It is understandable why the Dems are quite proud of their mostly very well run convention.
And understandable why all of the reasonably objective pundits were impressed by the truly wonderful prime time speeches, maybe Clinton's best ever and that's saying something.
But when all of the comparisons to the vastly inferior Republican convention, and vastly inferior Republican ticket, are over, all that will remain is the obviously correct choice to re-elect Obama. If that was the goal, then they are to be congratulated because I believe he will be re-elected and that's nice.
Personally, speaking as an Independent, I would love to see him remain as our president forever. I have never been more proud or secure in traveling the globe, knowing for one of the few times in my adult life my president wasn't going to embarrass me. That he wasn't going to insult somebody. That he wasn't going to start a new war just so his vice-president's company could make more billions.
But at the same time, as president, I expect him to accomplish virtually nothing, just as he did in his first four years. A small price to pay for some dignity.
If it's all about the football mentality of our totally corrupt-by-definition political system (google Buckley v. Valeo) then the right team will win. Obama will be re-elected simply by the numbers (the Happy Mormon cannot be elected no matter what planet his God lives on if he has no Blacks, Latinos, Women, Elderly, or Gays) but we already knew that.
If, however, there was any thought to actually accomplishing anything next term, well then they blew it.
What they needed to do was very clearly lay out WHAT they had intended to accomplish during the first term and WHY it didn't happen. Which nobody did. Not in the specifics necessary to cut through the Koch money we're going to be drowning in.
They had both Houses of Congress for two years and got virtually nothing done, how is that possible? Because of an inability to stop the most obnoxiously exploited filibuster rule in our nation's history. Unprecedented, unwarranted, unending, and used as part of a singularly obstructionist strategy, totally unintended by our founding fathers, and seemed to be used more in Obama's first two years than the previous 200 combined.
Then the next two years ambitions were thwarted by the Tea Party and that was that.
The Dems needed to lay out in detail what their thwarted plans would have meant for the American economy, jobs, social safety net, the future, etc. What they needed to say was THESE are the guys who voted against all this good stuff and if you don't get up off your ass and VOTE THE BAGGERS OUT -- NOTHING WILL GET DONE FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS!
But nobody said that.
Just as Clinton refuted their criticism of what Obama is NOT doing point by point, somebody should have done the same for what he INTENDED to do point by point. And explain why he didn't get it done.
Instead, they were too busy selling us the same Obama they sold us last time. You know the "transformational" guy. Well I'm sorry but that's just fraud. He never was that guy or he'd be working on a list like this:
- Overturn Buckley v Valeo;
- Eliminate all private money in the election process;
- Ban all international military sales;
- Eliminate all use of fossil fuels over the next ten years;
- Ban all preservatives, steroids, chemicals, additives, pesticides in our food;
- Ban sugar;
- Gather Futurists to design what the country should be in 50 years and then create jobs to fit the model;
- Create the national green energy grid;
- Build the high speed train network;
- Health insurance for everyone for free;
- Moratorium on all foreclosures;
- Lower personal and Corporate tax rates to 15% and institute a 10% acquisition tax on all financial services transactions, acquisitions, mergers, and stock trades to make up for it;
- Eliminate all air and water pollution;
- Ban plastic bottles;
- Put Arts classes back into schools;
You know, stuff like that. That's transformative.
Moreover, suggesting all you need is a cool president to get stuff done, rather than a filibuster-proof Congress, is rather misleading given the last four years don't you think?
As I said, I'm perfectly fine with a visionless, meaningless, non-transformative Obama (the other guys would just make things worse) knowing he'll do no further harm.
But wouldn't an Obama that actually got something done be an even better Obama than the dignified but legislative eunuch Obama?
This wasn't discussed by anybody. The simple mechanics of how the job works -- or why it doesn't -- remains a mystery for the vast majority of potential voters that don't watch cable news which MAKES HIM VULNERABLE. And unless Clinton is going there to explain away every single attack as they come in, it's going to be a problem.
Maybe they didn't want to admit that "Mr. Compromise" brought a knife to a gunfight. And yeah someday he'll make a great head of the U.N., but a street guy he ain't. I say okay, so what?
They could use that as sympathy for him in this election. The well meaning, way too civilized, idealistic nice guy who ran into very un-American, anti-American, uncompromising, psychotic right wing extremists that in fact have no business being part of our beautiful and peaceful and balanced system.
BUT THIS TIME HE'LL BE READY!
Because this time you the voters will vote OUT the obstructionists!
It's a shame. Because they did everything else right. It should have been Biden's speech. He'd be great with this. Should be his stump speech in every town, instead of... what? Do you remember anything he said? Of course not.
They blew it.