Talk Trashing

In a bizarre attempt to downplay the impact of Hillary Clinton's brave, forthright endorsement speech last night, The New York Times published an undermining lead to its coverage of it. Patrick Healy's breathless, incoherent article included this coverage of the speech and its background:
...

[Clinton] described her passion about her own campaign. And her aides limited input on the speech from Obama advisers, while seeking advice from her former strategist, Mark Penn, a loathed figure in the Obama camp.

But the main task for Mrs. Clinton at the convention — reaffirming her support for Mr. Obama in soaring and unconditional language — dominated her 23-minute speech, and she betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels, friends say, and that has especially haunted her husband.

It appears that Mark Penn (in combination with James Carville?) is first driving the selfless tone of Hillary's endorsement, then gutting any personal praise of Obama (the main thing the TV networks have picked up), and then spinning the press on background and stepping all over Hillary's lines to emphasize the harsh feelings still remaining (but which all agreed "she betrayed none" of). Hillary's speech itself, as well as her delivery of it, are beyond reproach, making the simple point to her supporters that she and Obama agree on virtually every main policy decision. That should be enough, she implies (and she is correct in that).

Tonight Bill Clinton will pay out some more praise--beware of double-edged compliments. At least he should be able to get across the main point of the campaign. Biden should sharpen viewers' appreciation of Obama's relative merits, as someone who understands diplomacy and America's place in history, in comparison to feverish warhawk McCain.