Good points of 61B convention were:

* two good food places kept people happy through a long convention

* issue groups had set up tables and were educating people

* the auditorium had more comfortable seats than normal

* the food area had TV coverage where delegates eating or people wanting to talk could still follow what was going on

* people really cared about creating good politics and good government

* mounted signs were limited to 15 per candidate, which really simplified cleanup

Areas to improve for 61b convention were:

* the convention took too long, it was not run efficiently, and distrust caused many things to be questioned

* The convention entirely re-considered the work of the nomination committee taking many hours to do so, which means the nominating committee was not perceived as fair, open or trustworthy in their recommendations. When the nominating committee knows there is a race instead of simple approval, then normally the non-contested races are separated into a non-contested slate to be unanimously considered. That did not happen.

* People like me write "delegate guides" and "tips" in many places, with permission for Democrats to repost. So for example the 61B could have emailed my delegate guide to every delegate, giving them more information on what to expect. In talking to people, I had several comments that people would have loved a "delegate guide", that committees would have loved a tips and options guide that showed what other committees have done before. Email would have been a good way to send out informational guides.

* Apparently opposing strong personalities were saying different things so the convention suffered for it. People who always put "winning" above "fairness", generally are distrusted, even when they are later acting in good faith.

* The 61B campaigns seemed to be gracious to each other, which was nice. Endorsement did happen. The winning candidate was wise enough to reach out to other campaigns. I ended up at a counting table with two good friends, all of us representing different campaigns, that made us all smile.

* When time savings are needed, some wisdom should be taken in what gets dropped. The Karen Clark nominating speeches after unanimous endorsement could have been dropped. However trying to hurry up the last votes of a contested endorsement took more time to discuss that the last count would take. Also, votes are perceived as a fairer way, that tends to unite the different campaigns after the fact.

Unusual things:

* it felt like there was a caucus proposed by every person who wanted to be a delegate

* There was a Franken - single payer health care caucus. Franken's proposal is only healthcare for children and let the states figure it out. That's a variation of our current health care system. Single payer requires a single universal health insurance pool, and a single health insurance coverage plan.

* Someone proposed a "Democrats against progressive taxation" caucus, who I really wanted to interview.

Barb Jacobs deserves a lot of praise for the convention running smoothly. As chair of the arrangements committee, she did an amazing job.

Great capture of the victory.

I've seen commentary that the uncommitted delegates are actually Franken delegates. If this is true (or the other way around), there were definitely shenanigans played. I was in the larger uncommitted group from the start and the organizers repeatedly emphasized their neutrality between the two candidates. What I can say is that both delegates were selected from the larger of the two groups that merged and that this group started as "uncommitted/defeat Norm Coleman"

and, for the record, the guy "against progressive taxation" later clarified that he got his name wrong and that he was "for progressive taxation"