I take it back; conventions aren't a waste of time.

I've mentioned I think the conventions are a waste of time.

Well, I may have to backtrack on that.

After reading a ton of compliments to Clinton's speech, Linda and I Youtubed it and watched the whole thing.

I thought it was more a prosecutor's presentation at court than a speech. A point by point dismantling of the Republican agenda. This is the kind of speech we would make in high school debate -- point by point refutation of the opponents argument. Elementary. I was wondering why no one does this anymore.

Though coming from anyone else it would have probably seemed pedantic and rambling.

But every word counted -- even the folk-isms that he prefaced his biting remarks with. When he attacked, he seemed conciliatory. When he defended, he seemed to be on the offense.

Takes some brass.

I watched the conservative commentators for a few minutes -- but they apparently saw a different speech. Where I saw Clinton bow respectfully to Obama, they saw Clinton taking a bow. (heh, fair enough...)

Anyway, as much as I loved the speech, I don't think it isn't something that Obama could do, or a thousand other politicians.

But why bother, in most cases? The media is only going to pick 20 seconds of any speech for broadcast. The more any politician veers from the safe and tidy, already vetted, innocuous remarks, the more trouble he or she can get into to.

So the national conventions do still have a role. If they can get people to sit down and listen to a nicely reasoned, common sense speech for 48 minutes, more power to them.