Q: Thank you for your opinions and comments about the DNC Convention in Denver. Eager to hear your final comment. Fill in the blanks: On Thursday evening while watching and listening to Senator Obama's Acceptance Speech, I ...................................

Submitted by Maggie from Highland Park, IL

A: ...thought it was a good speech. He accomplished what it seems everyone told him he needed to. "Fill in the blanks" was the endlessly-repeated advice of the political class. Obama himself had said it would not be lofty. Everyone knows he can do lofty: "The streets of heaven are crowded with angels tonight." (Whoa. Cultural collision. That was President Bartlett on West Wing. Sorry.) Anyway, he also took on McCain directly, something Democrats have been getting itchy waiting for. Mencken once described conventions as a "mass baptism." Outdoors in that big stadium sure looked like one. It made for great visuals because that was a whole lot of people and underscored the Pied Piper zeal of his campaign. Still, I thought David Brooks made a good point on PBS afterwards when he said there's something to be said for the kind of political combustion triggered inside a tightly-packed hall that you don't get at a big open-air setting. Brooks said that palpable sense of energy was missing. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. But indeed, on the inside, with aisles overflowing, the balloons dropping and everyone cheering, you feel like you're in the eye of a political tornado. (Like the difference between the time I saw Derek and the Dominos inside a very small hall with great sound, then saw Clapton years later at a big arena. No comparison.) Obama had some good lines, but perhaps one that could be the most effective for voters not happy with things as they are, but not sure where to land might be the simple, "Enough."

Answered 08/29/08 13:34:49 by David Goldstein

Q: Comment: McCain is supposed to announce his Veep selection tomorrow. We all know it is just another cry for attention from a candidate who's political immaturity is showing in a petty attempt to steal the spotlight during a time when he should be taking notes and working on pulling together his own party. Question: Even considering such a stunt is in poor taste and does not seem very "presidential" to me. What do you think?

Submitted by Dee from Alexandria, Virginia

A: I think he's running for president and Miss Manners didn't write the rules. It's a smart move, a way to get the cameras back on him after the four-day Obama-a-thon. But he also has little choice. His own convention starts Monday. The day after Obama gives his acceptance speech is also a good moment. The chattering class will have to stop rehashing what Obama said and pay attention to McCain's first big decision.

Answered 08/28/08 20:48:30 by David Goldstein

Q: Why don't they announce the times of speeches? I missed some I wanted to see because I didn't know when they would be starting.

Submitted by Theresa from New Bern, NC

A: Try this. The times posted are local (Mountain) times. http://www.demconvention.com/thursday-schedule/

Answered 08/28/08 18:57:35 by David Goldstein

Q: The stories of the big shindigs sponsored by AT&T and the one where the ABC reporter was arrested have largely been ignored by the media. Is there any possibility of getting a guest list on which of our elected representatives attended these functions? It seems as though some of these politicians are joined at the hip with the corporations.

Submitted by Richard Meyers from Dent, MN

A: Good luck. A lot of parties are held by private interests, so that could be difficult. But ease your mind, a little. Congress made life tougher for itself after the Republican lobbying scandal a few years ago. Voters got so mad they told Democrats, "Let's see how you run the place for a while." House members and staffers can't take freebies. They have to buy a ticket, just like normal people. If the event is free, they pay a fair market value. (I don't know who figures that out.) Not so in the Senate, however, which likes to think of itself as the saucer which cools the coffee brewed by those hotheads over in the House. Senators weren't so tough on themselves. They still go for free.

Answered 08/28/08 18:47:07 by David Goldstein

Q: Why did the democrats prevent a complete delegate vote? Were they afraid that Hillary might win?

Submitted by Tina from Newton, MA

A: If you're looking for someone to share the blame, her initials are HRC. As Pogo, one of the sharpest political minds of any era, might have said, "We have met the enemy and she is us." No, Democratic Party poobahs did not short-circuit the process in case somehow, some way, Clinton forces intended to engineer a coup. That train left the station a while ago. But Sen. Clinton did want her name put into nomination. Her's was a history-making campaign, after all. Here's what apparently happened: She released her delegates from their commitments to her and told them to vote however they wanted. She cast her own ballot for Obama. Then a lot of behind-the-scenes manuevering between the two camps occurred. Once the roll call of states began, some that she had won were four-square for Obama. And then some started switching places in a very clear pattern. When New York's time came, it was Hillary Clinton who had the microphone. End the traditional roll call, she said, and let's have a vote for Obama by acclamation. Why? Why not? Why not take the high road. It was classy and smart. Perhaps at this point in her political life, more than anything else, Hillary Clinton does not want any blame on her head if Obama loses.

Answered 08/28/08 17:55:36 by David Goldstein

Q: Strickland, Webb, Warner and Rendell could all buy Obama more than Biden. Yet three have refused to run and Rendell has obvious distate for Obama. Why did his best running mates run away screaming?

Submitted by Morgo from Pittsburgh

A: That might be a little strong. How about "walked briskly?" Yes, none wanted it and all removed their pieces from the board of Washington's favorite parlor game early on. Each is from a state that could certainly help Obama. But there are no guarantees. John Edwards didn't bring North Carolina to the Kerry ticket four years ago. In fact, the last time it worked was half a century ago when Jack Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson of Texas. As Senate majority leader, LBJ was a pretty powerful guy at the time, too. Why did at least three of these potential picks say nix? Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has only been in office two years. He was a Clinton backer, but reportedly told her way back that he had no interest in being veep should she win. Sen. Jim Webb of Virgina also was only just elected in 2006. Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner bowed out, presumably because he has a good shot at winning the state's other Senate seat. Whether Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton ally, personally likes Obama or not, I couldn't say.

Answered 08/27/08 18:53:33 by David Goldstein

Q: Will Obama tell the folks how he will fix the energy crisis? I have been in Energy over 30 years working the bottom. So what is his real plan?

Submitted by Billy Smith from Prince George, VA

A: I'll refer you to Sen. Obama's campaign website where he spells out his ideas on a variety of issues: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

Answered 08/27/08 18:04:56 by David Goldstein

Q: What do you think of Michelle Obama's speech. Do you think she was able to address the concerns about her patriotism?

Submitted by Kathy from Seattle, WA

A: I think she did. It was a good speech and she has a compelling story. It's just sad that she came under such an attack in the first place and had to defend herself. But post-9-11 politics has an ugly side and some pretty "patriotic" people have been tarred. Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland lost both legs and arm in Vietnam. He lost his seat in 2002 when Republicans claimed he was soft on national security in ad that featured both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And remember the Swift boat attacks on John Kerry? Can we all just agree that using patriotism as a political weapon is pretty low? You've got to wonder about the people who include that in their quiver. Samuel Johnson called it the "last refuge of the scoundrel."

Answered 08/27/08 17:32:11 by David Goldstein

Q: Carly Fiorina has been mentioned as a possible Veep on the Republican ticket. If memory serves me correctly, she was involved in some shady actions that led to her being ousted from her job wasn't she? Can you tell me anything about the other women who has been mentioned as a possible Veep? I realize this isn't a 'Democratic Party question' but would you reply anyway since Friday draws ever nearer? Thank you.

Submitted by Mary from Raleigh,NC

A: Speculating about vice presidential choices is like making a salad. All these different names get tossed into the mix. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska since 2006, is the other woman besides Carly Fiorina whose name has gotten some attention. There's also a cheering section in the GOP for Condoleezza Rice. Don't hold your breath. Actually, don't bet on any of them. Fiorina would be dogged by questions about Hewlett-Packard and no one in the lower 48 has ever heard of Palin. Of course, no outside of Minnesota has ever heard of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, either, and he's supposedly one of McCain's top choices. But Fiorina has no political experience and Palin's previous elected post was mayor of Wasilla, Ak., population 8,471. Still, Barack Obama was only a state senator and then a U.S. senator for just two years before he decided to run for president, no less. Is this a great country or what?

Answered 08/27/08 17:15:54 by David Goldstein

Q: Why do the media continue to play up this supposed rift between Hillary Clinton supporters and the rest of the Democrats, when there is very little evidence that any but a few Clinton supporters are actually going to defect to John McCain? This is the biggest storyline I see being covered and it's honestly being blown way out of proportion. The Republican Party is divided, yet we don't hear about this nonstop. James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, to name two, opposed McCain bitterly and social conservatives and evangelicals are wary of him. So, why is this so-called drama surrounding Clinton getting so much coverage and the GOP's divisions are being ignored? By looking at the headlines you'd think the Democratic Party is on the brink of civil war, when in reality it's mostly unified behind the mission of getting a Democrat elected to the White House.

Submitted by Rod Smith from St. Paul, MN

A: The story is being overplayed. But political drama always seems to surround the Clintons, some of it of their own making, some of it manufactured. So much dithering over whether Sen. Clinton would not only enthusiastically endorse Obama, which she's already done, but scold some of her own supporters for dragging their feet. Obama's need to attract women voters gave the whole thing some juice. With polls showing the race to be close, he can hardly afford to lose any Democratic voters. But in her speech, she went right at the holdouts. "Were you in this campaign just for me?" Actually, yes. Many of them were. As for the Republicans' many squabbles: be patient. The media will be sure to dissect all those next week when the political roadshow moves to Minneapolis.

Answered 08/26/08 23:21:58 by David Goldstein

Q: Is it possible to suggest that Condoleezza Rice will be the vice presidential nominee of John McCain?

Submitted by Gremlin Cruz from Northern mariana Island

A: You never know. She has always denied any interest in running for office. It also seems unlikely at this point since he's probably going to announce his choice by the weekend.

Answered 08/26/08 22:51:01 by David Goldstein

Q: I know this is a Democratic convention question site, but I can't find a place to ask this question. So here it is anyway. Why not Michael Bloomberg for McCain's VP pick?

Submitted by Jeff from SLC, UT

A: Well, it would certainly help him in a blue state like New York. But if McCain feels like he can't pick a guy like former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a past chief of Homeland Security, a Vietnam veteran, and on top of all that, a close friend, all because the GOP's anti-abortion wing would fume because Ridge is pro-choice, then he for sure won't pick Mayor Bloomberg.

Answered 08/26/08 21:39:38 by David Goldstein

Q: Do you think that some of the "we want change" backers will get cold feet and vote for the status quo (the Republican -as it has been under Bush and will be under McCain?)

Submitted by Sue G from Pittsburgh, PA

A: Hard to say. Depends how much they want "change" and how they define it. Is it as complex as a change in the policy in Iraq, or as simple as a change in the price of gas? Maybe it's more about a change in the feeling that many families have about the direction of their lives, about the gulf between how they would like to live and how they have to. During the primaries, a Pennsylvania couple having lunch at a diner in Allentown told me it was becoming "harder and harder" for working class families to make a living. "We should at least be comfortable," the husband said, "and it seems like we're living week by week."

Answered 08/26/08 21:33:27 by David Goldstein

Q: So Obama is showcasing Virginia's rising star tonight, Mark Warner. Warner has a great chance at winning his Senate race. But honestly, does Obama really think he has a shot at winning Virginia?

Submitted by Paul from Denver

A: Yes. Why? The polls are dead even. Republicans have had a lock on the state in presidential elections since the 1960s. But since 2000, Democrats have won every contested election for governor and senator. In 2006, Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb drew a big Democratic turnout in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs. That's what Obama will need, too. Warner's presence on the ballot also could help him. And every dollar that Obama spends trying to win Virginia forces McCain to spend money there that he'd rather use in a battleground like Pennsylvania or Missouri.

Answered 08/26/08 21:13:33 by David Goldstein

Q: Gov. Ed Rendell delivers Pennsylvania to the Clintons in the Spring. And now he is supporting Obama. Is Fast Eddie just being a good party loyalist? What level of commitment can the Obama team expect from from him? And can he realistically expect a position in an Obama administration?

Submitted by Jeff from Hummelstown, PA

A: No question that Gov. Rendell is playing the good party guy. He's an old-fashioned pol who knows that when the primaries end, you saddle up behind the winner. He loves the game, enjoys the combat and loves to schmooze the press. When he chaired the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and spent a lot of time with the Gore campaign, you couldn't get him to stop talking. And he delightfully goes off message. But if Rendell can put Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state with 21 Electoral Votes, in Obama's column, he can probably dictate his own terms. That's assuming he would want to leave the pleasant climes of Harrisburg.

Answered 08/26/08 20:02:29 by David Goldstein