It was fascinating to see the Democrats set the stage for Hillary Clinton’s speech climaxing the second night of the Democratic Convention in Denver.

The tape running below the picture on the television screen during last night’s proceedings informed us that there are 250 “gays and lesbians” at the convention, “about 6 percent of the total delegates.”  That is high representation for a special interest group given that experts report that homosexuals comprise roughly 2-3 percent of the general population.  In addition, the television cameras often focused on the dignitaries section of the center balcony with vice-presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden, and Michelle Obama.  I was amused to see Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, clearly visible behind Senator Biden’s left shoulder.  There was no way to miss seeing her.  I didn’t hear the pundits comment on Mrs. Smeal’s prominent placement, but I can imagine the comments if Mrs. Beverly LaHaye or Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly were so privileged next week at the GOP convention.  Obviously, the Democrats know how to appeal to their base and provide the appropriate imagery for their constituencies.

During the day Tuesday, the media talked about Senator Robert Casey, Jr.’s, appearance at the convention that night and much was made of his pro-life beliefs and the fact that his father, a former Governor of Pennsylvania, was denied a speaking slot at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his ardent pro-life stance.  The implication, of course, was that things are different now and that the Obama-Biden ticket embraces a wide range of beliefs.  In fact, Senator Casey commented that his presence “shows Senator Obama’s respect for those who disagree with him.”

A last-minute shuffling of the schedule kept former Virginia Governor Mark Warner out of prime time, perhaps because he was expected to be “too moderate.”  David Gergen, a CNN political commentator, predicted that his remarks, billed as the keynote address, would be a typical “good guy” counterpoint to Senator Clinton’s “bad guy” remarks that would come later.  The change put the television focus on “red meat” remarks by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.  Both men’s fiery delivery warmed up the audience for Senator Clinton.

From that point forward, the convention belonged to Hillary.  The guys who sold Bill Clinton as “The Man from Hope” developed a video introducing Senator Clinton as an inspirational leader who is “calm, cool and collected” — not to mention attractive, warm and likeable.  On the issues, she was portrayed as “one tough cookie!”  As the documentary focused on her achievements, it mentioned her childhood ambition to become an astronaut.  The voice-over noted that she didn’t become an astronaut, “but she reached for the stars!”  The Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, gave a brief introduction: “My mom’s dreams are not about her life; they’re about the future.”

With the incredible build-up to her speech, the pundits tried to manage expectations, but everyone agreed that she had to show authenticity, she had to support Obama and she had to encourage her supporters to switch their allegiance to Senator Obama.  She knew — we all knew — that every word, every expression and every nuance would be analyzed.  Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, was in the balcony, and he also knew his every expression would be analyzed; there were numerous close-ups showing the facial expressions that we recognized from his eight years in the White House — the intense stare, biting his lower lip, the contained pride, and the serious, faked smile with the “I know the cameras are on me” expression.

Mrs. Clinton arrived to great fanfare.  She had on a flashy orange-gold pants suit.  She has been on Weight Watchers’ diet program and looked fit.  Her less-wrinkled, 60-year-old face prompted speculation that she was botoxed for prime time.  The audience was a sea of white placards with the distinctive Hillary signature.  Many of her supporters were teary-eyed with what might have been, while the clinched jaws of others revealed their unwillingness to accept defeat. 

Hillary was more poised than ever before and gave her best speech ever.  She was clearly well-prepared and ready to deliver her finest hour in politics.  She had powerful delivery without a single stumble.  She looked and acted “presidential.”  Senator Obama will have his work cut out for him to come up to the standard that she set in her speech last night.  She had the crowd in the palm of her hand; she was at the top of her game.  As CNN commentator Candy Crowley said after the speech, she delivered on all the requirements laid down for her performance.  She even had humor (“sisterhood of the travelling pants suits” and Bush-McCain as indistinguishable as the twin cities — Minneapolis/Saint Paul — where the GOP convention will be held) and sound bites (“no way, no how, no McCain”).

Mrs. Clinton’s home-run performance puts pressure on Mr. Obama when it’s his turn on Thursday night.  James Carville, Democratic strategist, confidant of both Clintons and a self-identified biased observer, said she made it a “bad night for the Hillary haters.”  He called her speech a “Major League, Hall of Fame” performance.  Gloria Borger, a CNN political commentator, was “astounded” at Mrs. Clinton’s generosity as the losing candidate in a hard-fought primary campaign.  Borger called Hillary “the most generous and gracious of any politician in memory.”

Senator Clinton was authentic, but hardly gracious or generous.  If you listened uncritically, it would be easy to say that Senator Clinton was wholeheartedly behind Senator Obama.  She appeared enthusiastic and seemed to fully embrace the Democratic candidate and accept the fact that he beat her in the primaries.  But a close look at her expression and a close reading of her speech text revealed a different story.

She was authentic in that she supported Senator Obama without going one whit further than was necessary.  Praise for him would have been gracious and generous, but she couldn’t quite bring herself to do that, and any attempt to do so would have been obviously insincere.  She chose to talk about her agenda and link Obama to her causes.  She essentially said that her supporters should get behind Obama because now that was the only way to enact her platform.  Senator Clinton talked about the importance of party unity and having a single purpose; she said “it is time to take back the country we love.”  She talked about “us all being on the same team fighting for the future” and declared that they must “win together.”  Finally, she challenged her supporters by asking if they “were in it for me” or for the issues that were necessary “for our children’s future.”

A close examination of what she said about Senator Obama reveals almost no actual content.  She didn’t make any personal comments about him.  She didn’t say that he was “ready to lead.”  She didn’t alter the assessment she gave during the primaries at all.  Her highest praise was that “Barak will improve lives.”  Charles Krauthammer, Fox News political commentator, agreed that she gave a bravura performance, but that she made “Obama an accessory to her.”

I was particularly fascinated by Senator Clinton’s open identification with the feminists.  She did not campaign as a women’s candidate until late in the primaries.  Yet, during her remarks at the convention, she emphasized the historic nature of her candidacy framed in the context of the feminist movement.  She seemed to be carving out her historical place among the feminist pioneers.

As usual, it was “all about the Clintons.”  She was obviously someone who plans to return; she clearly was not giving her political farewell.  Even while speaking words in support of Obama, she looked and sounded like a candidate.  She seemed to be saying, “Here is what you gave up this time around, and I’m ready for the next time.”

Karl Rove, the “architect” of President Bush’s electoral victories, estimated on the Fox News channel that, at this time, 25-35 percent of Hillary’s supporters will not switch their allegiance to vote for Senator Obama.  Campbell Brown, a CNN news anchor, reported that “at least a hundred” women were demonstrating outside the convention center — wearing Hillary buttons and chanting for McCain.  Rove thinks the number of Hillary die-hards will fall to 15 percent over the next couple of months, but believes a significant number will never give Barack their support.  If he is right, that lack of support for the Democratic candidate could be a deciding factor in the November election.