...thank God the empty suit can't get near the White House.

Why the hell couldn't John Kerry be as aggressive, eloquent and witty 4 years ago? If he had shown that kind of fighting spirit then, he would be running for reelection now.

The reason is obvious to me. He's no longer being influenced by Bob Shrum.

but these scripted Hollywood-style "conventions" - for both parties - sort of make me yearn for the good old days of Chicago 1968. The conflict inside the hall rivaled and reflected what was going on outside - and true passions were being expressed and history was truly being made.

Many talking heads and members of the media keep pointing out what Wasn't Said by Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, citing these missing elements as oversights or admissions of weakness, and frankly it's stupid.

This is what we call momentum, people. If the Dems made their all of their points in one night, no one would watch the convention the next night, waiting to see if the Dems made their points clear. Hillary Clinton couldn't be the one to claim that Barrack Obama is ready to lead; her role was obviously uniting the party. If she had done more than that, it would have ruined the cadence of programming by giving fewer talking points to those following her. Furthermore, people would have questioned her qualifications for making such a proclamation, whereas Bill Clinton--a former Democratic president--would not be questioned with a "well, who are you to say?" Biden's role was to introduce himself and pounce on McCain and so forth. People have pointed out that not much has been said about this or that like it's some sort of proof when the truth is this is all a choreographed, televised event.

The American media (and public) is treating this like a reality show. C'mon, America. You know the truth about reality shows. It's all scripted drama.

"WTF was that about Afghanistan

that Biden was going on about? Are we getting our troops out of Iraq to recommit them there? The look on Melissa Etheridge's face was the look on mine. He probably should have stuck to subjects we can all agree upon"

Sorry to break this to you but we pretty much DO all agree on needing more troops in Afghanistan. The vast majority of Democrats see the Iraq war as a needless waste of blood and treasure but that doesn't mean they don't understad the real threat from Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

People are throwing the word "experience" around like it was a tangible commodity, poker chips which can be cashed in when needed. This is so much hooey.

First, let's began with the simple concept that nobody, except maybe a Vice President (if he has been actively engaged in an Administration's policy decisions), has actual "experience" when it comes to making the life and death decisions required of a President. On this basis, McCain has no more "experience" than Obama, or Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy and Truman did when they took office (not all of whom, depending on one's perspective, could be considered poor foreign policy presidents). Debating about foreign affairs and casting a vote on them is not the same as the "3 a.m." phone call. I would make a mild exception in the case of Eisenhower, who was given responsibility for such strategic decisions as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force during WWII. But, then again, Ike was one of our least militaristic-minded Presidents (even if he was the most militarily capable).

Next, consider that "experience" only has value when it has produced understanding, knowledge and wisdom. "Experience" has absolutely no value if the person who allegedly possesses it has failed to learn anything from it. That's McCain to a T. For all his perceived "experience," where was McCain during the run-up to the Iraq War, cautioning America about the potential mess it was getting into, bringing the skepticism which experienced Middle East hands (such as those in the State Department) would have applied to the Bush Administration's false claims about WMDs and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? McCain's only criticism of the Administration's failed policy in the region has been that the U.S. didn't send enough troops. To this day, he acknowledges no mistake other than that -- which may be a legitimate criticism, but fails to address the bigger picture of the effect the invasion has had on the geopolitical dynamics of the region. And even while the White House is starting to consider a drawdown of troops in Iraq, albeit within an amorphous non-timetable, McCain has suggested broadening the conflict. McCain is permanently stuck in the same hidebound Cold War mentality that has put America at risk; he has learned nothing (he and the rest of the right-wing lackeys still don't even understand why the U.S. didn't win in Vietnam, which had nothing to do with troop or bombing levels).

Moreover, consider that the Bush Administration came in with a Dream Team of "experience." How much more "experience" could the combination of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell have brought to the table? Yet, they blundered, and continued to blunder, from 9/11 onward. In fact, if those high-ranking officials had really benefitted from their so-called "experience," why was 9/11 such a surprise; why weren't they aware, and vigilent, of the possibility of a terrorist act on U.S. soil?

One can gain experience from debating issues in Congress, from traveling the world and from meeting with foreign leaders. However, that is not automatically the case; one has to be able to process that to which one is exposed, evaluate it and translate that knowledge into sound decision-making. McCain has shown no aptitude on this score whatsoever. Obama seems far more capable, and if he doesn't have the years of hands-on "experience" in foreign affairs -- or politics in general -- his grasp of the complexity of such is way ahead of the learning the curve, if not yet fully evolved.

Obama may or may not prove to be a great President. This is something which simply cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy. I, for one, am more willing to take my chances with a classic overachiever than with a candidate whose biggest claim to fame is having been a POW due to a failed combat mission -- the fifth plane McCain lost after finishing near the bottom of his class at Annapolis. Clinton, for all his faults, was an example of personal exceptionalism and turned out to be skilled President. I suspect Obama has many of the same qualities (without the excessive hormones), and it seems that the "experience" factor -- as much as it is hyped -- is in this election largely irrelevent.