Well, the political junkies are just wondering how many different things he stole from how many different speakers. "The best is yet to come," indeed.
Oddly enough, the delivery wasn't bad. He summoned a bit of passion into his speech. I'd say it was about as good as Edwards last night, but of course not even close to Clinton. If Kerry and Edwards spent time together practicing speeches, it gave Kerry what he needed.
That being said, he did go too fast. But he was passionate and my impression is that this is not normal for him.
But the content of his speech is the real problem.
I think a lot of his speech will come out as incomprehensible. For instance, what on earth does he mean by "let us never misuse ... the constitution of the US"? Only his fellow political junkies are going to get that one. I don't even get it, and I thought I was pretty well informed.
Here's another example. He said something about the nation divided into red states and blue states. I don't think non-obsessives even know what that means. We do here on FR, but that's because we're better read than the swing voters. It was a great line for us, and for those in the hall, but I don't think it would resonate with someone not obsessed with politics.
His speech seemed too disjointed and unfocused to get much positive attention. From my cynical point of view, which I suspect is similar to that of swing voters, I think he promised a lot he could not possibly deliver. In my view he simply did not have credibility.
Now, I know the conventions are places where you generally will do this, but George W Bush has a pretty good record of delivering - or at least trying in good faith to deliver - what he's promised. I have to give him a lot of points for focus and integrity.
I don't think this speech was enough to quell doubts about Kerry's leadership. It doesn't seem like he's done anything worthy of mention since Vietnam. If we stipulate that he was great in Vietnam, why is his life not full of additional achievements, perhaps more relevent to the Presidency?
I'm confident that President Bush is going to give a much better convention speech. I don't think Kerry's was good enough to provide an appreciable bounce.
We'll find out in a couple of days if I'm right.
D
It was a ktchen sink speech, not a thematic speech. Try this: when you wake up tomorrow, try to remember one substantive thing he said. On the other hand, he didn't make any major flubs. The sweatiness was a problem; a lot of people think that sweaty people are liars.
Just read what you said, and I agree, in the main.
I'm an outsider (I'm in Ireland), and the main problems I find with the speech are the sweeping generalisations.
It's a massive 'I will do' this, without saying how. Like a collegiate student union election - full of grandiose ideal, but without the 'oomph' to make any real change happen.
Solid, traditional voters will see this as perfectly fine - allowing them a basis to air-punch and yahoo.
Swing voters? I don't think so. There is a lot of bluster, but little substance there.
I could have written that speech for myself.
And delivered it better.
Maybe I'll be elected as chairwoman at my next musical society meeting! :-)