I didn't watch the speech. I was on a plane flying to my 35th law school union. I got a chance to chat with supreme court justice Kagan for a bit. She is a very impressive person. Her discussion before with the law school dean and the ensuing Q and A were superb. More on that when I get back. She was quite revealing as to what goes on behind closed doors. I was also so very proud of the quality of the questions the law school kids asked. They were superb, sophisticated, pithy, and well phrased, and covered everything that I would have asked. It was really a joy to be surrounded by the "best and the brightest" as it were.
Enough about me; now about you. It seems that this forum has lost any veneer of objectivity it may once have had. The correlation between partisan preference and the grade given to Obama for his speech seem to be just about absolutely perfect. Does that bother anybody? Is anyone even a tad embarrassed by that? Or does each side now consider than other to have descended to the bottom of the hackery pit?
Just asking.
It was a speech to inspire those who voted for him once but may be disillusioned now. There was more substance than Romney's speech obviously, even you cannot deny that, but there needed to be more. At least to attract swing voters. In that department I would give this speech a C. Leaving that aside, I would give the speech either a B+ or an A-. I'll go back and see it and see if I need to re-evaluate but I don't think I do. The entire DNC was about turning out the base and this speech was a continuation of that, in stark contrast to Clinton's speech which appealed better to swing voters.
Also while Obama might not have mentioned the PPACA or the stimulus by name, he did mention what they actually did. I think that is a smart political move because the individual parts of those bills, especially the PPACA, are more popular than the whole. It was a smart political move, not a cowardly one.
Poll
