This move of the 2008 Democratic Convention to an outdoor venue for the Nominee’s acceptance speech isn’t the first time it has occurred.
I know; listening to old people ramble on about the olden times isn’t nearly as kewl as making snide remarks about how shady all the politicians are, but there was a time once when hope wasn’t such a joke and being audacious was viewed as a positive. As it happens, I remember it well.
The 1960 Democratic convention was in Los Angeles, and at the time it was the biggest deal you could imagine. Change was the thing, a pushing aside of the older generation in favor of younger people with high ideals and bold intentions. The country was under threat not from people with Kalashnikovs living in caves but from nuclear annihilation, the very real all-pervasive fear that at any moment death could rain down from the skies and we would all be turned to cinders. Easy now to look back and see that fear as exaggerated, but at the time it could not have been more real.
The country was coming apart internally as well, with civil unrest from black men who had served in World War II and Korea and put their lives on the line for this country and for freedom, who thanks to the insistence of the Delegates to the 1948 Democratic Convention and under the sometimes uncertain but eventually determined leadership of another Southern Democrat had gotten for the first time a real taste of freedom and equality and were damn sure not willing to go back to the old days of Jim Crow and segregation, men who were angry and knew all about how to organize and how to shoot and kill.
From women too, who had stepped up and done as well as any human being could in the factories and mills of America during the war years were now being told by those in power that they didn’t have what it takes to move into the offices and boardrooms, that they should go back to their little houses and cook and clean and birth babies and be grateful they had a big strong man to take care of them; they weren’t having any of that either.
The country had a choice to make, to stay with the old ways and foot-drag along, clinging bitterly to the way things had been for as long as anyone alive could remember, or to step into the future and embrace the changes that many of us saw as inevitable, changes that would be devastating if they were not managed but uplifting and ennobling if they were seized and directed.
Richard Nixon was the known quantity, stay-the-course-all-will-be-well, status quo, the “safe” alternative. The other fellow, a little-known, inexperienced Catholic (and you know how “they” are), was the risky choice, and with his talk about hope on the one hand and duty and responsibility and sacrifice on the other seemed to be asking Americans to give more than they might immediately get, to invest in a new way of thinking, a new way of communicating, and to set aside established practice and a backwards focus to share the risks of an uncertain future.
I listened to the roll call of the states the night Kennedy was nominated, on a homebuilt transistor radio while sitting in the Vistadome of an east-bound passenger train. When it was over and I came back downstairs to tell my parents, all of the adults in the car gathered round and listened to every word I had to say, asking questions about how it sounded and how loud the applause was.
By the next day I was at an Uncle’s house in Wisconsin, doing chores and, as they said, “being useful.” But work was suspended when it came time for Kennedy’s acceptance speech, and to suspend work on a dairy farm is a very big deal indeed.
We all gathered in the living room, my uncles and grandfather in chairs with their big calloused and cracked hands held together as if in prayer, the women together in the kitchen and in the doorway, the static reception turned up loudly enough for all to hear and the children seated on the floor and no-questions-about-it firmly shushed.
These hard-working, sweat-of-their-brow, no-nonsense hard-headed Scandinavians hung on every word, an occasional grunt, a nod of the head, a leaning forward when he spoke of what he was asking of us all, and as soon as it was over there was a shuffling and a rising and with little fanfare we all went back outside to pick up the evening chores.
Other than work, nothing was spoken of that night and the next day but discussion of what Kennedy had said and what it might all mean. There was a sense of hope, recognition that there would be a lot of work involved to make things right, and not one complaint about the needfulness of either of those. But then, being farmers, they knew all about the necessity of hope and hard work.
Kennedy was nominated in the LA Convention Center, a closed arena. But he saw as his challenge the rousing of an entire nation and chose to move the acceptance speech outdoors to the Los Angeles Coliseum. Seating then just over 100,000, the delegates adjourned from the hall and moved outside to sit with 75,000 everyday citizens who for the first time ever could see and be physically present for an event that would change the destiny of the country and the world, in ways that as it turned out were both good and bad.
He was criticized for that decision, some called it grandstanding, some imperial, and some raise the Nuremberg images but most were entranced at the idea that someone on the verge of personal greatness cared enough about the “symbolism” of the moment to open it up and embrace the citizenry. It was, I suppose, because we had hope, and because we admired his audaciousness.
Kennedy gave a hell of a good speech that day. His inaugural gets high praise, and deservedly so, but this short exposition is one that should be widely listened to as well. He hits every note pitch-perfect, his cadences those of a preacher more than a politician. Take a moment if you will and listen; anyone who aspires public speaking or indeed any form of communication can learn something from Jack Kennedy.
The audio quality is poor, so read the text first and you won’t miss anything. Then listen to the rhythm, the nuance, the strength and the focus that he brings. The message that he delivers was not a welcome one, no one wants to be told they will have to work harder and sacrifice, but phrased the way he does it, with an appeal to – rather a sure confidence of – our better selves and our nobler intentions, not even the most cynical among you can fail to be uplifted.
[Before anyone pops off with “But Obama is no Jack Kennedy” that line has already been used in a much more devastating setting; you can’t use it again here and even come close so don’t try.
This is now, not then, and Obama is who he is and not someone else, for certain, but Jack Kennedy too was primarily a centrist with conservative leanings and a liberal mind and also a flawed human being. Overall his administration got off to a shaky start and he made nearly as many mistakes as good judgments, but he got the big issues mostly correct and tried to do right for the American people.
Symbolism is not always bad, nor is every public display of commitment on the national stage a precursor to totalitarianism. Who ever the nominee may be, I hope the Convention goes off smoothly and the acceptance ceremony is spectacular and then the Democrats kick the Republicans the hell out of office everywhere. Damn every “R” there is to hell and gone.]
Front page
Obama ain't jack kennedy....
…despite your knee-jerk Obotian efforts to preclude the obvious comparison…
Oh hey hi paul!
Thought you’d dropped off the planet.
Is “Obotian” pronounced like “Robotian” or like “Martian”? I like the susurrant better than the plosive.
And nothing knee-jerk about it, I spent a good deal of time crafting that postscript. If I didn’t know better I might think you were looking to hurt a person’s feelings.
Is there a category of semi-Obotian? Or reluctant-Obotian? Go get me a substitute and I’m all for it/her/him; out of approach options myself, nobody I know wants to hear about it anymore. Otherwise, I’m going to have to work with the tool at hand.
Even Jack Kennedy Wasn't Jack Kennedy
I’ve always thought he was the Democratic Party’s version of Ronald Reagan. Praised way beyond what his accomplishments would actually merit.
But he - and later his family - did do a masterful job of managing the press and his image, which I think this post shows. In that way, I think Obama is a lot like him. People see in him what they want to see whether it’s true or not.
Having said that, reading this only reinforces my belief that older Democrats got a hell of a lot more out of the party than I ever did, even if I don’t think Kennedy produced very many of those tangible results (which, to be fair, would be hard to do in less than three years). Instead of the New Deal, I got FISA capitulation. Instead of the Great Society, I got the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
What really strikes me about the Kennedy stuff is how confident the Democrats seemed. I think that’s why, despite their many weaknesses, I will always have a soft spot for Bill and Hillary Clinton. They may compromise, but they never seem ashamed to be Democrats. They never apologize for it. A quality in way too short supply in the current Democratic Party.
But Obama is, of course,
trying to create a parallel between himself and Kennedy by holding his acceptance speech in the big stadium. He knows reporters and pundits will mention the last time such a thing occurred.
What’s not likely to be parallel is the seriousness with which BringItOn’s family absorbed Kennedy’s nomination and speech this time around.
it was considered a failure in 60--
A look back at the last outdoor speech — “… undismayed by the dim notices given their four-day dramatic flop inside the sports arena, the Democrats moved into the Coliseum today, to try their hand at fresh-air vaudeville.
For two and a half hours before the candidates arrived for their acceptance speeches, drum corps, bands, majorettes, movie performers, jazz musicians and comedians performed in a scorching sun on the turf where the Los Angeles Dodgers’ outfield normally spends its evenings shagging flies.
…
The enormous stadium, which seats over 100,000, was little more than half filled when the candidates arrived. …”
That wasn't confidence, it was courage
Everyone knew it would be a very close thing and in the end the Dems had to steal the election in Chicago; if it comes down to it wouldn’t that be an eerie coincidence?
No Kennedy family or friendly press were involved and the only site I visited was the one to grab the photo and link to the speech. I wrote every word here, and the recollections are all my own and honestly expressed. The temper of the times was what it was; if you weren’t there you’ll need more than an opinion to dispute it. I also made sure to include the qualifier that he was flawed and made numerous mistakes, but his administration per se was not the subject of this post and you know that perfectly well.
I’d take Jack Kennedy again over any of the Democrats we had to choose from this cycle, and I’ll take any of them over McCain no question.
What kind of an idiot would he be if he wasn't aware
Of course he and his advisers know, a show like this convention is a spectacle, a parade of symbolism. All presidential nominees try to create an echo of past glory, why shouldn’t this one do it as well?
As to the level of interest, guess we’ll see but my read on the public pulse is the opposite of yours; I believe that there is more interest in this election than there has been for a very long time, maybe as far back as 1960.
New York Times pooh-poohs the Democrats
and somebody passes it on as a reliable source.
Times have not entirely changed.
the country wasn't there in person--it was a media event--
just as this year’s convention will be.
All decisions about convention events like this are made for media consumption and not for on-the-ground regular people who happen to be in town and available and present —from 60 til now and ongoing.
My Apologies, BIO
I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that your post proved what a master Kennedy was at managing his image because of your feelings or impressions of the speech. I meant the move to larger venue, how the convention was staged, and the speech itself showed that Kennedy was a master at managing his image and public relations and that’s not meant as an insult to either you or Kennedy. I think Obama has some of those same gifts. Not unrelatedly, but as a somewhat separate matter, I think folks project onto Obama what they want to see just as many project that onto Kennedy (or more accurately Kennedy’s ghost since I think a lot of the bullshit rose up after his tragic death when the real Kennedy wasn’t around to remind people he was hardly a saint).
But in trying to be brief, I garbled it. Sorry about that.
& the NYT endorsed him in 60--it was other papers that didn't
here in NY.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h…
First let me say
…that your piece is both beautifully written and moving. Under other circumstances, it would inspire me or even sway me from my opposition to Obama.
The problem is that I don’t see change, hope, or inspiration in Obama. In stark contrast, I see a man who symbolizes more wrong than right. Can he uplift the nation with images and platitudes? Frankly, the thought is frightening. Even in the high rhetoric of his acceptance speech, JFK stood on policy, ideology, and outlined tangible things the nation and the world could focus upon.
It's the "borrowed glory" aspect
that makes it feel so phony and contrived. Especially if, as someone on TalkLeft suggested, he arranges for a rock concert to precede the speech.
(I never suggested, BTW, that it came as some kind of surprise to the campaign to find they were imitating Kennedy. Not sure where you got that from.)
As to level of interest, interest and seriousness are not necessarily the same thing. I’m far more impressed by your story of your family’s attention to Kennedy’s nomination and speech than I expect to be by 75,000 screaming Obamazoids in Denver.
You bring us with you
Thanks for your personal story of this history, evocative.
tnjen, I'd be disappointed in you
if you were swayed to Obama over this. My only point is that symbolism in and of itself can be edifying and that not everything that can be construed as media driven and manipulative is wrong. If not for Kennedy we’d have had Nixon eight years earlier than we did, and eight years without Richard Nixon in office was a very good thing never mind the rest of what happened. That and to say hope and audacity by themselves are not negative atributes.
Obama will have to work through this as his own person. We’ll see if says about more substantive policy but I’m not holding my breath. Any direction he moves he risks losing votes; staying all mushy is working for him pretty well right now.
It Will Continue To Work For Him
Unless the GOP finds a way to define him, then it will work against him because in the absence of any definition he has provided, folks will be more likely to believe the GOP. The question is whether the GOP will be able to get its act together to take advantage. McCain did just hire a top-rate GOP smear artist and Rove seems to be contributing as well so they may yet gear up the old smear machine for one last spin around the block. Whether it still has any gas in it is another matter.
No worries, BDBlue
Now I reread your piece I see what you were saying. Sum daz I reed mor gud den udders. (dairy farmer joke).
There is always a tendency to project hopes and also fears on candidates. They are just human, and even the best of them are not a whole lot different than you and I. Well, the best of them may be closer to you than to me but you know what I mean. Kennedy became more a symbol of what the nation wished it could have been, I think; some very odd idealized version of a projected alternative reality to which the actual present could never measure up. Lyndon Johnson did great things and awful things trying to be what he thought JFK would have been, ruining himself and tearing apart the country in the process.
I don’t suffer from that myself, but I agree the general cult-of-personality around JFK sometimes makes me as nauseated as the Diana idolatry.
"The country wasn't there in person...."
US population in 1960 was 180,000,000.
Obama thinks he can win Colorado; including 50,000 or 60,000 people off the street to be a part of the event who might well proselyze on his behalf seems like a real smart move to me, as well as a very nice gesture to the residents of Denver who will be more than a little put out by all the traffic and the hassle of the convention.
I see no reason why it has to be for just one purpose and one purpose only. Sometimes you can do well by doing good.
I Admit A Certain Prejudice Against JFK
I think it’s generational. The stereotyped baby boomer as self-absorbed narcissist was never truer, IMO, than when the subject of JFK came up. I used to joke that I would never date a man old enough to remember 1963 because it would mean I’d have to spend my life listening to stories about where he was when John Kennedy was shot. Kennedy made him feel so much hope and optimism, blah, blah, blah, and then it all ended in tragedy, disillusioning our hero (who in these stories is never Kennedy, always the storyteller). Kind of hard to take stories about people becoming disillusioned in college or high school when your first political memory is Watergate.
Now, two decades later, I see him and the times more clearly, but there’s a part of me that will always resent the fact that in high school I could beat baby boomers at their own damned edition of Trivial Pursuit because their culture, which of course was vastly superior in their view to my teen-aged one, had been shoved down my throat so much.
I’ve said this before, but as someone who is only a few years younger than Obama, I understand the appeal some of his generational stuff has to younger folks. When I listened to that interview he gave to the Nevada paper where he talked about not being against all wars and looking for solutions that work and how he’s against the excesses of the 1960s and 70s, basically defining himself in opposition to the baby boomers even though he is one, I heard myself. But then, you know, I graduated from college and stopped talking about history as if I were a really bad Time Magazine article on Generation NeXt.
Having said that, Magic Bus is still one of the worst songs ever recorded and The Doors suck. :-)
Rope-a-Dope
Ali-Foreman, Zaire 1974.
Obama bobs and weaves, throws an occasional counter and otherwise let Clinton pound away and wear herself out. They’re doing the same so far with McCain and so far it seems to be working.
Who among us can forget the plane trip back from Dallas?
And Jackie’s own memorable words: “Ladybird?? How’s she gonna run the White House when she can’t run her own house? Can’t do it! Can’t do it!”
It brings up a memory of when I was in college
“In the Flesh?” from The Wall.
Obama isn’t well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along, as a surrogate band
We’re gonna find out where you fans really stand
I wouldn’t even post this except it’s been going through my head ALL DAY.
swaying
This is a bit muddled but I’ll try to explain what I meant…
I think symbols can be very powerful things for a nation and that we desperately need what he’s selling - hope, change, inspiration, etc. The image you painted in my mind was of JFK fulfilling a need — a restoration of national faith, if you will. If circumstances were different and I could truly believe that Obama could be that symbolic light that uplifts the nation and that he had the potential to become a bringer of positive change, even if that inspiration doesn’t touch me and has its roots in media manipulation, then I think it might be comfort enough to put away some of the doubts and go with what we’re being offered — move to tepid support and say, “what heck, he’s a democrat and that’s always better.” That doesn’t mean I’d lay down my guns regarding pushing for specific policies.
I do think the Nixon example is a good one and that you’re right that Kennedy winning and keeping Nixon out was a good thing on it’s own. At this point in time, however, I just don’t see Obama as inherently better. I worry that an Obama implemented health care plan would end up being an UHC stop gap and possible failure that democrats would be in no hurry to fix because it was implemented by a democrat rather than a republican. Gov. Bredesen was able to ax Tenncare in my state because he was a democrat. I also worry that withdrawal from Iraq is going to happen at the same pace regardless of who is in the White House. And in general, I worry whether or not Obama is actually better for the country.
Well, I do remember 1963
but only fragments. Plus I would totally kick your butt at Trivial Pursuit so maybe the whole dating thing won’t work out for us.
As for the Doors, they were never that big a favorite of mine but to appreciate them at all you had to have been there. I was more into this kind of music, from a local SF group:
A whole lot of worries
and all with some basis, for sure.
I’m just so simple-minded, I can’t carry all of that at once; my head would fall over. Step 1 is Crush the Republicans. I’ll worry about Step 2 later.
Don't Bet on Trivial Pursuit
I was quite the geek in high school (in stark contrast to the cool middle-aged woman I am now).
Make you a wager, Swift Loris
A gentleman’s wager, no stakes.
I say the audience for Obama’s speech will exceed 100,000,000 viewers. I say he will blow the top off the box.
By comparison, McCain will come off like the Crypt Keeper.
I don't often bet
I just win.
So we've established...
that he’s a fighter in the league of Ali, and he may be a ratings-getter on par with the superbowl.
Perhaps he would be better suited for another line of work.
I Wouldn't Take That Bet
I’m sure it will be a huge media event. To the extent there are potential downsides, it won’t be lack of viewers. Although rain would be bad.
The potential downsides are whether it comes off as arrogant, extravagant or makes Obama look more like a rock star than serious political leader (which in times of war and economic worry could be a bad thing).
Never underestimate the crypt keeper....
The debates this Fall will be another media spectacle entirely: Tweedledum and tweedle-dumber going after each other until our collective head explodes, and it finally sinks in to millions of people that their future is in the balance and it will be in the hands of one of these two unfit and repulsive creatures.
Or were you counting on a Nixon-ugly/Jack-pretty dynamic for the debates?
Obotepid
n/t
How can a man whose handlers were so obsessed
with his security — they got him Secret Service protection early, they berated to the boundary of libel his opponent by semantically linking her statements about June and RFK with an assassination threat, and they continue to manage his events to the point of precision — expect to handle hundreds of thousands of people ’off the street’?
If the DNC managers gave a good goddamn about the people they’d encounter on the streets of Denver, they’d have the free-speech zones just a little bit closer to any place a delegate would be expected to be. They’d house the students planning to camp during the convention in a venue closer (and kinder to the Denver Zoo animals) than City Park, and they’d give up any pretense of having an inclusive event, with with the jockeying for tickets, the intense security requirements and the general chaos that will erupt once these newbies try to shepherd hot, tired and thirsty citizens into a photo op that will run over time and tempers.
I don’t recall Denver having a free event at Invesco Field in years — does anyone even know how to manage such an event? I mean, the parking? During a convention, *and* during this?
Yes, this could happen successfully — but it will be a miracle, if it does.
Liberace Rules:
“Too Much of a Good Thing Is Wonderful”
I wish I was there
…It’s not simple-minded but efficient so long as you still have some faith in what the democratic party as well as Obama stand for. I was there before this primary season but my faith in the party itself as well as Obama has been deeply shaken. Before, I was always sure we were the good guys and that even our bad guys were better, but for me, trust has been broken on so many levels and in so many ways that I’ve lost that sense of certainty, especially regarding many of those in charge. The recent rightward shifts along with the party’s cave on FISA have only made things worse.
Good Guys Bad Guys
Somehow I like the Good Girls Bad Girls phrasing better, but it will doubtless get me in even more trouble.
A party is an amoral beast that needs to feed. Nothing personal, but if you can feed it then it loves you and if you cannot it loses interest. For some time now, 40 years, progressives have not been able to feed the Democratic Party; the result has been a steady general drift rightward. Meanwhile, the Republican Party was taken over by a criminal gang.
Those are my choices for 2008. Not happy, but also not confused about which of the evils is lesser.
That's an interesting description
…much more like a corporate entity than how I’ve looked at it. Of course, it is a sort of corporate entity but one that has little direct control over its workers (voters) and executives (elected officials/dnc leaders). To go with your analogy though, I’m not sure who’s feeding the machine. And I get the sinking feeling that the criminal gang that took over the GOP and ruined its brand is now in the process of jumping ship and taking over the DNC. The neocons and free marketeering GOPers that have endorsed Obama since relatively early on worry me.
And now, there’s even more of them —enough to have a ’coming out’ party of sorts.
Oh and either good girls, bad girls or good guys, bad guys makes no difference to me unless the user is intentionally trying to insult an individual or a group but girls also has the problem of referencing children instead of adults. Gals just sounds funny and good ladies and bad ladies doesn’t seem to work at all unless the image you want to invoke is along the lines of Desperate Housewives: The Victorian Era!
Good (and cynical)
[Posting this for Bruce Dixon —lambert]
Good (and cynical) marketing. And bad history.
This kind of shallow stunt, heavy on the symbolism and light on the substance is typical Obama fare. Remember, this is the same guy who did his campaign announcement on Lincoln’s birthday, standing practically atop Honest Abe’s tomb. Do also recall that when the Barack and Hillary show played Selma, the 2007 anniversary of Bloody Sunday, he depicted himself as Joshua to King’s Moses?
To top it all off, the rally will take place on August 28, the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, an affair organized in large part by Bayard Rustin & A. Philip Randolph, two socialists and a gay between them, whom an Obama of that or this day would refuse
to let his picture be taken with. The Brown Prince’s hucksters will thus present him to us (and especially to black folks, who must be kept in line) as the living incarnation of “Dr. King’s Dream” whatever that corrupted phrase means in the heads of listeners. Hey, Oprah said it. It’s gotta be right.
It’s absolutely pure, cynical and classic marketing, designed to bypass the critical faculties and go straight for the longing for an imagined past.
Bringiton’s descriptions of the political moment in 1948 and 1960 are suspect too, in that they seem to give a lot of credit to the Big Men in the White House, and relatively little to the loud, persistent and utterly disrespectful mass movements that were afoot in the land at those times. In 1948 there was a whole left wing presidential campaign on the part of the Progressive party, in which Paul Robeson stumped the country with Henry Wallace, demanding an anti-lynching law and deliberately breaking Jim Crow laws everywhere they could. And of course a vote for Wallace was a vote denied to Truman. This is what drove Truman relentlessly leftward in 1948, leading to his veto of Taft-Hartley and his order to de-segregate the armed forces. In 1960 too, although King campaigned for Kennedy he got far less cooperation than was needed while Kennedy was alive.
Great Men and their Great Events get to write the headlines. But they don’t get to make the history, in spite of what bringiton would have us believe. For sure, it’s not them that “brings change”. It’s us, and it’s the movement of masses on their own behalf, or these things don’t come at all.
stick with political metaphors...
because you’re misuse of sports metaphors shows what a obot you are.
Ali knocked Frazier out — he didn’t need the refs to corruptly score the fight in his favor after 15 rounds.
If you insist on picking at nits
then I’ll agree that Obama’s takedown of Clinton was a TKO, not a knockdown. But then I was only describing the strategy, not the endgame.
Re: the DNC and suggesting the outcome was corruption, how pray tell do you define corruption within an organization that is self-defined as authoritarian and absolutist? Wouldn’t it be “corruption” of that organization if the insurgent candidate, the one not blessed by the heirarchy in power, were to somehow seize control?
The DNC did what the DNC is designed to do. They can, if they wish, chuck the rulebook right out the window and just pick somebody. They went through the posturing and play-acting of a process because that’s somehow what’s expected in this day and age, but it doesn’t change the naked power basis for candidate selection; terms like “fair” and “just” and “democratic” simply don’t apply under the current structure and all the railing in the world for all eternity will not change that.
I didn’t like the outcome. You didn’t like the outcome. They don’t much care about that. Part of the reason for them not caring is that the last (and only) time anything remotely like a grassroots movement selected a nominee, the Democrats got George McGovern and how did that work out? McGovern’s being crushed at the polls gave the DNC power brokers all the justification they needed to restructure the nominee selection process so they have absolute control.
Acknowledging how an entity and its processes work is not the same as endorsing them. Even though I don’t particularly care on an emotional level for Ebola it is a fascinating little beastie, and fortunately I can describe the pathophysiology and express some sense of awe without being termed an Ebolabot. Should be able to do the same in politics; or is someone trying to make up the rules of discourse to suit their own agenda and stifle by intimidation those with whom they have some small disagreement?
Mustn’t call other people undeserved nasty names. You know that. Doesn’t get anyone to anywhere positive.
"For sure, it’s not them that “brings change”.
“It’s us, and it’s the movement of masses on their own behalf, or these things don’t come at all.”
Amen!
Even if I were a gentleman, I wouldn't take that bet.
100 million wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
But that wasn’t my point! How many of that 100 million are going to be watching with the intensity of seriousness with which your folks watched Kennedy’s speech?
Exactly.
It’s absolutely pure, cynical and classic marketing, designed to bypass the critical faculties and go straight for the longing for an imagined past.
(I had to scour my eyeballs after looking at that Photoshop job. Needs some kind of warning.)
ebolabot!
heh. no, i’d say you’re not quite there yet. [have i linked to this one before?]
Hmmm...
“The DNC…went through the posturing and play-acting of a process because that’s somehow what’s expected in this day and age…”
’Somehow what’s expected?’
’Posturing and playacting’?
Yeah, except for all those dollars spent on the primaries and caucuses; all the states’ rules and laws about the primaries and caucuses; and all the lawsuits that can result if they are not done correctly; all the Democratic Party rules and regulations required to be followed so that the number of pledged delegates is correct; all the thousands of people involved in doing this all correctly…
Look, you may support Obama and believe everyone should but please don’t act as if these other things don’t exist and/or are just inconveniences before a coronation.
“…terms like “fair” and “just” and “democratic” simply don’t apply under the current structure and all the railing in the world for all eternity will not change that.”
Well, many of us agree about that THIS year, with the RBC, in spite of Roosevelt’s protestation of innocence, clearly not following their own rules (see PUMA.) But in fact the Democratic Party rules were DESIGNED to be fair and just and democratic. That’s WHY there is the male/female delegate ratios in many states, etc., etc. Yes, then there is a Superdelegate layer, to which you may be referring here. But the RBC and Obama did NOT wait for the Superdelegate system, with which they could have won fairly under the rules, even after (closely) losing the majority of pledged delegates. Maybe it was just to prevent Donna Brazile from resigning from the party, I couldn’t say.
But it’s interesting to think about in combination with Obama’s restructuring of the traditional Democratic Party infrastructure on the ground in various states—to Obama loyalists who aren’t doing the traditional money-sharing with Obama’s money. Obama’s grassroots is seemingly about people doing the work, with him making the decisions, in spite of the proposed plank input (which HAS been a Democratic Party function BEFORE, unlike the “NEW” claims—and a number of us have voted-on STATE platforms, too, remember?)
Then let's address your point, SL
My estimate is that the number of people who will hang on his every word is at least 100,000,000, less perhaps you and certainly about a dozen other people around here.
Americans are so inward focused. The whole world is captivated by this, by Obama, and they would be by Hillary as well. This election is seen by people internationally as a great test for Americans, a test of our national character. We were forgiven for the first GWBush election, but after doing it again people began to wonder; if Obama (or Clinton) are rejected for another warmongering Republican, our moral standing in the rest of the world will be finished.
And I was referring only to myself as a gentleman; it is, at least, what I aspire to be.
Not that I've seen, h
Some lame tattoo; what am I missing?
Say one word here about Obama that isn’t hatred and I might as well have Ebola, or leprosy.
Truth Partisan Hmmmm
TP: all those dollars spent on the primaries and caucuses
Who asked you to? All the state primary elections are state mandates, not from the Democratic Party, and the states are the ones who decide on their operational requirements. Most of the straight caucuses are paid for by the state parties, not the states.
all the states’ rules and laws about the primaries and caucuses
Again, those are state requirements, take them up with your legislature.
and all the lawsuits that can result if they are not done correctly
What lawsuits, the ones that all got dismissed? Any fool can file a lawsuit, this is still America.
all the Democratic Party rules and regulations required to be followed so that the number of pledged delegates is correct
Same for any party; it is their party, you understand, so they get to make the rules and break them as they please.
in fact the Democratic Party rules were DESIGNED to be fair and just and democratic
You are so, so sweet; don’t ever change.
That’s WHY there is the male/female delegate ratios in many states, etc., etc.
Those are what we call “window dressing”, put there to make it all look nice in hopes you won’t notice what’s really going on.
many of us agree about that THIS year
And that’s because this year the naked power showed itself. It was always there, this year they had to bring it out and let it chew on Hillary and everyone is shocked. Sorry your bubble got burst, but this is how it has always been except for the McGovern fiasco, when the delegates revolted and there were not enough insiders in place to keep them in check. The rewrite of the rules made sure that would never happen again, and that they can change the rules any which way they want and still be inside the rules.
Look, you may support Obama
What on Earth would give you the idea that I support Obama? Never have; I wanted Gore, supported Edwards, settled for Clinton and now I’m probably going to be stuck with this mess. Not my desire.
and believe everyone should
Please. Everyone should do as they damn well want; I have no wish to command others. I do, however, want more than anything to defeat the Republicans and will do whatever it takes to meet that goal. I believe that another Republican president will destroy democracy in this nation, and destroy civilization as we know it around the globe. I intend to do nothing less than be a forceful advocate for a Democratic victory regardless of who is the candidate.
but please don’t act as if these other things don’t exist and/or are just inconveniences before a coronation.
What makes you think I am acting? All of these things, the primary and the convention itself, are just inconveniences before a coronation.
i'm the flaming anarcholiberal populist black sheep
in my family of nice, well-behaved, centrist, compassionate-conservative republicans, some of whom defected to [or stole, depending on who you ask] the democratic party after the wingnuts took over that other one; all of whom like both hillary and barack, a lot. i could no more hate on obama than i could disown my own fam— oh, wait…
obama ran as a democrat, he’s gonna get called on the carpet for acting like a republican, something he seems to be doing a lot of these days [he’s always looked like a republican to me, so i don’t see him as having flipflopped or moved to the right]. so his supporters are going to come in for excoriation too. me, i’m thrilled we’re within a whisker of having a president finally! of either the wrong sex or the wrong color, but i’m not ever going to trust that he’s on my side on any of the issues. i’m not going to trust any of his supporters either. :-)
some lame tattoo indeed. and there’s always the cute overload version.
Between the out of focus photo
and my barely able to focus eyes and the fact that it was a tat for which I generally have no use, just kind of glazed over there. Eeeee-bo-la! Could be a brand name for a breath mint or a frozen dessert treat, if it weren’t for the pre-existing negative associations.
Don’t see Obama as having shifted materially either. Seems to have taken some people by surprise that he is who he is, but they also appear to be the same folks who were shocked to find out that the Democratic Party is actually run by - who knew? - the Democratic Party! Très choquant.
Are you also suggesting I’m an Obama supporter? Where would this come from?
My family are all evangelical born-agains of a particularly conservative stripe, Missouri Synod Lutherans. There is some suspicion that I was switched at birth, and I agree it may be a possibility.
Anarcholiberal Populist, eh? Pity you’re so far to the right from me, we might have gotten along.
sounds like cough drops to me
choquant? made me google.
the democratic party is actually run by — who knew? — republicans!
i was found on a doorstep [slight exaggeration, but close enough], and raised by people who have a snakehandler or two in their family tree.
i’m fortunate that my parents had the sense to rebel against their parents, but i have to admit that while i don’t miss that ole time religion, i do feel a bit cheated about having missed out on the singing.
[the ee cummings style you like so much; crooked fingers, chronic pain, saves a few keystrokes here and there, but i won’t mention it again if you won’t.]
reign, rein, rain, rayne, rahne
You tweaked me, seemed only fair to return service.
You will notice I had actually not mentioned it again, not a nag like some people, and it won’t come up any more; far be it from me to capitalize on your disability. I have some sort of excuse for being a lousy typist; something about my muscles, or neurons, or brain, I forget which.
Please don’t mention ee again, we’ll have company.
Am off to sleep, duty calls in the morning.
To fill that religious music void; polyphony, counterpoint, harmony:
[oops, sorry, you’re on dialup - next time you’re at the library, perhaps.]lycanthropy or a motorbike,
but not both at the same time, that bites. also, i used to live in cajun country, right down the road from the frog capital of the world, in fact. music and food to die for.
it’s not a disability, it’s an annoyance, and if ridding myself of some small annoyance annoys somebody else, that’s a feature, not a bug. capitalize to your heart’s content, all’s fair in blogs and war, i say.
i love plays. reading them, watching them, acting in them, even tried to write one [epic fail]. got to meet edward albee in person, he came here to give a lecture once [yes we do have culture here in almost-alabama] and his philosophy on is that the audience has to meet the artist [playwright, painter, etc] halfway, a view i’ve always held, except that he sounded really snobbish when he said it that evening.
i just finished rereading your lies, %#^%$#^&# lies, and political
geometrypost, and links. sheer poetry, dude. and didn’t i have a list of books to check out from the library lying around here somewhere? wanders off to look for scribbled-on scrap of paper…cliff-splat
read that somewhere, should visit more often; probably safer there for me right now in several ways. Always good to be read and noticed, I suppose.
On the great lycathropy versus motorbikes question, I refuse to choose; more werewolves ON scooters is what we need, I say.
Raynes and pours; somewhere just a ways out of town there was once and maybe still is a smallish bar, a shack I think is the correct term, where I had the best, second best, third best and IIRC fourth best daiquirí ever. Made with blue curaçao, and since in fact I do not seem to be able to actually RC, can’t describe exactly where it is located, I must have had a fourth…or fifth….
Bar down in Newport Beach SoCal used to sell a drink made with 151 rum and vodka and schnapps and can’t remember what else plus blue curaçao on the rocks in a big brandy snifter, called a Screaming Blue Mother. This was back in the bad old days where driving drunk was still considered a challenge and as long as you didn’t hit anything it was not a sin; if you could finish two of the drinks, the first one was free. Watched a lot of people pass out cold on the floor, but never saw anyone get that free drink. Come to think of it, drunk walking was not a possibility for those who took up the challenge; drunk driving not actually an issue at all, problem solved.
Bringiton: What? Again?
Bringiton: “What on Earth would give you the idea that I support Obama?”
A number of your statements show this, but I think your phrase that stuck the most in my mind was calling Obama “the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country. “
I appreciate your honesty here where you say that you completely stand by your point: “All of these things, the primary and the convention itself, ARE just inconveniences before a coronation.” (h/t Lambert for quotey goodness.) However, merely snarking at thousands of volunteers, millions of voters, millions of dollars, dozens of states, and the courts doesn’t explain to me why you think primaries, caucuses and the popular vote don’t count.
What’s “naked power” if the votes don’t count for anything?
Drop the “so so sweet” comments too—although in this context it gave me a chuckle, and I am no female reporter with a mike, I think using that phrase is ill-advised in an election season where many Hillary supporters are being treated like sweeties. Again, I assume your purpose here is snark but are you really snarking at Hillary supporters generally too?
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/…
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2008…
and especially THIS:
http://www.correntewire.com/tainted_love…
TruthPartisan; Sweetie here!
TP: A number of your statements show this [support for Obama]
Really? Then why not list them? Why just make an empty, unfounded accusation intended to denigrate me as a closeted or subversive partisan propagandist?
Oh, wait…you have one! Let’s deal with it.
your phrase that stuck the most in my mind was calling Obama “the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country. “
This makes me a supporter? No, not at all. What I am is a man drowning in a cesspool of inanity, greed and self-destruction that is killing me and America and damaging every living thing on the planet. The next Democratic nominee for president, who indeed may well be Barack Obama, represents the only piece of floating trash within view; it is either hold fast to this sad, shallow, stinking, rotten, putrefying scrap of soggy flotsam or just give up and drown in a bottomless pool of suppurating shit.
It is an act of desperation, not of fandom or enthusiasm or support, and how is that not perfectly obvious to everyone? I have been saying the same thing here for a very long time: elect another Republican president and within their term democracy will end in America and the whole world will be plunged into the abyss, a nightmare of death and destruction that will take 50 generations to dig out of - if we don’t die off as a species in the meantime. Elect a Democrat and we still have a slim chance of survival; not much, but some is better than none. What part of that actually sounds like an “Obama supporter” to you?
I appreciate your honesty here…However, merely snarking at thousands of volunteers, millions of voters, millions of dollars, dozens of states, and the courts doesn’t explain to me why you think primaries, caucuses and the popular vote don’t count.
I am at a bit of a loss as to how I might be clearer. I am not snarking. I am being honest and forthright and truthful and sincere and accurate. The difficulty is that you are holding on to an illusion created by the powerful to deceive you into thinking that the presidential primaries are a participatory event, available to the general public; they are not.
The pool of possible candidates is already winnowed by the financial sieve of lower-level political processes to those who are part of the inside cabal. Those insiders are split into factions. In this cycle, neither of the two most powerful factions wanted anyone who was not a solidly right of center conservative, so there went Dodd and Kucinich and eventually Edwards. With the voters showing no massive difference in enthusiasm between Obama and Clinton and thus providing no stark advantage to tap either way in fundraising or potential GOV enthusiasm, the dominant faction eventually settled on Obama as the most promising and began the process of tipping the nomination in his favor.
Clinton’s tenacity – or more accurately I think her unwillingness to concede that she had lost the insider struggle and an Ickes-inspired courageous but doomed last gasp at attaining victory through the R&B Committee where the Clintonistas thought they could seize control – forced the DNC power brokers to show the iron fist beneath the velvet glove. You and many others were shocked by these events; I was not. The real power for the nomination process is in the hands of the insiders within the DNC; they do risk, ever so slightly, a revolt every time the Convention opens but for the intervening four years they are in total control. Open your eyes.
Drop the “so so sweet” comments too—although in this context it gave me a chuckle
Then what’s your problem? It was simply a small joke, a long-established bon mot intended to lighten this insufferable constant tension and anger.
I think using that phrase is ill-advised in an election season where many Hillary supporters are being treated like sweeties.
Oh, the poow widdew dewicate fwowwers; did the mean mean man say a mean mean word? For hell’s sakes. Now the word police are going to ban the use of “sweet” because it is a root for “sweetie” and “sweetie” makes them oh so furious! You’re off into niggardly country here, TruthPartisan.
What some people have chosen to do is what I suggested when this story first broke, and that’s start calling each other “Sweetie” all the time. Own the word, make it a positive, and take away the ability for anyone to use it as an insult. Obama, of course, did not mean it as a derogatory, but the MSM and the Obamaphobics sure whipped it up into one. People all over the country say “Sweetie” and “Darling” and “Honey” in everyday conversation without a thought being given to it by either the speaker or the recipient. Comes out of Obama’s mouth, though, and Whoa Nellie; condemnation is mandatory.
Here’s the thing about me; I’m going to keep on writing and speaking as I wish, and if anyone has an actual problem with what I say I want them to take it up with me directly right here in comments. I figure everyone here is adult enough to handle that. How about you join me in honoring them by accepting that they can do that all on their own and don’t need you to speak for them, m’kay?
Again, I assume your purpose here is snark but are you really snarking at Hillary supporters generally too?
No; that was directed specifically and individually at you.
If false accusations about political leanings and complaints about word fragments are all you’ve got, you’re out of gas here. If you can come up with something substantive, by all means come back. Until then….
werewolves on scooters
warren zevon pastiche? but it would sure take care of a few problems.
an odd corner of the universe, one where the proprietor doesn’t always keep up with the conversations, but does appreciate the utility of rocks, both as weapons and as hideouts.
back when i did that sort of thing, this was one of my favorite hangouts. their specialty was diesel fuel, limit 2. i have no idea what the ingredients were, but it tasted about like what you’d expect, given the name. fortunately i lived within walking distance of the place. also fortunately, i no longer have to prove that i can drink anyone under the table.
With the voters showing no massive difference in enthusiasm between Obama and Clinton and thus providing no stark advantage to tap either way in fundraising or potential GOV enthusiasm, the dominant faction eventually settled on Obama as the most promising and began the process of tipping the nomination in his favor.
a quibble: i think the “tipping the nomination in his favor” started at least as far back as 2006, probably earlier, but it would take me a whole ’nother post to wrap it all up in tin foil for ya. sweetie.
speaking of which, calling someone sweetie, or any other diminutive, in a professional venue is [oh gee!] unprofessional, particularly if you don’t already know them. obama might really go around calling everyone sweetie, even mike tyson [i’d pay to see that], but it’s too often true that men take this liberty with women but not with other men.
Have I mentioned how much I hate rules?
Every time ya turn around somebody’s got some more rules, buckets and bushels and barrels and casks full of rules, made up and fantasized and pulled flaming out of their butts and every single damn one of them designed to constrain, restrain, detain and beat down any kind of freedom or creativity or openness or hope of ever drawing a single flipping breath without a long line of rule-makers telling you how long to hold it and how long you will have to wait until you can take another one or else somebody somewhere somehow might possibly feel offended.
Have I mentioned how much I hate rules?
How is Sweetie a diminutive in any but a strict grammatical sense? How is it defined such that it connotes any negative meaning? I fail to find a single reference in any dictionary or wordlist that shows Sweetie to be anything other than a term of endearment, the strength of which is determined by the actual closeness of the relationship. It can be used as easily between strangers as lovers, and while generally employed between opposite genders it is not exclusively so.
I’ve been called Sweetie and Honey and Darlin’ and Baby and Sugar I have no idea how many times, by women who were complete strangers and in every kind of setting imaginable, and never once felt demeaned or diminished by it. Why would I? I am all of those things, and damn proud of it.
And this whole business of how somebody else some other time and place may have used some word in some derogatory way, so I am supposed to never, ever, ever again use that same word? Or words that sound like it? How’s that going to work then, because we’re going to run out of words we can still use in a great big hurry.
That’s just complete nonsense, defies belief, that the same word used in different contexts must always carry the same meaning. There goes the whole glory of the langage, no more poetry, no more song, no more puns, no more jokes, no more James flaming Joyce, no more communication beyong grunts and pretty soon there will be rules about them too. “You grunted just like my old boyfriend used to, I know what that means!”
People are far to eager to lay the blame for their own feelings on others. Used as it was, Obama to my mind had no intent whatsoever of being disrespectful or damaging or hurtful. I see it as nothing more than another example of the hypercritical fetishism that has permeated this campaign on both sides, that fastens on every scrap of narrative and works it up into a lather over nothing at all. A huge waste of time and energy that has no bearing on anything of any meaning, but is rather a way to distract and deflect and avoid dealing with the many very serious isues before us. I have no use for it.
I don’t care if the next president is the biggest jerk to ever walk the face of the earth, I don’t care if they eat newborn lambs for breakfast, I don’t care a lick about anything other than they aren’t running with an “R” after their name. Call me Simple; that is the only thing that matters to me.
The rocks require some ritual password thingie in order to play. Another chore. I feel demeaned.