David Broder does a workmanlike recounting of the tensions within the Democratic Party between the Liberals and what’s left of the Democratic Leadership Council (the moderates). While the piece is worth reading, what he hides is really more important than what he reveals: Kerry is not really a moderate and never has been; he is pretending and everyone is going along with the sham just because--they think--that is their only chance at defeating Bush. He is right to say that if Kerry wins, the rift will become clear. But it is also true that when Kerry loses the rift will also be there, and the battle for control of the party will be brutal; the Liberals hold the power.
How can there be a "brutal battle" for ideological control of the Democratic party? The remaining moderates don’t amount to a hill of beans.
This is why I feel as if the Democratic Convention is really one big lie. While I realize that conventions mean very little and are really about image and style over substance, there is also, it seems to me, a willful attempt to hide Kerry’s positions on several topics. I want him to get up there and state his opinion on issues that a lot of people care about such as gay marriage or abortion (life begins at conception but abortion is still OK, as in a recent interview!), but all I’ve gotten is that he served in Vietnam nine million times. I’m also tired of the commentators saying that the Democrats were not going to attack Bush-Cheney ad hominem, but then do so in every other sentence without mentioning their name for the most part. It’s all a bit disingenuous. Here’s a liberal who’s pretending he’s not liberal, just to get elected. At least Bush has principles and is not afraid to stand publicly for them.
Tony Williams said "I realize that conventions mean very little..." but spent all of that valuable time of his this past week with his nose glued to his tube. Why is that Tony? An aspiring scholar should know better.