The Democratic National Convention

[Big Magilla]

Good news:

EW YORK - Barack Obama's audience for his acceptance speech likely topped 40 million people, and the Democratic gathering that nominated him was a more popular television event than any other political convention in history.

More people watched Obama speak from a packed stadium in Denver on Thursday than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the Academy Awards this year, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. (Four playoff football games, including the Super Bowl between the Giants and Patriots, were seen by more than 40 million people.)

His TV audience nearly doubled the amount of people who watched John Kerry accept the Democratic nomination to run against President Bush four years ago. Kerry's speech was seen by a little more than 20 million people; Bush's acceptance speech to GOP delegates had 27.6 million viewers.

Through four days, the Democratic convention was seen in an average of 22.5 million households. No other convention — Republican or Democratic — had been seen in as many homes since Nielsen began keeping these records for the Kennedy-Nixon campaign in 1960. There weren't enough television sets in American homes to have possibly beaten this record in years before that.

The convention that comes closest in interest was the 1976 Republican gathering, which averaged 21.9 million homes. That was the year President Gerald Ford fought off a challenge for the nomination from future President Ronald Reagan. For Democrats, the closest came during the 1980 convention where Sen. Edward Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the nomination.

This year's nomination fight was another epic battle, between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even though it was decided before the convention, viewers apparently were drawn to the historic nature of the first black man nominated as a major party presidential candidate.

Nielsen said that 38.4 million people watched Obama's speech as it was carried live by 10 commercial networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo.

PBS also televised the speech, but didn't pay Nielsen for a count of its national viewership. Based on a sample of several large cities, PBS estimated that an additional 4 million people saw the speech on its network. C-SPAN, which also televised the speech, has no estimate of its audience.

Obama's speech was the fifth-highest-rated, non-sports event watched by blacks in the last 11 years. A 30th anniversary Michael Jackson special on CBS in 2001 was on top.

The acceptance speech was a particular triumph for CNN, which clearly beat the three big broadcasters head-to-head on a news event for the first time ever. An estimated 8.1 million people watched on CNN Thursday.

In general, audience estimates for the convention show the dramatically waning influence of ABC, CBS and NBC in coverage for these events. The three big broadcasters aired only one hour of convention coverage each night, and it seemed a particular handicap on Thursday as its cable competition was able to show the buildup to Obama's speech.

ABC was the second-most network for Obama-watchers, with 6.6 million. NBC had 6.1 million, CBS 4.7 million, Fox News Channel 4.2 million and MSNBC 4.1 million.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1220056378

[Big Magilla]

Great speech - a perfect convention in which each night built to the climactic moment.

I don't see how he could lose, but then I still don't get how Nixon, Reagan or W. were elected once, let alone twice.

[MovieWes]

Great speech. I mean, I've disliked the guy from day 1, but he inspired even me. My bad feelings about Obama are slowly going away.

[OscarGuy]

I thought Obama's speech was excellent. I identified with a lot of what he had to say and feel now that I can fully support him without feeling I have to because he's a Democrat. Laying out the opposition's criticism of him and answering those questions helped. I can see the debate turning into a grand cementing of his win as President.

Gore was rushed, but I also felt that he was a bit too high minded for people, probably why he ended up losing. I mean, he was talking over the heads of at least 70% of the the American electorate. I understood what he was saying and thought it was great, but not terribly impacting when the people who need to understand it won't.

[Mister Tee]

So, in one respect, anyway, the McCain Palin pick has succeeded: lots of folks here have posted on that, while no one has weighed in on Obama's exceptional speech last night.

I've been watching Dem conventions since 1968, and have never seen an acceptance speech that rose to these heights. Clinton has given many great speeches in his life, but I never thought his candidate speeches were among them -- his '92 speech, in fact, I found lacking in impact, despite the way the party rallied around him. Gore's was acceptable, and Kerry's better than expected (something people forget because he went on to lose). But compared to this one?

Obama is, of course, an orator only Clinton can match among the current generation, and I had no doubt his speech would be effective. What I didn't expect was for him to be able to maintain the level of inspiration, be specific and issue-focused in the Clintonian way, and take direct aim at McCain, his culpability in Bush's policies and his vile campaign -- all in a tight, gripping 45 minute address. Pat Buchanan had it right: there's no comparison in our lifetimes. Even Obama's own '04 keynote speech didn't hit this level.

And they're saying 38 million vieweres watched: more than watched the Olympic opening cermonies or the Oscars. People are looking for a new president. If they don't see the extraordinary possibilities in this guy, they're blind.

[Big Magilla]

It's changed. Carville got a call from someone (he's not saying who) who told him to shut up.

[taki15]

How about all that fretting by the likes of Carville, Begala and some bloggers that the convention wasn't negative enough towards the Republicans and McCain?

Has that changed the last two days or are the attacks insufficient in your opinion?

(I can't believe I'm so absorbed with a foreign election!!!)

[OscarGuy]

I was shocked to see NBC/CBS/ABC not covering the convention. I don't remember if they ignored it back in 2004, but I don't remember ever NOT watching it on traditional broadcast TV. It's rather annoying b/c the point of the convention is to expose the public TO the issues of the party and allow the candidates to reach a broad audience...now, it's almost like they force them to the cable nets in an effort to silence the free exchange of ideas. This is what happens when network news divisions have to be profit-making instead of profit-taking...

Of course, Tim Russert would have been a blessing to listen to in these proceedings, but he's gone.

[Mister Tee]

Soledad O'Brien, one of the bigger idiots among second tier anchors, was talking about how she thought it was Bill Clinton's place to appear on the podium with Obama Thursday night and couldn't understand why there wasn't a greater call for him to do so.

As Eric Boehlert points out today at Media Matters, in 2000, when Bill stayed around Al Gore's convention, this self-same press was screaming he was hogging the spotlight -- "Why can't he get off the stage?"

The attitude toward both Clintons from the press has always brought From Here to Eternity to my mind. From day one, they've both been given The Treatment.

[Big Magilla]

I, too , lament the absence of network coverage. There was a time when the networks dutifully carried convention coverage out of public service responsibility knowing they weren't go to make any money out of it. Those who had no interest in watching it could turn to local programming for baseball coverage or go bowling or play Monopoly who whatever it is they did in those days but more people than might otherwise be interested in politics watched the network coverage because with all the networks covering it it was too in their face "important" to be ignored.

And, yes, there was real reporting in those days, not the speculation, gossip and blowing nonsense out of proportion that sullies most cable coverage.

I did catch a bit yesterday that I found very heartening. Soledad O'Brien, one of the bigger idiots among second tier anchors, was talking about how she thought it was Bill Clinton's place to appear on the podium with Obama Thursday night and couldn't understand why there wasn't a greater call for him to do so. To their credit, two of the three "commentators" she was addressing including Carl Bernstein, visibly showed their exasperation with being asked to comment on such a ridiculously trivial assertion.

If the future of TV journalism is the likes of Soledad O'Brien and Campbell Brown I'm ready to turn the damn thing off now.

[Mister Tee]

My favorite line from last night, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland: "You know, it was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple. Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base, and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way."

Some right-wing bloggers are actually using this quote to show how "clueless" Democrats are, saying that Strickland doesn't know what he was talking about because you can't steal second from third.

This is like the dunce who, when you tell a subtle joke, pushes the point more bluntly and acts as if he's the one who's thought of it.

I've flipped around stations -- mostly MSNBC, because, as you say, of Keith and Rachel -- but I'm coming around to the C-SPAN or bust mentality. The thing is, I can still recall the days when real reporters, like John Chancellor, roamed the floor, and you got actual additional insight/analysis without missing any convention content. Part of me can't quite accept that those days are gone for good, that the C-SPAN pundit-cold-turkey is the only way to actually see anything beyond the designated highlights. (Network, as opposed to cable, is even worse. As some have pointed out, the legendary '04 Obama keynote speech -- the half-hour that made him this year's nominee -- wasn't shown on any of the major networks, and thus was unavailable to many Americans)

I do plan to scour C-SPAN this weekend for some of the speeches demed too unimportant to braodcast.

[OscarGuy]

That is amusing, Damien. I wonder how long it will take smarter people to point out why the line was so funny?

[Big Magilla]

Great speeches by both Clinton and Kerry, a powerful one by Beau Biden and a very good salt-of-the-earth one by Joe Biden with a nice appearance by Barack. Hopefully tonight will be even better.

[Damien]

John Kerry, to the surprise of many, also did an exceptional job (though of course many networks didn't carry his speech, because it was more important to have talking heads explain what Democrats were doing wrong).

Which is why I've given up on the networks (even when Keith and Rachel are on) for C-Span.

My favorite line from last night, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland: "You know, it was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple. Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base, and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way."

Some right-wing bloggers are actually using this quote to show how "clueless" Democrats are, saying that Strickland doesn't know what he was talking about because you can't steal second from third.

[OscarGuy]

You know, I don't know if they planned it, but this convention has been slowly building steam. The first night was good, the second night was terrific, this third night was amazing. There have been several fantastic speeches and I'm proud to be a Democrat after hearing them.

I find it interesting that the talking heads were all agush over Clinton's speech and several even commented that with Michelle Obama/Hillary/Bill's speeches, it's been the trifecta of power.

Joe Biden did quite well, but his son was far more eloquent and interesting.

BTW: I find it ironic that CNN's coverage was broken in one spot to announce that McCain had supposedly chosen a running mate and then they discussed for awhile how it was McCain just trying to preempt the Democrats' bounce or their convention. And they are letting them. But, you know what, I have always found that kind of tactic disrespectful. Same with the Pubes or even the Dems camping out in the areas of the opposing team's convention to cause disruption. It's dirty through and through. I would rather see everyone behave civilly than like some high school debutantes trashing their opponent by calling each other sluts...In High School, at least it often backfired and people voted for the slut hoping to sleep with her, but...