Unfortunately, I disagree with the assumptions behind Novak's column and the Dems' planning for the convention: I don't think it matters a hill of beans what they say, or don't say, about Bush. I don't have any evidence that any convention in recent times has in any way shaped the election or increased/decreased a nominee's vote totals. I don't think Pat Buchanan hurt the GOP in 1992, and I don't think Michael Moore could hurt the Dems this year. People simply ignore these conventions.
I'll half-agree with your disagreement.
The incendiary speakers won't change votes (one way or the other) of the folks watching. People that are interested enough to watch are interested enough to take the time to sift through the platform and judge the candidates, and will vote Rep. or Dem. (or third-party) regardless of what any sycophant at the convention might say.
Where it will make a mark is when the political agnostics read quotes and quips from the Op-Ed columns and base a vote on that. Pat Buchanan didn't hurt the GOP in 1992 amongst the party faithful either left or right; but he had an measurable effect on the "undecided" due to the negative followup reporting.
Agreed , the platforms became meaningless after McGovern, and the only other impotant item, naming the VP candidate, was also abandoned.
Just puff-pieces which I would not waste any time watching.
then how would you explain the poll "bounces" we usually see after these conventions? Heck, even Mondale briefly seized a lead over Reagan after the 84 Rat Convention...