Question:
"It certainly was your father's Democratic Party tonight, a party of liberalambitions and constituent groups," columnist Paul Gigot said on PBS.

"You put Jesse Jackson up there, you put Ted Kennedy up there, and they don'thave to open their mouth – you think, liberal," said CNN's Candy Crowley.

As the second night of the Democratic convention trotted out the Kennedy clan,most dazzlingly represented by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, some newspaperswere roused by the old-time Camelot magic. But most journalists were moreinterested in the rumblings of an ideological split – the kind thePhiladelphia Republicans kept well hidden – as the moderate Gore-Liebermanticket yielded the stage to the party's left wing.

"The procession of prominent liberals across the stage at the Democraticconvention Tuesday night reflected a basic reality in the presidentialcampaign: Al Gore is having much more difficulty unifying his party base thanGeorge W. Bush," wrote Ron Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times. "Bush did notfeel compelled to turn over a night of his convention to conservative icons –largely because polls show him drawing 90 percent or more of Republican voters.

"But Gore is attracting only about three-fourths of Democrats in most surveys– which helps explain why the program Tuesday night included two Kennedys,Jesse Jackson, Bill Bradley and the leaders of some of the party's mostprominent liberal interest groups. . . . The decision to spotlight so manytraditionally liberal voices does reflect the continuing problem Gore faces ashe tries to construct a message that minimizes defection on the left withoutalienating centrist Democrats and independents.

The New York Times offered a similar tack: "The evening featured a parade ofliberal stalwarts. . . . There were also speakers representing importantDemocratic constituencies: union members, abortion-rights advocates andhomosexuals. The leftward tableau on stage was at odds with the platform thatthe delegates approved tonight, which was a decided play for middle, callingfor a more potent military, expanded global trade and for schools to be moreaccountable for student performance . . .

"The cavalcade of liberals was a decided contrast to the Republicans'convention, when conservative figures, the most steadfast party loyalists, werelargely kept offstage as the party sought to broaden its appeal." In a separatepiece, the Times said: "It is difficult to gauge the depth of discontent amongblack voters, union members and other core Democrats with the ticket and itsagenda. But Mr. Gore's selection of Mr. Lieberman, a Connecticut senator whohas staked out centrist positions not only on affirmative action, but also onschool vouchers, military spending and Social Security, seems to havecrystalized their worries that Mr. Gore is taking them for granted."

The Washington Post also stressed the party's strains: "Tonight's program wasnine-tenths tribute to the old liberalism, emphasizing trade unionism, civilrights, abortion rights, sexual tolerance and the Kennedys. But the night endedwith a speech by the fresh-faced Harold Ford Jr., 30, a congressman fromTennessee who subscribes to the pro-trade, high-tech, New Democrat philosophy."

Of course, since Ford appeared after 11 p.m. EDT and wasn't carried by thebroadcast networks, for most of America he did not exist.

"To see Jesse L. Jackson and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy onstagetonight," The Post added, "was to be reminded that Clinton's rise to power camepartly at the expense of these old lions and their liberal agenda.

The sharply different tone among some papers, depending on their coloration andwhere they are published, is nothing short of fascinating.

In the heart of the Kennedy ancestral home, the liberal Boston Globe declared:"With a rousing call from the Kennedys and tributes from the Rev. Jesse Jacksonand Bill Bradley, the Democratic Party paid homage last night to its liberalbase even as it adopted a centrist platform designed for Al Gore.

From another of America's most liberal cities, the San Francisco Chronicle wasdownright admiring: "Capping an emotional journey that recalled the glories ofCamelot, Sen. Ted Kennedy issued an impassioned plea last night to continuefighting for the ideals of his late brother's 'New Frontier' by working toelect of [sic] Al Gore and Joe Lieberman . . . Kennedy's rousing call to actioncapped a parade of family speakers."

But the conservative New York Post ran the banner headline over Ted andCaroline: "BACK TO THE PAST." And the conservative Washington Times played upthe Lieberman flap: "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday sought to quell blackDemocrats' dissension about his candidacy by stressing his support ofaffirmative action and public schools. . . . The Democratic ticket is movingquickly to prevent a rift in its base.

That was beanbag, though, compared to the Amsterdam News, the black Manhattanweekly, which said of Lieberman's selection: "Gore and his minions did it forthe money."

"Jews from all over the world, especially in Europe, Africa, Israel and SouthAmerica, will be sending bundles of money . . . America is being sold to thehighest bidder," said the editorial by publisher Wilbert Tatum.

According to a New York Post account, Abraham Foxman, national director of theAnti-Defamation League, charged in a letter to the Amsterdam News that Tatumhad shown himself to be "an anti-Semite the likes of David Duke . . . Tatum'sassertion is insidious and an anti-Semitic canard employed by anti-Semites,racists and conspiracy theorists through the centuries to bolster their absurdclaim of Jewish control."

From the left, Salon.com chided California Rep. Maxine Waters, a leader of theBlack Caucus, for threatening to abandon Gore over Lieberman's selection."Waters made herself the big story of the dull convention's second day bytelling the Los Angeles Times that she might not endorse the Democratic ticketbecause of Lieberman's stands on affirmative action, school vouchers andcriminal justice," Salon said. "Her stance pushed African-Americans ahead ofthe entertainment industry and unions as the must-mollify Democraticconstituency of the moment . . . "

Once Lieberman mollified Waters at a meeting and "the press and the newsmakersmelted away, some wondered aloud what the big deal had been in the first place.Those with long memories recalled that Waters made a similar stink in SanFrancisco in 1984, when she threatened to withhold her endorsement of theWalter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro ticket because the Democrats had notconsidered a black woman on their list of potential female VP nominees — andthen backed down."

Perhaps the morning's most fascinating story, given the long history ofantagonism between Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Kerrey (who once called thepresident "an unusually good liar"), appeared in USA Today. Kerrey, not to puttoo fine a point on it, really unloaded.

The Nebraska senator said that "the president must 'go quietly' from thepolitical stage and permit Vice President Gore to establish his politicalindependence or be responsible for a 'tragic' loss this fall."

Kerrey said Clinton must "stay off the playing field . . . if Gore is to haveany hope of emerging from the president's shadow.

"'Don't comment on the vice president's race. Don't comment on the vicepresident's views. Don't tell us what you're going to do in this administrationafter the election,' Kerrey said in a blunt message to Clinton. 'This is AlGore's race. Be as silent as possible until the seventh of November. If he'snot capable of doing that, in a tragic and counterproductive fashion he mayensure Al Gore's defeat.'"

Who says political conventions are totally scripted?

Answer: Good question. The Sanchez-Playboy brouhaha, seethingblack anger over Lieberman, Clinton doing his WWF-typeintro, Hellary droning on in prime time pushing her hubbyoutside prime time, and now Kerrey blasting Bubba. Youcan't make this stuff up.