The so called "liberal media" has been salivating for months about an Obama-Clinton catfight at the Democratic convention. Leaks have abounded about hurt feelings and snubs. There was talk of Hillary being shortchanged by an incomplete roll call vote. The PUMAs were destined to destroy Obama's magic moment.

What did we get? Bill and Hillary Clinton both gave forceful endorsements of Obama for President. The cutting off of the roll call vote benefitted Hillary more than it did Obama. The delegates, though not unamimous, had clearly thrown their weight behind Obama. Obama was only a few states away from having the magic number of delegates when Hillary graciously moved to have him nominated by acclamation. And, yes, despite being prearranged, it was still gracious.

So after all the media buzz about a floor fight, what did we end up with? We ended up having a democratic party that truly appears to be united behind Barack Obama and dedicated to retaking the White House.

However, the day wasn't without its moments of tension. I was worried for a few tense moments that a fight was going to break out on the floor between Guam and Maine over where the sun first rises over America.

As much as I respect Mr. Greenwald, I have to disagree with him on this one. 2008 is NOT 2004. The 2004 convention was a failure because it was four days of talking about Vietnam instead of focusing on the atrocities of the Bush administration. The convention was used as a belated response to the Swift Boat attacks instead of an attack on the Bush administration.

This year is different. The only people left who don't know that Bush is an incompetent president are going to vote for McCain no matter what is said at the convention. The most effective attack on McCain has been repeated by nearly every speaker. That attack is that that McCain is "more of the same".

Kerry was a known commodity. Spending four days reintroducing him was wasted time by the Democrats. In 2004, aggressiveness was needed and filtered out of the teleprompters. But this is 2008.

Obama needed Monday night. A lot of voters weren't sure about him because he is the unknown (a reference to both his relatively short resume and his ethicity/religion). Michelle Obama probably won over a lot of doubters Monday night.

Obama needed Tuesday night. While the media blew the PUMAs out of proportion, the nation did need to see that the Democrats were united behind Obama. Hillary Clinton gave her best speech ever (with the "Twin Cities" line being one of the convention's best). The much anticipated rift was a Republican fantasy and the world saw it.

Obama needed Wednesday night. The strongest Republican attack on him is that he isn't ready to be Commander in Chief. Wednesday night a host of speakers showed why he is. "Support the Troops" is a phrase that Republicans have stolen for their own since Vietnam. We took it back last night. Showing that supporting the troops has to be more than words was a direct attack on McCain. I was not as impressed by Bill Clinton's speech as some, but his symbolic passing of the torch was a boost for Obama. John Kerry gave the speech of his career. He attacked McCain with the vigor he so needed four years ago. Biden gave a speech that ended up stealing the night. He showed America why he and Obama are a great team, that he isn't Obama's Cheney. Biden's personal charisma allowed him to make the same attack that Wesley Clark was hammered for making (that bing a good soldier/POW doesn't make you qualified to be Commander in Chief) and get positve reactions from the press. Kerry and Biden were just what Obama needed Wednesday night.

Yes, the Republicans are going to lie and smear and fling their feces next week. Thus far, this week has innoculated Obama against the attacks that we know are coming. The undecided voters who watch both conventions are going to be saying next week "That isn't the Obama that I got to know last week." And that is what Obama needed most.

Yes, the press has been neglecting their duties. Yes, Bush has been able to get away with (literally, according Vincent Bugliosi) murder under their watch. However, I think that this case is different. Why?

It is all about the ratings. Outing a CIA operative in an act of political revenge is treason, but it doesn't generate the same kind of media attention in today's society that a knocked-up teen does. Some in the media tried to report about Bush's crimes and general idiocy, but the public didn't bite.

Palin is a ratings booster. She is such an unknown that the media will dig. They won't dig because it is their moral obligation to. They will dig because of the ratings that come to the first "legitimate" news team to confirm the affair rumor. They will dig because Jeremiah Wright and Rezco and Weather Underground are sooo last spring, Biden's stumbles are ancient history and because everyone knows that McCain is quick-tempered and bordering on senile, but no one cares. Sarah Palin is a puzzle and whichever network fills in the biggest missing piece first will dominate the fall coverage.

Palin won't get the pass that Bush did/does. Palin is a pop culture figure and the media loves to see them fall.