Monday was Democratic heritage night at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Amid the frequent and shamelessly scripted declarations that John Kerry would make America stronger and respected in the world–this is the official convention theme–we heard from, in this order, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton. All Democratic nominees, past and possibly future, all with political bases, at least originally from the South. The interesting question is what they told us about the Democratic party, and about John Kerry–and what bar they gave Kerry to try to exceed Thursday night.
advertisement
Browse through an archive of columns by Michael Barone.
First up was Al Gore. His speech was reviewed by the Kerry people, and was devoid of the denunciations-by-name of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that were the staple of his recent rants–which have exceeded in bitterness and vitriol the statements of any defeated presidential candidate in American history, or at least of any defeated candidate I can recall. There were certain touches of humor, not too heavy handed. There were intelligent appeals to those who voted for George W. Bush and those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 to vote Democratic this time: Bush didn't deliver compassionate conservatism and Nader did deliver the election to Bush. There was also a certain amount of demagoguery. Bush had, he suggested, "burned his bridges to our allies" and destroyed "respect for America in the world." As it happened, I was on the floor at one point in the evening with the Ambassador to the United States from Australia–a country which did send soldiers to Iraq, some of whom died in the course of duty. John Kerry, during the primaries when he was trailing Howard Dean, said that the United States went to war in Iraq with a "fraudulent coalition." Dick Cheney recently asked why Kerry wants to show more respect for the allies who opposed us than the allies who supported us. Here Gore was falling into the same trap.
"To those of you who felt disappointed or angry with the outcome in 2000," Gore said in his peroration, "I want you to remember all of those feelings. But then I want you to do with them what I have done: focus them fully or completely on putting John Kerry and John Edwards in the White House." A handsome enough statement, though Gore ignores, as a politician in his situation must, that he passed over both Kerry and Edwards for the vice presidential nomination in 2000 and that he endorsed Howard Dean over both of them in December, 2003. The delegates' reception to Gore was warm in general. But it was also revealing to listen to what they cheered most loudly: his reference to the Supreme Court choosing the president in 2000. His assignment was to be forward-looking and positive about Kerry, and he delivered. But his bitterness and that of the Democrats in the hall was still apparent.
Interestingly, Gore did not in any way parrot the "Bush lied" theme of so many Democrats (and of Michael Moore, the cheerleader for the Iraqis who have been firing at our troops and at Iraqi Democrats, and who was seated in an honorary box). His speech was vetted by the Kerry people, and they are presumably aware that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report, and the report of the British civil servant Lord Butler have all acquitted George W. Bush and his administration of their supposed crime of lying about intelligence information.
