Clinton tops bill at best show in town

IN the hall at Madison Square Gardens it is pure bedlam. Watching on

TV you get the impression that the Democratic Convention is an orderly

event, but in fact nobody listens to any except the few most important

speeches -- the rest is all conversation, lobbying and endless media

interviews distracting from whatever the podium speaker is trying to

say.

The American political convention and the British party conference are

two entirely different animals. This is my third Democratic Convention,

and the first obvious difference is that they take place only every four

years. That gives a heightened sense of occasion.

All the radio and TV news programmes are fixed on the event for a few

days, and the same will happen at the Republican Convention next month.

There are about 40,000 people here in New York just for the convention

-- fewer than half of them are delegates; the rest media, lobbyists and

international guests.

During the convention there are no speakers from among the delegates

-- except when they briefly pledge their delegation's votes for the

presidential candidate, and of course no resolution, no debates and no

votes. There is even a vast scaffolding platform for cameras in the

middle of the floor, obscuring the view for hundreds of delegates.

So why do they come? First, it is the most tremendous fun and theatre.

Long-legged dancing girls, a full orchestra, a jazz trumpeter or a boy

soprano enliven the proceedings from time to time. Most of the oratory

is hackneyed and cliche ridden, but there are gems of brilliance and

emotion. Governor Ann Richards of Texas, with impeccable sense of

timing, referred back to her jibe of four years ago that George Bush

''was born with a silver foot in his mouth'', declaring: ''Ah really

hate to say this (long pause) but ah told you so.''

The international guests are well looked after with a series of fringe

seminars of our own. It was at one of these four years ago that the now

vice-presidential candidate, the impressive Al Gore, then having dropped

out of the presidential nomination race, introduced himself as ''someone

who used to be the next President of the United States''.

This time former vice-president Walter Mondale (who could yet turn out

to be Secretary of State if the Democrats win) regaled us with a racy

critique of the tiredness of Republican foreign policy: ''We spend

billions on nuclear weapons pointed at Moscow, which if they were ever

fired would kill a hell of a lot of American businessmen, and billions

more on espionage services to find out what the Russians are thinking,

while Yeltsin struggles to get on to the six o'clock news to tell us.''

Mind you, the administrative intelligence on their foreign guests

leaves room for improvement. My colleague Menzies Campbell is listed as

a Conservative, Mr Calum Macdonald as a Liberal Democrat, and Mr Roy

Hattersley somewhat prematurely, by at least a week, as former deputy

leader of the Labour Party.

But the more serious reason why people are here in such vast numbers

is that this is the culmination of nearly four years of work on the

party programme, organisation and leadership selection.

The latest poll published here gives Clinton 29%, Bush 28% and Perot

27% -- that is if you believe American polls any more than British ones.

Mr Perot, having enjoyed a lead for a while with his ''plague on both

your houses'', has slid rapidly as he has been found to possess few

political skills and even fewer views in spite of his billions.

There is an air of cautious optimism about the Democratic camp. Their

chosen standard-bearer is still relatively unknown, and is neither liked

nor trusted by American public opinion. Yet George Bush, for all his

foreign policy expertise, has presided over the mess left by 12 years of

Reaganomics, and he looks old and vulnerable.

Indeed it is just possible that the Republicans, if they thought they

were going to lose control of the White House, might ''do a Thatcher''

and step him down in favour of the fresher-faced James Baker.

And yet, and yet, there is something of the smell of the

disappointment which surrounds our own dear Labour Party: out of office

for so long that no-one knows their capability, moving to more

''moderate'' or presumed electorally acceptable positions at the expense

of clear-cut convictions, depending less on interest groups such as the

trade unions, advocating taxation increases but with a positively

Kinnock-Smithonian vagueness and evasion, a narrow lead in the polls

liable to be blown away at the last minute. It all seems horribly

familiar.

Would it matter to us? After all Coca-Cola backs the Democrats and

Pepsi Cola the Republicans. Can the average person tell the difference

between the two?

I cannot, of course, claim to be objective. The Democrats have a

stronger determination to pull America out of the recession as their

forebear Roosevelt did. That would do good for the entire world economy,

including our own beleaguered one.

With Al Gore on the ticket they have a much stronger global

environmental perspective than has the Bush administration, as we saw in

Rio. That can only be good for the planet. On foreign policy they have a

firmer attachment to human rights, genuine democracy and the role of the

United Nations, which augurs well for a safer world.

Whether Bill Clinton will make it to the White House in the November

elections it is too early to say, but this week shows us not just the

entertaining side of American politics but the caring and dedicated side

as well, which makes this convention such an impressive occasion.

* Sir David Steel is MP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale