A lip-smacking convention

tauringhuang.

Aug 25th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The Democratic convention gets under way in Denver, Colorado

Reuters
SHORT speeches at party conventions used to be taken as a lack of respect for delegates who had travelled from afar, according to Michael Beschloss, a political historian. The demands of television mean this is no longer the case. Speechifying is kept to a minimum; a small mercy for viewers witnessing the parade of Democratic Party apparatchiks and union leaders on stage at Denver’s Pepsi Centre.

A few speakers will be heard with intense care. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, delivers the primetime address on Monday. Joe Biden, Mr Obama’s running mate, speaks on Wednesday about security policy. Pundits will study every word that Hillary Clinton utters in her slot on Tuesday night for indications of her commitment to Mr Obama’s victory.

The convention is also an occasion to spot future stars. The Democrats’ keynote address will be delivered by Mark Warner, a popular former governor of Virginia who is standing for a Senate seat. Mr Warner is touted by observers as a strong candidate for the presidency in 2012 (if Mr Obama loses this time) or 2016. It is often the keynote address for which a convention is remembered. The late Ann Richards delivered the address in 1988 that included a memorable line about George Bush senior being “born with a silver foot in his mouth” (Bill Clinton’s rambling speech the same year, when he was governor of Arkansas, is often cited as the most boring in convention history). And in 2004 a certain state senator from Illinois delivered the keynote address that propelled him to national attention.

Detractors say modern conventions have become stultifying to the point of irrelevance. Some miss the drama that Democratic conventions used to produce, such as in 1964 when a delegate slate of civil-rights workers from Mississippi tried to replace the state’s white-only contingent. Others remember fondly the battles (literally) in Chicago in 1968, and 1980, when Ted Kennedy fought in vain for delegates to switch their votes away from Jimmy Carter.

Conventions are now much quieter affairs, the point being to assure voters that any fringe element is powerless and to deliver an all-important “bounce” to the candidate (see chart). Still, there is a chance of some theatrics this year during the state-by-state delegate count. Passions still run high among some Clintonistas, indignant at their candidate’s narrow loss to Mr Obama. Loretta Sanchez, a congresswoman from southern California, raised eyebrows recently when she suggested that half of Democrats in the House would vote for Mrs Clinton.

The Obama campaign is letting Mrs Clinton’s delegates register their support for her in a traditional floor vote. Mrs Clinton herself will vote for Mr Obama, but roving television cameras will pick up any signs of trouble on the floor, such as unfurled banners or scuffles. A “whip team” of 40 Clinton staffers will patrol to make sure no one makes a scene. With some delegates switching sides, Mrs Clinton is expected to end up with a significantly smaller tally than the 1,900-odd she chalked up during the primaries.

The candidate’s acceptance speech on Thursday evening is the big moment of the week. The announcement in July that he would deliver his speech to more than 70,000 people at a sports stadium was viewed as evidence of a confident campaign. But following Mr Obama’s rock-star-like tour of Europe and appearance before 200,000 Berliners, John McCain has poked fun at his rival’s celebrity status with some success; the theme of Mr Obama's speech, “change you can believe in”, even seems a bit hackneyed. Democrats are urging Mr Obama to tone it down and to do more empathising.

His advisers see no reason to alter the main theme behind a remarkably successful campaign. And Mr Obama’s acceptance speech is likely to attract a wide viewership precisely because it is being billed as an “event”. He will no doubt be hailed as eloquent. But in a tightening race, the question is whether his speech will resonate with voters.