What I don't understand about the DNC (or RNC)

[earendel]

Well, I was interested the first time, only mildly so the second time, but the third time was too much!

[SportsFan68]

The original question simplifies a process that's been evolving for a long time, especially since the first "television presidency" of 1960.

Last night was a mix of tradition and technology, and unlike the old days, when it took an hour for the Californians to leave the convention floor and go caucus separately, a procedure which would never be allowed today because of the inefficiency which made it horrifyingly bad television, everything was choreographed to the nth degree.

Some of y'all may remember 1968 when the comedians were making jokes about young Dems sharing cigarettes -- just TRY to get a funny cigarette within a half mile of the Pepsi Center. Heck, just try to get a REGULAR cigarette with a half mile of the Pepsi Center . . . Don't light one up near me, either . . .

Anyway, stuff like that just wouldn't be allowed. Even downtown, the uniformed folkses are thick, and who knows how many non-uniformed people are wandering around. I wonder about the guy who looked like nine miles of bad road whose eyes didn't seem to track in the same direction...

You don't know what you've got til it's gone. Kennedy, Kennedy, and Obama's speeches were wonderful, but I coulda skipped some of those earlier ones. OK, I did skip them.

[National Apathy Party]

What I don't understand is why after all this national publicity barely 50 per cent of the eligible voters show up on election day. Even fewer if it is not a presidential election.

One good reason is that we hold our elections on a Tuesday, which is not necessarily the most convenient time. We would be better off, IMO, to hold our elections on weekends as other countries do.

Of course there are other reasons - we take the vote for granted, we don't like who's running (or don't despise someone enough to vote for the other candidate), etc.

And this is exactly why we should have a National Apathy Party.

But that might not be a good thing cuz the NAP will win, get into office, sit around, and watch the country go straight to hell in a handbasket because... frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn.

Actually we probably wouldn't watch. They do have an X Box in the White House, don't they?

[NellyLunatic1980]

One good reason is that we hold our elections on a Tuesday, which is not necessarily the most convenient time. We would be better off, IMO, to hold our elections on weekends as other countries do.

Of course there are other reasons - we take the vote for granted, we don't like who's running (or don't despise someone enough to vote for the other candidate), etc.

And this is exactly why we should have a National Apathy Party.

But that might not be a good thing cuz the NAP will win, get into office, sit around, and watch the country go straight to hell in a handbasket because... frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn.

Actually we probably wouldn't watch. They do have an X Box in the White House, don't they?

No, but Mr. Bush has a Game Boy.

[ulysses5019]

And this is exactly why we should have a National Apathy Party.

But that might not be a good thing cuz the NAP will win, get into office, sit around, and watch the country go straight to hell in a handbasket because... frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn.

Actually we probably wouldn't watch. They do have an X Box in the White House, don't they?

No, but Mr. Bush has a Game Boy.

But does he have Guitar Hero?

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

I haven't watched any of it.

I've heard bits of speeches on NPR, but for the most part, I am apathetic about the whole thing.

[gsabc]

I haven't watched any of it.

I've heard bits of speeches on NPR, but for the most part, I am apathetic about the whole thing.

Then you're in the wrong thread. You should head to the "Enough of the Dems and Reps" section.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

I haven't watched any of it.

I've heard bits of speeches on NPR, but for the most part, I am apathetic about the whole thing.

Then you're in the wrong thread. You should head to the "Enough of the Dems and Reps" section.

I am interested in what other people have to say about it.

[gsabc]

BTW, I care, but not about the conventions. I, too, haven't watched or listened.

Does anyone else hope that Bill's mike has a timer on it tonight? If he goes as long as he did in 1988, they'll start throwing things.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

BTW, I care, but not about the conventions. I, too, haven't watched or listened.

Does anyone else hope that Bill's mike has a timer on it tonight? If he goes as long as he did in 1988, they'll start throwing things.

I've read that he was told what to talk about by the Obama campaign and wasn't happy about it.

[SportsFan68]

BTW, I care, but not about the conventions. I, too, haven't watched or listened.

Does anyone else hope that Bill's mike has a timer on it tonight? If he goes as long as he did in 1988, they'll start throwing things.

I've read that he was told what to talk about by the Obama campaign and wasn't happy about it.

Everything I've listened to so far has sounded scripted. I'm guessing that everyone who spoke turned her/his speech in to the Obama campaign for revisions. I'm also guessing that all the speakers were given strict time limits, except I'm betting that the Montana gov. got extra time because he got such a great audience response. I'm also guessing that Bill reported accurately what happened to him. And I'm guessing that what made Obama the Dem nominee consists of a good mix of Bill Clinton, Karl Rove, and David Plouffe, and that it will make him the next President.

[Appa23]

I'm also guessing that all the speakers were given strict time limits, except I'm betting that the Montana gov. got extra time because he got such a great audience response.

Well, Matt Foley is a motivational speaker, after all.

[silvercamaro]

Was it Bill Clinton or Joe Biden who, some time ago, spoke for such a long time that when he finally said, "In conclusion...," the entire audience broke into spontaneous applause?

[SportsFan68]

Was it Bill Clinton or Joe Biden who, some time ago, spoke for such a long time that when he finally said, "In conclusion...," the entire audience broke into spontaneous applause?

It was Clinton.

Of course, it may have happened to Biden too.

[Bob78164]

Was it Bill Clinton or Joe Biden who, some time ago, spoke for such a long time that when he finally said, "In conclusion...," the entire audience broke into spontaneous applause?

It was Clinton in 1988. I think it was the keynote address. --Bob

[ne1410s]

I thought Biden's speech in Springfield had some gusts of bloviation.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Was it Bill Clinton or Joe Biden who, some time ago, spoke for such a long time that when he finally said, "In conclusion...," the entire audience broke into spontaneous applause?

It was Clinton in 1988. I think it was the keynote address. --Bob

Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker in 1988, and four years later, he was elected President.

Obama was the keynote speaker in 2004, and four years later... hmmm...

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Was it Bill Clinton or Joe Biden who, some time ago, spoke for such a long time that when he finally said, "In conclusion...," the entire audience broke into spontaneous applause?

It was Clinton in 1988. I think it was the keynote address. --Bob

Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker in 1988, and four years later, he was elected President.

Obama was the keynote speaker in 2004, and four years later... hmmm...

Who is the keynote speaker this year?

Please don't tell me it was Ted Kennedy.

[Sir_Galahad]

It was Clinton in 1988. I think it was the keynote address. --Bob

Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker in 1988, and four years later, he was elected President.

Obama was the keynote speaker in 2004, and four years later... hmmm...

Who is the keynote speaker this year?

Please don't tell me it was Ted Kennedy.

No it was supposed to be Gov Warner from Virginia. But, when he would include the negativity the dems wanted him to put in his speech, he was replaced by the Gov from Montana. i think that's how it went down.

[Ritterskoop]

No it was supposed to be Gov Warner from Virginia. But, when he would include the negativity the dems wanted him to put in his speech, he was replaced by the Gov from Montana. i think that's how it went down.

That Montana gov was pretty good, what they let us hear of him.

I liked Hillary Clinton's speech, for the most part. I thought it was basically classy even though she referred to herself a lot. If Obama wins he should put her in charge of healthcare, if she wants it.

[macrae1234]

i doubt that they would have scripted "Uncle Teddy's" speech

[earendel]

No it was supposed to be Gov Warner from Virginia. But, when he would include the negativity the dems wanted him to put in his speech, he was replaced by the Gov from Montana. i think that's how it went down.

That Montana gov was pretty good, what they let us hear of him.

I liked Hillary Clinton's speech, for the most part. I thought it was basically classy even though she referred to herself a lot. If Obama wins he should put her in charge of healthcare, if she wants it.

She probably wouldn't, given her past experience when Bill put her in charge. Not that she coudn't do a bang-up job, but the reaction would be worse than then.