Democrats and Republicans… What’s the Difference?

Tuesday night was the first night of the Democratic National Convention, and Michelle Obama spoke. And, stuff like that. So – naturally – Wednesday was the second night of the DNC, and it was also a 24-hour liberal orgasm over what’s great, grand, and just an overall Opry of fabulousness about the Democratic Party.

It should have been about introspection, about thoughtful but meaningful mobilization, or even about pre-heating the oven before Bill Clinton took center stage. But, it wasn’t.

Democratic sponsors (i.e. the news below channel 17) forgot to realize, of course, that the DNC was no different than the RNC, and Michelle Obama’s speech – even down to its finer points and emphasis – was no different than anything said by Mitt Romney, Ann Romney, or one of the other 59 Romneys who are in committed relationships, whether they want to be or not.

Obama’s speech was good. All of her speeches are good. So are Barack’s. That’s why he’s the President, and she’s the First Lady.

But, do we have to pretend they were any more idealistic or fine in their approach to a new election campaign than the Reluctant Non-Virgins from Utah?

At the end of the day, politicians are politicians, but folks with microphones are neglecting that fact. (Turns out, even a shi*ty hotel room hasn’t dissuaded them from thinking Barack Obama is still Barack Obama.)

MSNBC did their job, with Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow gleefully double clicking their mouses over how incredible the Obamas are. FOX did their job, putting the Romneys and Marco Rubio on a pedestal so high it’s actually illegal in Georgia.

NBC even went so far as to pretend that Democratic enthusiasm was different than Republican enthusiasm. Because, if you agree with the enthusiasm, you undoubtedly find it more righteous than other side.

Cowboys and Indians. War is War.

Both parties have YouTube channels. They both preach family and integrity. They both link photos using the DISSOLVE transition from iMovie, and they lay it over some slow song. The Mormons pick Joe Cocker, and the Obamas pick Louie Armstrong.

And then, they call the other fake. MSNBC tags along, but FOX does it first. So what?

The only folks who were reporting the whole deal accurately was the editorial staff at Gawker, with talented political pen Hamilton Nolan documenting every one of Michelle’s insincere stutters.

“Michelle Obama stutters. She does not have a stutter. She stutters on purpose. “I-I-I, I’ve seen it in our men and women in uniform.” 

“It is a studied stutter, deployed in order to build sincerity. It is not so much a rhetorical device as an acting device. The same could be said for the presentation of almost all political convention speechers. And it is, at its core, sad.”

Nolan continued, and he did so in his somehow uniquely honest style.

“When Michelle Obama spoke last night, I felt nothing,” he said. “Not because I dislike Michelle Obama, or disagree with the political values she was asserting, or am unmoved by her charisma. I felt nothing because I’d just come from another political convention last week, full of people I loathe promoting values I despire, which was indistinguishable from last night’s convention ceremony. The same painstaking values I despise, which was indistinguishable from last night’s convention ceremony. The same painstaking lighting for the cameras. The same high production values. The same soft-focus video introductions, the same relentless repetition of soft-focus issues, the same smiles and fashions of chants of “U-S-A!” Our two political parties stand for slightly different positions on many issues. But, no political party stands for honesty.”

You couldn’t be more true if you tried, but it’s clear he’s the only one who is.