John,
I’d say the mood is considerably more cheerful tonight. It’s always fascinating to watch it happen–the alchemy of a convention, where a candidate or a vice president or some other mortal becomes plausible as a president, has started to take hold. Tonight the cheers for Gore seemed quite heartfelt.
Lieberman’s speech was wonderful, I thought. He showed himself to be surprisingly warm, able to convey humanity at a distance. His bemused smile presents a very appealing contrast to Cheney’s scowl. His gratitude to America seems very genuine.
I liked two things about it in particular.
First, at the risk of repeating myself, could we be seeing a trend, maybe a trendlet, toward the use of humor in these speeches? I sure hope so. It was always part of what made politics fun. (Roosevelt’s speech at the Teamsters in 1944, mocking the Republicans for their charge that he had sent a destroyer to fetch his dog from the Aleutians, probably won him the election. “Fala has not been the same dog since.”) Lately there has been precious little of it. I could be wrong, but my old boss didn’t use any in his 1996 speech, for example. I’ll give credit where it’s due: George W.’s mocking of Gore’s “risky schemes” was deft and effective. If you notice, you rarely hear anything described as a “risky scheme” this week. Lieberman was, simply, funny.
Second, it’s about time someone started attacking Republicans! I say that as a connoisseur, not a partisan, of course. The Democrats simply must persuade the voters that there is something dangerous, or at least wrongheaded, about the Republicans. Otherwise, why not give them a try? The GOP was pretty successful in brushing back the Democrats on this–much as we did to the Republicans in ‘96. (“Ideas, not insults,” we would say.) But it’s much deeper. Politicians these days are spooked by the electorate. They worry that voters, especially swing voters, click away from anything partisan. But I think the Democrats simply have no choice. They have to show that there are big stakes in the election, to shake things up, or they won’t win. Lieberman began to do this. But he pulled a few punches, too.
Flaws? Perhaps there could have been a bit more of the New Democrat mantra. I think the Democrats should never tire of reminding people that the budget was balanced, welfare reformed, on their watch. And I actually think he underemphasized the cultural conservatism–i.e., the call for values in the media. He and Tipper Gore were real leaders, and it’s a very legitimate issue.
And, oh, yes, he’s Jewish. The religion issue was touched on appropriately, which is to say, very little. (The music was the theme from Chariots of Fire–nice.) I was sitting in the press riser, so I had to resist any temptation to rise and cheer, but I couldn’t help feeling very moved by the moment. It wasn’t just the sight of thousands of people waving signs that read “Hadassah.” When Gore picked Lieberman, I reacted with jittery surprise, as did so many Jews–but that was overcome very quickly by pride and a bit of wonder. More than the abstract momentousness of it, I was especially moved by the sight of many of my Jewish friends from the White House, who were peeking around the side of the platform, looking very proud. My fellow Americans, L’chaim!
