26 August 2008

On Hillary's Speech (wow!)

BAM! Out of the park.

Senator Clinton's oration was, in turns, inspirational and combative. This was, truly, a presidential speech, and I can't help but wonder if, had she delivered something like this a bit earlier in the year, the presumptive nominee might be different. This was, far and away, the best speech she's ever given.

I agree, for the most part, with the The National Review's Jim Geraghty's summation. Yet while some viewers might find the Harriet Tubman reference a bit over the top, as Geraghty claims, many will embrace it. "Keep going" indeed.

Ah, well.

Her address to the PUMAs (and surely it was that) was most interesting; so interesting that I will return to it a bit later.

"A bit later": Aw, heck. Nevermind. I'll refer you to these OpEds:
Cenk Uygar's "Hillary's Best Line: 'Were You In It For Me'?"
I agree entirely. This was her best line. Well, this and the crack about how appropriate that the Republican Convention will be help in the Twin Cities, Bush and McCain being so similar and all.

Nora Ephron's "Hillary the Adominsher," which is a less approving look at the Senator's speech, but is a critique of the speech within the context of the Clinton campaign overall.

Yes, it's a HuffPo morning.

Added: The online Hillary Clinton meetup group tied to the CAACR ignores its heroine's admonitory speech: rather celebrate Senator Clinton's successes, it's become something of a clearinghouse for potential smears. Foci now include: the Berg lawsuit, Obama's Certificate of Live Birth (it's a "fake" you know), calls to make a smear video go viral, articles that cast aspersions at Michelle Obama. and a return to William Ayers. This is their right, of course, but as I've written before, it adds to the impression that it isn't so much "pro-Hillary" as it is "anti-Obama."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not certain I'd agree that the PUMAs have a "right" to defame. It's not protected speech.

mpandgs said...

True, true...but it is their right to kvetch. As far as I'm concerned, they can say what they like, but they should also be willing to meet the consequences should someone, say the Obamas, get fed up.