Thursday, 05 August 2004
Notes on the Democratic National Convention - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER - As an observer of political discourse, I looked to last week's Democratic National Convention for the speeches as well as the hoopla that makes the news and gets the talking heads wagging. There were some good speeches and there were real clunkers. Even though I disagreed with much of what was said at the convention, you don't have to be a partisan to note a really good speech when you hear (or see) one. There were barn burners, and there was the less fiery oratory that didn't set the hall afire rather sucked the air out of the jam packed Fleet Center in Boston.
The bar for John Kerry going into the convention was to set himself apart from the better honed speakers. Senator Kerry has not been known for particularly good oratory, and by speaking on the Thursday, it was going to be tough for him to emerge unique from the shadow of more adept speakers like Bill Clinton, who spoke on the Monday.
Al Gore's speech on the Monday was a bit painful. To have won the 2000 election, yet not manage to become president is so obvious a bitter pill for the former Vice President. He could have been this year's presidential nominee if he wanted; the nomination was his for the asking, but he opted out. To come and speak as the incumbent must have been painful. He's always struck me as an odd person, awfully mechanical and certainly less in touch with the public then let's say Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush.
Jimmy Carter, as a former president and elder statesman, delivered an address that had a very internationalist flavour. That's expected from someone so traveled in his post-presidential years, as well as a Nobel laureate. It was biting in its criticism of the foreign policy of the current administration, something likely and needed for hard core lefties, who have opposed the war in Iraq, and or who've had a hate-on for Republicans from the get go. The Democratic Party needs to hold on to these lefties, so that they don't vote for Ralph Nader.
The speakers who I thought were remarkable, even though I disagreed with most of what they said, but who nonetheless delivered barn burning speeches that electrified the hall, were Bill Clinton on Monday, and the Rev. Al Sharpton on Wednesday. Clinton was like his old self, smart, articulate, and able to draw excitement from the crowd. His speech nominating Michael Dukakis in 1988 was painful and mind-numbingly dull. His speech last week was nothing like 1988, and he did well in how he managed to shift the focus from himself (something hard for him to do), and actually make a hearted attempt at promoting John Kerry. I thought he was particularly convincing and passionate, and proof positive that he's a slick pol, in his ability to break apart his reputation through his own doing, yet managing to redeem himself time and time again. Clinton was convincing with his promoting of Kerry's war record by contrasting it with Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and his own inaction during the Vietnam War. It was at once self-effacing, as well as powerful.
Reverend Al Sharpton was as always good. He didn't prattle off enough funny puns or lines, as he did during the primary race, but he was quite powerful, taking his skill as preacher and making it effective for the public gathered in Boston. He was moving, and just a fine speaker. He drifted from the party line of not being negative, which pissed off Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman on MSNBC's coverage, but nonetheless enlivened the crowd.
Barack Obama, the State Senator from Illinois, gave the keynote address. Obama is running to be a senator against a yet to be determined Republican challenger (Alan Keyes is the rumoured nominee now), after the leading contender, Jack Ryan had to drop out when it was floated that there were less than appropriate tidbits in his divorce proceeding with the actress Jeri Ryan, late of Star Trek: Voyager and Boston Public. It seems that Ryan, the would-be-senator, had coerced his wife to go with him to sex clubs whereupon the dirty deed was done publicly. According to Mrs. Ryan, it was grounds for divorce, and his political career was derailed when it was threatened that his papers would be unsealed. Obama was said to have been leading anyway (even Mike Ditka was rumoured to take over the fight, but he bowed), only increased his profile making a splash nationally. Obama was articulate and passionate, and joins the pantheon of previous keynoters like Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo, and Harold Ford Jr., who spoke at the 2000 convention to much acclaim.
Teresa Heinz Kerry was particularly exasperating. She often spoke in hushed tones that moved from grating to patronising. She spoke in at least five languages and spewed the appropriate platitudes, but she did not, and this was most surprising, talk about anything personal about her life with John Kerry. She should have softened the stigma against Kerry being aloof and an upper crust northern liberal, by talking about the private side or softer side to John Kerry, as prospective first ladies are wont to do. The only time during the convention that John Kerry's lighter side was presented was when Kerry's daughters spoke. When Alexandra Kerry talked about her father resuscitating her drowned hamster, it was a side of Kerry previously unseen. To steal from a certain Bostonian talker, Ted Kennedy must have felt uncomfortable when he heard that story.
Ron Reagan's appearance left me equally uneasy. And it wasn't homophobia, I swear. He strikes me as smarmy and sarcastic, perhaps too cynical for his own good. Sure he can get a speaking slot at the Democratic convention and a guest spot on Jay Leno, but he doesn't strike me as genuine. To me, the message is muffled by his own desire to get himself front and centre.
I found Elizabeth Edwards particularly good. She's got a bright personality that equals that of her husband. John Edwards was also, as expected good. He was strong in how he sold hope to the American people, but one could feel he was also careful in not outshining Kerry the next night. John Kerry's own speech was odd, as was the speech by Teresa Heinz Kerry, in that it was devoid of any mention of political achievement, whether it's his work in the Massachusetts state government, or in his 20 years in the Senate. They talked long about Kerry's Vietnam record, but they couldn't find any time to mention Kerry's political record. Dick Morris, the former Clinton adviser, calls Kerry's candidature, the "bagel candidacy," which could be the same of his political achievements. The Republicans are right to point out there's very little to point towards as achievement for Kerry's tenure in the Senate. And there wasn't much mention about same sex marriage, which is odd if this is what Democrats want to be for, as being trailblazers, especially in Massachusetts.
I thought Kerry was strongest when he discussed his religion. In 1960, when another Democratic Massachusetts Senator with the initials J.F.K. was running for the presidency, there was much criticism that Kennedy the Catholic, was too Catholic and that he'd be an infiltrate of the Vatican. It's odd how in 2004, John Forbes Kerry is criticised for not being Catholic enough, how people within his own church have taken him to task over his position on abortion. Kerry disarmed his critics with his declaration that though religious and faithful, he would not wear his religion on his sleeve. I found particularly moving his idea that it would not be prudent for Americans to wish and hope that God was on their side; rather it would be just for them to hope God is on theirs.
Thomas Oliphant, the great columnist from the Boston Globe, called the Kerry speech rushed. It was however, his best performance ever, but it did have something missing. In rushing to meet the end of the prime time hour, Kerry was too rushed for his cadence to inspire meaning rather than hear like nothing more than a laundry list of promises and plans. The bar is set for Republicans in their convention in New York, to campaign against the Democratic presentation. Their record of these past four years will be their encumbrance, and as it looks so far, Kerry's ahead. From the convention however, they could have widened their gap between Republicans, and kept it strong until November. Obviously they did not, and they lost a big chance to widen the gap between themselves and George W. Bush.
-30-
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .