Reason's 2008 Live Convention Coverage
In case you're wondering if there really are a lot of people at Invesco
Tim Cavanaugh | August 28, 2008, 8:35pm
I guess in some way I weep for my nation that this many people can come out on a working day to hear some politician give a speech, let alone to hear two of New Jersey's most embarrassing exports (is Southside Johnny going to make a surprise appearance too?). Still, I have to concede: Barack Obama draws a crowd. Here are some shots of the more-than-a-mile-long crowd waiting to get into the acceptance event, and a hint of the kind of logistical support this thing requires:
Our own David Weigel and cinematic master Alex Manning are in the building, and will be bringing you full video and text coverage of the audacious hopefest. The rest of us can only look on in envy, or despair, or drunkenness.
memphisto | August 29, 2008, 1:26am | #
Les
Mostly I was projecting my own beliefs that very, very few of the people lined up were truly "involved in the political process."
Certainly it depends on the connotation of "involved". By involved all I meant was that they were there for a political event. While I agree that they (we) aren't in control, at least they are paying attention and doing something. I was beginning to fear that the population had given up. And honestly I can't remember anything like this in my lifetime.
Cynical as I am, I just can't help but find it a little encouraging for democracy (whether I like Obama or not) that almost 100K people did come out on a worknight to hear a politician.
"Refusing to join a gathering to reverently cheer a guy who's changed his position on a variety of important issues in order to raise his poll numbers doesn't equal apathy."
Of course not. But sitting home and not paying attention does. And at least they weren't doing that.
As far as changing positions to garner favor, (a) both (all?) candidates have done it (whether for the polls or to gather support from power players in the party) and (b) I don't see being responsive to the will of the people is such a bad thing. (Likewise with 'flip-flopping', show me a man who hasn't ever changed a position and I'll show you a man who has never learned anything.) Politics is compromise and elections are salesmenship. I don't find it disengenuous that a man running to unite the country is moderating his ideas somewhat. And after these years of 'compassionate conservitism that decrys nation building' I don't trust much of what's said during an election.
Also, I don't think the people who were there were "just cheering him regardless of what he says and does." That seems far more a Republican trait to me. Anyway, this is actually the time for that. Conventions are pep-rallies.
"Manipulative salesmanship"? Now who's not being cynical enough? I honestly don't see how Republicans can say such things with a straight face after the last two elections.
Remember, the real reason to vote for Obama is because the Republicans can't be allowed to continue what they've done to the country.
Les | August 29, 2008, 3:25am | #
mephisto,
While I agree that they (we) aren't in control, at least they are paying attention and doing something.
I guess that's the problem I have. I don't know what they're doing. They're expressing themselves, and I'm all for that, no doubt. But I get nervous when people cheer politicians. I think our elected leaders, even the best, don't deserve cheering. The deserve polite scrutiny, at best.
I was beginning to fear that the population had given up.
I'll feel better about that when we see what the voter turnout is, I suppose.
But sitting home and not paying attention does [equal apathy]. And at least they weren't doing that.
Well, going to hear the guy speak doesn't mean they're paying attention. How many folks there are aware of the issues on which Obama has changed his mind?
As far as changing positions to garner favor, (a) both (all?) candidates have done it (whether for the polls or to gather support from power players in the party) and (b) I don't see being responsive to the will of the people is such a bad thing.
(A) is no excuse for pandering. And in terms of (B), there's a difference between being responsive to the will of the people and pandering. When one year you're saying that inarguably failed policies like our embargo on Cuba and marijuana prohibition need to be changed, and the next year you defend the status quo on those policies, that counts as pandering.
I think the reason the Founding Fathers created a Republic is because sometimes the will of the people is flat out wrong. At those times, it's the duty of our elected leaders to ignore the will of the people.
(Likewise with 'flip-flopping', show me a man who hasn't ever changed a position and I'll show you a man who has never learned anything.)
Oh, I agree completely. But surely we can agree that Obama didn't change his mind regarding marijuana and Cuba because he realized that our current policies really are working.
I don't find it disengenuous that a man running to unite the country is moderating his ideas somewhat.
If he's moderating his ideas from "practical" to "impractical," from "new and historically successful" to "old and historically failed," I think "disingenuous" is the right word.
Also, I don't think the people who were there were "just cheering him regardless of what he says and does." That seems far more a Republican trait to me.
And many a Republican see it as a Democratic trait. I think the fact is that there are loyalists on both sides who are more interested in party and ideological victory than in practical solutions to our problems. I see not a bit of difference between people who cheer Hillary Clinton and people who cheer Bush. Both are loyalists to their own emotional investments to the point where they will cheer demonstrably dishonest, incompetent people.
"Manipulative salesmanship"? Now who's not being cynical enough? I honestly don't see how Republicans can say such things with a straight face after the last two elections.
Oh, I do hope you don't think I'm a Republican. I'm most certainly not. But my understanding of politics and history has convinced me that Democrats and Republicans are, first and foremost, politicians. And all politicians are salesmen (and saleswomen). And they all want to know what they have to do to get us in a car today.
Remember, the real reason to vote for Obama is because the Republicans can't be allowed to continue what they've done to the country.
The Democrats have done a fine job in helping them every single step of the way. That said, if I lived in a state that was up for grabs, I'd vote for Obama (nose held, of course), because I do utterly loathe what the Bush Administration has done. Fortunately, I live in California, which Obama will easily take, so I have the luxury of voting for someone who won't win, but who I can believe in. I just have to figure out who that is!
