I ignored the 1968 convention. While the Yippies and protesters had their day, I was a bit self absorbed. I was focussing on things like crawling, babbling, and processing solid food for the first time. I don’t regret the way I spent my time (I still resort to these skills on occasional Saturday nights), but I missed out on American history.

The first political conventions I actually paid attention to were those in 1976. Yes, I’d just turned nine. I was a weird kid. But what I remember from ‘76 and from every single convention since is the media’s eternal lament: Conventions ain’t what they used to be. There’s no drama, nothing unplanned, every second is completely choreographed and phony. I’ve watched fourteen conventions (though I have to admit that I skimmed the ‘88 RNC, and I spent a lot of the ‘92 DNC in a hotel room - watching TV, yes - but also doing things that still make me blush to think about), and that lament has been the constant media refrain - almost as tightly scripted as the tightly-scripted conventions themselves.

So this year’s convention is a bit of a surprise. Sure, there’s not a lot of mystery as to who the nominee is going to be, but everything else has been subject to unexpected twists and turns. Hillary’s not speaking! Hillary’s speaking! Teresa Heinz is running long! Sharpton’s going nuts! “Reagan?” Clinton made a SHORT speech! “Obama?” It’s been a passionate convention, full of mixed messages, colorful characters, anger, hope, patriotism, and genuine, unrestrained fervor. Exactly the kind of convention that our media’s been pining for, right?

Nope.

They’ll get it eventually. I’m sure of that. But tonight I heard pundit after pundit lashing out at the Democrats for letting their hair down. Heinz was indiscreet and went on too long. Sharpton shouldn’t have been there, was too negative, and went on too long. The cable news networks were very quick to let us know that the woman and the black guy were getting too mouthy, and that America might not like that. Commentator after commentator talked about missed schedules, divergent messages, and unruly passions.

In short, they told us, the Democrats were failing to be completely choreographed and phony. They weren’t living up to the tradition of the objectionably staid conventions of the past three decades, and that, apparently, was objectionable.

Of course, the truly good speeches were noted: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. And as I said, they WILL get it eventually. I’m sure of it. It’s been a shock to the system, the first genuinely interesting political convention in a long, long time, and the first signs of the real Democratic Party identity we’ve seen in prime time in recent memory - diverse, messy, and, yes, mouthy. So the trepidation of MSNBC, CNN, and the others is understandable: When the subject goes off-script, you have to too. And that’s a little extra work.

So now I feel like I’ve seen something worthwhile in a convention. The fifteenth time’s the charm, I suppose. Sure, we didn’t get dissension in the ranks, disruptive protests, and streakers. Maybe next time. But we did get a brief respite from perfect micromanagement, and that’s something. So I can finally let myself off the hook a little for being so selfish and shortsighted back in ‘68. Call it a youthful indiscretion, all right?

Come to think of it, let’s go with that for ‘92 as well, okay?