I've watched most of this convention. It is not perfect. But it is better than what we have. I'm working for Kerry. I really, really want to visit but not move to (with all respect) Canada or Australia.

I've seen bits and pieces of the convention, too... and I have to say that after hearing Kerry's acceptance speech, I've changed my thoughts on who to vote for. No... I'm not supporting the shrub.... au contraire, instead of supporting "anybody but bush" I now feel I can support Kerry, wholeheartedly. What he said about several issues, such as women's rights, stem cell research, and fiscal responsibility, seemed to me to be right on target.

I really like that he challenged Bush to make this a campaign on the issues, rather than on tearing down one's opponent. I think Kerry has the backbone to stick to the "high road" as he said.

As Ceashel said... it's not perfect... but then - nothing is.

BRAVA!!!!!!!!

The DNC forced people with peace pins and signs with subversive peace slogans that might cause some redneck in Idaho to not consider voting for Kerry to remove them from the hall (like they're going to get a lot of the peace hating redneck votes...)

When I spoke out against this on a "Liberal" board, I got nothing but cheerleading, party-line bullsh*t. I am not one of the Stepford Democrats.

People somehow believe that they can give up rights "for now" and "get them back" later. Yeah, that's a workable plan. It went smashing for the Jews, in Germany. And here we are, in a new fascist state, and people are willingly giving up freedoms... rather than making the candidates stronger WITH those freedoms.

I find that amazingly sad.

Ben Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Too bad the Democrats forgot.

I am about to the point where I cannot believe a word I heard, over the past 4 days.

I loved this convention. I loved the speakers. I saw some peace signs, there but there's no question that this was scripted and choreographed. It needed to be. It was a call for unity in the face of a grave national emergency. It was a show of stregnth against the juggernaut that the most corrupt and power-hungry administration in the history of this country is going to throw up against any opposition. Clarity is called for and clarity is what we got. We need to speak as one voice until that voice can be heard. Then, if necessary, we can form back into our usual circular firing squad.

It's not just the country needing to learn from our mistake re. Vietnam, it's US needing to learn from the McGovern campaign. Talk about a circular firing squad! We cannot do that again this year. If we do, and Bush wins, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. We must keep our eyes on the prize. As always, not just the snippet above, but everything you said was so WELL said, Pat.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ceashel:

it's US needing to learn from the McGovern campaign. Talk about a circular firing squad! We cannot do that again this year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that about, Shelley? I only have a very vague recollection of the McGovern campaign, even though I worked hard on it.

Modern politics requires to a large extent that things like the convention need to be somewhat scripted. As much as I may not like that, I'll accept it as a pragmatic way to reach the real and needed goal of electing Kerry and handing braindead Bush his pink slip.

In today's NY Times, Paul Krugman explains where at least PART of the problem in our political process lies... with the media. Many Americans get their information in sound bites - and from that perspective, the way the Convention was portrayed on mainstream television does appear to be ALL glitz and glitter. There were many speakers, however, who made significant statements that reflect the direction that the Democratic Party is moving. We have a long way to go (incidentally, I am registered with the Green Party) but every journey begins with one step... let us listen to the steps being proposed, and work from there.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Triumph of the Trivial
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Under the headline "Voters Want Specifics From Kerry," The Washington Post recently quoted a voter demanding that John Kerry and John Edwards talk about "what they plan on doing about health care for middle-income or lower-income people. I have to face the fact that I will never be able to have health insurance, the way things are now. And these millionaires don't seem to address that."

Mr. Kerry proposes spending $650 billion extending health insurance to lower- and middle-income families. Whether you approve or not, you can't say he hasn't addressed the issue. Why hasn't this voter heard about it?

Well, I've been reading 60 days' worth of transcripts from the places four out of five Americans cite as where they usually get their news: the major cable and broadcast TV networks. Never mind the details - I couldn't even find a clear statement that Mr. Kerry wants to roll back recent high-income tax cuts and use the money to cover most of the uninsured. When reports mentioned the Kerry plan at all, it was usually horse race analysis - how it's playing, not what's in it.

On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.

There are two issues here, trivialization and bias, but they're related.

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.

Even on its own terms, such reporting often gets it wrong, because journalists aren't especially good at judging character. ("He is, above all, a moralist," wrote George Will about Jack Ryan, the Illinois Senate candidate who dropped out after embarrassing sex-club questions.) And the character issues that dominate today's reporting have historically had no bearing on leadership qualities. While planning D-Day, Dwight Eisenhower had a close, though possibly platonic, relationship with his female driver. Should that have barred him from the White House?

And since campaign coverage as celebrity profiling has no rules, it offers ample scope for biased reporting.

Notice the voter's reference to "these millionaires." A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."

As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.

In short, the triumph of the trivial is not a trivial matter. The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq.

P.S.: Another story you may not see on TV: Jeb Bush insists that electronic voting machines are perfectly reliable, but The St. Petersburg Times says the Republican Party of Florida has sent out a flier urging supporters to use absentee ballots because the machines lack a paper trail and cannot "verify your vote."

P.P.S.: Three weeks ago, The New Republic reported that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to announce a major terrorist capture during the Democratic convention. Hours before Mr. Kerry's acceptance speech, Pakistan announced, several days after the fact, that it had apprehended an important Al Qaeda operative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[size=1]edited due to typos

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Wyldflower on Jul 30, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

I will agree with a reeeeeal lot of things, but giving up first amendment rights isn't on that list.

Fortunately, some of the delegates agreed with my view - the only reason why there were any signs or buttons, is because the delegates rebelled. Per a delegate, this WAS a freedom of speech issue, and they did NOT back down.

I have to like that. Even if the leadership of the DNC is comprised of a bunch of no-mind koolaid drinkers, there are some people in there who know what is important.

i could say a lot, but i'll just say "what pat said", since once again my thoughts came out her fingers.

I saw a great one this morning painted on a cars rear window. "Save the environment, plant a Bush in Texas".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wyldflower:

On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scaife is the owner/publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, a rightwing rag that nobody here takes seriously as journalism---cept for people as nutty as Scaife. I've bought the Trib only twice in my life---the 1st time, there was a picture of me in it, the 2nd time, a picture of my son. For years, it was the newspaper of Greensburg, a small town 35 miles east of here, until a few years back when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette & Pittsburgh Press went on strike (with the Press going out of business), allowing the Trib to make inroads into the city.

Scaife is a chief benefactor of the Heritage Foundation, & as you say, he also financed the Clinton conspiracies & kept all the theories alive thru his paper. The book Unlimited Access was deemed unfit for publication by publishing companies until Scaife agreed to put $300,000 into a legal defense fund for the author. Years before that, he had given large sums to Nixon to be placed in a secret fund which was used to harass Martin Luther King.

Altho' he's a "family values" cosnervative, he has a daughter & a sister who don't speak to him. Altho' he was greatly offended by the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal, the Trib now publishes an afternoon "extra" that is sold on the streets of Pgh., usually dealing with sexual topics. Last week's feature was on the pros & cons of sex in the afternoon.

He's a strange, reclusive man who does not read & knows shockingly little about the issues he supposedly cares about. He's the type that believes that if you're not his friend, then you're his enemy, & has some vague notion that liberals & Democrats are his enemies.

I love it when Trib employees call here at night trying to get me to subscribe. I start giving 'em hell for working for Scaife & tell 'em the above stuff. Some are surprised. In some cases, they hang up on me! How many folks have telephone solicitors hang up on them???

(Damn! Knew I couldn't type this long thing without having to edit.)

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by P. Pittsburgh Joe on Jul 31, 2004 ---</FONT></center>