In 1984, Walter Mondale, a la that ubiquitous Wendy's commercial, asked, "Where's the beef?" Twenty-four years later, I ask of Mondale's fellow presidential nominee: "Where's the bounce?" It may be premature, but after announcing a running mate and with three days of the four-day convention informercial under his belt, Barack Obama's poll numbers haven't really moved. Gallup tracked him at 45 percent prior to the convention, and guess what, Gallup tracks him at 45 percent now.

What does this say about the failure of the Democratic National Convention? Unlike running mates, who can only hurt you, conventions can hurt or help you. Conventions are opportunities to show America why they should vote for you, or, alternatively, to show America why they should not vote for you. The Democrats, thus far, haven't done a good job showing America why they should vote for Obama.

This is not to say the convention is a disaster. The anarchic 1968 convention in Chicago, where riots outside and fights inside marred the event, cost Hubert Humphrey the presidency. Voters thought: If the Democrats couldn't govern their own party, why let them govern the country? "There won’t be any riots in Miami because the people who rioted in Chicago are on the platform committee," delegate Ben Wattenberg quipped about the 1972 convention. The results of welcoming the barbarians inside of the gates was predictably destructive. George McGovern began his acceptance speech at 2:48 a.m., which he later joked was primetime in Hawaii. McGovern lost in one of the biggest landslides in presidential history. In 1924, the Democratic National Convention lasted 17-days, in part because of a contentious debate over whether to condemn the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK escaped condemnation by one vote, but eighty four years later the anti-Klan Democrats are getting the last laugh.

This convention is no disaster. But it's no success story, either--at least not yet. Why? Because Democrats have not served Barack Obama well. Why didn't Mark Warner, the keynote speaker, go after John McCain more aggressively? Who, really, is doing the dirty work of going negative so Obama doesn't have to get his hands dirty? Even Joe Biden's attack was typically senatorial in its collegiality. Remember Ann Richards? She of George-Bush-was-born-with-a-silver-foot-in-his-mouth fame? Richards, by virtue of attacking a fellow Texan (even if just a Transplant Texan), stood to lose big time. But, given the opportunity to deliver the keynote, she took her pound of flesh and gave the crowd the red meat they wanted. Why couldn't Mark Warner, or anybody, have gone after John McCain with a similar enthusiasm?

Consider the two speeches that are, deservedly I think, earning plaudits from the Fourth Estate. The fact is, it shouldn't have taken this long for Hillary Clinton to unequivocally make the case for Obama. Clinton's speech was great, and her video introduction was truly awesome, but it was two months too late. And Michelle Obama did a wonderful job humanizing herself, but isn't it a little late in the game for a getting-to-know-you speech? In other words, it's a bad sign when you have to say "I love America" to reassure those who doubt that you do.

After days of wall-to-wall Obama on every network, the American people don't like his candidacy anymore than they did before the convention. Is to know him not to love him?

"Why didn't [the Dems], go after John McCain more aggressively?"

Just a hunch, but maybe b/c McCain is, in essence, one of them?

Very interesting angle. I hadn't thought of it quite that way.

Plus, in Hillary's case, she stands to gain from McCain's victory. She has to be seen as a team player, and she certinly improved her stock with that speech. But if Obama wins her window closes. McCain wins and Hillary is presumptive nominee in 2012. And history suggests that after 16 years of one party in the White House the voters will select a new party occupant.

Warner might have had similar thoughts concerning 2012. Plus, in the VA Senate race he would hurt himself if he is seen as an attack dog. He needs conservative support in VA, a la Jim Webb.

I am sure Warner knows that playing Mr. Nice Guy helps him. It doesn't help Obama, except in such a tangential sense that if Warner makes a strong run votes will trickle up the ticket to Obama. They should have chosen someone who was willing to play the pit bull on McCain--any number of people commenting on Daily Kos or talking on Air America would have lined up to do it!

I'm wondering if Obama and his team are playing it a wee bit shy due to the release of the Annenberg Challenge papers and how the controversy has highlighted his noted association with Bill Ayers.

Hayden's statements in USA Today with regard to his pal Ayers didn't help either. I'm sure this is something that McCain would gladly use and is causing the Obots to walk on egg shells.

C'mon, McCain is a conservative. His problem is that most people don't like his "opportunism," "arrogance," or inclination to "reach across the aisle." But he is a conservative, at least conservative enough for the conservative movement. Why do you think we won the nomination?

mccain won because ron paul can't message himself out of a brown paper bag, fred thompson has the charisma of al gore and work ethic of a welfare queen, giuliani likes dressing in drag and aborting babies with his bare hands, huckabee doesn't know how to fundraise and that the Republican party overall doesn't know how to recruit candidates.

That and Bill Owens decided he liked mistresses more than his wife and hated taxpayers enough to get TABOR repealed. Oh, and Rick Santorum can't win re-election, and George Allen made one stupid comment.

We had a few decent people brewing, who all went down in flames in various ways, and the people in the primary itself weren't very solid-- as evidenced by the lack of a single solid governor in the race other than Huckabee.

It has ZERO to do with McCain being a conservative.

Eric,

John McCain is a Conservative in the same way you are a moderate. Understand?

I do suppose he would be considered a conservative to the left, or at least the way they'd like for conservatives to be.

Obama bounced himself up 6 points after last night's sppech. We'll see if it is enough.

Have you heard McCain's intro and subsequent acceptance speech by VP candidate Palin? Over the top!

ASDF,

No, I don't understand.

The conservative movement picked McCain because he's reflective of their values. Every movement gets the leaders it deserves.

Eric: I think you make the same mistake that many in the conservative movement have made: conflating it with the Republican Party. There wasn't a consensus candidate among "conservatives." I voted for Ron Paul. A Southern evangelical may have gone for Huckabee. A lot of folks at NR seemed to like Romney. Others liked Thompson. CPAC, which is the largest gathering of "conservative movement" people, certainly would have booed McCain had he showed up. Yet, McCain won the nomination. The fact is, conservatives aren't kingmakers in the Republican Party, as much as they like to think that they are.

Eric, I know you didn't. That's why I tried to 'splain it to you.

Dan did a pretty good job of expanding.

There is no conservative movement separate from the Republican Party. Conservatives don't want less government, or better government, or Constitutional government; they want Republican government i.e government in the hands of Republicans.

There are different factions in the Republican Party and everyone has their own taste in what they prefer in a candidate, but none of this has to do a conservative movement that is independent of the Republican Party. To the extent there is a conservative movement independent of the Republican Party, it is largely irrelevant and inconsequential.

The conservative hostility to John McCain isn't due to his "liberalism," but due to his bi-partianship -- he is seen as willing to work with Democrats. The conservative movement is simply the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

ASDF, an explanation requires an explanation.

I think The Democrats helped McCain win the nomination by putting him over the top in New Hampshire- just as Rush's "Operation Chaos" helped Hillary extend the Democratic race. Obama
barely limped over the finish line.
Also, if Huckabee had not stayed in a race he knew he had no chance of winning, Romney might now be the the nominee. Alot of "what if"s, but
that's my take.