But Democrats might hesitate at the idea oftacitly endorsing the administration of L.A. MayorRichard J. Riordon, who many moderate Republicanshope may come to present a new face for the partyin future year.
However, Goddard says, conventional wisdomabout politics might not apply to the conventionsthemselves, a fact Boston officials made clear tothe visiting Democrats.
"In fact, we had someone on our staff researchthe conventions that were held in Los Angeles,"she says.
"[In the] majority of times, that party'snominee did not win the presidency."
Still, the mere fact that the top prospects forthe convention are located in bell-weather states;Miami (Florida,) Philadelphia (Pennsylvania,) LosAngeles (California) and Boston speaks to theconvention's primarily political role.
Another big concern: Boston's traffic, sure tobe exacerbated by the Tip O'Neill's going awaygift to the city, the Big Dig--and majorrenovations at Logan International Airport.
"We stressed the fact that this is a walkingcity," Goddard says.
"We expect fewer delays [in 2000] than we havenow.
Show Them!
Denver has pledged nearly $23 million dollars;Los Angeles has said they'll cough up more than$35 million. Whichever city is lucky enough tohost the convention can expect an economic boostof at least $100 million, not to mention hours ofnational television exposure.
With competitors in organization, money, andprestige, how realistic are Boston--andHarvard's--chances of landing the 2000 convention?
Steven P. Grossman, the general chair of theDemocratic National Committee and the man who canveto the site selection's decision, told TheCrimson that Boston "is going to be a player rightinto the finals."
"It's got the goods," he says.
However, Grossman, a life-long native of theHub, says he won't overrule the committee'sdecision.
"I must remain an objective cheerleader," hesays with a slight twinkle in his eye.
After November's decision, "we'll send sometechnical people [to the finalist sites]," hesaid.
"In January, we'll make our final decision.