Remember this, when Kamala Harris endorses Biden at the Democrat Convention tonight

There's a reason I called her Kamala Chameleon.  Tonight at the Democratic National Convention, she will roundly endorse her running mate Joe Biden, but Kamala Harris is disingenuous.

If you bother watching the convention tonight, play this alongside her praise of Joe Biden, it'll be good for a laugh (or maybe a cry if you are a Democrat).

Inside the Democrat convention, malfeasance continued unabated

This video speaks for itself, as of yesterday the DNC was still gaming their own convention.

Sanders sells out, supporters don't

This, is karma for corrupt Hillary:

PHILADELPHIA — Sen. Bernie Sanders sent a text message to the leaders of his delegation pleading with them not to protest on the Democratic convention floor Monday night.

“I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest on the floor,” he wrote in the text message to his delegate whips. “Its of utmost importance you explain this to your delegations.”

He signed the text, “Bernie.”

Many of his delegates did not heed his warning, as some Sanders supporters interrupted the convention’s opening prayer with chants of “Bernie!” DNC Chair Rep. Marcia Fudge reprimanded the delegates for interrupting her opening remarks when she said she was “excited” to help elect Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine. “Excuse me!” she pleaded, as Sanders delegates interrupted her with boos and chants of “Bernie.”

She may have reached her tipping point.  We can only hope at this moment.

After Puerto Rico, Hillary has her artificial win

Add in the Superdelegate party insiders who pre-backed Hillary Clinton, and regardless of whether Bernie Sanders sweeps the vote in California and other states today, Clinton has "won" the "Democratic" party nomination for president;

SAN FRANCISCO — Unbridled fury about the media and the Democratic establishment rippled through a crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters here Monday after reports that Hillary Clinton had clinched the Democratic presidential nomination...

Turning toward the Democratic superdelegates who do not formally vote until the convention, Sanders said they should look hard at polling data and argued that he is best positioned to take on Trump in the fall campaign.

Bernie Sanders will continue on, in the hope only rto drag the party further left.  I would have laughed at the conundrum for the party as Hillary would need to keep moving left and moving out of contention versus Trump (or any Republican nominee who might have won for that matter), but now I'm actually concerned.  Because as Hillary tacks leftward, even after clinching the nomination the thought of her winning is that much scarier.  So I'm currently a bit perplexed.  There should be some clarity once we reach the Democratic and Republican conventions.  At least I hope that will be the case.

Two contested conventions?

Back about six weeks ago, I tried to do the calculus on who would win what state for both the Democratic primaries.  I even posted about some of it.  I need to dig out my Excel tables and see how I did on a state-by-state basis.  But from the perspective of now, the races both are a lot more interesting than they were a week ago.

Ted Cruz trounced Trump in Wisconsin and Bernie Sanders has bested Clinton in a impressively growing string of contests too.  It's becoming more and more possible (the unDemocratic super-delegates aside) that both parties end up having contested conventions if recent trends hold.  I doubt many people would have guessed that a week ago.

Buckle your seat belts. 

And as an unrelated aside R.I.P. Merle Haggard.

Last word politics and the conventions

The editors at National Review make a sound case today as to why conservatives should not fear the bounce for Obama coming out of the Democratic convention (a bounce that in fact looks soft already).  But in making a good case, I think they may have made a mistake in their pronouncement on tactics.

The Democrats, it seems to us, made better use of their convention than the Republicans made of theirs. The Republican message, especially in the most-watched addresses, seemed less coordinated, deliberate, and focused. Republicans spent too much time explaining what a nice guy Romney is and how happy he is about female empowerment, and not enough time explaining how he would improve the national condition.

Both party coalitions are strong. In the absence of shocks, presidential races will be tight.

(emphasis added)

Here's where I think they got it wrong. 

Obama venue like Obama speech - over-promise, under-deliver

Empty chair, meet empty stadium.

Call him president downgrade.  Obama promised everything in 2008.  I think I recall him saying we'd have solar-powered flying cars by the end of his first term in office. I don't have one. Maybe he didn't promise that one.  He did promise oceans would stop rising and crazy numbers of jobs would be created and the deficit would be cut in half and he'd end the war, and scads of other stuff. Come to think of it, the one thing he didn't promise as far as I recall, was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.  But I digress.  The point is president Obama has under-delivered on his vast list of promises.

So why should his 2012 convention speech be anything but more over-promising?  That's something for voters to bear in mind while listening to it.

My Favorite 2012 RNC convention speech

My favorite RNC convention speeches: Condi Rice, with Marco Rubio a close second.  Both speeches were terrific. Both serve as a palate cleanser for the DNC speeches to come this week.  I'll probably be revisiting this page myself a few times this week.

Intended or not, the Clint Eastwood speech was tactically brilliant

Over at the Blog de King Shamus, the Clint Eastwood speech "fallout" gets put to bed:

Everybody’s second-favorite community organizer Saul Alinksy said that ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It works so well because it rallies your troops. Even better, when a well-played joke lands squarely on target, it causes problems for the other side. Look at how the Stalinists were so discombobulated by Clint’s mockery of their Saviour. When they went into Panic Alert Obama Defense Level Five, they spent a lot of time addressing Clint’s speech rather than dealing with Mitt Romney.

It's a great point.  You know that the Doomocrats will go hard after Romney and Ryan at their convention this week, but by focusing all of their panic on Clint Eastwood's speech right now, they ignore the content of the Romney speech and thereby stall their attacks on Romney for a little while. The whole Democratic approach to this election was to demonize Romney (and Ryan).  Demonizing Clint Eastwood doesn't help them one iota.  Not one.  No one will be voting for Clint Eastwood in 2012.  No one will be voting against him or against Romney based on Eastwood either.

What this does, is allows Romney's convention bounce to gain some traction and avoids the risk of the liberal attacks derailing the bounce.  The Democrats by positioning their convention right after the Republicans clearly want to suck the strength out of the natural convention bounce for the Republicans.  The Clint Eastwood speech whether intended or not, swayed the focus of liberal attacks to his supposedly oddball speech and Mitt Romney gets a few days of a free ride.

The other tactical brilliance of Eastwood's speech is what it did for Republicans.  A favorite Obama trick is to supposedly remain above the fray while surrogates - 'not connected with the president' mind you - serve as attack dogs.  Eastwood got in some zingers about the president in the middle of a convention that was focused on the approach that it's okay to change your mind about Obama.  Yes, he's a nice guy (ha!) but he's not a good president.  It's time for a change, because the country deserves and needs better.  That message can't be inter-mingled with attacks.  Clint Eastwood says those things and while he's a Republican supporter, he's arms length from team Romney.

Now when Democrats go into their convention armed for Bain, they are going to play to their playbook and attack Romney and Ryan.  They'll look petty while Romney gets to stay above the partisan fray and focus on economic policy and jobs.

In retrospect, Eastwood's speech may have done a lot more good for the Republican cause than at first blush.  That makes my day.

Is Palin a good idea or bad news?

It's seemingly clear that Sarah Palin is not(?) going to be speaking at the GOP convention this year.  That if true, is a mistake.

Via GretaWire:

“…Everything I said at the 2008 convention about then-candidate Obama still stands today, and in fact the predictions made about the very unqualified and inexperienced Community Organizer’s plans to “fundamentally transform” our country are unfortunately coming true. This year is a good opportunity for other voices to speak at the convention and I’m excited to hear them. As I’ve repeatedly said, I support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in their efforts to replace President Obama at the ballot box, and I intend to focus on grassroots efforts to rally Independents and the GOP base to elect Senate and House members so a wise Congress is ready to work with our new President to get our country back on the right path. This is imperative. As President Clinton said in 2008 while candidate Obama and lapdogs in the media were thrashing his wife’s record and reputation, this is “…the biggest fairy tale.” For the sake of America’s solvency and sovereignty we must close this nonsensical book in November…”

(emphasis added)

The irony that everything she said at the 2008 convention still holds true, is all the more reason to have her speak at the 2012 convention. In fact, it'd make a great headline-grabbing stunt. Have her words from 2008 played back on the video screen while she stands at the podium in front of it.

When those comments are done, have her speak and remind people that those words were so right. Maybe a simple "Ditto." or "What she said." followed by a pause as if there were nothing to add would be poignant enough to make the point crystal clear.

It would certainly get media attention. And I guarantee you it would be negative attention. But that would reinforce the idea that the media got it wrong last time, and they are still getting it wrong now. What an opening.

Further, Palin is not toxic.  She is still a charismatic messenger, and now she's unencumbered by the shackles of being number 2 on the ticket.  If the media skewers her and gets away with it, so what?  It doesn't damage the ticket, and that truly frees her up to be a powerful, highly visible attack dog (pardon the term).

Palin at the convention?  It should be a no-brainer.