"Well, if this party has a message it has done a hell of a job of hiding it tonight I promise you that," James Carville said on CNN Monday night (see ABC's The Note). "I look at this and I am about to jump out of my chair."
What Carville was referring to was the absence of a negative narrative about John McCain. There was emotion last night with Senator Edward Kennedy's appearance and Michelle Obama scored points by telling her personal story. But as Carville lamented, going back to 2004, the Democrats' streak of not bashing the GOP record at Democratic National Conventions now stands at five nights.
In 2004, the Democratic convention was anemic when it came to a message, focusing mostly on John Kerry's Vietnam war service. A few weeks later in New York, the Republicans on the other hand were forceful and consistent with their narrative, repeating over and over again September 11, the threat of danger, the need for a strong leader in a time of change, and the weak, wobbly, elite nature of John Kerry. (See clip above.)
After watching last night's three hours of speeches and coverage, I am hard pressed to come away with a central theme or narrative. Even worse, while McCain has a master negative narrative on Obama, ("He's the biggest celebrity in the world and not ready to be president,") the Obama team seems to be still searching for a similar strategy to use against McCain. Is it four more years of Bush? Is it a wealthy Senator out of touch with the economy?
What do readers think? Is the Democratic convention already off to a failed start?
- Log in to post comments
Shorter Nisbet: When viewed through a Republican keyhole, the Democratic convention lacks substance; no lies, no personal attacks, no jingo. Such an empty frame.
I just started. What the rush to judge it so soon? And who listens to Carville any more?
I disagree. Sounds to me like people at the convention were pretty jazzed about it. As far as the first night's lack of negativity goes, consider this counterargument from Blue Texan at FDL:
So let's see how the rest of the week goes.
As for the other side, what is it about the McCain campaign's approach that makes it a "master negative narrative"? Is it working?
This 2008 DNC so far has been nothing but needless glitter, Straw Man fallacies, pandering, emotion, religiosity, personal anecdotes, repetition and hype. Where is a party that drops the stupid, content-free rhetoric and gives actual presentations, layered with facts? That shuts off the big screens and the music and pumps out a few well-researched, detailed political battle plans? Blargh. These people should be ashamed, but they don't know enough to recognize their superfluousness.
Democrats don't like to bash people - it's hard to say you are all abou tinclusion if you go after others with slime all the time. it's our biggest Achillies heel in the modern political dialogue. I hope Obama's people are prepping him to have a message before the end of the week, or McCain will have a field day with it. Democrats need to learn the most important part of Republican success - and Democratic history. to paraphrase Mr. Carville - it's the message, stupid.
May want to consider what Andrew Sullivan had to say about this:
"The notion that tonight should have been about ripping the bark off the president seems to me misplaced. No one needs to be persuaded that the country is on the wrong track. We have endured one of the worst presidencies in American history, a stalling economy, and a war that was as deceptively packaged as it was poorly executed. The wrong track number is at 80 percent. What was necessary tonight was rebutting the only real weapon the Republicans have: dragging Obama into the mud, throwing every extremist attack they can at him, painting him as a commie, alien, anti-American freak. For good measure, they had tried to paint Michelle as an angry black radical."
There's more here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-carvil…
I think this sounds about right.
Well, part of Obama's message has been that it dosn't have to be this way, with partisan rancour. Ripping into your opponent at the first opportunity might seem a little contradictory there.
McCain himself will provide the 'four more years of Bush' subtext as he continues to try to mollify an uncertain base.
It's not a total loss. The sideshow of pundits salivating with hunger and begging for negative sound-bites more than makes up for anything the speakers lack in excitement.
So much is wrong wth the Repuglicans, I'm not sure the Democrats need a central theme or single narrative. To me a convention without a central unified theme has always seemed a bit like a senior prom without a coherent party platform.
I never have, and never will understand why politicians (most especially in America) feel it is a good idea to say bad things about the other candidate.
In England, saying bad things about the other candidate is a very bad strategy as it basically implies that you have nothing good to say about your own policies.
I still think that's true. A politician should gain votes on how good their strategy is, not on their ability to make fun of someone else.