Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

No, I didn't stay up to watch the speech. But plenty others did. Here, a selection of impressions:

"I was born in Colorado, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!" This was too much for Andrew Sullivan, who commented, "One thought sprang into my mind immediately: what an arrogant jerk."

The New York Times seems to be working hard to put a positive spin on it: "As an introduction to the candidates, the Democratic convention, on the whole, did its job. Now Mr. Kerry and John Edwards, who are still almost strangers to most voters, will need to reinforce their message before a team the public knows well arrives in New York to defend its record."

"There was nothing to hate in the speech, nothing to love. It was competent," says Jeff Jarvis.

Patrick Belton, blogging live from the convention, is more upbeat than Sullivan or Jarvis: "it's a strong speech, and sets out well his case. You wonder whether the other speeches this convention have been so bad just in order to make this one stand out." And then this, which will give cold comfort to the peace protestors: "The meat of the speech is his foreign policy case. Mercifully, he comes at the president from a hawkish, idealistic direction." Here's what Belton blogs in real time:

"We will add 40,000 active duty troops — not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle."

So, it all comes down to the war, then. Fair enough. It seems inevitable now that during the TV debates both Kerry and Bush will be asked what they will do about Iran. That'll decide it.