海角大神

It鈥檚 the day after the Republican National Convention, where Mitt Romney finally grasped his long-term goal of the GOP presidential nomination, so of course the question that鈥檚 roiling the American political world today is this: Was there something wrong with Clint Eastwood?

Movie icon Eastwood was the 鈥渕ystery speaker鈥� on the convention鈥檚 final night, in case you haven鈥檛 heard. He was on-stage at the top of the hour prior to Romney鈥檚 long-awaited acceptance speech. Convention planners probably expected he鈥檇 deliver a short, growling quasi-commercial composed of references to his past movies. You know, 鈥淭urn Obama every which way but loose!鈥� and stuff like that.

Instead he delivered a rambling monologue to an empty chair that represented Obama himself. (鈥淚nvisibleObama鈥� already has its own Twitter feed.) He talked about unfilled promises, and how Obama had many of them, and whether lawyers should even be president. He brought up Oprah Winfrey. He drew his finger across his throat in a reference to 鈥渉aving to let people go.鈥� He pretended that the unseen president in the chair was mouthing obscenities.

To be charitable, it was unique. That鈥檚 the word the Romney camp is going with. Ann Romney told CBS News this morning that Eastwood 鈥渋s a unique guy and he did a unique thing.鈥�

It's possible that Eastwood's evident emotion appealed to independent voters who have previously judged Romney too stiff.

But lots of other people would use a descriptor other than "unique" for Eastwood's approach. 鈥淏izarre,鈥� maybe. 鈥淒isjointed.鈥� 鈥淯nfathomable.鈥� 鈥淲orst performance since last Michael Moore movie.鈥�

鈥淚t was entertaining, but it was weird,鈥� wrote conservative Erick Erickson on his RedState blog, going on to defend the speech as an 鈥渦nscripted conversation of an independent voter coming to terms with the end of the Obama love affair.鈥�

Then there were the really negative reviews.

鈥淐lint, my hero, is coming across as sad and pathetic,鈥� tweeted movie critic and Twitter star Roger Ebert as Eastwood spoke.

Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza judged Eastwood the biggest loser of the night.

鈥淔or a night in which the undercard leading up to the primetime speakers was the best of the three nights, Eastwood was a totally unnecessary distraction that had to leave the Romney convention planners grimacing,鈥� he wrote.

鈥淜ooky, long-winded,鈥� said CBS News 鈥� in a news story.

Look, here鈥檚 our reaction to Eastwood making the Obama campaign's day:

First, this makes screenwriters look good, doesn鈥檛 it? You thought those actors just spoke that way from the heart. No, they鈥檙e speaking lines, and this shows what happens when they make up their own.

Second, somebody in the Romney camp is going to get their rear handed to them by the candidate, if they haven鈥檛 already. Conventions are supposed to be tightly scripted. This is why. It is hard to believe that Eastwood walked on stage without prior approval of his talk, but it appears that鈥檚 just what happened.

Third, so what? It鈥檚 true that commentary on Twitter about Eastwood鈥檚 speech is swamping references to Romney, but tweets are no guide to electoral results. The Eastwood speech, like 鈥淓tch-A-Sketch,鈥� Obama鈥檚 statement that the private sector is doing fine, Romney鈥檚 dressage horse, and so on, will matter little in the context of such fundamentals as the jobless rate and consumer confidence.

It was fun, though. 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 something to like or dislike; it was just something to appreciate, and marvel at, and to remember to thank television, in its twilight years, for all the great moments it鈥檚 given us,鈥� wrote Jonathan Bernstein on his A Plain Blog About Politics.