DNC -- Epilogue

Day 3 was exactly what we thought it was: the former President rallying the troops, as only he can, with that (in)famous wagging index finger, spelling it out for party faithful, letting us know the "truth": his personal contribution as POTUS, how he was regarded as too young and inexperienced, how he worked it out so that the country prospered while he was in office -- and "consequences": what would happen if Mac was elected to (allegedly) continue the Bush doctrine, the expansion of the current economic malaise, the bottomless pit of despair that is our foreign policy. It all played very well. The pundits were questioning HRC's speech the night before as being too soft on O and on Mac, as if she was still trying to hold a torch for her 2012 hopes; if the Dems were serious on wanting to win, they needed to get more aggressive, so what was HRC thinking with that weak speech? Well, the dogs were let out on Wednesday night, first with Bill, then with Biden. The main point of Bill's speech was to rally 'round the HRC troops to come over to the side of the O, and he sounded effective to me. If the Dems are (again) serious about winning this thing, they need to come together and put their loyalties for their candidate aside. You could say that O knows this; in a way, he wants to see them be "forced" to come to him. It was a smart play. O won the primaries. HRC bowed out. Now the delegates had to give it up. It wasn't advisable for HRC to tell them the way Bill did. She was the good cop, he was the bad cop, but he did it so well. I can only imagine what political wagering was discussed between camps, post-O election. But first things first -- as Bill said, you have to elect O first. So there it is: you got the thanks, you got the explanation of what's at stake, and you got the permission -- no, make that order -- to move over to O's side.
Biden's speech was moving and equally effective, in terms of describing what's at stake and what it means to him personally, with the addition of many jabs at his "good friend" Mac. I like Joe. I like that he chooses to employ logic and reason (as opposed to what we currently see in Washington) to his opinions on foreign policy and domestic agendas. Joe's "problem" is that he gets too emotional, too wrapped up in his opinions at times, and he comes off as wayward (sort of like this blog) and word-heavy. He needs to write his speeches and then take it to a professional writer skilled in cutting to the quick, and the end result would be very effective. Regardless, this ticket seems strong and determined.
DAY 4 -- the O in the Temple. As for the backdrop, I was not sure what to think about how the stage looked so "Roman" or "temple-esque", as were the rest of the pundits, but it was quickly diffused when compared to other convention nomination acceptance speeches (JFK's speech, after all, was in the L.A. Coliseum). And hey, he had it in a 75,000-seat stadium, so he opened it up not only to the convention delegates, but to other voters and those "on the fence", and there was great weather too boot, so I say it was a good move. As for the speech, all I can say is, "very smart". The speech was effective in that O went directly to the 'publican strengths and trumped them all. The strategy was to show O as strong and not fluff, direct and not hesitant, focused and not intimidated by it all, and most importantly, attacking on the same points and not whining about the differences in parties and what we want vs. what they want. It was a defensive offensive, and we all in the sports world know that the best offense is a good defense, and defense wins championships. I like to see strategy and smart thinking be put to good use for once. And the speech wasn't over inundated with poetic rhetoric, which is a good thing -- the facts needed to be re-stated. He needed to come in here and draw the line in the sand, and he did just that. The 'publicans have a lot of work to do.
Music: Bill's speech was preceded by "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac -- the same song that we all remember so well on the night of the election in 1992, where he and HRC danced for joy upon the news they won. Again, nice song in terms of memories of younger, more innocent days, and equally important, memories of when the economy was perceived to be in better shape. Pre-O speech music was, in essence, an outdoor concert, with Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow performing live to the crowd. Post-O speech music was Brooks & Dunn, which is a favorite used by the Bush campaign (country music for the Dems? Wait...what?). All in all, the Dems did many things the 'publicans do for their conventions: lots of American flags waving, lots of talk about getting tough with the terrorists, lots of grandeur (and there were no balloons, but when was the last time you saw actual fireworks fly overhead after a convention speech?), and lots of accolades by all networks.
Next week: the GOP convention, but first, today is the big day for the Veep pick. And let's not forget that a major hurricane is on its way to New Orleans, which is NOT what the GOP needs right now -- we don't need more reminders of Katrina (even though the local Dem mayor and governor completely dropped the ball and were over their heads, it was easy to point fingers at the feds, which is a complete joke but can't be mentioned, but don't get me started)....
Let's get ready to rumble!