Oral Exam

Hillary's speech pointed out two problems for Democrats in the coming campaign:

First, the idea that Bush and McCain are ideological twins, impossible to tell apart, ignores that the feud between the Bushies and McCainiacs was bitterer than anything the Democratic Party currently experiences. These men became the opposite poles of their party, attracting two very different camps of followers. And McCain—as Bush found on issues from tax cuts to interrogation policy—could often be a pain in the neck. In the current political environment, that reputation has its benefits.

Second, Hillary's speech did nothing to refute her own main assault on Obama during the primaries—that he is inexperienced and untested in international affairs.  She did not even attempt to explain why he should be trusted with the 3 a.m. crisis call (her most famous and effective ad against Obama). Tonight, Hillary left Obama undefended against her own best attacks of a few months ago.

In this speech, Hillary's revenge was subtle—but it was revenge nonetheless.

MICHAEL WALDMAN

Hillary's speech was very effective—it did exactly what it had to, to the relief and then exultation of the people in the hall.

This was far from a foregone conclusion, not only because of bruised feelings.  Hillary began her campaign with weak podium skills.  As a debater, she proved immediately and startlingly strong, but her speeches were stentorian.  She grew enormously throughout her campaign.  By the end, Hillary had become a consistently strong speechmaker.  Her most effective presentation was as the voice of middlebrow populism.  She learned to lower her voice, lean in, convey emotion.  She wasn't quite there in delivery tonight - the teleprompter is not her friend.

Wisely, she hit her main note in the first thirty seconds.  With a lot of momentum, she endorsed Obama far more emphatically than I had heard her do it before.  There was little solipsism.  In a sense, everything after that was commentary.  Interestingly, she pitched her talk to her female supporters, rather than her working class supporters.

She did address, rather pointedly, two audiences.  Many of her supporters are still angry, as even casual conversations in the restaurants of Denver will make clear.  She asked them, "Were you in it just for me?"  I heard the Harriet Tubman-inspired riff, "keep going," as an exhortation but also an explanation of why Clinton herself kept going.

One more point on the earlier speeches in the evening, perhaps of interest only to a lapsed speechwriter and convention connoisseur.   The Dems needed a real keynote this year. After yesterday's session, there was little sense of the stakes.  Yesterday, nobody pressed the urgency of this pivotal election, the idea that our national greatness depends upon making the right choices, that there is a slow-motion financial meltdown, that the United States has plummeted in power in the world.  No sense, either, that Democrats believe in a different role for government, let alone have a plan to do something about any of it.

That's what the keynote is supposed to do.  Mark Warner was the keynoter. Let's just say that this speech is highly unlikely to propel him to the nomination four years from now.   "I don't know about you, but that's just not right."  "You ain't seen nothing yet." "China's going for the gold."  "America has never been afraid of the future, and we shouldn't start now." "We'll get it done." America has never been afraid of a cliché, and you ain't seen nothing yet!  In fact, the governors who followed him—especially Brian Schweitzer of Montana—were  rousing, funny and far more effective in conveying the stakes.  But what a difference it would have made had Schweitzer's speech been at the beginning of the week.  Bring back Mario Cuomo!