Meanwhile at the Democratic National Convention. . .

130 thoughts on “Meanwhile at the Democratic National Convention. . .”

1. With all due respect, this post misses the essence of the convention so far. First of all, by all accounts the pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been a trivial sideshow, one that his been largely ignored both on the convention floor and in the media. Put simply, those protestors are but a tiny fringe element. Second, a major theme of the convention (and I’ve watched three nights of it) has been the blending of (IMO) admirable goals of progressives – child care, reproductive rights, etc – with the middle class sensibilities portrayed by Vice President Harris and Governor Walz. In other words, the Democratic Party is doing what it does best – providing a big tent that brings together a lot of diverse viewpoints (in this case, even including disaffected Republicans) around a set of common values. Right now, this is something to be celebrated.

   1. Sorry, but I am not going to celebrate the inclusion of gender ideology, anti-Israelism, or a victory of Hamas, all of which appear to be themes of the DNC. Of course I align most closely with the values of Democrats, but these issues are serious to me (you can say they aren’t serious to you, but different people react to policies in different ways).

      And I happen to take this seriously:

      . . . pro-Palestinian activists have won small but notable concessions at the Democratic National Convention that, three days into the event, have largely headed off any major eruptions of anger or division. Organizers have provided space for a panel to discuss Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for a vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza [was there a vigil for the dead Israelis, including now six more hostages?], and several high-profile speakers have demanded an end to the war from the stage.

      Those concessions have helped defuse the issue, but most critical has been the emergence of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. Harris, in her public comments, has emphasized Palestinian suffering notably more than President Joe Biden has and held Israel more directly responsible for the high civilian death toll and the slow pace of humanitarian aid. In addition, her campaign has ramped up its efforts to engage with those calling for a change in U.S. policy.

      To me, this is not pushing the pro-Palestinian stuff to the side, it’s embracing it, and also coddling Hamas.

      1. I have watched three nights of it as well, on PBS, and have seen nothing about “gender ideology, anti-Israelism, or a victory of Hamas”. Maybe those were the things highlighted in the news you read, but they surely have not been a theme of the convention.

         1. I haven’t watched the convention; I’m in South Africa. I was talking mainly about the tenor of the Democratic Party and yes, they were highlighted in the news that I read. Of course they are not going to demonize Israel in public at the convention. And of course Biden and his title IX revisions (many of which overturned by the courts) are aimed at allowing people to identify as whatever sex they want, sometimes to the detriment of women.

         2. Michelle Obama mentioned (indirectly) the trans-issue using language expected from the DNC podium… “letting children be who they want to be.. (paraphrasing)”.

            Children need guidance, good examples and discipline, not absolute unquestioned permissiveness to be “anything you want to be”.

            The demonstrable empathy by both Biden/Harris for the Hamas friendly supporters is saying the quiet part out loud.

2. Jerry,

   A view from the UK: as you know we’ve just gone through a General Election. I am a paid-up member of the Liberal Democrats who had no chance of winning in my constituency, so I held my nose and voted for the Labour candidate.

   Do not give Trump a glimmer: suck it up and vote for Kamala.

   1. Please do not tell me what to do, or to “suck it up”. Again, as I’ve asked many people, “How am I helping Trump by not voting for President in a state that is assuredly going to go Democratic for President?” Nobody has yet answered that question, which I’ve posed many times. Why? Because there’s no way I’m helping rump.

      So suck it up and don’t tell me how to vote.

      1. Jerry, you should not vote for the Coconut, I’m glad you are not going to; but in defense of the “please vote for her” argument, the call is for a mandate. This so if Trump loses, a clear mandate for the Coconut dilutes/negates (any potential claim) of the election being stolen or of allegations of fraud.

         1. Well, the counter argument is that maybe those of us who don’t want to vote for either the orange felon or Harris want to send HER a message, if she wins. It’s all well and good to add to the dog pile to blunt the toddler’s tantrum if he loses, but it’s also important to send a message to Harris that the support for her is not an overall endorsement of her policies (whatever THEY are).

            1. +1

               Agree.

            2. Consistently, I send back fundraising letters to all my elected representatives (and newly woke orgs, the ACLU, etc) with notes on why I no longer support them. They really don’t care.

               We still are “allowed” to not vote here, this isn’t Russia.

            3. +1

               Su Gold.

         2. “the Coconut.” Huh.

            The suggestion of some supposedly dual essentialism I suppose. That’s the type of thinking I will be voting against.

            1. +1

               (If I think you mean, what I think you mean). 🙂

         3. “the Coconut.” Huh.

            I take that as a play on hints of essentialism — just the kind of thinking that infuriates, whether from maga-ists or progressive-ists.

            1. huh?
               Like all silly nicknames, it’s silly.

            2. Coconuts have become part of her campaign. There’s some backstory—some old saying of her mother.

            3. It comes from one of her past speeches.

               https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0bSTqokjNEE

         4. Y’know Rosemary, I have to disagree with you here.

            Last time I was with you: Trump must be beat 100% by as large a margin as possible.

            This time – and like Jerry I live in a total D state – NY – I’m so deeply pissed off with the Dems I don’t want to encourage them with a huge win.

            Not voting goes against everything I (as an immigrant particularly) believe but I’m strongly tempted to sit this one out. Five huge moral panics and their drift to the left – Palestine included – are nearly decisive for me.
            And I STILL loathe Trump. 🙂

            D.A.
            NYC

            1. +1 David.

               I think we are in agreement.

               My comment in response to Jerry’s was a case of steelmanning the argument support voting (for the dems), without buying into it.

               I may sit this one out myself. Yes, few words can describe how deeply the democratic policy positions (on so many issues) are dangerous, angering and alienating.

            2. So I am reading all of these back and forth comments about the relative merits of voting / not voting for Harris in non-swing states. There are important arguments either way. But still, I personally think that voting for Harris even in a non-swing state is importanter. There is a great need to really really really send the message that Trump lost by a landslide, if that is at all possible. It isn’t, btw, but one must do ones best. It is in those crucial months after the election that Trump can try to stage another coup, but the effectiveness of that can be dampened if he gets really spanked in the popular vote.
               If lots of people in non-swing states choose to not vote for Harris (and I get the reason. no need to repeat it), I don’t think the intended message to President Harris will carry much weight. When does a president, once in office, ever mollify their policies if they win by a narrow margin? Do they ever decide ‘well, since I barely won the popular vote, I better be more moderate’. I can’t think of an example.

         5. I don’t think that we should be calling Harris “the Coconut”. Yes, I know the origin of the phrase, but to keep the tone of this discussion civil, I think we should refer to the candidates by their names, not derisive nicknames.

      2. I also live in Chicago; so for the purposes of the Electoral College, my vote doesn’t mean much. However, I’ve come around to the idea that – this election in particular – my vote is still important. While IL will assuredly award its 19 Electoral Votes to Harris, I also believe that the popular vote does count for something, something in terms of how soundly we can possibly repudiate the reactionary party’s hold on the American narrative. Winning the Electoral Vote, and winning the popular vote – by many millions – will have an impact. I won’t prognosticate on which groups, on the fringes of both sides of the political divide, that would embolden.

         1. I think that the popular vote count will be closely watched and does count for establishing the legitimacy of the victor (or loser if the person loses the Electoral College vote).

            There is thus value in casting a vote that sends a message, whatever that message is. Likewise not voting sends a message.

            1. The popular vote doesn’t matter. The electoral college does.
               Making 5 total scores in a football game vs. your opponent’s 3 can still cost you the game if your scores are all field goals while your opponent’s are TD’s.
               Voting or not voting is up to the individual always.

            2. Darryl, maybe I wasn’t clear. Obviously the electoral college determines the winner. My point was about sending messages to politicians and to the voters. It is important to know who wins the popular vote. And it is important to know how people feel about candidates. After Trump’s win over Clinton,we could prove that he did not speak for the majority of the country. And in the Trump-Biden election, the best evidence for the legitimacy of the election was that many down-ticket Republicans won in the contested states. it was clear that many Republicans skipped voting for Trump even though they voted for other Republicans.

               In the coming election both these things will be good to know.

            3. As mentioned above, I understand about sending a principled message to President Harris by contributing to a narrow margin in the popular vote. I just don’t think that once elected, she or any president or their advisors will actually mollify their polices bc of that slim margin. At least I can’t think of any example in close elections. Any acknowledgement of a narrow victory may be done after an acceptance speech, or after inauguration. But the effects don’t last.

            4. Are you sure, Mark? If I were a political analyst or advisor, I would look very closely at those figures, even more than poll results, which are intensely analyzed by many campaign advisors.

               This is my last comment though, as per the Roolz.

      3. The basis of my moral principle is one of the Kant Categorical Imperatives which says “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”

3. DNC :

   Dialectical Negation of Civilization

   Abstract -> Negation -> Concrete

   Hegel’s dialectic.

   1. +1

      🙂

4. “Land in Chicago is expensive!”… but getting cheaper under its “progressive” mayor.

5. Jerry the goal of conversion is to win votes the DNC has done a remarkable job with about 30 days to go from Biden to Harris
   Again the goal is to WIN! Regardless of who is nominated
   As my surgeon said when he gave me a release form to sign that stated…you could die…What is the alternative?

   1. Yes, I realize that, but I am not hurting the Democrats (or helping Trump) if I don’t vote for President. As I keep saying, and nobody seems to hear it, is that if I lived in a swing state I’d vote for Harris. Given that I live in a solidly Democratic state and my vote doesn’t hurt the Democrats or help Trump, my “alternative”, which I’m pondering, is not to vote for President at all. What I do will not affect the outcome, capish?

      1. Others have pointed out that not voting hurts Harris’s chances of winning a mandate. Also, you influence others to not vote for her.

         1. It seems to me that many commenters are missing the point. Some people choose to not vote for a candidate to prove that there is much about that candidate’s positions that they don’t agree with. If that is the person’s reason for choosing to not vote for that candidate they wouldn’t want to prove the same candidate’s mandate. That voter obviously doesn’t support that mandate.

            1. The assumption here is that there is a strong desire that T not be elected again, that pretty much anyone else would be a lot better.

            2. You’ve all made your assumptions abundantly clear. My point requires you to move a bit beyond that assumption.

   2. Maybe Nikki Haley was right that the first party to ditch its octogenarian candidate would win.

6. The problem with Kamala, aside from her being unintelligible, is that no one fears her, other than her staff (did I hear that there’s 80%+ turnover? A CEO with those metrics would be fired). The world has become a far more dangerous place since Biden took office, for much of the same reason.

   And no matter how many flaws Trump has, and there are many, the world was mostly peaceful and the US prosperous during his tenure. And the peace was due largely to his “instability” and lack of moral confusion when it comes to dealing with our allies. He was feared and it worked.

   The belief that lifetime bureaucrats without any private enterprise experience are qualified to deal with hostile adversaries and complex economic issues is at best specious and at worst delusional.

   1. If Trump had been President when Russian invaded Ukraine, you can be sure he wouldn’t have done what Biden did to rush aid to Ukraine and also continue to help them even when the Republicans took control of the House and the biggest Trumpists there wanted to cut that aid off.

      1. The difference is that Russia did not invade Ukraine while Trump was president. But did under Obama and Biden.

         1. +1 True.

            But.

            It’s unclear that we can deduce it won’t happen if Trump is elected president in 2024.

         2. I recall how Trump tried to hold up aid to Ukraine when he wanted them to dig up dirt on Biden’s son. He was impeached over it. That tells me all I need to know about Trump’s motivations and that he doesn’t care about Ukraine. If you do care yourself, let’s make sure Trump loses in November.

            1. Kind of like how Biden wanted and got the Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into Burisima fired so as not to impinge on Hunter, the oil & gas expert’s board seat?

               And Trump sent lethal aid to Ukraine while Obama sent blankets. Around the same time Trump killed 300 Russians in Syria for attacking a US army base.

         3. True. And Trump was right to scold Biden for the magnificent cities that Ukraine lost. But he doesn’t say a word about returning these cities to Ukraine. On the contrary, he promises quick peace at Ukraine’s expense. He is obsessed with giving Ukrainian lands to Russia. And he, using his puppets in the Congress, put the aid for Ukraine on hold for half a year, which had a tremendous cost in land and blood for Ukraine.

            Of course, if elected, Trump, being unstable as he is, could make a U-turn. But this cannot be counted on.

            If it was between Trump and Biden, I’d recommend Trump, because I believe that nothing could be worse for Ukraine than Biden. He always helps exactly enough to guarantee that Russia wins slowly but steadily, and Ukraine defends itself almost successfully with maximum losses; and he always vetoes anything that could give Ukraine a victory. But now that Harris is in the game, I think that she deserves the credit of trust that both octogenarians have already spent.

            BTW, thank you for caring about Ukraine. It breaks my heart that so many Americans don’t give a damn, given that it was America (under Clinton) that disarmed Ukraine with the Budapest Memorandum, giving false promises of safety, just to abandon it when Russia attacked it.

            1. We have a lot of people of Ukrainian descent in Canada. Putin is a horrible person.

   2. +1. Agree.

      This is true of both parties, though, don’t you think?

      This I like:

      “The belief that lifetime bureaucrats without any private enterprise experience are qualified to deal with hostile adversaries and complex economic issues is at best specious and at worst delusional.”

      .. but that’s the point. It’s all about fantasy.

   3. “The belief that lifetime bureaucrats without any private enterprise experience are qualified to deal with hostile adversaries and complex economic issues is at best specious and at worst delusional.”

      Bureaucrats with differing skill sets occupy differing positions. It is mere prejudice to assume all bureaucrats are the same. Some may indeed be qualified to deal with the issues raised.

      But what needs to be mentioned is that people have more rights under our Constitution with its Bill Of Rights than workers under the rule of businessmen. CEOs are in effect dictators, Trump spent his Presidency acting like one, and if re-elected it’s a sure bet he will do all he can to embrace the dictatorship that he believes is his divine right.

7. I would encourage everyone who wants Trump defeated to vote for Harris, including in deep blue states, because the size of the victory matters and the more votes Harris has the more legitimate her victory will be. That matters given how Trump will of course claim the election was stolen. So help ensure that Trump is a sore loser by voting for Kamala!

   1. No. 🙂

      1. Also “No.” Trump has always bee a sore loser, too. Logic does not apply to someone who doesn’t see any use for it.

         1. +1

   2. Like millions of people, my vote is the only political power I have. It is infinitesimal in its importance to the outcome of any national election but it is MY one and only way to have a voice in politics. I will NOT vote for Trump under any circumstance and I would vote for Harris unreservedly in a state that is in play. But, like Dr PCC(e), I live in a state that will not go for Trump.

      So I want my vote to count. It’s the only voice I have. If Harris wins and her margin isn’t huge, the hope (forlorn and foolish, I know) is that she’ll get the message that she and her policies are only JUST acceptable. Dr PCC(e), and many others, have pointed out some of the landmines in the Democrat’s policies and I for one do not want a Harris administration to start planting them.

   3. How about those of us who wish to send a message to Democrats that we don’t fully approve of VP Harris nor of the progressive leftward tilt of the party? One less vote for Harris sends that message just as strongly as you think that one more vote for Harris sends the message that she has a mandate.

      In light of what I’ve said, your comment seems obtuse.

      1. I too live in a blue state and thus my vote doesn’t mean a whole lot. My fear is that if there is not a very large national popular vote for Harris, Trump will challenge, challenge, challenge, and send the election to the House and possibly the Supreme Court. We can foresee how badly that would go.

         1. All of this speculation is great, but have we completely discounted the Electoral College and possible (probable) individual states refusing to certify a Harris win? And the Supreme court once again swooping in to declare the winner?

            1. That’s one of my worries.

      2. Not voting for POTUS sends the message “I don’t have a preference between Harris (a mainstream politician who has some policy positions I disagree with) and Trump (the man who tried to steal an election and disrupted America’s 200+ year tradition of peaceful transitions of power).”

         Voting for any politician never implies “I agree with all their positions;” it means “I think they’re significantly better than the alternative.”

         1. NOT voting for a Politian also says “I disagree with your positions”. I don’t give a damn if they misinterpret it; the message is clear to me. My vote is my only voice.

            FTR (not that anyone cares) I have not yet decided whether to cast a vote for Harris. She hasn’t yet given me a reason. We’ll see.

   4. Trump will say/do anything no matter what the vote count is. Whatever it is, it will be rigged, robbed, not enough, etc.
      As he lives in his own reality bubble, that argument doesn’t make much practical sense.

   5. I’ll vote for Harris even though I am in a blue state because I am voting not just against Trump, but against the whole Republican party that I believe has taken large steps towards authoritarianism that flirts with fascism. I am worried about the Democratic drift towards the far left also, I just see Trump and the Republicans as the more immediate danger. I will do what I can to defeat the Republicans as soundly as possible and then I may turn around and vote for a reconstituted (read saner) Republican party in the near future.

8. Land acknowledgments are insulting and superficial; any self respecting descendent of the first peoples should simply should out:

   “When do I get the land back? Can I pitch my tent here?”

   Every land acknowledgment should be buttressed by a serious intent to return the land in question to the relevant tribe. Why not?

   The democrats have ceased to serve the working class – they (largely) serve the elite and elite interests (exception is the environment). The border has been a nightmare for working class families. The Coconut pretending that she had nothing whatsoever to do with it for the past 3+ years is fascinating, the new improved Kamala is brand new, nothing to do with the old Kamala. Magic. Pixie Dust.

   Price controls (which may never happen, another smart “virtue signaling move” – and may be unconstitutional, also the profit margin on groceries are minuscule – but who cares? Sounds great) will lead to shortages and and shortages to inflation, if she manages to pull it off – won’t happen, don’t think.

   I admire the dems for the post modern fantasy they are selling the base and the gullible. It’s a talent. Of course they have most of the media playing cover.

   I was also “moved” by Biden’s reflection on the protesters:

   [Batya:
   President Joe Biden: “Those protestors out in the street, they have a point.”

   The protestors: literally dressed up as their Hamas heroes so as to more convincingly voice their support of October 7.]

   Very fine people on every side! 🙂

   The Joyful(!!) Party. Cool. Cool. Cool.

   1. +100

   2. Since you ask, Rosemary:

      “Returning” the land as demanded by 1492LandBack activists would mean surrendering American sovereignty over it to the tribe (or “Nation”) that wanted it, as Russia transferred Alaska to the United States. American law would no longer apply in those now-independent nations, just as Russian law no longer applies in Alaska. Private land ownership currently held within those new nations, which could take up most of the current United States*, would not be valid unless the new sovereign Indian governments chose to recognize deeds granted under the regime of the United States (and before 1783, under the British Crown.). There is nothing that says they have to. No private landowner owns his land absolutely. Only the sovereign does, which in the United States is “The People.” Just try fighting eminent domain or not paying your municipal property taxes and see what happens. Americans could find themselves landless, non-voting serfs under some to-be-invented indigenous land-holding scheme….if you were allowed to live in your new country at all.

      So that’s why there is no intent to give any land back and never will be. Americans can play at this because they have overwhelming force on their side that says they will never have to submit to or compensate anyone. But notice how the progressives hedge their bets. They only acknowledge land that someone else owns, usually their employer or the owner of the convention venue, never their own land that they own personally. Let’s not take any chances. And if you don’t own any land, what the hell, why not pledge to give your landlord’s land back? Maybe you wouldn’t have to pay rent, you think?
      ———————-
      * Is there any gathering anywhere in the U.S. that ever says, “We are meeting on land that was terra nullius, never the traditional territory of any indigenous people except us.”? Rather, what settler people seem to do is rummage through the history books and oral traditions to find someone, anyone, who once tramped or canoed over the land and waters somewhere within a few hundred miles and acknowledge that group as the landlord of whom we are modern “guests.” Perverse.

      1. +1

         Good comment.

   3. + Yup.

9. The parents of hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin spoke at the DNC last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzsMN6_8lw

   I thought it was a very moving speech, and the crowd was clearly on board (though it’s possible whoever was rolling the camera simply ignored the likes of Ilhan Omar and whatever other antisemites were present. The crowd gave them a sustained applause, chanted “bring them home!” and there were quite a few people crying. USA Today, which posted the video, mentions their call for a ceasefire, but if you watch the clip it’s clear their emphasis is on the plight of the hostages.

   1. So, why hasn’t Biden told Hamas/Iran to surrender and return the hostages, including US citizens?

      Or did I miss that part?

   2. I spoke to Jerry about this (in a similar vein and in similar appreciation), his response was “”bring them home’ is code for a 2-state solution” – unworkable from Israel’s point of view and consistently rejected by Hamas. It’s not entirely clear to me that it (“bring them home”) is code for a 2-state solution, but the allegation does factor.

      And as M. Aurelius asks (above), the relevant question is:

      “So, why hasn’t Biden told Hamas/Iran to surrender and return the hostages, including US citizens?

      And why does Biden empathize with protesters who are burning the American flag and rallying for Hamas. Yes, legal, but gross/appalling. Can he or the Coconut simply condemn the burning of our flag? Just that. If the rainbow flag was burned, most democrats would be up in arms and it would be a national news story, how about some love for our flag?

      I’m a first generation American, the US gave me (and my family) a safe haven away from *real* violence (not the fake kind amplified on elite American campuses – you’ll find many Iranian women express similar sentiments). To us, the flag means something. Something real. Safety. Freedom. Pride (of a different kind).

      1. “Bring them home” implies that Israeli government (with a modicum of goodwill) could bring hostages home. It’s a demand directed to Israelis.
         “Let my people go” directs this demand to those who are keeping people they kidnapped.

         1. +1

            Ah, I see. I get it. Thanks.

         2. Your comment made me very sad — about the hostages.

            “Let my people go”…..

            Just a few days, several more (6?) were found dead.

         3. I’d say “Bring them home” as an encouragement for IDF to continue doing their job and turn every stone in Gaza.

      2. I don’t remember saying that, but I don’t think that “bring them home” is a code for “create a two-state solution.” What I think is that “cease fire now” is a code for “let Hamas win.”

         1. You did say it, but it’s also possible that I misinterpreted you.

            Still, +1.

10. I believe that Democratic Platform also features a Land Acknowledgment.

    1. It does. About a dozen tribes are mentioned.

       1. Tribes ARE mentioned, but there are no land acknowledgements that I could find. Perhaps a more exhaustive search will find them (it);

          https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

          1. Scroll down:

             https://www.thefp.com/p/the-front-page-the-president-and

          2. It’s before the Preamble; you have to look at the pdf copy.

11. I’ve been watching the prime time parts of the convention on NewsNation (not MSNBC or CNN, but not CSPAN either). While the proceedings have had little to offer on substance—the main themes being freedom, joy, and love of country—it seemed to me that the speakers (during prime time) were for the most part “standard” Democrats. There were a few mentions of the war in Gaza, either directly or implied, but I don’t recall any statements that could be construed as favoring Hamas. On the contrary, when Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg-Polin spoke of their son held hostage in Gaza, the delegates watched with rapt attention and respect. No Gaza flags were in evidence. The faces of the audience members were bathed in tears.

    Outside the convention, cordoned off far from the proceedings, there were protests, but the numbers were smaller than expected according to most media. My guess is that the delegates did not want to be associated with the protestors, who are anti-American anarchists, professional trouble-makers, and their sycophants. At NewsNation, the protestors were shown on a split screen, which gave them more coverage than they deserved. (They deserved zero coverage.)

    It’s difficult to summarize such a multifaceted gathering (and counter-gathering outside) in a paragraph or two, but my impression is that it was the liberal Democrats who were at center stage. The “progressive” presence was more subdued. The highlight of the night was when Tim Walz’s 17-year-old son burst with pride during his father’s speech exclaiming and pointing “That’s my dad. That’s my dad!” It was a sweet moment.

    All of that said, I will continue to observe, watch, and listen. I look forward to hearing Kamala Harris’s speech tonight and to evaluate her policy positions—if she ever gets around to articulating them.

    1. Instead of putting a lot of weight on Harris’s speech, which will have been carefully crafted by other people for her to read off a teleprompter, I’d do what you ended with: see if she actually articulates policy positions after the convention (why hasn’t she done so yet, or given interviews or press conferences?). I can almost guarantee, since I have no access to a t.v. here, that she will not articulate firm policy positions in her keynote speech. It will be about hope and helping all Americans and the badness of Trump (the last of which I share).

       1. I’m definitely listening for policy positions between now and the convention. So far all we have is overall tone—which is pretty much what the convention is for. They paraded out some of the liberal lions—specifically the Clintons—who (I think) represent the mainstream liberals. And, Oprah Winfrey reached out to independents. So, at least regarding tone, the party isn’t locking out the classical liberals and it’s even throwing a bone to those (independents) who might be more conservative. From my perspective, what the Democrats are projecting during prime time isn’t too bad regarding “tone.” We have to look elsewhere for policy. If tone keeps working for the Democrats, we may not get a meaningful dose of policy until it’s too late.

          One sign that might be a negative is that not a single speaker defended Israel explicitly. The Jewish speakers—specifically Shumer, Shapiro, and Emhoff—strutted out their Jewish bona fides and condemned antisemitism (which is non-controversial), but no one defended Israel. Bernie Sanders called for bringing the hostages home and getting to a cease fire (fortunately, in that order). His statement was among the few that mentioned Israel at all, and only by implication, not by name. Why is this a negative? Because it tells us that the DNC doesn’t want Israel explicitly to be a part of the conversation. We don’t know if the Harris ticket is for Israel or against it.

          Years ago, voting for the Democrat was my default position. Now it is not. Harris has to earn my vote between now and November.

          1. See here: Kamala Harris Picks Terror Supporter as “Liaison” to American Jews

             https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20888/kamala-harris-jewish-liaison

    2. I have little to say about the specifics here bc not American. But I’m interested in the general pattern of consensus-building that happens via choices of what to show or not show in televised views of the convention (and what stories or op-eds to publish or not publish on news sites). The editors of those news orgs have huge influence over that consensus. What parts of the convention crowd should we pan over as Rachel Goldberg-Polin and Jon Polin are speaking (cf. Rachel @ 9)? Do we show or ignore Ilan Omar as she side-eyes the crowd to gauge how hard she wants to be seen clapping for “Bring them home!”? Do we show close-ups of the pro-pal demonstrators out on the street to emphasize their zeal, or do we zoom out to show what a tiny pathetic group those demonstrators are (and how far away they are from the actual convention)? These choices have a big effect on what viewers or readers see, and it seems like a v. important part of consensus-shaping. So I agree with other commenters that the news editors seem to be trying to help shape a consensus that’s centrist, focuses on the American hostages, and builds empathy for both Gazans and Israelis (and note I’m not endorsing that particular consensus view, just saying that’s the direction news editors seem to be nudging their viewers/readers).

       1. Agreed, and the media-government relationship works to shape public opinion here. Chomsky and Herman pointed this out years ago, and it’s even more evident today.

       2. I, too, completely agree. I may watch on CSPAN tonight, since there is almost no commentary. My go-to is NewsNation, as I’ve abandoned CNN and MSNBC and PBS. “News” networks have become propaganda machines, sculpting events to their liking. For all the talk on the networks about preserving democracy, the sad reality is that the networks aren’t preserving it; they’re undermining it.

          As per the Roolz, I’m done pontificating for today. 🙂

          1. To you, Norman, and the sub-thread you’re replying to, I agree. The media is 100% in the tank with the Democratic party and this is one of many unfortunate truths that have pushed me away. We are mimicking, in the US, dangerous trends that caused many people to flee their countries of origin for a still “free country” with a fully functioning fourth estate.

       3. Good points again, Mike. The editors – particularly in TV – control a LOT of the story. More than the participants who, as you note, are reading off a script. An AI script increasingly these days.

          D.A.
          NYC
          Ilan Omar is a terrorist and an aggressive Somali irredentist. I look forward to the 2nd half of the Squad being kicked out of office.

12. Basically, to me is what surgeon said “….what’s the alternative?”

    Everybody should vote regardless whwere they live
    i reside in the only state that was won by McGoveren? The point is
    VOTE because in some places you can’t
    Maybe a candidate win’s by only a few votes – you just don’t know

    1. I’m voting, but perhaps not for President. There are tons of other candidates, including Congresspeople and local people, like judges, for whom I’ll vote. I’m not 100% sure about voting Democratic for President, but at the moment I’m inclined to write in someone like Gretchen Whitmer.

       If you think the margin for President in Illinois will be thin, I’ll bet you $500 that Harris will win the state by more than 100,000 votes. You on? I didn’t think so. I know that Illinois will vote solidly for Harris with as much certainty that I know that evolution is true.

13. “Finally, I wish that Harris would have some interviews or press conferences before the election; it’s surprising to me that’s she’s had exactly none.”

    It’s because she’s not smart enough to speak extemporaneously. She’s no Obama or even a Hillary. She seems to have only a surface level understanding of things. If she started giving unscripted interviews, she’d inevitably run out of catch-phrases and would lapse into embarrassing word salad and cackles, which would hurt her campaign.

    Harris is really the Dan Quayle of the Democratic Party. That’s a name that no one has mentioned in a long time, but they are/were both lightweights who were put on their respective tickets for reasons that had little to do with competency.

    Unlike Quayle though, Harris will likely be President. They cannot hide her for four years once she is elected, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe she will knuckle down, push herself and grow into the role…many people thought Harry Truman was a bit simple but he turned out quite well as a president.

    1. Harry Truman was a lifelong reader of history, especially American history. He was able to discuss policy issues in depth. His Senate committee did excellent work in identifying military procurement waste. He had the perspective and temperament to make a good President, and he was. Kamala has none of this. She is a media creation. If she becomes President, other people will make the decisions. Pray she, or whoever picks her Cabinet, chooses wisely.

       1. You’re right and I think I undersold Harry’s experience before he became President. He had barely more formal education than high school (although he did have some additional instruction in law and business) and I know that it was used against him by political opponents. But as you say he was a curious man who read and studied on his own.

          Kamala has far more in the way of formal education, but she is very much of our time. Meaning, there are a lot of us running around today with impressive educational credentials, but who didn’t learn a heck of a lot in school or cultivate good learning habits, mainly because there wasn’t a lot of rigor.

       2. I am currently listening to a long biography (by David Mccullough) of Harry Truman. He was known to be highly competent long before the Senate.

14. Sure, in my opinion there have been some cringey, over the top moments (Oprah, for example), and the overemphasis on “joy” has become a bit threadbare. But there is incredible enthusiasm and hope for a much-needed alternative to Trump, as well as measured but heartfelt commentary from people like Buttigieg.

    Let’s get rid of Trump once and for all, and once Kamala is in we can work to bring the party into the center and provide a bit more common sense to the country.

    1. Getting rid of Trump, bringing the party to the center, and providing common sense to the country is why I voted for Biden last time. And I got more DEI, unchecked immigration, continued gender ideology, reinterpretation of Title IX, and a disturbing tolerance for Islamic terrorists.

       The convention looks like a lot of fun, and I don’t believe a word they say.

       1. +100. Susan.

          Those are the same reasons I voted for Biden in 2020.

          Not again. Certainly not for the Coconut.

          1. I’m finding your references to Kamala Harris as “the coconut” to be unnecessarily demeaning and offensive.

             1. It’s not demeaning. It’s one of her symbols. Acolytes add coconut emojis to their profiles and signatures.

                It traces back to a saying of her mother.

             2. Her own boosters call her that.
                See NYTimes.
                D.A.
                NYC

             3. Please. It is, obviously, intended to be demeaning. And none of her supporters call her that, a vague reference to the NYT notwithstanding. They would be missing the entire point of her coconut-tree anecdote if they did.
                Silly demeaning nicknames are a third-grade Limbaugh/Trump level of discourse that serious people avoid.

       2. I did everything you did for all the same reasons and I’ve been equally disappointed with the results.

    2. I thought Pete’s speech last night was really good. I wish they would let him loose to deliver a Sister Souljah on Rachel Levine and the queering of government. Having a successful married gay man with children say “Humans have two sexes, no one is born in the wrong body, and you can’t change your sex” would go some way toward restoring some er “Pride” in the LGB movement after its desperate embarrassing search for TQ+ relevance since 2015 and Obergefell v. Hodges.

    3. Larry,
       Woke Twitter was purged by a billionaire. Some Woke universities and bureaucracies have been reeled in by Republican legislatures. Some Woke corporations have been heeled by right-wing activism and their conservative consumer base.

       Can you name any major institutions that, once taken over by leftists, were rescued from their excesses by people on the center left? That can be a major government bureaucracy. A corporation. A leading university. A profession and its governing boards, societies, awards committees, etc. Where are the success stories to which you can point that give you confidence that left-wing excess, if it becomes entrenched in the most powerful bureaucracy of them all, can be brought back toward center?

    4. “Once and for all”? 2028? (mortality permitting)

15. I was, very surprisingly, very impressed by Oprah’s speech.

16. I don’t mean to be insulting; this is just my opinion; you’re free to disagree.

    Jerry is being too negative about the DNC. He focuses on all the woke points: the land acknowledgement (a pointless bit of virtue signaling, I agree), the pro-Palestine protests.

    I haven’t been watching the DNC live, just clips on YouTube. What I have seen is really uplifting and good! Coach Walz gave a solid, inspiring speech, and he really played up his “I’m a regular guy from a small town, where we look after our neighbors even when we disagree” persona. Such a contrast with Trump! Buttigieg made me tear up just a bit with his “my family looks ordinary, but it would have been impossible 20 years ago” bit. Overall, I’m encouraged by how much focus has been on “we’re Americans, let’s work together and make this a better country for everyone” rather than doubling down on DEI wokery.

    1. +1

17. As I said, I’ve seen only snippets of the DNC on YouTube, my real beef above, and perhaps I didn’t make it very clear, is with the direction the Democratic Party is going–towards the progressive left and towards Wokeism. I didn’t think that Biden would go that way, but he did. And it’s certain that Harris will go even further if she wins. If she does, I will continue to criticize any of her or fellow Democrats’ missteps and, I hope, have the grace to praise the good things she does. ]

    Frankly, I don’t want to keep coming on this thread and saying that I despise Trump, but it seems like I have to because people keep telling me that my criticism of Harris, or my intimations that I won’t vote for either major candidate for President, is HELPING TRUMP WIN. Given that I’m from Illinois, that kind of criticism won’t wash.

    My fear is of pervasive wokeism under Democrats. I’m more afraid of what Trump will do, of course. How many times do I have to say that before people stop blasting me for helping Trump. It’s simply dumb to say that I have to vote for Harris as a Democratic from Chicago because, even though my vote won’t affect the election one way or another, we need to give Harris a big popular vote as a mandate. I don’t think that’s a reason to make me vote for someone whose policies I often disagree with. I voted for Biden, but Harris is even more “progressive” than he is and I’ve had enough.

    ONCE AGAIN, if I lived in a swing state, or there was any chance that my non-vote would help Trump get elected, I would vote for Harris. But that’s not the situation, and I hope that most people on this thread realize this by now. Please stop telling me how I should vote, or that I should vote for President at all.

    Just consider this post as a post about the Democratic Party and not the convention, okay? And, as I’ve said a gazillion times before, I see my brief as examining and critiquing my own party, not repeatedly saying that Trump is a pathological narcissist and a danger to America, which, while true, you can read about on a gazillion other sites (try Pharyngula if you want that).

    Those who ignore this advice and continue to tell me that I must vote, and must vote for Harris, are violating the Roolz on the grounds of obtuseness. To quote Christopher Hitchens,

    “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

    Also, people, be aware of commenting too often on this thread. The Roolz gives guidelines for how often you’re commenting before it becomes too domineering.

18. Hi Jerry,

    You may find Tablet’s running blog on the DNC interesting.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/democrats-chicago-dnc

    Especially as one of the writers attended the pro-Hamas street protests and can speak to their scale.

19. I understand the impetus to not vote in the presidential race, but I would like to offer someone else’s words as an inducement to hold your nose and vote for Kamala Harris anyway. This is from a recent interview with Lincoln Mitchell, a political analyst and writer who teaches at Columbia and holds the same positions as PCCE on Hamas and encampments on campus.

    “I hear this a lot on social media: Kamala Harris hasn’t earned my vote. No one has to earn your vote. If you’re an American citizen and you haven’t been disenfranchised because of the carceral state, you have a vote. And you have to decide whether you are grown up enough to use it. And if you wait around for someone to be perfect, then you are absenting yourself from politics. This is a binary. You can vote for the imperfect center-left Democrat or you can either vote for the fascist or do something else that vaguely helps the fascist. Those are our choices. We are not voting for best friend or mother or sister; we are voting for president, and one candidate is clearly much, much better than the other.”

    You won’t help Trump win in Illinois by not voting for Kamala Harris, but if you do vote for her you will add to a popular vote that at least symbolically repudiates what Trump and his supporters represent. If you want to change the direction of the Democratic party, better to work on that when Trump is safely and permanently out of reach of the presidency.

    1. Well I’m glad that at least one person recognizes that my not voting for one of the two Presidential candidates won’t affect the results of the election. If there is any symbolism in my current stand, I am “symbolically” expressing, as a registered Democrat, my displeasure at the direction that the Democratic Party has taken, and perhaps writing in Gretchen Whitmer as a symbolic expression of where I’d like the party to go.

       Surely you’re not telling me to stop saying what I think because I might somehow get Trump elected, ergo I should stop giving my opinion until Trump has been defeated as President. Really, it’s come to this?: “Stop criticizing the Democratic Party, Jerry, until Trump has been defeated”. Really? See the (hopefully) last comment of this thread right below.

20. I wonder how much of the Kamala vote is for Team Blue rather than for the candidate. I no longer accept that it is even about “beating Trump.” Personal habits are hard to break. Our politics increasingly acquire cultic elements. Social expectations of family, friends, and peers reinforce both habit and cult. I venture that the partisans would be excoriating Jerry about the need to vote Blue no matter the Republican candidate. Trump. DeSantis. Haley. Wouldn’t matter. If not Trump, we would then hear about how the Republicans would destroy the environment, strip the abortion tools from every clinic, PROJECT 2025!!!! As Max mentioned here the other day: ghost stories. What we wouldn’t hear is a dispassionate wrestling with the issues that Jerry raises on which the Democrats have lurched very far left. This is no longer the party with which many here grew up. In some core areas, it is not only unrecognizable, it has become its antithesis.

    I would add to that list of Jerry’s that the Democrats, as a party, no longer cherish free speech. Indeed, they attack the principle. Sitting and former senators, governors, congressmen and women, cabinet officials, the current VP pick, have all falsely claimed that the right to free speech gives you no right to speak hate or misinformation. (For as broadly as hate is in the eye of the beholder, do consider how one can stretch the term “misinformation.”) These are not entirely ignorant people. They know what they are saying; they are trying to change social norms and understanding, the Constitution be damned. The Administration enacts the new dogma by colluding with Big Tech to silence people online; the ACLU selectively abandons its commitment to defense of speech; rank-and-file Democrats either shrug or applaud. They have internalized the rule by experts, the faith in the benevolence of government authority—when their sect is in charge. (Is it any wonder that many will vote as they are told?) The constitutional protection of free speech used to be seen by Democrats as foundational, no matter the speaker, no matter the group, no matter the cause. No more.

    1. The money behind the Republican Party is happy to utterly destroy any aspect of the natural environment if it means potential profit. That is not a “ghost story”.
       Whether the Democrats are much better is another question, but even lip service is something.

       [edit: oops, just saw what follows below. Shutting up now.]

    2. +1

       Yes.

21. Okay, I think everyone’s had their say, and I’ve deep-sixed a comment that included the following:

    If someone thinks that not voting is a sensible option, but would rather seen Harris win, then I suggest keeping it to yourself rather than possibly influence others who may vote and who may live in a state where every vote will count.

    Translated, this means, “Please keep your views to yourself, PCC(E), because expressing them may influence those who are too dumb to think for themselves.”

    With that bit of inanity, inviting Hitchensian osculation of the posterior, I think this thread must come to an end. To avoid ruining my vacation by making me give the same responses over and over again, I ask readers to simply make no more comments on this post, but hold onto your thoughts until the next political discussion comes around.

    IN SHORT, withhold your further comments on this thread. Thank you. All further comments will be deep-sixed, no matter what their content. Please respect my wishes for this one-off request; I have neither the time on my vacation nor the equanimity to monitor and respond repeatedly to comments. I promise that you’ll all get your chance to have a say after the convention.

    My mistake was posting on politics on my vacation!

    1. I don’t like this trend Jerry.

       It’s not fair.

       People should be able to speak. Whether we like what they say or not.

       1. It is not a “trend”, but a one-time pause (which is now ended). But people don’t have the “right” on this site to say anything they want. Real #23 in the posting Roolz, please.

          And I do object to comments telling me how to run this site. (see Rule 6).

          I don’t run this website according to the dictates of readers, and if people object to how it’s run, they are perfectly free to start their own website. If you want an example of the degeneration of a site where there’s no moderation—except to trash all comments that the moderator doesn’t like—I suggest looking at Pharyngula.

          There are plenty of comments on this site that take issue with my position, and if they’re civil they are posted.

22. Wow. This academic hyperbole is fun, but we’re not in a political science class.
    Let’s not lose focus on the number one thing that we all agree with and that must be accomplished. Defeat Trump and remove this cancer from politics, culture, and the news cycle.
    Then, let’s debate the issues.

23. I”ve been in complete agreement with our host regarding this presidential election (like him, I’m in a non-swing state in which my vote for president will have no effect on the electoral college result). And mandate shmandate: the Republicans may very well try to steal the election regardless of whether they lose by one vote or five million, and no number of rational arguments against their criminal acts will make a bit of difference to them. And also, I have to live with myself. My fears of Harris fully embracing the anti-liberal/anti-democratic wing of her (and my) party is emphatically reality-based, and I don’t want to live the rest of my life feeling I’ve made any contribution to their efforts. I am not voting for president in this election.

24. I am voting for Harris even if it won’t make a difference. In my case I live in a red state (Iowa). I am committed to defeating Trump. I wish the Dems were more centrist; I wish our candidate was stronger. But I think there is still a center to the Democratic Party. (Witness the defeat of a couple of “Squad” members in the primary.) But right now the Republicans are a cult and that has to be burned out of them. I tell everyone to “vote your conscience” and in my case, in *this* election, that is a vote for Harris without qualms or hesitation.

25. I hope those in states uncontested for President who do not want to vote for Harris or Trump will still go to the polls to vote for down ballot races.

26. The Honourable J. Michael Luttig is an unsung hero who was instrumental in influencing former VP Mike Pence not to overturn the election results. Do listen to this interview at the Aspen Institute. He has endorsed VP Kamala Harris.

    The folks sitting on the fence and impotently intending to withhold their vote should take a lesson from a true hero and line up behind him. It’s important to sweep Trump aside by helping the Democrats to get an overwhelming win in both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Otherwise he will “not go gentle into that good night”.

27. “Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage, and continue talking shite.”
    — D Trump’s motto

28. I hope by this time you’ve had a chance to watch Harris’s speech. She gave a very forceful statement in support of Israel’s right to self defense, in which she explicitly called out Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the sexual violence they committed on Oct 7:

    With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock, because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a cease-fire deal done.

    And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. [emphasis mine]

    At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.

    President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.

    1. Yes, fine words, and from what I heard a good speech. However, I will be looking for deeds in addition to words. For example, does Harris want a full cease-fire now with Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza? That would mean that Hamas has won and Israel is NOT secure, still being next to a Gaza run by Hamas that has promised to repeat the events of October 7 many tmes over.

       Also, what is the Palestinian “right to self determination”. If that means they’ll be working towards a two-state solution at the present moment (my default position before October 7), than that is at present untenable and will also not guarantee Israel’s security.

       Calling out Hamas as a terrorist organization is one thing, but will it be left as the ruling party in Gaza? We will see. If Harris would do some press conferences and interviews, we could pin down the answers to these questions more precisely, but she’s avoiding such interactions, knowing what the results would be and how they would play with the public.

29. I was curious to dig into the land acknowledgment at the DNC. First, it was given by an invited aboriginal person, almost in the manner of a secular prayer replacing the traditional invocation by a local religious pastor with the right political connections. Land acknowledgements are usually given by the trespassing settlers as a request for forgiveness for not packing up and leaving, not by the guy who wants to remind you you stole his land — to considerable applause from the assembled trespassers — but he can’t tell you to clear off. So all he’s “acknowledging” is the reality of the situation.

    Second, the transfer of title of 130 acres out in DeKalb County. It maybe wasn’t clear that the Potawatomi have signed over the land parcel to the the U.S. government, not the reverse. This creates a “sovereign” Indian nation under U.S. law out of what was private land owned by the Potawatomi corporately. Why do this? Well, a sovereign Indian nation is not subject to state law or to the local ordinances of the municipality in which it sits. This means that the Nation can operate a casino or other businesses that the state of Illinois prohibits or regulates, like a hazardous waste dump site or tobacco & firearms trading and it can erect the necessary structures without getting building permits from the county/town. It will not have to pay state excise or municipal property taxes either or risk forfeiture if the taxes were not paid. Only federal law, subject to applicable treaties if any, will apply. 130 acres is about right for a casino with parking and a gas station and smoke shop, and maybe a hotel and convention centre, all tax-free.

    This also means that if any of the businesses on the Nation go bankrupt, there is no risk that the creditors would force the sale of the land in settlement, it being owned by the U.S. government in trust instead of by private (aboriginal) citizens.

30. Respectfully, why call out the protestors for pushing out the man that tried to stop the protestors from burning the flag, shouldn’t he be called out for trying to silence these people’s free speech?

    I personally think that burning the US flag is stupid, but if we are for free speech we should not be encouraging people trying to stop that free expression of ideas even if it is stupid.

Comments are closed.