I’ve long been among a very small minority of pundits who believed that, in toto, Barack Obama was a good-not-great public speaker — on a par with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The reason I’ve held this eccentric belief is that Obama has been incomplete. He gives the inspirational, thematic speech better than anyone in memory. But he has been moderate-to-mediocre at the policy speech, not even close to Clinton on that front and often worse than Bush, IMHO.
In this speech, however, Obama combined his characteristic eloquence when it came to aspirational rhetoric with a very strong policy case — much stronger than he’s given for health care in the past (in a major address), and better than many of his other policy addresses. He used anecdotes, statistics and analogies well (for instance, comparing the public option to public universities rather than his normal example, the beleaguered post office). Most important, he explained complicated policy ideas in an understandable way. It took him several months of lackluster performance to hit his stride as a policy wonk, but he finally got there. The combination made it one of his best speeches ever.

I also thought that he calibrated the moral message better here than usual. In the past, I’ve criticized Obama for emphasizing (to put it in Biblical terms) love rather than justice. Emphasizing altruism rarely works politically (even if it’s the right thing morally).
This time he combined an emphasis on generosity with one about the injustice of playing by the rules and getting crushed anyway. He did so in the portion quoting the letter from Ted Kennedy:

“What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country….”
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.
That large-heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

Standing “in other people’s shoes” and “fair play.” Love and justice. The combination was so potent that it prompted Rod Dreher, no fan of Obama’s, to write, “This part of his speech challenged me as a Christian, and it will color my thinking as I try to figure out what the right thing to do on health care is.”
One sour note: Obama equated the accusations his plan would pay for abortions with the lies about death panels and illegal immigrants. Abortion is more complicated. A plausible case can be made that in the House bill, at least, some federal dollars would end up indirectly paying for abortion, especially in the public option. This may become moot soon if Obama backs the abortion approach in the Baucus bill in the Senate but in the meantime it struck me as disingenuous to imply that pro-life complaints are in the same league as the other falsehoods.