In the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, I heard a lot about Kerry being a good "closer." He closed well in Iowa. He closed well in 1996 when it looked like Weld was going to beat him. Joe Klein wrote a column a while back in which he quoted an unnamed Kerry aide who had worked with him in six different campaigns and said: "I've been with him through six campaigns, and he always scares you in the beginning . . . but he's always right there in October." I never quite understood why this was so praiseworthy, and made me wonder why he wasn't getting his act together sooner. But after watching tonight's speech and this week's damn-near flawless convention, I'm beginning to understand Kerry's political talents.

[...]

To me, Kerry seems like a very good poker player. He plays a few hands, but folds a lot in the beginning without gambling too much. During this time, he sort of feels out his competition. As he gets a better sense of who he's up against, he gets stronger and stronger, and leaves with everyone's money by the end of the night.

Overall, Publius rates the convention a success:

I mean, think about it - I just watched a Democratic Party on the verge of collapse in 2002 stay on message for an entire week pounding home the themes of patriotism, family, faith, and unity. I was shocked at how prominently the military and religious themes were emphasized. If you at home didn't particularly care for the simplistic appeals to nationalism, that's the point - this convention wasn't for you. You're probably already voting for Kerry. [...] After this week, the GOP is going to have to play defense on a subject they assumed they would never ever have to defend. Trust me, this convention will create anxiety within the White House.

The one concern that Publius raises is whether the entire display was totally disingenuous, aimed only at converting relatively conservative swing voter in swing states, or whether it is the first step in a refashioning of the Democratic party (and therefore of viable leftish politics in America) into something new and dynamic, able to survive the onslaught of Republican incursions in the culture war.

It's an interesting question, and one that I'm looking forward to Publius exploring further. At this point, not being privy to the planning of the convention in order to know what level of cynicism it was created with, all I can do is answer for myself, an atheist, and a liberal, and a patriot, and a firm believer in the core values this country embodies, who generally cringes when people wrap themselves in the flag or exploit it for for nefarious purposes: I was genuinely moved a number of times during the speeches, and the level of symbolism never bothered me in the least (as far as I saw -- I didn't watch the entire thing gavel-to-gavel). The calls to faith and the mentions of God seemed to me to be honest and sincere and without guile or cynical purpose, and were therefore completely unobjectionable to me.