Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Democratic National Convention. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Democratic National Convention. Afficher tous les articles

mardi 26 août 2008

I love this stuff

There. I said it.

When you grew up when I did, it's sometimes hard to understand why people get all blubbery at Memorial Day parades, or when "Yankee Doodle Dandy" is played, or when the flag is raised. When the images of your youth are of black people being sprayed with hoses while dogs bark, or young people screaming in the streets and being maced and beaten by cops, or of a young woman weeping over the corpse of a college student shot down by National Guard troops at a student protest, or of the napalmed bodies of people living in a village in Vietnam who did nothing to us, the word "patriotism" can be an empty one. When the people who refuse to admit that what we're doing in Vietnam is wrong slap bumper stickers on their cars that say "America: Love it or leave it" and refer to everyone who disagrees with them as "Communists", it's sometimes hard to think about love of country. And yet I think somewhere deep down inside, I always wished I could.

I knew what this country had done for my grandparents, all of whom came over from Russia and Poland with nothing. My paternal grandparents never quite made it out of poverty, but their sons both went to college, went into the Army, and were helped by the GI bill. My maternal grandfather was a district manager for a department store chaiin, and my grandmother had her own store for a while. The life I live today is because of the work they did in a country that gave them a chance. That's an American story, as Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said so marvelously last night, and it's one I forget sometimes.

It's easy to forget these American stories when we see our leaders trampling on everything that my grandparents believed this country to be as their ships landed in New York. It's easy to forget the beacon of hope this country used to be for my grandparents and so many others who came here before and after them -- before fearmongering politicians and would-be dictators decided that their power and their aggrandizement was more important than the country for which the flag they give such lip service to protecting stands.

I've seen many of these conventions in my lifetime, and there's a kind of reassuring continuity in their very hokeyness -- the three-sided state signs, the relentless bad pop music, the buttons and stickers and silly hats and people decked out in all manner of swag. Democratic conventions in particular are snapshots of the melting pot in action, with far more than just a few black people scattered around the arena in a demonstration that E Pluribus Unum isn't just something to put on money. But this year is different, because this year the people of color aren't just out in the audience or Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton grudgingly given face time amidst hopes they don't do anything to alienate what the media so gingerly refer to as "the low information voter."

I'm usually able to resist when someone is really setting out to jerk my chain. I'm especially able to do so when the person in question is named "Steven Spielberg." But every four years, I watch the prime time hours of the Democratic National Convention, and for a few short days I understand why people fly flags in front of their houses. And last night brought the emotionality, the intense symbolism of this quadrennial exercise in self-congratulation to new heights.

For those of us born in the 1950's, The name "Kennedy" has carried a certain magic -- less so for people like me, whose Democratic parents practically worshipped the ground Adlai Stevenson walked on and regarded John F. Kennedy as the same kind of usurper that it seems many Hillary Clinton supporters feel. But even if you weren't swept up on the Camelot mystique, the Kennedys were always present in public life.

For Americans in general, the Kennedy Thing has largely receded in recent years. The political careers of the many Kennedy children have been either aborted (Joe III) largely quiet (Patrick), or short (Kathleen Kennedy Townsend). The death of John Kennedy, Jr. virtually assured that the last of the Kennedys to make a significant mark on the political scene was going to be the old lion himself, "Uncle Ted."

For sheer political stagecraft, it's hard to top last night. The last surviving child of the martyred president/myth/icon, every inch of her an undisputable Kennedy, emerging from a largely private life to help her terminally uncle pass the family torch one last time to a new, young, charismatic leader with a picture-perfect young family.

You could practically hear the gasbags of talk radio already screaming "Chappaquiddick!Chappaquiddick! Chappaquiddick!" -- because they have nothing else to say -- but you can't deny the power of the last of the Brothers Kennedy, puffy from steroids, only months after brain surgery, standing on his own one last time at a Democratic National Convention and roar from the stage about health care. At this point, a right-wing pundit corps that approves torture, that continues to support a war based on lies that has claimed the lives of over 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, that defends an executive branch that is criminally rotten to the core, and that's clearly inciting people like this to try to kill the nominee, no longer has anything to say about Kennedy's behavior that night long ago.

But the real question of the night was not How Would Kennedy Do, because you knew that he'd do fine -- but How Would Michelle Do. I don't know if the "low information voters" (you know....morons), who clasp the notion that she's the second coming of Angela Davis to their chests as if it were a treasured talisman, were swayed, but I don't think Michelle Obama could have done any better.

As some others have noted, it's a shame that Michelle Obama has to hide her level of accomplishment and the finely honed horsepuckey detector that makes her so appealing to people like me. It's a shame that the "Nick and Nora Charles" wisecracking part of her relationship with her husband has to be put on hold, lest those people be intimidated who have stupidly been voting against their own best interest for almost thirty years because Republicans are better at cheap symbolism. Funny how the PUMAs, with their Ellen Jamesian obsession with Hillary Clinton, don't seem to care one whit about how Michelle Obama has to frame herself as ONLY a mom in order to pass muster with the same "hard-working Americans...white Americans" to whom their icon so pointedly referred during the primaries.

On the other hand, if you have two little girls like these, the older one already showing the her mother's poise and elegance, it would be hard to want to frame yourself as anything else:







But even if we wish it were possible for Americans to wrap their minds around the notion that a woman can have a high-powered career AND be a great mom, or she can just as easily choose to do one OR the other, and still be a woman who is valued in our society, I'm glad that this country, too much of which only knows Michelle Obama from right-wing pundists and smear e-mails and a magazine cover that perpetuates the very lies it tries to spoof, got to see the Michelle Obama that our nominee fell in love with almost twenty years ago.

I have no doubt that the speech was carefully written for just that purpose, and that Michelle Obama worked hard to keep that soft tone in her speech that's so different from when we've heard her snarking about her husband's smelly feet. If you want to be really churlish, you might say that trotting those kids out on stage is the height of political cynicism. But in a campaign that's loudly and clearly showing all the signs that too many Americans simply can't deal with anything that differs in any way from their own lives and their own backgrounds, who are willing to believe that a guy with a funny name can't possibly be a "real American" and who will believe the fliers about which Tweety talked about last night (but only after giving the Republican plants who are duping disgruntled Hillarions air time), that claim he's a "registered Muslim" (you have to register to be a Muslim??), Michelle Obama's job was to convince these mor...I mean, "low information voters", that though her skin color may be different, and that she has this exotic last name of her husband's, the experience of being a mom is color-blind. Of course I think she succeeded smashingly. We'll see what the rest of America thinks.

I will say this much, though. Watching this woman on the podium last night, introducing her husband as the nominee, and invoking both Martin Luther King AND Hillary Clinton, and watching the faces of black women in the audience, listening, rapt, with tears rolling down their cheeks, I can honestly say that perhaps for the first (and I hope not the last) time, I am really, really proud of my country.

(UPDATE: I thought this was a pretty good post about Michelle Obama's speech until I read what Sara wrote. Damn.)

lundi 25 août 2008

It doesn't get any more dramatic than this

Joe Scarborough is working furiously already this morning to push the "If Obama loses..." meme. So much for "liberal" MSNBC, eh? But not even Scarborough is going to be able to throw cold water on this development:

In a development that is sure to bring the house down, US Senator Edward M. Kennedy is expected to attend the Democratic National Convention, most likely to deliver a speech tomorrow night.

Kennedy is battling brain cancer, and his doctors are said to be worried that his treatment has compromised his immune system and that attending the convention could put him at further risk. Still, the senator has recently told people that he has a speech written for the convention and that he badly wants to come, pending a final medical consultation.

Buzz has built among Massachusetts politicos that Kennedy would come, and today a source close to the family confirmed that he had made a decision to come.


Ever since it began back in February to appear likely that Barack Obama would be the nominee, we had a pretty good idea that there was going to be some kind of symbolic torch-passing by Ted Kennedy from his family to Obama; a demonstration of the culmination of the civil rights legacy for which Kennedy's brother fought, as in a speech from June 1963 in which he said:

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents. We cannot say to ten percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go in the street and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I'm asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I've said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.


What we didn't see at the time that the torch was going to be more than metaphorical, as a terminally ill Kennedy stands up for what is probably the last time at a Democratic convention, to speak for the nomination of a man who is the living embodiment of that legacy.

I get all blubbery just thinking about it. I can't wait.

samedi 23 août 2008

Well, if the New York Times says so, it must now be true

The Grey Lady welcomes its new key-tapping overlords:

The Year of the Political Blogger Has Arrived

Beginning Monday, hundreds of bloggers will descend on Denver to see Barack Obama accept his party’s nomination. Next week, hundreds more will travel to St. Paul to witness John McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. But now these online partisans, many of whom are self-financed, must contend with all the logistical and financial hurdles just to get there — not to mention the party politics happening behind the scenes.

This year, both parties understand the need to have greater numbers of bloggers attend. While many Americans may watch only prime-time television broadcasts of the convention speeches, party officials also recognize the ability of bloggers to deliver minute-by-minute coverage of each day’s events to a niche online audience.

“The goal is to bring down the walls of the convention and invite in an audience that’s as large as possible,” said Aaron Myers, the director of online communications for the Democratic National Convention Committee. “Credentialing more bloggers opens up all sorts of new audiences.”

But some bloggers see the procurement of credentials as less of a privilege and more of a right, in recognition of their grass-roots influence. “This is stuff we deserve — we helped the party get people elected,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and a contributor to the blog Open Left, who worked as the volunteer in charge of getting credentials for bloggers at the Democratic convention four years ago. “Maybe in 2004 it was about being accommodating and innovative — but this time around there’s a real fight for power in the party.”

[snip]

“It’s unprecedented access for bloggers, yes, but it’s certainly not equal access,” said Ms. Spaulding, who learned last week that Pam’s House Blend would receive two extra credentials. “What, pray tell, is the big secret?”

The annoyance felt by many bloggers is familiar to those who previously attended conventions as correspondents for smaller print publications. “This is very reminiscent of being at the low end of the totem pole,” said Micah Sifry, the co-founder of the group blog Techpresident.com, who formerly wrote for The Nation magazine and attended his first convention in 1984. “They can’t buy a sky box, they’re scrambling.”

One perk that bloggers will have access to in Denver is the Big Tent, an 8,000-square-foot two-story structure adjacent to where the convention is being held. For a $100 entrance fee, 400 credentialed bloggers will be allowed to enter the air-conditioned space, hosted by a coalition of progressive blogs and organizations and sponsored by the Web sites Google and Digg, where they can eat meals and find work spaces with Wi-Fi.

“I’m telling everyone to meet me at the Big Tent,” said Fred Gooltz, 30, an online strategist with Advomatic, a Web development and strategy firm. “That’s where I’ll be meeting everyone else who’s like me, folks that I’ve only met online or blogged and e-mailed with.” Mr. Gooltz sees the $100 fee as a bargain, especially since he would rather network “with movementarians, who see themselves as a progressive movement, separate from the Democratic Party hierarchy.”

[snip]

For bloggers who do not wield as much influence as Mr. Moulitsas, paying for the trip to Denver meant appealing directly to their readers for contributions — an uneasy bargain for many writers who value their independence.


Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? It reminds me of when I was a $10,000/year secretary in 1984, working with Gary Hart's campaign, and Hart's local campaign manager, Bret Schundler, who would later become well known as the wingnut mayor of Jersey City, suggested I run as a Hart delegate. There wasn't much I would have to do to run, but I would be responsible for my own convention expenses. So of course I had to turn it down.

In the world of political blogs, that there is no monetary infrastructure for progressives to get a seat at the table is a serious problem. The right wing has think tanks and startup money, while progressive bloggers have to put PayPal links on their blogs and hope enough people think enough of their work to contribute a few bucks to send them to the convention. Even a "hey kids, let's put on a conference" event like Netroots Nation is becoming prohibitively expensive for many people. Where is the infrastructure?

I suppose the recognition of bloggers as a force in political communication is a step in the right direction. But sooner or later, we have to find people who are willing to pony up some cash to build an infrastructure.

mercredi 18 juin 2008

Black helicopters indeed

This is odd:



more about “Military choppers fly over Denver dur…“, posted with vodpod


Why military helicopters and not National Guard?

Why a "top-secret" military drill?

Why was it organized by the Justice Department?

And are they conducting similar drills at the site of the Republican National Convention?