Rate Bill Clinton's speech

[J. J.]

9.  (10 on delivery.)

Too retrospective at the start.  Citing Eisenhower was silly.

Some of the claims of "bipartisanship" by appointing Hillary were silly.

"Keep hoping" is not a solution to the economic problems.  The economy is the elephant in the voting booth.

Too long.  He probably as well as he could in the circumstances.

[J. J.]

"Keep hoping" is not a solution to the economic problems.  The economy is the elephant in the voting booth.

And more and more Americans realize that the Republicans would rather have the economy fail than see Obama re-elected.

No, more and more Americans are realizing that Obama has failed the county.

[J. J.]

After many long years, J. J. is on the verge of hitting my ignore list.

Please.

BTW, some of the same criticism I made about Clinton's speech I made about Romney's speech (which I rated lower).  9/10 on substance with 10/10 on delivery is huge.

But yes, he cited Eisenhower.  He was 10 when Eisenhower was last elected.  Anyone 73 or younger was too young to vote for him. 

The problem is the economy, and Clinton's statement was he thought it was getting better, but many or most people didn't see that.  That echoed my posts from yesterday.



 

[J. J.]

Romney/Ryan is complete toast.

Not from a speech. 

[J. J.]

How common is it for the Presidential nominee to be at the convention before the day of their speech?

Wasn't Romney?  Didn't he do the walk-on too?

It was under extraordinary circumstances, but Reagan was in 1980.  Both GOP candidates might have been in 1976.

[J. J.]

10/10. Yeah that was damn near irrefutable. Not surprising J. J. is grasping at straws in his rather pathetic attempt to do so as so always does.

I gave it a 9 out of 10, with a 10 for delivery.  

I can thing of an absolutely devastating speech Ted Kennedy gave at a convention.  Great speech, bashed the opposition candidate.  Had the delegates chanting in response and cheering.  The keynote speaker was almost as good.

Kennedy's tag line was, "Where was George?"  It was 1988.  The keynote speaker was Ann Richards.

I could make the same argument about Powell's speech in 1996, at the RNC.

I can only think of one or two examples where non-candidate's speeches made a difference.  1884 and 1992.  Both were negative.

The candidate's speeches can make a difference, but these secondary ones generally don't.  It is "a" speech.  I'm saying the same thing about Warren.