Now we know why he lays off the policy stuff!

I did like the Patton reference. was that new?

If you watch the 2004 convention speech, he mentions "fighting in Patton's army." It's nothing new... I feel like this is necessary, I'm an Obama supporter ... but it feels like he's playing four-corners right now, running out the clock. Tonight was he bread and butter stump speech and I'm surprised the nets covered it all. He had a crowd of 20k+ where he could have blown the top off the stadium, but he decided 45 minutes of free coverage of his stump speech was worth it. But, it's hard to second guess a campaign that beat Clinton by 15+ in Wisconsin.

I think the point was to use the platform to put to bed the notion that he's all hat and no cattle.

I thought it was genius of Obama to encourage early voting of his audience. I don't know if Hillary has done that too, but Obama not only encouraged the audience to vote today, tomorrow, early, and to bring friends and family, but reminded them all that the pamphlets distributed to the audience had information about where and how to vote. That ensured that anyone leaving that stadium impressed with Obama could vote the next day before his mind changed. It also gets Obama votes before the debates and any more possible gaffes like Michelle's.

And of course, it gets more people voting in general because there are literally days of opportunities to do so. It worked for Clinton in California. It will be interesting to see how many early voters there are.

liked the clip. Where's the rest of it?

Hawaii stories
For those interested, here's news from Hawaiiiiii

It’s a Crabby Night for Hillary Women.
OK, so we all watch MSNBC, because we’re political junkies, and we have to talk this out. We listen to them and shake our heads.
So therefore, we have all memorized Barack’s stump speech.
For years, we listened to pundits (and before that, newspeople), whining about the stump speech. Well, we’re in a unique position this year, because WE have all memorized the stump speech.
So, I was dismayed tonight, not that Barack jumped in with his speech, as the MSNBC wags liked to point out, because Hillary wasn’t “polite” enough to concede. I was dismayed because MSNBC jumped to Barack in the midst of Hillary’s speech, and then went on to carry ALL of Barack’s remarks. Every, last, wonderful and enlightening minute, exactly as before (except I think tonight he left out the cute part about the republicans whispering their support on the campaign trail. I’m fond of that part.)
I’m also beyond tired at Tim Russert and his buddies increasingly referring to all Hillary supporters as older women. I’m going to have to stop dying my hair. I am, unfortunately, a woman who before this perceived myself as middle aged. Now I’m on my way out.
Look: I love the fact that this is exciting. I love the fact that Barack has raised the excitement of the political debate. I love the fact that young people are excited, that white men who would never vote for Hillary because she’s a woman might vote for Barack, that African-Americans and Latinos are lining up for the democrats. I actually think Barack could win this, because of his stirring rhetoric and the sound caring that clearly backs up his rhetoric.
But I’ve been sitting here since Reagan, for God’s sake, writing my congresspeople; I’ve been railing against the direction this country’s taken for virtually my whole life. I don’t need Barack to raise me to a new level of consciousness. I’m conscious, all right? Where has everyone else been? Wait, Hillary’s been at it for 30 years. Hmmmm. That’s about right. That’s about how long I’ve been at it.
The last eight years have been just disgusting.
Let’s not forget that the rancor we’re bringing to this exciting democratic contest must be directed appropriately toward the republicans who have sat in their seats, for the sake of power, and supported a bad war, a failing economy, the ruin of programs that can help people in this country, for the sake of rich people getting richer, selfish interests getting stronger, and fundamentalist ideas getting center stage when their share of the stage should be comparable to everyone else’s ideas, in a democratic society.
The democrats were mistaken not to impeach Signing-Statement-Bush.
But let’s not forget that every democratic representative who has continued to do business in this country, has been fighting a republican majority that devastated this country. Making compromises, making deals, making do – -- - I admire them all, in this hapless quest. Let’s not forget who’s caused this misery.
Tell Barack he didn’t need to wake me up. I haven’t slept for years.
Sort of, like Hillary.

I really have to jump in here.

I'd like to know where you can even think of making such a statement like:

that white men who would never vote for Hillary because she’s a woman might vote for Barack

So, you seem to imply that men who don't support Hillary are sexist? Does that make you a racist for not supporting Obama?

Let's be clear about one thing: there are many of us out here who have real reasons not to support Hillary. It is *nothing* to do with gender. Your statements apparently imply that everyone wants to vote on identity. If that were the case, the neither Hillary nor Obama would be running at this point.

Hillary's gender represents only superficial change, at best. Some of use want real change. The change in the way Washington is run. Hillary represents the ultimate insider... it's pure dynasty politics.

If you have staked the happiness of your life on seeing a woman become president, you have only missed the point of living. I happen to come from a state where there are *two* (count'em) female Senators. And you know what? One of them I'm not fond of. Is it because she is a woman? Well, how would you explain that I like the other?

Are we supposed to be back to grade school where the girls vote for girls and the boys for boys?

Why not strive for a broader vision of America that is gender neutral?

If you are truly a feminist, then recognize that a woman ran a credible campaign for POTUS. And part of running is the very likely possibility that you can lose that campaign.

Because *nearly all* the people who run, lose.
And it has nothing to do with gender. Talk to John Edwards. Or Chris Dodd. Or Mitt Romney.

If you really want a woman to win the POTUS, get behind a candidate that more people could support. It's called winning an election on the basis of connecting with the electorate. And stop using the excuse that people didn't vote for her because she is a woman.

If you really want a woman to win the POTUS, she should be, first and foremost, viewed as an American.

Re: sexism, Hillary, and Obama.

I voted Obama. I like the guy, and I think Hillary's campaign has made some mistakes. But you know what? There IS sexism in this election cycle. Maybe TPM readers are too smart to fall for the crap about Hillary only being where she is because Bill cheated on her, but that (and the "shrill" comments and the "wicked witch" comments and on and on) seep into the public discourse and sentiment about Hillary.

It's impossible to quantify how *much* of the criticism she's faced is because of her gender versus because she's a Clinton. You can't separate her 'Clinton-ness' from her 'female-ness' and observe people's responses to a non-Clinton female or a non-female Clinton. I think it would be foolish to argue that certain negative reactions to her are 100% due to her gender and 0% due to her being a Clinton. But to argue the reverse, as many have done, is equally naive.

Since The Grand Panjadrum liked my sports analogy so much, I will use another.

If Hillary's best chance to get back into this race is to hope he fumbles in the debate, then this race is already over.

Barack Obama is not Joe Pisarcik.

>>>Yes, it was too long, and an unevenly delivered rally/stump/policy hybrid, but it was in prime time

Re: voting for a woman. I'm one of those *old* white women that supposedly make up Sen. Clinton's hardcore base. And, you know, after having seen so many instances of a less-qualified, less-competent person being chosen because of their gender (male), I seriously resent being pressured to, once again, chose the less-qualified (judging by how the campaigns have been run), less-competent person because of HER gender.

You mean, Hillary has to 'hope' now? Oh boy...

Actually, I've seen the stump speech in Iowa, and this wasn't it. It is almost as if Obama knew that BOTH McCain and Hillary were going to work the airy fairy 'words' theme and Obama took his national airing last night to make sure everyone knew exactly where he stood. It was in many ways the anti-Obama speach, and it was a brilliant move. If you haven't heard the soaring rhetoric before, you probably weren't tuned in anyway to WI primary. But if you heard McCain and Hill bang you on 'substance' earlier, you would hang around for the rebuttal. Again, not a great speach, but one perfect for the moment. If anything, it was too much policy, but that directly counters the not-enough argument. Fence sitters got to hear what he stands for without having to read his website.

keith olbermann's response to the whole thing was pretty hilarious. he asks matthews (from memory, the quotes may be off):

olbermann: "can you name a single significant achievement of the US senate in the last seven years?"

matthews: [mumble mumble no]

...

then as olbermann is wrapping up the show, matthews interjects:

matthews: "that's why they call it hardball"

olbermann: "well we're not on hardball, we're reporting the results of the primary."

How many more posts will elapse, do you suppose, before Matthew Weaver shows up to claim that Obama looked like an angry black man in that speech?