despicable.

The royal Rmoneys believe that they are really above this mundane political process.

They have to, however, condescend to pretend like they care about campaigning, primaries, fundraising, speechifying, etc., in order to ascend to their 'rightful' place as the nation's plutocratic leader.

Look at Willard tonight and he looked bored ... and I'll bet he was.

And, Lady Ann looked and sounded like she had just done a distasteful thing that nonetheless had to be done.

Ann Romney's most out of touch line was something about families being stuck in place, not moving forward as much...Hey, Ann, how about families actually in economic decline?

You are right.

The edge of the cliff is right here. And we're looking at it.

Conehead!

to vote for them and it's killing them that they are having to stoop down to pander to the stupid 99% that they spend the rest of their lives ruling over like little peons.

You can tell that they think they are above this by how they address "you people".

The King is asking the ditch digger for another term on the throne.

Over and over again.

Every crowd shot is people with faces "at half past eight" (picture the hands on the clock as the mouths of the 'enthusiasts') and they applaud but there is no connection.

I disagree with Chris Matthews. He's saying that people loved it--I saw a rare few people hooting and screaming (young men in suits--very, very bizarre, that--they looked a bit, er, church mission-ish?). I thought the whole thing looked like POTEMKIN ENTHUSIASM.

The other thing I noticed was the Sea-Sick background they gave both Cristie and Nikki Haley. I am a seafarer; I can handle winter crossings of the north Atlantic without batting an eye or refusing a full, greasy breakfast, but that odd, cloudlike, up-n-down background was nauseating if one concentrated on it.

I am convinced that the cameraman filming Ann Romney was a mean-spirited non-Republican. I have a cathode ray tube flat screen tv. Yes--it was the "transition TV" before the real flat screens. Very good picture, but heavy as hell. I have had it repaired once (it cost a fortune new and I will keep watching it until it dies for good)...anyway, that's not the point. The cameraman focused on Ann rMoney's WATTLE. It was smack-dab in the middle of my screen. Her fairly fresh botox, her wonderfully coiffed and freshly dyed hair, that insanely expensive red dress she was wearing, that absolutely fabulous and easily thousand dollar make up job, to include the red lipstick to match--perfectly--the dress--all that went to waste. Ann rMoney's WATTLE was the thing to watch--smack dab in the middle of the screen. Why didn't someone move the camera up and angle down slightly to allow that big fat microphone to shield that wattle, if they insisted on the unkind, over-bright lighting? And speaking of lighting--what vicious and unkind SOB was in charge of the lighting? Hello? Anyone hear of a spotlight? Her chin could have made that wattle disappear with the right angle of lighting--but no...they put the wattle in the CENTER OF THE SCREEN.

I didn't really hear Ann rMoney speaking, I saw her neck wattle in sharp contrast to the phoniness surrounding it. Everything around that wattle looked twenty five years younger than the wattle. She should be Very Pissed Off. It's obvious she worked it Big Time to appear "natural" and "relaxed" yet at the same time, a "put-together" Red Dress Off-the-Shelf GOP Wife.

She wanted to come off as the tastefully restrained but still a bit sexy Granny. Instead, she came off as a fake who was trying too hard, and that awful camera angle and that vicious lighting played a huge role.

What a shameful "footnote in history" they became. Imagine, years from now, looking up an ancestor, only to discover that one of them was responsible for one of the most shameful abrogations of participatory democracy in modern times?

Talk about humiliation!! Much preferable to have a relative who was a murderer or something--at least you could make an argument that the balance of their mind was disturbed...!