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! :-)
Good analysis, Irish!
Love your tag line
I've watched parts of the convention every night, and every single speech has been like that. The only difference is that he's actually not bad at delivery compared to the lesser lights of the Democratic party.
The promises made during this convention have been so sweeping as to be absurd. I'm hoping the Republicans will be better. If my memory serves, George W Bush laid out a clear four-point plan and he delivered on most of it, changing his focus only when the War on Terror intervened.
I strongly suspect I could have written a better speech, but it probably wouldn't have passed the bureaucrats who were in charge of the convention. The speeches overall were so dull and drab because they didn't want to antagonize voters. The problem is that I don't see a lot there to attract voters, either.
I think the convention would have been better if it had been only a couple of hours a night, and the speakers had been only the top-drawer speakers. Maybe the delegates could have been herded into educational sessions or something during the rest of the days. As you can tell if you read the entire thread (with almost 5,000 messages now!) being there for the whole event has to be some kind of endurance contest.
D