Centerfield

Well, think that maybe the party leaders should have figured something else out so that he could use the extra money. Aren't people adult enough to deal with things, if it meant millions extra for him? Conventions are farces for the party people and waste too much money all the way around, including the tv types (and even radio types who go and use for own partying).

Conventions are outdated these days. Are we paying for their stupid partying?

Kerry did the right thing.

As a former campaign staffer I understand why they floated this idea, it would have been difficiult to pass up the option to spend more money. I think this is more evidence that their is too much money in politics and that we need to go beyond McCain/Feingold to reform the system.

It's evidence that the rules were drafted without much foresight. Why wouldn't the rules be drafted so that both candidates had to abide by the spending rules for the same duration of time? It's foolish.

I have no problem with the parties having a convention, as long as they and their contributors foot the bill, which in this case appears to be only partially so. Boston was sold a bill of goods about a positive economic impact and positive cit publicity, and that looks like a big joke in the face of the extra civic costs and commuter inconvenience. (Don't get Tully started on economic impact statements!! :-) )

It's tempting to suggest that the parties should take a long look at whether the convention is worth the expense in cases when the result is a foregone conclusion. I thought it too, at first. But after thinking it through I realized that unfortunately you have to plan for the convention WAY before you know whether you'll NEED the convention to make the final decision. In my adult lifetime starting with the 80 election, not one of the conventions has mattered one iota, and I haven't watched a minute of one. I expect that the parties are loathe to get rid of these self-congratulatory exercises even when they are pointless, and I further expect that they'll try to find ways to manufacture interest, like possibly with the democrats keeping the VP nom a closely guarded secret to create a splash. Which is nonsense. The media is waiting breathlessly for some sort of "scoop," buit outside of them, who really cares one iota whether they find out who the VP nom is on a wednesday night or a thursday morning.

Nevertheless, I further realized that one can't discount the idea that a future primary season will leave one party without a sewed up nomination and then the smoke-filled rooms will be cranking. Prior to 2000 lots of people warned about the peculiarities and dangers of the electoral college, and the divisiveness that could result if the popular and electoral votes were split. These critics were met with the usual "stuff like that doesn't happen anymore" blase conventional wisdom of people who haven't lived through the experience. Who'd say it can't happen now?

So if anyone is ready to call conventions no longer necessary, I have a nice vacation cottage miles from the Mississippi River to sell you. 100 year floods NEVER happen.