Dem Convention (Update)

I won't have much to say about it or about the GOP convention.  Most people who still bother to read this blog know my point of view, and given my low regard for the media and the Democratic Party and its way of doing things, its pageantry just doesn't interest me. I can't imagine anything happening during either convention that isn't predictable or in any way important or interesting.

And does anybody really care what I think about Michelle's speech last night or Hillary's tonight?  Why should you? I'm not interested in the perceptions game. I'll leave that to the Chris Matthews of the world. The whole business makes me ill-tempered and unpleasant to be around. I owe it to my family to keep my distance.

Nevertheless, my son, who will be a first-time voter this November, in his spirited idealistic way is very much into this election and the whole process, and I am trying hard not to dampen his enthusiasm for Obama.  It's important for his soul's sake that he not become a cynic too soon.  So he keeps me tied in to a certain extent. If he alerts me to anything unusual or interesting, I might pay a little more attention, and wind up writing about it here.

I want Obama to win, and I wish him well, but if he wins I'll be paying more attention after January to see if he'll be able to use his talents to move the momentum of state in a healthier direction. I'm not without hope that he can get something done, but my expectations are low.

It's impossible for me to take McCain seriously, although I'm quite aware he might find a way to win. If a majority of Americans are dunderheaded enough to give him the presidency, then it will force me to reconsider whether Democracy in a country like ours is really possible. For surely we are living among a people who are unwittingly voting their democracy into annihilation. It's happened elsewhere; it can happen here.

***

UPDATE:  Hillary's speech: Thank God we don't have to listen to this tedious, platitudinous,  robo-pol for another four or eight years. It is just painful to have to sit an listen to her.If Obama has achieved nothing else, it's saving us all from more of that.  Dear Lord, is it really over now?

P.S. Olbermann, according to my son, called Hillary's speech a home run.  Hardly.  At best it was a sacrifice bunt. You'd think an old sports guy like him would know the difference.

Comments

[Valerius]

"Hillary's speech: Thank God we don't have to listen to this tedious, platitudinous, robo-pol for another four or eight years. It is just painful to have to sit an listen to her.If Obama has achieved nothing else, it's saving us all from more of that. Dear Lord, is it really over now?"

This is as opposed to Obama? This convention theme the Obama campaign is running of 'post-partisanship' and 'unity' makes Obama look more and more like Michael Dukakis: weak and arrogant. Since Hillary and Barack appear to agree on almost every issue (can you name a policy difference?), the difference between them is that you 'know' Hillary hits hard.

By the way, Mark Warner's speech was trashed by political commentators for not attacking McCain enough since it was after all the keynote address. That slot, according to them, is supposed to perform that duty--think Mario Cuomo and Ann Richards. Yet Warner's theme of post-partisanship and unity was exactly the same theme as Obama's in 2004! Why the different reaction?

[Guy Fawkes]

Valerius,

It was attacked because simply, Warner is not Obama, an electrifying speaker.

The circumstantial evidence points to Biden's speech tonight, and Obama's speech tomorrow containing some real "red meat."

[Jack Whelan]

Valerius--Regardless of her stand on the issues, she is and always will be a tedious, platitudinous robo-pol whose oratorical style makes me want to run from the room screaming. Biden and Obama at least come off as human and quasi-interesting.

Ultimately any Democrat's stand on the issues don't matter nearly so much as his or her ability to communicate and persuade. The presidency is a bully pulpit and with the media and the beltway establishment continuing to lean right no matter if the Dems take over, it will take a forceful communicator to make the case for shifting priorities and to overcome the moronic media narratives that they will have to combat from day one. Obama/Biden at least have the potential to do that.

Clinton could never pull something like that off. Her style really is off-putting to too many people. I had forgotten how off-putting until I heard snatches of her speech last night. She's a grinder; let her grind for the people of New York if they want to keep her.

Look, if you've been reading my posts about Obama since the FISA business, I've been clear that my expectations for Obama have been minimized, but he still has far more upside than any other candidate in recent memory. He may or may not realize that upside, but the worst we'll get is something that would be more or less the ineffectual presidency we would be guaranteed were Hillary ever to take the Oval Office. Obama at his worst is still slightly better than Hillary at her best.

[Guy Fawkes]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26420389/

Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, said Obama was still refining his speech, which he was writing himself. The speech will make a “clear and direct” case about the risks of choosing the presumed Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whom Obama will “not shy away from attacking,” Axelrod said.