A presidential makeover

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that two contrasting speeches by Michelle Obama show she understands what works in Chicago doesn’t work on the national stage. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Obamas’ efforts to reinvent themselves risk making them seem inauthentic and leave them vulnerable to Republican attack.

Glenn Marshall resurfaces

We interrupt this week’s orgy of national political news to tell you that Glenn Marshall — the convicted rapist and phony war hero who helped target Middleborough as the home for the world’s largest gambling casino — continues to pull strings behind the scenes.

George Brennan of the Cape Cod Times reports that Marshall is neither forgotten nor gone from the circles of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which he served as president before his past was brought to light by Cape Cod Today and the Cape Cod Times.

And just to bring this full circle: As I recently wrote here, here and here, it’s ludicrous to pretend that the Spectrum Gaming report commissioned by Gov. Deval Patrick for $189,000 is an independent assessment. But there was one interesting wrinkle. Whereas Patrick has seemed less than enthusiastic about supporting a tribal casino, Spectrum warned that such a casino is inevitable.

As the great Gladys Kravitz recently observed, one of Spectrum’s clients is the financier Sol Kerzner, who’s the source of much of the money behind the Middleborough proposal — and thus an important guy in making Glenn Marshall an important guy.

You absolutely cannot make this stuff up.

Tell us something we don’t know

I just spent, oh, the last hour and a half reading Roger Simon’s dauntingly well-reported piece for the Politico on how Barack Obama managed to beat the Clinton juggernaut. (Chuck Todd was praising it on Tom Ashbrook’s show this morning. Do we really believe he had time to read it?)

Like Joshua Green’s Atlantic article on what went wrong with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, it is full of insight and nuance. And, like Green’s piece, I ultimately found it unsatisfying. Here’s the problem: No one other than a political junkie is going to read such a story. And we political junkies have been living all this in real time for many, many months.

Both Simon and Green remind us of details we might have forgotten, skillfully weave a mass of information into coherent narratives and come up with some previously unreported nuggets. (Green: Mark Penn is smarter and more awful than we thought. Simon: Obama’s brain-trusters actually believed they could knock Clinton out in the opening weeks of the primary season.) In the end, though, they don’t do much more than tell us what we already know.

If there’s one thing of value I learned from the two accounts, it’s that no one should believe the Democrats would be in better shape today if Clinton had won the nomination — especially if she had won it easily, and had not had to put her dysfunctional campaign staff to the test.

OK, two. I think it’s a pretty good bet that Simon and Green are going to write books about this historic campaign. At nearly 16,000 words, Simon’s article is already about a quarter of the way there.

Denver? I thought they said Danvers.

For the first time since 1992, I’m not going to either major political convention. In 1996, I covered the Republicans in San Diego. In 2000, I covered both the Republicans in Philadelphia and the Democrats in Los Angeles. And in 2004, I covered the Democrats here in Boston.

I have two conflicting thoughts about my absence from both conventions this year. On the one hand, I’ve never understood the argument that there’s nothing going on. Yes, it’s true that the conventions haven’t actually picked the presidential and vice-presidential nominees for many years now. But, for two weeks, the conventions are the center of the media-political universe. Why wouldn’t you want to be there?

There’s not much happening inside the hall. Outside, though, there are events ranging from parties thrown by various media organizations to demonstrations to substantive, issue-based get-togethers such as Arianna Huffington’s counter-conventions in 2000. A reporter who’s willing to keep moving can find more interesting stuff going on in a week than usually comes his way in a year.

On the other hand, if you think what’s taking place on the floor is what’s really important, then there’s no better place to be than in front of your television, popcorn and beer at the ready. It’s a TV show, so why not watch it the way it was meant to be seen?

I’m not planning to overdose on convention coverage this week or next, but I’m certainly going to catch the major speeches. And, truth be told, my colleagues in Denver will probably be watching them the same way I do — on the tube. Only they’ll be in a press tent and I’ll be home.