On Morning Joe, they've been saying all morning that this is one of best conventions they've ever seen. They just asked Barney Frank. He pointed to 1992. Joe Scarborough said earlier, representing the other sdie, 1980.
I remember both of those of course, 92 as a journalist and 80 as a college kid. I watched the latter in horror, but Scarborough is correct, and I clearly remember thinking that it had lots of energy. And Clinton's first convention was close. But both of those had something in common that this convention does not: They were introducing to America not only a new candidate, but a candidate who brought with him a new reality. Obviously we can say the same of 2008, but somehow, so far, this convention actually is better than 2008's. If nothing else the high-profile speeches are consistently better this time around.
If you think about it, it's odd that a convention renominating a candidate who no longer has that four-year-old mojo; who's disappointed liberals on tihs and that; who is trailing among independents; who is reviled by conservatives; and who's in a neck-and-neck race should be so powerful. But it clearly is. Why?
That's not a rhetorical question. I really don't know. I'd be interested in some of your answers. I guess my answer is not very different from my answer to most political questions, which is that the Repubilcans are so far out there in crazy land that the simple fact that the Democrats are talking about Earth-resembling reality makes them look like they really have the pulse of the people. If two people are arguing and one is speaking gibberish, the one managing English can sound like Shakespeare.
And now the forecasters are starting to talk about a jobs number Friday morning of 180,000 or more. If so, a big-enough number even to lower the jobless rate by a tick.
