Aaaahh, So THAT's the Problem

I gather HRC's speech last night was a real Barn Burner: even the bloggers who are not Hillary fans are giving her a lot of credit. A few have said they wish she (and others) had lashed out at McCain more sharply, and some felt that she (and others) delivered a few good zingers. But I don't think that anyone has expressed disappointment with her. (Historical background: I felt much more positively about her before she decided that the rules needed to be rewritten, and before she decided that "the popular vote"- a non-concept in dem primaries- was the important thing, and before she decided that the Clintons needed to dominate the convention. See here, here, and here. Despite all that, I hope she doesn't pull a Gore and drop out of politics- not that I blame Gore or feel he made the wrong decision. I think HRC could contribute in many important ways to the leftward swing of American politics I've been waiting for since Reagan was elected.)

McCain has been accused of using one sentence form: A subject, a verb and POW. If you didn't know, it was Biden who coined that quip and contributed to the quick demise of Rudy Giuliani's prexy denchal bid, but with "911" in the punchline position. But the mainstream media is just as subservient to that sentence form as McCain and his staffers. We expect a candidate to speak in propagandese, and to a large extent, adjust for it- whether it's dem or repub, I am very alert to buzzwords and the phrase of the day. But we don't expect and therefore don't adjust for a media megalith that one hand talks in terms of subject, verb, POW, and on the other...

Clinton gave the best speech she's capable of delivering. And finally, the
Democrats looked like they know how to throw a party.

From a Newsweek article, just a few hours old, entitled, "Hillary Rex." I don't want to pick this apart line by line, for two main reasons: first, it's not worth my time, and second, I don't really enjoy reading that kind of post. I tend to skim the first paragraph or so, then scroll through the rest of it, sometimes pausing for a block quote, or if a highlighted segment draws my interest. Now, in fairness, this is called a "review," not an "analysis" or a "report." It is also not called an "editorial-" though a review in this context is almost necessarily editorial in nature. You know, like a movie review, or a book review, or a discussion of the socialite's do. Like a party. And of course, now that Jeremy McCarter has pointed it out, it's clear: the reason that dems have not been able to get anything done since the 1960's (Sorry Bill, but like Michael Moore said, you're the best Republican president this country has ever seen) is that they just don't know how to throw a PARTY! Nothing to do with policy, or negative campaigning, or outright lies, or media bias and complicity, the dems just don't buy the upper shelf booze. They hire the cheap neighborhood caterer, not the old-school midtown established in 1820, at $7500 per seat. They let any old body show up, without even checking the tux label!

I do recommend this article- I hope it angers you as much as it did me. It'll give you new appreciation for the phrase "damning with faint praise." Although, it's not so much faint praise, as the fact that the good isn't good enough, the bad isn't wicked enough. The fact that a person can write so much and say so little is amazing. The idea that a convention should be reviewed as in the NYT society pages infuriates me; doubly so if there's not similar coverage for the repugs next week.

And Jeremy McCarter, you have a standing invitation to kiss my hairy, pimple-ridden butt. Let me know when it's convenient.