"Can you hear me in the back? Because I can hear you."

The above words were said not by my soon-to-be nine year-old niece's substitute teacher, but by Dennis Kucinich at a DNC meeting at which the Dem presidential candidates were given the chance to "introduce themselves."

As Dana Milbank writes, the candidates were given six minutes to speak and were allowed to have supporters bring no more than 100 signs into the hall. What actually transpired was 1) Every single candidate went at least double the allotted time, and 2) Hillary Clinton's supporters violated the sign limitation most egregiously, bringing in at least 300 HILLARY! posters.

Well, I'm convinced.

More or less representative of this bunch was Chris Dodd, summarized thus by Milbank:

Dodd, in his Phil Donohue hairdo, opened by noting that "sometimes, the introductions go on longer than my remarks." Not this time. He went on about Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt and his 2-year-old daughter. At 10 minutes, he offered what could have been a rousing finale: "We're not going to take fear for an answer any longer in America."

During the applause, Dean stood up and attempted to reclaim the microphone. But Dodd wouldn't budge. As the timekeeper raised the red "TIME" sign repeatedly over the next 10 minutes, Dodd quickened his pace and added phrases such as "Let me also add here quickly."

Leaving aside that Milbank does not know how to spell "Donahue." It is well to remember that Bill Clinton gave the worst speech in the history of the world, non-Fidel Castro division, when he placed Michael Dukakis's name in nomination, in Atlanta in 1988. It was then that a rule of thumb was born: if your biggest applause line includes, "Let me conclude . . ." you're in trouble.

And, if reference to the above quote by Kucinich, if the audience takes advantage of your speaking time to visit the bathroom and return cell phone calls . . .

I always wonder about these events. First, do these candidates believe that length is a product of status? Second, they think they're saying anything new, or anything revelatory? Take gun control. I know as I sit here that, whether Hillary or Obama or whoever, when asked about guns a year hence, will say, We must get guns out of the hands of criminals while repecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen . . . Just as We must maintain the security of our borders without disrupting the rights of our citizens. Just as (if applicable) I voted for the war based on the faulty intelligence. Blah blah blah.

And third, don't they think briefer speeches might garner them some favorable press, even the thanks of a grateful constituency? I remember at the 1980 Republican Convention, the last with anything you might call real drama, George Bush the elder was given twenty minutes of speaking time on the third, the nominating, night. He spoke for ten minutes, waved, and was gone. Walter Cronkite nearly fell out of his chair. Speak for less time then alloted? Did that just happen?

Some hours later, Ronald Reagan tapped Bush as his running mate. And a Bush has been on a national ticket in six of the past seven elections.

Did brevity lead to the Vice Presidency? No, not directly; call it good karma.

Fourth, don't any of the candidates know that the greatest speech ever by a sitting President was ten sentences long?