Maybe it's a good thing that 37 million watched the speech, then.

...(which I don't - I thought her delivery was off, but I also think Obama frequently has issues too), what was the point of the speech?

The Clintons' great speeches were designed to promote party unity.  Obama's great speech was there to show what change meant.  Palin?  It shored up the base I guess and means that she won't be dropped, but mainly it stopped bleeding.  There's a big difference between damage control and accomplishment.

Of course it does all depend on the spin and if the uppity clip is on video that could drive more people into the camp that thinks the RNC was just being mean.

Why do people keep saying the speech was impressive??

I found her to be a very boring speaker and her accent is really annoying.

They locked her in a room for four days to prepare.  I don't think she deserves an award for managing to stand upright, read and not drool!

I understand that she fired up their base.  I honestly don't see anything but Dan Quayle in pumps.  He fired up their base too.

Actually, I think she's fire us up just as much as she did them.

This feels a lot like when she was nominated.  It was 1) who? 2) oh shit, this changes the game 3) ok, what else is on tv?

Because you saw it through savvy political eyes? As a political speech it was good-to-great.

Where it failed was at the gut level. It was like watching a fight where the winner keeps hitting the loser after he's down. Or watching the class president completely demolish the class nerd, and then insult his sister =). There was no moderation in it, it was zealous and completely unrelenting. It painted a negative picture very well, but it never lead you to agree with that picture (Reagan's gift).

Political success, emotional failure.

It will only go down hill from here...She gave a prepared speech that indicated she was strong at delivering "one liners".

If you notice the one time she spoke of foreign countries, she struggled and did not look comfortable mentioning them.

But I'm a lowly "community organizer" so what do I know...

I wasn't a fan of the speech.

She delivered it with poise and confidence , it was pitch perfect.

However it lacked content.

It was a mean spirited speech, full of personal vitriol toward liberals & Democrats.

It excited the audiance of knuckle shufflers in the arena and watching at home on Fox, but I'd be surprised if it endears her to anyone else. It certainly didn't help make the case that Obama is high on style and short on substance, being itself high on glitz but devoid of substance.

OVERRATED!

I felt the same way when I watched the speeches by both Giuliani and Palin.  Incredibly nasty in parts, and I just couldn't imagine it playing well with moderates.  Honestly, when Palin made the crack about community organizing, I couldn't help but think of Coulter's "faggot" remarks or Limbaugh's attacks on Michael J. Fox.  She was making a speech meant to rally her base and anger her opponents, but I really don't see it sitting well with the people that are going to decide this election... the middle.

MONEY BOMB!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9 /4/163110/1585/19/586784

You know what to do!

My feeling was the same: She did not move anyone other than the base. Those diehards that were thinking about skipping but would never vote for Obama are still not going to vote for Obama. But Undecided? Not really. She spoke well but very unsophisticated and unprofessional Totally Partisan. That is not the right speech for a VP nominee.

In addition what is the deal with the GOP and Beauty queens. Katherine Harris w/ glasses anyone.

And what about her background. Obama went to Harvard law school. Where did she go? Idaho State U? what was her degree? Did she get one? Where did she rank?

so much for her speech energizing America!!

I love James Wolcott

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott /

"The Palin Precipice

Not only can Sarah Palin field-dress a moose, but she can shave 344 points off the Dow with a single speech.

Well done, Medium Rea!

Sarah Palin: Bad for America, bad for wildlife, bad for your 401K."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/0 4/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml

Tied.

Those are incredibly damning reactions: given the fact that the entire night was designed to produce a positive response.  This isn't a debate where if a slight majority comes away with a more negative view of you it's no big deal.

My instinct was that you have to really dislike Obama for the speech to speak to you; if you don't, then it was just watching someone wag their finger at most of America.

Mediacurves (www.mediacurves.com) did the most extensive reporting I've seen, with a thousand viewers nationwide split by party.

They asked the wrong question though - it was "do you think the selection of Palin will help or hurt John McCain's chances?"  That's asking people to tell you what they think other people are thinking.  When phrased that way, people view it positively;  that's no surprised because the media has pronounced it a success.

The interesting question is "does this make you more likely to vote for McCain?" - that's essentially "what did YOU think about the speech?"  I only looked at the Independant numbers, and it didn't move the needle - you have greater numbers saying yes and no, and fewer undecideds, but the proportions are the same.  Which a gut check ought to tell you anyway - she's a polarizing pick rather than one that's meant to appeal to independents.

Anyway, check it out.  Click on "detailed study" or whatever the actual datasheet is called - the summary is useless.

I can say there's one wobbly type who Palin pushed Democrat - my wife.  She was lukewarm on both the Big O and McCain, but Palin's snide, snarky, condescending speech turned her off completely.  Unfortunately we live in Nebraska, so a vote for Obama probably won't make much difference.  Still, a vote is a vote.