Andrew Sullivan's convention coverage
is bothering me. He's claiming that the Democrats are finally presenting themselves as credible on terrorism, as responsible adults, as conservatives
. That's an interesting thing to say. Why is no other media outlet following this kind of narrative, of the serious and conservative Democrats? To be sure, that's the theme they're trying to project for themselves, but I don't see any media treating it as anything but anti-Bush opportunistic centrism. So, how does Andrew Sullivan reach such a conclusion? I see two potential reasons.
1. The media, at large, has suddenly decided not to frantically spin positives for Kerry any way they can. (Unlikely, but not impossible.)
2. Sullivan is engaging in willful self-delusion to rationalize a not-particularly-credible platform as reasonable, despite occasional moments of doubtful realism. (Bingo.)
A few posts later, summarizing the Kennedy/Dean/Heinz-Kerry speeches (even he has to admit all were pretty lousy):
[...] Dean was dreadful (what was I ever thinking when I thought he was a good candidate?) [...]
The same thing he's thinking now: That there's a magically perfect amalgam candidate that could be a no-brainer choice. But there isn't. It wasn't Dean, and it's not Kerry. This is self-delusion, just the same as during the primaries, and a few months down the road (or perhaps after the election), that'll be evident to Sullivan. Bush may not be ideal on his pet issue - gay rights - but Kerry is far from ideal on a great deal of things, and dangerously unserious on terrorism.