Charlie_Brennan's Blog

What a difference four years can make.

Colorado drew visits from both Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush in 2004, but the two were hardly tripping over one another in coming and going from the Centennial State, as their successors are, this time around.

Colorado matters in 2008 as it has rarely -- if ever -- mattered before in presidential electoral politics, as witnessed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's visit Monday, and the Monday-Tuesday stop-over by Sen. Barack Obama. Even before they stopped in to see us - yet again - it had been widely reported that Colorado was seen as a key battleground state in this year's presidential sweepstakes.

But, pigs flying and the moon turning to green cheese, some are now saying Colorado could be - apologies to President Bush - THE decider, in 2008.

Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the widely respected and bipartisan Rothenberg Political Report, is updating his previous observation that voters in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan will determine the winner of the McCain-Obama battle. This week, he revised his analysis to say: "I've become convinced that my initial list of five states can probably be boiled down to just one - one state that is most likely to determine who will be the next occupant of the White House. And that state is Colorado."

He goes on to say that if McCain carries Colorado in November, he would expect McCain to hold on to all of President George W. Bush's states from 2000, minus New Hampshire. If Obama, in turn, kept all the states Al Gore won in 2000, plus New Hampshire, McCain would win the election 274 electoral votes to 264 for Obama.

Colorado, he notes, has voted Republican for president in nine of the past 10 presidential elections - 1992 with Bill Clinton the victor is the exception - and that President George W. Bush won it twice, including by 5 points in 2004.

Rothenberg explained his thinking further in an interview Friday.

"It looks at this point, if the election is close, and most of the Republican states in 2000 and 2004 will go for John McCain, most of the Democratic states in 2000 and 2004 will go for Barack Obama, we're only talking about a handful of states that appear to be extremely competitive, right on the edge for both candidates," said Rothenberg.

"The polls show it, the insiders believe it, and if you look at the recent electoral behavior of Colorado, it's traditionally Republican and moving Democratic. It just has the kinds of swing voters, the upscale white voters, who have been attracted to Barack Obama. I think the state's going to be very close."

He added, "Right now, it looks like they're only a half-dozen states that are really pure toss-ups. And, if you assign the ones that are likely to go Republican and likely to go Democratic, when you get through them all, you get 49 states that are assignable; the one that's hardest to push either toward McCain or to Obama is Colorado."

Rothenberg made note that Colorado's history of trending red has lately tilted toward blue with Democratic control of the legislature, a majority in its Congressional delegation, and Gov. Bill Ritter's election in 2006.

"You have the state's long-term, fundamental Republican bent, and you overlay that with its recent Democratic voting pattern, and I think you get the surprising result that Colorado is the 'swingiest' of all the swing states, for this presidential election."

Rothenberg is not alone in having elevated Colorado from status of "a" key state to "the" key state.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the same thing in a conference call Thursday, highlighting a trio of potentially critical western states - Colorado, Nevada and Montana, but placing Colorado at the top in terms its potential decisiveness.

Denver-based political analyst Eric Sondermann said Rothenberg was worth heeding on the subject, noting that "He is regarded as one of the two or three non- partisan, non-aligned, very credible substantive political analysts on the national scene."

"Could Colorado be the decisive, pivotal state, not just a swing state but the one that it all pivots on? Absolutely, it could," said Sondermann. "Will that happen? We'll still have to see. It relates to what goes on here, and it also relates to how other states develop, and whether they go into one camp or another, or stay right at the margins."

Sondermann noted, "This is completely uncharted waters for Colorado. We've been a state in play, periodically -- not all that often but periodically. We've been a state in play, but it's a big difference, a big difference, from being a state in play, being contested and being potentially the state that decides it all."

It's certainly exciting - regardless of one's political affiliation or who one might be pulling for Nov. 4, to think that the nation could be talking about Colorado as the state that determined the 44th President of the United States.

Unless, of course you're already tired of the politcal ads - negative and otherwise.

Because, with still more than six weeks to go, you ain't seen nothing, yet.

With apologies to the great philosopher Yogi Berra, in politics, you don’t know nothing.

The former New York Yankee legend said that about baseball, alluding to the fact that through its century-plus long history, the game has routinely humbled the wisest men for its propensity to confound all expectations and routinely show us that the previously unthinkable is often the next thing coming around the corner.

Speaking of the Yankees, look no further than the fact that the anemically-funded Tampa Bay Rays have a 10-game lead on the Yankees as I write this.

And so it is with many voters’ burgeoning love affair with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The day that Arizona Sen. John McCain announced her as his running mate, I ridiculed the selection. I wrote that it was bold and surprising and daring – but that it would also be bold, daring and surprising for me to wear a dress, but that would not necessarily be a good idea.

McCain’s pick of Palin was more than bold. It may have been a stroke of genius.

This is several days late in coming, but still needs to be said. I covered the McCain-Palin appearance in Colorado Springs this past Saturday, and the public’s response to this pair was unlike anything I have previously seen on the Republican side of the aisle in this campaign season.

Saturday marked the fourth McCain event I have covered in Colorado this year. Each of those prior appearances in what is said to be a battleground state struck me as notably lacking in genuine passion on the part of folks who turned out to see him.

Granted, none of those three previous campaign stops were in settings that would naturally lend themselves to the type of receptions that would typically be fodder for the next campaign ad. One was a sober town hall discussion on health care; another was an even more sober presentation by McCain on the dangers of nuclear proliferation; finally, there was a speech to a Hispanic veterans group, which included no shortage of Democrats in the audience.

But in Colorado Springs on Saturday, the reception to the McCain-Palin ticket showed a level of excitement and passion that can’t be manufactured. When we arrived shortly after 6:30 a.m., for a speech not scheduled to start until noon, there were already hundreds of people clutching coffee and coats against the pre-dawn chill, eager to get a good place in line.

By 9 a.m. when the three-sided airplane hangar where the rally was held opened up, there were thousands on hand. By noon, the number massed there appeared to be on the far side of 10,000, and would have taken someone far more qualified than I to estimate with any accuracy.

“Hockey Moms for Palin,” “Read My Lipstick,” and other signs amplified the rock-star caliber celebrity which already attends this political meteor that has winged in from left field to dominate the discussion early in the homestretch to Election Day 2008.

Oops, did I just say, “celebrity”? The McCain campaign until very recently was mocking Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with that very word, suggesting that he has arrived where he is courtesy of little more than a lot of glitz and glamour backed up by a deficit of substance. That may or may not have worked well for the Republican cause.

Far better, it appears, to go out and find a celebrity of your own to excite the previously unmoved. Who would have thought the McCain campaign would have to go to Wasilla, Alaska, to find one?

The polls are fluid, and the only one that matters will be taken at the polls on Nov. 4. Oct. 2 looms as a key date. That is when Palin will be debating Obama’s running mate, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden.

I expect, due to her more modest background, that the expectations for Palin will be set low. And if that’s the case, her key mission will be to not do badly – to hold her own.

If Palin manages to acquit herself at least moderately well in debating Biden – and, based on what we’ve seen of her so far, who would bet that she won’t? – and if no additional surprises appear out of the backwoods of Alaskan politics, Palin could be a decisive asset to the Republican ticket.

Shows what I know.

Protesters who took to the streets of Denver during the Democratic National Convention vowed today to pursue federal lawsuits against the City and County of Denver for alleged acts of brutality and violations of their free speech rights during the party's four-day assembly last month.

They gathered at the office of attorney David Lane to announce plans for their lawsuit, which they intend to file after the protesters first seek to have any criminal charges filed against them during the DNC protests are resolved - preferably, they said, by having them dismissed.

"We will take these officers and the city and county of Denver into federal district court as soon as we get it all sorted out," Lane said Tuesday. "We will seek damages from the City and County of Denver, which is unfortunate that taxpayers have to foot the bill for police misconduct. But, when there is police misconduct of this nature, we will not tolerate it and we will go after those officers."

Specific incidents triggering the threatened legal actions include the corralling between phalanxes of police of several hundred people, including pedestrians not part of any organized protest, in the vicinity of 15th Steet and Cleveland Place the evening of Aug. 25, the first night of the convention.

That incident led to the arrest of more than 100 protesters, but many people not connected to protest activity complained of being trapped there by police, with no way of escaping the crowd.

Lane and his clients also focused on the convention protest arrest of Code Pink Activist Alicia Forrest, who was captured being knocked to the ground by a baton-wielding officer after a heated verbal exchange.

"She is part of this, and we are coming after that police officer with every legal means available to us," said Lane, who termed the episode a case of second-degree assault on the part of the officer, whom he did not identify.

"Had a protester done that to a police officer, that protester would be lucky to be live right now."

Glenn Spagnuolo, a co-founder and spokesman for the activist group Recreate 68 said, "There was a systematic attempt by the Denver Police Department to suppress the rights of American citizens to engage in dissent during the DNC, ranging from illegal searches of vehicles that were bringing signs to rallies and protests, to having signs confiscated, to issues of police brutality."

He added, "There were stories made by the mayor's office to create this atmosphere that the people who were arrested were engaging in criminal behaviors, and were criminal elements that came to disrupt the DNC - when they were really just American citizens who were coming to protest."

The office of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper on Tuesday declined to comment on any pending litigation against the city. However, in the wake of the DNC, the city released a statement in which Hickenlooper applauded the conduct of police, the city's public works department, and other agencies involved in attempting to maintain the peace during a week in which there had been threats of up to 50,000 people taking to the streets during the convention, some with the stated goal of disrupting the proceedings.

Police recorded 152 arrests during the DNC, although only 134 are known with certainty to have been related to political protests.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter.

Maybe it’s just not significant that Arizona Sen. John McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a political asterisk on the national scene prior to last Friday, as the person to help propel him into the White House when America votes in two months.

Perhaps surprisingly, the first woman to run for the vice presidency on a major ticket doesn’t think it will swing things too much one way or the other.

The selection of Palin will matter “very little,” Geraldine Ferraro told me, as America was gearing up to watch this 44-year-old mother of five deliver the most important speech of her brief political life.

“If you look at it historically, in 1960 Lyndon Johnson added one percent to the ticket,” Ferraro said. “It was an important one percent. It was the state of Texas. And it was such a close race, that John F. Kennedy won the presidency, because of it.”

Twenty-four years later, Ferraro was tabbed by former Vice President Walter Mondale as the woman to break a political glass ceiling that had been in place more than 200 years.

“In 1984. I added eight-tenths of one percent,” Ferraro said. “Now, Fritz was behind by something like 16 points in July. It went dead-even, past the convention, when my nomination was announced. But, when we ended up on Election Day, we ended up with people voting as they always do -- for the top of the ticket. I added eight-tenths of one percent. We were 15 points behind. It made no difference.”

Generally speaking, said Ferraro, who just turned 73 – a year older than McCain, whom she does not consider old -- “In races where they're not close, a vice presidential candidate doesn't mean much, because what ends up happening is, when people go to the polls, they really vote for the top of the ticket. They vote for the person who is going to be president on day one. And that's what they care about.”

Her perspective was largely supported by Joel K. Goldstein, a vice presidential scholar and professor at the St. Louis University School of Law.

However, said Goldstein, the vice presidential pick can swing an election by several points if the person occupying the second slot on the ticket does not seem potentially presidential.

“I think that if people are not comfortable with Governor Palin being somebody who could sit in the Oval Office and lead the country, then I think it could cost Senator McCain -- not only because people will be uncomfortable with having somebody that close to the White House, but also it would reflect unfavorably on Senator McCain's judgment,” said Goldstein.

“If one party chooses someone who is presidential, and the other party chooses someone who is not ready for prime time, I think that it can shift a few percentage points.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, 65, and a 35-year veteran of the Senate, failed to excite anywhere nearly enough voters nationally in his two campaigns for president, in 1988 and again this year. But I’m not aware that the mere mental picture of Biden in the Oval Office elicits chortles or horror – except from those who would be chilled at the possibility of any Democrat returning there in their lifetimes. So far, there is little in Palin’s biography that speaks obviously of her presidential qualifications, although in terms of the nation’s perceptions of Palin, early reviews of her nomination acceptance speech suggest that she cleared a big hurdle Wednesday night with room to spare.

Ferraro, a member of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee until a remark she made about Obama that some perceived as racist led her to resign that post, had kind words for Palin.

“For one thing, I heard her say my name for the first time on national television (Friday) with reference to the campaign, and thanked me, which I thought was very nice,” said Ferraro. “Because, that was the first time that has been done in 24 years.

“And what that did was, it focused attention again, not on me, but on the fact that that campaign did make a difference for a lot of women in the country. So, I was pleased about that.”

And, while Ferraro said she would carry fond memories of her historic but unsuccessful run with Mondale “to the grave,” she added, “I have always said I wish I weren't the only one. And now I’m not the only one. And so now, it's up to her.”

Ferraro added, “If you take a look at this race, you have the first American who is going to go to that White House, if Obama is elected, and pull down the ‘Whites Only’ door to the White House. And, if she - if McCain is elected - she will go there, and pull down the ‘Men Only’ sign from the White House.

“So, no matter which campaign wins, on a broader, different level, you know, America wins. Because, we have once more reduced one more piece of discrimination against a set part of our electorate.”

Wednesday night as he was leaving Fox31’s skybox studio at the Pepsi Center, I stopped Mayor John Hickenlooper as he was on his way out the door and shook his hand. “It looks like you pulled it off,” I told him.

Looking like an anxious student who found out the final wasn’t as bad as he’d feared but won’t know until he has seen the final grade, Hickenlooper smiled slightly and said, “Well, so far. Knock on wood,” and rapped his knuckles on the door to our suite before heading off in the direction of the Clinton suite, two doors down the hall.

Well, he did. They did. This thing worked, in a big way.

Up to last night, I heard one (that is, 1) complaint, and that was from a woman who said she’d had trouble getting cabs. Last night, for the big finale, there were more – and I was one of those doing the complaining.

Somewhere about 6 p.m., fire marshals determined that there were too many people choking the Invesco Field floor,, and started refusing re-entry to people who had gone up to the main concourse for food, beverage, a restroom break or what have you. Having stepped outside Invesco to do a live shot for our 5:00 p.m. show, I was among those who ran up against stone-faced security after stone-faced security, denied in my attempt to get back to Fox 31’s work space on the west-side sideline media area. There were many, many people, separated from their spouses, children, or belongings who were extremely perturbed, some in tears, as they desperately made their case for being made an exception.

I finally found an actual fire marshal, who told me that if I made my way down the ramps at Invesco’s north end, to the field-level tunnel, he’d heard some were being allowed entry there.

That was not the solution – at first. In fact, there I found I was in good company, in a bad way. Among those being barred by the Secret Service were Jenni Engebretsen, deputy public affairs director for the Democratic National Convention Committee, - the hosts of this rodeo - and Matt Chandler, spokesman for the Obama campaign in Colorado. That was some comfort. As Engebretsen furiously worked her Blackberry for a solution, and Matt glumly disappeared elsewhere into the bowels of the stadium, it made it easier not to take my predicament personally.

As we stood there sweating and watching one of the bigger moments in both our careers appear to be taking a wrong turn down nightmare alley, I said to Engebretsen, with apologies to Sen. Joe Biden the night before, “This is not the change we need.” Engebretsen was finally able to summon the Secret Service guy’s boss and make a convincing case for her entry – leaving me feeling like the Titanic passenger watching the last person get into the lifeboat ahead of them. I, too, eventually was granted clemency, getting an escort back onto the field by a Broomfield cop, at the direction of the Secret Service, 90 minutes after I had left. I had missed Al Gore, several entertainers, and had long enough to contemplate my next act, professionally, after my news director fired me for missing the biggest story of this year, and perhaps several other years, as well.

So, there was stuff like that. Our Fox31 crew enjoyed the benefits of a private shuttle that got us close to the venues each night, and on Thursday night it sure appeared to be a good thing that we weren’t relying on public transportation or other means to get in and out of there.

Inconveniences. You’re going to have that, when you invite the world to your town to be part of something that has never happened in more than two centuries of this nation’s history, the nomination of a minority member to head a major party presidential ticket. If anyone thought it would be easy, they’re only part-time inhabitants of the real world. We will find out in subsequent days and weeks, as the first-draft history of this escapade is revised in a second and third draft, that there was some money misspent, that there were people who never got back down to their seats, that expenses for some item or items far exceeded budget.

But unless something truly ugly, so far undetected by the 15,000 media members in town for the festivities, comes to light in the near future, then all the above was worth it.

A brief mention, one more time of Recreate 68, the affiliated protest groups who exceeded even Brett Favre over the summer in number of press conference appearances to say things that annoyed people. The number, one more time, that organizer Glenn Spagnuolo predicted would come here to raise havoc, was 50,000.

There were reasons to dismiss that outright as ludicrous. Here are a few. One, that happened to be the same number DNC organizers hoped to bring to Denver, total, to participate in the event. It seemed highly unlikely protesters, in an age when even the Iraq war hasn’t generated protests with those numbers except for on a rare handful of occasions, it made no sense that hordes would be storming the gates against a party that, for example, opposes the Iraq war and was preparing to nominate either the nation’s first African-American or a woman to a major party ticket.

 Another is, every press conference I attended for a protest group prior to the convention was the same small cadre of usual suspects. Spagnuolo, Barbara and Mark Cohen, a couple of others. There was one memorable briefing in Civic Center Park, where one protester showed up to say he wasn’t going to be associating his efforts with Spagnuolo, anymore. I soon developed a strong sense that we were in a small echo chamber, listening to the same small cast of characters speaking to hear themselves speak, and who had figured out that on a slow summer day, if you hold a press conference, the media will come. And, if you don’t slur your words or have obvious food stains on your shirt, we’ll listen and take you seriously enough to put you on TV.

Maybe we’ll change our policy, in some cases.

Point is, law enforcement officials, even while asking us, “Why do you keep covering those guys?’’, had to also act as if they were real, and posed a legitimate threat and make plans accordingly. So as you cursed the road closures and phalanxes of police who might have slowed you down this week, I’d say don’t blame authorities or the DNC. Blame the people who made a career over the past year warning that it all would be necessary.

The 84,000 people at Invesco Field to hear the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, the “guy with the funny name,” as his wife endearingly first knew him, the man who wrapped his speech by honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. by declaring, “America, we cannot turn back,” know that they saw history with a capitol H. Small children who were on hand, but too young to understand much more than the fireworks, will tell their grand-children generations from now, I Was There.

You can’t put a price-tag on that, and if you and I had our moments of inconvenience, they don’t matter.

Wednesday night, after Hillary Clinton brought the roll call vote to an end by moving for Obama’s nomination by acclimation, and after Bill Clinton delivered another one of his speeches for the ages, I was walking up the 16th Street Mall toward my hotel, soaking up the excitement, the vibrancy, of a former cow town that has been growing up in fits and starts for the 24 years I’ve lived in Colorado, and had shown the world competence, class – and a week-long party worthy of the words “mile high.”

On my way up the mall, gathered in a group near Champa Street, there was a circle of children, young girls, playing with hula-hoops. This was about 10 o’clock at night.  If there was any one image, outside the political arena, that showed what a success story this week has been, that’s the one that will stay with me. Children with hula hoops late on a summer night on the 16th Street Mall, while, oh by the way, every business in sight that still had its doors open was still doing a brisk business. A lot of people had done something right, to create a scene like that.

With apologies to Barack Obama, yes we did. Perhaps in another 100 years we should do it again.

From the floor of the Pepsi Center directly in front of the stage, I could stand and look to the back of the hall to see the clock by the teleprompter that showed each speaker the countdown to when they were out of time.

That’s how I knew President Bill Clinton was running over. Way over. I don’t think anyone minded, nor was anyone surprised.

When the Big Dog came out and quickly found his rhythm, just about every other speaker in the Democratic National Convention’s first three days quickly became fuzzy memories. With the exceptions of both his wife and Teddy Kennedy, most notably.

As I followed Clinton’s oratory from his assurance that Hillary Clinton “is going to do everything she can to elect Barack Obama – that makes two of us,” to “Barack Obama is ready to lead America,” and saw the digital clock tick down past zero and start into the red-zone, it was clear that while the former president could see the teleprompter but wasn’t too interested in the time-check and flashing red light.

The only people checking their own watches nervously were likely the DNC show producers who had a rock-solid commitment to have this thing over by 9 p.m., in order to start the break-down and move-out to Invesco Field something this side of immediately.

When the 42nd president of the United States wrapped up by inviting America to join he and his family in making Obama the next president of the United States, the teleprompter clock indicated he’s run over the scheduled time for his speech by 10:23.

He had also, I would wager, gone a long way to quickly making many Democrats ready to forgive every peevish mis-step he might have made in the marathon campaign fight to put his wife, and himself, back in the White House.

When Clinton made his way a short time later along the 200-level corridor right past our FOX 31 skybox, to the box he and Hillary had commandeered just two suites down the hall, the crush of humanity pressing in around him was sobering. It’s not just that Bubba still has it. He IS it.

And if Clinton knocked it out of the park, Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden only lined one off the wall, working the themes of “change we need” and “John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right,” effectively to a crowd that was probably as excited to be reaching the finish line in one piece, as with many of the specifics Biden offered.

Of course, having a slugger like Obama to come off the bench in the bottom of the ninth, the evening’s final five minutes, to close the evening with a sniff of what was to come 23 hours later at Invesco Field, certainly did nothing to hurt Biden’s overall performance.

It’s dangerous to judge these things in a vacuum. Both Clintons, Biden and Obama are playing to a “home” crowd, in essence. Put another way, the other team is not on the field, so we’re left with the impression of watching victory lap after victory lap before the contest has fully been joined.

Nevertheless, Clinton reminded Democrats of their ability to win national elections, and had them feeling Wednesday night like the next win is little more than two months away. If enough of them start believing it, those watching at home around the country in particular, t hey just might make it happen.


Just as he said of Obama in praising his choice of a running mate, Clinton “hit it out of the park.”

This has been a long time in coming.

My rant, that is – not New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s last major speech prior to her opponent removing the “presumptive” modifier to the label of Democratic presidential nominee.

Her speech was gracious and forceful as we knew it would be, and in saying “The time is now to unite as a single party, with a single purpose. We are on the same team,” she erased any ambiguity about her support for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

No, this need not be a rant; although, it has been simmering on my mental front burner for so long that a rant is a real danger.

It is simply this; Clinton did not lose because her gender proved too big a hurdle for too many voters. I really don’t believe that. The same Democratic, independent and left-tilting Republicans who can accommodate an African-American at the top of the ticket can, for the most part, also accept a woman in the Oval Office.

The hurdle for many Democrats was that it would be a woman named Clinton. A woman who, most importantly, is married to a former president by the name of William Jefferson Clinton. I know you’ve heard of him. He was in the house Tuesday night, and will be addressing the convention Wednesday night.

The 42nd President of the United States held office for eight years, eight years that saw America make significant strides, particularly on the economic front, but also gave us the tortuous Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton’s impeachment. Perhaps you feel that impeachment was a severe or disproportionate response to his misdeeds. Maybe you think it wasn’t enough. What most everyone would agree with is that it was a highly unpleasant chapter in the long and illustrious history of the executive office.

I live in Boulder County, where it is not too much of a chore to find a Democrat. Of course, it’s hard to find anything but. And, many whom I know are supporting Obama, and many of them are women. They are not rejecting Hillary Clinton’s gender as unsuitable for leadership. They are saying20no thank you to a return to the psychodrama of the 1990s that saw the Clintons in the not always graceful roles of leading man and lady.

This is not to suggest that the two have lingering unresolved issues – although that’s possible, too. A continuing narrative to Hillary’s long battle with Obama was that Hillary still cannot always control Bill – or at least rein in some of his more impolitic instincts. If it’s a well-worn path the country has already traveled, with mixed results, did America really need to travel it once again, and hope against hope for different results? Many Democrats I talk to thought that was an easy call. And that, I believe, has more to do with Hillary being forced Tuesday night at the Pepsi Center to officially and finally step aside.

A side note to the perils of putting Bill and Hill back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; would you want to be the vice president in that White House? Can you imagine serving as the potential Commander in Chief in waiting with a former Commander in Chief in the wings, watching over our shoulder? A perverse part of me was half-hoping to see Hillary Clinton win, just to see what kind of political cipher would be willing to take that post and immediately become the least significant Vice President in history -- and our recent history has offered a few.

I remember the heckler at a Clinton campaign appearance who yelled “Iron my shirt.” I remember the McCain supporter who asked the Arizona senator at a campaign stop “How are we going to beat “ the you-know-what.

Yes, there are sexist Neanderthals who would not consider a woman for President. Although I don’t believe those voters would be that charmed by a minority, either. Yes, the press was at times harsh. The New York Times’ own ombudsman concluded that the paper’s popular Op-ed-page scold Maureen Dowd had been a bit over the top in some of her caustic commentary on Hillary Clinton. But I don’t accept that Clinton's gender, or American voters’ comfort or discomfort with a female running the country, was a critical issue with those who rejected her candidacy.

It was who this woman was married to, the fact that many voters were way too familiar with their story, and didn’t want to live it again. They wanted something new.

They wanted, dare I say it, change.

Here's a mystery for which I know there's an answer - I just don't know what it is. What was behind the silent Pepsi Center fly-by performed Monday by former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalyn?

A political convention is not unlike a cram-course civics lesson in which virtually every living, ambulatory, relevant figure from each party makes at least a cameo on stage to remind you either why they matter, allow them to tell you why the candidate matters, or, well, with a few of them I'm not sure why.

So it should not have surprised me to see the Carters appear, President Carter looking great and Rosalyn almost so.  But before you could say "cardigan sweater," suddenly they were disappearing into the gloaming from whence they'd sprung. Without saying a word.

At a convention in which the Democrats are trotting out people like Mike Fisher, a previously anonymous Amtrak tech from Indiana who might, I repeat, might, be laid off due to economic woes, the Donkeys can't make time for a former president to address the convention? Or was it Carter who didn't want to speak?

I get it that Carter is not viewed as the most successful president of my lifetime. I remember the whole "malaise" thing, and know that we're not in a climate where any party wants to be seen as blaming regular Americans for their economic woes, real or, as Phil Gramm would have it, imagined.

Here's hoping that there is a mundane and benign explanation for why Carter didn't speak - and I mean Jimmy, not Rosalyn. But, I almost would have taken Rosalyn over neither. Politics is a cold-blooded business much of the time, and I fear this may have been the hard-edged calculus of big-league electioneering, where even a former president, who I don't recall having resigned in disgrace or anything like that, can't be risked allowing near a microphone, for fear that a few undecided voters might say, "Hey, isn't that the guy who implied that I bore some responsibility for doing something about my own state of affairs some 30 years ago?" and therefore vote for Arizona Sen. John McCain.

There are probably even a few Democrats in attendance at this convention who, given the bloodiness of the battle between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, might have rather spent a few minutes listening to Carter than to former President Bill Clinton who will be speaking - probably at some length - on Wednesday.

As I started by saying, I know there's an answer to the blink-and-you-miss-it Carter cameo. If you know, go ahead and let me know. There's enough20going on right now, I need all the help I can get.

One full day into its biggest challenge in many a year, it appears Denver hasn't blinked.

It's dangerous to judge anything this big this early in the game. But Monday showed no evidence that this former cow town is not up to this very considerable and historic test . Denver has not blown its big moment. At least, not yet.

Also on Monday, the Democratic Party graced one of its living legends with a stirring farewell even as it prepared to bestow its blessings on the brightest star of its present and at least its near future.

And Recreate 68 at least now has another four20full years to create something more impressive than we've seen from them to date.

I never expected the activists to flood Denver with the 50,000 fevered protesters that the omnipresent Glenn Spagnuolo famously projected. Or even 25,000. But I must admit that when I phoned a journalism colleague from my post at the Pepsi Center about 5:30 p.m. Monday to see whether they had managed to encircle and levitate the U.S. Mint as promised, I certainly anticipated they'd have more than the 70 sons of Abbie and Jerry that they in fact mustered.

Seventy. That's not enough to levitate - or even to encircle - a Starbucks.

It never made sense to me that a packed Coors Fields' worth of political activists would take to Denver's streets to rage against the party more likely to push for a faster withdrawal from Iraq and a more substantive move toward developing alternative energy, just to name two of Recreate 68's favored issues. I would have thought they'd be making St. Paul and the Republicans their primary target. 

For months, and months, Recreate 68 had managed to create an impression that this week was not so much about the coronation of the Democratic Party's bright young prince, but much more, about them. Monday, despite some street brushfires and a relative handful of arrests, reminded us what this week is about. And, it's not about Glenn Spagnuolo.

(As I write this, it's 2:05 a.m. Tuesday, and I hear sirens in the distance outside the Grand Hyatt, where I'm holed up with the Colorado delegation. Those sirens might be for a drunk driver who put his or her car into Cherry Creek, but it's also a reminder that there's still plenty of time left for bad things to happen. However, isn't that always the case?)

It was into the early afternoon Monday when I first heard that not only would there be a prime time tribute to the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, but that he might also make an appearance onstage. And even when it became obvious, as I pressed up against the stage at the Pepsi Center, that he was going to be there in person, I still doubted he would speak at any length, given his ongoing struggle with brain cancer.

Not only did Kennedy speak, but he provided the first night's most indelible highlight, preaching with passion and fiery conviction about the need for Washington and the nation at large to make affordable health care for all a true priority, Regardless of one's political affiliation, it would be hard to imagine a more credible voice on the subject, or to dismiss his oratory as simply more politics. Called upon, seemingly, merely to step up to receive a fat helping of adoration, Kennedy instead showed that even at something short of half-strength, he has a fighter's heart and the staying power of a true believer. It might have been his last, most meaningful moment at politics' center stage. And if it was, he made it much more than a ceremonial star-turn. He left it all, as they say, out on the field.

Monday was game-planned to be Michelle Obama's night, and she did a fine job of telling America that she loves this country and why her husband, the guy with the "funny name," as she20said, is someone they could and should be comfortable with at the helm of a nation in need of a strong hand. It is remarkable to me that pundits still talk about Americans feeling they still don't adequately know someone who has essentially been living on our television screens and front pages for the better part of two years. But, the polls say that's the case for many. And we all know the polls don't lie.

It's not Michelle Obama's fault that she ended up, in my sight, in the also-deserving-mention category the night on which she was meant to be the featured speaker and Big Story.

Ted Kennedy gave she who would be our next First Lady an extremely tough act to follow.  He's pulled that trick once or twice before.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being widely applauded for a vice presidential selection that shows an awareness of the importance of an experienced partner on the ticket, a man who knows not only how to get legislation passed in the Senate, but also is a learned hand in the foreign policy department. 

But, is Delaware Sen. Joe Biden someone who will get Obama -- who is in a neck-and-neck battle right now with Arizona Sen. John McCain -- elected?

I don’t know, and neither do you. 

But here is a nutshell version of a conversation I had this morning with a voter whom both candidates would look at as potentially “in play” for either side.

 I was on my weekly Sunday run with a running partner whose politics are nuanced enough that I honestly don’t even know with which party he is registered. Square in the middle of the Boomer generation, I know that he voted for George W. Bush at least the first time around. He used to have long hair, and he still plays in a rock band. I know that he is a gun owner, and not particularly of the bitter variety Obama famously riffed on at that San Francisco fund-raiser. I know my friend is also appalled – I think he’s on record with this – with the way the Iraq war has largely been conducted. 

So that’s his background. 

On our run this morning, we got to the Biden selection, and my friend said, “This pick has made my adoration for Obama…‘’ 

(And maybe we had not previously talked enough about this upcoming election, because for one, I had no idea that he had, up to that point, “adored” Obama. And, because his overall political portfolio is complex enough – in my eyes – I had no idea how this sentence was going to end). 

Here’s how it ended. 

“…has plummeted dramatically.” 

He went on to talk about Biden’s notorious remark, while still a presidential candidate himself, that Obama “was the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” We then talked about other things Biden had said. Such as, that he didn’t see the presidency as a place for “on-the-job” training, suggesting that that’s exactly what Obama would be receiving, should he make it to the White House. And, that Biden had said, while still a candidate himself, that he could imagine himself on a ticket with, and not against McCain. 

My friend’s assessment, it seemed, is that Obama has made a tremendous compromise by selecting someone who is a loose cannon’s loose cannon, who has been disrespectful of Obama’s compelling run for the Oval Office, and thereby is now showing a propensity to do whatever it’s going to take to get elected. 

He didn’t end our jog by saying he’s now voting for McCain. He didn’t say how we now plans to vote, and I didn’t ask. But he is an independent minded voter, seemingly there for either side to claim, who is now sounding less inclined to vote for Obama -- solely and specifically for his picking of Biden. 

Also, our chat barely touched on the whole issue of, exactly how many young, “change”-enamored 20-something voters did Obama potentially lose by tapping a three-decade veteran of Washington who is 65 years old and hardly synonymous with anything reasonably resonating of “change?" 

Obama will enjoy something of a bounce at the polls out of this week’s events in Denver. This would have been true with or without Biden as the pick. 

But, on Friday, McCain is expected to name his running mate. And next week, the Republicans will have their days in the spotlight at St. Paul, likely resulting in a similar bounce for McCain. The bounces, bouncing up against one another, may well cancel one another out and leave the two where they stand, neck-and-neck. 

But I know of at least one vote it appears Obama lost with the Biden pick. We’ll see how many more he lost, or, maybe, won, on Nov. 4. 

In what would hardly be termed a man-bites-dog development, top Colorado Democrats ran toward the closest microphones Saturday morning to sing the praises of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's choice as vice presidential running mate.

U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, Gov. Bill Ritter and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper met the media at Invesco Field at Mile High to say, almost in unison, that the freshman senator from Illinois could not have made a better choice.

"I'm a good friend of both Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's," said Salazar. "Joe Biden brings a tremendous amount of energy to this ticket. He is by far one of the best experts on foreign policy in the entire United States senate and the entire country."

He added, "We need to put the world back together again, and Joe Biden is that person to complement Barack Obama's experience - both of them serving on the foreign policy committee in the U.S. Senate, to help us put the world back together again."

Ritter, formerly a long-time District Attorney for Denver, applauded Biden on law and order issues.

During his tenure as a prosecutor, said Ritter, "The person in the United States Senate who I think did the best job of leading this country forward with respect to security policy -- domestic security policy we call it, law enforcement issues, and crime issues, was Joe Biden.

"He co-authored the 1994 Crime Control Act, he was the first person to author and get past a significant piece of federal legislation regarding domestic violence against women...and it really was an important piece of legislation for us as prosecutors to use as tools to combat that."

And, said Ritter, "You put Joe Biden and Barack Obama together on a ticket, and I really do think you see a different way forward for this country. He complements Barack Obama in such a significant way. This promise of change is really a substantive promise, and I think Joe Biden represents that as well."

Hickenlooper chimed in, "You know, from the point of view of big city mayor, I don't think Barack Obama could have picked a better vice president. Joe Biden has been at the forefront of a lot of urban policy issues....He has consistently showed that you don't throw money at problems, right?m You come up with solutions...and then you measure your investment and measure your outcomes. He will be very warmly received by the mayors of this country."

And I was not terribly surprised that local John McCain staffer nearly just as quickly produced local heavy artillery in the form of former U.S. Sen. Hank Brown, to shoot down the selection of Biden, whom he nevertheless graced with the label "good guy."

"He has been the most articulate Democratic opponent of Barack Obama," said Brown, "highly critical of him in a wide variety venues. For him to be selected, to join the ticket as vice president would be a surprise not only to Democrats but Republicans and independents as well.

"Joe has been highly critical of Senator Obama on his Iran stand, on his stand on Iraq, on his stand on Afghanistan, his lecture to him - diplomatically  - but with regard to Pakistan, was really stunning. So, for them to to be joined will be quite an adventure over the next few weeks as they get together."

Brown, deadpanning it, piled on: "He faces a big challenge. While he's a good guy, his challenge is going to be debating himself, in debating Barack Obama. He's got to debate the former positions, and things he said about Barack. He's got to debate Senator Obama about the issues."

Already, the McCain campaign has released a new ad it will run in key battleground states using - as Brown was clearly recommending - Biden's own words against him. Taken from both a televised debate before Biden dropped his own bid for the presidency, and a television interview, viewers see Biden stand by a previous comment that the presidency is not a job lending itself to on-the-job training, and saying that he would be "honored" to run with John McCain.

Ritter, asked about Biden's past remarks Saturday morning - before the McCain had had even been released, shrugged off Biden's earlier digs at his new partner.

"I think Americans understand politics, and that when you're in a bit of a fight, whether its a primary fight or otherwise, those things are a product of it," said Ritter. "We'll see who McCain picks. But, you know, there were things said about him (McCain) by people that are some of his top V.P. candidates. So, that may come back to haunt him."

We probably won't even have to wait until Halloween.

So, I don’t know about you. But this is how I learned that Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware had been selected as Barack Obama’s running mate.

 

I walked out my front door before sunrise, picked the newspaper up off my driveway, slipped of the plastic wrap and there was the headline – “Biden Tapped To Be Obama’s Running Mate.” Story from the Associated Press.

 

How old school can you get? This is just how people used to learn things in 1980, when I entered this business.

 

Parenthetically, I was amused to see the form the A.P.’s story’s attribution took. The information was credited to a campaign official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he “did not want to pre-empt” the text message notification system that had been put in place for this hotly anticipated news bulletin – which, of course, said official was thereby totally pre-empting.

 

I walked back in the house, then picked up my cell phone, and there was the much touted, long-promised text message – perhaps you got one too, “Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee….” And so on.

 

Notice the “Barack has chosen…”? Not Sen. Barack Obama. Not, even, Barack Obama. Just “Barack.” Your buddy, Barack.

 

Also interesting was the time it was sent: 1:52 a.m. M.S.T.

 

Now, the whole gimmick with the Obama campaign notifying regular folks, the rank and file supporters, first, courtesy of the text message was a novel touch. But, really. I don’t know a journalist covering this campaign who had not also signed up for notification. So, obviously, as the Obama campaign was tipping off the grass-roots loyalists, they were also simultaneously notifying every journalist, pundit, talking head and blogger who has been staying gainfully employed covering a campaign that has already lasted much longer than numerous wars.

 

But back to this 1:52 a.m. notification. Exactly how much use is a text message one receives at 1:52 a.m.? There was a time, and there was a place, way in my rear-view mirror, when I might have been in position to receive a message of some kind at 1:52 a.m. But, that time – and I don’t regret this – is past. I was doing what most people are doing at 1:52 a.m., and that doesn’t include reading text messages, or much of anything else. I was sound asleep.

 

So, it’s nice to know “Barack” – just, good-ole’ Barack, as he is known to me – was thinking about me at 1:52 a.m. But I wasn’t thinking about him, Joe Biden, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, Rielle Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Mike Gravel, or any of the other personalities we’ve all had to bone up on since the 2006 mid-term election. I was asleep.

 

A 1:52 a.m. notification, I imagine, is better than none at all. It’s the first time a presidential nominee has thought of me at that time of night. It’s also the first presidential election for which I’ve had the capacity to send or receive text messages. And that’s really the point.

 

As pointed out in my previous entry, this whole effort on the part of “Barack” was aimed not at giving you, the voter, the information ahead of the evil Mainstream Media. It was an effort to get your data, your cell-phone number in this case, into their data base, for future use.

 

Now that they have it, expect to hear from them, again and again. It might or might not be at 1:52 a.m.

 

But, at least if it is, it shouldn’t wake you up.

 

 

 

 

Barack Obama is trying the patience of even some of his most fervent supporters, by stretching the wait for his announcement of a vice presidential running mate out to the last possible minute.

The question is, why the delay?

This announcement, this being 2008, is attended by the high-tech gimmickry of a promised text message first, to all supporters who signed up on the Obama campaign web site to get word ahead of the media and the pundits and the party insiders.

Except, it's not a gimmick, and that may well lay at the foundation of why all the seeming foot-dragging.

You see, the whole purpose of the text-message notification plan was for the Obama campaign to collect as many supporters' cell phones as possible, for later use in the campaign. Anyone who thinks the Veep text will be the last cell-phone contact they get from the Obama campaign between now and Nov. 4 has not been paying attention.

I'm always proud to tout my own genius - on the rare occasions it surfaces. I cannot claim this theory as my own, however - but when I heard it, I recognized its wisdom in an instant. This comes from political scribe David Montero, at my former place of employment, the Rocky Mountain News.

Here's the way he laid it out.

The longer the wait goes on, the more the anticipation builds. And the more the anticipation builds, the more potential Obama voters across the country, surely, are still logging on to the Web site and submitting their cell phone numbers. The greater the wait, the more substantial the supporter database that is being compiled by the Obama team.

Montero doesn't claim his theory is fact, and we won't know, in the immediate near future he's simply just thinking about this too hard - something he's been known to do (and I say that respectfully).

Another thought out there is that the Obama folks have accumulated so many numbers that the sheer act of rolling out all these text notifications will take hours - and that has built a logistical challenge into the process that is affecting their overall clock.

So there's something to chew upon, other than your nails, as you're waiting to hear who the next John Edwards or Dan Quayle might possibly be.

Next week represents Colorado Democrats' best chance in a generation to step up to the plate, seize the spotlight, grab the brass ring, harness the big mo', and vault from regional political stardom to center stage in the nation's political consciousness - or, at least its Democratic wing.

Who is best poised to do so? And, more to the point, will they?

Three political experts I talked with today all mentioned the same three names: Sen. Ken Salazar, Gov. Bill Ritter, and Mayor Jock Hickenlooper. The three pundits I consulted also agreed that none of them may capitalize on this opportunity in a nationally significant way.

"I think the Democrats are hoping that the star, after Obama, to emerge out of the convention will be the vice presidential nominee," said Metro State College political science professor Norman Provizer.

Provizer said a strong factor in all three's favor is that they are the brand of Democrat that might be the easiest sell in the heartland.

"The interesting thing with all of them is that they don't represent what Howard Dean called, going back a ways, the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic party.' It's interesting that they represent the moderate-centrist view of the Democrats in many peoples eyes," said Provizer. "In many peoples' eyes, Obama represents a liberal, more progressive view. It depends on who is going to move more toward who."

Political analyst Eric Sondermann doubts any of the three will become political rock stars on the strength of what happens in their back yard next week.

"They will all have their moments in the sun, they will all have their cameos when the show is in town next week," said Sondermann. "I think they will all perform well; they are all professionals, they'll perform well in their cameos. But I don't think next week, when the show leaves town, any of them are going to be talked about in the way that Barack Obama had been talked about four years ago, based on his performance at the 2004 convention."

As he noted, "Their roles are different here. None of them are expected to give a major address, none of them are a key-noter, none of them are even a featured speaker of the evening...So the opportunity to really shine is a limited opportunity, to begin with."

University of Denver assistant political science professor Seth Masket pointed out that sometimes the biggest star to emerge is a name that - at least to some - seems to come from left field.

"It's not likely to hurt any of their careers," Masket said, referring to the Salazar-Ritter-Hickenlooper troika. "On the other hand, it's hard to be sure exactly what will happen.

"I don't think too many people knew in advance that Senator Obama was going to get the kind of attention that he did in 2004 for his speech, and propel him onto the national scene. So you never really know, until it happens."

After about a year and a half of anticipation, it's about to happen.

As we gear up to host history in Denver, I thought it would be of value to talk to someone in Boston, the last place Democrats chose to host history - even though, with the 2004 convention being the nomination of Sen. John Kerry, the pulse rate of the party faithful may have been something less than what were likely to see next week for Sen. Barack Obama.

So I spoke Tuesday with Boston’s WFXT Fox 25 political editor Joe Bottenfeld, who was present for both parties’ conventions in 2004, and saw firsthand how both Boston and New York measured up.

Focusing mostly on a Boston-then, Denver-now comparison, Bottenfeld spoke at length to the issue of pre-convention hype - of the negative kind; the kind that leads people to, as Mayor John Hickenlooper has worried out loud, get outta town.

"I guess in some way we were almost over-prepared for our convention, because I think the biggest mistake we made was to scare everybody away from Boston when it happened, said Bottenfeld.

“All summer long, all people kept hearing was, Stay away from Boston. Traffic is going to be horrible, huge traffic jams, security concerns, and basically, everybody took off. No one was even here."

Boston during convention week 2004, he said, was essentially a ghost town.

"The easiest commute I ever had was convention week, driving into Boston, because everyone was gone."

Sounding not unlike Hickenlooper or a staffer at the Denver Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau, Bottenfeld said this party's going to be a lot more fun if people actually stick around.

"The biggest lesson is, we overdid the fear factor,” he said. “Really, in Boston, they had scared so many people away from the city that it really didn't turn into the fun kind of event that people in Boston could experience. They were in New Hampshire or Maine or Cape Cod while the convention was happening. They weren't in Boston.”

"I think they could have done a much better job of tamping that down, and encouraging people to participate. I hope people in Denver can have fun with the convention."

One thing some folks don't appear to expect to be fun is the threatened presence in Denver of up to 50,000 protesters - their figures, not mine - taking to the streets to press all manner of grievances against the Democratic Party. Bottenfeld, like me, expects the Republicans in St. Paul might be likely to have as much trouble, if not more, than the Democrats.

"I went to New York, actually, where the Republican convention was held four years ago, and there were definitely more protesters there," he said. "There was a lot more heated protests in the street, because I think a lot of the more liberal groups and more radical groups go to the Republican conventions, and tend to show up there, said Bottenfeld. And, in fact, even in the convention hall, there was a disruption of protesters, when I think Dick Cheney was speaking.

"I think there is greater potential (for disturbances) in St. Paul than there is in Denver, but there definitely will be a lot of protesters in Denver, because they know that's where everyone is going to be. They're going to try to get attention, no doubt about it."

The biggest difference between Boston '04 and Denver '08, obviously is the Democrats' decision to move Obama’s acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field at Mile High on the conventions final night.

"I think that is the big question mark right now, that big last-night acceptance speech by Obama in Invesco stadium," said Bottenfeld. "That has never been done, and you can go back to JFK, but security is so much tighter now than it was in 1960. No one really knows what's going to happen. I talked to some security people here in Boston, and they said, 'Thank God we never had to deal with that in the 2004 convention,' because it presents a whole new layer of security problems...That's definitely going to be a big challenge that Boston never had to deal with."

Bottenfeld, a savvy political mind and astute observer of the scene, nevertheless went to the most dependable well of all, by cautioning us to, altogether now, Expect the Unexpected.

"I think that the challenge to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign is to create some surprises," said Bottenfeld, "and I think they are going to try to create some surprises. You have the line-up of speakers you know what the themes are, but they're definitely going to throw in some curve balls to keep people watching.

"We don't know what they will be, but I think that the Obama people are smart enough to know they have to create some kind of news at the convention - not some rote thing where everybody knows what's going to happen."