UPDATE -- INSTA-REACTION: Who woulda thunk they'd send Clinton, not Gore, on offense. Not I. But it's smart, I think. ... Yes, yes -- I think it's smart.
There's a bunch of open threads for the convention, but not this one: Here's your opportunity to snark.
I caught parts of Al's opening speech; honestly, not bad. But George Mitchell (on Larry King*) had the most incisive remark yet. Not unexpectedly, he said it unintentionally. From memory:
"[Gore's] gotten pretty good at self-deprecating humor."
Indeed: He's had quite a bit of practice.
Keep it snarky, folks -- against the dems or the repubs or whomevever wears the bullseye for ya.
von
*I know, I know. But King has The Dole, and he also has The Rocca (Mo). WhatamIgonnado?
Who needs Gore to breathe fire? Did you see Jimmy Carter?
David Brooks was virtually spitting his disapproval.
Posted by: Edward | July 26, 2004 at 09:49 PM
Thank goodness Brooks was spitting instead of clawing, he would have ruined his manicure.
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 09:51 PM
Over at Tacitus, Mac (Macallan) makes an excellent observation about Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | July 26, 2004 at 09:59 PM
That would make it a first: an excellent observation on Tacitus.
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 10:11 PM
It's a funny thing, to cite history and tradition in this argument.
It's not traditional for a former President to criticize a sitting president, so Carter is wrong to criticize the administration for declaring the Geneva Convention, the categorical prohibition against torture, the rejection of preventive war, and Congressional and judicial restraint on executive war powers to be quaint and obsolete.
Well, you pick your tradition and I'll pick mine, I guess.
I think it was very, very smart to have a soft-spoken, southern accented Nobel Peace Prize winner deliver these criticisms instead of Gore or Dean. I wonder how it plays to a less partisan audience that neither already hates Carter, nor already agrees with everything he said.
I thought Gore had the perfect pitch too. But then I'm a sucker for these things, and surely more susceptible to it this year than most. Hell, I'm finding inspirational quotations they play on the screen between speakers to actually be inspirational. (Though I draw the line at the synthesizer music.)
Posted by: Katherine | July 26, 2004 at 10:15 PM
"That would make it a first: an excellent observation on Tacitus."
(murmuring) I think that you're being simply too hard on his critics; surely one of them had an legitimate objection to Tac's site. ;)
Moe
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 26, 2004 at 10:16 PM
Picked a bad time to defend t.org, Moe. Mac's content-free Putzing of Carter surely isn't a high point.
Posted by: sidereal | July 26, 2004 at 10:29 PM
moe, intellectual discourse doesn't happen in a vacuum.
and remember, playing in hell still means you're there.
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 10:29 PM
Hey, hey: less smark. More snark.
Posted by: von | July 26, 2004 at 10:33 PM
I just realized I had violate the "thou shalt snark" commandment.
Okay. Why the hell must female politicians wear turquoise, canary, periwinkle and coral at all times? What is wrong with black, blue, and grey?
I suppose it's to look nonthreatening, but it hurts my eyes.
The he-Clinton is on. He really looks much better these days.
Posted by: Katherine | July 26, 2004 at 10:39 PM
i take it 'smark' is when it swings left and 'snark' is when it swings rightward? luckily i'm ample enough to swing in both directions :)
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 10:42 PM
"He really looks much better these days."
I tell you, I saw an old clip of Clinton when I thought that I was sitting down to watch some speeches* - the contrast between '92 and '99 was shocking. That job is a vampire.
Moe
*But the networks had other ideas. You know, some people don't actually have cable in this country, but do still expect that the networks will provide coverage of political events. Apparently this is an unreasonable expectation. It's reasonable to assume that I give enough of a crap about Cheese-Its to be shown the same commercial four times in an hour, but not that I would actually want to see the speeches. Grrrr...
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 26, 2004 at 10:45 PM
great observation moe. it is pathetic that these very networks who reap huge monetary gains serving at the pleasure of the public can't allot 3 hours over 4 days for 2 summer weeks to carry both conventions.
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 10:52 PM
i take it 'smark' is when it swings left and 'snark' is when it swings rightward?
Nahh, smark is smack disguised as snark.
In serious analysis mode: Clinton is giving an excellent speech. It's the velvet attack. Best line thus far: "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."
Posted by: von | July 26, 2004 at 10:58 PM
Elvis is back in the building. This is how it's done folks. How refreshing to remember we so recently had a president not only beloved and re-elected here but loved around the world.
Posted by: wilfred | July 26, 2004 at 11:02 PM
Well. Shrum and friends, I salute you. I had been expectations-gamed.
Clinton is sounding like a New Yorker who talks fast and pulls no punches, instead of a genial Southerner who feels your pain. And he has made me tear up for the first time ever.
The direct comparison of his own lack of service in Vietnam and Kerry's service, I found very effective.
Posted by: Katherine | July 26, 2004 at 11:02 PM
Strength and wisdom are not opposing values
Yeah, I applauded at home on that line.
Bill was classic Bill. God Bless him.
Posted by: Edward | July 26, 2004 at 11:04 PM
He set it up so well. It started out so very gently, and I thought, "okay, so Carter gives the harsh critique and Bill is the optimistic but not as interesting statesman." But then, kablamo: "They need a divided America but we don't."
Yes, I recognize the inherent irony in that line, and that it is not true at all of the Moe Lanes of the world. But God, to someone watching the last few years from where I sit, it is so very true of the people running the country.
And "be not afraid", tossed in almost like it was improv-ed? Not that I think for a second it was.
Now I'm just worried that they can't possibly keep it up.
Posted by: Katherine | July 26, 2004 at 11:32 PM
For the record (and this is my pseudo-punk-rock youth coming out):
When I saw Moe's "Pledge #1",* my immeidiate thought was of a song from Fugazi's "Repeater" album. In the words of the old punk rock spiritual: "Song number one is not a f*ck you song, we'll save that thought for later on . . . ."
von
*With all apologies to Moe, who is doing something noble and worthwhile. (Unlike me, who's merely remembering old Fugazi songs -- from the way back, when I believed.)
Posted by: von | July 27, 2004 at 12:33 AM
That job is a vampire.
The difference between Bush '00 and Bush '04 is equally telling. We kill our leaders softly. I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.
Posted by: von | July 27, 2004 at 12:36 AM
End Hits is a legendary album.
The nice thing about Edwards is that he'll still look alright after 2 terms worth of grizzling.
Posted by: sidereal | July 27, 2004 at 12:43 AM
End Hits is a legendary album.
The Argument, my friend. Unbelievable: It made me believe again. (But there is no better Fugazi album, IMHO, than Thirteen Songs. "Sugestion," alone, is worth it.
Posted by: von | July 27, 2004 at 12:49 AM
Wow. Someone besides me remembers Fugazi. Maybe I just drifted into different musical circles, but I was under the impression they'd vanished into obscurity.
Gods know there are plenty of criticisms I could (and did) make about Clinton's presidency, but watching tonight's speech slammed me back into my seat and made me remember what it was like to have a president who could inspire and communicate. Kerry needs to sit down with Big Dog and have a come-to-Jesus talk about charisma. The message: pitch-perfect.
And speaking of message, has anyone else noticed how surprisingly on-message the DP has been, as a whole?
Posted by: Catsy | July 27, 2004 at 02:49 AM
Obama just finished the keynote. Holy cow!
I could almost see a shaft of light piercing the roof and bathing him in a warm golden glow. Even the pundits had this stunned look, as if they had just seen the man walk on water, heal a leper, and turn water into wine.
And he unquestionably earned that response.
Sorry for the lack of snark. All negativity has been driven out of my feeble mind, probably for at least the remainder of the evening.
Posted by: Gromit | July 27, 2004 at 10:15 PM
My God. I had a huge political crush on the guy already, and I was expecting great things. But I was not expecting that.
There were so many great moments, but this was the best:
I have never seen a speech like that. And he's a 42 year old state senator. At this stage in his career young Bill Clinton got the biggest applause for "in conclusion."
Posted by: Katherine | July 27, 2004 at 11:36 PM
I suppose that you two would want, like, a transcript and stuff then. Hey, you got what goes clink, clink and I've got what goes link, link...
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 27, 2004 at 11:44 PM
Obama, Spitzer, Edwards.
Oh well, they can't all be Quayle, Ryan and Santorum's!
Posted by: wilfred | July 27, 2004 at 11:46 PM
Well, that moment of nonpartisan bliss didn't last long.
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 27, 2004 at 11:54 PM
I think the plural is Santora.
The Democrats do indeed have a great farm team. The Republicans are supposed to have one, what with the conservative revolution supposed to foster new, young minds. They're probably around, but it's not really my circle so I haven't noticed.
Posted by: sidereal | July 28, 2004 at 01:20 AM