Finally agreeing with Dowd

I am especially interested in Obama voters' arguments against Dowd's column and my instincts.

Oh, I tend to agree.

I just don't think Obama had a lot of attractive options at his disposal.

The Hillary contingent is loud and pissed off. It's much different from Gore shutting out Bill and Hillary in 2000 -- neither Bill not Hillary were the close runners-up in the nominating contest.

And BOTH are big stories in a way that they weren't in 2000. You have to have the last Democratic president speak -- they did in 2000, 2004, and this year. And it would have been way too ham-handed to shut out Hillary -- close runner-up in the nomination contest -- completely.

So that means that both have to speak, pretty much. Shutting them both down would have been a Big Thing and would have created its own drama.

I think having Hillary speak on the anniversary of women's suffrage makes sense.

All that really leaves is, have Bill on the same night or not? Dunno why they made the decision to have them on different nights, probably something to do with time slots. Maybe this was a bad idea, not sure, details are lacking.

But I don't think "back-to-back" means anything in particular -- it makes a lot of sense that they both have slots, and they're put in the middle. Not opening day (25th), not the finale (28th). Hillary on the 26th, Bill on the 27th.

A-ha, just found this about Bill's time slot:

Glad to read that timing business.

what worried me about this was that people who are interested aren't going to be watching the networks (who does anymore?) - they'll be watching the live feeds

I really wish there was a way around 'needing' to let them speak. Or give them itty-bitty timeslots. Particularly Bill. The man needs to have a sock stuffed in his mouth.