DNC Convention

I plan to miss most of the Democratic convention this week, as I did the RNC last week.  I expect it will be just as full of bluster and useless hyperbole as the RNC convention.

One of the hosts on MSNBC said that he thought the conventions were still worthwhile, even after both parties have already chosen their nominees, because a "rather large number" of voters did not follow the primary campaigns and the conventions are their first chance to see and compare the parties' nominees.

If there's any hint of truth in that, I say god help them.

Whoa.  Paul Simon performing "Bridge Over Troubled Water", he looks like he's been on a five-year drinking binge and sounds like it too.  Last time I saw him in concert, a few years ago, he looked and sounded great.  What happened to him?  He's sounding and looking awful.

Yipes. This is a "Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair" moment.

Hell, Simon is 74 years old. What do you expect?

Saw Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders speak last night. Both were great.

The fucking crowd went wild for Sanders. Thought the applause would never stop. I actually had time to wash the dinner dishes while the crowd was greeting Sanders. I doubt that Clinton will get that kind of reception.

I saw Monday night's speeches by Cory Booker, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren and I fell asleep during Bernie Sanders.

I thought Michelle's speech was fabulous. "Every morning I wake up in a house built by slaves." Wow. If First Ladies later running for President becomes a thing, she'd be a good second example.

Elizabeth Warren has been better. But she did a good job of cutting Trump down to size, and I hope the campaign utilizes her for more of this until November.

Bernie.... Bernie.... Bernie who? Al Franken was asked about Hillary and Senator Sanders and he said, "I know them both, I've worked with both of them, I like them both. But Hillary is the one who can get stuff done." There's some truth to that -- I liked Sanders' idealism, but the prospect of him working with Congress to get anything done would require A. a new Congress and B. a new mindset for the new Congress and C. a country united behind the new political agenda, such as Roosevelt had -- which we do not have today.

Politics is dirty. Compromise is dirty. Hillary is a dirty fighter and is more likely to compromise her way to at least SOME of the progressive agenda. Bernie would aim for the moon and get nowhere.

I don't expect Clinton to make much of an attempt at making the financial laws more progressive.

Yes, Clinton has a better chance of doing some small things. BFD. I would rather have someone who will at least try to do something significant.

Obamacare is going to struggle as both Congress and their paymasters try to break it. If Clinton can make enough changes to keep the idea of a universal system alive in the US, I'll be well pleased, even if she can't do anything else.

_Howard wrote:

Hell, Simon is 74 years old. What do you expect?

Are you going to be a drooling mumbling idiot in 3 years?

Oh. Wait.

You're very close to being correct, I'm afraid.
But your math is off; it's just a hair over two years.

This year's "virtual" convention has been both a lot more fun and shown some creative genius.  The roll call last night, featuring native landscapes and people-of-note, was brilliant.  Michelle Obama's speech Monday night will be studied the same way the Gettysburg Address is studied (I don't think I'm overstating).

Of course, conventions don't change minds.  They're rah-rah pep rallies for the initiated.

Quote :

A St Louis couple pictured pointing guns at BLM protesters will speak at the Republican convention next week, alongside Nick Sandmann, a student whose confrontation with a Native American activist in Washington DC went viral last year.

I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but I see a cognitive dissonance when the Dems talk about Joe Biden’s faith in god in one breath, and talk about his COVID policy being guided by science in the next breath.

When will it be okay to be an openly-atheist politician?

Ex-presidents are usually bound by precedent to not disparage their successor, but Obama said last night that four more years of Trump would be "the end of democracy in the US." That's pretty stark stuff.

Both Barack and Michelle have walked a tightrope in their speeches.  They're the "we go high" couple when the opposition goes low.  Therefore they couldn't disparage Trump as a moron or an idiot -- even though that's obvious -- so their speeches said "he is not up to the job."  "He hasn't tried," "he refuses to put in the work."  By making it about his BEHAVIOR, rather than his CHARACTER, they soften the blow and make it less personal.

I thought both speeches were masterful.

Trump's response? "HE SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, AND GOT CAUGHT!"  That means Bill Barr will be bringing charges, "Trumped"-up charges, next month regarding the alleged spying.  Which of course, federal prosecutors have already looked at, in detail, and said were perfectly appropriate in light of the fact Paul Manafort was colluding with a Russian GRU operative Konstantin Kilimnik, to make foreign policy before the official transition.  That's illegal.

I.e., when Trump/Barr push these charges in September, hoping to skew the election, the response from the Obama administration needs only to be the above.  Then when the orange rodeo clown is out of office, he can explain why publicizing his crimes was such a good idea.

I take it back.  I'd like to be around to see this.

VERY nice segment by a 13-year old kid who stutters. Talked about how Joe talked to him and gave him tricks to overcome it in public speaking.

I’m still not in love with Joe, but he’s a much better choice, and I think he will actually improve things.  He’s facing impossible odds though.

Biden says Trump is waiting for a miracle to defeat the COVID virus. “Mr President, no miracle is coming.”  Ye-ow!

And Julia Louis-Dreyfus was hilarious.

NoCoPilot wrote:

VERY nice segment by a 13-year old kid who stutters. Talked about how Joe talked to him and gave him tricks to overcome it in public speaking.

Chris Cillizza, of CNN, wrote:

Brayden Harrington: Maybe it's because I have a son around Brayden's age. Maybe it's because I know how hard it is to be a kid who stands out for anything. Maybe it's because I can't even imagine the bravery it takes as a 13-year-old with a stutter to stand up in front of a camera -- and knowing that tens of millions of people will see it -- and talk about a struggle you have and how you are working to overcome it. But I cried during most of his speech -- and for a while afterward. I will remember that speech for a very, very long time.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/08/21/brayden-harrington-dnc-2020-speech-full-video-vpx.cnn

Contrast this with Trump making fun of a reporter with a disability. Dems should play the two clips side by side all during the RNC convention.

This year's convention has been -- so far -- comparable only to the Obama convention in '08.  The energy in the air is palpable.

The message, from almost all speakers (but especially Michelle Obama who gave another barnburner last night) has been the same: Democrats are the party of inclusion and coalition.  Republicans are the party of exclusion and division.  In a way it's not a political message, it's an elaboration of the real difference the parties now evince.  Minority rule -- of old white men -- is only sustainable if the OWM somehow keep the majority of non-OWM from voting.

There have been several really smart, really memorable moments in the first two days.

• Kamala Harris appearing onstage, unscripted, to open the convention.  This perfectly encapsulates what kind of president she will be: unconventional.  Bold.  Surprising. Expectation shattering.
  
• Doug Emhoff's personal tribute to his wife last night had me alternatively crying and laughing out loud.  His obvious love and respect for her led the MSNBC commentators to call him the new model for men married to more powerful women.
  
• The Obamas of course.  Superstars.  They weren't all rah-rah, but laid out the realistic prospect of the fight ahead against Russian / Republican disinformation, and the likely missteps from our candidates, and the requirement of pulling disaffected voters off their couches. [She would have made a great candidate...]
  
• Jamie Raskin slamming the "Banana Republicans" for wanting a dictatorship.
  
• Hillary Clinton, whose bittersweet  speech reflected her disappointment at not being the one to break the glass ceiling (despite receiving 6 million more votes), but anxious to see Kamala make that milestone.  Her final cry, "The future is here," should be Kamala's new slogan.
  
• Raphael Warnock's sermon was a masterful example of the power of well-crafted words.  Very stirring & inspirational.
  
• The willingness by Clinton & Obama to poke fun at themselves is something you could never imagine from Trump.
  
• The testimonies by three brave women impacted by Trump's abortion ban were moving, powerful and well-told.  
  
• AOC displayed again why she's the future of the Democratic party.
  
• Former Trump press secretary Stephanie Grisham saying Trump told her if you say a lie enough times, people start to believe it. Very Orwellian, very Soviet. Her remarks need to be made into an ad running on FNC.
  
• Ex-presidents and former cabinet officials come out to endorse the Democratic ticket. Meanwhile, most of Trump's cabinet (including his VP) are not endorsing him and many are openly warning against a 2nd term.
  

There have also been a few lowlights:

• Old man Biden was allowed to drone on way too long, going over the same old talking points, sounding weak, falling back on tired catch phrases ("Folks, I'm not kidding...")
  
• Too often the assembled crowd is allowed to break into chants.  Crowd chants are unbecoming.  Mob mentality.  Lower IQs.  Simplistic jingoism (contrast to the Obamas).
  
• Off the convention floor, commentators trying to read some symbolism into Kamala's choice of a tan pantsuit.  I mean, really?  Aren't we a little past that sort of thing?
  

Gosh, what are the chances that Harris could actually win?

I'd say pretty good now, if she doesn't fuck up in the next 75 days.

Fact-checking Harris's speech:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/22/politics/fact-check-democratic-national-convention-night-four/index.html

I wish CNN allowed comments. Senior correspondent Daniel Dale repeats Trump's assertion that Project 2025 is not his document, but the lying sack of shit almost certainly will follow it to the letter because he has no other agenda and it was written by his policy wonks.

Dale explains that SCOTUS gave him (and let's not forget, Biden & Harris too!) absolute immunity for any actions taken as part of their "official duties"--which remains undefined. But in fact, Trump has tried to bend that imprecision to include acts he took even BEFORE he was president, so it's fair to assume he'll feel unbound by any guardrails on his behavior.

CNN themselves need to be fact-checked. You cannot rely on the statements of a serial liar.