Your rant doesn't have to be political. I'm open to rants on any subject. All rants are welcome on Rant Thursday.
Here's mine:
Television Networks: Please just run the Democratic Convention in its entirety. Don't assume we'd rather hear your commentary than the speakers on the podium or floor. Don't imagine that the deliveryman from Indiana is less interesting than the 1000th discussion of whether Hillary's speech was conciliatory enough. Or whether it was ego or heart that brought her to the floor with the NY delegation. Let the people speak. Let us decide. We can do it.
17 comments:
A suggestion, not a rant: watch PBS. It runs for three hours (7-10 CST), has Jim Lehrer as moderator, David Brooks and Mark Shields as commentators, and Richard Norton Smith, Michael Beschloss, and Peniel Joseph (historians all) for historical perspective. They show entire speeches and rarely, if at all, break away. There is no crawl on the screen. It's about as C-SPAN as you get with some bonus features. It's pretty much the only way I watch this stuff. For example, they actually showed Kerry's speech last night. PBS: real content, honest commentators.
Well, the first thing I was going to ran about is the fact that political coverage should be taped delayed and run at any time other than those hours when I'm actually awake...After all, I can't even concieve of anyone saying anything worth my time during a political convention. Usually they're all about patting themselves on the back at this point, aren't they?
Of course, since I'm not watching, they might actually be shocking the world with their speeches... You know, like if one of the Clinton's gets on the stage to say they're voting for McCain...I'd watch that.
Oddly enough, I am not in the ranting mood. I sat here for a few moments trying to figure out if there was anything I was steamed up about, but nothing really came to mind.
I'm sure that status will change.
;-)
Lucky, Melissa. You have reached the zen state. We did watch PBS last night but my husband finds it too tepid, all those repetitive speeches. So I guess we're at odds over how to cover it.
We watched the convention on C-Span which has no commentary, no commericals, etc. It simply shows whomever is on the podium non-stop so you hear all of the speakers.
PS: I thought that Obama's speech was terrific, but then he had me at hello.
He certainly had me at hello. A lot of great speeches. Bill's was outstanding. Will it be enough?
Enough for what, Patti?
BTW, did I call McCain picking a femaie governor, on this blog? I did, he noted.
As much as I've watched the conv live, it has been on C-SPAN, sometimes on PBS, sometimes with Pacifica Radio coverage playing.
You guys clearly need separate tv sets, or perhaps he just enjoys, masochistically, all those cable chatterers.
enough to win. we have five tvs but only one with HD and I love to see them in their full glory.
Bill Clinton's speech is irrelevant to Obama winning.
Sarah Palin probably won't drag in too many Clinton voters, but it's a nice gesture, and, as my GOP coworkers moan, undercuts the "inexperience" argument, not that that wasn't so much amphigory to begin with.
Not a nice gesture to me. She is far too inexperienced to VP a 75 year old man. I am appalled at this possibility. And she's not a "woman" in any important issue. And her husband works for the oil companies. I am outraged. He couldn't get along with any decent choice obviously. I HATE THIS because it could happen.
Um...what makes a "woman" via issues? Not allowing a woman to be a typical, if insurgent, Alaska Republican is pretty odd. And Palin is at least as good as anyone I saw on his short list, except on reproductive rights, where Leiberman or Ridge would've been ignored in a McCain Admin, anyway.
We weren't going to get Olympia Snowe.
How can she be as good as anyone with no experience beyond two years as governor? Is running the US so easy that these people are now qualified? This certainly takes pokes at Obama's "newness" off the table. A lifetime NRA supporter, opposes gay rights, opposes abortion, wants to drill everywhere a carabou now roams, oilman as husband, family scandals, what's good about her?
What, aside from being pro-choice, was good about Tom Ridge, who except on that issue is a blithering idiot?
What is good about Joe the War Lover, the rightist former Democrat?
What was good about Romney? The MN guv might've been a better choice, since I haven't looked into him, but, really, Patti, what made any of these folks That much better than Palin?
Interestingly, she's the Ron Paul-favored candidate for the job.
I'll look forward to the Veep debate.
I'll have to look up the family scandals. More relevant than Clinton's? Shouldn't that be a plus for the Obama/Fool ticket?
Ridge is a turnip, true.
Something to do with her sister or sister's husband. I'd ask my husband but we're supposed to be knuckling down just now.
NPR mentioned it just now...she might or might not have attempted to use her clout to get her sister's ex-husband, a state trooper, dismissed from a commission.
I'm with you on the convention coverage. I'm sick of the talking heads parroting the same nonsense over and over again like they know what they're talking about and like we're too dumb to figure things out for ourselves! PBS had better coverage, but C-SPAN was the best. No pundits, no commentary, just non-stop convention coverage.
Love this rant idea, btw.
Linda
Post a Comment