I wouldn't say it was a bad speech. It looks like the fears that Kerry would be overshadowed by Edwards and Obama were realized to an extent (you can add Sharpton's fiery rant to the list as well). It seemed to get the delegates on the floor worked-up, but at times the Fleet Center was a little too quiet for such an important address. It still seems that the party is united behind Bush-hating, and not the candidate, but that doesn't really matter.

It was far too thematic for my taste (the whole "help is on the way" thing came off like he was talking to a bunch of third-graders) and had very little substance on the issues. The ideas were there, but he didn't go into any detail on any of them (though you never expect that at a convention anyway). He also did very little to differentiate his positions from Bush's.

It's becoming clear that Kerry has no interest in running against Bush in a traditional sense. He's making this election about him (or more accurately, about his Viet Nam experience) and not about the incumbent. The Democrats feel that the public has already come to their conclusion on Bush, so all they need to do is make Kerry an acceptable alternative. This is a miscalculation in my opinion. Bush's approval rating is not a lost cause, and many of the most important indicators are trending upwards at the moment (Bush's ratings on the economy, Iraq, and the over-all war on terror were all up in a recent Zogby poll). I still feel that there is time for Bush to get back above 50%, and that events will be the deciding factor. In other words, this election isn't about Kerry or the issues- it's about Iraq and terror attacks.

His most striking proposal was his pledge to end the nation's dependence on Middle-Eastern oil ("...an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil...". It's a noble goal, but one that I doubt can be accomplished in the next four years (not unless you open up ANWR, that is...). I did not appreciate the implication that Bush's Mid-East policy is an oil grab ("...no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East."). That's some nasty innuendo, and patently untrue.

He only made one real mistake, a quote that Republicans will have a field-day with: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." While I'm sure it's not what he intended, this came off as "I will wait for Americans to die before I take action." That's batting practice for Bush supporters.

Over-all, I really don't think he accomplished much. There was absolutely nothing to latch-on to- no lasting images and no stirring quotes were made here. If the goal of this convention was to "not fuck up," as many pundits suggested, then he accomplished that goal. But if the goal was to state his case- introduce himself to the American public- he failed. He failed in this regard: this will be forgotten in a week. It will get caught up in the Olympics' media cycle, and even if the timing was better, Kerry did very little to make it memorable.

UPDATE: Something I neglected to mention- whoever did Kerry's makeup should be fired. He was very shiny, especially in the chin area. I was a deer caught in headlights, fixated on the glare emanating from his chin. It's either that, or he was having a Nixon moment.

UPDATE: Crank, as expected, has a ton on this. Start here and scroll down.

UPDATE: (7/31, 10:11 pm) This is a response to one of Jeff's comments, but due to HaloScan's character limits I am forced to post it here.

---

...Define "mainstream left" and "no one."

This brings up a good point. We all need to stop equating bomb-throwers who run blogs or talk-radio gabfests with the politician or movement they support. I’m sure (in fact, I know) there are quite a few people on the right who have come right out and accused Kerry of being un-American. These people are extremists, and I don’t want to be lumped in with them, as I assume the vast majority of liberals don’t want to be lumped in with the idiots who come up with stuff like “Bushitler.”

"Is the right saying that the Democrats are incapable of protecting the US or that they are UNWILLING to protect the US?"

I am personally of the opinion that the Democratic Party still does not understand the nature of this war. I get the feeling that while they use terms like “War on terror” at their convention and on the stump, they still consider this a “police action against terror.” There is no malicious intent on their part- they’re just wrong.

Now as for John Kerry, I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. He’s proven again and again that he is downright anti-defense (his post-Viet Nam actions, his votes against the Abrams, the Patriot missile, and almost every other major weapons system in use today, his vote for the unilateral “nuclear freeze,” his vote against the first Gulf-War, and his vote against funding the current Iraq war), or that he is willing to play political games with life-or-death situations. His talk of intelligence reforms ring hollow as well, after he spent several years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and is one of the several men we can point to as being directly responsible for today’s intelligence failings (that committee’s insistence on less human intel and more electronic intel was cited as one of the major flaws in the intelligence community by the 9/11 commission).

Also, his rhetoric about "restoring old alliances" shows how out of touch Kerry is with the modern conflict we face today. There's a good reason why France and Germany are "old allies"- they simply don't matter anymore. They mattered when they were in the middle of great conflicts of the past, but now they are marginalized (as is all of Europe). Kuwait is the new France. Iraq and Afghanistan are the new Germany. And- as much as I hate to insult the stalwart Brits- Saudi Arabia is the new Britain. Our alliances in the Middle East are what's important now, not those in old-Europe. With Kerry’s tough talk against the Saudis as of late, and his apparent distaste for nation building, I don’t feel he can foster these relationships.

I truly believe that if Kerry is elected Americans will die on American soil. Once again, I don’t think there is any malicious intent in his actions, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is dead wrong on everything relating to the war on terror. He is truly a patriot, in that he’s fighting for what he believes is right. Unfortunately, what he believes is right is wrong.