Convention Observations
1) All the pundits are absolutely gushing about Hillary's speech, saying it was a "grand slam," saying that she did everything that could possibly be asked of her. Was I watching the same speech? Look, I'm not one of those people who thinks Hillary is under some deep moral obligation to say all the right things or that the fate of the Democratic party depended on her delivering a truly great speech tonight, but it's pretty clear to me that she did neither of those things. Substantively, she gave basically the same speech she gave when she dropped out of the race in June. She made clear that issues matter and that if you believe in what she believes in, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. That's fine. Really. But she clearly could have done a lot more. For starters, the speech was completely and utterly devoid of praise for Barack Obama. At no point during the speech did she compliment him in any way. At no point did she vouch for his character. At no point did she say he was qualified to be president or ready to lead. Those are some pretty glaring omissions, ones that the McCain campaign quickly picked up on. She also could have done a lot more in attacking McCain. Yes, she included a few snarky lines at the end, but she didn't draw much blood nor did she really seem to try. Again, that's fine, but let's not pretend she did everything she could have.
As for style, I was again underwhelmed. She's clearly improved as a speaker over the last four years (she was terrible at the 2004 convention), but she's still just not a very compelling speaker. All I was thinking while she was speaking was that I was glad she wasn't the nominee (ditto for Mark Warner). But what do I know?
2) What's with the networks (including the cable networks!) refusing to show any of the other primetime speakers? You had to turn to CSPAN to see the one of best speakers of the night: Brian Schweitzer. Was it always like that? 'Cause it sucks. What's the point of even having all the other speakers if the only people who can see them are the delegates themselves and the twelve people watching CSPAN. At the very least, the people who tune in to CNN or MSNBC should be able to see the other speakers.
3) Then again, maybe we're lucky they're not televising those speeches. I can't figure out whether it's the crowd or the quality of the speakers, but something is off. It's just not loud and enthusiastic enough in there. It's certainly true that many of the speakers have been underwhelming (yes, I'm talking about you Kathleen Sebelius, Bob Casey, and Mark Warner), but they weren't that bad. And some, like Deval Patrick, were actually pretty good. The crowd should be more engaged. This a show and it's important to project enthusiasm. Stop sitting on your hands, people.
4) I can't stand Gloria Borger.
5) Did you see when Chris Matthews lost it and barked angrily at Keith Olbermann on the air while they were interviewing Steny Hoyer? Awkward.
As for style, I was again underwhelmed. She's clearly improved as a speaker over the last four years (she was terrible at the 2004 convention), but she's still just not a very compelling speaker. All I was thinking while she was speaking was that I was glad she wasn't the nominee (ditto for Mark Warner). But what do I know?
[UPDATE: Having reread this, it sounds a little harsher than I intended. Let me be clear, I think Clinton did all she was obliged to do. She was a better sport than many prior losing candidates, including Ted Kennedy in 1980. I'm not criticizing her. I just think the instant media consensus that she did everything she possibly could have done is pretty clearly erroneous. That said, I also think it would be the height of folly for anyone in or affiliated with the Obama campaign to make this same observation. It would be stupid for them to express anything but gratitude and praise.]
2) What's with the networks (including the cable networks!) refusing to show any of the other primetime speakers? You had to turn to CSPAN to see the one of best speakers of the night: Brian Schweitzer. Was it always like that? 'Cause it sucks. What's the point of even having all the other speakers if the only people who can see them are the delegates themselves and the twelve people watching CSPAN. At the very least, the people who tune in to CNN or MSNBC should be able to see the other speakers.
3) Then again, maybe we're lucky they're not televising those speeches. I can't figure out whether it's the crowd or the quality of the speakers, but something is off. It's just not loud and enthusiastic enough in there. It's certainly true that many of the speakers have been underwhelming (yes, I'm talking about you Kathleen Sebelius, Bob Casey, and Mark Warner), but they weren't that bad. And some, like Deval Patrick, were actually pretty good. The crowd should be more engaged. This a show and it's important to project enthusiasm. Stop sitting on your hands, people.
4) I can't stand Gloria Borger.
5) Did you see when Chris Matthews lost it and barked angrily at Keith Olbermann on the air while they were interviewing Steny Hoyer? Awkward.
posted by A.L. at 10:25 PM
11 Comments:
Schweitzer was great, but to compare his speech with Clinton's is ridiculous. That folks who claim to be Democrats, who claim to want an Obama victory, continue to slime Clinton and her supporters is maddening! There is NOTHING she could have done to satisfy you!
This was the best convention speech by a losing candidate that I remember in my 61 years.
Grow up and join the party.
On one point, I think the audio mix is off on a lot of the speeches. You can hear the speech, but the cheering only dimly, resulting in a certain flatness.
Meanwhile, terrell, how absurd! A.L wasn't thrilled with Clinton's speech - so what? You and he may disagree but to go straight to 'continue to slime Clinton' is just stupid. There were things she could have done to improve. I personally thought Michelle Obama's speech was lacking in content - does that make me an Obama-hater?
Just count me among the people who are sick of hearing Democrats whine about this convention.
Repeat after me:
"Michelle's speech was awesome.
Clinton's speech was effective.
________'s speech had panache."
Complaining about style at this point is only fostering an atmosphere of discontent in what should be an atmosphere of enthusiasm. No convention will satisfy all audiences. It's one week. We can certainly try to get in line for one week.
To A.L -
I have read and will continue to read your articles because you always seem to confirm some of my political observations as well as give new insights. But I really disagree with your impression of Hillary Clinton's speech. I believe her main objective was to convince her die hard supporters to support Obama. She did this and then some. She asked her supporters to ask themselves if they were in the campaign just for her, or for the Americans the campaign is working to help. She detailed many of the reasons we cannot have a McCain victory.
I think trying to also retract any attacks she previously made against Obama in the primary would have obfuscated and diluted the main message and seemed less sincere.
There is time for Hillary and others to praise Obama and retract primary attacks later in the convention and during the campaign.
You expressed admiration for Rachel Maddow in the past. Look at her reaction to Hillary's speech. Maybe it will help convince you.
AL, it must be so weird to find yourself in full agreement with the-always-wrong-about-everything-toxic-dwarf Bill Kristol. His comments and yours about Clinton's speech are eerily similar. Yikes!That'd sure give me pause for thought, and maybe the need for a quick shower...But, remaining nit-pickily underwhelmed in the face of near-universal acclaim & delighted enthusiasm, requires its own...er...PUMA-esque integrity, I guess. So, congratulations on the endurance of your internecine misgivings!
Personally I thought Clinton made a stunning, impassioned, heartfelt speech, gave Obama her absolute endorsement and her supporters every reason to vote for him. I also thought she also tore into McCain with both humour and style. I'm really sorry you didn't enjoy it.
Yeah, I don’t really get your criticism of Clinton. Look at it this way, there are a certain percentage of Clinton supporters (lets say 20%) who are hardened anti-Obama voters. There is another group (lets say 40%) that are fully committed to backing Obama and don’t need any further encouragement from Clinton. Some of these people may have doubts about Obama personally, but their commitment to the Democratic Party and/or Democratic issues is such that they will have no problem voting for him.
That leaves the remaining 40% who, presumably, were Clinton’s target audience. These are people who (1) don’t feel an emotional connection to Obama and (2) as a consequence, believe that Clinton was unfairly, or at least foolishly, passed over in favor of a less qualified or completely unqualified candidate. Some of them plan to vote for Obama anyway, but they are weak supporters who might change their minds.
There is nothing that Clinton could have said that would establish an emotional connection between this audience and Obama. Not that she necessarily would have if she could. What I think that she was trying to do in her speech was to give the audience an alternative emotional framework that would motivate them to vote for Obama without necessarily transferring their personal loyalties from her to him. So rather than seeing Obama as the personification of the “issues” they (supposedly) feel so deeply about, they can see voting for Obama as the means to achieve the ends that Clinton has worked so hard to achieve.
Now this is a double-edged sword to some extent. If Clinton achieved her objective (and the reviews suggest that she did), the likely effect would be to strengthen the emotional bond between her and this audience. This could increase their sense of grievance and feeling of alienation from the Obama camp, which they perceive as more motivated by a cult of personality and less by the issues.
Hmm, on second thought, I do get your criticism of Clinton.
There's no question that I'm nitpicking. If I were I party official or someone in the Obama campaign, I would not have said any of the things I said above. But I'm not. I'm just a blogger trying to give my honest opinion. I'm not criticizing Clinton. I don't think she was under any obligation to do anything more than what she did. I just think her speech would have been more helpful to Obama if she had tried to address the actual doubts her supporters have him. They all know that she and Obama agree on most of the issues. The problem is that--as a result of the hard fought primary--many of them don't like Obama. They don't trust him. And they don't think he's experienced enough to be president (this was a central theme of Hillary's campaign). What would have really helped is if Hillary vouched for Obama personally, if she said she'd come to know him very well and he's good man, someone with the intelligence and judgment to be a good president.
But she literally said nothing complimentary about Obama in the speech. Go reread it if you don't believe me. Again, I don't think she was under any obligation to say these things, but if she had, the speech would have been much more effective at unifying the party.
I watched Brian Schweitzer's speech on CNN. It was broadcast live and I thought it was great. He is a very natural speaker and seemed to be really enjoying himself. I was too tired to watch all of Hillary's speech but from what I saw, she struck the right tone.
Point 3 struck me as well. What gives? The '04 Dem convention was far more enthralling and look at the blandness of Kerry & his campaign compared to the excitement generated by Obama & his campaign. Obama stands a much better chance at winning the White House than Kerry ever did.
It's like most/all of the Democratic convention-goers are phoning in their enthusiasm. I'm watching & scratching my head, saying "wtf?"
And look at the "wrong track" poll numbers, the state of the economy, the president's disapproval ratings and various other metrics used in predicting election winners in previous elections. I know this election is historically unlike any other we've had, but... "What strikes me about this election so far is how traditional it is."
Am I missing something?
WHY HILLARY VOTERS WILL NEVER GET OVER IT.
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
“We Will Not Be Silenced”
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Thanks to several alert readers here at No Quarter, I have learned about a new documentary on Caucus Fraud that is just coming out. “We Will Not Be Silenced, ” by Gigi Gaston, came into being according to their website because:
As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected.
However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee.
That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc.
There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.
The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.
I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:
This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America.
We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”
This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.
My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness.
Go to www.noquarterusa.net for links.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home