The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.

Mr. Taranto is covering the Democratic National Convention from Charlotte, North Carolina this week. The following is an excerpt from his observations of the first night’s speeches:

As for the political substance of the speeches, a few main themes came across.

First, the Democrats are eager to wage cultural war. They love abortion and same-sex marriage, although there was a telling rhetorical difference in the way they handled those two subjects. They are embarrassed by, maybe even ashamed of, their enthusiasm for abortion. The word itself was almost never mentioned. We recall it escaping the lips only of Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-abortion group that dropped “Abortion” from its own name some years back.

The euphemisms* for abortion are multiplying even if Democrats aren’t. They now include not just “choice” but “bodies” and “health care.” Mrs. Obama managed to get all three into one sentence: “[The president] believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care.” [*euphemism is defined as the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant]

There’s also a euphemism for same-sex marriage (as well as gays in the military): “who they love.” Mrs. Obama again: “If proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely, we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American dream.” San Antonio mayor Julian Castro, the keynote speaker, was more proper in his grammar: “When it comes to letting people marry whomever they love, Mitt Romney says, ‘No.’ “

Neither the word “gay” nor the phrase “same-sex marriage” appeared in either Mayor Castro’s or Mrs. Obama’s speech, which means no one watching the convention on the broadcast networks heard an explicit mention of homosexuality. We must assume the omission was deliberate. …

And earlier speeches were express. We walked in as Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado was holding forth, praising Obama for being “the first sitting president in American history to show his personal support for same-sex marriage.” Polis also made clear that this was personal, asking “I ask . . . my fellow Americans to respect my relationship with my partner Marlon and my role as a father to our son.” Later, the actor Kal Penn: “Three weeks ago, my buddy Kevin’s boyfriend was able to watch him graduate from Marine Corps training. That’s change!”

As we predicted last Tuesday, there were no appeals to the men’s vote and lots aimed at women, not only on abortion but on economics. We mildly criticized the Republicans last week for feminist pandering, but nobody does it like Democrats. One welcome exception was Mrs. Obama’s fond reminiscence of her father:

When my brother and I finally made it to college, nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants, but my dad still had to pay a tiny portion of that tuition himself, and every semester, he was determined to pay that bill right on time, even taking out loans when he fell short. He was so proud to be sending his kids to college and he made sure we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late. You see, for my dad, that is what it meant to be a man.

As we’ve noted before, it almost never occurs to anyone, liberal or conservative, that the expectation of complete sexual equality in the workplace, exemplified by Lilly Ledbetter’s 77-cent lament, is the reason that being a good provider is no longer what it means “to be a man.”

The speakers did talk a lot about economic matters more broadly, an awkward but unavoidable subject for the incumbent party after these four years. They touted what few “successes” they could, such as the Detroit bailout, but mostly their appeal was to fear (of cuts in government spending, and especially of Paul Ryan’s budget) and loathing (of rich people and specifically one rich person who used to be governor of Massachusetts).

They touted ObamaCare, another awkward but unavoidable subject. We thought the cleverest line of the night came from Mayor Castro, in the course of his “Mitt Romney says ‘no’ ” call-and-response:

When it comes to expanding access to good health care, Mitt Romney says, “No.”

Actually, Mitt Romney said, “Yes,” and now he says, “No.” Gov. Romney has undergone an extreme makeover, and it ain’t pretty.

The text doesn’t really capture the humor: Castro delivered the line masterfully, with a long, sly pause before “actually.”

Back to the Peggy Noonan question: Did the Dems “kill also in the country” [as she says they did on the first night of their convention]? One can only speculate, so, from bottom to top, here goes: We doubt ObamaCare will be significantly more popular at the end of the week than it has been for the past three years. And while the Romney flip-flop line was good comedy, we doubt its political effectiveness outside the Democratic core. Romney, after all, flip-flopped from an unpopular position to a popular one, while Obama, originally a strong critic of the idea of the individual mandate, flip-flopped from popular to unpopular.

Americans know the economy is bad, and it’s hard to imagine the convention speeches will convince them otherwise. By and large they don’t mind rich people, so that the attacks on Romney are boob bait for the base. But the appeals to fear may work. For a serious government reformer like Ryan, the biggest danger is being ahead of his time politically. One persuasive interpretation of George W. Bush’s presidency is that it all started to go wrong in 2005, when his proposal for Social Security reform landed with a thud.

Then again, in 2005 there was no economic crisis. When Romney chose Ryan, he made a bet that the Obama campaign would be unable to stir up enough fear of the unknown to conquer the fear of the known. Our money is with Romney on this one.

The appeals to women carry dangers. For one thing, as President Obama has observed (in a clip that appeared in one of the convention videos), “women are not an interest group.” The funny thing about this statement is that although it was insincere–Obama intended it as a bit of flattery directed precisely toward “women” as in interest group–it was also true. Women are not an interest group; they have a diversity of interests.

The relentless push for workplace sexual equality comes at the expense not only of men but of women who are married to men. That is part of the reason why, as pollster John Zogby noted in July, the “marriage gap”–the unwed tend to vote Democratic, the conjugated Republican–is “even more striking” than the endlessly discussed “gender gap.” Nor does the latter gap necessarily work in Democrats’ favor. Neither party tries to appeal to the male vote, but it’s possible the [Democrats] underperform among men because they are put off by the appeals to women.

As for the social issues, the Democrats seem to sense–and ample polling data confirm–that public opinion is moving in their direction on same-sex marriage and other gay-rights questions but not on abortion. That makes sense in light of expanding knowledge. As gays have become more visible, nongays have increasingly come to see them as decent and unthreatening. As unborn children have become more visible through technologies like ultrasound, people have increasingly come to see abortion as troubling if not barbaric.

Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, both parties will remain locked into extreme positions on abortion, which they will try to make the best of by emphasizing the other side’s extremism. As for same-sex marriage, the Democrats are gambling that public opinion has changed enough that the benefits of open advocacy outweigh the liabilities. But they’re hedging that bet–hence the “who they love” euphemism.

…Today word came that the Democrats, like the Republicans, have adjusted their convention schedule to accommodate the weather. The [Democrats] had planned a three-day convention all along, but proceedings were to have moved to Bank of America Stadium Thursday [which seats over 70,000], just as they moved to Denver’s football stadium four years ago.

Now because of the prospect of rain, Obama will speak in the same hall as everyone else. This actually may be better. It probably doesn’t matter to the TV audience, but to those of us who watched him in person in 2008, he looked awfully small in such a big venue. The ordinary hall makes for more intimacy and excitement, albeit with a smaller crowd [seats approximately 20,000].

And there’s the potential downside. Thousands of people with tickets to Thursday’s speech now won’t be able to get in. They’ll be ticked off if it doesn’t pour. Oh well, Elizabeth Warren is speaking tonight. Maybe she can do a rain dance.

For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”