A Tale of Two Keynotes
As I watched President-Elect Obama hold his first press conference this afternoon, I thought back to the first time I ever saw him speak. Like most everyone else in the country, it was when he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His speech was, hands down, the highlight of the convention. It was an inspiring call to unity, an appeal to our better angels, an attempt to reach out and find common ground. That speech catapulted Obama into the national spotlight, and four years later, he's President-Elect of United States.
A few weeks after Obama delivered his speech, Zell Miller delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Miller delivered a cartoonish, ugly, and deeply dishonest speech, the bulk of which was devoted to making completely outlandish charges against John Kerry. Visibly angry and unhinged, Miller accused Kerry of, among other things, wanting to disarm our troops and force them to use "spitballs" to defend themselves. After the speech, a clearly unstable Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel on live television. Four years later, Miller has (thankfully) completely disappeared from the political scene. He's probably in a padded room somewhere.
Looking back, those two speeches served as leading indicators of the trajectory the parties were headed in. The Republican party had only one weapon left in its arsenal--the fear card--and its effectiveness was waning. Otherwise, the party was out of ideas and running low on talent. The Democrats, on the other hand, clearly had a deeper farm system and the beginnings of a positive, inclusive message with real national appeal.
And what's interesting is--four years later--the contrast at the conventions was just as stark. Though Mark Warner's keynote address at the Democratic convention was nowhere near as memorable as Obama's, it was similar in tone. It was positive and inclusive and presidential. And Warner was just elected to the Senate in a traditionally red state, by a huge margin. Warner is clearly a rising star in the Democratic party, a politician with a bright future. In sharp contrast, the Republicans chose Rudy Giuliani to deliver the keynote address. Giuliani is a falling star. He was coming off one of the more pathetic presidential bids in modern times, a one-time front runner who ran a terrible campaign and ended winning zero delegates. Fittingly, Giuliani used his convention speech to complete his transformation from independent-minded moderate to cartoonish attack dog. Doing his best Zell Miller impression, Giuliani gave a vicious, completely dishonorable performance in which he mocked community organizers and lied repeatedly.
I have a hunch that eight years from now, Mark Warner will be a successful two-term senator and a presidential candidate, and people will be wondering what ever happened to Rudy Giuliani.
A few weeks after Obama delivered his speech, Zell Miller delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Miller delivered a cartoonish, ugly, and deeply dishonest speech, the bulk of which was devoted to making completely outlandish charges against John Kerry. Visibly angry and unhinged, Miller accused Kerry of, among other things, wanting to disarm our troops and force them to use "spitballs" to defend themselves. After the speech, a clearly unstable Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel on live television. Four years later, Miller has (thankfully) completely disappeared from the political scene. He's probably in a padded room somewhere.
Looking back, those two speeches served as leading indicators of the trajectory the parties were headed in. The Republican party had only one weapon left in its arsenal--the fear card--and its effectiveness was waning. Otherwise, the party was out of ideas and running low on talent. The Democrats, on the other hand, clearly had a deeper farm system and the beginnings of a positive, inclusive message with real national appeal.
And what's interesting is--four years later--the contrast at the conventions was just as stark. Though Mark Warner's keynote address at the Democratic convention was nowhere near as memorable as Obama's, it was similar in tone. It was positive and inclusive and presidential. And Warner was just elected to the Senate in a traditionally red state, by a huge margin. Warner is clearly a rising star in the Democratic party, a politician with a bright future. In sharp contrast, the Republicans chose Rudy Giuliani to deliver the keynote address. Giuliani is a falling star. He was coming off one of the more pathetic presidential bids in modern times, a one-time front runner who ran a terrible campaign and ended winning zero delegates. Fittingly, Giuliani used his convention speech to complete his transformation from independent-minded moderate to cartoonish attack dog. Doing his best Zell Miller impression, Giuliani gave a vicious, completely dishonorable performance in which he mocked community organizers and lied repeatedly.
I have a hunch that eight years from now, Mark Warner will be a successful two-term senator and a presidential candidate, and people will be wondering what ever happened to Rudy Giuliani.
posted by A.L. at 12:27 AM
6 Comments:
To this day, I don't understand why Republicans get any bounce at all out of their conventions. In 2004, their convention was nicknamed "Fear and Loathing in NYC". This year it was hardly any better. Nonetheless, a certain segment of the population really connects with that kind of behavior. So, while I appreciate your perspective and would like to think that the convention parallels indicate a bright Democratic future, the post-convention polling data suggest that, to some extent, intellectually dishonest thuggery works well for Republicans.
Rudy is a nasty man - When he personally attacked and ridiculed Ron Paul and his opposition to war he revealed himself to the world.
Even Republicans who cheered his barstool nastiness took note privately -
You can't have a total asshole as President.
I agree - Rudy's speech was so ugly I could barely watch it. I thought seeing that on television most Americans would immediately switch to Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin had momentarily energized the right and temporarily derailed the rest of the country ("What should we do? The GOP has selected a woman! Maybe they aren't Neanderthals after all???"). But then Sarah's lack of credentials became obvious and people saw the light. Thank God.
@anonymous: We *have* a total asshole as president.
Zell Miller is an understandable choice because he so represents the Republican base. I live in Georgia and Republican candidates come out of this particular place with delusions of grandeur. There are so many constituents exactly like Zell here that they all start to believe everyone in the world agrees with them. For Democrats here, it has been an especially stressful 8 years. We have had to listen to too much hate, devision and stupidity.
I'd actually pick two different players for this comparison:
Joe Lieberman and Brian Schweitzer.
Joe perfectly replayed the spiteful script laid out by Miller in 2004. And I think he represents a political philosophy (harsh partisanship masquerading as principled independence) that, if the Obama trend of post-partisanship will put Joe in a no-win position in 2012.
Brian Schweitzer was the unexpected stand-out speech of the convention and in his case perfectly epitomized the new, muscular Democrats with a foothold in deep Red territory that is changing the political landscape.
Like Zell and Obama, I expect both to have followed their predecessors footsteps in four years into obscurity and national stardom, respectively.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home