It's almost been too easy for Democrats to take rhetorical shortcuts this cycle: just ride out the recent anti-Republican momentum without doing the work to explain how the culpability for the governing failure of the last eight years lies with long-standing Republican philosophy.

Bill Clinton picked up the charge yesterday. And today, so did Obama:

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.  In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own.  Out of work?  Tough luck.  No health care?  The market will fix it.  Born into poverty?  Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots.  You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure.  It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma.  We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

This is a crucial turn for Obama - specifically assigning partisan blame for the economic and foreign policy disasters of the last eight years. With millions of new voters coming into our political process for the first time, it's crucial our leaders make the broader, more durable argument about who should and should not be governing our country.

Update [2008-8-29 4:31:8 by Josh Orton]: Commenter "itsthemedia" pulls the relevant section from Bill Clinton's Wednesday speech, which addresses the point even more specifically:

...[McCain] still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty - and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More band-aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.

Apropos my last post, Keith Olbermann hits the nail on the head:

It was an amazing show tonight. But I have to say, as theatrical as it was, it had an undercurrent of genuine emotion, far more than 4 years ago. It was also unabashedly liberal and Barack was tough as hell on McCain.

More later as I process this incredible night. We're heading to the "blogger bash."

What did you think?

The Associated Press decides to double down in its attacks on Barack Obama. Here's the headline from Charles Babington's "analysis" of Obama's speech tonight:

Analysis: Obama spares details, keeps up attacks

Amazingly, it actually gets worse, reading almost exactly like Republican talking points (and in fact parroting that exact spin).

Barack Obama, whose campaign theme is "change we can believe in," promised Thursday to "spell out exactly what that change would mean."

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.

It is not until after the lede that Babington admits that 35-minute speeches are rarely chock full of details -- particularly those that are enthralling to a crowd. (By the way, it is also below the lede that Babington admits that the Obama speech did actually include specifics.) But this admission misses a key point. Babington, and the Republicans pushing this line of spin to him, set up a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Obama -- either he delivers a compelling speech, which they deride as rhetoric, or he delivers an excessively policy-laden speech, prompting calls that he is too professorial.

What a true journalist would do would be to analyze the speech without using the crutch of opposition talking points, without resorting to the easiest "he said, she said" type of stenography. But apparently this is no longer the policy of the Associated Press under Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier -- a man, by the way, who spent months in talks with the McCain campaign about possibly accepting a senior level position. No, what we get out of Fournier's AP is pure and unadulterated talking points that are as non-germane as they are simply incorrect.

Update [2008-8-28 23:59:59 by Jonathan Singer]: Chris Cillizza shoots down the AP's nonesense...

"Obama's speech was more substance than style; more specifics than rhetorical flourish."

Update [2008-8-29 0:20:3 by Jonathan Singer]: The Boston Globe agrees with Cillizza: "Analysis: Obama gets specific, and tough"

It's time, then, once again to contact Fournier's boss, Kathleen Carroll at kcarroll@ap.org or (212) 621-1500 to let her know that you do not want the AP to serve as a stenographer and amplifier for pure spin from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. You can also participate in the direct action by MoveOn or FireDogLake. Be POLITE, but be FIRM, and above all speak your mind.

Update [2008-8-29 0:7:14 by Jonathan Singer]: Oy vey. Really? More attacks on Obama from the Associated Press? How long can this organization countenance Fournier sullying its more than century and a half of good reputation?

Update [2008-8-29 0:20:3 by Jonathan Singer]: Wow, just wow. Babington apparently wrote his article before Obama was finished giving his speech.

It's just too bad for the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. They tried to raise expectations to the point at which they believed that Barack Obama could not possibly surpass them -- but surpass them he did.

Obama delivered a powerful address tonight that was at times thrilling and highly emotive, and above all laid out the clear case as to why the American people need to elect him, and not John McCain, as President. The punditry may have squawked the first night of the convention about a perceived dearth of substantive hits on McCain, or for a lack of specifics about what Obama would do as President, but for all of those naysayers the Democratic nominee had a response -- giving one of the most memorable speeches in modern American history.

Above all, that is what this was -- a moment in American history. Let us be a part of it, and continue to be a part of it, but helping elect Barack Obama as President this November.

Tremendous.

A thread for your thoughts on tonight.

Update [2008-8-28 23:23:1 by Jonathan Singer]: Check out the text of Obama's speech in the extended entry...

It's quite a chaotic scene here - huge, 2-hour wait to get through security. People are still filing in and the line outside still snakes (I'm told) a mile or more.

One inside, you need at least a graduate degree in statistics to figure out where you sit with any given credential. And then outlets, internet...

All that quasi-settled, the atmosphere is electric. Richardson is speaking now, and used the line 'John McCain pays hundreds for his shoes, but we're the ones paying for his flip-flops.' Not bad.

Can't wait to see Stevie. Hoping he plays "As." I've seen him live once, and he's incredible.

How does it look on TV?

Update [2008-8-28 20:50:0 by Josh Orton]: Al Gore up! On McCain continuing Bush/Cheney policies: "I believe in recycling, but this is ridiculous."

Update [2008-8-28 21:21:24 by Josh Orton]: Stevie!

Update [2008-8-28 21:21:24 by Josh Orton]: Wes Clark comes on the stage as part of the program - buried among a dozen other military figures.

Update [2008-8-28 21:24:25 by Josh Orton]: Gen. Clark walks on and off the stage without saying a single word. Unbelievable.

Update [2008-8-28 21:47:52 by Josh Orton]: Playing Springsteen's great "Born in the USA" in the arena. Taking this song back from Ronald Reagan's misappropriation in the 80's.

We're heading over to Invesco Field shortly. Word is the line is huge already. We don't anticipate having internet access and/or power supply so I'm going to be twittering the speech HERE.

Consider this a convention open thread in case we don't post for a while.

Go Barack!