« Poll: Lieberman As Veep Hurts McCain -- In Florida! | Home | Prickly McCain Refuses To Define "Honor" In Interview »
Back By Popular Demand: John Kerry!
Many of you wrote in last night to say that John Kerry's speech was actually the sleeper hit of last night's festivities -- and many of you wanted a thread for it.
Well, ask and ye shall receive...
Where was this man in 2004?
Advertisement















I sat slack-jawed this morning as Pat Buchanan criticized the Dems for not hitting the Republicans hard enough. Someone sitting next to him pointed out that Schweitzer and Kerry both hit McCain plenty hard, to which Buchanan shouted, "but nobody saw those guys, the networks didn't broadcast them!" So, in essence, he was blaming the Democrats for the fact that the networks blow donkey balls in their coverage of the convention. And what a shame, too - Kerry was spectacular.
August 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The democrats aren't hitting hard enough, not landing enough blows.."
"Uh.. they're landing alot of blows, Kerry for instance.."
"Yeah, but we're not showing them, therefore it didn't happen."
"This network doesn't govern the universe!"
"Yes it does! I am wishing you CANCER! WOOOOOOO!"
August 28, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC does set the time slots for the speakers though...no punches in Prime time is their fault.
August 28, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both guys were on in prime time. Unfortunately, the time was deemed better used by having talking heads blather.
August 28, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate blather...
August 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
IT's easy to avoid, I found out last night.
First night, I watched MSNBC and all I could think of with Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer was "please shoot me."
The next night I watched Olbermann and Matthews and it was worse.
Last night I finally got smart and watched C-Span - guess what? That convention is not boring at all - it's wonderful as long as you aren't listening to a bunch of empty-headed attack poodles.
Switch to C-Span - you see and hear everything and it's worth it.
August 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was really the best part of Monday's coverage...instead of blather, you could listen to Earth Wind & Fire. Best way to watch.
And Buchanan's nuts. Clinton smacked around the Republicans with his usual twinkle, Kerry absolutely eviscerated McCain, and Biden threw a few jabs too. It was good work all around, and as things settle in and more people see Kerry with the 2nd-day stories that are going around, it'll continue to look good.
August 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen that. C-Span rocks. The other networks are about as enlightening as a pregame show with Terry Bradshaw and Michael Irvin.
August 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if that's true. I think we love blather, or we wouldn't be here with our 2cents.
But when it interrupts something important, Hulk smash!
August 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
'TenaX is right: hit C-Span to watch online without all the moronic comments from the gasbags.
Cripes, the Democrats--especially Sen. Kerry--DID criticize McCain often, and at times scathingly. What they DID NOT do is launch any low blows or cheap shots.
It seems that for some in the MSM, anything short of accusing McCain of having colloborated with the NVA during his time as a POW and in the process becoming mentally unbalanced... Er, wait, Karl Rove already did that in 2000. (Ahem!) Anything short of claiming that McCain runs a child prostitution ring out of one of his 7(10?) houses, and that his mother is a $10 crackwhore, will not suffice.
Robert
August 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah i think the democrats have been hitting mccain hard, its just that the cable news networks dont show those speeches, and people are too lazy to turn the channel to c-span
New McCain Fear Mongering Ad
August 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
My theory is that Kerry has spent the last four years brooding and filling up with RAGE about how he lost and so now he's unleashing all of that on the new swiftboaters.
August 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well his timing has improved, I'll give him that!
If he has it in him to keep it up, the Obama campaign would be nuts not to use him heavily between now and November.
August 28, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's got his own race to win too (although that should be a foregone conclusion), but yeah, they should use him as much as possible.
August 28, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Kerry had spoken like this four years ago, he'd be running for re-election now.
Send this video to everyone you know -- ESPECIALLY conservatives.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
August 28, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have indeed Redeemed themselves and have united the Democratic party. However, Media wants you to think that Dems Convention was a bust (no red meat - vegatables are so much more healthier to the system, however) But, what the Dems did accomplish and which is stronger than all the red meat/anger in the world is UNITY/Love, because a house divided cannot stand! Watch out and be on Guard for those who want to Divide because make no mistake about it a united group is Powerful, Strong, Unstoppable. Now they want to belittle and divide us by unmeaningful and trivial talks of pillars and temple, some seem even Obsessed by it. They are like rude and jealous children who make fun of a beautiful or gifted person -- making fun of their clothes because they are not satisfied within themselves, all the while secretly wishing they looked like that or had that gift. People of Change, People of the future, be on guard!
For those who want accurate news analysis, do yourself a favor and “watch C-SPAN for convention coverage and get yourself psychically cleared. Stop watching cable news channels. The MSM is desperately working to program us morning noon and night. And creating despair amongst those who are openly hopeful about 2008 politics is very easy. Just bust the bubble that gives you room to believe that change can happen and the rest falls away. Including your own sense of self-empowerment. Believe it.”
August 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, PBS is much less intrusive. The other channel that I found doing a reasonable job was BET -- it seemed a lot more balanced.
I was returning from out of town on Wednesday night so I couldn't watch everything, but on Tuesday I watched CNN for ten minutes before I thought I would gag. I then found PBS, and though David Brooks in a clown (his reaction to the Lily Ledbetter speech was a piece of narcissistc boorishness -- "this isn't a problem because I work for well-paid women!") they make a point of showing all the speeches, even if some are tape delayed so they can cut to interviews (and it's mostly interviews with people at the convention, not just blathering commentary)
I like C-Span except for this practice of constantly taking "instant reaction" phone calls from the public at large. I really just wanted to watch the speeches.
Yes, Kerry's speech was terrific -- and it had an even better punchline than my suggestion of "John McCain: Wrong before he was wrong again . . . and again . . . and again . . ."
I think the sad truth is that Kerry could not have given this speech four years ago because the hindsight of this disaster called Iraq wasn't sufficiently well-formed, and it's too bad. But he has been a strong supporter of Obama and he surely deserves credit for overcoming what must have been great personal disappointment.
August 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's awesome is that his anger is the anger in a LOT of Americans. Watching him reminded me that I was angry. It's just that the normal day-to-day routine, the idiotic human tendency to accept anything as normal given enough time, made me forget how stupid our government has been. AND how stupid it would be to elect McCain.
August 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Talk about being for it before you were against it."
The whole Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain section was fantastic. That needs to be a series of ads.
August 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they could be a "debate" ad together, showing Senator McCain and Candidate McCain arguing with each other.
Sounds like work for the Daily Show.
August 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Obama hit on a similar theme - McCain debating himself - a couple of weeks ago and I thought it was really effective. I was disappointed that they didn't run with it. It's seems like such an obvious way to attack him.
August 28, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was the PERFECT line!
August 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that moment was brilliant and definitely needs to be mined for political gold. The Senator vs. Candidate bit is clear, concise and will work.
August 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have two strong feelings about this speech:
1) Kerry was great and did the Dems a huge favor.
2) The media, for not covering it, once again did a huge disservice to the country.
More on this speech here:
http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/the-best-speech-you-didnt-hear-john-kerry/
August 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greatest speech I've heard yet about the nightmare of the Bush years and what it means to be an American. He just spoke directly to my heart -= and he damn near broke it again.
My god - if only Kerry had campaign like that - it was an amazing speech.
August 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry was Fabulous.
There are so many things I want to say about the networks not covering this speech, or any of the early moments every night this week. But, that has to do with ratings. Which makes me wonder about the people in this country who are not paying any attention this year, or any year. And, that is a whole other story.
Again, though, John Kerry was Fabulous.
August 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I watched it on PBS last night, I was looking forward to it because Kerry has been pissed off and looking for a fight whenever he has been a surrogate on a infotainment talking head show lately.
I hope that vid goes viral.
Warner was the only letdown this week, though it might pay off with a Virginia win.
Hindsight being 20/20 Schweitzer should have had the keynote.
August 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said Schweitzer before the convention. Neener neener.
I seriously thought that the fact that he wasn't keynote was a heavy tipoff that he was going to be VP.
August 28, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a pecking order. People running for office (as Obama was in 2004 and Warner is now) perhaps are given a more prominent spot in order to enhance their standing. Also, making a big deal about Virginia segues pretty well with Obama's overall strategy -- and believe me, Warner is really loved in the "white working class" Appalachian enclaves of Virginia. His example of Lebanon, Virginia sounded hokey but there are a half dozen other stories he could tell like that and much of that success was due to him paying attention to the issue and being very proactive in attracting business. This is why he is mopping the state up with Jim Gilmore.
August 28, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reminded me of Gore. These guys spent four years in the wilderness and suddenly found a voice that would have served them a lot better when running for president. It's a shame.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
August 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because during their campaigns both Gore and Kerry allowed pundits, polls, and their campaign strategists to "manufacture" their personalities (or at least try). This stifled their passion and made them look inauthentic.
Once they were "freed" from the campaign, they were able (or willing) express their true voice.
A shame, but better late than never. Kerry's speech was great.
August 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
I think you can add Hillary to that list as well.
August 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My wife pointed out on the way in this morning that Bob Dole was also freed by his loss. Strategists make too much to ever let the real candidate come through.
August 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry said the one thing I really needed to hear said: the United States does not torture people.
God I was dying to hear that - thank you, John. You are such a good man -
August 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Kerry said the one thing I really needed to hear said: the United States does not torture people." Glad he finally admitted it...but there goes one of your phony talking points.
August 28, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no earthly clue what the fuck that is supposed to mean - phony talking point.
There is nothing phony about the war crimes and how I feel about them.
You just absolutely infuriated me. The torture of our prisoners is the one thing that has bothered me the most out of all that has happened. How dare you say it's a phony talking point you piece of shit.
August 28, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because you believe America's evil, GWB is a war criminal, soldiers are indiscriminayely gunning down and bombing innocent civillians and tourturing others for information. It's a staple of the left, it's just not true.
August 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the definitions laid down in the Geneva Conventions this country has tortured prisoners in the past 8 years. The shit that's gone on at Abu Ghraib and Guanatamo is well documented. And when the Bush Administration hasn't wanted to do it themselves they've had the Syrians and the Pakistanis do it for them. Why the f**k do you think the Bush Administration has actively, aggressively fought to circumvent the Geneva Conventions? ("Quaint" remember?) For all the great publicity?
And yes it's possible to hate your government's policies and actions but love your country and hate the war but respect and admire the troops so can your tired, weakass "love it or leave" bullshit.
August 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never said "love it or leave it," never even implied it. Do I believe some illegal acts took place in US facilities? Yes. Do I believe the government condoned and imposed torture as a policy? No. Do I believe innocent people have been killed by soldiers? Yes. Do I believe US soldiers were "targeting" innocent civilians (like you chosen one claims)? No. Do bad things happen during wars? Yes. Are we, as a country, bad? No. The only question about the Geneva Conventions was the status of the detainees, and whether or not they were due the protections. Since they did not meet the legal definition in the conventions of lawful combatants they are not afforded the protection of the conventions. That doesn't mean they have no rights, just not the rights of a POW. Does that mean it's legal to torture them? No. This BS that y'all push about Chenney's torture chambers in Abu Garab and GITMO is just that. BS!
August 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the John Yoo memos. Torture was the policy implemented by the Vice President's office. They just tried to pretend torture didn't mean torture. I really don't think you're that naive. Is waterboarding torture? It was defined as such during Vietnam. It was the policy of the US Government (not some random "bad apples") to allow waterboarding as an interrogation tactic. By any rational person's measure, it's torture. Let's just be honest here.
August 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on your opening clarification. You go to war and innocent people are going to get killed. Those deaths are not on the soldiers, they're on the people who sent the soldiers.
However:
If "Chosen One" refers to Barack Obama when did he ever suggest that soldiers were targeting civilians? There are a small number of soldiers who are under investigation by the Pentagon for allegedly targeting civilians, but I've not heard anyone reasonable suggest that problem is endemic.
And as far as the torture issue goes, I never said there are Vice Presidential torture chambers. I said the US has, by the definitions of the Geneva Conventions-- which we helped craft because it protected us and our soldiers-- tortured prisoners in the last 8 years. Were our prisoners not officially sanctioned enemy combatants? Did shit at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib only constitute "prisoner abuse?" Only if you want to parse words and split hairs on the definition of what torture is, as Yoo did for the Bush Admin. When they took that road the message they sent to the country and the world was that they implicitly supported the use of torture. They have stated a willingness to use torture and they have a documented policy of doing interrogations in places where they could skirt international law and treaties, so why is it unreasonable to believe that they have actually tortured? And why the hell would anyone want to equivocate on whether they officially, legally did or how often? You either do it or you don't do it.
August 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if the US doesn't torture then McCain wasn't tortured. You can't have it both ways.
August 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain was a prisoner of the NVA not the US. His bones weren't broken by US soldiers.
August 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called the Geneva Convention. Google it, read it, then re-read the comment you responded to again.
August 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
His bones weren't broken by the North Vietnamese, they were broken by the ejection from his aircraft.
August 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney claims that the Office of the Vice President has nothing to do with the United States of America . . .
SO he has arranged for Blackwater to be paid through the State Department to torture for him . . . and videotape it.
Darth Cheney uses the tapes as a 'sleep' aid. Bush43 uses them to 'get in the mood'.
August 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was also my favorite speech. Much more damning on McCain. Bill's of course provided the unity and many I speak to that were on the fence have jumped on over to support Obama. They understand NOW that too much is at stake.
Off topic, NJO is trying to clarify its most liberal senator rating of Obama. Anyone who did any digging would have already know what these guys said but to hear it from the horses mouth might grow some legs.
For what it's worth...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080825_4458.php
August 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg!
Ummm...now off topic...heh, heh,
I wanted to share this awesome pic of VA Sen Henry Marsh and Gov Tim Kaine when Hillary suspended the vote. Their expressions are priceless and tears are rolling down Kaine's cheeks. You know, I criticize the Dems a good bit, but there's something special about these big lugs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/27/GA2008082703588.html?sid=ST2008082704151
It's picture #25 in the Gallery in this link.
Enjoy!
August 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great moment. I'm not all the familiar with Gov. Kaine other than what I've read, but that picture speaks a thousand words.
I'm proud of these guys.
August 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how you all can stand to watch the MSM or listen to that blowhard idiot Buchanan. But, I'm glad you make that sacrifice and report on it here at TPM. I have yet to cultivate an air of detachment that would allow me to listen to that crap.
May the Force be with you...
August 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is said politicians find their voice when they lose. I don't think Kerry of four years ago could have given this speech - he has the freedom of not having to worry about words being used against him anymore - he very likely has a senate seat as long as he wants it. I feel the same way with Sen. Clinton, I think she found her voice in March and has been on fire ever since. The speech she delivered on Tuesday was one she couldn't have delivered back in January.
I think Sen. Clinton will stay in the Senate to help fill the void left from Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. I think Kerry could possibly leave the Senate if Obama offered the Secretary of State gig to him. Biden, Kerry and Richardson were all pining for the SOS position, but with Biden out of the running, it's down to Kerry and Richardson.
Richardson is seemingly getting left out, he was bumped last night and seems to be an afterthought. He possibly saved Obama's campaign with his timely endorsement, and destroyed a long friendship with the Clintons to do so.
August 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
O Jonze. You know, Bill Richardson is not a petty man and what you are saying is petty, Jonze. Bill understands scheduling, I"m sure. He's a big old grownup and I doubt his feelings are hurt.
God lord.
August 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Richardson will be speaking tonight in the big forum. He's not getting short shrift.
No doubt, the Obama Campaign is grateful to him and is not shy about demonstrating that.
August 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I thought Richardson had made it pretty clear that he was digging his governor gig just fine, thank you.
But I agree that Hillary, Gore and Kerry are all better, and immensely more intersting, public figures in every way now that they're out from under the microscope 24/7. But I also think, tragically, that losing is a big part of what made them all bigger and wiser and, thus, more interesting.
August 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard or read that Richardson was bumped to allow time for Obama's drop-in. If that's correct, I'm sure it's all a complete non-issue for Richardson.
August 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys - please do yourselves a favor and switch to C-Span. I can't believe the difference - it's just like being there. No commercials, no commentary - just the convention and the convention is surprisingly watchable - the only boring part was the talking heads squawking and once I got rid of them - man, it's a great show.
August 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Best advice one can give. It's what I do. Can't tell you how much lower my blood pressure is not having to listen to the moronic asshole talking heads.
August 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not enough non-Yale people believe this, but the answer is simple:
In the last election, Kerry was running against a fellow-Bonesman. He could not attack him effectively and never intended to.
Now he's fighting McCain, towards whom he has no such obligation.
The Senate and the White House are nothing to these people in comparison to the place that Skull and Bones occupies in their lives.
August 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why could Bush swiftboat Kerry?
August 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same thought I had. The Bones fealty apparently did not extend to Dubya himself.
August 28, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing easier than the answer to that.
Bush was there first, having recaptured it for the Society (his father having had it before and, like his son, putting Bonesmen in an astonishing number of high positions). Kerry was there to keep it for Bush. A Dean, say, would have been a disaster for them.
Useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
August 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
C-Span! C-Span!! More C-Span!!
Has anyone taken the time to write them and thank them? It would be a good thing for them to know that they are doing the right thing. I'm gonna write them now.
August 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes yes yes!!!!!!
It's the only way. Go C-Span.
August 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe I'm reading this again.
I can't believe that people believe this. These men are grownups, not college boys.
August 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least Kerry is. W seems to act like life is a never ending frat party.
August 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That I agree with - totally.
August 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually know anything at all about the commitments involved, or the riches that invariably derive therefrom?
These societies have nothing to do with being what you call a "college boy."
August 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where was this man in 2004?
Also:
Where was the Hillary we saw Tuesday night during the campaign? Had she been anywhere that conciliatory and concerned about Unity, she'd be the candidate now.
Where was the Bill we saw last night during Al Gore's campaign? Or during Hillary's?
August 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore wanted to separate himself from Bill Clinton in 2000, which is why he chose Lieberman as his running mate because Lieberman was a harsh critic of Clinton during the Lewinsky happening.
Clinton was recovering from his Bypass in 2004 I believe, though I also believe Hillary's 2008 run was already lined up.
Hillary found her voice in March, when the writing was pretty much on the wall. That's when she became champion to women and the working class.
It's interesting that Edwards was the first candidate with the populous message, then Hillary took it over when Edwards dropped out, and now Obama is running with it.
August 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
August 28, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honest to god - do y'all really think a man would run for president of the United States, spend the millions it costs and refrain from doing what he needed to do to win because of a college organization?
Do you?
I think it's insane to imagine that for one moment just because they were members of a club that has been extremely successful in keeping itself mysterious to outsiders.
IT's a bunch of kids, for all love. Yes, they form ties that they can use later - but every person who goes to college who has a head on his or her shoulders does that - we all did it - that's partly what it's about.
But we all grew up. I know that my husband, who was in a fraternity in college to which he is extremely loyal, would take his profession and his responsibilities to it more seriously than anything else. If he had to go after one of his fraternity brothers he would. That's what grown ups do. Please do not tell me that an adult who ran for president would not put that before everything else.
August 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you write there is, with respect, pure fiction. It's reasonable fiction but simply without basis in fact.
Please find a single example in history in which a Bonesman, no matter how bone-headed, has been allowed to fail in even the most outrageous displays of incompetence in business, politics, etc. The support derived from membership has nothing to do with your scenario.
August 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where was this man in 2004?" He was there, but what makes Kerry even more admirable in 2008 is he doesn't have to do this, at least not with such enthusiasm. He doesn't have to hear again and again from voters and reporters how he was Swiftboated and didn't fight back-- though he did fight back-- but instead he just smiles and talks about Obama's candidacy and the future of America. Kerry could be off in a corner feeling sorry for himself that he isn't running for reelection to the White House-- instead he's out there on the front lines as one of Obama's toughest surrogates.
August 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. What I wrote--or most of it--in another forum was that this was the best speech hardly anyone saw. The passion, the clarity--he was so on.
THAT candidate would have won four years ago.
And I'll tell ya something else: I think that Kerry would have had EVERY right to be bitter about things. It would be perfectly understandable if he thought "It shoulda been me." And perhaps he does and just hides it well. Well if so, then it's the Oscar performance of a lifetime, because he's a more effective surrogate for Barack Obama than he ever was for himself.
Damn if it doesn't take a strong person to stand up like he has, and really lay it on the line for Obama. Kerry has his faults, and he bears responsibility for his campaign, of course, but I think, fundamentally, John Kerry is a good man who was criminally ill-served.
August 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Democratic Party gotten rid of the consultants who in the past have suggested that candidates not get too aggressive? What's Bob Shrum doing this year?
Or is it that the whole Democratic Party has been taken over by those who are mad and won't take it anymore?
The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.
Or are the Democrats in Denver just eating some special Colorado Chile peppers? (If so, we want them branded and sold nation-wide to Democrats!)
OK. Seriously, I think that until 2004 most Democrats really didn't think that there was that much to be upset about if the Republicans ran the White House. Some anti-war types, sure, but everyone knew they were just left-over hippies from the 60's and irrelevant in the modern world. The stealing of the 2000 election was not the first time in American history and we survived. But then Bush went after Social Security and Bush and FEMA flubbed Katrina disastrously and didn't even care. Iraq clearly was not what was advertised, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't care. 2006 was the first real national demonstration of real anger at Republicans - not just by individuals, but by people banding together to do something - and it was almost literally a waste of time.
I think that the Democrats as a party have finally figured out that they cannot compromise with the movement conservatives and still govern. I think the frustration from the last two years of total Republican/conservatism obstructionism is now coming back to bite the conservatives.
The "real serious" Democrats have finally realized that they have been part of the problem, and that nothing is going to work in America until the conservatives are removed from office. That's what yesterday's speeches demonstrated.
Of course, they are Democrats. No one is going to believe them. They are, after all, the same people who have been the "real serious Democrats" in the past, focused on governing and trying to compromise with the conservative idiots who want power, not effective governance. The polls will be slow to move.
I liked yesterday. I hope it lasts. I can't say I really think it will. They are Democrats, after all, and they will probably slip right back into their old habits, if not before the election almost certainly by December. Individuals don't change. To get real change, you have to change the people.
August 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Democratic Party gotten rid of the consultants who in the past have suggested that candidates not get too aggressive? What's Bob Shrum doing this year?
Or is it that the whole Democratic Party has been taken over by those who are mad and won't take it anymore?
The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.
Or are the Democrats in Denver just eating some special Colorado Chile peppers? (If so, we want them branded and sold nation-wide to Democrats!)
OK. Seriously, I think that until 2004 most Democrats really didn't think that there was that much to be upset about if the Republicans ran the White House. Some anti-war types, sure, but everyone knew they were just left-over hippies from the 60's and irrelevant in the modern world. The stealing of the 2000 election was not the first time in American history and we survived. But then Bush went after Social Security and Bush and FEMA flubbed Katrina disastrously and didn't even care. Iraq clearly was not what was advertised, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't care. 2006 was the first real national demonstration of real anger at Republicans - not just by individuals, but by people banding together to do something - and it was almost literally a waste of time.
I think that the Democrats as a party have finally figured out that they cannot compromise with the movement conservatives and still govern. I think the frustration from the last two years of total Republican/conservatism obstructionism is now coming back to bite the conservatives.
The "real serious" Democrats have finally realized that they have been part of the problem, and that nothing is going to work in America until the conservatives are removed from office. That's what yesterday's speeches demonstrated.
Of course, they are Democrats. No one is going to believe them. They are, after all, the same people who have been the "real serious Democrats" in the past, focused on governing and trying to compromise with the conservative idiots who want power, not effective governance. The polls will be slow to move.
I liked yesterday. I hope it lasts. I can't say I really think it will. They are Democrats, after all, and they will probably slip right back into their old habits, if not before the election almost certainly by December. Individuals don't change. To get real change, you have to change the people.
August 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I am really tiring of the "where was this man in 2004?" routine. There is no way in hell he could have given that speech in 2004. 9/11 had only happened 3 years before, and the country was still traumatized by it. The President hovered at a 50% approval rating throughout 2004. The American people still backed the Iraq War. The economy was still chugging along reasonably well. Most importantly, Katrina and its aftermath had not happened yet. Let's not even begin to get into all the GOP corruption scandals that surfaced mostly after 2004.
Look, I thought Kerry made mistakes in 2004, but people need to put themselves back into the time and place of that election year. I think the better question was why another Democrat in 2004 didn't give an attack dog speech of the caliber of Kerry's speech last night. Maybe what was missing for Kerry in '04 was a surrogate like Kerry today to do some of the tough contrast work for him.
August 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear to all those praising the C-Span. It's true. Personally, I jump from PBS to C-Span and then over to MSNBC to get a sense of the punditry.
It's too bad the MSM had to bloviate about Bill Clinton's speech because most of America missed John Kerry. So ironic when Buchanan and all the others cry about "where's the red meat?!?". Ugh, give it up guys, shut up, turn around and look down onto the stage. There he is, laying it out for you.
At the very least Kerry is sure the hell firing us up. Last night was brilliant, just brilliant. Overall the convention was like a slow burn, getting hotter each day, and tonight we'll be boiling!
August 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Kerry's speech was not seen by a bunch of people, he provided (what I believe to be) an invaluable strategic attack theme for the campaign going forward...
"CANDIDATE McCain vs. Senator McCain".
This is a absolute GEM and should be use relentlessly to demonstrate who McCain really is.
August 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so discouraged, good people. Or don't fall for the trap of sitting in the stands telling the players to listen to you instead of the coach whose strategy has shown itself so successful while going against the conventional political "wisdom."
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers thinks he/she sees what's going on. These are the lines I've been thinking on myself:
August 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a pretty funny thing for Buchanan to say, considering MSNBC cut to commercial during Kerry's speech, and then tried to play him out using the "back from commercial" music for three minutes straight like this was the Oscars or something.
August 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of Andrew's readers have also contributed basketball wisdom:
And hear Obama's brother-in-law, master coach Craig Robinson, himself:
"Stick with your game, and Barack's game is not being an attack dog. . . "
He's right. Others need to be attack dogs.
August 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi All,
If you have DISH network, there is a channel 211 that must be paid for by the DNC....NO TALKING HEADS!!
August 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC feed can be had at
http://gallery1.demconvention.com/#
I've been using C-SPAN, but I hear that this DNC site is better, because it's in HD.
August 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link Dirk. I'll use that tonight.
August 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink