Grading Bill Clinton's convention speech

There was never any doubt that this would be a good speech – the idea that somehow Bill Clinton would slip in some barb at Obama was just an effort to imbue the night with an extra shot of drama it didn’t need.

Clinton was superb for a stretch, marginal for another, thrilling to liberals and downright infuriating to conservatives the entire time – both because he played loose with some facts and, also, because he’s so good at playing loose with them.

This wasn’t a vision speech from a sage ex-president; it was much more… dare it be said… vice-presidential?

Yeah, yeah, yeah vice-presidential, and just hear me out.

He attacked Romney and Republicans relentlessly and with the abandon of a vice-president; not a top of a ticket guy. He didn’t offer much of a vision going forward besides “leave my guy in, he deserves it”, and he was much more ideological and less composed than politics usually demands of top-of-ticket-guys.

He was, as they say, unleashed, which how presidential nominees deploy their running mates. Yes, his unleashed is much better than Biden or Ryan’s, but this wasn’t an ex-president conferring grace to the proceedings. It was a very good, partisan performance to an adoring, partisan crowd.

Clinton wasn’t in soaring mode, he was in rallying the base mode, which again, was very… well, vice-presidential.

It all started with a bang when he said “I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside but who burns for America on the inside.”

That sentence showed Clinton was fully vested in the night’s relationship, and when he occasionally strayed into too much Me Talk, it wasn’t out of spite for Obama or as some surreptitious dig, it was just about liking himself.

The biggest, most telling moment in the entire speech came when he said “President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did”, and then talked about how no one could have turned the 2008 economy around – even himself!

That’s an incredibly self-effacing and generous statement from a guy not known for it.

He also squarely embraced the Democratic defensive on “build that” by talking eloquently and at length about “shared prosperity”, which is code for progressive taxation and income redistribution in the same way “investment” is code for raising spending.

“We’re all in this together,” Clinton said, and even though no one except John Mayer would disagree, it was clear that he was defending liberalism and not rugged individualism.

Of course, it brought the house down, but I think that the “build that” narrative is still strong for the GOP. The fact is this – Republicans chose to construct their convention on the “build that” comments, and Democrats are spending theirs trying to explain and define those comments. Clinton did it quite well, but it’s still Democrats who are the ones responding; not firing.

Another note: the speech played well on TV, but I think it played even better on the convention floor, and I think most people there might have missed how angry he seemed to get at points, how large the wagging finger seemed on TV, and just how long the speech was to people watching at home on TV.

Last week, Condi Rice brought the GOP convention’s house down, but only 2% of viewers mentioned it as the highlight of the convention. Why? Well, none of the people I talked with who saw it on TV were particularly impressed. They thought she talked a too loudly, lacked warmth, and played to the crowd. I was similarly “meh” about Condi’s speech.

Clinton had some of the same problems. It was superb at various points, but he seemed to be talking to the crowd and not those at home. In essence, TV viewers saw him at a rally, but didn’t go themselves.

Michelle Obama’s speech was much tighter, more subtle, and had more emotional dimensions. Clinton was a force of nature, yes, but Michelle was nature.

Grade: B+