Conventional Thoughts…
August 27, 2008
Some reflections on last night, in no particular order:
- I was extremely impressed by Clinton, and kept thinking that she would have been a formidable running mate. Did Obama err seriously in not choosing her? People are also talking wistfully about how she would have been a better candidate that Obama, and that Democrats might be suffering from buyer’s remorse. We need to remember, however, that the passionate Hillary Clinton we saw last night is light years from the focus-group fixated cipher who thought she had the thing locked up from day one. The gruelling campaign transformed Hillary in ways that none of us thought possible. Last night, she did what she had to do, including looking her supporters in the eye and telling them that it’s about the issues, not the person. I think she could have done more to expose McCain’s shoddy economics, but perhaps that was not her job.
- Then whose job was it? You know the Republicans will have four full days of rapid foam-at-the-mouth full frontal assaults on the character and positions of Barack Obama. Kerry’s big huge mistake four years ago was trying to stay above the fray (only to the savaged by the Bushites a week later). We kept hearing that this time would be different, but is it? The convention needs to pick the most inspiring and forceful speakers, and instead, they seemed to pick every single prominent woman– most of whom are neither inspiring nor forceful. The convention also seemed to drift at times, and what’s with the musical interludes? Come on, the McCain economic positions are so easy to attack: a very rich man coming out for tax cuts for very rich men, an energy policy that does not make sense, voting against health care coverage for children, a willingness to blow up the deficit and leave the burden to future generations. And yet the biggest soundbite of the night was tax credit for big oil. Fine, we get it, it’s typical Republican crony capitalism, but there are more important issues on the table, people.
- And then there was Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana. I’d never seen him speak before, and he was outstanding. So far, his is the most memorable speech of the convention, making him the “Barack Obama” of 2008! He laid into the McCain energy plan, scoring points right, left, and center- all the while grinning and displaying his folksy charm. If you have not seen this, go to youtube right now! He is passionate on energy, and manages to effectively demolish the McCain position that drilling will solve all our problems. And the floor loved it. I think we’re be hearing a lot more from this guy.
- What can I say about Bob Casey? This was supposed to have been the attempt to assuage pro-life Democrats, outraged by the treatment of Casey’s father in 1992. It was supposed to heal the rift. By no means charismatic, Casey is a moderately effective speaker. Michael Sean Winters thinks his very appearance promoted unity within the party, and would appeal to Catholic voters. On this one, though, I’m more with Peter Nixon, wishing Casey would have said more. All he basically said was that Obama disagreed with him on abortion, but let him speak anyway, so wasn’t that great etc etc. Sorry, but this is not good enough. Why could Casey not have publicly supported the agenda of Democrats for Life, pointing out that opposition to abortion was fully consistent with the Democrat’s support for human dignity and for the least among us in other areas? Why could he have not said that while he was not going to persuade his party on the legality of abortion, he needed them to appreciate the need to minimize the number of abortions, and that abortion was not something virtuous? Would that have been so hard? I’m with Winters that the natural home for Catholics is the Democratic party. And yet, with an attitude for barely concealed intolerance toward anybody who deviates from the radical NARAL-Planned Parenthood line, is it any wonder that they cannot break through convincingly in the battlefield states?
- There has been much criticism of Mark Warner, and his speech was all-too-reminiscent of the warm fuzziness of the 2004 convention. He too refrained from attacking McCain on economics, even in obvious areas. Nonetheless, I thought his message of the past versus the future was a powerful one, and his reference to China “going for gold” surely resonated. The more I think of it, this could be a compelling narrative. Bill Clinton drove me crazy in 1996 with his “building a bridge to the 21st century” mantra, which seemed forced and vacuous. But the global economy has changed dramatically over the last decade, and technical progress continues to proceed rapidly, and economic insecurity has mushroomed. If Obama can craft a narrative of himself being ready for the challenges of the future, willing to actively take the initiative and shape events, all the while McCain remains wedded to the past (culture war of the 1960s, phony economics of the 1980s, militarism of the Bush years), and in the process makes sly references to his advanced age and his befuddlement over the internet and other modern technology, then I think he has a compelling message. If done right, it could become the next “morning in America”. But McCain’s economics has to be repudiated forcefully before this will work.
- Best lines: Bob Casey on McCain not being a maverick but Bush’s sidekick; Hillary’s Twin Cities reference to Bush and McCain; and Schweitzer’s riff on how they couldn’t find enough oil even if they drilled in all of McCain’s backyards, including the ones he doesn’t know about!
- It was poignant seeing Ted Kennedy, now facing his mortality, avoiding sentiment and instead rising up to give one last great speech, reprising his “dream never dies” speech of 1980, referring especially to universal health care. He really is the last of his kind, whatever you think of him.
Advertisement
50 Comments
Comments are closed.
I agree about Teddy Kennedy – really an impressive speech. There’s going to be a big hole in the Senate…
I’m glad to see you criticize Casey – I was hopping mad after his speech. Your dad was blocked from speaking in favor of a pro-choice Republican because he would have defended being pro-life, and all you can say is “Barack Obama and I disagree but the fact that he lets me talk means he’s a great guy and I support him”?!?!?! I expected much more, even knowing he wasn’t a great speaker. The fact that his speech was such a sell-out further indicates the compromises pro-lifers have to make to go anywhere in the party.
I think people pick on Warner too much. I thought he gave a very good speech, although I would have liked to see Schweizer’s. Warner’s emphasis is “We Democrats can get results that help people, including small town people who are being screwed by the globalized economy. Bush, McCain, and the Republicans won’t.” He delivered the message very well by focusing on how, in Virginia, he had done so. It was to show people that Obama and the Dems aren’t just fluffy talk but can get results.
He also highlighted energy (in his mild mannered but effective criticism of Bush post Sept 11, 2001). Along with Schweizer’s attack, I think this is going to be the Democrats’ main focus this fall, and the more extensively it’s done, the more effective it will be in undercutting the off-shore drilling focus of Republicans.
All that said, I think it might have trouble sticking to McCain, if he can seem like someone serious about solving economic problems for the middle class. People will stillsee him as a maverick. I think the Republican Convention is going to be the Sam’s Club convention and will blunt some of the Democrats’ economic attacks. Especially if Pawlenty is the pick.
I don’t get why you want the Democrats to be so partisan and vitriolic, when you despise such behavior in Republicans. Certainly you don’t think the swift-boating of Kerry or the attacks on Cleland were moral things to do. So why do you want Democrats to roll in the gutter with Republicans? Is it “the ends justify the means”? Do I sense proportionalism?
I’m with Winters that the natural home for Catholics is the Democratic party.
Your next sentence gets at exactly the reason why this sentence is non-sensical, IMO anyway: how can anyone who values traditionalist morality and family structure vote for a party whose leaders, consistency since the take-over of ’72-’76, barely contain their contempt for such points of view?
Hillary will have much more clout as majority leader of the senate than as VP. She will also be very effective at plugging the hole left by TK and, should Obama lose, she will become our first woman president. However things work out, she will be a major player.
The probelme with the Democrat convention is one I fear that the GOP will have. That is the media. IS the Dem convention going good? Who knows. The media with their constant panels of pundits that just talks talks talks interrupt the natural flow.
I hate to say but the GOP convention Is suspect will be overshadowed by this very scary Hurricane in the gulf that is dead on to hit my state and New Orleans and the fact that McCain’s VP pick will be overshadowed by the start of High School and College Football season.
Still I am very disappointed in the media. WHy can’t they just shut up. All I have to say is watch both conventions on Public Television
One’d think Catholics don’t, or shouldn’t, have a ‘natural home’ in any party. It’s really a question of who one dislikes less. I’d (and so would my wife) be a fairly easy to get Democrat supporter, but they still manage to irk me sufficiently to stick with the Republicans. If it weren’t for those insufferably preachy, politically correct social engineering ‘elitist’ twits (portrayed so wonderfully in South Park, as smelling their own farts and being struck with sheer delight) I might be persuadable. The Democrats sound ‘nicer’, but they excel at sawing on the branch we sit on and in promoting govt. programs that are counter-productive (great society, war on poverty etc). Republicans at least have a healthy self-interest. Since we’d just pay higher taxes without getting anything in return, we’re staying with the GOP. Apparently, Obama thinks $150k household income is rich. Well, not in California.
Zak: I think they need to hit McCain hard on his policies, especially on economics, to highlight that be bascially doesn’t have a clue. And no mincing words. Having said that, I don’t want to hear about McCain’s personal life, his adultery, the dodgy people in his past (Keating 5?), his big ego, his love of limelight and celebrity, his bad temper, or even his feebleness. These are exactly the kinds of things the GOP will go after, simply avoid dealing with the issues. So I mean be tough– not sleazy.
JH: I just read that and I pray that New Orleans is spared this time. And I completely agree with you on the talking heads. For some reason, CNN thought we wanted to hear Wolf Blitzer rather than Brian Schweitzer. The ego drives me crazy.
Hillary for Secretary of State?
Women seem to have a lock on that position anyway… ;)
The reason the Democrats are a natural home for Catholics reflects both the history and how the modern Republican party ane never be. The New Deal coalition is in dire need or being reformed to tackle the serious economic challenges of the country. It needs to yet again focus on the common good, rather than the individual. And what about the Republicans? The party of selfish cynicism? The party that elevates individual self-reliance to a religion, a party that uses religion for its own gains, a party that gets to power using depraved and calumnous personal attacks on people?
JH – Things are beginning to look ominous indeed along the northern Gulf coast, given the updated track of Gustav.
The track will almost certainly be adjusted to the east or west in the next few days. That is the best hope for long-suffering New Orleans residents; given the atmospheric and water temperature environments in the Northern Gulf, it is virtually certain that Gustav will be a major hurricane at landfall. My prayers go out to your home state, jh.
Wow, MM – how are those generalizations much different than those of a party employee tv talking head?
Gerald is right – there is no “natural home” for Catholics – and Catholic voters understand this, which is why there are no “Catholic voters,” only Catholics who vote.
One thing we can say for sure: however one feels about any other other party, the Democratic Party’s iron-clad lockstep with the abortion lobby is toxic and hugely disappointing, and I personally do not see how any faithful Catholic could be a partisan of it.
I also thought that Hillary was terrific. I appreciated what she mentioned about the anniversary of women winning the right to vote. We women owe much to our sisters who came before us…
Although I do not support Obama, I second the notion that he erred in not selecting Hillary as his running mate. Had he done so, I think the Dems would have won and easily…The talking heads stated that Michelle nixed Hillary as a VP choice. It was interesting watching Michelle’s face in the early stages of Hillary’s speech; IMO, Michelle has significant negative feelings re: Hillary. Whatever, folks want to say about the Clintons, they are political pros and will make the best of every situation. Politics is about using people and the Obama’s could have made use of Hillary whatever their personal feelings.
I was extremely impressed by Clinton, and kept thinking that she would have been a formidable running mate. Did Obama err seriously in not choosing her?
That would be quite an incentive for her to have him knocked off. Just kidding, but there’s no way that Obama would want Hillary and her ex-President husband hanging around and dividing people’s loyalties.
a party that uses religion for its own gains, a party that gets to power using depraved and calumnous personal attacks on people?
Projection. Or else blindness to your own party’s faults. Look at how the Democrats tried to use religion and race against Bobby Jindal in his governor’s race. That was infinitely more contemptible than anything that you allege about the McCain ads.
using depraved and calumnous personal attacks on people?
Seriously, you have to be blind not to realize that Democrats do this too. Who out there doesn’t have the sense to recognize that both parties make personal attacks at times?
SB, I don’t see it today. I didn’t see it in 2006, 2004, 2002…. all I see is that the Democrats try to argue the issues and get kicked in the groin with personal attacks.
I already gave you an example of Democrats using racial and religious attacks, but you still claim not to see it.
Psychologists publish lots of studies about the fact that people are generally like you, i.e., they analyze politics with an enormous degree of bias in which they see only what they’re looking for, excuse their own side’s faults, amplify the other side’s faults, etc.
MM, ever heard of Jack Ryan?
all I see is that the Democrats try to argue the issues and get kicked in the groin with personal attacks.
Get thee to an eye doctor.
And yet the biggest soundbite of the night was tax credit for big oil. Fine, we get it, it’s typical Republican crony capitalism, but there are more important issues on the table, people.
Do you have any idea if this is even true? On Obama’s repeated “4 billion tax cut for Big Oil” claim, FactCheck.org has been saying (and everyone else that I’ve read) that all the Obama campaign has done is taken the across the board cut in the corporate tax which McCain is seeking (to bring the US into line with corporate tax rates in the rest of the world) and looking at how much of a savings this would be for the big file oil companies. However, the tax cut in fact applies to all companies, oil companies are in no way singled out.
I didn’t see it in 2006, 2004, 2002…. all I see is that the Democrats try to argue the issues and get kicked in the groin with personal attacks.
If you seriously think that the Republicans haven’t argued issues since the mid-nineties, it’s mostly because you’re unwilling to acknowledge that their issues are issues. Republicans have very successfully campaigned on lower taxes, restricting abortion, opposing gay marriage, opposing gun control, charter schools, and any number of other issues. You just don’t like to consider those issues because they’re not _your_ issues.
MM – When is it going to stop? Seriously, how much are the democrats paying you to shill on a religious blog? Is this some sort of “viral” effort?
From the great Billmon:
I concur with SB and Darwin, MM… it’s hard to see how you’re being objective if you can honestly claim that Democrats don’t get in the gutter, or that the GOP doesn’t argue issues.
This is obviously my personal preference, but I find your posts more interesting and compelling when you address specific issues and public policy measures, making an argument for your position and against an other. I’m not telling you how to blog… that’s above my pay grade. ;-) My point is merely to note how this particular reader of VN responds to your various styles. FWIW (and I know it may not be much).
Darwin: which of those issues is John McCain raising now (beyond the more-of-the-same tax cuts for the very top of the income distribution)? Why is so much of the attack on Obama about his past acquaintances, his church, his “celebrity” status, his wife’s statements…..? I see plenty of harsh Democratic attacks on Bush-McCain but its all on economic and foreign policy.
MM, criticizing Obama’s judgment is entirely appropriate, which is what many of the criticisms focus on. Not all, certainly, but plenty of those to the left in the aisle have no problems with getting into the gutter (MoveOn.org?).
I see plenty of harsh Democratic attacks on Bush-McCain but its all on economic and foreign policy.
As I’m typing this very message, I just heard an Obama commercial about the number of houses that McCain owns. That’s a strict focus on policy? Please.
Ah, but Obama told MoveOn to stay on the sidelines. As for the houses thing, (1) do you honestly think they would have run this had not McCain taken the low road?; (2) The issue is not so much that McCain is very rich, or married into money. John Kerry is inthe same boat. The issue is that McCain is a very rich man who wants to give tax cuts exclusively focused on very rich people.
There are many examples of Democratic gutter politics . . . the NAACP ad in 2000 linking Bush to lynching, the religious attacks on Jindal (is it anti-Catholicism if the Catholic is Republican?), and much more.
Of course both sides do it. It’s silly to claim otherwise. You can point to “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” attacking Kerry (most of what they said was perfectly true, by the way), but a Republican would answer with the fraudulent memo accusing Bush of being AWOL.
The issue is that McCain is a very rich man who wants to give tax cuts exclusively focused on very rich people.
BULL. The proof is in the pudding, in this case the IRS tax tables from 2000, 2001 (first bush tax cut), 2003 (second bush tax cut), and 2007 (last year).
I did this for a few of my coworkers, and my parents. All make between 40K and 60K, hardly rich even by Obama’s arbitrary standard.
Each saved about 2000-3000 in taxes alone from 2000 to 2007. that’s from $167-$250 a MONTH that Obama would cost them as first priority when he is elected, not to mention destroying their investment income. He promised to make it a priority to repeal the bush tax cuts and “help” the middle class. What a crock.
For God’s sake, Tim, please do the bare minimum of research before speaking. See here: http://vox-nova.com/2008/06/12/obama-mccain-and-tax-progressivity/
(1) do you honestly think they would have run this had not McCain taken the low road?
But you have just been claiming that they don’t go negative, MM. Don’t move the goalposts; just acknowledge that Dems go negative too, and we can move on… ;-)
SB,
The memo was fraudulant, but that does not change the fact that Bush was AWOL.
MM: Why is so much of the attack on Obama about his past acquaintances, his church, his “celebrity” status, his wife’s statements…..? I see plenty of harsh Democratic attacks on Bush-McCain but its all on economic and foreign policy.
Only attacking Bush-McCain on policy? If only the rest of the world were as stupid as you think we are.
MM: Why is so much of the attack on Obama about his past acquaintances, his church, his “celebrity” status, his wife’s statements…..? I see plenty of harsh Democratic attacks on Bush-McCain but its all on economic and foreign policy.”
As far as I remember, the Wright controversy occurred during the Democratic primary with Hillary, as did Michelle’s poignant statements about how Princeton and Harvard law grads are only proud of their country when their spouses are running for president.
As to negative and misleading at the same time, what about the Reed ad. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html
Or Obama lying about his record, then accusing the National Right to Life Committee of lying
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
And, of course, the housing ads are certainly not substantive either. I suppose MM can ‘move the goalposts’ now, and say yes, they go negative, but its only because of the evil, evil republicans, but its still laughably false to say that only one party is negative or misleading.
I thought conservatism was about rugged self reliance.
Their representatives here sure know how to pout–it’s almost reaching an art form…
And this ad epitomizes the small, pathetic man Mr. McCain has allowed himself to become:
(I am waiting for your rightwing visitors to tell me how fair and issues-laden this is…Of course, my of the are either victims or masters of fear mongering themselves.)
JH: I just read that and I pray that New Orleans is spared this time
And if by chance they are hit, they’ll have a much better chance now that Bobby Jindal is in the Governor’s mansion.
The issue is that McCain is a very rich man who wants to give tax cuts exclusively focused on very rich people.
And how is McCain “exclusively focusing” tax cuts on the “very rich” people? Has he proposed cuts for only people making over a certain amount? Is he increasing the percentage for “very rich” people over and above what they originally paid? Is it because he’s limiting tax cuts to those who actually pay taxes? Tell me, specifically, how is McCain “focusing” the tax cuts exclusively on the “very rich”?
Take all the paper you need.
I thought conservatism was about rugged self reliance.
That might be an aspect of conservatism, but I think it’s highlighted more by some “sub-genres” than others… “Sam’s Club Republicans”, for instance, aren’t as focused on it as is, say, Rush Limbaugh.
And this ad epitomizes the small, pathetic man Mr. McCain has allowed himself to become
Mark, it’s not out-of-bounds to critique Obama’s views on foreign policy. Does it fear monger? Maybe. But so do the attacks on McCain’s domestic policies… if you took them at face value, you’d be convinced that the vast majority of Americans are at the poverty level at best.
Again, the point here is that *both* sides stretch the truth (at a minimum)… the Dems aren’t lily-white. Talk about American dualism…
And if by chance they are hit, they’ll have a much better chance now that Bobby Jindal is in the Governor’s mansion.
Yes, because he’s a Republican, and thus the Bush administration won’t have an incentive to withhold help in order to make a Democrat look bad.
Yes, because he’s a Republican, and thus the Bush administration won’t have an incentive to withhold help in order to make a Democrat look bad.
Absolutely. Because this is what the Bush administration is obsessed with: making Democrats look bad, no matter the human or monetary cost.
Unfortunately, I’m know that some people actually believe that.
Darn dualists.
Chris
To exploit Obama’s one time gaffe in his usage “tiny’ as applied to the word Iran is not exactly one of the most evenhanded or comprehensive “criticisms I’ve seen these past few decade….
Maybe you don’t expect any better.
Chris – nope. Just drawing reasonable conclusions from observation.
Tony: I’m giving you the same link I have Time. Statistics, statistics, statistics.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/06/12/obama-mccain-and-tax-progressivity/
Matt,
Just drawing reasonable conclusions from observation.
“Reasonable”? It what way? You’re saying that it wasn’t incompetence, but deliberate choice that led to the errors in the federal response. How is that reasonable? What evidence do you base this assessment on? Maybe it was a Texas-Louisiana thing. Or maybe it was racism… yeah, that’s it! In each case, no evidence to support the assertion, other than a mere coincidence of factors, with no causal linkage.
Mark,
Maybe you don’t expect any better.
My point wasn’t what I expect, but whether or not McCain’s ad went below & beyond something you’d seem from Obama’s camp. It didn’t.
Chris – read Thomas Frank’s new book.
For its objectivity, Matt?
In any case, can you excise & condense the section which demonstrates how the Bush administration’s errors with regard to NOLA & Katrina were a calculated effort to undermine the state’s Democrat governor? Or perhaps to someone who does?
Chris,
We would never assume that Bush’s administration was that competent .:)
Matt seems to, Mark. :-)