To What Benefit, At What Cost???

I've read a lot of disappointment about the convention. Delegates wondering what was the point. Silencing and censoring of public opinion. "Regimentation" at all costs. (Actually, I heard other words used, but you get the point."

I want to know!

If a faction of delegates had been allowed to publicly denounce Bush as a war criminal, what would be the benefit? And would it help us win the election?

Especially in light of Kerry's message about a clean campaign.

Also, if a faction of delegates had been allowed to publicly call for complete evacuation of Iraq, what would be the benefit? And would it help us win the election?

(I don't disagree 100% with this position... but I think we have an obligation to clean up the mess we made.)

It sounds as though a lot of people would have preferred if all of the various factions and opinions within the Party had had an opportunity to voice their opinions on national TV. And, moreover, to shape the platform, and nudge it to the left. (Although it's interesting to note that Kucinich had an opportunity to speak, and he did not voice his own "platform" as he might have.)

On the other hand... maybe I shouldn't say a LOT of people. Simply a highly vocal minority. I actually stayed up and watched the entire roll call. Each state had a brief moment to voice opinions, and some did. But clearly, over 95% of the delegates chose Kerry. What would have been the benefit to letting a vocal 5% make a plea for inclusion in the platform? Should that 5% have had enough power to modify the platform in favor of pulling out of Iraq? Or denouncing Bush as a war criminal?

And if so... would it have cost us the election?

I realize that NO ONE expects to be silenced. I certainly hope that delegates were aware of the "convention game plan" before they arrived.

I am torn... the convention has become a media event. It was almost completely televised. And if there had been dissention, it would have been broadcast, and it would give the opposition an edge. I don't want that.

The only compromise I can think of is if delegates have an orderly, officious meeting, like a "hearing", to discuss the platform. And that it's so dreadfully boring that it gets virtually no coverage. Or, worse still, is held concurrent with some part of the speeches.

Okay, I'm rambling now. Hopefully someone can make sense of what I'm saying. Isn't it more important to hash these things out AFTER we get into office than to argue about them before hand?

Which is more important? Making sure that every faction of the party has an opportunity to voice their position at the convention, even if it doesn't represent the views/platform of the nominee - or to WIN the election and then hold the new president responsible for representing the entire party?

That seems to be what I hear, not only on this board, but from friends. Some are discouraged that their voices werent represented, myself included, like getting out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I think the answer to your question is, we have to win this election not only for the future, but for the health of our party. We need to be united, optimistic, and send clear, strong messages if we are to regain the attention and committment of voters we once had. Thats why I like Kerry, despite his position on Iraq. He has all the qualifications that make bush look like a school child.

I wish the debate wouldnt cost us air time, or support, but Im afraid it would have. Who knows what can happen in the next few years though. Lets win this one any way we can and keep our priorities straight.

it would be one thing if these delegates were voicing a "minority" opinion, but they weren't.

In fact, over 90% of the DNC delegates think Iraq was not only a mistake, but that we should leave ASAP. In fact, over 50% of Americans believe the same thing. Unfortunately, neither major political party is even willing to TALK about ending the occupation.

Did we even hear one word about Iraq being a mistake? Or even a single mention in a Kerry/Edwards speech about Peace?

No we didn't. We got lots of talk about "a stronger defense", despite the fact that the world's strongest defense didn't prevent 9/11. We heard Edwards say that we were going to "destroy" Al-Qaeda, but nothing about how we would make the mere existence of Al-Qaeda obsolete with a new, enlightened foreign policy.

If it was only a few "fringe leftists" or "disruptors" who believed these things, I could almost understand why they'd try to block their dissent. However, the delegates that DID speak up were merely voicing the opinion of not only most delegates, but most Americans!

REAL unity (one that is achieved without coersion and threats) is truly a great thing, and is a great foundation to build upon. But an enforced "unity" only shows you're willing to build your house on sand. And it will crumble just as easily, too.

I"m not comfortable with stifling anyone's right to raise their opinion; whether it's forced censorship or soft pressure.

At the same time, the Bush campaign is a seriously intimidating force.
This is also a very tight race. These circumstances lead me to understand that we will have to make uncomfortable concessions to the unity of the party this time. I say "uncomfortable" because it's our nature as Democrats to be skeptical, questioning, dissenting and open-minded.

"Which is more important?..." To WIN the election. That is definitely a prerequisite to making any tangible progress.