Getting Nervous

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not watch all of last night's convention coverage. With the Mets in the fight of their lives, I had to flip back and forth. But I doubt that made any difference on my opinion, and I've since gone back and read or watched the speeches...

I am officially worried.

This entire summer, I predicted a blow-out. I guaranteed Barack Obama would shatter 300 electoral votes, sweep an impressive majority into Congress, and wield the "political capital" President Bush so pompously claimed in 2004.

But now, I'm worried about my party's November chances.

This week, Democrats haven't driven the final nail into the Bush Administration's coffin, or fortified their position as the stronger party for the next generation. They've only taken us half way.

All week in Denver, primetime speakers have stated the obvious: We cannot afford four more years of Bush policies. The American dream now seems out of reach. Barack Obama can change the direction of the country.

So while the speeches were good, and each major speaker accomplished the goal handed down by the 24- hour news media, there was very little overall connection to the overarching theme of why our country is so desperate for change. Instead they answered GOP talking points: what is Barack's story? does Michelle love her country? will Dems unite?

The speakers offered up worn phrases mixed with the most tired of political devices-- the encounter story. You know what I'm talking about:

"Once I met a woman with one leg, no house and the Clap..."

"... that's when I met Joe, who works 8 jobs, sleeps a half hour a month, and makes just $12k/ year..."

"An old Army vet told me the only thing he loves more than the American flag is apple pie, and the only thing he loves more than apple pie is a bald eagle carrying the American flag in his talons, and the only thing he loves more than that is if the eagle served him a heaping slice of apple pie in the Grand Canyon..."

(Is it just me, or is that stuff is entirely ineffective? I find it forced and disingenuous. And even if those encounters really happened, Democrats need to speak to the middle class, not the guy with no legs and VD.)

What was entirely lacking was meat to back up the words. When President Clinton was in office, his speeches were littered with statistics that illustrated our country's progress. Wow, you'd think, we're doing really well. He did some of that last night, but in all there was not nearly enough.

The only hard facts or numbers that stick out from this week is the price of gas, which we already knew, and may not even be a political winner thanks to confusion over the (lack of) benefits to drilling.

Of the four major speakers (Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden), President Clinton had the best appeal to average folks:

"In this decade, American workers have consistently given us rising productivity. That means, year after year, they work harder and produce more.

Now, what did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-fourth as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty, and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s...

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes to nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5.5 million driven into poverty; and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same."

That is what we needed, but we didn't get enough. In making their closing argument, Democrats asked for the verdict without presenting the evidence.

In the minds of too many Americans, that comes across as America- bashing. Democrats have the charge of any party out of power, speak to the virtue of the country and enrage the electorate that its been so badly mismanaged. It's an awkward task made easier because this administration's mismanagement has been so blatant. But Dems didn't remind the public why we're so passionate this time around. The focus was on shorting out Republican attacks instead of building our case against the other side.

Two oil men took over the government and ran up record oil profits. Along the way they tanked the economy, re-wrote the Constitution and put unqualified friends in positions of public trust. Millions have suffered because of their incompetence-- that is this president's legacy. But Democrats shied away from addressing it explicitly, favoring general language instead.

It could just be the lawyer in me, or the Carville- influence. Maybe I'm just more into the pointed style. But as I watched the speeches, I had to remind myself why I don't like this president or the Republican party; why I believe the country is on the wrong track. Those are memories and connections I shouldn't have to make, the Democrats should be walking voters slowly down memory lane of the last eight years.

Maybe Obama pulls it off tonight. Maybe it won't even matter. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe, but I'm officially worried.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Kerry's solid speech on John McCain and international relations:

W

Oliver Stone's W has started production. Stone's producers hope to have the movie out by October, at the height of the presidential race. Entertainment Weekly has an extensive article on the movie.

The director actually went to Yale with President Bush back in the 60s, before he dropped out to serve in Vietnam (Stone did, not Bush). Although, he says they never crossed paths. ''If I met him there, I don't remember. But I do remember John Kerry. He was big man on campus, head of the Political Union. I definitely remember him."

Stone insists he will be fair to the man in his portrait.

"Bush may turn out to be the worst president in history... But that doesn't mean he isn't a great story. It's almost Capra-esque, the story of a guy who had very limited talents in life, except for the ability to sell himself. The fact that he had to overcome the shadow of his father and the weight of his family name — you have to admire his tenacity. There's almost an Andy Griffith quality to him, from A Face in the Crowd. If Fitzgerald were alive today, he might be writing about him. He's sort of a reverse Gatsby."

University of Florida Student Arrested for Asking the Wrong Questions

Is it me, or are the police getting a little too big for their britches? Yesterday, police at the University of Florida arrested a 21 year old for asking John Kerry a few too many hard hitting questions - namely about impeaching Bush. The scene is right out of the playbook of Soviet Russia or the GOP, but to see it happen with John Kerry and the Democrats is a little disconcerting.



The Huffington Post has this

A University of Florida student from South Florida was Tasered and arrested Monday when he attempted to speak at a forum with U.S. Sen. John Kerry after the question and answer session had ended, university officials said.

Andrew Meyer, 21, asked Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 presidential election, which he lost to President Bush, and why there had been no moves to impeach Bush.

''He apparently asked several questions -- he went on for quite awhile -- then he was asked to stop,'' university spokesman Steve Orlando said. ``He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off then he became upset.''

Here's the video


Not that Kerry had anything to do with it, but still - come on! Don't get me wrong, after his soapbox diatribe, the kid was resisting arrest and did deserve the taser - at least a little, but only because it was funny - but why was he arrested with such force in the first place? Police are only supposed to use the taser if they feel like their lives are threatened.

I thought this was a country where we could hold our leaders - at least the Democrats - accountable for things they do or do not do. I blame you, readers of Sam Mag Online.

Update: John Kerry posted this on his web page today.

WASHINGTON D.C. – Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement today, in response to the arrest of a student at the University of Florida.

“In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."

Edwards Gets a Bump from an Unexpected Source

A recent New York Times column sings the praises of former Senator John Edwards. Its source might surprise you: David Brooks, the Times' conservative voice, appears to really like Edwards.

The portrait he paints is very interesting. I should point out that I wasn't able to read the entire article because it's in the "Times Select" selection (think ESPN Insider) and requires a subscription. But there are a bunch of summaries and reviews online.

Brooks talks about how every candidate has a story they tell on the stump, "Some talk about being part of a great movement [Obama]. Some talk about surviving an ordeal with a band of brothers [Kerry]. John Edwards’s stories begin with family, continue with work and solitary struggle and conclude with triumph over privilege." Edwards' stump speech, which Brooks calls "the best of the last decade," basically won him his nomination as vice president in '04.

But 2008 isn't 2004, certainly not for Edwards. The people have heard the speech, have met the man. So in reshaping his campaign 4 years later, Brooks expected Edwards to move left, outflanking Clinton and Obama. But, instead, Edwards has stayed true to his populist economic message:

"...it’s clear that the Edwards campaign is based on the same conviction that organized his last campaign: no one understands regular people the way he does. No one else can get out of a bus in places like Pocahontas, Iowa, and bond with the farmers, nurses and hairstylists the way he can. No one else comes from their ranks the way he does." According to Brooks, Edwards' disdain for children of priviledge created a rift between him and Kerry that was palpable in 2004.

In fact, Brooks calls Edwards "a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal," as evidenced by that "2 Americas" stump speech, which takes Washington to task for creating our country's extreme wealth disparity. The point is that Edwards is a Democrat because he grew up a poor boy in North Carolina; he wants to do for people like his parents, people like the ones he's desparately trying to convince in Iowa.

The major difference between Edwards then and now is that "This time, Edwards is not as exciting a campaigner. But he is more substantive. He seems to have concluded that eloquence alone can’t make him presidential. So he talks less about himself and mixes his bromides with wonkery. His answers on everything from China to ethanol are filled with complex, multipart arguments. He passes on opportunities to be demagogic."

So Edwards seems to be a more attractive candidate now. But the star power of Clinton and Obama and the stench of 2004's disappointment are conspiring against him. Whatever the outcome, he's got an unlikely fan at the Times.