You can go read all the news stories which talked about it and analyzed it as well as I can. You're missing my point. After the Republican Convention, who did people talk about? That's easy: Clint Eastwood. He stirred up the Republicans. Clint's speech was effective. After the Democratic Convention, who did people talk about? Bill Clinton. He was effective. Democrats discounted Clint's speech, but that doesn't change the fact that it was effective. Republicans equally had issues with Clinton's speech. That doesn't change the fact that it changed the whole excitement level of the Democratic Convention. Clinton's speech exceeded expectations. Any Convention would love to have their base stirred up as much as Clinton did the liberal base. Why would Clinton give such a stirring speech if he disliked Obama and wanted him to fail?
In addition to wanting Chelsea to live and maybe wanting Soros to support Hillary in a 2016 Presidential run, Clinton may also have known there was deep crap going on in Benghazi and the entire Middle East (US arming terrorists) that Obama could have turned on Hillary as a fall guy any time he wanted.
Plus, I think both Bill and Hillary are aware of the weapons at the disposal of the person who occupies the White house, if you know what I mean. If they’ve got dirt on Petraeus and Allen (which they can get by snooping through communications without any legal justification whatsoever) then they’ve got dirt on Hillary and Bill too.
I don’t think anybody doubts that the Clintons hate Obama, or that Obama hates the Clintons. He only had Hillary as SOS in order to try to get Hillary’s supporters to tolerate him, and to keep his enemy close at hand where he could publicly throw her under the bus if she ever acted like she’d step out of line. Same thing with Biden. He had to be VP because he knew what had happened to clean up Obama’s passport file at the Passport Office, since he was the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee which oversees the State Dept. If Obama was ever ousted and Biden became POTUS, Congress would immediately have grounds to impeach Biden for treason, since he knows all about Obama’s ineligibility and was bought off by the VP position.
So it was a “great” speech w’out a single great line you can cite? Really? That’s pretty embarrassing even by liberal standards.
Clinton is a washed out, sick-looking lying pervert. Sure he stirred up the base. But the Dem base also got stirred up about being forced to add a single reference to God back into their platform. Stirring up the prog base is not hard. You just push their anti-conservative buttons and they go haywire. The fact that Stain-on-the-Blue-Dress-Bill got them stirred up says more about their moral squalor than about the greatness of his speech.
Unless, of course, you can cite ‘Bill’s’ two or three greatest lines and explain their greatness. Of course you cannot, but here’s a second opportunity anyway. Go hog wild.
Or, if you can’t find two or three good lines in the entire speech, how about just one? Surely it couldn’t be a ‘great’ speech sans even a single great line...could it?