I hope that Obama literally laughs this speech and Rudy's speech off.

Because accused terrorists don't have rights.  Because they are not entitled to a presumption of innocence.

The initial commentary from MSNBC is fairly positive, at least from a style - presentation POV.

Little old lady on the floor is crying with joy, because Palin shows that if you are a good American woman you can be ready to do the job.  She's done it all, she and McCain will keep us safe. She's lived all our experiences.

Ann Curry says that many women in America will relate to her and think that she gave them "straight talk."

Absolutely the wrong speech for Palin to give tonight.

She needed to focus on her own coming out than giving an Ann Richards speech, as she did tonight.

She was ill served by McCain's advisers tonight.

Dropping back out now.

The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define `change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change.

And that nasal quality to her voice is grating.

However, liberals who have been around the block a few times have been conditioned to understand that the conservative base eats this stuff up.  And because Republicans have won so many elections with exactly this sort of rhetoric, there's a certain sinking feeling like "here we go again."

Most of the talking heads that you see on TV fall into the same category.  They genuinely have no clue how real people will react, but they've seen this kind of rhetoric work in past elections, and so they react like "ooh, that's gonna leave a mark!"  But in reality they're just guessing.  They live in a bubble where the only people they talk to are other bubble-dwellers who are just guessing as well.

The bottom line is that elections are still won in the middle.  And while this conservative red meat may energize the base, I haven't seen any sign that the independents are close to buying into it this year.  They're worried about issues, they're worried about the economy, they're not looking to fight the culture war no matter how badly the GOP wants to bang that drum one more time.

I'll conduct my usual canvass of independent voters tomorrow but I think Palin is still seen, by and large, as a gimmick pick.  Some portion of that reaction is unfair, but it is what it is.  And I don't think people outside the conservative base saw anything tonight that would make them think, I was wrong, this woman ought to be Vice-President.

First of all, I was listening to a speech which appreciated small white towns, but which effectively excluded by the way she did it a lot of people. this country is a multiracial country but you wouldn't know it from that speech. All those not in her small white town dream are not there at all.

Second, the only major national issue she genuinely spoke to was oil and gas, not energy generally, predicable from her history. Nothing else about the economy. Nothing useful about foreign policy, as if it didn't exist.

The attacks on Obama were simplistic to the point of stupidity. A swipe and Michelle with the pride reference. The references to Iraq and the war on terror were lame and simply do not respect or acknowledge the ambivalence of many people in small towns and large about the war on terror and the war. A lot of pokes at community organizing, without reference to his legislative history as if it didn't exist. More pot shots at his speeches. And a nasty snipe at the cultism that Republicans would like to believe is there. But nothing of substance or policy criticized, as if there were none at all.

but I was interested in her repeated insistence that military participation is essential, for a man I guess.

What else that was interesting is that there was presented a feminine mode alternative to the sophisticated and learned Hillary. Someone by comparison without polish,  not knowledgeable about issues, shamelessly so. Populist. Reminds me of Huey Long, but the problem is that there are a huge lot of people who cannot identify with her very limited experience as if their own.  

Again, she was waving that baby in a place it had no business being, its head flopping (not a good Idea for Downs babies) but there he was, being held up for photos and moving from lap to lap to lap.

She is a forceful speaker, but her sarcasm is not well placed, and much of it was stock. From the talking points. There is a nastiness to it which is unpleasant.

TL is to go the way of DKos and Company

Big Tent Democrat ain't coming back...

I knew they were counting on Dem infighting over identity politics to help them get past the ideas obstacle; to Palin's slight credit, she didn't mention Hill, although Rudy sure did, and to a rousing ovation--Senator Clinton is not human if she is not angry about what is being done with and to her.

But back to your anger atr the Miranda Rights line.  That was hugely important.  The sheer brazenness with which she and Rudy mocked both intellect and our institutional bulwarks against totalitarianism, turning them into laugh lines.  

Seriously, you think this is somehow a knockout blow? About MCCAIN?!?!

Here's a tip: all the propaganda about McCain being an agent of change is a LIE and is not playing well anywhere outside of the GOP convention hall. It is a sitting duck to shoot it down.

She is genuine, engaging, appealing, smart and a very good speaker. She showed some substance and knowledge (but those things will be established and judged later in the campaign and in different situations).

I think the press will like her, and her coverage will be significant and positive. She is attracting, and a tough cookie--a Saracutta.

Her speech, and the shots of her family, were very emotional. I can't recall a better political speech that I have ever seen (I admit that I have probably not seen many of the best).

My 18 year old daughter, a complete Obama supporter, was attracted by Palin and her speech. She said she would support Palin, except for her views on things like abortion. My daughter is a possible convert.

My wife, a Hillary supporter all the way and a lifelong dem who now supports Obama, also reacted positively to Palin. I suspect it was the mom, kids, baby with problems, son in military, and genuineness things. If Palin were not a repub, my wife will support her for sure.

I thought I would like Palin, and I loved her--based on tonight. I cannot support Obama, because of his lack of experience. I also question his substance. I voted for Hillary in the primary.

Palin will make the election even more interesting.

And I didn't like how they passed the baby around like a stage prop.

But I'm also a student of history.  I know a good speech when I see one.

That was a fantastic speech.

Sarah Palin was given a moment in history.  And she took it in her stride. Like she does this sort of thing every day.

I've seen politicians with decades more experience fade in moments like this. She didn't.

The speech appealed to the base, without the tone of nastiness that pervades many right wing speeches.  But she also appealed to key swing voter groups with her talk of small town America, reform and service to the country.  And she showed some of her expertise on energy.

And I can't dispute at least some of her attacks on Obama.  I made similar ones during the primaries.  So did most people on TalkLeft.

For those who want to continue the experience debate she put another arrow in her quiver.  It was Obama's stirring speech at the '04 convention that put him on the political map.  Now she has one of those too.

The speech did open her to some criticisms, such as the bridge to nowhere comment, and others.  And she still must show herself to be equally effective in press conferences, and debates.

But as I said this morning, and I think Palin demonstrated tonight, if this election is about Sarah Palin, John McCain will win.

But if it's about the economy, health care and jobs (and John McCain, remember him?) Obama will win.

We all loved Piper (the little one).  Between her "Queen Elizabeth" waves to the crowd and and slicking down her younger brother's hair ....

It was sarcastic and condescending and absolutely perfectly keyed to her role as Vice-Presidential candidate/attack dog and her strengths as a woman who can sink a knife into your chest with a cheerful smile on her face.  The role of the VP candidate has always - ALWAYS - been to be the "attack dog."  Biden was clearly chosen for this purpose, and I think he is well-suited to it.  What scares me about Palin is that, even though most of us had never heard of her before last week, she may well be comparably skilled.  Maybe not as good - experience does matter after all - but no shrinking violet, and one that brings a very different style to her hatchet-man role than Biden does.  

Look, I thought her speech tonight was a bit too fluffy and I obviously thought that the substance was wildly lacking.  No duh.  But it was brutally effective: Republicans know how to attack brutally and effectively, and what's disturbing is that they always seem to find different ways to pull it off.  This year we're facing off against someone, in Palin, who could end up being a stone-cold political assassin with a friendly smileyface and a working-class accent.  

Keep diminishing and deriding her, and karma will be a real b*tch come November. But I think Jeralyn knows this deep down. Palin's got Obama and the Dems spooked, and for good reason from what I can see.

I'm betting that the derisive elitism exhibited in this post and many others will backfire.

If the Democrats would start nominating people whom the majority of Americans could relate to, we might stop losing presidential elections.  Bush never should have won two terms, but the unerring instinct of Democrats in nominating Gore (who couldn't even carry his own state) and the ineffectual Kerry, when a probable winner like General Wesley Clark was available, is mindboggling.  And now, to nominate Obama over the very probable winner Clinton, makes me wonder if the party is truly suicidal.  What good is having the best ideas and the most compassion if the party owning them never wins the White House?  

First, I've lived long enough to know that condescension, sarcasm, and ridicule are part of the political toolbox. I confess to smiling at some of the sarcastic zingers in last week's Democratic convention.

What was different about Palin's condescension tonight, however, was that her tone could be so arrogant and show such little humility while she was delivering a speech so full of distortions and lies. I was surprised as I read over the text of the speech that it actually contains less in the way of condescension to specific people than I had first thought. Then I realized what it was.

Yes, Palin did insult a few groups along the way (community organizers and those who think Miranda rights are a good thing, to name two). But the bigger insult was to our intelligence. This speech was an insult to the intelligence of most Americans, especially to those who have been following what George W. Bush has done to this country in the past 8 years. Palin's speech distorts or glosses over all of the things wrong with the Bush administration, all the things McCain will continue to do, but because of her moxie and "snide efficiency" (as David Axelrod calls it), we are supposed to give McCain a pass.

Here's one distortion:

Palin said: "There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain."

The implication, of course, is that Obama and Biden never fought in a war. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows Palin to claim that fighting in a war is necessary to being a president, or at least that one should not cast a vote for someone who hasn't fought in a war over someone who has. But somehow that logic did not hold when Kerry (a Vietnam veteran) was running against Bush (who never set foot on a battlefied in Vietnam).

Here's another distortion:

Palin said: "As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man."

But which is the real McCain, the one who had claimed to denounce torture, or the one who voted against a ban on torture?

Here's one lie:

Palin said: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

That is a complete distortion. Obama plans to raise taxes on the rich and give tax cuts to almost everyone else. As a NY Times Magazine article stated:

The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population -- those households making $118,000 or less -- McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign. ...

McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush's tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners -- those making an average of $9.1 million -- by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.

It's hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it's also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama's tax increases on the wealthy -- about $500,000 of that $800,000 -- would simply take away Bush's tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn't nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.
How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy

I'm not sure that belittling Palin's experience works that well for you - because it's actually a better resume than the top of your ticket has.

However, Sarah Palin appears to have gotten under your skin in such a way that your reactions surprise me.

Does taking the "gloves off" mean spreading untruths and smears?

You cited a Washington Post smear article that is a complete distortion of truth and fact.  They obviously did no fact checking, nor have you.

Sarah Palin increased the budget for the Covenant house, expanding grant funding from 1.3 million in 2007 to 3.9 million in the current budget.

The Alaska Legislature originally budgeted 5 million in response to the Convenant House's request for 10 million for the expansion.  That is funding on top of normal operating expenses which were not affected.

The line that resonated the most with me is "McCain is the only one in this election who has TRULY fought for you."

I am no slave to the military but respect their service.  That was a pretty good line.  There were some other zingers but that is SOP for the VP to get out there and rah-rah the top of the ticket and rile up the base.

And that's exactly what she did.  And good for her.  After tomorrow night all bets are off.

Wolf and Co. on CNN are falling over themselves with praise.

"It was a Homerun. It might even have been a Grandslam." -- W.B.

Hah, I'm really enjoying some people fold into pretzels, reaching to the skies with barbs to slam her and bring her down. I am not voting for her and McCain but, as a Hillary supporter who was extremely hurt by the horrid treatment she received, I'm glad that Palin -- unlike Hillary, unfortunately -- is able to fight back.

She not only answered her detractors about how she will serve as VP, she also addressed the media and the blogs and their absolutely disgusting behavior over the last 5 days. Good for her.

My husband, the graduate degreed political science major, owner of a small business, said this will resonate BIG to many, many people.  

I thought she did a great job with delivery even though I disagree with the content.  

Most American voters are pretty ignorant when it comes to the issues so what they will remember is that she gave a great speech, she was pretty, she had a nice-looking family, she was on fire, she got lots of applause, and that she had taken three days of crap from the media and Democrats.

This could be the turning point in the election.

She has a great record of accomplishments, taking on big oil and taking care of her people, standing up to the lobbyists, special interests, and corruption, building up the state and the pipeline with open bidding. And, dumping the symbol of arrogance, the jet.

She hasn't been sitting around doing nothing for the last few years.  She has terrific energy and great ideas. I don't agree with her pro-life stance, I'm pro-choice.  But, I don't believe she has any interest in pushing her personal views on anyone else.

She's a real maverick and a fighter, like McCain.

Switched back to BBC America at the end of the speech.  Their talking heads certainly seemed to like it and compared it to Obama's 04 speech.  I have no idea what they could have been watching.