Dan Kennedy

Kerry got the Patrick treatment

I didn’t realize how few viewers had a chance to see John Kerry’s speech last night. So let’s see — the pundits keep telling us that the Democrats aren’t attacking McCain enough; Kerry devotes his entire speech to a full-throated disembowelment of McCain; and the pundits don’t let us see it. Am I missing anything?

Josh Marshall calls Kerry’s “the best speech of the convention.” I don’t think it was quite that, but it certainly gave viewers (some viewers, anyway) the biggest helping of red meat they’ve had so far.

Dan Wasserman’s paean to punditry

We all love Dan Wasserman (and I’m loving his new blog, Out of Line). But this is what happens when you get immersed in the spin. Wasserman’s Boston Globe cartoon today makes sense if you listen to the pundits, who have been salivating over the prospect of open warfare between the Clintons and the Obamas all week. It might even make sense if you talk to disgruntled Clinton delegates.

But what, pray tell, have the Clintons actually done to undermine Barack Obama at the convention? Both Hillary and Bill gave emphatically pro-Obama speeches. Delegates have cheered the Clintons. Delegates have cheered the Obamas. HRC released her delegates to vote for Obama, then moved that Obama’s nomination be made unanimous.

Is it all choreographed? Of course. Or to be more precise: It’s a television show. At least according to some news reports, the two families don’t like each other. But they’re playing their parts. And though the Clintons may not be heartbroken if John McCain wins this November, since that would give HRC another chance to run in 2012, they don’t want to be blamed for Obama’s defeat, either.

Bottom line is that not a single thing has taken place at the podium, or in any of the Clintons’ or the Obamas’ public utterances, to support Wasserman’s take. At best, he’s channeling unhappy Clinton fans. At worst, he’s suffering from pundit overdose.

The Joe and Beau show

Maybe I’m speech’d out, but I wasn’t hugely taken with Joe Biden’s address. He was good, and he certainly did what he needed to do. But there was a ragged, stop-and-start feel to it. Clinton and Kerry were better.

Beau Biden, on the other hand, couldn’t have been more moving. Judging from what I saw on television, there wasn’t a dry eye in the convention hall.

Funny, but I thought Bruce Springsteen was going to come out when it was announced that there would be a “special guest.”

Kerry on fire

I’ve never seen him that impassioned on his own behalf. And if Bill Clinton was more intent on whacking Bush than McCain, Kerry made up for it. He even poked fun at himself as he ran through a litany of McCain flip-flops.

Good Jason Zengerle piece in The New Republic on Kerry’s revival as one of Obama’s most effective surrogates. If Biden falls flat tonight, remember: I told you so.

The Big Dog barks

The good: He defined the issues more succinctly than anyone has managed all year — restoring the American Dream at home and restoring America’s image abroad. Vague, obviously, but more evocative than mere change for change’s sake.

The not-so-good: He made a compelling case against Bush, who, the last time I checked, isn’t running. Yes, he tied McCain to the Bush agenda, but he left the knots kind of loose.

The accidental column-ist

How stupid is this? Obama is going to be giving his convention speech in front of some faux-Greek columns, which isn’t exactly new — Bush himself did it just four years ago. And have you walked around the Statehouse lately? Or ever?

But anonymous (i.e., Clinton) Democrats claim this is more proof that Obama thinks he’s Zeus or something, the media are freaking out and the Republicans blasted out an e-mail about the “Temple of Obama.”

Could everyone please grow up?

The clam shacks of Cape Ann

The Clam Box or Woodman’s? To those of us who live on the North Shore, it is a theological question. The Clam Box, of Ipswich, slightly out of the way, with huge lines and the challenging logistics of finding a seat, is the hardcore choice. Woodman’s, of Essex, spacious and fast-moving, is easier. But is easier better?

Boston Globe food critic Devra First hits Route 133 today to come up with her take on Cape Ann clam shacks. In addition to the Clam Box and Woodman’s, she reviews Essex Seafood and J.T. Farnum’s, both of Essex, and neither of which I’ve visited. First, a Boston Phoenix colleague a few years ago, has written an enjoyable feature. But who’s the best?

First gives the nod to the Clam Box by a nose, and I agree — but not for the same reasons. I find the food at Woodman’s and the Clam Box to be close in quality except for the onion rings, which I think are better — flakier, less greasy — at the Clam Box. First prefers Woodman’s thick, heavily breaded rings. The default at Woodman’s is onion rings and french fries, but they’ll let you substitute their excellent cole slaw for the fries.

Despite my slight preference for the Clam Box, Woodman’s generally wins out during my two or three clam-shack forays each year because it’s just more convenient, especially now that they take plastic. And Woodman’s serves beer.

A confession: I’m a native New Englander, I love shellfish, but I don’t eat fried clams — I don’t like the gritty bellies. So I generally go for fried clam strips, shrimp or scallops, and maybe once a year (or once every other year) a steamed lobster.

Good thing I just ate, or this would be making me hungry.

Photo (cc) by Peter Dutton and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

More on the Scott Beauchamp saga

Last week I linked to Spencer Ackerman’s report for Radar alleging that the real scandal involving ex-“Baghdad Diarist” Scott Beauchamp was that The New Republic had failed to stand behind Beauchamp’s accounts of loathsome behavior on the part of U.S. troops (himself included) in Iraq.

Today the story gets even more interesting. The blog Moon of Alabama observes that an Army sergeant who’s been implicated in killing four blindfolded, handcuffed Iraqi detainees and then dumping their bodies in a canal has exactly the same name as a sergeant who had denounced Beauchamp’s reporting as fiction — First Sgt. John E. Hatley.

I have no idea who or what Moon of Alabama is. But the story about the alleged murders is in today’s New York Times, and all Mr. or Ms. Moon has done is connect the dots.

Still nothing on The New Republic’s Web site. And a hat tip to Media Nation reader L.A., who sent me to this Laura Rozen blog item.

The speech of her life

Well, that was quite a performance by Hillary Clinton, was it not? Unlike the Mark Warners of the world, she managed to talk about herself and use that in a compelling way to transfer her personal message to Barack Obama. Also, for the first time this week the Democrats were drinking the blood of their enemies. And loving it.

I never would have imagined when Clinton first ran for the Senate eight years ago that the stilted public speaker of that campaign could grow into the accomplished, and even moving, figure that she is today.

Not to get carried away. She was not this good while she was running for president. Not even close. Like Ted Kennedy and Al Gore, to name two other examples, defeat seems to have brought out the best in her.

Patrick’s television freeze-out

Gov. Deval Patrick is speaking right now — quite effectively, too. I did a quick channel flip, and discovered that he’s being carried only by New England Cable News and C-SPAN. The folks at PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all think they have more important things to talk about.

Instant correction: Boston’s WFXT-TV (Channel 25) and WLVI-TV (Channel 56) also broadcast Patrick live. They’re local stations that aren’t stuck with carrying the network feed.