As this place goes, I'm pretty moderate/social liberal. My role around here tends to be to tell people to stop foaming at the mouth about the media (not biased, but lazy), and to defend unduly anointed trolls. Which is not to say I don't hate Bush as much as anyone else. Just look at my comment history, you'll see that. But I usually figure there's enough other people commenting about that. I tend not to cheerlead at all, and I'm usually extremely cautious in my optimism (some would call it pessimism :-)).
I didn't think Edwards' speech was very good. I thought Obama was pretty good, but not other-worldly. Dean was disappointing. I thought Sharpton was screaming too much. I always love the Big Dog. I also have not liked Kerry since the debates. Yes, I was another Dean guy, and if you go back to December, you can see a lot of nasty shit I wrote about Kerry then.
So, all that said, let me say right now ... John Kerry fuckin' NAILED IT last night. And here's why I think so.
No, it wasn't perfect, but, then again, what speech since Martin Luther King has been perfect? I don't spread around superlatives like that lightly, and so just because it wasn't perfect is not a negative. Perfect is practically impossible. I had nitpicks.
The night before, I watched Edwards' speech from my bedroom. Ho-hum. Last night, I decided to change the luck. I watched it downstairs from my couch. I pumped my fist and tried to send telepathic psych-up messages to Kerry through my TV, like I'd do to my favorite team during the Stanley Cup playoffs. It worked.
I noticed his "rushed" pace right away, but unlike others, I didn't see it as a negative, and I don't think he rushed because of time constraints. I don't really like the "pause to soak in the applause" mentality. Just keep going. It did, however, trip up Kerry a couple times because he was a little unsure how long to wait. But I preferred it that way.
Most of all, when I watch speeches like this, I think about it in terms of how the rest of America will look at it. Not the people he's already won over, but the people who can be persuaded. I used to have many of the same feelings about politics that more moderately right-leaning people have, so I think I know the kinds of things they want to hear.
I don't like hollow, empty rhetoric either. The feel good kind of stuff that the "base" eats up. That's really what I felt Edwards' speech was. Actually, the part I hated the most about Kerry's speech was the beginning, "reporting for duty." That's just too cheesy. That's the kind of canned stuff that I think undecided voters just hate.
But it went on, and it got better. Way better. In fact, I was stunned. I really did always believe, actually, that Kerry would rise to the occasion when necessary. What I was moreso stunned by was the tone of the entire thing. He did not pull punches. Sure he had to be somewhat political in how he phrased things, especially the tax stuff, and in making sure to emphasize "strength." But his tough -- and truthful -- attacks on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, the Saudis and junk science were on target.
In fact, as I watching, I made a note to myself .... "He's sounding positively Dean-like." Maybe that's just me projecting that because Dean was my guy, but his messages on many topics sure sounded a lot like Dean's old stump speeches. And you know what, if that's the case, fine. Let Kerry co-opt the good parts of the old Doctor, and add in the Vietnam Veteran stuff, and voila, a candidate that will kick ass and deliver the goods in November. Fine with me. John Kerry, you are officially sponge-worthy.
To specifics:
His first really great line was when he talked about "I see the complexities." He acknowledged his critics -- which I always believe is a fundamental rhetorical tactic -- and then shot it down. We all wish he could've been more specific in what he meant by it, but it sufficiently cut into the republican talking points against Kerry. Kerry went on to say he'll make sure "facts are never distorted by politics." Good stuff.
As an aside, I often get into maddening discussions with people who are convinced that "politicians are politicians and they all lie, how is Bush any different." Well, sure, politics is always played in politics -- there are political strategies that are waged in order to get the public to go along with things you want. But what the republicans do today is NOT the same. Don't just poo-poo it away as "well, they all do that" ... what is done today by this administration goes way beyond politics. It's cynical and systematic in dismissing facts for self-interests. That's not the same as playing politics in order to get something thru that might be unpopular but that you genuinely think is better in the long run. These people just dismiss facts for self-interests.
I actually wish Kerry would say something like this. It acknowledges what many people feel about politics, then explains why this is worse.
One place where Kerry really excelled at this was by saying he'll wage a "smarter more effective war -- there's a right way and a wrong way -- strength is more than tough words." These are perfect phrases. Again, a common theme of mine is acknowledging the root of middle America's discontent with either or both parties, and addressing it head on, then breaking it down. He does so here, and it's crucial. Most Americans, and even most true blue democrats, are not against war when necessary. Criticizing Iraq policy is not for pacifist reasons. Not even close. But we need to be smarter. Plain and simple.
"We want an America that's looked up to, not just feared ..." In this whole section, Kerry really was sounding very Dean-like. It's too bad pundits never realized this is exactly what Dean was saying, instead of branding him as a whacko-lefty who is anti-ALL-war. But whatever.
Contrast this to Edwards' over-the-top comments that sounded hollow and phony.
Next: Kerry says, "It's not pessimism when Americans stand up and say 'we can do better.'" I thought this was an absolutely fabulous way of framing the political dissent of the left. Often around here, we talk about how dissent is patriotic. And it is. And we talk about how Americans should "tolerate dissent."
Well Kerry turned the whole thing on its ear. He's saying the exact same thing, but in a much more bulletproof way. Instead of saying "tolerate dissent," Kerry said, "hey, we're just saying that we can do better - what's unpatriotic about that?" We're not "dissenting" -- we're "suggesting we can do better." Brilliant.
The next great line ... talking about saving $50,000 a year to pay for kids in jail, when all it would cost is $10,000 in head start. This has the added benefit of being absolutely true. I think Americans understand "preventive medicine" so to speak. It's a big deal in actual healthcare these days, and it's also true in other realms.
Once again, you don't just spout out policies that get all the lefties going, "yeah, yeah, yeah." Middle America has the impression that democrats want to just tax and spend. Go right after that and explain why we believe that spending $10,000 saves $40,000. Amazingly simple, but it's also amazing how often politicians don't acknowledge that.
Finally, the line about Lincoln -- wherever he got it from -- was just flat out awesome. 'Pray humbly that we are on god's side.' Use that all the time. This comes from a completely non-religious person. That was the perfect way to do it and to say it, and it quotes LINCOLN -- a republican -- to boot. BRAVO!
And I never thought I'd hear Springsteen, U2 and Van Halen sandwich a politican acceptance speech. When we get to Metallica, that will be really cool.
PART II: WHY I DIDN'T LIKE EDWARDS' SPEECH
It's possible he's been better elsewhere, and I actually have really liked Edwards since the debates. But this speech -- for whatever reason (intentionally toning it down, lowering expectations, whatever -- just didn't do it for me. The Two Americas thing just doesn't resonate with me. Maybe the way he did it on the stump was better.
This really ties into what I said about about Kerry ... Americans like to believe they are in a higher income class than they are, and/or they aspire to be in that class. Class warfare-like arguments I don't believe work with middle America, and that is who we are trying to reach here.
It's not good enough to say we'll do this, this and this for middle class people. A better case needs to be made for why it's OK to roll back taxes for the upper income classes. Even though John Edwards says it's only going to affect 2% of Americans, I believe that most people in Middle America are sitting there thinking "Yeah, but why should they be singled out - they earned it." At the very least, they are uncomfortable singling anyone out, even though it's not them. It sounds anti-making-money. Just because he attacked only 2% of the country, doesn't mean it wasn't an attack on certain people.
Now, we understand the nuances of the argument against that statement. But middle America is sitting there saying that. They don't feel comfortable arguing against 2% of the country.
I believe John Edwards - et al - should speak right to those 2% ... Something like this:
"Now let me just say to those 2% of the people ... we are not against you. We have nothing against the money you made. We have nothing against business. ... Nobody likes taxes. We all wish we could keep more of our money. .... The issue simply is, some people have more money than others. Some have a lot more. Some earned it with their own two hands. Some people inherited it. We don't begrudge you no matter how you got it. ...
"We believe that we have a responsibility that if we take some of your money, we will use it wisely. ... Some of us have more to contribute to society than others. Some of you can afford to give a little more. Some of you can afford to give the same amount as you did during the Clinton administration -- and that's all we're asking for here...
"We believe that out of this bargain with you, we will be able to eliminate deficits, and all the negative aspects to the economy that goes along with that ... We believe we will be able to sufficiently fund homeland security, instead of just talking about it and decimating the defenses of our cities. We will properly fund the police and fire departments of this country - protect our ports.
"Is that worth you giving back a little more? We believe we will be able to solve the health care crisis, that burdens this country in indirect ways. etc......
"This is what we're saying to you 2%. ... There doesn't need to be 2 Americas. There can be 1 America where everyone pays their fair share ... and where this country is better off as a whole....
"There will always be those who are left behind. In a democracy, it's not possible for everyone to be equal nor should it be. ... But the system should be fair ..... An honest day's work should be rewarded ...
"The wealthy do not have to give up what they do in order for this to happen. Good environmental policy does not have to hurt business ... it can be a boon to business ..."
And so on. Just take a few minutes to acknowledge the other side, and why it's still OK to be on our side, even if you have to give a little.
Clearly the weakest part of the speech was his tough guy act against Al-Qaeda. That just made me uncomfortable watching it. On the one hand, probably half the delegates don't really want to act that tough. On the other hand, I agree with him on getting all the terrorists, but the whole thing rings as phony to middle america.
It would be far more effective if Edwards -- or whomever -- got a little more specific. Say, flat out, that we want to get all you terrorists ... but then add: ... "and the way we've been doing it is all wrong. A lot of us have been critical of the war in Iraq, not because we don't think fighting terrorism is important, but because of the way it was done. The overwhelming evidence, not necessarily that people lied, but that because of long-held ideaologies, this administration deceived itself, to disastrous consequences. We've misplaced our priorities, rushed into something we didn't need to do, and alienated our allies. We can do it the right way. Shore up the homeland, and strategically track down the real terrorists."
I believe by getting specific like that, then you are acknowledging your disagreement with Bush -- and at the same time, plainly and clearly explaining to middle American that just because you've been critical on Iraq, doesn't mean you won't be tough on terrorism.
These are fundamental distinctions to make. What I've said above isn't complicated and too detailed ... it's simply a necessary extension beyond the hollow and phony-sounding "Make no mistake, we will kill all the terrorists"
Thankfully, Kerry did an awesome job on this score.
----
I meant to post that about Edwards the night of his speech, but didn't have time. In retrospect, who cares now, because Kerry NAILED IT. So I'm real happy.
Now, we submit ourselves to the republican slime machine. Believe me, I am not one of those people who says "It's over, we won." Kerry will be slimed to kingdom come from every which way for the next 10 weeks. Whatever bounce is gotten here will be given right back after the republican convention, and we'll be right back where we started.
But at least people can like John Kerry now. A big hurdle has been overcome.