John McCain has just finished one of the most effective speeches of his political career from the floor of the Republican National Convention. It was rife with patriotic imagery and rhetorical flourishes commending President Bush's leadership in defending America. What is more, as a politician who is widely viewed as bipartisan and a war hero, he was a wise choice to be the first Republican speaker to bring up the memory of the September 11 attacks. Overall, it must be regarded as a top-notch speech.

What, exactly, did he have to say in this admirable piece of oratory?

Aside from his somewhat lackluster endorsement of the President, McCain devoted much of his speech to a defense of the War in Iraq. He did not break new ground with any of his main points--that America could not wait for Saddam to rearm, that we are safer today as a result of the war, that we have brought freedom to a region that has so long been ruled by tyranny--though he was much more effective in his case than others in the past.

Inherent in this logic, however, is the belief that a significant percentage of the majority of Americans opposed to the War in Iraq can be pursuaded to vote for the President regardless of their true feelings. The theory goes that even those who did not support the war can vote for the President on account of his strength and decisiveness. More clearly, Republican operatives and some pundits will claim that people in opposition to the war will easily drop their misgivings and vote for the man who instigated the military action. This is highly flawed logic.

Although I was never one to consider myself to be a part of the anti-war movement (I was, and still am, highly ambivalent on the issue; that is to say, I have very strong feelings both in favor and against the war even today), I think I can grasp the general sentiment of its people. For the large amount of Americans who were initially against the war and continue to be against the war, there is no way they will vote for the President, so McCain's speech was clearly not aimed at them.

A second group of Americans, who perhaps make up between 20% and 30% of the country, may have been in favor of the war at one time, but now are not on account of a number of reasons (American deaths, cost, lack of WMD, to name a few), and it is these people whom McCain was addressing. Perhaps a handful of these moderate voters will be instantly wooed and change their mind on account of this speech, but I can't imagine that most will.

McCain's speech will not lower the great cost of the war, nor will his sections attacking America's former allies bring in new international support. McCain's rhetoric may have been highly meaningful and interesting, but it will not make rebuilding Iraq any easier, nor will it find the WMD that Bush once claimed were in the country. Lastly, and most importantly, McCain's speech may have been highly effective in rallying conservative voters to his cause, but it will not stem the immense loss of life this country is suffering in Iraq.

Perhaps some movement will be seen in the polls following tonight's speech, and maybe it will appear as though a majority of American's once again support the President's vision for Iraq. When America loses its thousandth troop in the coming weeks, however, and there is no end in sight to the continual bloodshed in Iraq (nor a real hope for democracy their or in Afghanistan), I can assure you that most Americans will be more weary of this conflict than Senator McCain.

John McCain may have advanced his 2008 candidacy for the Republican nomination tonight, but his speech will not dramatically shift the electorate. He could have drastically affected the race by being more honest with the American people about his many disagreements with the current Administration, but his desire to cowtow to the conservative primary electorate meant more to him than his standing will all American people. As a result, even if his speech was popular with wingnuts and some pundits, it cannot be deemed the great success it could have been.