By Dan Kennedy • Tracking the future of local news and other passions since 2005
The following Michele McPhee quote — uttered within the last five minutes — is guaranteed 95 percent word-for-word:
The last time he [Obama] had a crowd this big, he blew his nose. And it was nasty, folks. What’s he going to do this time? Is there going to be flatulence on the stage? And are people going to cheer?
Simply amazing.
Tracking polls are notoriously unreliable, but the Gallup trend is clear:
If these numbers are right, then it shows that all the media’s hyperventilating about the convention’s not being attack-oriented enough and the Clintons’ stealing the spotlight from Obama is bunk.
The latest figures don’t even capture voter reaction to Bill Clinton’s, John Kerry’s, and Joe Biden’s speeches, not to mention Obama’s cameo at the end of the night. And Gallup’s numbers won’t include Obama’s own speech until Saturday.
What does this mean? It looks like Obama is going to receive a normal convention bounce. And unless McCain and the Republicans utterly blow it next week, we’ll be back to a tied race when both conventions are over.
We’d all be better off watching C-SPAN.
Jon Stewart’s got some great clips (move it ahead to around 11:30) of the meltdown at MSNBC. It turns out that Rachel Maddow’s upbraiding of Pat Buchanan has been the least of it.
One other thing I saw late last night, following Joe Biden’s speech: Keith Olbermann asked Brian Williams a question about whether McCain might use his vice-presidential announcement to take away from Obama’s moment. Except that he asked his question following an elaborate set-up in which he said something to the effect that he didn’t want to put Williams in the awkward position of seeming partisan. Williams semi-acknowledged that some sort of conversation had taken place.
It seemed clear to me that Williams must have been complaining that he and other NBC journalists feels as though they’re getting sucked into the liberal talk-show atmosphere that has led to MSNBC’s rise in the ratings.
It also seems clear that Tim Russert was the only personality strong enough to keep all this backbiting from spilling over. Another reason to lament his passing.
By the way, it’s mainly MSNBC, but not only MSNBC. The other night on Fox News, Brit Hume took the crossover from Sean Hannity and said — I’m sure I’ve got this almost word for word — I’ve always wanted to be on “Hannity & Colmes,” if only for a moment. The contempt on Hume’s face was palpable.
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.
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.
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.”
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 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.
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 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.