Reflections on the convention

I was going to write about something important this week, like the New York Post's revelation that Ashlee Simpson can belch the alphabet (July 27). But my evil editor said that if I didn't comment on the Democratic National Convention, he'd cut my Indiana Daily Student dental plan. \nAnd I need my novocaine, dammit. \nSo here are a few observations following Monday and Tuesday's coverage: \n• The purposes of the convention\nA political convention's traditional purpose is to unify the party behind a single candidate. But since the 1950s, state primaries have rendered this moot. Now the goals, besides convention nookie, are publicity for the candidate and deciding on a party platform. \nSo, how's the publicity? Not good. According to The New York Times, ratings declined by 907,000 households for the start of this year's convention relative to last year's -- almost a 4.2 percent drop (July 27). And the major networks cut their coverage to three hours over four nights (The New York Times, July 25, 27).\nOn the platform, the Dems were more successful. In fact, they squeezed it down to one simple plank: We hate Bush. \nNo, that's not true. There was a second plank: You can have whatever you want. Apparently you can have more environmental regulation; more jobs and more competitive companies; more protection from imports and outsourcing but better relations with other countries; more government-provided health care and more funding for education; and lower deficits and lower corporate tax rates (BusinessWeek, Aug. 2) -- all with no trade-offs. I just wish I knew how.\n• Jimmy Carter's speech.\nHearing Jimmy comment on foreign policy is like reading a Cosmo article on "Ten Tips for Great Oral Sex" written by the Pope. I guess the Dems couldn't find a worse "expert," Woodrow Wilson being dead. \nI have trouble taking seriously quotes like, "We cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy ... the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs" after seeing photos of Jimmy shaking hands with Castro.\nI hear you say: "Camp David." I'll add three words: Iranian hostage crisis.\nAnd how about four more: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It all equals one: disaster.\n• Bill Clinton's speech\nWho else could slash intelligence funding while in office, then deride the current administration for reducing funds for police officers? Or claim a cruise missile attack on one al-Qaida compound represented "strong efforts against terror?" Or accuse the current administration of putting America at China's mercy by issuing government bonds on international markets, after he himself further opened the U.S. market to cheap Chinese imports? \nWhen Bill left office, we lost a maestro in the art of hypocrisy.\n• Barack Obama's speech\nObama is a Senate candidate from Illinois who gave Tuesday night's keynote speech. He is telegenic, charismatic, intelligent and radiates a sincere idealism that is downright eerie. \nClearly, he must get his act together.\nIf he has any sense of American history, by the time he reaches the presidency he needs to be a) adulterous, b) corrupt or c) assassinated. \nHell, JFK was all three.\n• Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech\nOK, she's his wife. So, why didn't she give us an insight into Kerry the bloke? You know, the guy who tells dumb jokes (or not), the guy who loves Led Zeppelin (or not), the guy who once ate a brine shrimp on a bet (or not). We have his resume -- senator, Vietnam vet -- but we still don't know who he is. \nHowever, we did learn that she doesn't like being called opinionated -- probably because of the word's association with opinion columnists. \nAt least she has taste.