Just getting ready for the Hillary speech like everyone else. Dickie Morris on Fox said that Hillary’s job tonight is just to make sure that everyone regrets not picking her. No. Her job is to send all her buddies towards Obama. Let’s see if she does it.
Well, she did what she was supposed to do. At first, I was worried. She came on a little strong at first about her 35 years in the trenches and her supporters. She failed to mention all the people who voted for Edwards. But she very clearly said that her supporters had to go to Obama. She was nice about Biden and Michelle.
Hillary was also the first speaker to go negative. She said over and over that we don’t want another Bush in the White House. No McCain. It was the first time that this convention, at least on prime time, has gone negative. They needed that. It’s nice to pretend that Bush and Iraq and McCain don’t exist, but some people need to be reminded. Since she went negative, Obama won’t have to do that as much.
Hillary’s speech skills are just average. No wonderful lines to walk away with. The same formula. But Hillary’s best when she’s speaking plainly. And she did that tonight.
I’m amused by the bloggers who are actually at the convention. Being there doesn’t seem to give one any better commentary on the big speeches. My spot in front of my living room TV seems to be a lot more comfortable their blogging room. What I am getting from them is the lovely details of how difficult it is to attend this conference and the lunacy outside the convention halls. The bloggers at Bitch, PhD explain that it’s terribly hot and the blogging lounge is annoying and there’s some odd protests going on. Steven Green gets some loonies on tape. Some people aren’t really interested in how the sausage is made, but I find it fascinating.
Apt. 11d 
What about: No way, no how, no McCain. That was pretty good. I also liked the sisterhood of the travelling pantsuits, but not really for repetition.
But the line of the night, not from Hillary, is that McCain is “not a maverick, he’s a sidekick.”
LikeLike
She oversold the no way, no how line, but it was good. The crowd clearly loved it. And I did smirk at the traveling pantsuits line. But nothing that is going to inspire spontaneous song on a YouTube video.
Who said the McCain sidekick line?
LikeLike
On the question of whether bloggers on site are worth much: I thought the Kaus stuff (which you mention below) about the pushback on unions was very interesting, and not something you in your living room woulda, coulda had anything on unless he had been there.
That and their own take on mood – the MSM talks about bitter-ender Hillaryites, it’s worth reading blogger anecdotes.
LikeLike
An evil conservative blogger has suggested the following non-standard drinking game: take a drink every time HRC says “Obama” during her speech.
LikeLike
I think Hillary is actually a very dynamic speaker (having seen her in person as well). We don’t have many women orators to whom we reference, but her delivery is always excellent and her speeches are well-organized. In addition to the lines RCProv mentions, I also liked her reference to Harriet Tubman, “If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If there’s shouting after you, keep going. Don’t ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.”
That said, the orange pantsuit juxtaposed with the DNC blue signs–all I could think of was “Let’s Go Mets!”
LikeLike
I think the Obama camp was in a no-win situation — they obviously couldn’t keep from offering Hillary a speaking slot, but no matter how genuinely supportive she was of Obama, the speech was only going to remind me how much I’d rather be voting for her. And it did.
LikeLike
“the orange pantsuit juxtaposed with the DNC blue signs–all I could think of was “Let’s Go Mets!” oof. Just hated the color of that pantsuit. I was thinking Sherbet Parfait the whole time.
LikeLike
Maureen Dowd hated Hillary’s speech.
LikeLike
I think Maureen Dowd hated Hillary,no? not her speech. I haven’t heard it (not big on hearing speeches — is there a transcript?). I think the “sisterhood of the traveling pantsuit” is a little bit too culturally specific/time-limited. But, I have loved the pantsuit itself, and the standardization of clothing for a woman president. The pantsuit is a symbol of what Hillary has done in this election. She’s shown women (and girls) how to look and act like a president. It does crack the ceiling, and as a mother of a daughter, I respect and admire her for having done it (even as I dislike all the things that Dowd complains about — and, mind you, if Obama does not win, I will blame Hillary, at least in part).
LikeLike
PS: I read the transcript. It didn’t do what I needed (as a dedicated Obama supporter). What I needed was a speech that made me think “Well, I certainly can’t blame Hillary for anything that happens next.” Why did I need that? ’cause I think it’s really really important to all democrats that Obama win. Why does she need that? so that I’ll support her when she needs it, if she needs it.
LikeLike
— and, mind you, if Obama does not win, I will blame Hillary, at least in part
The real question is, will you be willing to assign any of the blame to Obama?
LikeLike
If he looses in 2008, it won’t matter whether I blame him. He’ll be done as a national politician, and what I think about him (as someone who doesn’t live in Illinois) doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
“He’ll be done as a national politician…”
Isn’t that a bit much, given that he’s only been a national figure for about four years, and he’s only been a senator for 3.5 years? That’s an awfully fast window to go from obscurity to presidential candidate to obscurity again. Most people would have thought that Biden didn’t have much of a career ahead of him after the revelations of 1987, but here he is again, with a good shot at the vice presidency. Never say never.
LikeLike
Well, I’m a complete outsider, not a Democrat and not keen on them, despise both Clinton’s, and surrounded by people who are enthused about Obama mainly because he is black, slick, and smart.
From my perspective Clinton did exactly what she intended to do: gave a speech which enables her plausible deniability for what responsibility for what looks like it might happen. She was, as she and her husband have tended to be, transparent in her pursuit of her own self-interest. I would have thought that would mean she was unsuccessful (as bj seems to think). But I heard plenty of commentators saying that she did everything that could have been asked of her — even in one case “a resounding endorsement”. I watched the speech on TV, and heard not a single word specifically about why Obama would be a good president. So, if I were a Democrat I would be wanting to throw her out of the party at this moment. But then, if I were a Democrat I’d have wanted to expel her husband for lying to his entire party about the Lewinsky affair (and for numerous other things). So, that might help explain why I’m not one.
LikeLike
Well, I’m a complete outsider, not a Democrat and not keen on them, despise both Clinton’s, and surrounded by people who are enthused about Obama mainly because he is black, slick, and smart.
From my perspective Clinton did exactly what she intended to do: gave a speech which enables her plausible deniability for what responsibility for what looks like it might happen. She was, as she and her husband have tended to be, transparent in her pursuit of her own self-interest. I would have thought that would mean she was unsuccessful (as bj seems to think). But I heard plenty of commentators saying that she did everything that could have been asked of her — even in one case “a resounding endorsement”. I watched the speech on TV, and heard not a single word specifically about why Obama would be a good president. So, if I were a Democrat I would be wanting to throw her out of the party at this moment. But then, if I were a Democrat I’d have wanted to expel her husband for lying to his entire party about the Lewinsky affair (and for numerous other things). So, that might help explain why I’m not one.
LikeLike
“surrounded by people who are enthused about Obama mainly because he is black, slick, and smart.”
Ick. Really, the people around you disagree with Obama’s politics, but like him because he’s “black, slick, and smart”? I like smart in my candidates, but as far as the other stuff, it’s never going to over come a disagreement over fundamental issues (take Bobby Jindal, who appears to be slick, smart, and brown, but attracts absolutely no following from Obama-folks).
LikeLike
Yeah, Amy, never say never is a good plan for all things. And Obama is young. If he doesn’t bring the dems to power in 2008, he may have another chance at the national scene in 2028, as some other candidates veep.
LikeLike
Oh no, bj, they agree with his politics (in as much as they can tell what they are). But that doesn’t explain their enthusiasm for him, I don’t think (they broadly agree with Mrs Clinton’s politics, and with Al Gore’s, and John Kerry’s but have no enthusiasm at all for them.
BTW, I’m not a Republican either: more a very left-wing social-democrat with mild socially conservative sympathies. So, far to the left of the Democrats for the most part.
LikeLike
Would “polished” be a politer way to say “slick”? (I think there may be a semantic continuum here, something like slick–smooth-talking–smooth–polished–eloquent, with the connotation improving as you move from left to right.)
LikeLike
Well, I guess I could get behind the idea that I’m enthusiastic (in addition to supportive) about Obama because he’s eloquent, smart, and his personal background speaks to a wider more diverse America. I support him because I agree with his politics (or at least agree with them more than the other viable candidate).
LikeLike
It was Senator Bob Casey with the line of the night. Voting 90% of the time with Bush: “that is not a maverick; that’s a sidekick.”
LikeLike