Here we go.  The Democratic National Convention has begun – clearing the way for me to hustle home from work, microwave some chicken wings, curl up on my futon, plunge my fist into my underpants, grind my teeth, and pray that the Dems don't slit their own collective throat.  The major media outfits have already indicated that if they don't consider it a story, they won't bother covering it – and what they consider a story is narrowly defined indeed.  Controversy is a story.  A cohesive plan outlining the future of our country is not.  In this sense, the major networks are attending the convention in the same spirit as an apathetic teenager dragged to a NASCAR race by his parents: it'll only be deemed interesting is there's a crash.

There are, however, certainly some things to watch for.  To begin with, will the platform – either formally or as touched on by the speakers – be defined by the Bush administration's perceived strengths or weaknesses?  So far, the former has been the case.  When Kerry talks about tax policy and the "war on terror", it's largely because these are areas that Bush and his supporters feel are their strengths.  Meanwhile, there are a host of other areas (i.e. environment, energy conservation, foreign alliances) that Bush and his supporters all but admit are huge vulnerabilities.  Also, when (and how strongly) will the Kerry folks go negative?  So far it's been absurdly positive; largely because of the efforts of cultural surrogates like Moveon.org and Michael Moore.  However, unless Kerry goes negative at some point he will surely lose the election.  Why?  Well, here's one reason:

There is ample scientific evidence that, despite widespread public distaste for them, negative ads are the most effective kind, because people are more apt to remember negative information than positive information. Television ads are a particularly cherished vehicle for disseminating such information. As Lynda Lee Kaid, a telecommunications professor at the University of Florida, explains, people tend to expose themselves only to information they agree with, but because political ads fill the airwaves, it's almost impossible to shut them out completely. "The research tends to show that people often are persuaded," she says, "even without cognitively or openly choosing to be."

There's another reason campaigns are so quick to employ, and often abuse, negative ads. Unlike Bud Light, which seeks to maximize its public appeal, political campaigns can afford to alienate the more sensitive members of the electorate and are perfectly happy to drive down turnout—as long as they win votes from a plurality of those who do show up. In fact, one reason campaigns bother running positive ads when a race turns nasty is to ensure that their negative ads remain effective. This is known in the trade as "running a positive and a negative track." Craig Varoga, a Democratic consultant, says, "If people feel somewhat good about you, they're more likely to believe the accusations you make against the other side." No surprise, then, that campaigns are willing to go for blood.

It's my guess that Kerry is probably nursing this "positive track" so that, once he has gained the positive favor of the electorate, his attacks will be credible – or at least more credible than those that have issued from the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd for the last three years.  To this end, it's a fair assumption that the negative stuff will trickle out more and more as we get closer to the close of the Convention.  My other big hope is that the DNC will use their time in the spotlight to remind viewers (however obliquely) of the awesome catalogue of fuck-ups that have disappeared down the memory hole. (i.e., Abu Ghraib, Kyoto Protocol, Stem Cell Research Ban, Estate Tax Repeal, Kissinger on 9/11 Commission, Patriot Act, Federal Death Penalty, Faith Based Initiative, Unfunded Mandates, Constitutional Amendment, Christie Todd Whitman's Career, James Jeffords' Defection, etc.)