Big Ticket Diary

August 28: Best Speech of the Convention

So far, anyway, it belongs to John Kerry, at least as far as what I've seen. He ripped the Bushites a new one, and John McCain also, for sucking up to them. Who would know more?

His delivery was clean and the lines well-honed. Most of all, the indictment was extensive, accurate, and telling. Barack should crib some notes from that one for his speech, much as he will want to hit the high road.


August 27: Days of Future Passed

Before C-Span went live, possibly due to a delay in the start of the coma-inducing Republican Platform Committee meeting, they showed two fantastic recordings of Democratic speeches from network archives.

The first was John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960, from nothing less than the L.A. Memorial Coliseum--the famous "New Frontier" speech. In it, Kennedy takes a very partisan tone to attack Nixon, after first addressing the famous Catholic issue that had dogged him in this stage of that year's election, finally finishing by giving a glimpse of the vision. Parallels galore to Obama's challenge tomorrow night.

The second was even more dramatic; it was RFK's appearance before the 1964 Democratic Convention to give his support to the Johnson-Humphrey ticket. This was August 1964, so only 9 months after his brother's assassination; he was still Attorney General (but would not be a month later). The crowd was electrified at his appearance and would not subside, so he waited, patiently intoning, every so often, "Mr. Chairman....", not allowing himself to smile or to cry, though he seemed to wish to do both. His principal purposes, like Hillary's last night, were to thank his supporters in the party and to give unambiguous support to his opponent without praising him overly.

It's a marvel to see--the last time Democratic politics were so hopeful, so youthful. Then came '68 and the return of Nixon.

August 25: Conventions: Politics as Usual

There's a reason why gavel-to-gavel convention coverage is dead (except on C-Span): kind of like Philadelphia, there's no news there.

There's only one question I really expect to see answered: how will the Republicans deal with the embarrassment that is their nominal leader, President George W. Bush? They may silence him, he may even acquiesce in that, but they can't possibly ignore the shadow over their party which he and his administration of Bushite Misrule have provided. Speakers who have any content to their remarks will have to identify themselves: pro-Bushite or contra.

Even John McCain. At this point, I don't feel he has much anti-Bushite ground to stand upon--somehow, all the positions that he has flip-flopped upon have brought him right into the standard Bushite party line. Except on the environment, he has positioned himself as more right-wing even than Dubya (leaving aside the point that preserving the environment is the "conservative" thing to do). Still, I expect he will feel compelled to back up that "original maverick" line from his ads, and the line about how he understands the country is not better off than it was four years ago. Four?

August 3: Obama Angled-- That Stupid Ad was denounced promptly. Obama spoke truth to power. McCain agreed to pull it. Sounds good, but why does it feel so bad?

McCain's Evil Campaign, or McCampaign for short, got our man to take the race-bait.

Not a "racial card", or "smear", one way or the other. McCain's guys dangled that thing out there, and, unfortunately, Obama reacted. Not that what he charged McCampaign with was an improper charge in any way, mostly because it's all true. They are out to make him scary, and he's not like those guys on the dollar bills (even if some weren't actual Presidents).

He's got it wrong, though, about this ad and how it fits into the new plan. There will be a few hammer blows--outrageous charges, like Obama would want to stir up the racial stew--designed to turn off wavering Obama supporters, suppress turnout if possible. These are just to soften up the swing voters: mushy, indecisive moderate conservatives of all party affiliations, or of none. The ultimate appeal of the ad is not to racial hatred, but to jealousy--Obama is so young and beautiful and cool! The idea, which chief National Review stenographer Lowry captured beautifully in his column this week, is to use Obama's celebrity as a wedge--to make him Other, to make him seem less solid than he is.

The real point of the ad has been inaccurately described by the Republican spinmeisters' POV. It's not the stated point, "Is He Ready to Lead?" That's stupid--of course, he's ready to lead; the question is whether we are ready to follow. The real question in people's minds is, Is It Too Soon?

Too Soon for B.O.--Boom Over--the first--and probably best--post-boomer politician. There will be many more, and technically he's L.B.--Later Boomer. But he's already an historic figure through what he has achieved in the last 12 months, and if he appears Too Ready for Coinage to Jon Stewart, we should sit back and wait for the mature Barack Obama. No?

"Too Soon" vs. "Too Late"--this will be the dilemma of the swing voter--and thus is emerging as a key issue--in the Presidential race this year. Particularly if McCain chooses someone who makes the Body Electorate's stomach churn as his V.P. nominee (I'm thinking of Mitt Romney, here...)


August 1: McCain's Going Down - the ad with Britney Spears (sp?) and Paris Hilton, followed by Obama, and the ruckus that has followed, has signaled the way this campaign is bound to go.

I saw a fascinating discussion of this nonsense on today's "Hardball", with two radio talk show hosts named Heidi (blond white woman) and Leo (black man). Heidi claimed not to see any race-baiting in the ad's juxtaposition of Britney/Paris/Obama, whereas Leo challenged her to make any connection between the three other than the idea that it was designed to stimulate primal fears among whites. The conversation turned then to the possibly-irrelevant fact that Obama had (months ago) made comments referring to his grandmother as "a typical white woman". Heidi thought this the height of outrage, while Leo pointed out that he was talking as a half-white person about his own grandmother. Heidi simply could not get the point.

Respected Journalists Andrea Mitchell and Ron Brownstein were then brought in to talk about this nonsense. Each managed to bring out a more significant policy news item of the moment that this stuff was obscuring, but that's all: the topic of the day is Going Negative and Playing the Race Card.

Host whoever (not Chris Matthews) and Leo were trying to suggest this will backfire on McCain, as it will alienate moderate Republicans and (big-I) Independents. Surely they will see that Obama has little in common with Spears/Hilton, so there is nothing in their association in an ad, and McCain's "serious" appeal will be undermined by these shenanigans.

Unfortunately, I think them wrong. As Mitchell suggests, this was totally calculated strategy by McCain's handlers. Think "Karl Rove Surrogates". It doesn't matter if both sides (as well as the quality of political dialogue, the general welfare, American electoral processes) are discredited by this exchange, in fact it's to McCain's good. Moderates will freak out, whites generally will have an involuntary surge of reptilian emotion, and repeated appeals to such ugly business will cause turnout to be suppressed throughout the electorate. Turnout is bad, if you're a Republican, this is their judgement, so this is the way to go.

Obama's campaign answered quickly, sharply, McCain retorted and suggested we all move on. Which means he gets away clean, Obama looks hyper-sensitive, and the prod to sensitive nerve endings is barely noticed. Maybe next time they will be, but in the meantime, irritation is increased and the debate dumbed down. Which can only be to McCain's advantage.