Hillary Clinton has always had enthusiastic supporters and her “official” campaign launch speech on Saturday was no different: there is nothing more demonstrative of your undying affection for someone in New York City than going across boroughs to see her, let alone going to see her on relatively-inaccessible Roosevelt Island (which can only be reached by tram, through one subway station or via a two-lane bridge from western Queens) on a weekend morning.

So most of the thousands of people who made it to Four Freedoms Park were voracious consumers of Clinton’s laugh lines (the one about not going grey in the Oval Office because she’s been dyeing her hair for years killed, even though she’d used it before) and the specifics of her policy-heavy speech.

It felt like a homecoming because, for the former Senator from New York, it was. If it felt familiar to those who watched her concession speech in Washington DC a little more than seven years ago, well, that’s because it was. Elderly ladies who were born when women couldn’t vote, veterans who need her help, working moms, the thriving middle class and women who need equal pay all made appearances at and in both speeches.

There wasn’t much new in Saturday’s speech, if you’ve been paying attention since she hopped in the race but then political speeches are often rehashed applause-lines and recycled promises. Politicians are always scared of going too far, of ad-libbing themselves into a viral video clip that eliminates their chances, of letting out an enthusiastic Howard Dean scream that the foolish persons on the tube in their ill-fitting suits can make fun of to fill airtime.

Clinton is no different in that regard and probably more cautious from years of doing everything that men do, but backwards and in heels.

The problem isn’t that politicians’ speeches are never really new, or that Clinton’s first big speech cribbed heavily from her last big speech and every one before that.

The problem is that stump speeches have to be delivered with the kind of enthusiasm that invites the audience to suspend their disbelief in politicians’ work. And, if Saturday was any guide, Clinton needs to be a little more car salesman-esque and a little less wonky.

Look: liberals always say that they want a wonky candidate who can discuss infrastructure spending and climate change without stumbling over the details, and woe betide a candidate who gets caught not remembering the capital of some country or failing to explain with the proper attention to detail the problems with the Bush Doctrine.

But when push comes to shove, America votes for George W Bush over Al Gore, for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter ... and liberals already once voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton despite there being less daylight between them on policy than would be allowed at your average junior high school dance.

Policy specifics

Clinton can definitely gin up a crowd — her turns at rallies for candidates last November were fired-up-ready-to-go goodness, longer on the sisterhood-of-the-travelling-pantsuit-breaking-the-glass-ceiling stuff that makes many liberal women voters woozy with recognition and shorter on the policy specifics that bore most people to tears.

And if she didn’t know herself how to woo voters and her speechwriters couldn’t figure it out, goodness knows her husband — as one attendee pointedly referred to Bill — knows how to make that happen. But somehow, after the enthusiastic entrances and the truly thrilled smiles while on the trail for herself, she looks down at her written speech and just ... delivers it, totally competently. And competence is great!

Everyone probably does trust her to pick up the phone at 3am in an emergency; more than a few of us would be quite happy to crack a few bottles of wine at her favourite restaurant in Chappaqua and talk about people who annoy us, or even just throw back a few whiskey shots with her at a pizza place.

But Obama didn’t beat her in 2008 because people wanted to have a beer with him. He won in large part because he made people feel something when he was up on that stage, something they couldn’t define and which can’t be explained solely by the historic nature of his campaign or his win — both of which Clinton would have on her side, too.

Women’s ambitions

Obama made people feel as though his win would be theirs, as if they were part of something bigger then themselves in a really tangible way. Many, many Clinton voters felt that way in 2008 — especially women of her generation, who saw so much of themselves and their ambitions for all of us in her.

She has picked up more younger fans in the years since. But she needs to convert her supporters to stand, transmogrify her followers into proselytisers willing to preach the Gospel Of Hillary, and she needs to do it fast and by dint of her own charisma. Because, after all, the criticism is coming, both from the conservatives who have always hated her and the kinds of progressives who would rather lose a race than concede their support to any kind of policy centrism.

In the weeks and months ahead, as the various other candidates sling manure at her to try to knock her off of the top, Clinton’s going to need an army of shield-bearers to talk to their friends and their neighbours and anyone who will listen about how much Americans need her to be their next president.

At the rally today, she asked people to volunteer to knock on doors. What she needs to be is so exciting as a candidate that people just can’t shut up about her.

— Guardian News & Media Ltd, 2015