The summary of Obama's speech doesn't quite do justice to its power: For that, read Addie below. I genuinely felt bad for John Edwards, who had to follow what seemed an unmatchable performance. But he did, and if the reactions in my immediate environs were representative, for many, his focus on concrete policy changes bested Obama's attention to a reengaged citizenry. Unlike Obama, Edwards did not lash himself to a particular theme. His was not a grand commentary on politics, except in this way: We need bold change, and it must be be now. His speech was nothing but that, a litany of bold changes he would make, or at least fight for, if elevated into office. It was not as inspiring as Obama's address, but it was much more concrete, and far-reaching, and in that way, more comforting. As Matt said, he was far better and more direct on foreign policy than he's been in past addresses, and he laid out a long scenario connecting energy conservation to a collapse of Middle Eastern dictatorships (without petrodollars, they'll need to invest in education and development) and widespread investment in Africa (from Europe). It was interesting stuff, and plausible, if a bit hard to recount. Easier to explain was the focus on humanitarian works as a centerpiece of foreign policy, an argument Edwards fleshed out in some detail, and displayed evidence conviction during.

What I have not yet seen is coverage of Hillary Clinton's speech. I saw snippets of her and Edwards being interviewed in a forum by Chris Matthews. I thought they both did quite well.

Does this matter? I have said before, I think not. Garance Franke-Ruta called this "a speech that truly mattered." She does not explain why. But consider that so far, in all the coverage I have read, no one has actually written much on what Obama actually said. This apparently was not "[w]hat I want to know," where the lines resonated throughout the campaign. But we will see.