The aftermath

David Brooks: “A very good speech.  Very nationalistic.”
Mark Shields: “John Kerry needed to give the speech of his life.  He did.”

Golly, did we see the same speech?  Kerry was near-rabid throughout, making only the vaguest of outline on how he would lead the nation.  He misrepresented his own record on so many issues: NAFTA?  Never heard of it!  Iraq War resolution?  What about it?  Voting against funding for soldiers? Let’s move on! I don't know nothin' about no Patriot Act!

At nearly an hour, the speech was a grab-bag of benefits without a hint of responsibility (except for those awful “rich” people).  What will America do about the untenable situation on Social Security?  “I won’t privatize it.”  Duck and cover.

I agree with Polipundit – a lousy speech.

Also - here we go again, dragging out 4-year-old Jack at 11 o'clock.  Whatever.

Other thoughts - Mark Kilmer: "The attacks were merely scurrilous and unfounded snipes. It might be best for the Bush campaign to push this convention to the side and say [sic] on message. Kerry's not a winner."

Wizbang - "What's Kerry been doing for the last 19 years? If record of accomplishments seems to have stopped with his three months of in theater service in Vietnam."

Captains Quarters - "Most of where Kerry defined himself relied on comparing himself to Bush, a sure sign that Kerry fears his ideas only stand up in opposition, not in leadership."

Instapundit: “I don't think it will swing the momentum in his favor, which is what he needed. It may turn some people off.”

My prediction: a 2-3 point PR bump that disappears in a week.