The DNC is history. The RNC begins on Monday.
What’s to like and dislike (speeches, spectacle, etc. ) about them both?
|
|||
|
1,620 comments to DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Locally Grown Northfield - All Rights Reserved 
|
|||
Well, for starters, Obama’s speech was simply spectacular. Even Pat Buchanan was gushing effusively -- so much so that on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann had to cut him off to go to a commercial break. Contemplate that for a second.
Barack Obama is a truly great orator, whose only rival in the gift of inspiring and persuading in the last half-century is Ronald Reagan. That’s a very good thing, because Obama’s skills are used in service of a sane, positive vision for our future, and because we desperately need to bring about a dramatic course correction after the terrible, foolish mistakes of the last 8 years.
The fights will go on, but there is no way that the grumpy old man with an evolving reflexive vocal tic of “noun, verb, and ‘because I survived in a P.O.W. prison camp’” can ultimately prevail against Barack Obama and the Democrats. Ours is an inspired, inspiring, and thoughtful leader, and we have the advantage of being right.
Bruce wrote, on another thread,
Bruce,
It’s not so much about a cult of personality, but rather a recognition that great oration is a necessary skill for great leadership.
For an example of how a lack of the same leads to failure: Kerry, anyone?
Speaking of him, Kerry actually gave a great convention speech… four years too late.
Let’s see, being too popular is a bad thing? The fact that Obama drew 94,000 people and McCain can’t give away enough tickets to fill 10,000 seats for his VP announcement means McCain is the serious candidate. Obama’s celebrating the anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech and McCain is celebrating his campaign pick on the anniversary of the Katrina nightmare.
Now it makes sense. And when McCain loses, he should come to Northfield. He’d fit right in at City Hall.
Bruce,
I’ll also go out on a limb and bet that there’ll be plenty of wet eyes during the RNC convention, as well. I guarantee that McCain’s P.O.W. years will be presented to great effect, and many tears will be shed. Of course, it will be during someone else’s speech. But does that make it any less of a ‘cult of personality’ thing? I would say not.
It would be a lot of work, but if it would help you to cast a vote for Barack Obama, I could force myself to sit through (well, skim, anyway) the entire RNC convention, and put together a tape of teary eyes for you.
Patrick, speaking of great convention speeches, did you ever hear Hubert Humphrey’s 1948 convention speech? It was revolutionary, and risky--alienating the southern Democrats.
MPR did a show on it earlier this summer:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/14/midday2/
Curt,
No, that was before my time. I’ll give it a listen this morning.
Curt,
Thanks for the tip. You’re right, that was a great and important speech. I was passingly familiar with Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat rebellion, as well as Truman’s order for desegregation of the Army, but I had not realized Hubert Humphrey’s prominent role in that fight. That was impressive.
Patrick, my father and his brothers were active in the DFL, starting in the mid 40′s. They knew Humphrey and Mondale etc. When I was old enough to become politically aware, in the mid 60′s, it seemed odd to me that they thought of Humphrey as a sort of forward looking groundbreaker. At the time, Humphrey was LBJ’s loyal vice president. I remember reading about how he sat in the White House and could hear the chants of the protesters outside, “Hubert Humphrey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!”
Anyway the 1948 convention speech gives one an idea of Humphrey’s true role in this nation’s history.
And yes, Obama’s speech last night was great.
Anyone have a prediction on whether there’ll be a “Recreate ’68!!” debacle next week in St. Paul? I hope the hell not.
The speeches by Obama, Kerry and the Clintons were all great and full of drama. The governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, was highly entertaining. I really could have done without the Spielberg films and the Superbowl halftime production values. I’m a loyal Democrat, but I have a hard time squaring the repeated emphasis on middle class values and ordinary working Americans with the over-the-top Hollywood glitz of last night.
I hate to break up this love fest, but I thought the Obama speech was way too long and boring. He said some good things, no doubt. My favorite was that government was here to help us, not hurt us. Also, I loved when he said we are not blue states and we are not red states, we are the United States of America, and he got what I believe to be the loudest response from the gathering of 75,000 -- 84,000 people. That’s where Obama shines, unification, but only if he doesn’t have a great and proper opponent.
But as for substance, and how he was going to deliver all this help without taxing the middle class at all…and how he made it seem like he was going to save anyone in this country who has any problem at all, well, I think he took it too far. He tried to show the people that it was they who needed to do the work, but I don’t think that message got very far…when Kennedy did the same thing, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, people took it to heart. Different times, I suppose. Well, we will see what McCain does. He will have to come up with an Oscar winning level performance to out do Obama. We shall soon see.
He also gave the Clinton, as in Bill, lineabout hoping to reduce the number of abortions, by reducing teen pregnancies. Weak attempt at grasping for the middle road here. And there is also that line again about restructuring the military…on his website, he plans to get 65,000 more army recruits and almost 100,000 more military personnel, besides the National Guard. He doesn’t say how.
I don’t think anyone is taking apart his words. He’s not THAT smart. And Biden, I will say again is old school. Way old school foreign policy that DFLers say has failed over and over again. Plus Obama didn’t vote against the law recently passed that gave the phone companies the right to turn over all the records to the govt on demand. Bah!
Patrick, I slightly checked out the Liver Tearians, and they are in a scrambled egg mess of so many factions, I’d have to call them the Denver
omelette of political parties. This is what I dislike about parties, if you don’t think exactly like the party line, then you are OUT on your BUM.
It’s brainwashing through and through most of the time. I dislike that very much, but thanks, anyway.
Griff, I have heard that there will be. Peace out.
C’mon Griff; of course there will not. Do you remember ’68? 2008 is nothing like 1968.
Bright,
I look forward to your commentary on the McCain convention.
Bright, you’re a great lady, but no one will ever meet your standards. The whole point Obama is making is that this campaign is about people like you and Patrick and me all getting up out of the bleachers and working with the people we don’t like to find solutions. The process is messy and sometimes ugly and it seems to take forever, but there is no one candidate who is going to do it for us.
If you want a lesson in change, rent “1776″ which outlines the highly political process of compromise that kept the Declaration of Independence from going up in smoke. (It’s a really odd musical, but give it a chance…) Or for a much more depressing, yet uplifting, movie, rent “Amazing Grace” and watch the emotional, exhausting, long battle to end slave trading in England.
We can’t just watch TV with the remote in our hands, clicking through the channels until we find the perfect political package. Life isn’t the Home Shopping Network or match.com.
So come on, Bright, there are two pretty clear choices this year. Neither is perfect, but you can’t say there’s no difference.
It was interesting to me that the protesters in Denver were kept a respectrul 500 yards away (5 football fields according to one NPR reporter, if I remember right). I’m also told that at the RNC they will be allowed within 100 feet of the center (don’t know if that is distance to a back wall or if the delegates will have to run an old-fashioned gauntlet.
I am already burned out on pep-rallies, so I may sit next week out.
And yes, Obama’s speech was well done (I did not have the luxury of a video feed so I had to judge based on the audio only, and I was working at the same time, so may not have enjoyed the full experience).
McCain VP pick: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
Patrick, I doubt there will be a riot like at the DNC in Chicago in 1968 but it could get ugly. I hope not because it’ll hurt Obama, I’d guess.
Patrick, you wrote
I guess my trepidation is that history is full of “True Believer” movements led by great orators. I wish group consciousness was raised by reason rather than being aroused by oratory. In the former path lies enlightenment, in the latter lies demagoguery (my thanks to P. Zorn, this time I spell checked).
Bruce,
I agree wholeheartedly: I love reasoned discussion, and wish it was the bedrock of our democracy. Unfortunately, in national politics, reasoned discussion consistently gets killed by cleverly crafted oratory.
I’m just glad that for once, the guy with the brilliant oratory is also the one who comes closest to where reason has led me.
That was a wily pick by McCain … I think it’s the nail in the coffin for Barack/Biden.
All references to Eric Hoffer aside,
ArtOrg will be participating at the UnConvention on Monday and Tuesday from 11am to 10pm at Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis.
Here’s the link to our UnConvention post. We almost taglined this event with “Prints of Rage” but thought better of it in the end. It is a nonpartisan event billed as “performances and participatory culture”!
Well, there goes McCain’s ‘inexperience’ card. In 2005, when Obama was already serving in the US Senate, this woman was still mayor of a town of 9,000.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Obama_camp_belittles_Palin_pick.html
Bruce, when you are right, you are right on!
Anne, thanks for the compliment, but I’m just an ordinary person who wants great men and women in great positions to do what they say they will, and if they cannot, then don’t keep making empty promises. That’s not too much to ask, is it? Furthermore, I don’t think I ever said McCain and Obama were the same.
I am pleased with the selection of Sarah Palin, at first glance. We need a woman in there, and she has the history to prove who she is. She has run a state for a couple of years, and come up pretty fast. I like her a lot and hope she does well, regardless.
For those of you who have not had contact with a Downe’s Syndrome child or adult, I have to say the experiences I have had were full of love and charm and happiness. Bless the Palin family for bringing that child forth.
Interesting facts on Ms. Palin:
- She seems to be a creationist:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/
- She’s under investigation for charges of firing Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, after allegedly “Palin, her family or members of her administration pressured Monegan to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a rough divorce from Palin’s sister.”
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html
For those splitting hairs, she won’t say she believes in Creationism, or rejects Evolution. But she did say,
A favorite post of mine from the comments on that page:
“Where’s the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion in my chemistry class?”
To be brief, the one comment I have time to give my opinon about it the
one where the person said, McCain showed poor judgement in picking Palin, becuz she might be the next Prez. Well, everyone knows that the President does not rule alone. The same advisors McCain picks, and he already said he will take counsel with Pawlenty and Romney, one of the best business minds around, will be available as will many others from both parties.
Oh, and Anne, McCain had over 15,000 at the VP announcement and they looked pretty happy about being there. Still not saying he’s the best man out there for the job, but I feel a strength there, I don’t see in Obama, yet.
A little more on the accusations that Ms. Palin pressed for the firing of her sister’s ex-husband:
There’s a tape of (Palin’s director of boards and commissions) Frank Bailey’s call to the Department of Public Safety, in which he demanded the ex-brother-in-law’s firing:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/ak_gov_says_staffer_pressed_for_troopers_firing.php
Sounds like she has more in common with Cheney than I would’ve thought.
Does McCain think he’ll draw the now-undecided Hillary fans to his camp just because he chose a running mate who is a woman? Like, Hillary and Palin are totally interchangeable because they both have vaginas? Give me a break.
America’s voters are not that stupid. Hillary and Palin have nothing, NOTHING in common other than their gender.
The only rational explanation is that Palin’s conservatism will impress the Christian conservatives, who would otherwise be turned off by McCain’s more mainstream approach to issues important to the religious right.
This choice changes the tone of McCain’s platform emphasizing experience and knowledge of foreign affairs. He’s got to drop that now and turn in a new direction.
I think that Michael Feldman is right on with his assessment of this choice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082901777.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
(BTW, the Obama speech was very good, but his “A More Perfect Union” speech will always be my favorite because, in the words of Jon Stewart, “Barack Obama talked to us about race as if we were adults.”)
First, Bright (#11) …boring?????????
Second, anyone know how many houses Palin owns? I’m guessing she’s a last minute scramble pick after the previous Romney pick fell through with last week’s endless how-many-houses discussion. That would also explain why she doesn’t seem to have been thoroughly vetted (ie not know what the VP actually does, as of a month ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12969.html).
Britt,
If one believes the small number of die-hard pro-Hillary yahoos that kept getting recycled on CNN this week: Yes, having a vagina is more important than electing a president who supports equal pay for equal work, or supporting abortion rights for women who are the victims of rape or incest.
As someone posting on one of the national blog threads wrote (paraphrased), “Hillary will be certain to be out in force on the campaign trail this fall, rallying her supporters, and making sure that this inexperienced conservative beauty queen doesn’t break that glass ceiling before she does.” Similarly, this is the best thing to make sure that Bill Clinton also continues to be an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s campaign. All thought of the Clintons secretly hoping/working for an Obama loss has got to be dead after this choice.
Which reminds me of another great moment from the Democratic Convention: Hillary giving the best speech of her life. She’s really grown into a forceful speaker over the last 6 months.
In the WaPo piece Britt links to, National Review contributor Lisa Schiffren says: “Talk about a role model for our daughters: Annie Oakley in the halls of power!”
A woman who goes around shooting things is a great role model for young girls?
Felicity wrote,
Three.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Palin_Three_houses.html?showall
she reminds me of a slightly less yucky michelle bachmann. or maybe more yucky, but we just don’t know all the details yet.
bright, reducing teen pregnancies might sound like the wishy washy “middle road” approach to the abortion issue to you, but the bottom line is that fewer unwanted pregnancies *has* to equal fewer abortions. And there’s no disputing that our rate of teen pregnancy is among the highest in the western world. (http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/pregnancy.htm)
With our teens about as sexually active as those in Europe but half as likely to use birth control and with outdated fraidy-cat health programs, it’s no wonder.:
So Hillary supporters are supposed to be dumb enough to see Palin as a substitute for Clinton? How insulting.
Look, I love it that she had her baby instead of an abortion, and I’m all for reducing the number of abortions. But overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t the answer.
Jailing women is not an effective method of birth control.
McCain really doesn’t get it.
She’s female Biden’s Male
She’s outside Beltway Biden’s a Washington Insider
She upset her state party Obama’s the party darling
She’s prolife (and walks the walk) Obama and Biden are prochoice
Her son serves in the military This is rare in either party
II hit enter to soon but the list could go on. Palin was a brilliant choice. I am the ultimate independent -- I have voted democrat, I have voted Republican and I have voted 3rd party (more often than not) -- I will vote for McCain
Oh and the mentoring relationship makes Biden look like a babysitter on the democratic ticket. The setup is backwards.
I agree with David Henson about her being a good choice-- especially if we forget the VP doesn’t really do anything.
If elected on the ticket, she’ll preside over the Senate, but she’ll only be able to vote if there is a tie (pretty limited powers, overall, but that is power isn’t it).
The point is that someone is allowing her to set the frame for how we will see things. We’re not remembering her limited powers as VP. Of course, McCain is a bit aged…
In other words-- IMHO-- what difference does it make if she’s for or against drilling, abortions, etc.? None, really, but it sounds good.
And as for her being a woman and appealing to Hillary voters-- probably only if those people are single issue voters?
BTW-- the convention was good. Now for the after-- the time where the news will stop showing stories, etc. And on to the RNC.
Heh heh, speaking of Hubert Humphrey-- my father was on the school board in Burnsville, and someone targeted him with constant barrage-- saying things like “You’re just like Hubert Humphrey, you SOB.” I was horrified-- who was this Hubert Humphrey? Until I figured out that it wasn’t a bad thing… and that my father was proud. Good times. That’s politics for you. One person’s swear word can be the name of another person’s hero.
A few meandering thoughts-first of all, age. McCain is 72. If you look around , people who have taken good care of themselves, especially after 40, and more so from the beginning of their lives are very mentally agile and will continue to be so as long as they work it. He could easily go two terms to 80 and still be young enough for the job. Remember Clinton had a quadruple bypass at like what 54? It’s not age as much as it is care and dna. He has proved that he can take the rigors of almost two years of campaigning across the country and looks pretty good. I can see the toll on Obama. But I wouldn’t let that disqualify him. I hope he is healthy, but his mom did die of cancer in her 50s. Peace and blessings there.
Another thing, McCain has seen houses, he said four in different parts of the country, where they do business often and three for the kids and investments. It doesn’t pay to rent out places…they are expensive. The place we rented in Tulsa, a two bedroom apt before we bought our home
was climbing up to $900 a month, and in Chicago, that’s way cheap.
My sister has three houses and she and her husband fit middle class American to a tea, they just don’t waste a lot of money on frivolous things.
Anyway, Obama is not one of the people. He is a rare commodity, an exceptional man, and I don’t say that out of racism. I grew up with all kinds of kids as my friends and still have them in Chicago…my neighborhood was voted the most successful city integrated neighborhood in the country a couple of times, so don’t go there. We wouldn’t want one of us to live in the White House, we can’t even decide who fed the dog last, iykwim. So, if Obama isn’t a regular guy, then McCain doesn’t have to be either. This era of self loathing to get over on other people makes me feel really bad for everyone who cannot admire true accomplishment, etc of another human being without first being duped into thinking they are one of us.
Both of them have been able to live the American Dream, though not the one we all dream because we all have different dreams once the bills are taken care of.
That’s it for me. Long day.
Holly,
I think the phrase your looking for, issued in today’s Democratic talking points, is “A Heartbeat Away From the Presidency.”
Bright,
You have spent the past few months being a pretty consistent anti-Obama voice in these forums, largely based on your assessment that he was inexperienced and had come out of nowhere. Now, you’re saying Palin is a good choice even though she has less experience, and also came out of nowhere -- and I’d call city councilor and mayor in a town of 7,700 more “nowhere” than Chicago, if we were looking purely at contact with people as a statistic.
I actually don’t think Palin’s a bad choice for those reasons, but possessing massive amounts of experience has never been my top criterion for a candidate.
I do think the choice is going to bite McCain’s campaign pretty hard though. She’s not fully vetted, or this mess about firing someone who wasn’t helping her sister’s ugly divorce wouldn’t have been allowed through. I also think it’s a purely cynical choice which essentially means McCain is saying to American women: all you care about is getting a woman into power, so here ya go…
…Vote With Your Vaginas, Ladies!
As if women can’t dislike other women, as if men vote for men simply because they are men, right? McCain’s saying that’s what women must do!
More weak plotting from an out-of-touch man who doesn’t even know where the middle class starts or ends -- despite the fact that, other than the low-entry-threshold “People Who Are Alive” demographic, it makes up the largest single group of American citizens.
good lord. people who have 3 houses do not “fit middle class america to a ‘tea’”
if you want to be for mccain, be for mccain, if you want to be for palin, be for her. but let’s not pretend they aren’t rich. There is a difference between becoming successful, as the Obamas have, after starting out poor or middle class, and marrying or inheriting millions of dollars. Personally, I’m not equating one with moral goodness and the other with evil, but let’s not pretend there’s no difference between being really incredibly rich and being middle class. Not only is there a difference, it isn’t a difference which is made by simply “not spending money on frivolous things.” Such statements are an insult to the true middle class, which is trying to find enough money for frivolous stuff like health insurance, college educations, and food, not for a second and third house.
An update on the investigation of Ms.Palin:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palin_probe_could_mean_election.php
She’s already had to revise her statements on the subject since it first broke.
I liked these comments from a Talking Points reader:
Good points. A bit vituperative and reductive, but some solid points that uncover a good chunk of the psychological narrative dredged up by this VP pick.
C’mon Brendon, we all know you are just jealous cuz she’s better looking than you.
It does appear that in one fell swoop McCain has balanced the tickets on inexperience, cronyism and “no more old guard need apply”. So, let’s consider some issues. Like, who gets to pay for all these promises everyone will start making.
I heard today that the top 5% of the taxpayers already pay 60% of the taxes, a figure which is consistent with my own analysis. So, when do we reach the tipping point and see the effect of such income redistribution tactics?
Admittedly, Income inequality is a serious problem for a free society. But confiscatory taxes are also a serious problem. Even the Beatles (who surely must be seen as counterculture icons, at least in their public face) sang about the taxman (“one for you, nineteen for me”). There are two often conflicting goals: (1) encouraging the freedom that rewards people who solve problems (by creating better goods, ala Adam Smith) and (2) the desire to not disenfranchise the poor. I fear that today’s politics are more about the rule of the mob (get your guillotines boys, they’re robbing our society) than they are about the ideal of civil discourse with an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. “Fetch me my knitting kit, I feel a trial coming on.”
Peace.
Ouch, Bruce, you know just how to hurt a guy-dressed-as-a-woman, don’t you?
Well, I’ve got a nicer butt.
OMG Brendon, what? Vote with your vaginas? Please.
And Hillary isn’t one of the boys. She is a assertive and fantastic woman.
Let’s see-- how many times during this campaign did people talk about how John McCain is a man? Did they say things like “That’s a man there!” No, they didn’t.
We’ll truly be someplace the day we can just discuss “people” and “viewpoints” rather than “gender” or “race”.
And those who write things like:
just get in the way of progress.
Why did you write that?
Not getting your point, Holly, and either you’re not getting mine or distorting it…
My point is that McCain chose Palin, very cynically, pretty much only because she’s a woman. That “Vote with your vaginas, ladies!” is McCain’s pandering thought process in this choice. It’s not what I’m saying, it’s my interpretation of McCain’s simplistic and patronizing rationale for this choice.
Does that make sense?
Maybe I need to use more air quotes…
Brendon #43 makes no sense at all since Hillary’s own party did not pick her. If anything John McCain is saying “you fools you had the whole deal locked down with Hillary as VP and now you have handed it to me.” Plus let’s be honest Hillary wouldn’t have been anywhere accepting her husband happened to have been president ( “pulled herself up by her bootstraps” -please ) -- Palin did it on her own merits. The woman eats mooose burgers, married an Eskimo and kicked the Alaska Republican establishment to the curb -- what more could you ask for in a VP or from McCain ? I’ll bet her husband thinks twice before rubbing his nose with anyone behind her back !
David H.,
I disagree about your assessment of Hillary, and your comparison of Palin to Clinton. She beat a corrupt Republican governor for the party’s nomination, wouldn’t qualify that as kicking the whole establishment to the curb. And, somehow, eating mooseburgers and marrying an Eskimo in Alaska hardly strikes me as revolutionary.
She’s an ultra-conservative, anti-science, anti-environment beauty queen, and while it would be nice to have the beauty queen aspect, the rest would be a repeat of the current pres / vice-pres.
There were much better women in the Republican party that McCain could have picked.