convention summary
Jul. 30th, 2004 11:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerA friend who doesn't read this journal wrote and asked me what my reactions to the Democratic convention had been. This was my reply.
But the short answer to your question is that I watched about half of Wednesday and Thursday but missed Monday and Tuesday and some of the speakers the other two days. I wish CSPAN were going to show it over again, so I could see all the folks I missed, like Jimmy Carter (if there really are bodhistvas around, he's one), Gore, the Clintons, Jesse Jackson, Uncle Teddy, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Barney Frank, Kweisi Mfume, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Boy, the list of people I did see is way shorter then the list of people I didn't.
People who didn't impress me: Lieberman, Pelosi, Graham, Rendell, Ltg. Kennedy
People who didn't wow me, but who I was glad to hear from: Madeleine Albright, Vanessa Kerry, Alfre Woodward, Gen. Shalikashvili, Cate Edwards, Archbishop Demetrios
People I thought were impressive: Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Alexandra Kerry, Jim Rassman, Max Cleland, John Kerry
Sharpton was amazing. I saw him in one of the debates, and he is simply one of the best public speakers I've ever seen. While I think he's been involved in some shady and dubious stuff over the years, the fact that he combines some fairly radical credibility and incredible oratory with a (to me) more mature outlook than he used to is a tremendous asset to the Democratic Party. I was in floods of tears by the end of his address.
Clark: I still think he would have been a good presidential candidate and a good VP, but I understand why he didn't get either of those. He doesn't have the political experience, or the money, or the name recognition to get the nomination. Even a dynamic personality and good presence and speaking ability simply aren't enough (and goodness knows just having a good plan for the country isn't enough). I thought the speech he gave was good, well delivered, and genuine. I hope he'll be getting a post in the Kerry cabinet; I wish I thought he would run for a congressional seat, but I have a feeling that that may be one of thsoe things that "one just doesn't do" having run for president and lost.
Alexandra Kerry: While her sister was funny and said all the right "politician's daughter" kind of things, I thought Alexandra was much more moving.
And, yes, as you'll have gathered by this point (or guessed already), emotion, good writing, and presentation are what really get to me. Substance is important, but the details of serious policy for an entire administration can't be laid out in a 15-minute speech. If someone eschews vague hand-waving and discusses specifics, even if not in detail, that's fine by me.
Jim Rassman: One of the first guys I worked for was a retired Army officer who had been a Green Beret in Vietnam; another was a Marine Corps pilot there. One of my good friends was a young soldier in that war and finally retired after rising up through the ranks and finishing as a battalion officer in the First Gulf War. And I've known other guys who were in the Brown Water Navy in VN. This guy reminded me of them, not just because they had done the same things or because they were built the same way, but because I recognized, or thought I recognized some common personality. While it clearly isn't everyones' experience, the guys I've known who have been in combat, especially in that war, and weren't shattered by it, have a kind of unhurried calm and a kind of solid competence that allwos them to be relaxed and easygoing, but also entirely serious, in a way that speaks volmues to me about how much I can trust and rely on them. Maybe it's something that process does to them, or maybe it's a self-selecting thing, that only certain guys get through all that and come out this way. But these guys are leaders; the guys I worked for and my friends, I would follow those guys anywhere, because I know that I could always depend on them when I needed (as some of them have demonstrated), and to be any less to them would not be honorable. And this guy, I could see when he spoke, is one of those guys.
Max Cleland: His speech would have impressed me coming from anyone by the degree of sincere trust and admiration it embodied. For someone who has been through what he's been through to still have that degree of optimism and positivity... blows me away.
John Kerry: I thought he needs to work on his delivery. He doesn't seem to know how to time his words to the crowd. He doesn't always get the rhythm of the language or punch the places that really call out for depth of voice and fullness of focus. But I could not doubt that he believes what he said, and that he will do his best to carry it out, and that's enough for me. The fact that he's a patrician New Englander is actually a selling point :-) not a deficit as it appears to be with many other people. The sincerity of his desire to make the country better speaks volumes to me, and his expressed beliefs about what the county should stand for, how we should treat each other, what government's responsibilities are were all so close to my own that I couldn't help but feel satisfied and enthusiastic. I had my doubts about him during the primaries; I think if I had seen him speak like this earlier I would have been less worried. I think this guy can win, and I think he will be a good president if he does, especially if he has something other than a hostile Congress to work with.
But the short answer to your question is that I watched about half of Wednesday and Thursday but missed Monday and Tuesday and some of the speakers the other two days. I wish CSPAN were going to show it over again, so I could see all the folks I missed, like Jimmy Carter (if there really are bodhistvas around, he's one), Gore, the Clintons, Jesse Jackson, Uncle Teddy, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Barney Frank, Kweisi Mfume, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Boy, the list of people I did see is way shorter then the list of people I didn't.
People who didn't impress me: Lieberman, Pelosi, Graham, Rendell, Ltg. Kennedy
People who didn't wow me, but who I was glad to hear from: Madeleine Albright, Vanessa Kerry, Alfre Woodward, Gen. Shalikashvili, Cate Edwards, Archbishop Demetrios
People I thought were impressive: Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Alexandra Kerry, Jim Rassman, Max Cleland, John Kerry
Sharpton was amazing. I saw him in one of the debates, and he is simply one of the best public speakers I've ever seen. While I think he's been involved in some shady and dubious stuff over the years, the fact that he combines some fairly radical credibility and incredible oratory with a (to me) more mature outlook than he used to is a tremendous asset to the Democratic Party. I was in floods of tears by the end of his address.
Clark: I still think he would have been a good presidential candidate and a good VP, but I understand why he didn't get either of those. He doesn't have the political experience, or the money, or the name recognition to get the nomination. Even a dynamic personality and good presence and speaking ability simply aren't enough (and goodness knows just having a good plan for the country isn't enough). I thought the speech he gave was good, well delivered, and genuine. I hope he'll be getting a post in the Kerry cabinet; I wish I thought he would run for a congressional seat, but I have a feeling that that may be one of thsoe things that "one just doesn't do" having run for president and lost.
Alexandra Kerry: While her sister was funny and said all the right "politician's daughter" kind of things, I thought Alexandra was much more moving.
And, yes, as you'll have gathered by this point (or guessed already), emotion, good writing, and presentation are what really get to me. Substance is important, but the details of serious policy for an entire administration can't be laid out in a 15-minute speech. If someone eschews vague hand-waving and discusses specifics, even if not in detail, that's fine by me.
Jim Rassman: One of the first guys I worked for was a retired Army officer who had been a Green Beret in Vietnam; another was a Marine Corps pilot there. One of my good friends was a young soldier in that war and finally retired after rising up through the ranks and finishing as a battalion officer in the First Gulf War. And I've known other guys who were in the Brown Water Navy in VN. This guy reminded me of them, not just because they had done the same things or because they were built the same way, but because I recognized, or thought I recognized some common personality. While it clearly isn't everyones' experience, the guys I've known who have been in combat, especially in that war, and weren't shattered by it, have a kind of unhurried calm and a kind of solid competence that allwos them to be relaxed and easygoing, but also entirely serious, in a way that speaks volmues to me about how much I can trust and rely on them. Maybe it's something that process does to them, or maybe it's a self-selecting thing, that only certain guys get through all that and come out this way. But these guys are leaders; the guys I worked for and my friends, I would follow those guys anywhere, because I know that I could always depend on them when I needed (as some of them have demonstrated), and to be any less to them would not be honorable. And this guy, I could see when he spoke, is one of those guys.
Max Cleland: His speech would have impressed me coming from anyone by the degree of sincere trust and admiration it embodied. For someone who has been through what he's been through to still have that degree of optimism and positivity... blows me away.
John Kerry: I thought he needs to work on his delivery. He doesn't seem to know how to time his words to the crowd. He doesn't always get the rhythm of the language or punch the places that really call out for depth of voice and fullness of focus. But I could not doubt that he believes what he said, and that he will do his best to carry it out, and that's enough for me. The fact that he's a patrician New Englander is actually a selling point :-) not a deficit as it appears to be with many other people. The sincerity of his desire to make the country better speaks volumes to me, and his expressed beliefs about what the county should stand for, how we should treat each other, what government's responsibilities are were all so close to my own that I couldn't help but feel satisfied and enthusiastic. I had my doubts about him during the primaries; I think if I had seen him speak like this earlier I would have been less worried. I think this guy can win, and I think he will be a good president if he does, especially if he has something other than a hostile Congress to work with.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 03:52 pm (UTC)I don't believe he has ever spoken like that before. I was absolutely stunned.
I agree, his pacing was bad, he needs to learn to react to the crowd. But what he said was vital and has been virtually unheard of in mainstream politics.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 05:16 pm (UTC)And so, given this, how can you really criticize (in your previous post) those who, like Chris and I, are intelligent, educated liberals who have no desire to watch?
I don't watch because:
1. I simply don't value oratory and rhetoric skills; they have virtually no effect on me. Intentional manipulation of feelings always annoys me mre than it appeals to me.
2. I see them as, simply, a necessary tool to reach the manipulable masses. Giant advertisements,really. (In fact, i used last election's convenions as a teaching tool in my advertising class.)
3. They are carefully crafted to say exactly what one would expect them to say. I can find out more about these people and their stances from a decent news article. I am way more liberal than any of them. I will vote for them because they are my only choice, regardless of these speeches.
4. I am not patriotic and tend to find overt patriotism grating.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 05:54 pm (UTC)1. Because it *is* possible to address serious details of something smaller than an entire administration in a short speech. And I want to hear the people who are asking for my vote, or the people who are supporting them, do that.
2. Because you can learn (IMO) a great deal about a person from watching them speak that you're not going to get from reading a briefing paper.
3. Because while, yes, they *are* giant advertisements for the parties, I want to know what the parties say they are going to do, the way they want to be perceived, the values and the attitudes and the ideals they want to be knwo by.
4. Because rather than simply listening to or reading half a dozen assorted pundits tell me what *they* thought about a speech or presentation, I'd like to actually see it myself and make my own judgements.
5. Because I like being reminded that it's not necessarily a bad thing to be idealistic and to nelieve that things can be done better, and I like to see that there are others who believe that. Because I find it a restorative tonic when compared with the angry, apathetic, bored cynicism that I see from so many people.
6. Because, although I find many overt displays of patriotism embarassing or annoying, I am, at root, pattiotic. I love some other countries too, and there are many things I find frustrating or upsetting or tragic about my country, but I'm also very proud of it when its at its best. And occasions like this are opportunities for people to discuss what "at its best" is, and where we are short of that, and how to make up the difference.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 06:20 pm (UTC)I don't think you should find it depressing and disheartening that some of us don't feel the same way and chose not to watch.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 06:22 pm (UTC)That last comment was from me. I was using C's computer and forgot to change the login.
Sorry redactrice.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-01 07:42 pm (UTC)If I'd thought of it, I might have set my VCR to watch some of it later, but given how behind I feel in chores, email, LJ and other stuff, I might not have gotten around to the tapes until after the election anyway. It would be better for me to spend the time figuring out how to get an absentee ballot, since I don't trust the Diebold touchscreens we're using in my county.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-01 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 05:21 pm (UTC)Why is it that the party that occupies the White House in an election year always gets to hold its convention *last*?
It just seems that it guarantees the incumbent president (or the candidate from his party) the later bounce that has a better chance of holding through Election Day and thus perpetuates the incumbency.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 06:09 pm (UTC)wow
Date: 2004-07-30 07:16 pm (UTC)Re: wow
Date: 2004-07-30 07:27 pm (UTC)ever feel like you're talking to yourself?
Well, I tend to get in somewhat fewer rancorous arguments when I do that. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 08:32 pm (UTC)I was away for a site visit to a Yale Summer Program and with these things one's time isn't one's own. I got mostly to see after 9, so I mieed part of Sharptoon.
For those for whom a public prime time voice has *never* been "theirs," I cheered and cheered. And when he said "this vote is sacred to us," I teared up. And I felt Al wasn't as much talking to thr Pres. or even delegates, I felt he was actually producing a sound byte for Black Talk radio to reach out to youth who have been disenfranchised.
As for the speaker who spoke as it were what I thought (less eloquently), I want to vote Barak Obama. Luckily, with the disarray amonf the Rep.'s in Illinois, I think that man will become the juniro Senator from Illinopis; and then we'll knwo for sure if he's real. I think he is, I think he is!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 08:48 pm (UTC)Yeah, I loved Sharpton's speech. Almost everyone had little jokes and humourous bits in their speeches--he was one of the few who actually carried it off (the mule/donkey thing). I got all teary-eyed and then, when I listened to the whole thing through from the beginning (since I had missed the first part live) I started crying all over again. I certainly *do* hope that his speech, and he himself go out into the black community and encourage some people to get involved in the process, instead of just deciding its stupid and pointless.