The end of the innocence. . . Thanks Don Henley, and Conventioneers

Watching the key note speakers at both conventions has been fun.  I don't remember it being as exciting when I was younger.  Both had great choices and really got the crowd fired up.  A couple of observations.  Did the Democrats have a smaller arena, allowing it to look more crowded and full?  It is a negative to see a stadium only half full on television, right, NFL?  The use of video to provide a narrative story seemed fairly effective, and was heavily used at the DNC.  Why so effective, you ask?  Well, for one thing, it is a story and we like stories.  It is rehearsed and contemplated and critiqued to death, so no accidental fumbles, Joe Biden/Eastwoodish.  The imagery has a subtle and transfixative effect so that we attach good feelings to a message as we see positive images;  carefully chosen, vetted images:  the candidate with a baby, with veterans, with farmers.  The videos tended not to argue facts, but spin a narrative, and so there is no angry statistics to confuse the audience or get the media in a frenzy providing accuracy reports.  It provides a nice break from the monotony of talking heads and teleprompters. 

The DNC spent a good deal of money bringing out signs that were preprinted with messages that reflected the speakers.  This gave a sense of unity and cohesion that cameras played on.  PBS commentators commented on the fact that workers spent part of the video, knowing cameras would focus on the video instead, passing out signs.  Most famously, they passed out the "We (heart) Michelle" placards as Mrs. Obama was preparing to enter.  The audience got very excited, and as the video came to an end, they were preprared to cheer the First Lady.  Instead, they were greeted with a military mother.  The talking head made notice of a vocal "Ohhhh....." that it wasn't Michelle coming out.

It was a tad disheartening to hear the booing about things from the audience.  Maybe it is the fact that I am at a school that really doesn't boo opponents, but I find it rather low and classless.  We are all still Americans, and it is self-destructive in my view.  The same with the "USA!  USA!" chants.  Did you expect the other convention to cheer something else?  "USSR!  USSR!"  or "Switzerland!  Switzerland!"  Again, we are all on the same team, but just differing views of the ball.  We need to refocus and realize that we are stronger when united, and even in defeat, can remain respectful. 

Differences between speeches. . .

It is clear, after listening to Castro, the tone is different between the incumbent party and the challenging party.  The challenging party has to focus on what their opponent has done wrong and what their candidate will do to fix it, but largely are free of a need for evidence, because they come with a fairly blank slate.  They have never been president before (presumably).  The incumbent (the sitting president) has the ability to put a positive spin on their own record, but also has the negative interpretation/spin on that same record.  Romney's supporters had to be negative to rally support, but can only offer promises of what is to come.  Running a private business is very different than being POTUS.  2016 will be super exciting, as both parties will be putting forward brand new candidates, if Obama wins.  Obama, if he loses, won't run again in 2016, more than likely.  Romney, if history pans out, will not run successfully for the candidacy in 2016.  What a crazy system we have.  Sadly, you get one shot at the national ticket, and if you fail in November, the party tends to push you aside.  I cannot think of a major candiate that lost in Novemeber who came back four years later.  Many who don't win the primary will return, but not the candidate for the general election.