I feel that one must give credit where credit is due, and with the third day of the Democratic National Convention, the Democrats do deserve a little. This was by far their most appealing day, and they nailed it with speeches from former President Bill Clinton and Obama's VP choice Joseph Biden. These two speeches were the definite highlight of the DNC thus far and in terms of political bounce, may even surpass Obama's speech at Invesco Stadium. I tuned into the festivities at the beginning of day three, and really tuned out for most of it till the highly anticipated moment when Clinton and Biden would step before the podium. However, there was one odd thing I would like to address concerning coverage of the convention.
The news channel's paused for the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner at the start of day three, which is highly respectable. CNN and Fox News both stopped there coverage as the men and women of the Democratic National Convention gave honor to the country that they represent. Sadly, MSNBC opted to focus on Keith Olbermann instead of the pledge and National Anthem because what he had to say obviously couldn’t wait. Though to be fair what was occurring on the floor was still visible through a small window located at the left of the screen. Maybe it is me, but I found this to be pretty distasteful, if not completely disrespectful. Thing is, I used to watch MSNBC a lot, because I felt they gave pretty fair news coverage. However, it has deteriorated considerably and what I once considered to be one of my favorite news journalists, Chris Matthews, has really shown how biased he really is during their "Decision 2008" coverage. Matthews and Olbermann even go so far as to attack Democratic strategists and the like for appearing on Fox News. Now, in my eyes, MSNBC’s journalistic integrity is nil. Perhaps they are nice guys off the TV, I don’t know, but how they have been conducting the news over at MSNBC is just deplorable.
The DNC, as well as the upcoming RNC, are set up to be so spectacular and elaborate, that it will give the Super Bowl a run for its money. In fact, I am surprised they are not calling the current ongoing convention, "DNC MMVIII." The purpose for this is to build up ones emotion by appealing to the senses through various forms of visual and audio stimuli. We see this plot a lot within the arts, in things like concerts, movies, and plays. Obviously, it isn’t just confined to a creative aesthetic expression anymore, but rather to serve a purpose and it certainly does now within spectator sports and in the political arena. Those who have organized the DNC and RNC know this and it has become the core of the conventions because they realize that it is more beneficial to initiate an emotional response from the delegates and viewing audience, rather than to focus on, or provoke, any serious reflection, thought or juxtaposition of the candidates and the key issues. Certainly, we can look forward to seeing this ploy utilized later when Barack Obama takes the stage at Invesco.
Center stage on the evening of the third day of DNC, however, belonged to Bill Clinton and Joseph Biden. As Bill took the stage and the cameras cut to Michelle Obama, I couldn't help but think that she looked a little nervous and awfully perturbed. Knowing what I know now, considering the Oscar worthy performance, I would have told Mrs. Obama to relax; that Clinton knows what he is doing and can lie with the best of them. Though, that really depends on your definition of what "lie" is. Cheap shot, yes I know, but it had to be done. I feel that Bill did a much better job on his speech than Hillary did at hers, but just like Hillary, I don't think Bill was really sincere. Not so much because of what he said last night, but because of what he HAS said in the past and his actions tomorrow; high tailing it out of Denver. This pretty much sums up Bill's feelings towards Obama, which are further confirmed in my mind by Michelle Obama's reaction to Clinton. Bill had no choice, he needed to do it for the good of the Democratic party, to protect his legacy, and for the good of his wife’s future political career. I believe he was successful concerning the speeches powerful delivery and what it was he had to accomplish. Republicans are going to have to try and counter the momentum with McCain's VP choice and the RNC.
I may think Clinton gave a great speech, but I by no means agree with some of his points. He claims that the current administration is advocating an "assault on science," which I feel to be completely absurd. This claim is really only based on three things. One, of course, is that by pushing for more oil drilling they are hindering the expansion of different forms of energy, yet they leave out that this current administration has spent more money on developing alternative energy than any other administration. Second, decreased funding for space exploration. Enough said. Third, stem cell research. Yet science, which Bush is assaulting, is still advancing and has just discovered they may be able to gather stem cells from adults rather than embryo's. It is amazing that they were able to make that discovery while the science “war” rages. Surely, the scientists must be extremely dedicated.
He stated that our unilateralism has damaged our relationships abroad. I believe this statement to be an unfair generalization of what has really occurred in the world during the Bush administration. I do not believe that leadership should be based on intimidation, yet diplomacy seems to be a form of timidity in times of danger. I believe, for the most part, that we can classify Clinton's administration for being too timid, for when they should have rose up against the enemies who were attacking our citizens on our soil and fought against those detonating bombs among our military and embassies overseas. We only went into Iraq when the UN dropped the ball and I feel at the time it was a reasonable call to make. Were there mistakes? Hell yes! Not everything that happened concerning Iraq went according to plan, but it is easy to criticize, when we the public can easily change our minds on issues and don't have a country under us to defend. Theodore Roosevelt provided one of my favorite quotes in a speech given April 23, 1910:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
A couple other points he made were on AIDS and the military. Clinton told the delegates, and Chevy Chase who was in attendance, that Obama would continue the battle against HIV and AIDS at home and across the world. An effort attributed to Bush that started in 2005 with the passing of a 2.9 Billion dollar program to fight the disease. Secondly, Clinton said that Obama would strengthen our military, yet I don't really know how that is possible since Obama himself stated that he would “slow our development of future combat systems.” Finally, Clinton told the audience that Obama was ready to lead and that under him America would develop back into what it was during the Clinton administration. It was such a great speech with such great hype, that despite all the disagreements I have with Clinton and what he said, I almost wanted forget about the issues when it comes to the individuals of Barack Obama and John McCain.
Finally, it was Biden's turn and he himself provided a great speech, which played off the momentum of Clinton and it too was near perfect in its delivery. However, I found it was packed full of political messages and attacks that made no sense to me. That is not to say he didn't raise some good points. I think he did and he made a much better case against McCain than anyone else has, but there are a number things I also had issue with. Biden started out by introducing his mother, which was sweet, and told the crowd that he was raised under the principle that one was defined by honor, redeemed by loyalty and that bravery lives in every heart. She sounds like a great woman and its too bad that she isn't running considering how her son has manifest these principles in his own life, not only in his relationship with John McCain, but also lying on documents and plagiarizing other political speeches, which Barack Obama himself did when he asked America if they were better off since Bush. This is an almost verbatim rip-off of President Reagan, who posed one of the most provocative questions in American political history, when in 1980 he asked the American public in a debate with Jimmy Carter, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" This one question cost Jimmy Carter his second term.
I do not like it when Politicians contradict themselves. Biden stated that his mother taught him that anyone can make it if you just try hard enough and that this was the American dream. Yet, this is not the kind of message we hear from the Democratic party. Rather, Biden during the remainder of his speech, and in fact the whole party in general, seem to push the idea that opportunity is rare in this country and I just don't see the evidence for that. I do see evidence though that this country offers more opportunity than any other place on the face of the globe. Biden continued saying that Obama moved to Chicago after turning down a job on Wall Street, seemingly based on his concern for others. This has been stated several times in promoting the Obama cause, yet I still have not found out exactly what job he supposedly turned down. I am sure that Obama helped a lot of people in Chicago, I am not refuting that, but to suggest that he didn't take his own political and professional career into account when making the move makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, with the picture they are painting, I don't know why I would want to vote for someone who makes rash decisions despite loads of data suggesting you should do otherwise. That doesn't sound appealing to me in the context of a President.
America is less secure and more isolated than EVER before, Biden said. He forgets little details and things like…, oh the American Revolution for instance. Also, the statement, for some reason, doesn’t take into account that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. I consider that a sign that we are very secure, but that’s just me. While listening to the DNC speeches, it becomes clear that Democrats are the anti-war party, and really who wouldn't want to be anti- war? Well, it seems they are anti-war except when it comes to Russia, then all the anti-war and diplomacy talk on the democratic side begins to break down. Then Biden attacks Bush saying that he is not doing enough and needs to take a stand against Russia, because diplomatic channels aren’t apparently enough.
Dah! Russia is not a country you rush into war with. Are you nuts? Yes, hold them accountable, but don't say we haven't done anything, when your candidate won't even interrupt his golf game to go on TV to condemn Russia. Instead, its McCain who was on the TV that very morning condemning the invasion of Georgia. They say that we need diplomacy in the world with our enemies, yet make an exception with Russia. Why? Well, obviously because Bush is moving along those channels and it all of a sudden becomes very wrong. I know amongst all these different nations there are separate issues and variables when it comes to foreign relations, but it seems like complete lunacy that when Bush is practicing something they clearly advocate and push in an almost absolute context, they reverse their opinion and somehow make a distinction between the cited situation and their innate policy. This is a complete political spin designed to make one party look bad, the other good and nothing more. There is no consistency in their thinking and that’s what I have an issue with. The only variables that seem to determine if something is good or bad is if it is beneficial for their party and if the opposite party is engaging in it. This goes with the Republicans too. This is crap and there has to be a smarter way to practice politics!
Another thing Biden cited was how the Bush administration has shifted its plan to Barack Obama's concerning negotiations with Iran. What they fail to mention is the variable of preconditions, which makes the two examples diametrically different. We as the United States of America need to portray an image of authority if we really want to influence countries like Iran. How are we supposed to do that if we cower to any conditions an opposing violent country such as Iran puts forth. In the eyes of their own government, media and people, by propaganda, they will see America as weak, which will be a large boost to their cause, and diminish the effect and influence of ours. It is irresponsible to give countries like Iran undeserved credit and assume that they will act peacefully and receive us in a civil manner. It is not going to happen.
Lastly, Biden spoke concerning the war in Iraq, that the Bush administration has again shifted its plan to Barack Obama's. This comes down to conditions too. Again, the two policies are completely different from each other. The Obama plan has a flat, concrete timeline that ignores any conditions on the ground, while the Bush plan calls for a conditions based withdraw. That is a HUGE difference. To me the question that comes to mind when hearing this is if they are really that stupid that they don't know these things or if they are omitting these details from the American people to accomplish their own goals. Either way its horrible, but I think the latter is correct. On a positive note though; at least with either plan the troops get closer and closer to coming home.
Anyways, Biden did raise a couple arguments against McCain that I agree with. One of those is taxes. Coming from a family that owns a small business and is in the highest tax bracket, where just about 40% of our income goes back into the pockets of the federal government; I really have to wonder why families in similar situations, for our family knows of quite a few, aren't getting any help concerning taxs. The McCain tax plan seems to create a rather large paradox by saying larger companies getting tax cuts will provide more jobs. Maybe that’s true, but what about the small businesses that, with tax cuts, could grow and provide more jobs to more people. Instead, it seems the high tax bracket for small business makes it difficult for a business to expand and provide jobs. I don't want success to be punished, but I don't want productivity to be hindered either.
What must the Republicans do on Monday in St. Paul? Well, the DNC has thus far been very scarce in pushing the merits of Barack Obama. Instead, all the vast majority of positive Obama messages is spoken in generalities. The Republicans, to sway voters, need to make sure that they do the exact opposite. McCain, because he can’t win on charisma, must express to the American people the specific merits of a McCain presidency on individual issues and juxtapose them with the stance the other camp subscribes to. I am sick of hearing all this bashing all the time, so if he keeps it short and sweet and about him, then I think it would go a long way. Everyone has already heard the arguments from both sides on why shouldn’t I vote for someone, but now the other side of the spectrum needs to be addressed; why should I vote for you?
