The highly anticipated Democratic National Convention is now in the books, minus much drama. To the party's great relief and delight, Joe Biden is in its rearview mirror, Barack Obama is still their boss, and having won his good graces, Kamala Harris is the official nominee. Coming off those four Chicago nights, there will be plenty of analyses and assessments from people far smarter and better connected than me. Still, I feel the itch to make four straightforward observations that deserve notice.
First, there was a galling hypocrisy on display that discerning minds will not ignore.
Imagine a political party whose lax approach to law enforcement has ravaged cities across the fruited plain, turning one of their most notorious war zones, the once great city of Chicago, into a police state in order to protect their delegates and convention goers. Mass police presence was imported to guard their party elite, but watch what happens to the innocent residents of the city once the Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer crews leave town. Some lives matter more than others, apparently.
But even that hypocrisy took a back seat to the border wall and credential requirements the party of open borders employed for gaining access to their big show. This is just jaw-dropping to watch:
There isn't an American of conscience that shouldn't be demanding a reckoning for this kind of egregious double standard.
Second, I get the Obamas' appeal, but my goodness can they both talk some trash.
I almost say that with a level of respect. The gaslighting, the inflammatory rhetoric couched in a mild-mannered delivery, in one sense it's a real gift. But how so many Americans are still taken in by it amazes me. What I saw in the Obama speeches was the glaring answer as to where this modern culture of extreme polarization originated. I saw the birthplace of the Donald Trump phenomenon. The Obamas are what could accurately be described as "pleasant bullies."
Consider, former President Obama actually said, "The other side knows it's easier to play on people's fears and cynicism."
That was the precise strategy Obama himself used to ascend to the presidency. It's the precise strategy he and his party still use daily. How can you say with a straight face, "The other side plays on people's fears," while telling America that if given power the Republicans will destroy democracy, enslave women in a literal "Handmaid's Tale," and make Naziism great again? I'm amazed so many people continue falling for the agitated schoolmarm routine from Mr. Obama, but I can't fault the guy for going with what works.
For his wife's part, this was just too much:
Michelle and her husband own an $8 million, 8,000 square foot home in Washington, D.C. They own a $12 million, 7,000 square foot home in Martha's Vineyard. They own a million dollar, 6,000 square foot home in Chicago. Here are a couple of them:
That people still fall for the Obama schtick is a testament to the power of hero worship.
Third, in Tim Walz, the Democrats have found their Sarah Palin.
I remember the buzz around the Palin pick. Someone to energize the otherwise dull McCain candidacy. She got the base riled up and offered quips and one-liners that served as red meat for party loyalists. Her impact on independents and the actual outcome of the race was likely insignificant, and it's pretty apparent the same thing will be true for Walz.
I'd expect outside of the convention hall, the hype man routine will wear thin pretty quickly, and his fairly self-evident strained relationship with the truth - from Covid school closures, to the George Floyd situation, to IVF, to his military record - is going to become a liability with voters.
Finally, Kamala Harris was painfully anti-climactic.
She wasn't awful, but she certainly wasn't good. It's been a honeymoon, but what happened last night was the violent collision between the "idea" of Kamala Harris and the actual person Kamala Harris. Awkward, lacking charisma, and someone who hasn't earned a single vote to this point. She's anything but a natural. If you put a list of the best speeches of the DNC, I think it's fairly inarguable that Harris's wouldn't crack the top 5 or 6.
Does that matter? I'm honestly not sure. It might affect the enthusiasm, but in the end, the Democrats got what they desperately wanted - an opponent named Trump. Had the Republicans picked someone, anyone, that didn't engender such intense opposition and loathing, there's no way Harris could motivate enough voters. But with Trump across from her, she doesn't have to.
