July 27, 2004
The Democratic National Convention - Day 1
As Christopher Walken’s SNL character, The Continental, would say, ‘Wow-weee, Wow, Wow, Wow!’
If this is the kind of tightly scripted, impact achieving sort of prime-time Convention that the DNC’s Terry McCauliffe has in store for the next three days, the other networks may consider breaking into their steady stream of reality shows and mid-summer replacements!
I only checked in with the Fox News coverage briefly, twice, to find a brave Illinois Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, and it looks like the network’s floor reporters have been outfitted with the same apparatus I saw on Dan Rather at the Dem Convention of ’68, in Chicago. And, it did not go unnoticed that CNN is obviously the party’s cable news outfit of choice, given their Jack Nicholson-like perch on the Convention floor for Wolf Blitzer and Larry King.
And, I’m back to pundit-hating MSNBC’s Chris Matthews! There he sat with his rating’s bottom dwelling partner Joe Scarborough, trying to massage and manufacture controversy at every break. Yes, Teresa Heinz Kerry forgot that she did use the word ‘un-American’, but not in the context that the partisan Pittsburgh reporter was fishing for. But, Matthews would not let it go, and I swear it crawled at the bottom of his network’s feed every ten seconds, for an hour. Mr. Hardball continues to prove that his appeasement of the Right, and by not fessing up to the credibility of the Democrat’s case (and what his fans expect), is the basis of his unpopularity.
I’m guessing all the leading lights of the Bush/Cheney press attack squad, were lounging in Fox News’ Convention Green room. I actually saw one, second-stringer RNC mouthpiece describe the Bush administration’s policy on CNN, as ‘progressive’. It was a tough nite for a dour and grumpy Sen. Bob Dole, as he weighed in after every speech from an undisclosed CNN location. Yet, it was nice to see him comment honestly as to the impressive nature of the night’s speeches, then recover nicely for a number of funny zingers, that he is known for.
From the day John Kerry morphed into the ‘presumptive nominee’, media pundits and desperate Republicans never failed to point to polls of American voters expressing unfamiliarity with the Senator. And, as if on cue, they would then insist that his Convention acceptance speech would become that much more crucial, if not his last chance. However, tonight’s impressive showing by the Dems illustrates a key element, that they may have overlooked or discounted.
And that is, what effect the other 10 hours of Convention coverage over four days, will have on voters. From the beginning of the Howard Dean candidacy, arrogant Republicans (unchallenged by a pliable media) dismissed an energizing Democratic Party base as a bunch of radical Liberal Bush haters, safely sequestered in cyberspace. Now, America is getting a good look as to what all the fuss was about.
From what I’ve gleamed, all of tonight’s speeches were vetted thru the DNC and the Kerry/Edwards camp – with the exception of President Carter’s and President Clinton’s speeches. If the move of those in charge was to not shy away from direct (and numerous) criticism of this administration’s tenure, but, rarely mention Bush by name – brilliant move! Unfortunately, for the Republicans now, it takes the ‘Bush’ out of the soundbite, yet in no way weakens the message, or who it’s aimed at!
I saw two speakers deliver the most impressive messages I’ve seen from them, ever – Al Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton. In less than 25 minutes, they dispelled any air of politically rivalry and competition - wishful notion Conservative pundits have been trying to make stick since the beginning of this campaign. And, only a Robert Novak would disagree, that they clearly evoked the passion and seriousness of mission that has clearly energized the Democratic Party. With levity and self-deprecation, the importance of this election has also figured into true closure for Al Gore. Then, Hillary’s speech made me start figuring out what year, in sets of fours’, may be her year.
With evidence of true wisdom, the most unlikely speech of the night would be that of former President Jimmy Carter. With the forcefulness of a leader who has learned from similar difficulties we now face, his clarity should not, and cannot, be lost on the American electorate.
The Republicans amended the Constitution in 1951 (22nd Amendment), in order to prevent Franklin Roosevelt’s hold on the White House from ever being repeated. It is possible, that this will be the only comfort today’s GOP can salvage from this evening.
Just as assured one could be of a Micheal Jordan performance returning from his first retirement, Bubba, the Big Creep, Slick Willie, or as we’ll never forget, the 42nd President, did not disappoint. Just as tonight’s speakers offered up funny and poignant soundbites to choose from, the first Black President supplied the powerfully effective ones. Four years ago, the Republicans worked hard to lower expectations, when it came to the man who gave you the ‘seven minute freeze out’. And, they are working just as hard today, to raise the bar that John Kerry (compared to Clinton) will never surpass, as was their plan all along.
When we finally arrive at Kerry’s acceptance speech on Thursday night, if this evening is any indication, the American voters will have no choice, but to take the Democratic Party in the context of not just one man.
Cause, it took just one man to get us into this mess, and clearly it will take what the Democrats are offering as a whole, to get us out.
Posted by Bert M. Caradine at July 27, 2004 04:57 PMGreat article. I loved the first night. It has to be particularly galling to the Republicans to have Carter - the peace president - tell them they don’t know how to do foreign policy.
The Teresa Kerry “controversy” is completely absurd. Jon Stewart chastized the media for it in an interview with Tom Brokaw. He wanted the media to focus entirely on the candidate’s wives and whether they are “loose cannons”. Stewart said he saw Teresa Heinz kill a hobo with her bare hands. Naturally, Brokaw didn’t get it.
All the speakers that night pointed out the failings of the current administration: Carter, Gore, and both Clintons (Hillary sounded particularly presidential, though I think she’s got some competition in Barak Obama). Then they talked about uniting Americans and working together to bring back the golden age we had four years ago. It was inspiring.
Too bad the media doesn’t do a very good job of covering the event. I guess it cuts into their profits, and they have a hard time spinning it if the public is actually seeing it for themselves.
Bert:
The Dem convention is a smooth running show, though its as I expected it to be. They are doing a decent job of transforming themselves from the “Bush Lied!!” group to one that appears much more sanguine and less radical. That’s going to help them with those that havent seen the other side of them…though I predict we havent seen the last of the “Bush Lied” stuff yet. I predict it reappears later in the campaign as Kerry loses steam. (Relax, its just my prediction—-we’ll see if it comes to pass or not).
I agree with you on Clinton—what a speaker. I dont like the guy or what he stands for, but boy can he connect. Carter on the other hand was a mistake, in my opinion. Having a guy with possibly the worst foreign policy disaster in a long time giving advice on foreign policy….not good. And he’s the architect of the KETO agreement with North Korea that failed in spectacular fashion, yet he derides the Bush strategy over there.
I find it interesting that you stand up for Heinz Kerry by saying the following:
Yes, Teresa Heinz Kerry forgot that she did use the word ‘un-American’, but not in the context that the partisan Pittsburgh reporter was fishing for.
I dont know you YOU know what the guy was fishing for. I’ve seen the clip, and when she said she didnt say “un-American” (though of course she did), the ONLY question he asked was, “Well, what DID you say?” That’s not exactly a leading question, but rather one that gave her the opportunity to say what she had said.
Now, was he fishing?? If he’s any kind of reporter, of course he was. Any reporter that isnt fishing for information or a story isnt really a reporter, now is he?
Heinz Kerry blew it…I dont think its a big deal, nor do I much care about it. Its relatively well known that she has a temper, and that she’s a bit of a loose cannon, but sooooo what. Now if she had hauled off and slugged him, THAT would be a story!. But it was kinda funny given that her speech was on dignity and getting along and all. Rather ironic.
> I dont know you YOU know what the guy was
> fishing for. I’ve seen the clip, and when
> she said she didnt say “un-American” (though
> of course she did)
I saw the clip, too, and your characterization of it is not quite accurate. The initial part of the exchange goes something like this:
Reporter: “[unintelligible] un-American?”
Heinz Kerry: “I didn’t say that.”
Does anyone know what he said in the [unintelligible] part? I certainly couldn’t tell and I watched it a couple of times. He might have said “What did you mean when you said ‘un-American’?”… but he also might have said “What did you mean when you said that Republicans were un-American?” In the latter case, she would be perfectly justified in criticising the reporter.
None of us know what he said when he first spoke to her except him and Heinz Kerry.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 28, 2004 04:00 PMChris:
But we ALL know that when the reporter asked, “Well, what DID you say?”, he didnt get an answer now did he. We also hear Heinz Kerry saying that she did not say the words “un-American” and”activities”, though of course we also hear her saying “un-American traits”.
And yet here you are basing your argument on what you DIDNT hear. Lets just stick with the facts that we DO know. She says she didnt say un-American, but we know she DID say it. End of story, using facts and proof, not innuenedo and what-ifs.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 29, 2004 07:52 AMHey joe, did you hear that Teresa Heinz Kerry killed a hobo with her bare hands?
If this is the best Republicans can do to try to distract America from the message of hope coming out of the Democratic convention, then Bush had better start thinking about where he’ll move next after he closes up his Potempkin ranch next January.
AP:
Note how I stuck with the factual basis of the situation, and you come up with an inane attempt to steer AWAY from facts? What Heinz Kerry said is on tape—for everyone to see.
Note also my initial comments about Heinz Kerry:
Heinz Kerry blew it…I dont think its a big deal, nor do I much care about it. Its relatively well known that she has a temper, and that she’s a bit of a loose cannon, but sooooo what. Now if she had hauled off and slugged him, THAT would be a story!. But it was kinda funny given that her speech was on dignity and getting along and all. Rather ironic.
You see, I tried to neither play up her comments nor attempt to protect her from her comments. I merely said they happened and were a bit ironic in light of the speech she had given.
Its hard to fathom how you and others are attempting to take my even handed comments and twist them. You must feel some need to protect at all costs your Democratic hopefuls.
The point is that it wasnt a high point for Theresa, but its not the end of the world either. But lets not say that she didnt say what she did.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 29, 2004 11:18 AM> when the reporter asked, “Well, what DID you
> say?”, he didnt get an answer now did he.
So what?
> We also hear Heinz Kerry saying that she did
> not say the words “un-American”
…
> She says she didnt say un-American, but we
> know she DID say it.
That is patently false. And even though you wrote it twice, it’s still false. She merely said, over and over again, “I didn’t say that.” What “that” refers to is unintelligible.
It’s amazing. You are simply hearing what you want to hear. The fact is that neither of us heard the most important part of the exchange, so the entire issue is moot. The fact that you even brought it up in the first place totally undermines your contention that you are being “even handed” about it.
> And yet here you are basing your argument on
> what you DIDNT hear.
I know you are but what am I?
Seriously, all I was doing was pointing out that the most important facts are missing so NO legitimate argument can possibly be made on the issue either way. You, on the other hand, are assuming that the reporter either said (a) something totally benign or (b) something factually accurate in his initial question, but in fact you DIDN’T hear what he said at all.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 12:41 PMThks for the kudos AP…
And, thanks Chris for having my back vs. joebagodonuts!
I’m now well aware that the number of Comment posts to my WB entries are not a negative indication of it’s worth. Although, I am curious as to how many visitors actually read it.
I’d like to think that my close attention to clarity and source, leave no openings for detractors, although I know of at least 3 posters here having scores to settle.
During the Republican Convention, look for at least one entry from this WB Editor. And, I will vow to be just as detailed and specific.
Its like having to play all 7 World Series games in your opponent’s ballpark!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 30, 2004 12:12 AMChristopher:
You need to check out the taped version of what Teresa says. She specifically says, and I quote:
“I did not say ‘activity’ or ‘un-American’. Those are your words”
Check the tape out for yourself. She is VERY VERY clear about what “that” means, or are you going to now refer us to the meaning of is. Lets not go down that Democratic rabbit hole again. Here is the link for the taped version.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/26/politics/main631914.shtml
Christopher, in your rabid attempts to glorify Teresa somehow, you wont even allow the truth to show that she is a real person. She’s feisty, which can be a good trait. I actually LIKE her opinionated nature….I just dont agree with some of her opinions.
But to try to cover up what she said by resorting to Clintonian grammar games is really beyond the pale.
As I said, watch the tape yourself. Once you have done so, even you will see that there is no room to discuss what she said.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 30, 2004 11:13 AMHey joe, did you hear that Teresa Heinz Kerry killed a hobo with her bare hands? :)
Christopher:
I’m not really surprised that you have chosen to remain silent in the face of the facts that show your statements to be absolutely wrong.
AP:
Apparently you have failed to either read or to grasp my comments. Either way, I’ll leave your comedy stylings for the next “Last Comic Standing”.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 2, 2004 06:52 AMSorry joe. Sarcasm doesn’t come through too well in text mode. My point is, even though you’ve said you believe the incident is no big deal, you’re still harping on it. Let it go.
I’m back to pundit-hating MSNBC’s Chris Matthews!
Bert, I actually think he’s pretty funny. He used to be a Democrat, but in the 90s you didn’t make money as a pundit unless you were a Clinton basher. Matthews has been very up front about the fact that he’s just in it for the ratings.
Having said that, I’m pretty disappointed in the actual news coverage. Reporters should report. Leave creating controversy to the pundits.
