Kerry Defines Himself- And other Convention observations

Sorry about the lack of posts the last couple of days, I will try to catch up with my thoughts on the convention now.

Day Two- If you could fault the networks for anything, and there is a lot you can, its that they didn't show anything of the second night. Listening and watching Obama's speech, the Chicago stations cut away to show the speech, I sensed that I was watching the first black president of the United States, or at the very least, a man capable of holding a part on the political stage for an incredibly long time. He had something, by espousing the conservative sounding values of self-reliance, by using the details of his own life to highlight the stories of those he was telling about others and the rhetoric about the one America, not a liberal/conservative red/ blue state one. The line that really grabbed me was the "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States" line. This was a fabulous appeal to show that the Democrats are not just some atheistic, secularist party. I believe its also a line that a guy like Obama could deliver. Clinton projects empathy when he speaks, Obama has real force and conviction behind what he says.
I was impressed by Ron Reagan. I'm sure that he couldn't go out and endorse John Kerry, Nancy almost assuredly would not have let him go if that had been the case, but what he was implying was clear. I was very disappointed by the response of the people on FOX afterwards, as they kept talking about how disgusted they were with Reagan for doing this. Teresa was ok, I didn't think she came across as the asset she can be. I think a lot of women, particularly single women, probably the most important demographic for the Democrats this year, will be drawn to her intelligence, sophistication, and independence. I do agree with the criticism, though, that she didn't talk enough about her husband.

DAY 3- The immediate thing that stood out to me about the coverage was the way that Al Sharpton's speech was treated. On MSNBC, Matthews, Howard Fineman and Doris Kearns-Goodwin seemed to be turning it into Pat Buchanan '92 redux, that middle America would be rushing out to buy their Bush/Cheney foam hands because of Sharpton's rhetoric and style. Sharpton did riff, for about 15 minutes past his allotted time, but what he was saying can help to bring out the African American vote. By all indications, turning out the African American vote, especially in the swing states, will be crucial. To win Michigan, for example, the Democrats need to have a majority of about 350,000 votes, which is achievable, coming out of Metro Detroit, in order to counter-act the Republican majority on the Westside of the state and Oakland County. The only way to do that, as Jim Blanchard will tell you, is to get out the African American vote. Sharpton was simply reminding everyone that Democrats have been good to and for African Americans. People were more upset about it because it seemed to go against the tone of the rest of the convention. They talked so much about Sharpton, that I missed Granholm, who seemed to acquit herself nicely, though The Daily Show did a nice riff on her speaking style, and her former job as a tour guide last night.

John Edwards' daughter, I have to say, is very attractive.

Elizabeth is an asset, and a big one, for two reasons. She is incredibly articulate and smart. And she looks like America. What Teresa perhaps doesn't have is a connection to Middle American women, Elizabeth thinks like they do, talks like they do, and yes, looks like they do. The fact that she is heavier only adds to this appeal.

I found Edwards a bit disappointing, though the speech worked overall. I felt like the expectations were so high, he couldn't possibly deliver on everything. People make him out to be the modern descendant of Cicero and Demonsthenes, he's not, but he still is effective. The speech worked for me, and I think, for Americans in general. I can imagine Edwards as President and it doesn't strike the same fear in my heart as a Cheney presidency. I didn't feel like Edwards "Two Americas" theme developed enough in this speech as it did on the stump. By the way, he's also attractive, not that that matters...

last night, especially the introduction of Kerry was masterful. His daughters humanized him as a father, and spoke extremely eloquently, the gauntlet has now been thrown down the Jenna and Barbara. Having Andre Heinz out also worked, because it underscores the human qualities of Kerry and Teresa, that they have successfully managed to put together a blended family that seems to care about each other. The "Band of Brothers" and the film, were excellent touches, though it may have been better to use the film to immediately introduce Kerry. Cleland was good, he's become sort of the patron saint of the campaign. People in the party are upset because of the way Saxby Chambliss questioned the patriotism of a man who left three limbs in Vietnam, and they should be.

I felt Kerry did a great job of showing strength last night. The earlier speakers, his family, the Green Beret he rescued, did a wonderful job of humanizing him. He looked and sounded Presidential last night, which is not something that always happens. Dukakis didn't look presidential, Mondale didn't. I didn't really dig the salute, but I understand why he did it. This is a man who views the world, perhaps justifiably, through the prism of Vietnam. It is, and probably remains, the defining time in his life. That came through in the speech, the kind of sense of duty he projected. That was good. The middle portion of the speech seemed to get bogged down a bit more than I would have liked, but he needed to put out policies, and that seemed to be an effective way to do it. The one thing I didn't feel like he did, was to make specific proposals for what he would do in Iraq. The generalities were there, but he has to develop specific, or the Republicans could eat him alive at the end of the month.

I saw Bush's address at SMS this morning. I don't think the speech and message are incredibly effective. He's going after Kerry for not having enough big accomplishments in the senate, and truth be told, there are not a ton of bills that bear his name. What he has done, it seems, has been to be a tireless investigator, which is a perfectly legitimate role to play in the senate. Not everyone can be on every bill, sometimes you have to fill other niches, and Kerry, the ex-prosecutor fills the role of investigator. Also, to make light of Kerry's lack of focus on his Senate record is to potentially invite focus on Bush's lost years. I saw another blogger talk about the potential danger in saying that Kerry hasn't accomplished anything when he's spent most of his adult life in public service, while Bush was, well, we don't know what Bush was doing, other than operating unsuccessful business ventures and "partying".
Oh well.

Good luck tonight John.