Acceptance speeches at political conventions have only one rule: Say nothing that your opponent could later use to embarrass you. After that, the smart candidate satisfies his most pressing potential shortcoming. In John Kerry’s case it was to introduce himself as a strong leader, capable of handling whatever crisis the world might produce. President Bush had three tasks Thursday: Persuade the public the war against terrorism was going well; demonstrate that all the spitting and snarling this week at Sen. Kerry was really an expression of GOP hope and optimism; and, most tricky, assure both his base and those still undecided that his domestic agenda is just what they need.

It’s important to remember that an acceptance speech is a campaign document, not an encyclical – there’s no point going through it line by line to look for inconsistencies; they are there, but they aren’t important. Tone, word choice and enthusiasm count for more, and when the president was speaking about the war against terrorism, he had it right.

It would have gratified and reassured many viewers to hear him discuss more fully “a miscalculation of what the conditions would be” in postwar Iraq, that he had described earlier, but that would have violated the rule of speechmaking. Instead, the public was assured the president abides by “the transformational power of liberty,” has faith in “vibrant, successful democracy” and believes “that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century.”

Care to argue about any of these?

After the attacks during the week by Vice President Cheney and Sen. Zell Miller, President Bush could disagree more mildly with his opponent’s positions. His comments about the Massachusetts senator were well within the bounds of the campaign, but taken with the stronger words of the other two they reinforce the dark, unpleasant image that Democrats use to describe the GOP. The contradiction of the president’s words of hope and the week of attacks on Democrats may sit well within the party, but doesn’t seem likely to attract swing voters. Is the party accepting of a diversity of opinion or does it stomp on those who disagree?

To meet the third objective, on domestic issues, the president spoke in code. “A simpler, fairer, pro-growth system” stood for a flatter tax system that helps those at the top of the scale. “We will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time,” for limits on overtime. “Ownership society,” for fewer government services and more tax cuts. “A nest egg you can call your own,” for privatizing Social Security.

There was little for the president to lose in offering these ideas. Voters seem to want the barest of assurances on domestic issues to be satisfied. The president provided as much as was needed. The war against terrorism, despite Democratic hopes, remains the larger issue. That makes the news from Iraq more important than any campaign speech or television commercial.