One thing off the bat: Kamala Harris has managed to get through basically a month – including Thursday night’s acceptance speech – without so much as a single public instance of her trademark, cringe-inducing cackle. 

Add a second stipulation: the Democratic Party isn’t actually an America-loving, freedom-protecting, tax-and-budget-cutting, crime-fighting, border-protecting, military-building-and-honoring, Israel-backing, China-challenging, ayatollah-inhibiting collection of true-blue, red-blooded patriots.

But every four years or so, they play one on TV.

Denigration, distortion and outright defamation in reference to Republican opponents? That they’re good for 24-7-365, year-in, year-out.

Put it together – or better yet, lurch between the two poles in whiplash-inducing fashion with a pointless, seemingly endless opening monologue /travelogue thrown in – and you’ve pretty much summed up the Democratic nominee’s speech.

Oh, yeah. One more thing.

A stirring center section and soaring slam-bam consummation demonstrated that the emerging electoral danger from the party’s sudden standard-bearer should not be misunderestimated.

A potentially world-record number of “thank-yous” – to the boisterous crowd, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff and the long-forgotten Joe and Jill Biden – was followed by a meandering, cliché-ridden soliloquy about her early life that had this viewer screaming on the inside for the speaker to get to her point, or any point.

That is, until she did, with five ringing words stemming from her beginnings as a prosecutor that she would have done well to construct the entire speech around, if not her entire campaign: 

“Kamala Harris. For the people.”

A thousand-dollar bonus to the speechwriter who expertly crafted the bridge from that campaign-in-a-box to the classic money line officially accepting the nomination, folding into the definition of people “everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth.”

Followed by the hope of further uplift, introducing the “fleeting opportunity to move past the bitterness, cynicism, and divisive battles of the past” and a (Trumpian, as it turns out) pledge to be a “president for all Americans.”

But then: a head-jerking descent right back into said “bitterness, cynicism and divisive battles,” in a sequence as dark as the candidate’s prim, proper black pantsuit and bow-festooned blouse.

“Donald Trump tried to throw away your votes.” “Throw away” potentially illegally cast or outright manufactured votes? How, exactly?

“When he failed, he sent an armed mob to the United States Capitol.” Except no protester was armed, and Trump urged them to march “peacefully” to the Hill.

“When politicians in his own party begged him to call off the mob and send help, he did the opposite. He fanned the flames.” Multiple witnesses have attested that Trump tried to mobilize National Guard troops in advance, but was rebuffed, including by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi who copped to culpability on camera that very afternoon.

“And now, for an entirely different set of crimes, he was found guilty of fraud by a jury of everyday Americans. And separately, found liable for committing sexual abuse.” Dangerous territory given that blatant Democratic weaponization of the judicial system has only boosted the Orange Man’s electoral prospects to date.

“Consider his explicit intent to set free the violent extremists who assaulted those law enforcement officers at the Capitol.” You mean first-time offenders held in pre-trial solitary confinement and sentenced to prison for such crimes as “parading around the Capitol?”

“His explicit intent to jail journalists. Political opponents. Anyone he sees as the enemy.” Uh, sure you’re not confusing The Donald with your own boss painting half of America as representatives of “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of the republic?” 

“His explicit intent to deploy our active-duty military against our own citizens.” Was that Mr. Trump threatening to sic F-16s on legal gun owners?

“Consider the power he will have— especially after the United States Supreme Court just ruled he would be immune from criminal prosecution.” Under very limited circumstances involving official acts.

“We are not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare.” Nice try. The Donald bucked GOP budget hawks, insisting they keep hands off old-age entitlements.

“And we know what a second Trump term would look like. It’s all laid out in ‘Project 2025.’” That again? Puh-leez.

And on to (somewhat) mischaracterizing Trump’s tariff proposals as a “national sales tax” (a subject for another day); claiming he would “enact a nationwide abortion ban” (he insists on a state-by-state approach) and appoint a “National Anti-Abortion Coordinator” (huh?); and asserting he “ordered his allies to kill … the strongest border bill in decades” (unnecessary because it was a toothless joke that would allow in at least 5,000 illegals a day).

Then – more whiplash – another sudden change in tone. Now Commander in Chief Kamala (perhaps the four most frightening words imaginable) is forcefully standing up for U.S. interests around the world against “tyrants and dictators” and standing by our NATO, Ukrainian and Israeli allies. 

The “last person in the room” when the decision was made to abandon billions in weapons and equipment to the nation’s mortal enemies will “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

And now she’s skyrocketing to a stratospheric summation, energetically channeling her mother to encourage Americans to “show each other — and the world — who we are. And what we stand for. Freedom. Opportunity. Compassion. Dignity. Fairness. And endless possibilities.”

“To fight for the ideals we cherish. And to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on Earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.”

Is this new Cackle-Free Kamala credible? Who thought the No. 2 many Dems wanted dumped from the ticket months ago would now be neck-and-neck with a once-resurgent Trump in the polls?

Could it be that Americans impressed by her turn to a spunky, self-assured style could also be convinced she is turning over a new leaf?

All that need be understood for now is that a candidate capable of playing a very different Democrat on national TV Thursday night may just provide a perennially underprepared Donald Trump a very different debate experience than the one he benefited from June 27.

Bob Maistros, a regular contributor to Issues & Insights, is a messaging and communications strategist, crisis specialist, and former political speechwriter. He can be reached at bob@rpmexecutive.com.