She even made MSNBC commentators happy. Heckuva speech. My criticism is not of her, but of the commentators. She's been saying the same thing for weeks. It shouldn't have been a surprise.
A couple of things struck me in Ron Fournier's analysis: 1) He said she emerges "as a central voice in American liberalism"? Liberal? Being insufficiently liberal did her in in the primary. 2) His reference to "a speech laced 17 times by some variation of the pronoun "I." Variations? Without context, this is a cheap shot. You'd have noticed only if you were looking.
Elsewhere, the wicked witch of the NYT didn't disappoint. But coverage and commentary in the Times, Post and LA Times were otherwise strongly upbeat. Of course, there are the Roger Simons of the world, who say Hillary still has more to prove in the runup to the general election, even as he sniffs at the irrelevance of second-place candidates. For his kind, nothing will ever be good enough.
No way, no how, no McCain. I believe Clinton meant it. How could you want four more years of the last eight years? Gene Lyons says it well.