Tonight I have to disagree with the pundits:

1. Warner's speech was great. He was a much better orator than anyone else on the dais, hands down. I still wish he were VP, but he's going to make a great senator. I'm not sure why the audience inside didn't like it more (not enough call-and-response?) but they were never the point. The point was middle America watching on tv. He nailed that group. And as David Gergen pointed out, when was the last time you heard a major political figure discuss science and technology in a speech? If Al Gore could've cribbed some lines, he might have picked up some points. (And I love Al Gore!)

2. Schweitzer was just the opposite. I found him a little too jokey and filled with energy. He kept bouncing around like a ball onstage. Of course, he was able to whip the crowd into a frenzy, and many of his lines were good soundbites (drilling in John's McCain's numerous backyards, for instance). Conversely, he also had some horrible puns that left me thinking Warner seemed far better.

3. HRC was good, but the expectations had been lowered so much that she didn't need to do anything at all. I'm still not sure why the media is lapping up the RNC-based idea that Clintonistas hate the Obamanauts, but it clearly isn't true. She said what needed to be said, and got the crowd going to boot. But at the end of the day, HRC is just not that gifted a public speaker. I expect more from Bill tonight, to be honest. He is truly a great orator.

The Media, on the other hand, thought HRC was "amazing" and that Schweitzer was "the best speech yet" and that Warner was "clearly a bomb". Apparently, treating the American people as anything less than idiots is beyond the VRWC.