And now it's over. And the race begins.
For me, the best speech of the night was Chelsea Clinton. The point for any child of a candidate speaking at a national convention is to personalize their parent. And hers was a gracious, charming, thoughtful, pointed and substantive speech that ran circles around all the Trump children combined. And all the time she spoke, I kept thinking, "This is who Rush Limbaugh demeaned when she was just 12 years old." To be clear, I didn't think the Trump children gave bad speeches. They were better than I expected. Ivanka's was even a Democratic speech, espousing liberal causes for her father that he's never held. And the two sons gave well-presented political speeches. But anyone can give a political speech. Only a child can tell us about their father or mother. And that was vastly missing at the RNC. Not with Chelsea Clinton. And the camera cutting to watch her beaming father only added to it. But that was prelude to the Main Event. Hillary Clinton is not an orator. She will never be confused with an orator. She's said in the past that she's not a natural politician like her husband, who can glad-hand any stranger he meets. Further, she had the task of following some soaring speeches throughout the week -- most notably President Obama and Michelle Obama, along with Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren. So, I wasn't expecting great oratory -- and didn't get it. Yet with its flaws, I also found it effective and did its job well. Which I'll explain... As always, I looked at the speech as much as possible from three perspectives: the room, the opposition and the undecideds. Starting with the opposition, I'm sure they hated it. I'm sure they hate pretty much anything that Hillary Clinton says. I'm sure they even hated when she praised the U.S. military, a long-held line out of the GOP playbook. But then, I'm also sure they had a hard time with it because so much of what she said about what's great about America they not only believe in, but have been trying to throw in the face of Democrats for half a century since they yelled at the damn Hippies about America to "Love it, or leave it." It was that kind of a convention for Democrats: watching the Republicans drop the ball with feel-good flag-waving and picking it up and running with it, handing the baton off to Hillary Clinton. And I'm sure Republicans hated everything they heard from her, but were stuck at what to complain about. (An editor of the Far Right Townhall.com tweeted how shameful it was that Hillary Clinton wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin. Forgetting the utter surface emptiness of the complaint, the reality is that neither John McCain, either of the Bushes or Bob Dole wore flap lapel pins in their acceptance speeches. But that's how stuck Republicans were for expressing their hatred of the speech.) As for how the speech played in the room, that was one of more important parts of it, since there was such a lingering hurt among Sanders supporters. And I think the speech must be looked at from the view that Hillary Clinton was addressing them, and -- if not trying to win them all over that night -- laying the groundwork for them to listen to her throughout the campaign and eventually get their support. If the speech became more liberal and partisan in parts, I think that was why. And I don't think it "won" the most fervid of them over. I don't think it ever could. They felt they were in a revolution. So, she may never win that far edge over. But I do think she went a long way into convincing these most-disaffected to at least not vote for Donald Trump as him being an kindred outsider like Sanders. (I don't think there were many, but I'm sure there were some.) More to the point, I think she convinced the bulk of the remaining wary-Sanders supporters to listen to her. And some of those even to support her. And that's significant, given the discord at the beginning of the week. Which brings us to the undecideds. Again, I don't think Sec. Clinton convinced most of these people tonight to vote for her. But I do feel that most undecided voters are undecided because, as frightened or worried as some might be, they want answers to their concerns, they want solutions, they want things to work out. And this speech showed someone who was offering a positive vision and answers. Those listening might not yet have been convinced of that vision and all the answers, but they heard someone who had them. They did not hear that from Donald Trump. They only hear more fear-mongering. And as with Sanders supporters, this speech was about laying the groundwork to listen and be open to hearing more. And I thought it was extremely effective about that. Did it change "a lot" of votes, or will it? Maybe not, but remember: with undecided voters, you don't have to change "a lot." In elections where a 10-percent difference is a landslide, changing just 1-percent or 2-percent is a major achievement. And that strikes me as very likely from this speech. The speech was reasonably well-presented. As I said, Hillary Clinton is not an orator, but in the morning I wrote elsewhere that my main hope was that she would learn a lesson from Donald Trump and not yell for 70 minutes. And she accomplished that. It's a low bar admittedly, but still an important one. When Hillary Clinton just talks, she's quite effective. She didn't "just talk" the whole time on Thursday, but did for a lot of the speech. And even when she let the vastness of the room wash over and carry her, her rising voice remained generally in control. It was not eloquent, it was not soaring. No one should have expected that. But Hillary Clinton's strength is policy and detail, and the substance she brought to the speech had a growing, cumulative impact, and did so without being a boring wonk presentation -- along with enough pointed and specific and often sharp blasts at Donald Trump. And in the end, as she became the first woman in the history of the United States to be nominated as president by a major party, pretty darn remarkable, after 240 years, she succeeded with a reasonably strong, and quite effective speech directed at the audiences she had to address it to. Indeed, after the speech, CNN showed the results of polls that had asked people who had watched both Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech and Donald Trump's acceptance speech about their response. For Hillary Clinton's, 71% had had a very positive reaction. And just 57% had a very positive to Donald Trump's. That's significant. Not for changing anyone's vote, but laying the groundwork. This was all about laying the groundwork. Because there's a long road ahead.
0 Comments
It just occurred to me to ask here. Why I hadn't done so earlier, I don't know. I recently had some furniture shipped to me from Chicago, and five pieces got damaged (one badly). It may not shock you to learn that this is the piece that was most-damaged... Fortunately, the other pieces aren't damaged nearly as badly. But they're all damaged. (You may have noticed that I've used the word "damaged" a lot. There's a reason for that -- I'm not happy that so much furniture got damaged.) The moving company has suggested one repair company, and he came over today to check things out. He's been in business for 30 years, and lists a few good clients on his site. Though it's just a list of names. I can find no customer comments for him. Zero. Not on his website, not on Yelp, not anywhere. I asked him for any "thank you" letters he might have in his files, recognizing that those would only be praise, but at least they would have details about his work process. He later told my contact at the moving company that he didn't want to give out any of his clients' private information. Say what? I didn't ask for private information, I wanted a paragraph from just one client who said they loved his work. After 30 years, surely he had dozens of them. I also think that for any service you use, it's good and proper to have a second opinion and estimate. Also, as good as I suspect this repairman might be, he's recommended by the company that damaged my furniture. So, I'm less inclined to take "Believe me, he's really good" as the definitive word. (You said you were really good, too...) Besides, with someone they use, it's in his best interest to provide a good price for them. I'm more interested in someone whose best-interest is in the client and getting the furniture repaired properly. To be clear, I suspect the guy is good. I've seen some before-and-after photos on his website. And if you're not good, you're not likely to stay in business for 30 years. And even if he gives a good price to the moving company, if they had received a lot of complaints I wouldn't think (or hope...) that they'd keep using him. And I had a thoughtful conversation with him. So -- I do have the sense that he's good. But I don't know. And even if he is, I should still have a second opinion, as much as the claims office wants to go with him. (They're willing to do that, but the process is more convoluted, and there's no guarantee they'll approve the estimate I'd send them.) Anyway, I've done some research and come up with a couple of furniture repair places that seem extremely good, one from Angie's List and one from Yelp. I've asked a lot of friends, but unfortunately I have the bad luck of having a close-nit circle who are careful with their furniture. So, I figured I'd check here, as well. If anyone has first-hand experience with a furniture repair person in Los Angeles who they can recommend, I'm open to referrals. Ideally it would be someone on the Westside, though that's not essential. My furniture and I thank you. Some days there's almost far too much to write about in any reasonable detail, so you're better off almost just listing them.
Donald Trump repeatedly referred to the Democratic nominee for Vice President Tim Kaine as being from the wrong state, and likely confusing him as the wrong person, Tom Kane. Donald Trump mistakenly referred to the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan, John Hinkley, as "David." Donald Trump said he wanted to renegotiate the Geneva Conventions, which provide among other things protections against torture, given that he's spoken out in favor of torture and killing family members of terrorists. At the same press conference as all the above, Donald also bizarrely said that "France was no longer France," adding that "they won't like me for saying that." It turns out that, no, they didn't, because the French Prime Minister Francois Hollande later issued a strong rebuke -- which included a slam at an unnamed Trump: "When you lower your standards, you are no longer what you are. That's something that may happen to others, on the other side of the Atlantic," Donald Trump stunningly, shockingly, bizarrely called for Russia to illegally hack into Hillary Clinton's email account. And at the very same unwieldy press conference, where he kept getting facts wrong and pushed for foreign espionage against the U.S, brought up getting rid of protections and torture, and insulted the nation's oldest ally who helped bring about the American Revolution., Donald Trump called Barack Obama the most "ignorant president in the history of our country." Now, to be clear, I understand that anyone can make mistakes in their references, especially if part of your job is to talk far more in an our than most people do in a week. But given how many mistakes and falsehoods Donald Trump has been uttering for the past year, his lack of understanding the facts of the new political world he's involved in has been deeply evident, so I think his repeated slips of the tongue are evidence of something deeper. I think it's less his tongue slipping than it is his tongue not having a clue where it's supposed to be. This is an even bigger problem when you choose to call anyone -- let alone someone as evidently bright as President Obama -- "ignorant." I also suspect that Donald Trump wasn't specifically trying to make a presidential-style directive to Russia to actually hack his opponent. But given that he later tweeted about it, his comment can be so easily dismissed as just a slip-of-the-tongue, thoughtless "joke." Even if one bent as far back as humanly possible to to accept this only as a pure quip, even with his follow-up, it still shows a breathtaking lack of awareness by Donald Trump, since even IF he was "joking", it unconscionably ignores that those watching in Russia might not get the joke, and choose to act on his words -- as long as we're talking about ignorance. It was something about which SO much more can be said, and in fact was by several former CIA directors, and leaders of his own party, and national security experts, appalled and aghast at the utter irresponsibility. But we'll leave it there, since I'm sure there will be more to come about Russia and his comments. It's also important to note the fact that we're even talking about this disastrous press conference, which included telling a female reporter to "Be quiet." Because the very long tradition in presidential politics is that you don't hold press conferences during the other party's convention. But apparently Donald Trump couldn't stand having all the attention on other people. So, he just had to, had to, had to talk. Oops. Yesterday was also the day that Bill O'Reilly doubled-down on his comment about how well-fed and well-housed the slaves were who built the White House, by actually defending himself on the air. And one wonders why the GOP isn't getting more support from blacks, hovering around 6%. (Oh, okay, maybe one isn't wondering that anymore.) Of course, doubling-down and defending yourself is not the response. It's "Oops, sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. I had a brain freeze. I most humbly apologize from the bottom of my soul." Yesterday was also the day when the website for Donald Trump's wife Melania was taken down and apparently scrubbed, after questions have surfaced about statements on it that he had a college degree, which are contradicted in a recent book on her, giving rise to questions about what else was incorrect. The website now only takes you to a site for her husband's rental properties and golf courses, where the biography section doesn't even mention his wife (and for which archived pages of the site show she hasn't been mentioned there for five years.) And after all of that, you finally had a chance to take a slight breath until Day Three of the Democratic Convention began. And once again, there was much too much to write about substantively, so one is left to lists. If it all largely seems pretty glowing, that's largely because of how the evening was generally perceived by analysts on both sides of the aisle. Vice President Joe Biden gave one of the more warm, gracious, optimistic speeches that leads into a hearty and embracing case for supporting Hillary Clinton. For years, many on the right tried to ridicule Joe Biden as just a goofball clown. In fact, Joe Biden is an extremely bright, highly-rounded, accomplished and deeply decent public official, and he showed that all in his moving, eloquent valedictory. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent, gave one of the most straight-forward, low-key and devastating shreddings of a politic opponent at a convention in many years. Forget even his reference that questioned the sanity of Donald Trump, alluding to Trump as a con man, and listing his string of bankruptcies, lawsuits and contractors who have felt cheated, the problem from the speech for Donald Trump is that was on most levels unattackable by Trump -- since his biography overlaps so closely with Bloomberg, a wildly successful businessman who not only is a billionaire but many times far-more wealthy than Trump, and self-made, as well as someone who has actually already served in politics as mayor of New York City, popular and successful enough to be re-elected, and also someone from the heart of Trump's own city and circle. I have no doubt that Donald Trump might try to attack Bloomberg, but I have equal doubt it would fall on deaf ears. More problematic for Donald Trump is that it was only just one of four strong speeches that night to address -- and powerful as it was, wan't the most powerful. Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine followed with a speech that began simplistically and fine, but a bit flat, but then built into a very strong and sharp criticism of Trump. Doing a light, albeit odd "impersonation" might work wonderfully for some watching (indeed, many) or be seen as misguided, but the larger point was that his repeated refrain about Trump's pleading "Believe me" was where the impact of the speech focused its attention. And his use of Spanish no doubt bothered some who prefer English-only in a multi-lingual country -- but it wasn't directed at them, it was meant for those listening who were Spanish-speaking, people who have been demeaned by Trump, and was therefore especially effective. And if his opening that included much about his religion and more was thin, he was introducing himself to a nation who didn't know him. But most of all, he came across as personable, gracious, strong and progressive, and I have little doubt that the bulk of his speech was directed at the progressive wing of the party disappointed that Elizabeth Warren wasn't selected. It wasn't poetic, but that's not what VP speech do. And if it was the least memorable speech of the night, that's small criticism given the high level of the three others, and it did its job warmly, embracingly and effectively. As for those who wanted poetry... I won't go into President Barack Obama's speech all that much. Instead, I'll just dive to the opposite side of the aisle and quote two Republican strategists on MSNBC. Steve Schmidt called the oration, "The single best political speech I have every heard in my life" and Nicole Wallace said it was so so particularly powerful because it didn't take on Donald Trump, but rather "Trumpism" as a general philosophy, which now forced it to be defended. Beyond all that, the surprise touch at the end to bring out Hillary Clinton and have the president in essence pass the torch to the nominee was not just wonderful stagecraft, but with a purpose. So much more could be said about the speech which was quite soaring, but I'll leave it at that. Indeed, I'll leave all four speeches there. It was an very strong night for the Democrats, which Republican convention has nothing to compare with optimism, vision, patriotism, poetry and eloquence in even a single speech, and this had four of them, back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Everything likely did not resonate with the part of the public that's angry and frightened. But I suspect most of the public watching at the base and (far more importantly) in the middle wants optimism and hope and vision. And appreciated, too, the moving short film that introduced President Obama to highlight his achievements of 7-1/2 years and his decency, a clear contrast to the Republican nominee. But more to the point, given the potential divide with which the convention began, a good part of the speeches were directed at the party itself to make its case of why it's so important to get behind its nominee. I believe they succeeded. Not that this "won" the election. Not even remotely close. Or that it necessarily even changed a lot of minds. Maybe it did, maybe not. (Though "many" is rarely needed. "Enough" is sometimes all it takes in an election.) But its purpose was otherwise. It's purpose was to lay the groundwork. And they had some great bricks. Yes, I know this look at the Democratic night and Republican morning is fairly heavily weighted to one side. But...but the thing is, I think it's still a fair and objective look. I believe it actually was a deep and extremely strong night by the Democrats, and a highly problematic day for Republicans, as a foundation for stating the campaign. I've looked at the day from a lot of different angles, and listened to and read a great deal of commentary, of the whole day. And it was quite a day. And I think the Democrats did really well. And Donald Trump did not. Yesterday, I wrote about the TV jingle that was written by the creator of Oliver! Lionel Bart for Abbey National building society, a British financial institution. It came late in his career, in 1989, and to the surprise of most everyone oddly became a big hit. Even more oddly, as I mentioned they released it as an extended single, with some rewritten words, and became a warm, affectionate, offbeat hit. This is that extended version. The title of the song for the TV ad was a pun, about all the wonderful things you could do with a loan from Abby National, "Abby Endings." For the single, the title was flipped back with the pun removed, "Happy Endings (give yourself a pinch)." A couple months back, I suggested a question that journalists might want to ask Bernie Sanders when interviewing him. It was along the lines of, "If you don't get the Democratic nomination, will you return to the Senate as a Democrat?"
I was chided by a few people for such an unfair question. Of course, he'd be a Democrat, they said. He changed his affiliation to Democrat when he filed to run president in the Democratic Party. Yesterday, Bloomberg Politics hosted a breakfast at the Democratic National Convention, which Sen. Sanders attented. The Washington bureau chief for USA Today, Susan Page, was there, as well, covering the event, and she wrote that Mr. Sanders told reporters that when he returned to the Senate, it would be as an Independent, not a Democrat. "Bernie Sanders tells @bpolitics breakfast w/reporters he'll return to the Senate as an Independent, not a Dem: 'I was elected as an Ind.'" she quotes him in a Tweet. Well, so much for me being chided for bringing up the question two months ago... To be clear, of course Bernie Sanders has the right to align himself with whatever party affiliation he wants. And he does caucus with the Democrats. And he made a forceful speech at the convention endorsing Hillary Clinton, called for her nomination by acclimation the next day, and has said that he will vigorously campaign for her. And that's all well and good. But it does make his filing as a Democrat to run for the party's nomination a bit thin, bordering on disingenuous. At the very least, I hope it will make his most fiery, partisan "Bernie or Die" supporters accept that it's okay that Democrats decided to nominate as their candidate someone who was actually a Democrat, and who held Democratic Party principals, not similar but slightly different "Social Democrat" principals, with a time-dated label slapped on it. I don't remotely expect them to accept it, but I do hope. By the way, it's worth noting that as noble as is Sen. Sanders statement about honoring his voters who elected him as an Independent, it shouldn't be overlooked that those very same voters elected him to serve for six years, and if he had won the nomination and presidency, he'd have had to go back on his word about that. I'm not surprised that Bernie Sanders is going to return as an Independent. And I admire his convention speech, and his vow to help elect Hillary Clinton. And his call for unity. But so much of his rhetoric during the primaries got increasingly vociferous and critical of his opponent, to the point that it created a wedge between some of his supporters and the party's nominee. And it gave Republicans plenty of sound bytes to use against Secretary Clinton. And one day after calling for unity, he announced that he was leaving his new party. I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of what he stands for. I like that he comes across as having a great deal of integrity. And I like that he's said he'll be a strong and active supporter of Hillary Clinton. But I don't like everything about him, and he's caused his share of discord, in a party that he's made pretty clear isn't his. So, his insistence that he'll campaign actively is not just a very good thing, but something he helped make a necessity.
I realized that I couldn't let the day go by without at least noting that for the first time in United States history, a major political party nominated a woman to be president.
That led to a very funny Tweet I read from a fellow named Matt Kirshen who wrote, with a nod to the recent Ghostbusters film: "Can't believe they're remaking President Clinton with women." But the winner of funny Tweet of the day comes from author Victoria Aveyard --
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|