Many critical points raised here, in particular Shutitdown and Sueleen's. I've had a handful of PMs politely reminding me what's stated by several -- that I should be attacking the messenger, the media, and not the message, the convention proper. No argument, I know that Teresa and Al were at least booked by the powers that be (though no one seems to say it was done with much pride). And the media is a major issue -- Candy Crowley on CNN shoving a mike at Sharpton and saying "you spoke 20 minutes, off the prompter and you were off message!" Candy gets to decide the message? Well, true, she was told by anyone and everyone that it's "positive!" How dare he go on too long, and invoke Bush's name negatively in a "positive" convention!
Maybe it's the underlying timidity at this convention in general that still concerns me. Maybe I'm just ending my own reactionary era, and feeling some old 60s fervor kick in again. Maybe I'd like to see gays, women, and blacks rise up, and say "shove it!" to anyone who tells them to curb their their rights, or their outrage. (Wouldn't a GAY SPEAKER at this convention have been a little bold? At least the Log Cabin Republicans get interviewed. I think being taken for granted is worth noting...) Maybe I feel like Obama, Teresa, Al are the best parts of the convention, the only ones that moved me ... and thus, maybe, darkest thought of all, deep down, I'm just scared to death that Kerry and Edwards don't have enough fire in their bellies. If we end this convention with the dead heat between Bush and Kerry, will this strategy been useful? We'll have to wait and see. And we still have tonight.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 7/29/04 at 02:22 PM