It’s absolutely ludicrous how badly The New York Times wants to paint these protests as a replay of Chicago in 1968:

In a few dozen blocks of the same slender island, two worlds collided yesterday: the Republican convention’s calculated claims to patriotism and the presidency met elaborately planned and heavily Democratic street protests that turned those same arguments back at President Bush — in ways that might help, or hurt, both sides.

The demonstrations were New York City’s biggest in decades, and the most emphatic at any national political convention since Democrats and demonstrators turned against each other in fury over Vietnam in Chicago in 1968. But the first day was overwhelmingly peaceful, and the demonstrators doused a good bit of Mr. Bush’s intended message with television images of dissent.

Now, I’m not old enough to go spouting off about how things were back in 1968 — but please. “Most emphatic”???

The protesters are actually in a lose-lose situation. If they don’t cause trouble, then they don’t upstage the convention’s pre-packaged message.

But if they do cause trouble, then they reinforce the convention’s pre-packaged message: “We’re strong on defense, and we will protect you from bin Laden AND from hippies.”

For now, they’re playing their hand about as well as they can — making a show of numbers, but keeping it peaceful.

And what, by the way, are “calculated claims to patriotism”?