big swing:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

pj:

One fascinating dynamic to watch and the Senator hinted at it tonight is that the most natural place for him to go is open opposition to the war. It brings Democrats home to him and energizes them while it puts his message in line with how he truly feels.

I think my wife became a Republican this week. She won't be able to vote until at least '08 (she doesn't become eligible for citizenship until '06), but she really seemed to absorb the whole immigrant message and national pride exhibited at this convention. She's a natural RWDB anyway so this doesn't really surprise me.

oj:

Mike Barnicle on MSNBC just said that Kerry was wrong. The Red Sox remain 3 1/2 games out because both teams won. So Kerry and Edwards fly to Ohio to accuse Bush and the convention of telling falsehoods and misleading voters, and Kerry can't get the Red Sox standings straight. Pathetic.

David:

The pacing is an especially good point.

Hasn't he screwed up every baseball and football reference he's made? He really needs to stick to the sports he knows.

"Running for president against George Bush is like windsurfing in a hurricane."

Another error by the Washington senator (at least the on-field ones were smart enough to get the heck of town in 1971 instead of committing more gaffes in front of the public. The fact that the Senators ended up being owned by one George W. Bush would make a great political analogy down the line, especially the way the current trends are going).

Fred:

Democrat internals must be tanking too, Terry McAuliffe was on Hardball saying how happy they were to still be close.

OJ, agree with the observation that Kerry seems to be tacking anti-war tonight.

Do you think it will work? Theoretically if the naderites come home he's in good shape but he has been pro war as recently as a few weeks ago.

I do not share your optimism for W but must admit that Kerry's behavior today smacks of desperation.

However, I have to wonder if going anti war might not make him more effective. David Brooks said last night that he'd by up by 10 pts if he had come out with Dean's position on Iraq. Tonight he did. As always, my point is that Kerry operates in a forgiving media environoment that allows him to defy reason with impunity.

David:

Great point on sports. If you're gonna try to be a real man (as opposed to a girlie-man), you don't get that stuff wrong. Sports fans pay attention (e.g. Manny Ortiz, Eddie Yost, Lambert Field, and the rest of the boners).

oj:

What is with Brinkley? Has he completely prostituted himself? There he is, supposedly an objective 'historian,' shilling for Kerry next to Terry McAullife for heaven's sake.

I believe you're right about Democratic internals. One of the things that the so-called 'pundits' keep saying is that unknown external events can affect results between now and the election (gee, you mean pundits don't have a 'plan' to predict the election?). I believe one of those externals occurred right under the pundits' noses, and not one of them mentioned it during all the coverage I watched. Through most of the convention, the media would break away to cover 400 school kids held hostage in Russia by a few Islamizoids wearing TNT waistcoats. Could that happen here? Well, duh (to quote my daughter). Voters comparing the 'teams' presented by the conventions could thus ask themselves this question in real time: Who do I trust to handle that situation. Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter (hostages? what hostages?), Barak Obama, John Edwards, and Cabana Boy; or John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and President Bush?(forgive me; I'm a trial lawyer and love rhetorical questions). Wouldn't surprise me at all that Democratic internals are cratering.

For Kerry to move to full-throated opposition to the war completes his journey back to 1971, which is not good for him (or the Democrats). Zell Miller showed us why last night.

Humphrey lost in 1968 because he couldn't oppose the war openly (until it was too late). But Iraq is not Vietnam, and for the Democrats to make the analogy only associates them with DEFEAT, something they should have learned in 1972. Kerry may believe that he will be 'liberated' by showing his true feelings, but can't you just hear the debate questions now? And that damned vote in favor......

I'm sure Bush's "handlers" would love for the networks to have broadcast the Kerry speech after Bush's. The difference in likeability factor would immediately put Bush up by about 20 points.

JAB:

It would at least please the Democratic base and it might make his campaign more coherent. Of course it would divide the country and subvert our security, but so did opposing Vietnam and he seems proud of that.

Fred:

Yes, that schoolchildren in danger story is Kerry's nightmare.

But to voters who aren't in that craven 30% who are nothing but Bush-haters (they don't really even oppose the war in my estimation), this stance would represent how many flip-flops on this one question? Voted for the war. Campaigned against it in the primaries. Just last month said he would have gone into Iraq even knowing there were no WMDs.

This just won't work.

"Particularly so given that Kerry's opening remark in his spectacularly lame midnight-at-the-oasis moment was to gloat that the Red Sox were only 2 1/2 games out of first"

The comment went over like a lead baloon. Springfield Ohio is about an hour north of Cincinnati. That was a bunch of Reds fans there. And as noted above, he had it wrong its 3.5. Doufuss. If he had started talking football, they would have stoned him.

Having slept on it overnight, I still stand by my original snap assessment; the first half of the speech was good and competently done, but not very exciting (Bush, to my way of thinking, plodded a little too much while reciting his list of domestic initiatives). However, once GWB moved on to the war, he was fortunate to have so many FDNY people nearby, for he truly caught fire and set the whole convention hall ablaze too. Zingers and memorable lines galore in the second half!

By the way, Orrin, it's interesting that you should note that GWB sounded more like a challenger tonight. Vodkapundit, who was live-blogging the speech, noted the same thing too, and went so far as to say that Bush is an incumbent running as a challenger while Kerry is a challenger running as an incumbent.

MB: Your wife must be a lovely woman. Pardon my ignorance, but RWDB = Right Wing _____ _______?

I though there were no convention bounces anymore. The punditocracy told me that last month. That must have been the conventional wisdom. That couldn't ever be wrong, could it?

Last Sunday, Bob Scheiffer, the host of Face the Nation, claimed that conventions simply weren't worth the trouble anymore, in essence trying to talk down the viewership of the RNC on his own network. This from a typical network talking-head who has no problem promoting portentious matters like the Kob Bryant and Laci Peterson cases, or telling us to stay tuned the next episode of Man vs. Beast where a dwarf wrestles an Emperor Penguin. Do you think he might have seen that Kerry's convention was such a lead balloon, that any Bush bounce would end this race?

I would have liked Bush to have made more of an effort to link himself with Congress, that he needs their help to achieve the things he wants to. That he can't do it alone. That the Democrats in the Senate impede his every move. That if people believe in him and his program,they should help elect Republicans down the line. But this is a minor criticism.

He is also smart enough to know that if his opponent is self-destructing, leave him alone.

Joe :

They have to defend the status quo for their special interests, Bush has to transform it for his. That's a function of them running the place for seventy years.

Going antiwar isn't a winning strategy, but Kerry's not going to win anyway. Going antiwar might keep him close, get Dems to the polls and avert a congressional meltdown.

Melissa:

Anti-war is always at least a 40% position and you can get it to 50%. I don't think he can get whatever it is he's running on now that high.

Here is an excerpt from a typical post on another quite heavily posted site. (Roger L. Simon)

"You could not have hated Bush more than my mother in 2000.

After the election, she continually referred to him as the "phony President."

After 9/11 and the speech he gave to Congress, shortly thereafter, she first began to at least respect him, but still disliked him.

In my extended and fully Democratic family, I have been the only Bush supporter. In fact, I am the only member of my family to have ever voted for any Republican for any office (I voted for Reagan, and then, 41 the first time only.)

Each night of the two conventions, our family would talk about what we thought was good/bad, etc.

When my sister called after Bush's speech, I was shocked, shocked, really, to hear that she and my mother were intending to vote for Bush.

And I quote, "He seems like he understands what he is doing, he understands what it is to be the President."

'Nuff said."

4 years ago bush was up by 10 and it took a butterfly ballot (thank you, Rove) to win that election. Yes, it's good we've got the nice bounce, but how can any of us feel too confident about it after what happened 4 years ago.

I thought he did pretty well. I find myself sitting on the edge of the seat when Bush gives a big speech half expecting him to make a gaffe or trip over his lines. Didn't seem to do that with this speech. Domestic section was a bit plodding but he needed to lay out his agenda. The foreign policy section was better and the part where he was clearly emotional talking about meeting soldier's families showed the type of person he is.
One other comment - if Bush is heading for a big win and with Rudy and Pataki and the NYFD behind him Bush should make it close in NY - and if Kerry is going to keep talking about the Red Sox (especially if they overtake the Yankees) Bush definitely might take NY.

neil:

The only reason he came close in 2000 was because of personal qualities. The incumbent party should have won easily. Now he combines incumbency and personality.

He also seems to have inoculated himself against his "can't win the war" mispeak. The left has been trying to push the idea that this was like Ford and Poland.

David:

There's a distinct advantage to being able to play up your own weakness, eh? "As you may have noticed I do misspeak at times. But I think you know where I stand. If not let me try to clear up the confusion."

"RWDB" = "Right Wing Death Beast". See Blair, Tim.