Kevin Drum (Political Animal) was generally underwhelmed with the convention, barely showing much enthusiasm even for Barack Obama. Not being too excited by the convention is reasonable in some ways, though there were some special moments, and an overall hope for change. This hope, which helped to provide a unity that convention management could not create themselves, even if they did a pretty good job whitewashing away any dissent. Such unity and optimism impressed many observers.
I'd like to say a few words about that. I mentioned that I think the "not much of a difference between the parties besides social issues" mantra of some is wrong. But, surely, there are places where one can disagree and hope for more. The time might not be right for it, one step at a time, but the hope is justified. One thing that can be expected is more respect for dissent. A bit more allowance for those "coming together" (convening) to disagree with convention.
I quickly mentioned coverage of this issue last time, which included rushing the platform to vote at an obscure time and with no discussion. It meant some people like Russ Feingold were hard pressed to be heard. It meant Rep. Tammy Baldwin could not mention how she thinks a single payer health plan is the best, even though she thinks Kerry's plan will do a lot of good. Friends can disagree, while agreeing on the important issues. And those on the edges will be keeping a careful eye, and not just on the war in Iraq.
Anyway, Drum called Kerry's speech "workmanlike," which I presume is not meant to be a major compliment. Well, coming from a family with some union folk (not to mention the role of work v. wealth as an Edwards campaign theme!), I don't know if that is such a bad thing. I left others to discuss the speech in detail, but what do we want? Do we want a silver-tongued orator that rouses the troops? Sorry, Kerry is not he. He is someone I'd vote to the presidency. And, Edwards might inspire more sometimes, but he doesn't quite do it for me in that department, second chair or no.
Why Kerry? Some want him to spell out in detail what he will do, you know, so we can know what a Republican Congress will not vote for. Seriously, what he will accomplish (even in the area of health care and taxes, two issues he spells out in some detail) is unclear as a matter of policy. This even includes foreign policy, partly because the future is so unclear in many ways. The basic reason why I am voting for the guy is more basic than that -- he will bring integrity ("trust, credibility") back to the White House, not make us feel a bit ashamed about our leadership, and do so with a progressive face.
There was a bit too much emphasis on biography, especially his military career, in the convention. The introduction by Max Cleland didn't help matters any, nor Kerry starting off with "reporting for duty," though his campaign biography has the theme of "a call to service." Luckily, he did not spend too much time in his speech on that subject, but did have a nice bit about his dad (a civil servant in the foreign service). No, the overall message was that we need change, and that he had what it takes to bring it.
This is where the optimism comes in. Some suggested that Barack Obama could have, with slight adjustments, spoken his speech at the Republican Convention. This probably is true because he spoke about our nation's ideals, ideals that really know no party. The problem is that the leadership we have now did not truly honor those ideals, and did so in an incompetent way. It is this and not specific issues per se that left many key voters uneasy about the guy in the White House. A guy they want to like, and maybe even agrees with on some basic issues.
And, it is what the Kerry/Edwards campaign must address. The speech had specifics, both about what is wrong with the current [approprate descriptive noun here] in power and what Kerry plans to do to improve things. Specifics matter, but only up to a point. The reason why someone votes for a candidate is often a lot more basic, a feeling one person is just better qualified and more worthy of our trust. Workmanlike or not, I think Kerry did a good job helping us decide he is that person.
---
btw Kirstie Alley gained weight -- it's apparently a big (ahem) story these days. I saw some of the pictures in the People magazine story featured online. She looks pretty good -- good for her for enjoying life. It also was noted she is no longer with her husband (and father of her two kids), whose sexual prowess she praised on an award show a few years back. I guess sex isn't everything, hmm?