Tom Watson

Warming Up

I'm looking forward to the Republican National Convention like I'd look forward to the next appearance by the New York Mets bullpen - if I were managing the phreaking Phillies.

This baby  has all the potential of being one of the wildest chapters in modern political stagecraft history, and like the Mets pen, it's a good bet to get very ugly very quickly. What a cast of characters! (And that's just the ticket). Hiding the Bush legacy will be like trying to eke out a save from Aaron Heilman: an acrobatic managerial trick few can possibly pull off.

I will say this: it's suddenly appointment-level television, whereas during the pre-Palintological Era, the RNC could be easily ignored. Now I'm laying in a supply of popcorn and hooting for the beer vendor. This thing's going to extra innings, and I don't want to miss it.

Then too, Hurricane Gustav steadily descends on the Gulf as a deadly reminder of our national government's failure three years ago under this current president and his party. Yes, it's a mixture of pure politics and goodwill for both Obama and McCain to dedicate their resources to helping out in what seems like a near-certain crisis; McCain by turning the RNC into a telethon for aid, and Obama for raising money and making plans to mobilize his army of volunteers. Even the cynic applauds.

I have a post up over on my book blog about how social networks and online technology may play a greater role this time around; the first chapter in CauseWired opens in the aftermath of New Orleans, when online social activism really soared just as Web 2.0 technology took off. Some great comments there from online organizers, so head over if you get a chance.

UPDATE: Digby - "It's great seeing President McCain on CNN speaking directly to the country, directing the convention and the hurricane efforts and all, but I would think even the media sycophants could find time to talk to a Democrat or two in this weird HurriConvention coverage." Oh, Lord.

Palin Comparison

John McCain is not likely to be our next president, but he did launch a career in national politics today. Oh, I don't think Governor Sarah Palin will have much of an effect on this year's race - at least, I hope not - but I think the lady has a future. The Palin Launch was something out of a movie script: feisty unknown plucked from obscurity and her husband's fishing boat to astound the world and set up shop a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world. In the movie, of course, she'd be a Democrat portrayed by a feisty Julia Roberts or a peppery Geena Davis.

In real life, she's McCain's long bomb downfield, timed to offset Obama's long drive in Denver - a high risk venture that is so neatly the opposite of Barack Obama's safe hand-off to fullback Joe Biden.

You know your opponent is behind when he names the young, untested Governor of Alaska with its three electoral votes. You know he has a very thin bench indeed when he picks a politician with 20 months in the statehouse, representing a state with fewer residents than The Bronx. And you know his party is hurting for talent sans the Y chromosome when its nominee has to turn to the recent mayor of a town of 5,000 souls to balance the ticket.

Nothing against Governor Palin, who seems to be a very appealing character at first blush; and how cool is it that Senator Clinton's drive led the Republican Party to actually name a woman to its ticket (misguided as its attempt to pick off wounded Clinton supporters is)? And the GOP base is certainly fired up by her King Crab Conservatism, blended with a slight bit of reformer's juice and a little of that Charlie Crist-style slight environmentalism. Indeed, I think the knee-jerk attacks on Palin will backfire, reminding many that the left wasn't exactly free of sexism this year - and just plain looking mean. [Somebody has to move Bill Burton to some back office somewhere before he really hurts Obama's chances]. The best move is to ignore her in very polite fashion.

Back to the speech for a moment. You remember, that big thing last night? I'm upgrading my grade based on Obama's ability to entrance the press, the overnight ratings (huge), and the general reaction of his base - the full Democratic Party with the Clinton wing safely aboard - to his populist economic message.

We really did see Obama 2.0 last night. It wasn't his best speech, not even in the top five this year. But it did mark a change to an angrier, more focused, less prosaic, less ethereal Barack Obama. I think he's learning this whole "it's the economy, stupid" thing. And I predict he'll get it down. The man learns quickly. So let's call last night's workmanlike speech a B-plus in the cold light of day. And let's push those economic policies right up to Election Day.

UPDATE: Lance has a good post up on Palin, who he quite rightly points out is an interesting figure: "I mean, look, I'm writing about her!  You think I'd have a post up about Romney?" Very true. Oh, and what Liss said. I feel the same way vis a vis Hillary. And Obama.

UPDATE II: And here's unity for you. Plus, blowback from liberal women - no shocker.

The Speech

Refreshed from an Adirondack sojourn and bathed by the rays of Wolf Blitzer's sonorous CNN feed on the XM receiver all the way down the Thruway - "we have news just in on John McCain's potential choice and some battleground polls you won't want to miss" - we're quietly rebooting our Watsonian Situation Room here tonight with reaction to the big one - as Wolfie soft-sold it as the Honda rolled along somewhere near New Baltimore: "history in the making, the biggest speech of Barack Obama's political career."

To date, of course. To date. And I do believe this is a crucial speech, if 40 minutes or so of political yacking and phrase-making can ever wear that label. Every four years we elevate speech-making to an Olympian level, like badminton and water polo, and sit poised to throw out our collective scores for rhetorical flourishes; well, tonight Obama skates his long program and the man simply can't afford to flop all over the ice. (Whoops, he did it again with the mixed and mangled sports metaphors).

Personally, I think Obama will stick the landing.

And truth be told, he needs to. No matter how bad the Republican brand has become, no matter how well-placed the Democrats appear to be for a historic election speech, no matter how talented and battle-tested our nominee clea1rly is, his acceptance speech is the starter's gun on the general election campaign - a chance to set out a real, progressive agenda that takes hope and change and breathes the whispered, live-giving breath of policy into those successful brands of springtime.

Watching this convention in fits and starts, I think the ground is well-broken for the Democrat. These conventions are ponderous, man, ponderous (to quote Casey Kasem) and when the deep woods breezes didn't bring on sleep, Mark Warner was the man. Hillary Clinton's speech was the highlight of this Mile High confab thus far, igniting a healthy rush to the exits at PUMA headquarters and solidifying the set of sturdy tent stakes for the biggest big top in electoral politics.

Desperate to break the growing Democratic mojo - and I'm watching Sheryl Crow perform some of her more obscure numbers before what appears to be the old exterior set of the West Wing transported to the Broncos' end zone (very Vegas) - John McCain is creating a little "drama" around his vice-presidential pick. Sturdier political minds than mine have broken down the choices, but none in more hilarious style than Jim Wolcott. Joe Lieberman? "Together on stage, he and McCain would look like a gay Metamucil ad." Ha!

Now, there's some controversy in right-wing circles about that Roman-columned set. To me, it's the best of Americana - and I just came from the land of roadside attractions in upper New York State, where we played a round of mini-golf tied to great American themes and trolled by various roadside attractions, waterslides and haunted houses. So what if the stage looks like the Belaggio fountains will erupt in choreographed funk when Obama takes the stage?

Expectations? Well, the "45h anniversary of the I Have A Dream Speech" helps no one who wants to change the map by a state or two to blue. That's too damned high. And this speech ain't that speech. This is a political campaign, and this needs to be about policy, about talking points, about partisan warfare. The end game is not a move - it's a victory. A very solid, meat and potatoes speech that will sway some swing-staters is what's called for tonight. See you back here around 10 pm EDT.

UPDATE: Jason Chervokas will co-host. He was for Obama. I was for Clinton. Sometime earlier, Madison's wife had thrown him out, requesting that he never return. You get the idea.

UPDATE II: While listening to Stevie Wonder, I'm perusing my friend Fred Wilson's wishlist for tonight's speech and it's a good one. Fred was a Hillary supporter early on but is happy to back Barack.It's a businessman's list, with the cost of Iraq front and center. Money quote: "I am hoping that Obama can inspire me and the nation tonight. He's talked so much about change, but I think he needs to be really clear about what tangible change he wants to bring and how he's going to do it. Change as a slogan doesn't inspire me. A short list of top priorities would." I'm down with that.

UPDATE III: Digby has it right, especially for those of us who hanker for more content: "...if there is a problem it's message not style. Obama is a gifted orator and he should not try to change that. It would be like telling Bush to stop being a dumbass in 2004--- it's the thing that people love the most about him. Let Obama be Obama -- it got him this far and it will take him all the way."

UPDATE IV: Jeff Jarvis Twitters: "This is how Gore blew the lead he got out of his convention." Shouldn't Michael McDonald be doing Takin' It to the Streets?

UPDATE V: Obama is in the building, and so is Floyd Little (the things you can learn from Twitter). Full text here.

UPDATE VI: While we're all speechified tonight (and there's a crowd hereabouts) let's not forget about getting more people registered to fully participate in our process. I've been appraised of a big efforts to register young women to vote this year - WEVote ’08 , part of the network’s public affairs initiative, WE Empowers Women. The truly fab InternetGeekGirl is heading up all the joyous bloggy outreach, so when the water is on the hob for your post-Obama cuppa tea, skate on over to her place to learn how you can get more active in getting more folks involved in this little imperfect union of ours.

Mountain Time

Tomorrow, we begin our long trip to the conclave in the mountains, but we're not headed to the Rockies. The Adirondacks beckon for the last taste of pre-school summer, a short week of canoes and tangled fishing line and cool evenings by the upper reaches of Lake George - where, if we're lucky, the television reception will allow a long taste of the proceedings in Denver, half a continent away.

Rather than radically remaking the map of national American politics, Barack Obama's campaign is now down to the hard task of shifting a state or two from the Bush-Kerry landscape of four years ago, and last night's 3 a.m. botched text message choice of old school Joe Biden was the tacit admission that this election will be a near-run thing. I like Biden because he's an ornery east coast liberal who enjoys duking it out on television and providing a modicum of wit and wry humor that the buttoned-up Obama campaign can use to good effect.

Sure, some Obama hard-core types may be upset that Barack went for a white, hawkish, 60-something, corporatist, Meet the Press, deep blue DC establishment insider; he's not the "reinforcing" choice to many theorists pulled for, or the "three-point shot" others rooted for in the way of map-changing go-for-broke style. He's a free throw, the best VP choice for the Clinton half of the party not actually named Clinton. Old Joe Biden is acceptable to the widest possible swath of the Democratic base, possesses a personal story that is compelling, is an energetic political terrier, and can leverage his gritty pre-MBNA Scanton roots to good effect in the geographic areas where Obama is weaker than we'd like. He'll hammer McCain without conscience or compunction - even though he urged Kerry to choose Johnny Mac as his veep, and is buddies with the GOP nominee. This is one professional politician we've added to the ticket - old school, non-change, insider, totally connected. Does he take the age, war, and DC insider cards off the table? Only a little bit - the race is still about the top of the ticket. After all the tarted-up "suspense," Old Joe Biden may be something of a let-down for some.

So that little drama is over, just in time for the one that really counts. Forget the Biden choice, the Clinton speeches, Al Gore's appearance, the roll call, and all the assorted rallies, parties, and bloggerfests. The one thing that counts most next week - the real game-changer amidst dipping poll numbers - is Barack Obama's acceptance speech.

This is the moment to break out of one half of the Democratic voter rolls. And it must not be business as usual, the rather tame standard stump speech Obama sleep-walked through in Germany last month. It can't be warmed-over Iowa. It needs to be an entirely new speech, a revitalized Obama and most importantly, a strong economic message.

Obama's brilliant oratory - version 1.0 - has already reached every ear to which it can possibly appeal. We need Obama 2.0 to come out on Thursday night. He cannot play to the homefield fans yet again, and glory in the love of his most ardent supporters in both the national media and a potent sliver of the electorate. Nor can he rely solely on soaring but vague rhetoric. Hope won't cut it. Obama's speech on Thursday must be, in large portion, his promise revealed - the three or four major domestic policy initiatives of an Obama Administration, in addition to a sane and moral foreign policy.

High in the rarefied air of the Rockies, Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination - here's hoping he knocks it out of Invesco Field.

Postscript: yes, I know that last line is a mixed sports metaphor. But "field goal" was too lame.

Guest Post: The Smart Choice Narrows… To One

Note: I have vowed not to look at the horse race too closely till after Labor Day, but with the VP choice on the near horizon, here's a thoughtful essay by longtime commenter Bruce B - please read and react.

Many experienced, progressive Democrats were concerned about our party’s choice of Senator Barack Obama as its Presidential standard bearer. I was one of them. He has little experience; while his actual platform is substantive, its popular expression and interpretation comes  in vague and easily satirized bromides of “hope” and “change”; some of the most effective tactics in his campaign, such as the giant rallies and the Oprah endorsement, had little shelf life. Despite the incessant bleatings of a section of the media (take a bow, Rachel Maddow and Gene Robinson), he did not accumulate votes so strongly in the primaries, especially in the second half of the  schedule. He had trouble “closing the sale”; and he continues to have trouble with key constituencies he needs to win, especially the white working class. Finally, there is the 600 lb gorilla in the room: is America ready for an African-American President?

Make no mistake: I am proud to support Obama, proud to have him as the nominee of my party, and whomever he chooses for VP, I will work my tail off for his election. Obama is incredibly intelligent and authentic, substantive and thoughtful. He is an orator of the highest quality, a superb organizer, and has a knack for building coalitions. While I have lately had disagreements with some of his moves towards the center, he has progressive instincts and core beliefs that have been equaled by few major American politicians in recent years. He is clearly still a work in progress – how could he not be? – but he has the potential to be a great President.

My concern right now – and this should be the concern of all Democrats and progressives – is that he get the chance to be a President at all, whether a great, good, or indifferent one. I am concerned that Barack Obama will not win the election.

Any experienced poll watcher shares my concern, and genuine reflection shows the seriousness of the situation. The discussion has been, “why isn’t Obama ahead by ten points?” The discussion should be, “what will it take to elect Obama?”

The answer to the question of why he is not 10 pts ahead is of course complex, but also very easy. While not reducible to race, it revolves around race. In the Democratic primaries – and let’s recall that his nomination victory was, to be euphemistic, less than overwhelming, especially when the caucus states are removed – the section of the electorate that sees Obama’s race as a plus or neutral was much, much larger than it will be in the general election. Start with the fact that the Black electorate is almost all Democratic. Add in the self-defined “progressive whites” – the college towns, the knowledge workers, and so on – and you had the bulk of Obama’s coalition. It was enough to win the nomination, barely. It is not enough to win the general election. To do that, he needs to attract the white working class. (I am assuming he will hold onto his current strong position, a little over 70%, with Latino voters.) And this he did not do in most primaries, at least in the required numbers, and he so far has not done so in the general election.

Let’s avoid the discussion of “is this racism”? As the pundits like to say, that’s not a helpful way to frame it. The fact is, for many of the white working class “swing” voters – and there are more of them this election than in the past few  – McCain is the default, easy choice. It is less of a jump to vote for a white war hero who has been in the Senate since you were a teenager than some guy you never heard of until a few months ago who looks a heck of a lot different than any President in history, has a foreign sounding name, a minister who scares you – well, you know the arguments.

So, Democrats, forget what Rachel Maddow, Gene Robinson, and – sadly – Keith Olbermann are telling you. This is a damn tough election to win. Obama is the underdog. People have started to make up their minds, and we don’t like the way they are making them up, as the chart below, from fivethirtyeight.com, shows.

 

The overall math of this election is surprisingly simple. We know how Obama will do amongst the Black and Latino votes. The Black vote will be in the range of 12% -13% of the electorate: Obama will get 11 out of 12 votes. The Latino vote will be in the range of 10% of the electorate: Obama will get 7 out of 10 votes. Asian and “other” votes will be about 4% -- assume a rough split.

That leaves approximately 74% of the vote as white voters, down from 77% in 2004. Obama needs about 40-41% of those votes. By my calculation, interpolating from his standing in the various polls, he is currently at 30-35%.

One final point on poll-watching. Everything we know about how voters react in a situation where there is a breakthrough first-time  Black candidate  tells us that it is likely that Obama will underperform by at least a few points against the final polls. This is the “Bradley effect.” Do we KNOW that this will happen? No, we don’t, as a Black President is unexplored territory. But because of the history, we have to look at the polls with caution, and with this in mind.

So let me cut to the chase. Obama needs all the help he can get. Specifically, he needs 7-10% worth of help amongst white voters. His Vice Presidential choice is the next key watershed, the next chance for a boost, and one of the most important. As events have unfolded, it has become clear that there really is one VP who can give Obama the maximum possible boost. All the other choices pale next to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As events have unfolded, the decision tree of possible running mates has narrowed. Does anyone seriously think that either Evan Bayh, neutral on all things, or Tim Kaine, who as Tom Watson has pointed out is only the third most popular Democrat in Virginia,  can give Obama the boost he needs? Kathleen Sibelius is an even worse choice. She would be perceived as a tokenist slight by the legions of Hillary’s women supporters. David Gergen points out that Obama needs a “game changer”, and he raises  two VP possibilities: Clinton and Al Gore. While Biden is a stronger choice than Bayh, Sibelius, or Kaine, Gergen asks the rhetorical question, “Is Biden a game changer?” The answer is obvious.

It has been clear since the beginning of the primary process that if Clinton’s and Obama’s natural constituencies can be added together, the Democrats will have an unbeatable coalition. Just to reiterate what Clinton brings to the table:

• Her selection would, as Gergen states, be a “game changer” in terms of excitement and party unity. Voters would take a second look at Obama and the ticket.
• She would vastly expand the Democratic vote among white women.
• More than any other Democratic leader, with the possible exception of her husband, she is beloved and trusted by the white working class voters of the Midwest – the core of this election's swing vote.
• Her somewhat pugnacious style of campaigning is a good complement for Obama’s more cerebral style. He needs an attack dog in the second slot.

Perhaps Obama will ask Al Gore, and Gore will say “yes,” but I can’t see that. The remaining logic for Hillary Clinton is inescapable. The sense of this is starting to be in the air; for example, John Nichols of the Nation had a column today with a similar point. Even Ralph Nader said that there is no other logical option. Maybe we will wake up in the morning to a Joe Biden, or an Evan Bayh, or someone else who we did not even consider. If this happens, I will bite my lip and do what I can to help Obama win. But a bold choice is needed, and I hope for the good of the Republic that Senator Obama seizes the opportunity.

UPDATE: Obama says he's picked his VP.

UPDATE II: He informs the also-rans. Politico says “She’s waiting for the text message like everyone else.”

Old Media Habits Never Die, They Just Fade Away

Several years ago, I found myself across a table from Chris "Mad Dog " Russo and Mike Francesa wearing headphones and speaking into a microphone about baseball. The setting was their annual charity fundraiser and our company was involved in online fundraising, but for a moment or two Russo and I got into a bit of  patter about his beloved San Francisco Giants and my New York Mets (as I recall, Bonds & Company had just left town after losing two of three at Shea). The friendly sports banter - I think I actually said the words, "first time, long time, Dawg" - was enjoyable and the duo kept it moving along.

In truth, Mike and the Mad Dog, which ended its 19-year run on WFAN in New York last week after Russo left for satellite lucre, was a fixture in the daily lives of thousands of listeners like me - background spoken-word sports song over five or six hours every day - so when I sat down across from them, I knew the drill. Besides, how shall I put it ... Francesa and Russo are, ah, without evident talent. That's not to say they're not good. They are. But it is to say, they come across as regular sports fans - the guy you argue with on the coffee line, the guy in the seat next to you. They are approachable; a bit more versed in statistics and match-ups, sure. But in general, not stars.

Yet together, they formed the highest-rated sports talk show in radio, virtually inventing the form over their sometimes rocky partnership. They were a habit: Russo, the scattershot nasal whine, and Francesa the dese and dems New York growl. Their best moments were either interviews with newsmakers, their effective double-team in play, or when they talked about subjects unrelated to sports - often with hilarious results. Who can forget, for example, Russo's earnest questioning of Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, who he repeatedly referred to as "Jose."

Undoubtedly, as many commentators said last week, they won't enjoy the success separately that they did as a team. But it's okay. Nineteen years is a good run. And besides, my media habits are changing - the order is rapidly fading.

At WFAN, Imus referred to Francesa and Russo as "Fatso and Fruit Loops," and it was the I-man who fell from my dial first. After his disastrous rant last spring, I lost the habit of cranky and offensive morning humor - leavened with grasping, ass-kissing media and political figures - and didn't lock in his new slot on WABC. Maybe it was the incessant promotional spots for Rush and Sean Hannity. Or maybe I was sick of the shtick and my own willing blinders. The habit faded.

Next up was MSNBC, long the favored cable outlet of liberals. But a clear bias against Hillary Clinton in her historic run for President, a gleeful rooting against the most prominent woman politician of our times, and repeated sexist jibes had an eventual effect on my clicker. Chris Matthews' spittle-flecked lips and Keith Olbermann's clownish and unhinged Edward R. Murrow imitation had their inevitable effect. The habit faded.

The Times op-ed page is now fading fast. Time was, that was real estate worth investing in. But the paper's right-wing sex columnist Maureen Dowd proved far too offensive over the long haul, and Frank Rich grew theatrically cartoonish in growing into a mere Clinton-hating imitator of Dowd. Then they hired William Kristol. I still look for Krugman and the occasional Gail Collins. But the habit is fading.

So I spend time with memeorandum and the blogs, more time with recorded music and less with radio - except for the brilliant In Our Time with the BBC's Melvyn Bragg. For the longest time, I ran my media consumption vehicle through the same rutted lanes every day. Then, things shifted and I went off road. And we're back.

Sopranos on Madison Avenue

M.A. Peel and I are stepping back into the pilot and co-pilot seats after a week off to attend to myriad social duties (our dance cards are pretty full, you know) and our weekly Mad Men live-blogging will continue at 10 EDT at newcritics.com. Indeed, the fab Ms. P already has her spiked heel on the nub of the thing with an update on last week's show: "...it was Betty’s day. From her horseback riding to being the show horse on Don’s arm, inquiring if the dinner at Lutece is one that she’s supposed to talk at or not." So true - and did I detect a little Carmela Soprano in the rewrites? Yes, yes - it begins to make sense. Get your own ideas and comments ready for tonight night at 10. And to make it even peachier, we've updated the comments system to the latest (much cooler) version of Disqus (with a big tip of the hat to Fred for recommending it). No more required registration, though it is suggested, and the full all-time newcritics comment trove is now backed up by that fine system. As delicious as a cocktail at Lutece. So - tonight at 10 pm EDT, with your TV dials set to TMC and your browsers set to newcritics.

Happier Warriors

"I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion."

Thus Barack Obama spits directly in the eye of New York Times right-wing sex columnist Maureen Dowd (whose pressed the down button to an even lower gutter of self-parody this week), the boys club over at MSNBC, and the rest of the Beltway buffoons who tried to gin up some Clinton-Obama pre-convention controversy, steadying their manly boots for yet another sexist attack on the most important female politician in American history.

Senator Clinton's name will indeed appear in nomination and she - a New York superdelegate - will cast her vote for Senator Obama. Sniffle. Oh, the unity of it all.

Well played, Mr. Obama. Now, about that veep choice....

He is uncouth but has a wonderful range of mind

With a crowd of family in tow in a sea of bustling fine art tourism, I took in the astounding  Joseph Mallord William Turner retrospective at the Met last week, jostling through the headphone-wearers to gaze at a few of the finer works at some small length. Turner was an artist of empire, a prolific careerist who grew up as the son of a barber and wigmaker in London and set his sites on becoming the acknowledged heir to Europe's great classicists. Yet his toil over a very long career spanned the tail end of the enlightenment, ignited as war swept the western world, and lasted long after, well into the industrial spread of the 19th century. And although Turner aimed for classical landscape fame, his later worked presaged expressionism in their layering of color and homage to light.

What a talent, and what range as well. There are the great historic paintings, of course - the Trafalgar images, The Field of Waterloo, and his near-journalistic work covering the great fire that destroyed the parliamentary campus in London in 1834. There are classical landscapes in strict diagrammatic patterns, and classical scenes. But there were two groups that stood out as favorites. One comprised everyday scenes of life in Turner's times - times that also inspired the writing of a range of my favorite writers, from Austen and Dickens to the brilliant maritime series of Patrick O'Brian. The other was the later work, painted when Turner's eyes were failing him, works that critics of the day dismissed as "the fruits of a diseased eye and a reckless hand."

I stood longest before Keelmen Heaving in Coals by Moonlight, exhibited by Turner in 1835 and  on loan from the National Gallery, where I'd seen it before. It is a medium-sized oil painting of the waterfront at Newcastle, a portrait of every day toil in small boats and small ships. The sky is moonlit, almost like day, and the light and clouds form a sort of visual tunnel toward open water. The ships have that classic Turner lyric of beauty discovered in hull and sail, but it's no longer the age of Napoleon - or the age of pure sail, either. Coal feeds steamship boilers, ships move under power, and the factories are open. There is work to be done even at midnight. Smoke sends its industrial signal into that brilliant sky, obscuring some masts.

You think: it would be the 1960s before England's skies grew cleaner again. The coal-powered London fog of Sherlock Holmes was a wisp in Turner's painting, but it was beginning to swirl. Jane Austen is dead, Charles Dickens had just started his journalistic career, and Wellington was his dotage. Victoria was a princess yet to ascend, Darwin was in the Galapagos, and on these shores, Texas won its independence and Mark Twain was born. I love images like this that blend a "wonderful range of mind" like Turner's - as famously described by his rival John Constable - with a clear turn of history. Sometimes you can see so much, and come away the better for it.

Highly recommended: J.M.W. Turner, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, through September 21, 2008.

Conventional Wisdom

That small gaggle of small minds we Americans lazily grant so much electoral power - that is to say, the national political media - is trying desperately to pick at the scab of the nearly ancient Clinton-Obama wars, a smallish wound from a fierce fracas that is healing quite nicely, thank you.

Certainly, there are former Clinton supporters whose suppurative anger at the Democrat who beat their Democrat leaves them incapable of support for the winner. But I believe that condition, messy as the bandages can be and so often in need of clean dressing, is a generally temporary one. Little items like the direction of our national energies and the future we shall carve out (or fail to carve) for our children and their children are at stake in a few short months, and I cannot conceive of a real hard-core Clinton supporter going for McCain.

I will very happily vote for Senator Obama, and I believe firmly - despite some poll dips of late, and the general breaking out of worry beads among Democratic chatterers - that he will dispatch Senator McCain by some comfortable margin in November, and thus vanquish the disgraced party that McCain now leads. Oh, point me to the Pollster numbers if you have a mind. Sure, show concern for those Wisconsin charts. Worry aloud about the wild variations in Ohio polling. I'll pay a bit of attention, but not too much.

Truth be told, I've cut my political intake this summer in half at the very least, possibly more. The requisite attacks by the Republicans, the responses by Democrats, the hand-wringing over VP choices, the general pontification all have their place on a long summer's day. But my jets have cooled. I have my candidate, though a second choice. The conventions are generally a sad bore, a spectacle of B-minus stagecraft what would scarcely credit the WB's overnight programming. Wake me after Labor Day with some state-by-state polling.

It remains a complement to both Clintons that the media's obsessions continue, though neither stands nearer to greater power this summer. The President's wounds are still evident, even in so old a warrior - what liberal likes to be called a racist? (I do not, yet so many of those who supported his wife's campaign were tagged with that epithet this year). Even so, Bill will get his primetime convention speech - and how smart of Obama to immediately deal with that issue just as it threatened to become a larger controversy. Of course, the most successful Democratic president of these last several generations must speak, and at the right hour. No, Obama's acquiescence was right on.

As for Hillary, well, I do believe her delegates should have an opportunity to cast their votes for her in Denver. There would seem to be no downside; I endorse the "catharsis" notion of allowing the long process to complete itself wholly, then moving on as single party afterwards. But that's for Senator Clinton and her staff to decide, in talks with Senator Obama and his team. I, for one, won't kvetch should it not occur. Nor will I join the chorus of "foul!" when Obama fails to name the close number two finisher to his ticket. The man's calculus has been different from mine for a year now, and it's no secret whose was the more accurate.

Further, Senator Clinton has clearly moved on - at least to anyone paying attention. Her tough-minded op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, and its use of of offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes, is the clearest sign yet that she means to lead from the left in the Senate - and she has the list and the star power to do so. If she is not named Obama's Veep - and who's to say he won't make a surprise choice - then she is poised to provide the loyal opposition to a centrist Obama Administration, building her own movement. And we should all wish her Godspeed with that.

No, the "drama" on the pre-convention jockeying does not move me as much as a Jose Reyes triple. As Al Giordano points out, it plays to the Democrats' favor to allow a little semi-tragic where-for-art-thou storyline to develop pre-Denver. Works wonders in the ratings book. Besides, Obama likes his dramas small - like gray-scaled summer replacement series that pack very little wallop and never get added to the full network schedule. Who didn't smile when reading the story of the Senator being heckled at an Ohio college, challenged loudly to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Damned if the O-man didn't stop the Town Hall meeting and lead one and all in the pledge. Probably had his flag pin on, too.

No, if you want real drama, another Democrat's waiting in the wings by name of Edwards, John - a candidate who I soured on early when he allowed the brilliant feminist Melissa McEwan to be sacked from his blog team. And it was creepy strange when Edwards seemed happy to tag-team Clinton on behalf of Obama last fall, despite his own campaign for the Presidency. In an empty subway car, Edwards is the guy who still stands just a foot away. And his summer turn on the stage is so damned well-timed, as well.

Denver, at least, will be more interesting than the smog-laden Olympic opening ceremonies in China - what a dreary digital non-culturefest that is - and come to think of it, Minneapolis may be the most compelling must-see summer TV of the three. Sure, the Clintons give the Obama team some degree of challenge - but it's because they're so damned good, even in finishing second. The Bush legacy on the other hand - phew, I'd hate to to program that mess. Where can McCain possibly stash GWB, and what do you do about Cheney? Or the Lieberman embarrassment? If you want trainwreck-like reality television, the GOP's the place to be.

UPDATE: I can't help but quote Skippy: the Edwards story does indeed blow the Gingrich narrative.