Q: How did FOX News get the opportunity to be the Feed for all the media outlets covering the Democratic Convention? I have never seen so many cut aways to yawns during a compelling speech in my life. They also seem to be controlling the audio mix we hear (so that the crowd reaction is often perceived as unenthusiastic) and the take away is that this is a sleepy convention. Do you know whether FOX also is carrying the Feed for the Republican convention as well? How about Obama's acceptance speech?

Submitted by Chuck Lebo from Hillsborough, CA

A: The networks themselves determine which one controls the feed to all the networks. They negotiate who gets it just as they do for other big events, like a papal visit.

Answered 08/26/08 18:18:37 by David Goldstein

Q: Isn't it true that one reason Hillary Clinton hasn't brought her supporters in line with Obama is because she wants it both ways -- she doesn't want to be seen as ruining Obama, but she also wouldn't mind continuing the storyline that she should have been the nominee, the better to position her for 2012.

Submitted by Elizabeth from Des Moines, Iowa

A: It's hard to imagine a more anticipated convention speech. No matter what Hillary Clinton says about Sen. Obama and how she says it, people are going to pick it apart. They'll read whatever meaning into it they want to conform with what they want to believe. Since leaving the race, she has made it pretty clear that she supports him, will campaign for him and wants her backers to get with the program. She's been getting unsolicited televised advice all day about what she should say tonight, even from longtime allies. You have to be fairly cynical to think that she hopes for an Obama loss so she'll have another shot in 2012. That would mean she cares little about the issues she says she actually cares about. Sure, politics (and journalism) does breed a healthy skepticism about the motives of politicians. And maybe she continues to nuture presidential dreams. But the guess here is that she'll, in no uncertain terms, tell her 18 million voters, especially the diehards who - bizarrely - would sooner vote for John McCain than Obama, to stop pouting and move on.

Answered 08/26/08 17:23:56 by David Goldstein

Q: Interesting pick of a city from which to broadcast last night: Kansas City, MO. Any ideas on what strategic goal Obama hoped to fulfill in broadcasting from the heartland? With the Biden pick, it seems that he is heavily represented in the east, and in his own midwest, but not so much in the west. Will this hurt him?

Submitted by Bonnie from Hershey, PA

A: If Kansas City's good enough for McDonalds to test out its new line of lattes...Ok. That's probably not a good comparison as far as Obama is concerned. It's that whole latte thing Republicans love to bang on him about. Sounds too chardonnay and Volvo-y. How about, if Kansas City's good enough for Proctor and Gamble to test market a new line of Tide dry cleaner stores... Seriously, Missouri is a political mosaic. Take a peek at any presidential candidate's wishful thinking victory map and you'll find the Show-Me State. It's purple, neither red nor blue. It's urban and rural, progressive and culturally conservative. Some places seem like the north. Some you think you're in the deep South. And talk about political bellwethers. Only once in the 20th century has it gone with the wrong guy - Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Eleven electoral votes might not seem like much, but when you start dividing up the the Californias and New Yorks and Floridas and Texases, Missouri is one of the states you want. As for the West, that's one of the reasons the party chose Denver. Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are all swing states. Obama and McCain will likely battle hard for all three.

Answered 08/26/08 16:42:16 by David Goldstein

Q: Tonight I watched the Convention and enjoyed every minute of it. Many posters have commented that they switched off the cable network coverage and watched C-SPAN instead. I had done the same thing. All of our reasons are similar. The cable networks show very little of the Convention but instead have wordy pundits yapping away and saying very little. Do the Political Parties court the networks for coverage or is it the opposite? From online postings tonight, there is a mini revolt taking place with more and more viewers going to C-Span. You must also have seen many changes in how Conventions are covered by the main stream media. Things may be changing again.

Submitted by Maggie from Highland Park, IL

A: You're right: Convention coverage other than on C-Span, is one big yap-fest. The pundits and anchors talk over a lot of the speeches, debating the divide between the Clinton and Obama forces, forecasting Democratic chances in blue collar Beaver County, Pa. The political parties do court the networks, though. They crave the attention the way home run hitters crave the high fastball. After all, what's the point of holding a party if nobody shows up? And I don't mean all the delegates, activists and political A-listers in Denver and in Minneapolis next week for the Republican gala. I mean all those voters back home so bored with CSI reruns that they might think, "This can't be any worse." But it's got be interesting and inviting. The parties want everyone inside the hall and watching at home excited so their candidates leave town with a big bounce in the polls. Except for the Ted Kennedy tribute and Michelle Obama speech, Monday was pretty sleepy. But some of that goes with the territory. Speech after speech after speech can be pretty numbing, even for some of the most committed political junkies.

Answered 08/26/08 11:20:21 by David Goldstein

Q: Do you feel that is appropriate for a candidate's spouse to speak at a National Convention? Speaking about babies is of course, a real part of life, and the attempt at humanizing the Candidate in admirable. In my memories of Conventions of the '60's and '70's (and beyond), the spouse's role was generally one of silent support. At the National Conventions, wasn't it always about the issues? Foreign policy, the economy, the general welfare of our citizenry, et al. Thank You

Submitted by Toni from Ontario, California

A: That was a different world, before women became significant political players and issues like home, family and values loomed so large in the political debate. The point of Michelle Obama's speech was to "humanize" her husband, to show through the eyes of the person who presumably knows him best that, despite the elite education and a rise to the top faster than a Jamaican sprinter, he's just folks. Did she succeed? Too soon to tell.

Answered 08/26/08 11:00:40 by David Goldstein

Q: Pundit James Carville continues to be described as a Democratic strategist. What input does he have with Obama's campaign and hasn't time passed him by?

Submitted by Jeff from Hummelstown

A: I don't know if James Carville has any involvement with the Obama campaign. He's a Clinton loyalist and will be in their corner to the end. But the world of Washington political strategists is very small. Everybody knows everybody else. They've often worked together on past campaigns. I suspect that if he wants to get a message to Obama's brain trust, he can.

Answered 08/26/08 10:40:17 by David Goldstein

Q: Do you ever make any attempt to tell both sides or just the Dems' version?

Submitted by Rose from Oklahoma City

A: We certainly do. In this case, the questions are about the Democratic convention, so the answers are largely about the Democrats.

Answered 08/26/08 10:35:38 by David Goldstein

Q: Why do the parties still hold conventions in modern times? Voters already know who the candidates are going to be from the primary results - even though officially the delegates still have to vote, I suspect in the past few decades they have always chosen the candidate who won the primaries. So what's the point?

Submitted by Jordy from Washington, DC

A: Tradition is a big deal in politics. Yes, in the misty past, conventions actually were smoke-filled rooms with a lot of backroom wheeling and dealing. There was drama. Now they often seem like one long infomercial. But they do have moments. Ted Kennedy's 1980 speech when he lost the nomination to President Carter comes to mind. They also are supposed to rev up the party for the fall campaign and tell the country what the party is all about. Imagine if those moments in the locker room a few minutes before the Super Bowl lasted four days. That's a political convention.

Answered 08/25/08 23:07:00 by David Goldstein

Q: Do you think that Sen. Obama with the help of Sen. Clinton can unite the female Democratic vote and if so do you think that this will unite the Democratic Party?

Submitted by Ethan from Minneapolis MN

A: Barack Obama doesn't need to try on panty hose and eye makeup like Mel Gibson did in the film, "What women Want," to figure out how to win their votes. Hillary Clinton can provide the political shortcut and - true to her word - she has been making a strong case for him. Her supporters just need to follow her lead. He doesn't have the right chromosones, but running mate Joe Biden will help, too. So will Obama allies like Govs. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. And let's not forget Michelle Obama, either.

Answered 08/25/08 22:48:10 by David Goldstein

Q: Do you have any idea why these Democrat speakers are so wordy--that it's almost impossible to stay awake--while McCain supporters and ads give 3 word statements like, "He'll raise your taxes!" --statements the man on the street comprehends?

Submitted by Ann McGill from Pittsburgh Pa

A: Republicans are always better than Democrats with the quick jab. They fight with knives and draw blood quickly. Democrats are often plagued by qualms. They also think Republican attacks won't work. "Oh, the voters won't fall for that," they say. Sen. John Kerry can tell you all about that.

Answered 08/25/08 22:36:41 by David Goldstein

Q: Is there still a chance that Hilary Clinton's followers could rebel and refuse to nominate Obama? Can he get the nomination without their support?

Submitted by Elissa Huberman from Easton, PA

A: Not a chance. You'll get better odds on John McCain picking Nancy Pelosi as his veep. Sure, there are still a fair number of Clinton backers who remain really angry that she lost. But at this point they need to grow up and actually listen to what their own candidate has been telling them. But the media has really been fanning this rift. It's what we do sometimes. A fight is alway much more fun to write about than peace, love and understanding. Earlier today I watched MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman trying as hard as they could to get the network's political director, Chuck Todd, say that tension between the Obama and Clinton camps could hurt the party's chances in the fall. But three cheers for Todd. "I kind of think we're hyping it up," he said. "I think it's getting out of hand."

Answered 08/25/08 22:27:04 by David Goldstein

Q: Isn't the Kennedy mystique mostly an artifact that's of interest to aging reporters and senior citizens but overrated as a big factor in the 2008 campaign?

Submitted by Paul from Denver

A: Did you watch that madhouse scene at American University earlier this year when Sen. Kennedy, accompanied by niece Caroline, endorsed Sen. Obama? They weren't all "aging reporters and senior citizens." I seem to recall a pretty fair number of college students and others. It was pretty impressive. But you do raise a fair point and could be right - eventually. There are lots of younger Kennedys doing interesting and important things. Who knows whether any will be able to - or even want to - carry the same mantle of political leadership that Ted Kennedy has done for five decades. His came because of tragedy. He was the survivor, and a touchstone to a generation whose politics were formed in the 1960s. Times and issues change. But the Kennedy mystique has endured for half a century. I'm not sure I'd bet against it.

Answered 08/25/08 18:32:01 by David Goldstein