The conventional wisdom on conventions suggests a HUGE Obama night

If you listen to many pundits, here's the running verdict on the Democratic and GOP conventions, so far:

Bill Clinton > Michelle Obama > Marco Rubio > Condi Rice > Ann Romney.

Doesn't it seem like each, great, new speech is treated as better than the one before?

So which is it? Did Michelle Obama's speech save Barack's reelection effort or was it Bill Clinton's?

The formula I just listed in bold only has one common link -- it's chronological.

Which is why I'm fully expecting that in 14 hours, conventional wisdom will rewrite that formula to look something like this:

Barack Obama > Bill Clinton > Michelle Obama > Marco Rubio > Condi Rice > Ann Romney.

Then suddenly we'll hear: Clinton's speech was fine and dandy, but it's really unfair to suppose that a speech from a guy who was elected 20 years ago could rewrite this election's history.

We'll hear that Obama had to do it himself, that he did, and that he finally told the persuasive story he's been missing for four years.

That's simply a guess, but chronology seems to be the great arbiter of rhetorical greatness this convention season; not greatness itself.