progressive involvement

DNC: Bill Clinton on Wednesday

I don't know how much the floor reaction comes across on television, but, inside the Pepsi Center, tonight's reception of President Bill Clinton was rapturous.  Three or four times, the reception seemed to just start to flag and then it would fire up again.  As he began motioning people to settle down, the crowd roared back--again, three or four times.  Clearly delighted, he admitted, "I love this, and I thank you." 

He didn't wait any on the endorsement of Obama.  He put that out there right off the bat, and returned to it throughout the speech, each time full-throated and without equivocation.

He recognized his wife's campaign--and her superb speech--and said that both she, and he, would work for Sen. Obama--"that makes two of us"--and so would another 18 million people.  It was a stroke on behalf of unity, and a reminder that Hillary actually received more actual votes than Sen. Obama.

Clinton worked both foreign and domestic policy.  Earlier in the week, some in the press had speculated that the Obama campaign was trying to rein in Clinton and get him to limit his remarks to foreign policy.  In response, the Obama campaign said that "Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants."  They alloted him 10 minutes, but told him it was all right to go over, which he did by 10 minutes--10 minutes for Bill Clinton?  Best line:  The rest of the world is more likely to be impressed by "the power of our example than by the example of our power."

In his attack on the GOP domestic policy, he reminded people of the broad-based prosperity of the 90's.  This is a message for inside the Democratic Party as well as one outside to the general public.  Sometimes Democrats have forgotten that life in the 90's was pretty good.  Then, he moved to comparing what's being said about Obama today with what had been said about Clinton himself in 1992--too young, too inexperienced.  At the end of the speech, he used Obama's theme of "hope" in a tie to Hope, Arkansas.  It was a pretty deft way of baptizing Obama into the Clinton legacy.

Clinton, as did all the speakers tonight, made a point to say that John McCain is a "good man."  Clinton went on to say of McCain--"He loves his country as much as we do," neatly stealing the patriotism card from the other side. 

In other notes, Clinton said that when Sen. Obama picked Joe Biden for vice president, Obama had "hit one out of the park."  Is this is a signal that it was all right not to vet Hillary?  He then declared Sen. Obama "ready" to be president, making clear what he had failed to make clear in an interview a couple of weeks ago.  He referred to the "fight against HIV/AIDS" twice.  (The Clintons have wide support in the gay community.)

It was classic Clinton.  Unlike, say, Ted Kennedy, Clinton is not an orator of the old school.  Clinton's style is more conversational.  He frames issues in clear, easily understandable language, and seems to come at the issues from the point of view of the working and middle class.  In fact, Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to do well with the working class, which is why he won.

Kucinich gets his zinger

Dennis Kucinich finally got to deliver the one line that the Obama campaign had axed from his convention speech.  He uncorked that particular charmer at the Skylark Lounge on Tuesday night

Kucinich got his loudest applause early, when he told the crowd, "This group of neo-cons wants another four-year term. But in my opinion, their term should be 10 to 20 years." — Nick Groke

Hillary's speech provides vision for the Democratic Party

Thank God somebody finally did it.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, the words "Democratic Party" have been missing from this Democratic Convention.  We don't ever seem to want to make a case for ourselves because we're afraid of something or other.  Maybe some independent somewhere will take umbrage at something, or maybe the Republicans will fire back, and--o-o-o-h--that would be awful.

Hillary has done what no other speaker has done so far which is make a case for governance by the Democratic Party.  It was not a mere "puff speech," but a political speech.  It framed what should be the message of the Democratic Party:  universal health care, affordable quality education, civil rights, labor rights, womens' rights, gay rights, ending discrimination, promoting unionization, clean energy economy.  (Of the speeches I've heard, Hillary's is also the first to mention gay rights.)  Anglachel:

But what it was, from the first line to the last, was a full-force evocation of what it means to be a Democrat. In a season where we have been bombarded by bipartisan, everybody let's hug, don't say anything bad about the Republicans, don't be partisan be Obamacan, Unity Ponies for everyone balderdash, Hillary took the party by the scruff of its dithering neck and made it look at the reason we are a party in the first place.

When will we ever learn?  The reason we lose is because people don't think we stand for anything.  Instead of being forthright and bold, we offer market-tested platitudes, and try to substitute a cult of personality for program, hoping against hope that no one will notice that we're "progressives" and--oh, the dread!--criticize us for it.

Theatrics, huge rallies, crafting a nifty "brand"--none of that matters a whit.  Standing for something and fighting for it--that's what constitutes an effective political party.  Thanks to Hillary Clinton for reminding us of that.

Hillary thanks her supporters and releases them to vote their conscience

Chaput on a roll

Now he's after Nancy Pelosi.  Speaker Pelosi apparently had the impertinence to say that the church has not always been of one mind about abortion.  This prompted the Archbishop of Washington to say that the church had opposed abortion since the first century. 

The Archbishop is rewriting history.  From the Roman point of view, the Roman Catholic church emerged directly from the rib of St. Peter, the first pope, neatly overlooking that James, the brother of Jesus, was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and likewise overlooking that the Roman Catholic church, as an identifiable entity in itself, dates from about the fourth century.

The Archdiocese of Denver felt compelled to jump in and criticize a parishioner in the Archdiocese of San Francisco by saying, in a joint statement from Archbishop Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James Conley:

"Regrettably," they added, "knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them. . . . [Abortion] is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it."

“They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”

Which is the only sentence scrubbed from Dennis Kucinich's speech by the Obama campaign.

Hillary makes the case against McCain and much more, rouses sleepy convention

She rises to every occasion.  From the moment she walked onto the stage, she projected assurance and confidence, then uncorked a speech that not only again made clear her support for Barack Obama, but also made the first effective critique of John McCain at this convention, and, oh by the way, inspired her own supporters, inspired the supporters of her opponent, awed the media, and electrified the convention hall.  This is all the more remarkable because of the limited parameters within which she had to work.  She did it, and then some. 

Up until now, this convention has been long on platitude, bromide, and cliche, and appallingly short on rousing moments.  Hillary changed that in twenty minutes.  The reaction was thunderous.  She emerges from this primary process and this convention with her stature enhanced not only in the USA but also on the world stage.

I have not watched all the speeches.  No sane person would want to.  Of the ones I've heard, however, I've made it a point to note any reference to "Democrat" or "Democratic Party."  For a day and a half of this Democratic convention, I have not heard the word or the phrase even one time.  In Hillary's speech, I counted six such references.  That's one of the main reasons I supported her.  She was campaigning to lead a party to a party victory and establish the groundwork for a generation of progressive governance.  It would have worked, and may yet. 

Speaking of toeing the party line

Archbishop Chaput, who was scheduled to lead a pro-life candlelight vigil Monday night here in front of Planned Parenthood, called Mr. Biden's support for abortion rights "seriously wrong," said archdiocese spokeswoman Jeanette De Melo.

Get rid of teleprompters!

The national conventions of the two major parties could fairly be called the "world series of politics."  An important part of politics is the spoken word.

Doesn't it therefore make sense that speakers at a national convention ought to be our nation's professionals at speaking words?  Shouldn't they be able to do this without watching the dang words--their words, supposedly--being flashed back at them?

The problem with every speech last night--including Ted's and Michelle Obama's--was that they each lacked some semblance of being real.  Yes, there was rarely a stumble, they always seemed to be looking into the camera, they were technically flawless, and they delivered the intended message.

The problem is that, lacking any spontaneity at all, the words seem to come across as faintly wooden, even when the teleprompter is exercised entirely as intended--in fact, precisely as intended.

These national politicians--these masters, supposedly, of the spoken word--ought to be able to deliver a good speech without that goofy contraption.  Even if they read it off a prepared text right in front of them, they should be able to deliver it with some "humanity" to it.

As I watched the teleprompter last night, everybody read their lines quite capably.  I did notice that Michelle Obama tended to sneak the word "see" in here and there, which was not in the teleprompter script.  This was the only deviation from the script that I noticed and it was a decidedly minor one.  I think she, perhaps unconsciously, was trying to put at least something of herself in it. 

Get rid of this high tech short-circuit!  Bring back argument and debate, oratory and rhetoric.  It worked for Jefferson and Lincoln.

Big Tent Democrat and I think a lot alike

Both the mainstream media and the establishment bloggers continue to obsess about the Clintons.  David Sirota had his idiotic post up this morning about how worried everyone is about whether or not the Clintons will do thus-and-so.  Eugene Robinson was fussing about the same thing. 

John Harris' post today at Politico was titled:  "Can Clintons get over it?"  He went on to call the Clintons "sunset figures" who were being brushed aside in the ascendent wave of transcendentalism--or something.  BTD replied:

If that were true, no one would care what they had to say or even that they were speaking. They could speak as unobtrusively as Clarie McCaskill or Nancy Pelosi. Obama would not have such trouble PRAISING the Clinton Administration. No, the problem is half of the Democratic Party does not see them as sunset figures. And that means Obama can not ignore them and the Media and the Left blogs can not dance on their political graves.

So here is the real question - can Obama Dems get over that? Can the Obama blogs get over that? Can the Obama camp get over that? Can the Media get over that? I think the answer has been no so far. And that stands in the way of Obama locking up this election.

Hear!  Hear!  Read, study, and inwardly digest!  And may I add that one reason the establishment blogs continue to go into paroxysms over all-things-Clinton is because of guilt over the way they treated her in the nominating process. 

It's like walking down a street and seeing the dog you kicked yesterday.  In the inner recesses of your mind, you can't stand your own guilt so you cover it over with a layer of self-righteousness, which implicitly gives you permission to kick the dog again, which you then do.