As a rule, I can't stand the head of either national party. Most recently, Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were both on my shit list. Before them, there are many that stand out as supreme assholes. Ken Mehlman. Terry Mcauliffe. Ed Gillespie. Awful, just awful. But there have been a couple of tolerable ones, and occasionally, a decent person rises to the top. But the only one I can think of offhand is Howard Dean. And he's currently running for the head of the Democratic National Committee.
This is very good news for Democrats, who were surprised into finding themselves dealt a devastating loss when all indications showed otherwise. Given the relative closeness of the election, grinding out a percent or two here and there would have made the difference. Dean has shown the ability to do that.
In a job that requires spinning, and deft pivoting, Dean is one of the few that does so with skill, and far less disingenousness than the rest. I'm stoked, and hope he wins.
[Excerpt]
Howard Dean: I'm running for DNC chair
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said he is running for his old job atop the Democratic Party.
"The dems need organization and focus on the young," Dean tweeted Thursday. "Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman again. . ."
I know it pisses off Bernie Sanders supporters when you mention any similarities between Bernie and Donald Trump (even though your average #FeelTheBern and Trumpette keyboard commando seems to have that same crazed tenor). But here's one that bugs me. Ever notice that spokespeople for both look like they're being Photoshopped in real time on television?
Here is Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders spokesperson and campaign manager:
And here is Katrina Pierson, whack job and Donald Trump spokesnut:
Both have that very odd, unnaturally smooth skin. Is it botox? Is it heavy makeup? Is it the seemingly mobile CGI digital anti-wrinkle cream that Calista Flockhart must be using on Supergirl? Whatever it is, it weirds me out. But it isn't helped by my default loathing for these types of people in general. Whether in charge of the DNC or RNC, like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Reince Priebus, or spokesperson for a candidate, these spinmeisters are spokes-liars, from the word go. Even for an "honest" candidate like Sanders, their chief job is to make their candidate(s) look good in all circumstances, I get that. But by their nature, they come off unctuous, insincere and smarmy. That isn't helped by looking like they come from the Uncanny Valley.
SNL Weekend Update Thursday is always fun, and the condensed format allows for a lot better laughs-to-jokes ratio. The choice of "Drunk Uncle" toward the end was an odd one. Funny, but kind of out of place in the political stuff, but whatever. I've posted the very funny FOX and Friends skit below, and here is the fake commercial, for "Convention Cutaways," an allegedly for sale video collection of cutaway shots of the audiences of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. If you were looking for a hit on the Democrats, look toward the end of this clip. (For some reason, the freeze frame is from the FOX and Friends bit).
Now that we're on day 6 (or 10, counting the days between) of the conventions, I'm glad to say this stage is over. I anticipated President Obama's speech, but my brain is full, I want a couple of "no politics" days somewhere in here before the election! And, truth be told, days 1 and 2 of the DNC were hard acts to follow. Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton raised the bar so high, day 3 was bound to feel a little slow.
Of course, nobody better say one negative word about former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords saying the Pledge of Allegiance. If you do--and I say this as an atheist--you're going to hell. [Story continues below]
I missed a rather large chunk of the convention due to work and exercise on Thursday. So, I missed speeches by Caroline Kennedy, Scarlett Johanssen and Eva Longoria, though I plan to catch them in the next day or so (so much for politics-free days, I guess). I came in on Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who was very feisty, and on message. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist--now apparently a converted Democrat, or close--gave a nice speech that endorsed Obama while jabbing a finger in the eye of the party that he says left him.
John Kerry's speech was great, showing much more fire and spirit than I remember from his run in 2004. It was like he was getting his revenge or something, really zinging Romney, Ryan and the Republicans. . .oooh, RRR? Does that work out to 666 in some numerology thing? Never mind, moving on. . . Dr. Jill Biden was lovely and eloquent, which is great because she opened for her husband.
Joe Biden. . .sigh. . .oh, Joe. So earnest, so eager, so long. Joe said "literally" too much when he meant "figuratively" Joe wandered off script a few times. The material of his speech was fine, there was nothing wrong with his message. But I've really never been a fan of his style, and I think it slowed down the whole proceedings. Or, maybe that was the idea? [Story continues below]
The showcase for the night was of course President Barack Obama, his acceptance of the nomination, and his pitch to the country for reelection. By anybody else, this speech cooked. But from Obama, it was just very good. It wasn't lofty like Michelle's speech, and it wasn't a barn burner like Bill Clinton's. I think by design it was necessary to scale it back from the soaring rhetoric from 2008.
As Obama said--and I know it's going to infuriate conservatives--he's not a candidate anymore, he is the President of the United States. He's not a blank slate as he was (and as Romney is), and can't base the entire speech on hope and change. He had to ground this speech, and build it upon the notion of continuing hope and change begun, but not yet finished. So, necessarily, this couldn't be the spiritual high we all got from Invesco Field in Denver the last time. And though his speech didn't top his wife's, and didn't top President Clinton's. . .he still blew Mitt Romney's speech out of the water. No contest.
Wow. Bill Clinton's speech--as I mentioned at length in the post below--was really something to behold. You know those ridiculous "Miss Me Yet?" George Bush signs? Yeah, well I miss this guy! And this guy whole-heartedly and enthusiastically endorsed, nominated and supports Barack Obama. What more do you need, really? Incidentally, the headline refers to the length of the speech, and the denseness of its content. What were you thinking?
So, without further ado, or prattle from me, here is the best video I could find of the speech. Should this get yanked, I'll replace it with official video later. Enjoy.
I wrote earlier that I felt disengaged from the speeches on day two of the Democratic National Convention. I blame that on a spectacular first night, and on a bit of a funk on my end. Despite that, things took a turn for the better, at least in my viewing. I was watching MSNBC, and was delighted to see Lawrence O'Donnell interviewing Senator Al Franken. I've been a Franken fan for as long as I've known who he is, but he's kept a low media profile as Senator. Turns out, he's still quick witted and sharp on policy. Too bad he didn't get a speech. [Story continues below]
Shortly after that mini interview, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke appeared, giving the best speech I've heard to that point. It helps that there's an emotional response to her, since she was viciously attacked by Rush Limbaugh, an attack that continues in Right Wing World to this day. Fluke has parlayed the uncalled for abuse into something positive, and good for her. May she annoy Rush and his sycophants (almost typed psycho-phants!) for a long time to come. [Story continues below]
As expected, Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts candidate for Senate, was great. This is a woman I'd be banging on doors for if I lived in her state. She's just amazing, and what have they got on her? Maybe she got a story about her ancestry wrong? Boo hoo, my Grandma always told me I was related to Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone and General Patton. I'm sure I've told others that, but who knows if Grandma was right. So, if that's all they've got, they've got nothing. If there is any complaint from me, it is only that Warren may be a little too soft-spoken for an arena speech. [Story continues below]
Of course, the really big part of the show--including the official nomination of Barack Obama for President--was the appearance of Bill Clinton on the stage. Still popular after all these years--and despite all of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome over the last 20 years--Clinton just knows how to give a speech, and to hold an audience. As with Fluke before, I'm delighted that he likely still irritates the shit out of them! Hey, I'm ornery that way.
Clinton put to rest any lingering doubts that he supports President Obama and his reelection. I still have to wonder if Hillary might run in four years, but there was certainly no sabotage going on here. This was not a tepid endorsement. And if my Twitter feed was any indication, Bill's speech was blowing the barn doors off, the screen doors off, the bomb shelter doors off. He was smokin', and not strictly off prompter either, there was a heap of ad-libbing going on there. Too long, by half, I'll admit. But stellar, just stellar.
No speaker at the RNC last week matched a quarter of the wattage Clinton displayed. No speaker offered a hundredth of the personal endorsement, nor positive arguments for their candidate. Whatever doldrums I was feeling in the early part of today's coverage has been eclipsed, dwarfed, obliterated by Clinton's speech. It was the best single political speech I've ever heard in my life. I actually kind of feel sorry for the President that he has to try and top it!
Clinton's speech isn't yet ready for embedding, but it deserves its own post anyway. I'll post it as soon as I can get it!
Previously, I kind of gave a combined shrug and soft applause to the DNC for not putting "God"--by generic name--into their 2012 platform. I don't see why it would be a requirement, or why it would be controversial not to have it there. We are not a theocracy, there "is no religious test" for public office. . .so WTF, please tell me? And what in the world does calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel have to do with a damned thing?
Sigh. So, it is with a combined shrug and a soft eye roll that I respond to the subsequent insertion of both God and Jerusalem back into the platform. Why the DNC would blink when Right Wing World squawks, I have no idea. But on the other hand. . .
Do you remember when RNC chairman ReiNCe PRieBuS was being asked about the inconsistencies between Paul Ryan's, Mitt Romney's and the RNC's positions on abortion (including no exceptions for rape or incest)? Reince pleaded that the platform was for the party, but Romney was the candidate, and had his own views? That muddled message was never really sorted out. I mean, what is the platform if your party's leader doesn't follow it? In the case of the DNC, Obama spoke, and the party followed. Obama led, in other words.
As an atheist, I find the issue ridiculous. But this is not an election-deciding issue for me. I'm resigned to the very public flogging of religion by both parties, regardless of its Constitutional appropriateness. We're not getting God off of the money, and we're not getting "him" out of documents like this one. . .apparently.
[Excerpt] In turnaround, Democrats reinstate language on Jerusalem Democrats resurrected language in their party platform on Wednesday declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel after Republicans accused them of showing weak support for the longtime U.S. ally. . .
Bill Clinton speaks on day 2 of the DNC. Image from NBCNews.
Oh dear. Do I have political burnout? I suffered through last week's trip through the RNC Bizarro World--and with a persistent headache yet--to be rewarded with a positive, uplifting, very well-done DNC on Tuesday. But, today, I got home a little earlier than usual. The sky was bursting with grey clouds, and my 4-mile walk didn't seem wise. So, I started watching this day of convention coverage much earlier than I caught any in the last two weeks.
I think the mixture of gloom outside and too much politics has pervaded my brain. I've been finding it difficult to get engaged on the DNC Day 2. As I type this, it's still early though, only 6:15 pm PDT. For those of you on the East Coast though, I have to wonder if you're awake! Okay, maybe that's not entirely fair. The audience in North Carolina seems entertained. The commentators aren't yammering about it being boring or an "off night." I think it just might be me. I will stay tuned to catch Elizabeth Warren and President Clinton. Something tells me I'll perk up by then. Updates to come. . .
As an atheist, I'm delighted to hear that one of the nation's two major parties has no reference to "God" in its platform. We're not voting for bishop or priest or vicar, are we? We do have separation of church and state--something that's good for both church and state--right? The platform does address religion and the Democratic Party's positions on same, right? So, what's the friggin' problem?
Honestly, I've actually seen it written that "the name of God" has been stricken from the DNC platform. It was never there! "God" isn't a name, it's a noun. "God's" name is Jehovah or Yahweh or Jesus Sr. or some such, yes? And if this really bothers you. . .attention evangelicals: you have a Mormon and a Catholic on your ticket. Both are uneasy allies with your more "fundamentalist" faith. Sort that out, and forget the party platform of a party you weren't going to vote for anyway.
Sorry, but stirring religion in my politics really ticks me off. [Excerpt] Dishonest Fox Graphic: God Edition
Fox News has fixated on the fact that the Democratic platform for 2012 does not mention the word "God," and used a misleading graphic that points out that the Republican platform for 2012 references "God" more often than the Democratic platform has in any of the last four election years. The graphic ignores that in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic platform contained the word "God" more times than the Republican platform in those years; moreover, the 2012 Democratic platform has a section on faith. . .
Yeah, as a graphic artist, I'm not digging the logo.
Wow, what a difference a party makes. Well, the party and the fact that I don't have a brain-splitting sinus headache as I did all through the RNC last week. And I know that I'm biased as a liberal. But, so far, the mood of the DNC is quite different, much more uplifting and positive. And the crowd seems to be connecting, rather than just hooting an hollering (and booing).
This being the first day, you wouldn't expect the speakers to be the top-shelf speakers. You'd be wrong, or rather, I was. There were a couple of clunkers in there, some only suffering for placement after a spectacular speaker. But from what I saw, the DNC's first night was a spectacular sucess, and there was at least one star born.
I'm in the Pacific time zone, so after work (and after my nightly exercise), I could only watch from about 5:30 pm (8:30 EDT). The first speaker I caught was Tammy Duckworth, who was quite good, very engaging and inspiring. I was watching MSNBC while also preparing dinner, so the next speaker I caught was Kathleen Sebelius, and she was fine. Boilerplate speech, nothing bad, a few good points. Rahm Emanuel spoke next, and I'll be honest: I'm not a fan. I had the mixer on, and didn't pay a lot of attention to him. He may have been great, I don't know. [Story continues below]
Following Rahm though was one of the best speeches of the night, by actor Kal Penn (of Harold & Kumar), who has worked with Obama on youth outreach. His tone was strong, his interaction with the audience intuitive, and he had a perfect balance between seriousness and humor (even getting a zinger off on Emanuel). The energy in the room for Penn's speech was warmer and more engaged than anything I saw at the RNC last week. And it was just getting warmed up.
I saw Lilly Ledbetter next, of the Ledbetter Act, the first legislation signed by President Obama. Her speech was great--though with her thick Southern accent, she reminded me of Flo from TV's Alice on occasion. She was emphatically for Obama, and got in some digs at Romney. Very good for a non-professional. But it was Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts (since Romney vacated) who had the first real barn-burner of a speech. Like a revival preacher--but without the annoying evangelical theatrical speech inflections--Patrick steered the audience everywhere he wanted them to go. If you could see a crescendo, it would have occurred a couple of times during his speech. [Story continues below]
The Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley came out next and. . .well, he was okay. He had a hard act to follow. And he had a line he kept getting the crowd to repeat that quickly became tedious. It had a great payoff, but the buildup was far too prolonged. But he ended strong, and set the stage for quite possibly a future star. Or two.
I'll be honest, before Tuesday night I'd never heard of Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio. He had the crowd in his hand, much like Patrick, but with a much different style. Castro is very youthful, energetic, personable, charming. And he also comes off quite intelligent and well spoken. It's quite the package, and surprise, surprise, he has a twin brother who is also active in politics. Keep your eyes on these guys. [Story continues below]
A gauzy (but well done) Michelle Obama video followed, and then the First Lady was introduced by military mom Elaine Brye. Mrs. Obama then came out, and proved every single right-wing hatemonger wrong about her. I'm sure they don't see it that way (but I don't know what inspires their hatred in the first place). Mrs. Obama was warm, well spoken, charming, and had the audience in the palm of her hand like some of the others, but much more so. The major difference between Mrs. Obama and, say, Ann Romney is easy: realness. She seems like a real, approachable woman. The appeal of Mrs. Obama's speech is difficult to encapsulate, because it's an emotional reaction. Which is likely proof to critics that it's style over substance. [Story continues below]
And you may have noticed that this writeup is about the style of the speakers. That has to do more with my writing ability and the late hour that I write this, rather than a lack of substance. Almost all of the speakers I heard spoke out about helping the poor, gay rights, the right to choose, the military, veterans, health care. And all of them were clearly there to support the re-election of Barack Obama. While Patrick and Castro may get some mileage out of their speeches, none of the speakers seemed to be auditioning for 2016 as they did at the RNC. The speakers were clear on the President's accomplishments, and on the point that they think we need to let him continue to complete the job.
Oddly enough, the digs at Romney (and to George W. Bush, for that matter) were fairly mild. . .except for former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who I caught in a replayed clip. He was clearly the attack dog of the night! But I'll give the night a solid A grade, particularly in comparison to the RNC.
David Frum, the stalwart (and virtually exiled) conservative columnist has suggested that the Democratic National Convention hire William Shatner as their "mystery guest" to counter the confounding appearance of (also octogenarian) Clint Eastwood at the RNC. As an example, Frum posted a clip of Shatner's weird, 70s-era lounge singing. I have a better idea. Keep it Shatner--I'm all about the Shat--but have him in character as Denny Crane, from Boston Legal! Crane was a bombastic, rock-ribbed Republican who happened to be suffering from "the mad cow." BL has been off the air now for a couple of years, but I think that Denny Crane bears a strong enough resemblance to a tea bagger, that a Shatner bit could bring the house down! Uh, just don't do it in prime time the last night of the convention.
Take this message taped for ABC affiliates, change the script a bit, maybe substitute Joe Biden or Barack Obama instead of James Spader. . . It. Could. WORK!!!
Kind of unnecessary, since the ad played like self-parody, and because Rick (don't Google me) Santorum has a near zero chance of clinching the nomination. But fun anyway.
Wow. The Democratic National Committee must think that Romney is going to win the shake-out if they're mounting a strategy already. But if I had to pick one of this bunch, I guess I'd have to pick Romney too. I don't know yet if that's good or bad. The hard-right FReepers don't like him. He didn't do so hot in 2008. But President Obama is Presidentin' over a country that ain't happy. I personally don't blame him, and on balance support him (with some reservations). But Romney--while I wouldn't vote for him--is the least objectionable from the Republican side.
