Gabby Giffords leading the DNCC in the Pledge and Jennifer Granholm’s fist-pumping, eye-winking tour de force.
The three big campaign themes Democrats bring out of the convention into the general election.
St. Louis TV station reports canceling Todd Akin TV spots after not receiving payment.
Romney: “If last night was the party, this morning is the hangover.”
Democrats’ big night in Charlotte followed by worse-than-expected unemployment numbers.
We don’t know how much conventions matter anymore. The electorate is more polarized and media coverage is more suffusive. But if they do matter, it’s hard to imagine a convention better staged or messaged than the one the Democrats put on for the last three days. Three blockbuster speeches. Actually a few more, but one biggie a night. But more than that a coherence to the core message that every major speaker returned to again and again.
As I noted in my live blog, the President’s speech began in a textbook, pretty unexceptional way. But it started building about half-way through. And it became clear — at least it seemed clear to me — that the more plodding style was intentional. The President’s advisors didn’t want that inspirational, rhetorical flourish avatar from four year’s ago. They wanted something steadier and more sober. But then it started to build, loftier and more aggressive. On balance, I think it was exactly the speech they wanted him to give.
This was an aggressive, in your face Democratic party.
My gut tells me that the President and his party had a much, much better couple weeks than Gov. Romney. So far though, there’s little to show it in the polls. In fact, we’ve gotten very few quality polls out at all since the beginning of the Republican convention. We’ll know more soon.
10:25 PM: Just got the text. About 4400 words.
10:35 PM: Maybe I’m overwhelmed by recent great speeches. But so far at least it feels sort of unexceptional.
10:37 PM: I wouldn’t say the delivery is off. It’s more that the speech itself seems intentionally even-keeled rather than soaring, transactional, a series of particulars. I’m sort of curious whether it’s intentional.
10:42 PM: As I listen to this, I’m more and more convinced the tenor of the speech is strategic, intentional. I don’t think his campaign wants a soaring speech. And well, they didn’t get it.
10:46 PM: Okay, tempo picking up a bit. And with a harder edge than we’d been led to expect vis a vis Romney.
10:49 PM: Now picking up momentum.
10:51 PM: There was no sense in the writing of this speech that they wanted to keep the president above the fray, above naming his opponent.
10:52 PM: ‘Citizenship’, the counter-attack to the “You Didn’t Build This” bamboozlement.
10:55 PM: “You Did That”
10:58 PM: Building to a very strong finish.
11:02 PM: Getting masterful. We know President Obama can do great speechifying. I’m thinking more the text of the speech, the structure and the different goals it addressed at different points.