I was reading a story yesterday about a tragic dispute that took place in a housing project, which included some photos of some of the participants. I thought to myself -- this is the true face of society, not the public figures we read about all the time, not the fancy names that come out to speak in the Democratic Convention. We need to keep them in mind, which is not too hard after all, because ultimately I am talking about us. This ultimately is whom Teresa Heinz Kerry was speaking to when she said:
Today, the better angels of our nature are just waiting to be summoned. We only require a leader who is willing to call on them, a leader willing to draw again on the mystic chords of our national memory and remind us of all that we, as a people, everyday leaders, can do; of all that we as a nation stand for and of all the immense possibility that still lies ahead.
Note how optimistic the speeches tended to be. It might be deemed surprising given the times we are in, including the low depths the Democratic Party has currently fallen to in this country. Nonetheless, optimism is an essential aspect of a party that has faith that the government can do well, it can protect and secure our interests and provide basic needs when necessary. Also, there is a sense that the leadership of the Republican Party is vulnerable. They are so deficient and rotten at the core that the people are open to an alternative, if a viable one is supplied.
[But, the cries of some are depressingly the same. "Only on social issues does the Democratic program differ from that of the Republicans. Otherwise, the differences are vague, and in the case of the Iraq war, depressingly similar. As for Islam, it doesn't exist."
First, social issues are nothing to sneer at, along with integrity, it is what especially concerns me much of the time. Second, multilateralism (lack of some nuance notwithstanding) v. unilateralism; more intelligent tax policies not focusing so much on benefits to the rich; rejection of the death penalty; "affordable" health care, which DOES NOT mean the same thing in both parties, one of which supporting it since Truman; openmindedness v. assurance of righteousness; a candidate who has spoke the talk, walked the walk on environmental matters; and so on might not be the best we can do. But, please, cut the bullshit. There is a big deal of difference there. The last statement is patently unfair too.]
Teresa Heinz Kerry is an intriguing figure. There is definitely something foreign about her, even before she tells us that she "grew up in East Africa, in Mozambique, in a land that was then under a dictatorship." Her actions against apartheid, support for equality (including of respect) for women, and self-assurance all have a "modern American woman" feel to them. Heinz-Kerry is an outspoken, intelligent woman, but seems to have that touch of nobility or something that separates her from Hillary Clinton. Perhaps, a sense that she staid behind the scenes, while Clinton did not.
Her speech was a bit disjointed, spoken not proclaimed. The words by a twelve-year-old Kerry supporter (one commentator noted that lack of young faces -- under forty, which probably is a legitimate criticism), including her suggestion Cheney have a time out, probably was more successful. So, Terry Heinz Kerry didn't shine as others did, though she often did well on the campaign trail. Still, I think she is an asset, and will make an excellent first lady. And, heck, no need to worry -- she is not a natural born citizen, so cannot become President!