I've noticed that a lot of the
coverage of the
Republican National Convention has deemed it a "successful" convention. I don't remember similar descriptions of the DNC in Boston, and a Google News search for "republican successful convention" returned 2,230 results, while a search for "democratic successfu convention" returned 1,670 results. Many results were the same for both searches, but there is a clear difference between the number of times the media have referred to the RNC as successful, and the number of times they referred to the DNC the same way.
Can a political convention be "unsuccessful"? Maybe if the building was burned down by protesters, or all the delegates thought "wait a second, we can't nominate this moron." Both conventions were successful because they went off exactly the way their organizers intended. If anything, the DNC was objectively more of a success, because it featured no speeches that received such a resoundingly negative reception as Zell Miller's got this week.
Oh well, screw the media and their Big Fat Idiot-dating anchorwomen, and thank Buddha for DailyKos and C-Span!