Josh Marshall kept yelling "Attack, Attack, Attack."
And James Carville groused that the night was wasted on emotional, personal fluff (and the Republicans will go right for the jugular).
Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ordinary Americans — especially female Americans — feel about politics?
August 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
I think the best description I heard was "Oprafied."
But in these days of primaries, what other purpose does a convention serve?
"Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ... female Americans ... feel about politics?"
Well, James can just ask Mary, can't he? :-)
"Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ... female Americans ... feel about politics?"
They make the calculation that they'll express their disgust at those tactics... and then vote with the points made still in their minds. (See 1972, 1988, 2004, etc.)
They might be wrong, but you can follow the line of thinking...
I wonder how the weepy females in the audience, and a few males, feel that Michelle was able to deliver that touching display of familial affection without tearing up herself?
It was complex to be sure, but like a fine wine that could be better, there was a fleeting aftertaste of bitterness.
Maybe it is just me...
Pile of crap, would describe it.
rhhardin said...
"Pile of crap, would describe it."
Spoken like a "[]male American[]." ;)
Wait 'til tonight - there'll be plenty of fireworks.
"Oprafied?" Yes, but there's an audience that eats that up. She's not a billionaire, for nothing.
Juan Williams tells you all you need to know about how the night went in his commentary on Fox when he nearly breaks down.
It was a gamble, sure, I mean the Republicans used Zell Miller and Rudy 4 years ago to awesome effect.
Replace the hagiography of Kennedy with Reagan and ask yourself if the republicans wouldn't have been more maudlin?
Michelle probably won the election for Barry last night IMO.
"Michelle probably won the election for Barry last night IMO."
Highly doubtful. But even if that was possible considering how few people watched it compared to the size of the electorate, why on earth would you consider this a good thing? She's not running for anything.
Vet66 said, "I wonder how the weepy females in the audience, and a few males, feel that Michelle was able to deliver that touching display of familial affection without tearing up herself?"
Did you watch the speech, Vet66? She gets the sniffles near the end, her voice breaks, and then she gets control of herself.
The Obamas could not give the Republicans any hooks on which to hang the tags "bitter" or "resentful." They had to make themselves look as positive and upbeat as humanly possible.
I enjoyed the dancing in the aisles. It reminded me of the Ellen Degeneres show.
Michelle doesn't seem very interested in national security issues.
The most moving part was when she talked about how slowly Barack drove home after their first baby. He seemed to be taking care of her, and was perhaps arguing by extension that he will be careful with America.
It wasn't that bad.
I also liked her brother, the basketball coach for the Oregon State Beavers. It's just nice to get to know a little more about these people.
I just wonder if they are going to talk about national security and nuclear proliferation or if they are just going to lull us with music from the 60s, and political thinking that also seems to be mired in the 60s left, while dancing us along nudging us with their shoulders into a feel-good state.
It would be interesting to see who was watching any of the DNC's first night. To know whether the pitch was successful, even to "female Americans," you'd have to know who was in the audience. Those tuning in Oprah know what they're going to get. Who was tuning into the Michelle and Teddy show? My guess is that not many folks bothered to do so, or if they did, stayed around very long to listen to all the carefully massaged spiel. Nielsen will know.
UWS guy said...
"Michelle probably won the election for Barry last night IMO."
On what do you rest that conclusion?
There was a "joke" going around some decades ago: God is black, and she's pissed off. We've got it all wrong. MO is the Messiah. Barack is just a sock puppet.
Unless you do something stupid ("reporting for duty' instantely or "read my lips"- eventually) nothing in the next two weeks will be anymore than something for people that get paid to write and/or talk to write and/or talk about.
Possibly the debates will change some minds but the conventions have not been interesting or important since 1968, (well maybe Dem 1980).
Because she nearly cost him the nomination...The reverse must then also be true!
Armstrong and Getty (.mp3) in this morning's hour 2 take on the convention as a pile of crap.
Mentioning that the press used to be skeptical of politicians and now are part of a circle jerk.
Mencken is put forward as a role model.
They don't seem to have tumbled to the idea that the media is a business and has a specific audience; still feeling that the 1800s business model ought to work.
My own claim is that people need to foreground the business model and its audience, or the country will collapse under soap.
UWS guy said...
"Because she nearly cost him the nomination."
She did?
"The reverse must then also be true!"
1) Does it?
2) Is winning the opposite of nearly losing? Isn't nearly winning he opposite of nearly costing?
3) Even if it is, how is winning a different election, with a different constituency and process, the "reverse" of nearly costing someone the primary?
Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ordinary Americans — especially female Americans — feel about politics?
Or all those males who are constatly trying to get in touch with their feminine side?
Seriously, if they are taking the high road, and that is a big if, it must be for the sake of symbolism; see we are the nice party, the nurturing party, the nuzzling pary. They are very big on symbolism.
Of course there are days to come. So I guess we wait and see. Fireworks usually come near the end of events.
I was kind of hoping that Big Bird and Elmo would have gotten a prime time speech.
There's the entire rest of the campaign to be negative. There is precious little opportunity to say nice things about your own candidate and have it shown on TV.
Positive campaigning is not news. That's why conventions give a boost-- they aren't the norm. Mostly the media covers negative attacks. Every single day.
So let's enjoy the positive spin of the conventions as a break from what we know is coming.
Besides, if I have to sit through yet more negativity about how bad things are, I'll turn off the TV and go do something else. There's plenty of that already.
"Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ordinary Americans — especially female Americans — feel about politics?"
Boy, talk about RH Hardin bait.
The only thing surer to get him to comment would be a fish eye photo of a naked chicken.
I remember when we were driving home from laying down flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers at the National Cemetery and he had to suddenly step on the brakes and his arm flew out to protect me from jolting into the passenger side dashboard even though my seatbelt and shoulder strap were fastened and I thought in that moment, "This man has the genes of a parent," and then I further thought he can use those genes to brake the vehicle of State in emergencies while simultaneously protecting his passengers. And then I thought how those bastard Republicans have steered this country in the wrong direction and how Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States * roar of applause * and how McCain drives much like Bush drives, and how both of them would have stepped on the gas through the intersection while flipping off other drivers instead of quickly braking and protectively reaching. That's what I thought. Yeah, that was it.
So how many people vote for president based on the speeches their wives make? the importance of the spouse (except for Hillary and Bill) is even less important than the VP candidate. I do love the term Opravied.
Do these hardcore political males have any sense of how ... female Americans ... feel about politics?"
What is this supposed to mean?!?
Are you saying that females are too stupid to care about actual issues? That females want to hear how Michelle tells fairy stories to the girls before tucking them in at night?
Don't worry our pretty little heads about those big manly thingies like the economy, national security, free trade agreements, protectionism, the falling dollar, tax bracket creep, the middle class destroying AMT, natural resources and world markets and how this affects international relations. Naaaah none of that stuff is important. Forget what policies Obama is proposing. Don't stress your female brain by trying to learn about what his qualifications for President could possibly be.
NO. Let's hear what kind of hand lotion Michelle uses and what a really cool daddy Barack is and how his "widdle kidums just wuv" him. Maybe we can get some cookie recipes.
Barf!!
Are you saying that females are too stupid to care about actual issues?
Only 40% of females are lured to watch soap opera news.
The good news is 60% are not.
The bad news is that 40% is enough to support the media business model. That's why they're the target audience for everything.
Michelle Obama not being proud of Americas checkered history----->pertinent.
Michelle Obama being an (I'm quoting Rush here) "Angry Black Woman"---->pertinent.
Show that Michelle Obama is not some monster marxist who breathes fire and hates whitey--->excuse me! why does this matter???
I guess it wasn't too sweet. The Teletubbies did not appear.
Josh was "yelling?" WTF?
How do you yell in type? Caps? Josh didn't use `em.
Bust out the italics? He retrained himself.
Underlines? uh-uh.
Ann, I think you're just jealous of Josh Marshall's world-leading web success and the influence he wields (Ask Gonzo, for one). Are those green eyes I see in your picture?
"Show that Michelle Obama is not some monster marxist who breathes fire and hates whitey--->excuse me! why does this matter???"
Because people judge you by the company you keep and the person you keep closest to you is generally your spouse. (large opening here for some Edwards comments).
Your spouse has a huge influence on you. If your spouse is an intolerant bigot or a committed communist and you have been married for many years, we might assume that you agree with those positions and possibly hold those same views. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
Josh Marshall is a pious little preacher with his own little choir.
"Josh Marshall is a pious little preacher with his own little choir."
Actually, he very seldom gets into religion. And 400,000 pages views per day is nothing to sneeze at. Certainly not "little." Try again.
And, his little publishing empire broke the US Attorneys scandal into the wide open. He's broken a number of stories through old-fashioned reporting while pioneering a new form of news. He's been compared to some of the giants of journalism.
Replace the hagiography of Kennedy with Reagan and ask yourself if the republicans wouldn't have been more maudlin?
Reagan was a President who accomplished great things. Ted Kennedy's main accomplishment in life has been killing a woman while drunk.
How do you yell in type?
"!"
"Oprafied."
Right! Good one, PatCa (even if you didn't say it, but heard it; it's the first time I have).
I see the comment, however, has caused some hurt feelings.
Oprah has a winning technique to woo women in droves = schmaltz. Helpful, generous schmaltz.
But here's the kicker, she draws in particular at lot of WHITE WOMEN. Precisely the kind of women Barack lacks and desperately needs to vote for him.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if this Day 1, with regards to Michelle Obama's bit, had been finessed by Harpo Productions.
I was charmed, actually.
As someone who grew up with pre-Tony Blair British politics, especially of the old Labour sort, it struck me that the essential difference between, say, an old Labour Conference and what was on the television last night is similar to the differences between football in the rest of the world and, well, American 'football.'
Football elsewhere is a rough sport. Men do not take their families to matches. It is distinctly testosterone-laden, dirty and violent, both on and off the pitch. It's through and through a man's activity.
American football is also violent, but in an armour-plated, gladiatorial way, and the violence largely remains on the playing field, distanced and symbolic. The large, clean stadia are filled with well-scrubbed, well-fed families, and if Dad drinks a bit too much beer, well, it's all in good fun.
American football also has a planned, almost scripted look, with a stage show between halves. What we saw last night seemed heavily inspired by this approach to spectacle. And spectacle it was. Not a disgruntled delegate, pompous windbag or minority report in sight. (Perhaps some of you think Sen. Kennedy is a pompous windbag, but, frankly, I was impressed by how well he did.)
So, as sweetly filled with family values and Michelle Obama as American politics presented itself last night, there are still men (and some women) who love the rush of testosterone and want nothing to do with sweetness.
I suppose I, too, could write the usual drivel about how American politics lacks the rigour, intellect and high level of sharp debate found in Europe, and how it is essentially stupid, staged entertainment meant to distract the masses from an understanding of their true interests.
For those who want it, let the critics have their intellect, rigour, and their venom. Those will not persuade voters.
All I can say is that I went to sleep last night with a sweet feeling that America may have, indeed, found a President.
Now, you may start thrashing me in the stands.
Ann makes the controversial suggestion that the political parties and pundits are out of touch with the rest of America....
Post a Comment