Last week I was walking in what I referred to as an alien landscape. Amid the Democrats, the greens, and the protesters, I observed as an outsider. I assumed that I would, naturally, be more at home here among all the Republicans in St. Paul.

The settings are markedly different. From the type of facility to the placement of entrances, from the media party style to the ratio of suits and ties, it's clearly a new week. There are fewer peace vans, more chauffeured cars. There are more coffee shops, but fewer with free internet. There are more American flags and fewer recycle signs. And everywhere, all around you, in every store, restaurant, nook and cranny: ties.

It's a different atmosphere here, but I still managed to find a lot of the same things. Crazy protesters are everywhere, for example. There are plenty of ill-informed voters to speak to, as well as very politically engaged people in every facet of life here in the Twin Cities.

One big difference, though, is in the clashes with police. Yesterday I got a snoot full of tear gas in the aftermath of a riot. The city was locked down, no one allowed in, for what I understand was over two hours. There have been hundreds of arrests. I saw dozens of protesters taken away in those zip-tie-looking handcuffs. The sound of sirens was the day's musical score, and the streets were, by the end of the day, littered with signs, water bottles, flyers and bandanas.

One might think that the Republicans were cracking down like gangbusters. The truth is, though, one would have to think again.

Well it didn't do it for me, but then again it was clear that was not intended to. What I heard was a speech that Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis would have been very comfortable delivering. The days of the centrist wing of the Democratic party, the triangulation, the DLC and the Clintons are clearly over.

Obama went on with universal health care, college education for everyone. The specter of AK-47's in cities, etc. Basically telling America that we can't make it unless we vote us some Democrats into office. What I heard was pure, unabashed liberalism. It's interesting in this year when there are a lot of disaffected conservatives, especially those of us with a libertarian bent, Obama offered nothing to us. Which leaves the door open to John McCain to gather both the center and rebuild his base on the right. Strategically, I think this is a mistake.

But a mistake that's easy to second guess. Going the full liberalism/progressive route has allowed him to build excitement to a fever pitch and fill a stadium with worshipful supporters. But will it be enough? My guess is that there is a large group of people that McCain plans on appealing to. Nixon called them the silent majority and he won huge twice with them.

On the stadium. It didn't turn into a Wellstone rally debacle, but it was well executed for what it was. The bad side, no balloons! and it will serve to underscore the narrative that he really thinks highly of himself. But on the other hand he was able to use this event to build a base of support in a swing state with 80,000 likely voters. So there are reasons to do it this way.

His oratory wasn't as soaring as I guess I expected, but that's probably mostly familiarity. We've heard it before. The goal of the speech tonight was to launch the campaign with what he was going to run on. And what he's going to run on is unabashed liberalism (progressivism if you like). And that may work this year, but usually it doesn't.

Oh and McCain does salute Obama on his night, but it's now about 13 hours before McCain reorients the media on his VP pick. But the ad is classy:

Michelle Obama just gave a good, not a great, speech introducing her husband. As a comparison I went back and reviewed the Teresa Kerry speech in 2004. Ugh. Teresa couldn't quite get around the sense that she wasn't one of us and that all this was just a little beneath her.

In that sense, I'm really wondering if its such a good idea to put Cindy McCain out there, as her upbringing has a lot more in common with Teresa than Michelle.

By contrast, Michelle did fine, but that's not a high bar. The bar I usually set for these types of things is whether it moves the needle one way or the other. Initial sense: Not much needle movement here. Unfortunately for Obama, the most talked about part of the speech will be the mention of HIllary and her 18 million votes as "cracks against the glass ceiling inspiring women to dream". ...And thanks to your husband, Hillary's dream was shattered. Heh. But the shout out was nice anyway, I'm sure.

Candidate wife speeches are really quite limited in what can be done, so criticism must be understood in context. Limited attacks, no setting of new policy, introduce your husband as wonderful. In that regard Michelle punched above weight, but it won't move the polls. This is just a set, someone else will have to smash. (sorry for the volleyball ref, Olympics on the brain)

The Obamas did deploy one weapon that the McCain's cannot, cuteness. The daughters with dad on the big screen was a nice touch. Cuteness they got. Tomorrow night is Hillary Clinton. Now that will be interesting.

I saw the reports earlier this morning, and I thought it was disinformation. There's no way that the Republicans could be lucky enough to have Obama choose Biden... right? Wrong, Obama has chosen Biden. There are four events that have the potential of changing the structure of the campaign in the next few weeks, two VP selection events and two convention events. Two of these events are under Obama's control and he just blew one of them.

My fellow PMers are on top of things, but let me especially highlight the quick response McCain ad thrown up by Greg, which is priceless. Mark is correct in saying that this is the best possible choice... for Republicans.

In summary:

The Obama campaign caused a stir last month when it announced that Sen. Obama would forgo the usual acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in favor of a larger, open-air rally and speech at nearby Invesco Field in front of over 75,000 people. Now, the manner in which the campaign is distributing some of the tickets for the much-anticipated event is causing consternation among ticket applicants. Originally, the Obama campaign said that tickets to the event would be free. But this week, the Obama campaign began informing some ticket applicants that they will have to perform volunteer work for the campaign in order for their ticket requests to be considered.

The Obama campaign says that only those who checked a box indicating that they would be willing to volunteer for the campaign are being asked to do so. But some ticket applicants dispute that. One woman told the Rocky Mountain News that she is certain that she didn't offer to volunteer, but she still received a message from the Obama campaign telling her she had to perform 6 hours of volunteer work by this Friday to get a chance at a ticket. The applicant said that she will not volunteer under any circumstances.

"Absolutely not. Now it's pure principle. I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and this is literally my first touch with the Obama campaign. And it's just disappointing."

Other applicants expressed similar anger with the Obama campaign for the volunteering requirement. One man who was told that he would have to perform 12 hours of volunteer work called the requirement, "blackmail." The Obama campaign, through two different spokesmen, said that most speech attendees will not have to volunteer for the campaign to get their tickets, and that only those requesting premium seats were being asked to volunteer.

The controversy over tickets to Sen. Obama's acceptance speech casts the Obama campaign in a very bad light. The campaign could have held a lottery, or a random drawing to distribute tickets and caused comparatively little controversy. The fact that it chose to require at least some potential attendees to work for the campaign just to be eligible for tickets to a speech speaks volumes about the way the Obama campaign views its legions of supporters. The campaign should be gratified that there is such a demand for tickets. Instead, the requirement to work for tickets seems to indicate that the Obama campaign believes it is the attendees who are receiving the honor, not the other way around.

...people cringe. This is especially so when the Arizona senator delivers a prepared speech. Unfortunately for McCain, the way to get television airtime in a presidential election is to deliver prepared speeches that outline policy proposals that differ from those of your opponent. We all remember McCain's train-wreck performance the night that Barack Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination. That green-backdrop disaster is now the stuff of YouTube legend. Well, if you thought McCain had simply suffered a bad night, and had put his teleprompter woes behind him, have a look at yesterday's reprise (courtesy of TPM). The small, snide man is back in action, looking as un-presidential as ever.



Listen to that crowd response. Ouch. By now, it's all getting a little old.

The Democratic Party officially announced today that Sen. Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic National Convention in an outdoor address slated for Denver's Invesco field, home of the Denver Broncos football team. The speech is expected to draw 75,000 people and will be the first acceptance speech by a major party presidential candidate since then Sen. John F. Kennedy accepted the Democratic nomination at the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1960.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean cast the decision as a natural extension of Obama's campaign message. "This convention is meant to be opened up to the American people," Dean said.

"Senator Obama's candidacy has generated an enormous amount of excitement and interest. By bringing the last night of the convention out to the people, we will be able to showcase Barack Obama's positive, people-centered vision for our country in a big way."

The Republican Party disagreed, calling the move a cynical favoring of image over specifics. "Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats are more focused on stagecraft and theatrics than providing real solutions to the challenges facing our nation," it said.

While the outdoor speech is sure to be dramatic and produce stunning visuals, unless it rains, the Obama campaign risks showcasing the man over the message. Evidence that the campaign may be falling into that trap may be found in the campaign's announcement of the outdoor event. In a contest more fitting of a movie star or celebrity athlete than a presidential candidate, the campaign solicited donations with the promise that 10 donors would be chosen to spend two days at the convention, meet with Obama backstage, and receive tickets to see his acceptance speech in person. That will undoubtedly raise money for the campaign's coffers, but will open it to charges of building a cult of personality around the candidate. And, with all the advantages of his charisma, eloquence, and public disfavor with Republicans, Obama has not broken out of a 6-8 point lead over McCain in national polls. But Obama's handlers have made all the right moves in this campaign to date. They surely believe that they have made another winning decision in moving the candidate's speech to a bigger stage.

There's a Democratic National Convention delegate from Wisconsin who has her fellow Dems in a tizzy.

Debra Bartoshevich, who pledged to back Hillary Rodham Clinton, is defending herself from an attempt by Wisconsin Democrats to take away her credentials because of her past statement that she would vote for John McCain if Clinton wasn't the nominee. She recently was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as saying she would vote for the McCain in November if the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama.

"Keeping national delegate status is very important to me," Bartoshevich told the AP. "I believe that Hillary is the better candidate of all of them."

She told the Sentinel she felt Clinton was being treated unfairly and she questioned Obama's experience. She also signed up with "Citizens for McCain," after her Iraq war veteran sister egged her on.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin filed a formal credentials challenge Wednesday against the emergency room nurse and mother of two from Racine County. The Sentinel notes that in its challenge, the state party argued that Bartoshevich "embarrassed" them in the media with her decision, and:

• Violated party rules in expressing support for the other party's presumptive nominee.

• Violated party rules requiring that delegates be "bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States."

• Failed to honor a pledge that delegates sign stating their intent to vote for the party's presidential ticket in the fall.

There's a new candidate for president chanting "Den-ver! Den-ver!" Independent presidential candidate and, some say, Al Gore spoiler Ralph Nader has a bone to pick with the DNC's heir apparent, Barack Obama, and plans to take them to task at August's Democratic National Convention. From The Rocky Mountain News:

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Earlier in the interview, he asks why Obama isn't pressing certain issues, saying, "Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

The interviewer asked him to clarify that he was saying that Obama does try to "talk white," and Nader's reply was, "Of course."

The interweb is abuzz with headlines of the "gaffe" (is this really going to hurt Nader's chances?), so I thought I would give the Nader campaign a call and see what they had to say for themselves. A lot, it turns out.

Windbreaking News: Fox News.com is reporting that Denver activists planning protests at the Democratic National Convention are concerned about police unleashing a "crap cannon" on them. The crap cannon is also called "the brown note". According to Fox "it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily."

Mark Cohen of a Denver protest group called Re-create '68 said, "We know this weapon and weapons like it have been used at other large protests before." He says the weapon is uses inaudible frequencies to disrupt people's equilibrium. The theory is that the brown note weapon comes from military developers looking for non-lethal alternatives to conventional weapons. For example, there was a report last year of a so-called "gay bomb" the military may or may not have tried to develop.

Fox cited the popular Discovery Channel TV show Mythbusters' 2004 test to poo poo the brown note. The show concluded that there is no evidence any frequency can cause people to crap themselves. In an episode from season three of South Park, the children tried to find the mystical tone with more success (clip).

In April, Democracy Now's Amy Goodman spoke to Cohen about Recreate '68.