Today really was "the end of the beginning" for this campaign. I made my last donation to Kerry/Edwards--$25.01--and listened to the speech at the gym. I thought it was good, better than I'd expected... like every speech I saw this week, I watched it by myself so I wasn't sure what others were thinking, and I damn sure wasn't going to subject myself to the Matthewses and CNN dimwits, who have all but rendered satire redundant, for their unapologetic spins. So it's very reassuring to see that the (mostly) hard-core progressives of this site had much the same reaction as I did. He said nothing that I had a particular problem with, and many things that I enthusiastically agreed with.
Kerry will never be the natural orator that Clinton is, or that Ted Kennedy once was. He still steps on his own applause lines, and he slips and stumbles over words--certainly not like Bush, but that's a low bar indeed. But he caught a rhythm about twenty minutes in and stayed on it for the rest of the way, with a series of great riffs on economic disparities, health care, and energy independence--the three issues where he can absolutely pummel Bush with confidence that he'll have three quarters of the electorate with him.
He was more than credible on the national security stuff as well... which, after all, is why we nominated him. (Right?) I've thought for a long time that where Clinton did the Democratic Party a long-term favor by neutralizing the issues of crime and welfare which had long swung against the Dems, Kerry could finish the job by restoring general confidence that the party can be entrusted with the "defense" of the U.S. He knows this stuff cold, and unlike most of his former rivals (including the guy he picked to run with him), he doesn't seem eager to change the subject when security matters come up. I look forward to the foreign policy-themed debate; that's where Kerry truly could seal the deal.
Kerry's speech was effective and I think it marks an important milestone on his road to convincing the voters to change presidents. But the speeches earlier in the week by Obama and Edwards reminded me of why I am a Democrat. It really boils down to one thing: the Republicans are content with a certain level of human misery in the world. Whether poverty represents a dimly revealed divine judgment of some kind, or just the invisible hand of the capitalist system, they're not really concerned with material want or with corrupted democratic or governmental processes unless it directly challenges their position. Perhaps this wasn't always so, but in my conscious lifetime (I'm 31), the Republicans have demonstrated a consistent love for power over principle.
The Democrats surely want power as well, but I think more for what we can do with it than for what it intrinsically means, or for simple self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement. We are the party of ideals, the party of community, the party that values both individual freedoms and shared endeavor for mutual good. We recognize that responsibility is a part of enlightened self-interest; Republicans' self-interest is benighted and often mean-spirited. (Clinton's point Monday night about how the Republicans need a divided America, but Democrats don't, was right on.) I don't always feel great pride in the party, but hearing from Obama, Edwards, Kerry and others, this week I was indeed proud to be a Democrat.