Thursday, July 29, 2004

Lost Voice

I think Josh Marshall gets it just about right here. The truth about "anti-Bush rage" is, as he says, that it was an anger born from powerlessness. It was anger at Bush, sure, but more than that it was anger at the lack of representation in the political discourse - from politicians or from members of the media - for a large chunk of the population who never particularly felt themselves to be "radicals" or "on the fringe" or, hell, even "angry."

Since few with a prominent voice were taking Bush on, those with less prominent voices were doing it themselves. Without the megaphone that the mainstream media provides to amplify their sentiments, all that was left was turning up the volume .

People were trying to give a wake up call to the powers that be. And, until they started to listen (some), anyone who threw out a bit of red meat was seen as a breath of fresh air.

I think the speakers at the convention have, by and large, done an excellent job doing exactly what challengers need to do - making the case for change. The criticisms have been strong, but not over the top, and at this moment that's exactly how they should be.

Sorry for light posting, but just getting from place to place is taking forever right now and I have to go to lots of places...