The DNC

What's the purpose of a political convention?

Is it just a big party, a celebration? Is it supposed to rally support for the party? Does it create revenue for the candidate's campaign? Is it supposed to educate the voters, give them fodder or good lines to use in their arguments with undecided voters in their social circles? Is it a pissing contest with the opposing party's convention?

I've never really understood the purpose of the convention process. But one thing that this DNC has made clear to me is that I loathe the speeches.

The speeches aren't informative. Sometimes the speaker throws out some facts like "McCain voted 90% with Bush" without any citation or explanation as to where this number came from (How the hell did McCain vote 90% with Bush when Bush DOESN'T VOTE, he VETOES bills or signs them into law!!!). It's really not possible to provide well supported facts in a speech because it would make for a very boring speech. I would warn anyone who expects to be using any new information learned by DNC speeches to make sure they check the facts and understand what they mean before parroting.

All the cable news pundits want Barack's speech to be full of content about his policies. THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Why? Because a political speech to a general audience is going to be dull and incomprehensible if it's full of details about ins and outs of policies. The best a candidate can do is give an outline of the plan: "I plan to make oil companies give back a bit of their profits, and that money is going directly to the poorest 25% of taxpayers." but that's about as detailed as a political speech can get about windfall profit tax. If the speech continued with a plan about how exactly the law would be worded such that the oil companies would be forced to pay no one would be rivited, the speaker would be boring, and they'd lose the audience. Then, of course, pundits from Fox news would jump on your quote and yell about how your ideas are childish because A) oil companies are already paying a ton of money in taxes, B) there's no way to broadly define "windfall profit" since each oil company operates under different business plans and different uses of those profits, and C) no similar law has ever been passed which was free of loopholes.

For any candidate, a speech about policy is a lose/lose situation.

I've realized this year that political speeches are not inteded for audience members like me. I'm not motivated by inspirational messages. I hate to hear the phrase "god bless america" (not because I don't want america blessed, but because it is a meaningless phrase used to get a reaction or simply proclaim one's paitriotism). I'd rather get my policy information from a hard source (like the candidates' web sites) where detailed information is available. I don't think a policy maker should be judged on the quality of their public speaking (yes I know that the art of persuasion is linked with the art of speechmaking, and that the ability to persuade is critical in the highest offices, but I think a good president or senator is made from her empathy and ability to understand complex problems from multiple perspectives. I don't want a fantastic speaker with poor judgment to lead the country into a terrible decision just because she's good at giving a speech.) And I think clapping, cheering, ballons, and streamers should be reserved for rock concerts, circuses, or stage acts.

Our politicians are our leaders. They will be the people who decide things like whether the death penalty will be abolished or whether a war will be waged. These are serious issues and when I think about what the political process actually leads us to and then compare it to the extravaganza that has been the Democratic national convention (or the republican one coming up) it's incredibly unnerving.

We cheer for Obama or McCain as if we believe either of these men are going to be flawless presidents. Whoever makes it come January, I guarantee that they are going to do something to piss you off (if you're paying attention). That's simply because they won't share 100% of your opinions regardless of whether you are a republican or democrat. Knowing this should lead one to believe that we should ALWAYS question authority. We should always remind the people we allow the honor of leading us that we are watching, that we won't always agree with what they have to say, but that we give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cheering at them like mullet wearing ladies cheer at bon jovi is totally undermining the relationship we should be having with our elected leaders. Screaming and waving banners doesn't not provide the apporpriate amount of skepticism, the reminder that we are not giving away our right to disagree.

Yes, we support. No, you are not flawless and we'll be watching.

So, what's the purpose of a political convention? Who's being educated? Do you win the presidency by showing the rest of america that your supporters cheer the loudest?