Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
As I've said, this convention is being directed by a maestro -- slow and warm at first, then a big resounding call for unity, and now, on Day 3, some red meat to the crowd. Tonight should be absolutely stunning, that's all I can say, because the "build" has gone swimmingly well.
Continuing my scattered thoughts on the Democratic Convention. Day 2 was all about Hillary Clinton, and women, and the 88th anniversary of women achieving the right to vote, and women party leaders, and voting for women. And Hillary Clinton.
That might sound snide, but I assure you it's not. For all the breast-beating and garment-rending that took place over whether Barack Obama was "being pushed around" by the Clintons, or that they were "making unreasonable demands," I never doubted for a moment that the Clintons -- both of them -- would rise to the occasion and deliver a great speech. And I also have faith that Obama's campaign team, which so far has been exemplary at stage managing, would orchestrate a unified and supportive convention. If Obama had run a terrible campaign, I might have been worried a bit, but that was simply not the case.
On second thought, maybe that should be "conventional thoughts." Hmm. Or "un-conventional thoughts" perhaps? Well, it's certainly not "conventional wisdom," no matter how you define the term.
Ahem.
Overdosing on convention coverage has meant the normal and clocklike schedule of posts here has been knocked somewhat awry. I apologize for that, but as an excuse I have to say that I don't have any overarching Big Idea things to say about the Democratic National Convention, just a bunch of somewhat-disjointed thoughts. So I guess I'd better revert to three-dot journalism to do them whatever justice they deserve...
So... was that a speech, or was that a speech?!?
After Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech tonight, every single one of her supporters who could be convinced now have been convinced. Clinton gave certainly the best speech I have ever seen her give, if not the best speech she has ever given in her entire life.
Maybe, just maybe, the media will stop obsessing over a party division that does not exist any more. I watch convention coverage on PBS because they show the whole thing, and because the people they have on are not idiots. On every other channel, you get an hour, where all you hear is talking heads getting the story massively wrong. And since this convention has begun, this is what their coverage has sounded like to me:
Today begins the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The media (or some sections of it, I should say) have been pushing for a big rousing fight on the floor of the convention in Denver -- the Hillary Clinton supporters staging some sort of scene for the cameras -- so they can continue their "look how divided the Democrats are" storyline. The "party divided" theme will be pushed hard by some, in an effort to interject a little suspense and drama into what is usually (at least in modern times) a carefully-staged and rather over-produced American political event.
This, historically speaking, is utter hogwash. Baloney. Absolute bunkum.
Allow me to take you back to a time when the Democratic Party truly was divided -- sixty years ago, in 1948. The Democratic National Convention back then did have dramatic events showing the party not just divided, but actually splintering into factions and birthing a new (but, thankfully, short-lived) third party as a result. All this from the convention floor itself.
John McCain said something ridiculous to a reporter yesterday.
I hasten to point out that the previous sentence should have been a major media headline at least twice a week for the past three or four months. McCain has been saying downright ridiculous stuff throughout the entire campaign and the media, up until now, has largely given him a free pass on it.
But I'm certainly not looking this gift horse in the mouth. For weeks now, I have been practically begging someone -- ANYone -- to ask John McCain this exact question: "How many houses do you and your wife own?" Politico finally asked. John McCain blew the answer. Yet another gaffe from McCain, but the difference this time is that the media chose to run with it.
Politico was probably prompted to ask this question by a Big Labor effort to point out how wealthy the McCains truly are. This effort, led by the SEIU, the AFL/CIO, and Brave New Films, got the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award here just last week, I should mention. It seems their efforts have now paid off handsomely.
One can almost picture the scene -- a high-level campaign strategy session inside Barack Obama's headquarters. "So everyone's saying Obama should fight back against McCain's smears... how should we go about doing that?" "Hey, what about... I don't know... maybe highlighting the really stupid things McCain says on the campaign trail -- almost on a daily basis?!?"
Obama's team must have come to this rather obvious conclusion, because McCain just uttered (yet again) one of his jaw-dropping gaffes -- on the record, to a reporter -- and this time Obama picked up the ball and ran with it.
When asked by Politico how many houses he owned, John McCain responded:
It's time once again to take a look at how the electoral math is shaping up for Barack Obama and John McCain. While the news this time around isn't all that great for Obama, I wanted to take another of these snapshots of the polls -- before the running mates are announced and before the conventions happen -- in order to provide a statistical baseline to see how big a "bump" in the polls either candidate will get in the next few weeks. My analysis in short: while the news isn't dire quite yet, Obama could certainly use such a bump at this point.
Many people have been saying for the past few weeks (myself included) that Barack Obama needs to stand up for himself a little bit more, and strongly counter the negative attacks coming from John McCain. I have also suggested (and I'm not alone in this one either) that Obama needs to start actually taking the fight to McCain, by painting a picture of McCain for America to see -- to counteract who the McCain campaign would like you to believe John McCain is.
Because I have been beating this drum myself, I have to give credit where credit is due for the changes in campaign style Obama (and his supporters) have shown in the past few days (pretty much since Obama got back from vacation). The media hasn't quite caught up to this change, but they'll have a hard time ignoring it during the upcoming convention. Because from what I've seen this week, Obama's convention is going to go after John McCain with some gusto.
This is crucial, because of the mistake John Kerry made the last time around. During the 2004 Democratic convention, Kerry apparently told all the speakers to tone down their anti-Bush rhetoric, so as to not be seen attacking a sitting president in a time of war. Which gave us the past four years of President Bush.
Fears have been voiced that Obama was setting himself up to make the same mistake. His whole "high-road" style campaign seemed to suggest that the same "positive-only" filter Kerry used would also be applied to speakers this year. But I think Obama got the message while on vacation. The gloves may be coming off. And not a moment too soon, in my opinion.
There was a news item today about a group of college presidents who have signed on to an effort to "rethink" the drinking age in America. While not explicitly calling for lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, these collegiate leaders are urging legislators to at least consider the idea of letting states lower the de facto national drinking age.
When you stop and think about it, the drinking age doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On his eighteenth birthday, Joe American can sign a legal contract, buy a house, sign a mortgage, get married, serve on a jury, vote in an election, and join the military -- all without a parent or guardian's signature. Because now Joe is considered a legal adult, having reached the age of majority. If Joe commits a crime after turning 18, he will be tried as an adult. If Joe serves on a jury, he can be one of twelve voices that condemns a murderer to death. If Joe joins the Army and is shipped off to war, he can kill enemy soldiers and/or get killed himself (or get horribly maimed) in service to his country.
In other words, society has determined that Joe is now a rational adult member of society, with all the benefits, freedoms, and responsibilities which are a part of that adulthood. Except that Joe can't legally buy a beer. Even after he's served in a foreign war and been horribly maimed as a result -- still no (legal) beer for Joe until he turns 21.
