Yes, Your Humble Blogger is keyed up for this rhetoric-fest my boys are having in Boston. I will be listening to more of it than a sane person would, and hope to be making some notes for this Tohu Bohu. I won’t be ‘blogging the convention’ as such, since (a) I won’t be there, and (2) I have other responsibilities. I do plan to write about the speeches, both the big ones and the lesser names. That only gives me a few hours to finish five more book reports.
Still, in a time-out for rhetoric, I watched all ten of the entries in the DNC’s video contest. You’ll need to give the DNC an email to see them, by the way; I of course already had, because, well, Gentle Reader, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have noticed that I’m a Democrat. A Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi Democrat, a Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo Democrat. A Paul Simon, Charlie Rangel Democrat. So there you are. I know that many of my Gentle Readers don’t hold with political parties, and some (I hope more than a few) are in total disagreement with my politics, so y’all probably won’t get to see the ads I’m talking about. On the other hand, as I say about the closed primaries, why the hell should we Democrats care what you non-Democrats want us to do? (If I used emoticons, that deserves one indicating that the sentiment is not a joke, but that I have jokingly expressed it offensively to express my understanding that the honest sentiment will be offensive to some, however tactfully expressed, and that it would be accompanied by an embarrassed, even Gallic, shrug and an attempt to change the subject.)
Anyway, I have no idea what the rules were for this contest, but I believe that the videos are amateur efforts, donated to the cause, and that the Committee selected ten, and that the winner of an Internet vote will be shown, probably during the convention itself, and possibly as an actual ad buy. And before I discuss the ads (will I ever discuss the ads?) I note that yes, it’s clearly rigged, and yes, there is no way of knowing the results will be tallied fairly, and yes, the whole idea is dumb and patronizing. Oh, and I advise watching them from bottom of the page to the top.
So, how are the ads? Pretty dreadful, I’m afraid. There are three (Feel Better, For a Ride, and Shopping) that are just jokes, and of the three, the last is the only one I think might be more than a funny-once. Go the Distance is a sneaker ad, and it’s actually the fake sneaker ad from What Women Want, and given that, it’s, um, a sneaker ad.
Stronger America has a nice populist thing going for it, but the awkward phrasing and editing (and a disturbing close-up of a woman’s lips saying ‘LIES’) ruin what otherwise is a pretty standard we-all-vote-for-him spot. The Real Deal is better on that theme, but is still a pretty boring ad; we know lots of people will vote for Senator Kerry—at the very least forty million people. We also know forty million people will vote for Our Only President. There is nothing arresting about lots of people, even people of different classes and races, supporting either candidate. I should say, both campaigns should run a few of these kinds of ads wherever they are running ads; the message isn’t persuasive by itself, but we’re used to it, and if we don’t see it, we somehow start to miss it.
I probably enjoyed the Boston one as much as any of them. But then, I lived there for ten years and loved it, and I’m a city guy at heart. I enjoyed myself watching Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy, and watching the cars on Storrow, and whatnot. I don’t think it was an ad, really; the only thing that would be persuasive about it is if it were not Sen. Kerry but Our Only President in the ad. The Democrat doesn’t need to convince urban residents he understands their love for cities and the rhythms of their lives; a Republican who ran an ad like that would startle me into learning more about him. Or her.
There were two history ads, one fairly amateurish and one quite well-done. New Direction essentially showed Democratic Presidents and implied that Sen. Kerry was worth putting in the list with LBJ, JFK, FDR, WJC, TWW, and um, TJ. It’s most effective when viewed as a subtle (OK, not very) jab at Our Only President himself; the undecided voter will have no idea whether Sen. Kerry belongs in that list, but she’s sure as hell that Our Only President doesn’t. Still, it’s a clumsy ad, and it does underscore the lukewarm feeling most of us have for our candidate; we don’t have Rushmore hopes for him ourselves, although we have hopes of competence, judgment, honesty and humane priorities.
The other history ad was quite well-done, and focuses on the history of the Party, rather than of the people in it. It makes the point that any time in the last century when something needed doing, it was the Democrats who did it. Economic crises, military crises, executive corruption both corporate and governmental, educational shifts and cultural shifts, inequalities in law and in fact were all addressed by Democrats and, more or less, were all ignored or denied by Republicans. True enough, but the undecided voter probably doesn’t care whether FDR provided sure leadership in the Second World War, and certainly doesn’t see what that has to do with John Kerry. I do see that, but then I am a Party man myself; I believe that immersion in the culture of the Party makes a person likely to act in accordance with that culture, and that there are basic and serious differences between the culture of Democrats and of Republicans. But the undecided voter, by definition, doesn’t, and this won’t convince him.
Oh, and Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, to each of whom Sen. Kerry is likely to be compared 67,000 times this week, were disliked by swing voters for their professorial or rather schoolmasterly manner. People felt like they were being lectured, and they didn’t like it. That difference between explaining and lecturing is a profound one, and one our current nominee has trouble with himself. So perhaps we should lay off the history lessons, hm? Much as I like them. So despite the fact that America’s Party is the best written, and best produced of the ads, and in some ways the best ad, I think we’d be better off with a different one.
So, what’s the one I would most like to hear John Kerry endorse? The silliest one, of course, and the most memorable. A cute girl reciting the 51 states, as 51 reasons to vote for John Kerry. Totally without content? Sure! But if he chose it (or if we chose it for him), it would say something about him. Something about his patriotism, about his taste, about his personality. The man who picked that ad—not because it was the best ad, but because he liked it the best—would be someone likeable, someone you would feel comfortable knowing was President. Right? Or perhaps wrong. Just my reaction.
,
-Vardibidian.