One was with her speech itself. It turned out, however, that it was an excellent speech. She delivered it very well. A bit of humor with the John Adams quote, and a slight tear in her eye with the audience reaction.
Another was how the audience would react. It wasn't that I was concerned about th…
One was with her speech itself. It turned out, however, that it was an excellent speech. She delivered it very well. A bit of humor with the John Adams quote, and a slight tear in her eye with the audience reaction.
Another was how the audience would react. It wasn't that I was concerned about them being outwardly rude. Rather, that they would simply cheer because it was anti-Trump, which I felt would be disrespectful. I was very happy with the "thank you Liz" chant. I felt that showed that the audience respected her courage, and integrity, when standing up to Trump in the Jan 6 investigation. It also showed an acknowledgement for, and respect of, the fact that there are political differences between her and the audience, but that she was there to do the right thing for the country.
The third concern was with if Harris' would respond with a speech where Liz would have to be standing next to Harris while, appearing to show support for, giving a speech on policies that Liz might not agree with. But that didn't happen. Harris gave Liz cover by showing support for a time when we can return to two parties passionately competing on policies. While the only policy issue Harris talked about was on Ukraine, something that Liz will be in complete agreement with.
I thought the whole thing was excellent. (if only I could say the same about Walz in the debate).
Agree with all save for your last sentence. I think Walz did fine against a slick venture capitalist lawyer who has gone from "Trump is Hitler" to "Trump is the savior (of me and my friends)" to "lying is fine if I do it". And Walz exposed Vance for what he is in the last few minutes of the "debate". And most of the articles I've seen think the same.
He left some of Vance's lies unchallenged. In particular that Trump saved the ACA. I would have also liked for Walz to have reminded Vane of his previous statements supporting an abortion ban. Had he done those two things, I think it would have blocked Vance's effort to seem like a reasonable person.
Tim Walz was not the smiling, waving person we knew when he was chosen, and at the beginning he was looking at his notes. But he came on strong against the constant lies of Trump/Vance.
I had a few concerns going into her speech.
One was with her speech itself. It turned out, however, that it was an excellent speech. She delivered it very well. A bit of humor with the John Adams quote, and a slight tear in her eye with the audience reaction.
Another was how the audience would react. It wasn't that I was concerned about them being outwardly rude. Rather, that they would simply cheer because it was anti-Trump, which I felt would be disrespectful. I was very happy with the "thank you Liz" chant. I felt that showed that the audience respected her courage, and integrity, when standing up to Trump in the Jan 6 investigation. It also showed an acknowledgement for, and respect of, the fact that there are political differences between her and the audience, but that she was there to do the right thing for the country.
The third concern was with if Harris' would respond with a speech where Liz would have to be standing next to Harris while, appearing to show support for, giving a speech on policies that Liz might not agree with. But that didn't happen. Harris gave Liz cover by showing support for a time when we can return to two parties passionately competing on policies. While the only policy issue Harris talked about was on Ukraine, something that Liz will be in complete agreement with.
I thought the whole thing was excellent. (if only I could say the same about Walz in the debate).
Agree with all save for your last sentence. I think Walz did fine against a slick venture capitalist lawyer who has gone from "Trump is Hitler" to "Trump is the savior (of me and my friends)" to "lying is fine if I do it". And Walz exposed Vance for what he is in the last few minutes of the "debate". And most of the articles I've seen think the same.
He left some of Vance's lies unchallenged. In particular that Trump saved the ACA. I would have also liked for Walz to have reminded Vane of his previous statements supporting an abortion ban. Had he done those two things, I think it would have blocked Vance's effort to seem like a reasonable person.
Tim Walz was not the smiling, waving person we knew when he was chosen, and at the beginning he was looking at his notes. But he came on strong against the constant lies of Trump/Vance.