Surprise.  I thought it was a great speech.  He made the decision to make a pretty big stylistic change in this one, getting much more into policy proposals.  At least, as much as you can do that in a stadium of 75,000 people.  He also rebutted all Republican attacks from this campaign as well as the last two 2004 and 2000, then prebutted attacks for the next two months.  I think he hit a home run.

That 75,000 number reminds me: why are Republicans trying to use his appeal against him?  I guess its that Rove tactic where you attack your opponent’s greatest strengths.  But really, why is it a point of pride for McCain that he can’t draw a crowd remotely that size?

And what a great call by his campaign to open up the convention and have this event in a stadium.  When the cameras panned the crowd, instead of Democratic conventioneers, you saw an incredible cross-section of Americans.  And considering some of the conventioneers I saw in the television coverage earlier this week, I think that was a wise move.

Finally, I thought the bio video that they played before his speech was nice, but it left out what had to be a hugely influential moment of his life:

Here’s the latest McCain ad:

Now, here’s the full quote from Obama with context:

“Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’ And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.”

Obama’s position sounds like something an adult came up with.  Not some cheap, misleading political trick to scare people into voting a certain way.  And if McCain fundamentally disagrees with the above analysis, I don’t thing we have a threat of a third Bush term; it’s worse than that.  We may be looking at a repeat of W’s first term in office: no more talking to adversaries but seeing threats everywhere and rushing from one to the next with no forethought.

And as a personal aside: I couldn’t be more disappointed in McCain.  He won me over in the first Iowa debate in 1999, when he was the only Republican on stage who told the farmers where to stick their ethanol subsidies.  He came across as the only one with a spine.  But now it seems like he’s decided the only way he can win is to lie about his opponent and constantly play the POW card.

First, they took a new, harder line on abortion.  Now they are moving to the right of Bush on stem cell research, advocating a total ban on this potentially life-saving research:

The 2008 Republican Platform Committee has finally reached the finish line, but before it crossed it tripped up on the issue of stem-cell research. When the committee reached the stem-cell language, North Carolina delegate Mary Summa offered what appeared on the surface to be a small change. Summa sought to change the sentence:

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of and experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

to read:

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

thus severing experimentation on human embryos from their creation for that purpose. It’s just one word, but it has huge implications. It is a call for a total ban on embryonic stem-cell research, including privately funded research using frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. By contrast, the 2004 platform was in accord with President Bush’s policy at the time, which made limited federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research available for the first time.

The Democrat’s are pushing the line that McCain would be more of the same.  I’m starting to think he’s looking worse than Bush.

ABC News is reporting that John McCain has reversed his position on changing the Republican party’s abortion platform:

McCain’s plan to take a hands-off approach with the abortion platform stands in stark contrast with the position he took during his first presidential run.

Back in 2000, McCain clashed with then-Gov. George W. Bush over his unwillingness to change platform language that called for a human life amendment banning all abortions.

McCain implored Bush to join him in wanting to add exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother.

It’s disappointing to see the “maverick” capitulating to the far-right in his party.  I think this is about as extreme a position as one could hold today and still be considered a mainstream politician.

In my experience, there is no counterbalance to this on the left.  Even talking with people from Planned Parenthood, I’ve yet to me anyone who was pro-abortion.  Their focus is on reducing the number of abortions while providing options for women.

So the idea that McCain is at best, OK with, maybe even in favor of government forcing a women who became pregnant as a result of rape to continue her pregnancy, is pretty shocking to me.

So the first post-primary meeting of John McCain and Barack Obama will be at an evangelical mega-church in the O.C. and will be moderated by the pastor?  There’s something not quite right about that.