Michael Moore wasn't invited, nor was he going to be "allowed" onto the convention floor by the DNC. So how did he get in? With the Carter family, who apparently isn't too pleased with the DNC's censorship efforts, so brought him into their skybox. Moore sat two seats down from Rosalind.

Who else is the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign censoring? Well, Democracy Now reports this tid bit today (from their 'Breaking With Convention' DNC coverage):

"As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night, on the floor of the convention, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange and CodePink unfurled a pink colored banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq." That apparently was not one of the DNC-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove Medea Benjamin.

Benjamin was dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the FleetCenter. She said that the DNC was asked whether they wanted her arrested and that they decided that would not look good."

And then, there are the 'security measures' designed to exile all political dissenters from participation in the so-called process into the so-called Free Speech Zone, in what has become known euphemistically as the 'protest pen'.

But beyond the so-called Free Speech Zone, there are also thousands of political dissenters fanned out across Boston, who are caught up in the security dragnets everywhere they go. But that, of course, is a story that ALL mainstream media is censoring. Boston Indymedia reports:

"The delegates have been persuaded that it (the Free Speech Zone and police harrassment of dissenters) is necessary. They may be sympathetic, but are they really listening to what people in the zone are saying? The Free Speech Zone is Bad. The cop inside peoples' heads is worse.

I've been astounded at the lack of turnout at these demonstrations. Yes the FBI came to some peoples' homes. Yes there's been people stopped. These things have happened before, and people have come out before.

I have to look at this as a part of the whole "anyone but Bush" insanity. Democrats are more angry at Nader, than they were at the Republicans who disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters. People forget that Clinton's sanctions killed more people in Iraq than Bush's war, and that his administration gave us GATT, NAFTA, WTO and the Crime Bill and Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Acts."

And AlterNet has this to say about the so-called Free Speech Zone:

"The so-called free-speech zone set up by police occupies a narrow stretch of pavement underneath elevated train tracks, which are in some places so low that police have painted girders with orange "Caution - Watch Your Head." The area is further covered overhead by netting, in some places supplemented by coils of barbed wire and surrounded by a 12-foot high chain link fence draped with an translucent black mesh. The overall effect is more reminiscent of the camps set up for interment of Japanese prisoners in World War II, or the prison for enemy combatants at Camp X-Ray. What's worse, say protesters, police did not reveal the full extent of their plans for the area until a week before the convention, leaving little time for a legal challenge."

Finally, there is the hidden Molotov cocktail of the convention: the Iraq war, which NO ONE is talking about from the podium. No one. The true cost Democrats are being forced to pay to support the "Anybody But Bush" campaign strategy: supporting Kerry's position on the Iraq war and occupation.

Yesterday's Boston Globe noted that 80% of the delegates in this convention were opposed to the war when it was declared. Yet The Nation's David Corn reports:

"The candidates had disagreed over the vote to grant Bush the authority to launch the war in Iraq. But that difference did not seem to capture the imagination of most Democratic voters.

Now there appears little taste within the party for a debate over what should be done in Iraq. Some progressive Dems back the notion of expressing a date-certain for a pullout of troops, but Kerry does not. Still, this has not become a pitched fight. Perhaps that's because it's an academic question. Should Kerry win in November, he would not take office until January 20th. Who knows now what will be the appropriate policy then? In terms of big-picture principles, Kerry is for trying to internationalize the mess in order to withdraw U.S. troops. And even Dennis Kucinich and Win Without War, the antiwar coalition, don't advocate yanking US troops without replacing them with forces from elsewhere. But the best "plan" Kerry might be able to offer at this point for dealing with the enormous problem Bush created is the argument that he will muddle through better than the guy who screwed things up in the first place.

In any event, the Democrats are shining, happy people."