Opinions to go Online

For the last fortnight, the political conventions have been providing their usual fare: lots of stagecraft, non-stop schmooze-control, celebrity scrutiny, “defining-moment” speeches and over-analysis fodder for pundits and partisans. The ambience is equal parts pep rally, infomercial and Rotarian reunion.

Time was when these conventions actually chose a presidential candidate. Back when smoke-filled back rooms were no mere metaphors. Now these gatherings rubber-stamp and coronate candidates.

Which explains, in part, why some of Hillary’s Harridans won’t concede. The other part is that for those women who have outsourced their identities to Hillary Clinton, this election is no longer about the party and the country – it’s about them. But enough, at least in this space, on that.

But just because the nominees have been pre-selected, platform planks pre-set and goofy hats prepared, doesn’t mean these conventions are nothing more than atavistic exercises in pomp and partisanship.

I remember chatting with Al Austin, the finance chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and Tampa’s “Mr. GOP,” at the 2000 Republican Convention in Philadelphia. Austin still found enough value in the quadrennial gatherings to attend them. He cited two main reasons.

“One of the biggest problems we have in this country is voter apathy,” said Austin. “An event like this is an opportunity to get people focused on the fact that there’s a presidential election coming up. It’s a way for voters to get aware and interested – and introduced to candidates.”

The other benefit, noted Austin, was what you’d expect from any convention – from hardware to pharmaceuticals. These are forums to reward, to share strategies and to energize the troops, those who labor in the trenches in their home counties, to go forth and, well, sell.

“It fires these folks up and generates a lot of enthusiasm for carrying the message,” underscored Austin. “If you’re a delegate, this is an honor. They feel like they’re part of something big.”

Lost amid the Clinton melodramatics and the historic nomination of an African American candidate for president, is a move to improve the primary system in 2012.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama named a committee to consider revising the party’s rules for the next primary. Here’s hoping that rotating, regional primaries finally result.

A recent C-SPAN interview with Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate, yielded some candid – and ironic – comments about Biden’s 1988 run for president.

* Biden, 45 at the time, said, upon reflection, that he was “na

Every time I see the “black power” photo of 200-meter sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos on the victory stand at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, two things come readily to mind.

First, I recall hearing the unprecedented whistling and jeering that rained down on the flag-raising part of the ceremony.

Second, what the impact must have been on Peter Norman of Australia. Norman beat Carlos for the silver medal, but had to endure a ceremonial travesty in what should have been his finest hour.

Call it the locusts of social issues. And here it comes again: the movement to lower the drinking age. To 18.

It’s been 21 across the country since 1984 – when a federal highway law, in effect, left no state behind.

If I were 18, 19 or 20, I’d be in favor of lowering the age. Of course, I would. And, if pressed by the usual, spoil-sport suspects, I’d be re-issuing sophistic arguments about voting and military service and discrimination.

Moreover, if I were 15, 16 or 17, I’d also be hugely in favor of the age-lowering, because the ambit of legality — and the means of circumvention — would be that much closer. This is the way kids think.

When you’re immortal, you don’t need to read minutes of previous meetings. And former kids should remember that.

It comes with the territory of the consequences-free zone of adolescence. It’s why the sobering restraints preached by adults — including those who practically invented underage mischief — and legal proscriptions will always be necessary. If only to mitigate the inevitable damage.

Fortunately, the youthful self-interest lobby is ineluctably trumped by the incumbent clout of their elders. Shockingly, however, a bunch of contemporary college presidents are not among them this time.

Behold the Amethyst Initiative.

This is the pedantic (the Ancients thought amethyst might be a remedy for intoxication) handle for a group of some 100 presidents of American universities who are urging lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age to 18. They say that current laws are, among other things, counterproductive and actually encourage binge drinking on campus.

Among the Amethyst 100: Duke, Dartmouth, Ohio State, Syracuse, Colgate, Tufts – and St. Leo University and Eckerd College. According to Eckerd President Donald Eastman, the 21-year-old drinking age is “hypocritical, ineffective and guilt-inducing… .” Eastman also adds that “It is a form of mini-prohibition and needs to be replaced with education and focus on the value of moderation, not intolerance.”

We expect this sort of societal piffle, including veiled references to the Volstead Act and “guilt,” from undergraduate editorialists and social science professors — not those actually in charge. From loco parentis to loco.

If you want a president’s take, make it Laura Dean-Mooney’s. She’s president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and she says a lower drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. If necessary, common sense underscores it as well. She also counsels parents to consider the implications of colleges whose presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative.

There’s also Donna Shalala, the University of Miami president, who remembers what it was like when universities had an 18-year-old drinking age.

“I honestly believe we’ve made some progress,” assesses Shalala. “To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.”

It seems that the Amethyst Initiative impetus – other than liability roulette — has been a “culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking.” To its credit, Amethystians are arguably trying to address this deadly serious issue. Education and an increased focus on moderation are, of course, admirable.

To its utter discredit, a lowered drinking age would make matters worse. A legal binge drinker is no improvement – and the ripple effect, as Miami’s Shalala notes, would be profound on high schools.