Obama-nal

Obama Draws Roars of Approval at DNC

Apparently you can't go wrong picking a black state senator to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. First Barbara Jordan and now Barack Obama have delivered electrifying speeches. For all the press he's received at home and nationwide, tonight was Obama's introduction on the big stage, and the man seized the opportunity like he's seized every other chance life has given him. Between Bill Clinton last night and Barack Obama tonight, the Democrats have laid out a very strong vision of their party. I hope the next two nights see John Edwards and John Kerry lay out the specific plans they have to make that vision a reality; if they do--and I believe they will--this convention will be a phenomenal success. Assuming anyone else is watching, that is.

In the morning I leave for New York City. I'll be gone until Saturday night, so don't expect my thoughts on the rest of the convention until next week--but rest assured that whether I'm at home or at the Hilton, I wouldn't miss these speeches for the world.

While I'm gone, perhaps you can do something for me with all the time you'll save at work not reading my new posts each day. As you'll recall from a previous post, I'm trying to improve my Amazon reviewer ranking. I've met with some success: my ranking improved from 344,623 on June 22 to 28,366 ten days ago--before plummeting inexplicably back into the 100,000s and cresting again, today, at 55,644. You can help turn the tide forward again, and perhaps move some of my reviews into featured slots, by taking a few minutes to give me some helpful votes. To do so, click here, pick a review you like, click on it, find my review on the product's page, and click "yes." Rest assured that I'm not the only reviewer asking for help, and know that your efforts are appreciated.

Bonus question for the comments: Can anyone guess what we'll be celebrating on this site next week?

New Day

Speeches to the Democratic National Convention on Monday Night

With time to reflect, I have to say that last night could be the turning point in the election. It opened a narrative for the Democratic Party that answers their critics and concerned swing voters at the same time, showing that the war on terror would be well-prosecuted in the hands of a Kerry Administration. If Kerry can step into the role his introducers have cast for him, he's golden. Andrew Sullivan's analysis of the evening strikes me as particularly good.

Sullivan agrees with me, by the way, that Clinton would be president for life if the Constitution allowed it. And as I go back over last night's brilliant speech, it's easy to see why. Read the full transcript by following the link above, but realize that you're missing the oratorical flourishes that double the power of an already magnificent piece of speechwriting. Look at page 4, where Clinton delivered a Reaganesque line:

We tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it our way for eight years. Then we tried it their way for four more. By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better.

He followed this with a stream:

It produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes for the middle class, over a hundred times as many people moved from poverty into the middle class, more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record homeownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror and a respected America in the world. It worked better.

Just reading it, it's an impressive list. But the delivery turned it into the grand finale of an incredible fireworks display, an unequivocal statement that while there are honest differences between the parties, and both sides believe their way works best, ours has the facts behind it. Such is the genius of Clinton.

Perhaps it doesn't matter; perhaps the result is already inevitable. It occurred to me last night that in 1796 the nation elected John Adams its second president after he had served eight years as VP under a popular president, George Washington. In 1800 they turned Adams out and gave Thomas Jefferson eight years in the White House. In 1824 a divided electorate resulted in the man who got the plurality of votes losing the presidency to John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams. In 1828, Andrew Jackson led the Democrats to victory, remained president for eight years, and saw his VP during his second term, Martin Van Buren, elected for a term as president as well.

In 1988 the nation elected George Bush its 41st president after he had served eight years as VP under a popular president, Ronald Reagan. In 1992 they turned Bush out and gave Bill Clinton eight years in the White House. In 2000 a divided electorate resulted in the man who got the plurality of votes losing the presidency to George W. Bush, son of George Bush. Does it follow that in 2004, John Kerry will lead the Democrats to victory, remain president for eight years, and see his VP win a term to succeed him? Let's hope so.

Bang

Clintons go to bat for Kerry and Edwards

More in the morning, but I have to say this: the bar has been set high for the rest of the week. Gore was both funny and forceful. Carter made a compelling argument. Kerry's boatmate was phenomenal. Hillary found a sound bite that's perfect: A serious man for a serious job in a serious time. And Bill proved that he's willing to expend all his political capital to help Kerry win, delivering a speech that was both incredibly clever (in its use of his own faults, including his newfound wealth and his long-ago draft-dodging) and beautifully effective. "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values": the man is a rhetorical genius, delivering the line with his aw, shucks pose as if he just thought of it standing up there. If there weren't term limits, well, he'd be president for life.

If the American people were watching tonight, or if the press does this all justice in the morning, then John Kerry should have a very receptive audience by Thursday. If the pundits are right, and the American people are using this week to get to know John Kerry, then the man they started to meet tonight--strong, wise, fighting for those who need it, unwilling to leave anyone behind, and courageous enough to go back to get them--is undoubtedly someone who will compare favorably with Bush. Once the American people get to know John Kerry, the devil they know, the one they've been thinking about keeping around for another term, is going to look a lot worse by comparison.

Hello, Sports Fans

ESPN.com: Page 2 - John Kerry

Amid all the political coverage, this is a pretty interesting interview with John Kerry. The Democrat is quite the sportsman and sports fan, and his knowledge of sports could be very helpful in siphoning the Bubba vote in this election away from Bush and narrowing the gender gap among men. Plus, in one interview, Kerry shows a sense of humor (see question seven), the heart of a true fan (see questions nine and nine-a), and the ability to work politics into anything (see his parting shot in response to question ten-a). That's got to count for something.

Big Bounce

The Copycat Convention - Are the Democrats stealing from the Republicans?

It's finally here, and every political reporter on the planet is trying to figure out what role the Democratic National Convention will play in the results of the election. I think Chris Suellentrop's theory is a reasonable one:

Even a casual viewer of Hardball knows that the first rule of an election that involves a sitting president is that it's a referendum on the incumbent. This election, however, has turned out to be the opposite. It's a referendum on the challenger. Kerry probably isn't responsible for this turn of events, but he's benefiting from it: The referendum on the incumbent is over. President Bush already lost it. This presidential campaign isn't about whether the current president deserves a second term. It's about whether the challenger is a worthy replacement.

He has a point. In many elections, the public decides the incumbent is OK and never really looks at the challenger. Ask Bob Dole about his experience in 1996 against Bill Clinton, or Walter Mondale about his 1984 thrashing by Ronald Reagan. This time out, all the attention is on Kerry and what he might do as president. The public is willing to boot Bush, but Kerry needs to sell himself as an acceptable alternative.

For that reason, I think this will be an important week. Kerry has a chance this Thursday to pass muster with the American people; if he manages to do that, and to define himself in a way that helps buffer him against the inevitable Republican flak he'll take until November, there's not much Bush can do at this point, short of hauling Bin Laden out of the Oval Office in chains, to win.

Which brings me to one last point. This weekend the AP decided to try its hand at math and arrived at the conclusion that Bush is leading in the Electoral College. This made for a good story about the uphill battle Kerry faces and the harsh demographic reality that the states Gore won in 2000 are worth seven fewer EVs today than they were back then. There's just one problem: the AP's math was, ahem, a bit fuzzy. Read electoral-vote.com this morning for an explanation of how the AP got it wrong. For the record, the tally this morning, by that site's count, is 290 for Kerry to 237 for Bush with a tie in Tennessee. That's not an insurmountable lead, but it isn't losing, either.

Horror!

Sopranos won't be back until 2006

I don't know if I can handle this news. That's a minimum of 17 months, and probably many more, before we find out the how the show ends. At least there wasn't a cliffhanger...

Foundation

Delgado should be cheered, not jeered

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, in a country where a flag-burning amendment is considered important enough that the Senate considers it rather than worrying about balancing the budget, that having a conscience and exercising it is reviled. Granted, the fans at Yankee Stadium are not a perfect cross-section of America, but their reaction to Carlos Delgado after it was finally discovered that he disappears every time the song "God Bless America" is played at the ballpark in silent protest of the war in Iraq is probably not atypical.

Ron Borges gets it exactly right in his column, linked above. Delgado should be applauded for the quiet civics lesson he's teaching to all the little kids who follow baseball. He's making a silent statement about something he believes is wrong--without hurting anyone, without rubbing it in anyone's face. To do so, and to acknowledge doing so when questioned, and to put up with the taunts of fans as a result, takes a sort of courage we sorely lack in America.

Marilynne Robinson points this out in the most recent issue of Harper's, in an article titled "The Tyranny of Petty Coercion." It's unfortunately not available online, but the gist is this: While America produces a great many people who are willing to sacrifice their lives in its service, an act that requires great physical courage, it does not produce people who are willing to admit that they think differently than those around them, an act that requires a different sort of courage altogether, a moral and intellectual courage that we have a harder time recognizing and, therefore, a harder time fostering.

Robinson calls this courage the courage to stand by the "truth," even when that truth is not popular and not recognized by the masses as true. It is the sort of courage that allows Robinson to call herself a liberal when the word has been discredited because she knows what the word really means, the sort of courage she also demonstrates by calling herself a Christian among her "liberal" friends who say she should abandon the label because the Religious Right has perverted it. It is the sort of courage Delgado shows by sitting quietly during the seventh-inning stretch to show that, while others may not like it, he believes starting the war in Iraq was wrong. It is the sort of courage needed in these times, when questioning the impact of a tax policy on a group of people elicits cries of "Class warfare!" and "Why do you hate America?" If we as a nation continue to hold dear the precepts upon which our country was founded, we should see that Delgado is showing us what we're all about. As Borges points out, the founders were influenced by Voltaire, so I leave you for today with his thoughts on free speech:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Fair's Fair

Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds

As discontent with Bush grows among people who consider themselves fiscal Republicans but question his foreign policy or his moves to limit stem-cell research and ban gay marriage, many of them are finding an alternative: the Libertarian Party and its candidate for president, Michael Badnarik. Wouldn't it be fitting if Bush, who came into office partly because of a third-party candidate, left it because of another?

To find out if you should vote Libertarian this fall, you can take a quiz that will show your place on the political map. Feel free to post your scores in the comments!

Daily Ritual

Muzzling the Courts?

It's getting to the point where I could write about nothing but Republican proposals that are bad for civil rights and still post something every day. This week the House G.O.P. will attempt to pass a bill that would prevent the federal courts from hearing cases that consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. There are no procedural roadblocks to be thrown up in the House, so chances are we'll see an actual up-or-down vote on this, and I can't say I'm encouraged. The House Republicans are by and large a disciplined bunch, ready to be whipped into shape by their leadership. Hopefully the Senate will ignore this bill if the House passes it. While there are more arguments against the bill that avoid completely the issue of gay marriage (and therefore provide safe cover for legislators who can't afford to be gay friendly in front of their intolerant constituents) than there were against the Federal Marriage Amendment, there's also an argument to be made that this is a less drastic move than amending the Constitution, as it wouldn't strip states of their power to regulate marriage.

The bill confronts a much bigger issue than gay marriage, though. The role of the courts has been, for two centuries, to consider whether acts of Congress can be squared with the Constitution. This role has allowed the courts to right grievous wrongs, including the end of segregation, in a manner that elected officials would take extra decades to accomplish. Congress should not deem its decisions on a particular matter (or set of matters--Tom DeLay says he'd like to pass similar legislation regarding the Pledge) above review by the courts. If it does, the Supreme Court should shoot it down, allowing immediate high court appeals on any issue Congress deems outside the purview of the federal judiciary. A few frightened social reactionaries cannot be allowed to short circuit either progress or the separation and balancing of powers inherent in our system of government.

Tossup

Measure to Outlaw Flag Burning Advances in Senate
Report: Michael Jackson to Be Father of Quadruplets

I'm trying to decide which of these two prospects is more frightening: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that directly contradicts the First Amendment notion of free speech or the idea that Michael Jackson will have four more children to add to the three he's already screwing up for a lifetime.

I suppose it's got to be the amendment, if only because it has the potential to do harm to so many more people. We can all turn a blind eye to the tabloid coverage of the teeming Jackson brood as they grow older and inevitably have all manner of twisted, TV-newsmagazine-worthy exploits. It's a lot harder to ignore the fact that a terrible blow against liberty has been struck.

We do not prohibit dissent in this country. It makes us stronger, it makes us better, and it makes us who we are. Banning flag burning should not be done in part because there's no rational basis for doing so, but also because such a ban violates an important principle of this nation: that we have the right to do what we will to express our views, political and otherwise, as long as we do not endanger others in doing so. Burning a flag in a demonstration is no more dangerous to anyone else than a campfire; unless two-thirds of Congress also wishes to ban those (in which case we should all start plotting a move to Canada, because things have gotten seriously out of control), they must admit that they're not up for banning burning the flag because they hope to save lives. They want to protect a symbol from desecration.

They've got the wrong symbol. The liberty enshrined in our Constitution is a symbol not only to Americans but to all the world of the freedom that all men and women ought to have. To interfere with that freedom, even for such a well-meaning reason as to protect the flag under which millions have suffered and died for that freedom, is to put a black mark on the Constitution and on the nation.

To learn more about the amendment and why we don't need it--and to send a free message to your Senators--visit here.

Dose of Caffeine

Democrats Plan Post-Convention Ad Blitz

In case you've been feeling a little post-Edwards slump in enthusiasm about the chances for John Kerry in November, here's an article that points out a bunch of reasons why he's got a good shot. First among them: Tons of cash, both in his own coffers and in those of the Democratic National Committee. No one ever expected anything like an even playing field in the money race, but right now it looks a lot better than anyone thought it might.

The article doesn't mention a bunch of other reasons for optimism: fervor among Democrats to oust Bush, generally positive sentiment toward Edwards from independents, electoral maps that show Kerry leading, and, finally, a question more and more journalists are asking: Where are all the voters who voted for Gore in 2000 and plan to vote for Bush in 2004? It's easy to find a fed-up Bush voter who vows to pull the lever for Kerry as an act of penance, but not nearly so easy--some say impossible--to find someone who picked Gore in 2000 and wants another four years of Bush. Since we all know that Gore got more votes last time, how can Bush win if even the folks who voted for him last time out are abandoning him?

I know the answer, but this post is meant to be an upper. Maybe we'll talk about rallying the base with fear tactics tomorrow.

Poll Free

It's a pretty slow news morning. I want to write about last night's monumental episode of Six Feet Under, but I fear that few readers will have seen it, and I don't want to give away what is surely one of the biggest plot developments in the show's four seasons. I will say this: I had a very hard time sleeping last night.

Before the Sunday night HBO/Showtime ritual, I went for a long walk around the lakes near our house and contemplated how expensive the houses around those lakes would be. Home ownership isn't in our immediate future--we're tied up in our lease until at least next June--but I'm quietly checking out neighborhoods, looking at prices, and thinking about what we'd want in a house. I was listening to the new Air CD, Talkie Walkie, as I walked, and that got me to thinking: how much more money would I have for a down payment if I weren't so CD-crazy?

When I got home I took a quick pass through my CD racks and discovered that I've purchased (or received as gifts, in lieu of other useful items), at minimum, 325 CDs since graduating from college three years ago. In other words, I obtain about nine CDs every month. This doesn't meet the standards of some folks I know, but it's still a lot. Thrift helps keep the costs down: CDs from Columbia House or BMG only end up costing me about $6.50 each, including shipping and tax, and a lot of my CDs were bought from the used racks at Cheapo Records, Treehouse, CD Warehouse, or Disc Replay, some for as little as $1.95 and none for more than $8.95. I buy new releases the first week while they're being deeply discounted. But even with all these cost-saving measures in place, it's undeniable: these CDs represent a massive investment. I'd probably have another $2500 if I could kick the habit.

Or would I? I make my lunch every night to bring to work the next day; would I still do that if I didn't buy all these CDs, or would I feel more free to spend six or seven dollars on food a few times a week? Might I buy more DVDs? Might I go out and buy other stuff just because I enjoy buying new things?

There are many ways to save money, but for me, it turns out cutting my CD habit isn't one of them. Look at the list from last Tuesday: do you think I'm going to forego any of those new releases? I listen to probably 12 or 15 different albums every day; I can't work without music, can't drive without music, and usually don't read without music. And unlike a book or a DVD, the odds that I'll use a CD over and over are pretty high. I'm listening to Air right now--for the fifth time since I bought it (used, for $6.99) Saturday.

All of which is to say that after much thought, this is what I've decided:

Stop buying CDs? I'd be better off cutting out the grocery store.

Too Good to Be True?

Science Comes a Step Closer to a Workout in a Pill

If this magic pill pans out, the level of popularity and use it would have in the United States and around the world is almost impossible to overstate. Other than those miraculous few who enjoy spending their evenings in a gym, or people who are paid to exercise all day, who wouldn't want a pill that stops their body from adding fat without all that annoying running?

Of course, if no one is fat anymore, the standards will only go up. I pity the folks whose claim to beauty is merely being thin. When it takes a six-pack and bulging biceps to stand out at all from the crowd, they'll lose their heretofore privileged position. But the health benefits and cost savings this pill could create for an overweight population such as ours would be remarkable; heart disease rates would likely plummet, for one thing. This could prove to be a magic pill for trimming not just our waistline but our national health care budget...

Whose Land?

Just Click Here Already

You'll never hear Woody Guthrie the same again. Make sure you have your speakers turned on and click above. I promise you'll laugh.

Naked Emperor

Kobe's Choice: Lakers

Well, congratulations, Mr. Bryant. $136 million over seven years is nothing to sneeze at for someone my age. I know I'd be content with job security until age 32 and the knowledge that I never have to work another day in my life anywhere that I'm not considered the top dog.

I suspect this financial windfall and the power you've so longed to have throughout your tempestuous relationship with Shaq and Phil will not be enough to satisfy you, though. Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, and Caron Butler aren't an appropriate nucleus for a championship team; if your tears in 2003 when the Spurs eliminated you were real, well, get ready to feel that pain year after year. Without Shaq to help you out, Tim Duncan's Spurs and Kevin Garnett's Wolves will eat your puny Lakers for breakfast. All the money in the world may help you swallow that bitter pill, and the life perspective you get from being on trial for your life may make losing in the second round seem a less terrible fate than it once did. It's not like the Clippers were going to provide you with some path to playoff glory, I know, but I hope you realize what your antics in L.A. have done. I suspect we've seen the last of you in the NBA Finals for a great many years to come.

Optimism

Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment

Of course, today's vote pleases me. The fact that Senator "Dog-on-man-action" Santorum couldn't round up even half the Senate to support the FMA is a great sign.

I'm going to go out on an optimistic limb and say that, despite the protests of conservatives, this is the end of this issue in terms of any serious possibility of the amendment being passed. Certainly, vigilance will remain necessary for a while; conservatives will still stump about this in the South and try to use it as a wedge to get out the vote. But today's result reflects a growing consensus that an amendment is a terrible idea. The L.A. Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Chicago Tribune, among others, have all said, for different reasons, that the amendment should never be passed.

That's a lot of newspapers. They reach a lot of citizens, and the opinions expressed in them aren't often so out of the mainstream that they'd offend people into canceling their subscriptions. The country is coming around on this issue; more accurately, perhaps, the country is deciding this is not really an issue worth getting worked up about. That may not be the optimum position for those of us who wish the Senate had been voting to allow gay marriage nationwide, but overwhelming indifference and acceptance today will eventually turn into judicial and legislative solutions to the special difficulties that face same-sex couples. As the L.A. Times points out, six years ago the notion that gay marriage would ever happen seemed crazy, despite the struggles of the gay community to find a way to make do without it; today the notion that gays are entitled to some form of legally-recognized partnership is not only an article of liberal faith but an idea around which a growing number of Americans are reaching consensus. If that legal partnership is achieved state-by-state in the courts, it will be the result not of majority will against such a partnership but of the concerted efforts of a dedicated few demagogues who oppose it.

All of which is to say that, a year after Lawrence v. Texas paved the way for a new future for gay and lesbian Americans, our path to that future looks rosier than I'd ever have imagined the day I started down it. While things may not be as good as we wish and deserve them to be, they are better by far than we had any reason to expect. Today, that gives me a reason to hope--and a reason to smile.

Music Mania

New CD Releases - Release Dates for Albums

Lately I've been lamenting the state of music in 2004; it seems that at this point every year I look back and can't think of more than three releases that have really grabbed me since the year began. This year is no different; the list of albums eligible for the "Best of 2004" crown--which is the list of albums of new material released in 2004 that I've purchased--numbers eleven, and only four, at maximum, have what it takes to crack into any other year-end list I've made. (For purposes of comparison, I own more than 40 albums of new material released in each of the past four years.)

That's why the link above brings such good cheer to my heart and such horror to my wallet. According to whoever compiles the list, we'll see new stuff from Fiona Apple, Beck, Bjork, Coldplay, Desaparecidos, Everclear, Ben Folds, Garbage, Interpol, Jimmy Eat World, Elton John, Annie Lennox (a best-of compilation), Lisa Loeb, Moby, R.E.M., The Thrills, U2, Lucinda Williams, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs before the year is through. I have a feeling a few of those folks are capable of making the list; combined, they're already the holders of no fewer than 31 spots on past lists.

Speaking of lists, you'll note that the 2003 albums list on the sidebar has been revised. This will probably happen one more time, but for now the list is:

1. Rufus Wainwright: Want One
2. Kathleen Edwards: Failer
3. The Shins: Chutes Too Narrow
4. Death Cab for Cutie: Transatlanticism/ The Postal Service: Give Up
5. Ryan Adams: Love is Hell & Rock N Roll
6. Annie Lennox: Bare
7. Fountains of Wayne: Welcome Interstate Managers
8. Belle and Sebastian: Dear Catastrophe Waitress
9. The Thrills: So Much For the City
10. The White Stripes: Elephant
11. New Pornographers: Electric Version
12. Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Fever to Tell

Beyond Reason

Uncivil

The potential vote on the FMA is in disarray at the moment; apparently the G.O.P. didn't expect Democrats to be so willing to allow an up or down vote, and now they're scrambling because many of their own faithful don't want to vote for an amendment that would prevent not only gay marriage but also all the other legal arrangements that have been and may be available to gay couples. As Andrew Sullivan suggests here, the FMA could backfire on the Republicans in a way that didn't seem very likely when they brought it up.

That doesn't change the fact that they did it. Please, click on the link at the top of this post, or click right here. Sullivan examines President Bush's radio address this weekend and, quite calmly, shows what the FMA says about Bush. I know gay people aren't, shall we say, popular among everyone in America. But I have to believe that the level of incivility and indecency with which we've been treated by this president is beyond what any but the most fervent Bible Belters believe we deserve.

A man who can treat me this way for political advantage can turn around and do the same to you. Send him packing before he gets a chance.

Uncertain

BlogActive: Real Truth, Fun Action

I don't quite know how I feel about this site, but I thought others should know about it, as the media is covering it--usually without giving readers the site's address. That's probably because they don't approve of what the site's owner is doing.

He's outing people on Congressional staffs. If a gay person works for a Senator or Representative who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, Mike Rogers is making his knowledge of their sexuality, gleaned from years as an active participant in the D.C. gay community, known to everyone who will listen. See?

As I said, I don't quite know what to make of this. In theory, I think it's fine to be in or out at work, at your discretion; clearly, it helps the cause of gay equality if more people come out, but each of us, first and foremost, has a responsibility to ourselves to do whatever makes our workplace the most comfortable. I, for one, don't engage in any pronoun shifting, and if someone asks about my weekend, I'm honest about it: Brad and I went here, Brad and I visited there, Brad and I saw a movie. If people get it, they get it, and I'm pretty sure most do; if they're happier not getting it, well, I leave them the option. I don't beat them over the head, but I don't lie.

But I'm not walking the halls of Congress, with the potential to influence the decisions of men and women who will decide whether gays and lesbians will be treated like everyone else or relegated to second-class citizenship in America. If I were, I wouldn't consider myself honest if I didn't disclose this fact of my life to my employer and argue passionately against the FMA.

Which means, I suppose, that I have to support Mike Rogers, even if I think what he's doing is ugly and may ultimately give our cause a black eye. In fairness to Rogers, and to others who agree with him, it's not like the people being outed haven't known this could happen. They've been warned again and again, and they've lived their lives under the constant shadow of possibility that they could be recognized at a gay club or bar. For their sake, I hope some kind-hearted Democrats hire all of them after their current masters, in all likelihood, fire them. But this is not a fight we can lose, and their choice of silence in the face of hate is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Inner Nerd

Kerry's (Silent) Vision

This column by Sebastian Mallaby raises an interesting question: Would Kerry be better off if his handlers allowed the "real" Kerry to show up at his campaign events and in his speeches?

As Mallaby notes, Kerry is, at heart, a thinker and a policy wonk. He's what, in school, you called a nerd. Mallaby also claims that if Kerry unleashed his inner nerd on the public and demonstrated that he's really thought about the issues and how he can make life better for ordinary Americans, he'd make Bush look terrible by comparison. After all, Bush right now has NO domestic agenda for his second term; his entire focus is on being re-elected and maintaining the "gains" of his first term. If Kerry really started talking about his plans for health care and education, Mallaby contends, voters would recognize that he has "the vision thing" and elect him in a landslide.

Sarah Vowell makes a similar argument in an essay about the fall of Al Gore in her wonderful book, The Partly Cloudy Patriot, but she takes Mallaby one further. She suggests that nerds should present their smarts on the campaign trail, but do so in a self-deprecating manner. Can Kerry bring himself to do this? It may be the perfect way for him to bring his ideas--which the American electorate has shown itself to prefer to the "ideas" of Bush--to the people in a way that makes them sit up and take notice. Rare is the policy aficionado who can sell his or her wonkish nature straight-out. John Kerry must realize he's no Bill Clinton or John Edwards on the stump and learn a rhetorical wit that lets him put forward his plan to improve America without sounding like, well, the Senator from Massachusetts. If he can do that, he won't just win. He'll crush George W. Bush like a bug.