Conventional Wisdom

I didn't watch the whole Democratic National Convention. I skipped over Monday and Tuesday nights, mostly due to the fact that if I stay up until eleven I'm ruined the next day. But I did keep my eyes pried open to watch Joe Biden's speech on Wednesday and Barack Obama last night.

I'm kind of sorry I missed Hillary Clinton's speech, I hear it was good, and she did the right thing for her party by unequivocally calling for her supporters to turn to Obama. One of the most infuriating bits of residue from the primary season is the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) contingent, the Hillary delegates who have engaged in a prolonged pout about her not winning nor being selected as a running mate. Of course it's lunacy for anyone that believes is what Hillary stands for to even think about voting for John McCain, and I'm glad Hillary pointed that out. I think as we get closer to November 4th the remaining PUMAs will become marginalized, much like members of the Flat-Earth Society.

On Wednesday night Bill Clinton did his part, and I think it was the best speech I saw. Like an old knuckle-baller baffling opposing batters, Clinton reminded everyone of how effective he was sixteen years ago in taking down a president who at one time had a ninety-percent approval rating. He laid out in effective and folksy fashion why McCain is the wrong choice and Obama the right one.

As for Biden's speech, it lacked some of the rhetorical flourishes I might have expected, and was more a kitchen-sink affair, with a direct appeal to blue-collar voters. I've admired Biden tremendously for years, and was an early supporter of his in the 1988 campaign, so I'm thrilled he's on the ticket. He's always struck me as an authentic politician, true to his beliefs (although he apparently has carried a lot of water for the credit card industry, who are huge in Delaware). He has to appeal to white Catholic voters, who always back the eventual winner of a presidential election.

As for Mr. Obama's speech, it was not what I expected. It wasn't literary so much as a litany of proposals. He answered the call to be more specific, spelling out over two-dozen different examples of what exactly he will do as president. He also was feisty, spending more time attacking his opponent than usual in these sorts of things. While this speech didn't have any particularly Bartlett's-ready quotes, I think it was utilitarian and probably helped some.

I viewed these proceedings on C-Span, and thank god for that. No commercials, and no kibitzing by an army of self-styled experts talking over each other, telling us how we should react. Whether it's Keith Olbermann on the zany left or Sean Hannity on the troglodyte right, I'm sick and tired of the spin and blather that these chatterers regurgitate on television. In a moment of weakness, I turned to PBS after Obama's speech, thinking I might hear some reasonable commentary. After some hyperbole by "presidential historian" Michael Beschloss, who proclaimed Obama's speech better than John F. Kennedy's 1960 acceptance speech, William F. Buckley acolyte David Brooks proved to be the skunk at the garden party, criticizing almost everything about the speech except Obama's choice of necktie. Richard Norton Smith, a historian who is a through-and-through Republican (he was perhaps Gerald Ford's greatest fan) had a nice riposte for Brooks, saying roughly that though the speech may not be some day carved in granite, it doesn't matter if he gets to make an inaugural address. Amen!