Now that I heard and saw the entire speech:

Out. Of. The. Park.

Why? Not just because of the delivery, not just because of the zingers, not just because of the content.

But mainly because her actions and her life match her words.

Montana on September 3, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Her speech was great and the reason for the great content: Speech writer, Matt Scully, who is a class act! As a right-leaning independent, it’s very nice to see that there are some Republicans that care about animal welfare. Most Repubs are fond of calling animal-welfare types loonies. I wonder if it felt strange at all to Palin, a hunter, having an animal-welfare-anti-hunting advocate writing her BIG speech?

http://www.matthewscully.com/matthew.htm

http://www.matthewscully.com/sportsman_politics.htm

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2008 at 8:21 AM

I believe the implication was that just because drilling won’t solve all our energy problems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t drill. That’s the way I got it watching the speech and it still seems solid. Even if I take into account Obama’s holy plan, how much of it is actually feasible and how much of it does he actually understand to put into action? Palin’s from an oil state, worked in the oil biz, and sits right next to our oil supplier. Obama has done what about energy again? Propose windmills?

“Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines”

@Dave Rywall
his speech in Denver clearly laid out a laundry list

did his laundry list including drilling and more pipelines? No?

Next.

“But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. ”

This is a bullsh*t statement that implies that Obama isn’t going to do anything about energy, when his speech in Denver clearly laid out a laundry list (that Palin’s is remarkably similar to). Your party blinders cannot possibly be on that tight that you don’t see this blatant lie. But maybe they are. Grab some objectivity if you have the ability.

Next.

Correlation and causation aren’t the same thing. Just because lots of people said they’d rather knock one back with the current POTUS back in 2000, and lots of people voted for him (both in 2000 and in 2004), doesn’t mean that they voted for him because they like the guy on a personal level.

The same thing happened in 2004 – there was an exit poll question asking why people voted the way they did. The Donks put together the notion that because the top response was “values” and the large number of gay-marriage legalizations went down in flames, Republicans were (and in the press, still are portrayed as) anti-gay. Well I hate to have to be the one bearing this as if it was news, but “values” includes trustworthiness – and given the manner in which Sen. Kerry ran his campaign in 2004, many of us knew we couldn’t trust what came out of his mouth from one word to the next. Thus any platform he ran on was point-blank not worth the paper it was printed on, save as something for wiping spills.

I spent a very short amount of time in 2000 and in 2004, after the conventions, looking at the platforms of the candidates. Fortunately, in both years, the platforms were fairly far apart in the “how” of doing the agreed-on “what.” I voted less for the Republican candidate than for the Republican platform. I look forward to doing so again in 2008, barring any shocks to come out of MN late this week.

And to answer the mindless “poll” question – I’d rather have a beer (or any social interaction at all) with none of them. They have nothing to offer me in the social graces; I just want the one who promises to butt out of my business more (and actually keeps that promise!) to win.

Politico puts it in perspective. The “ordinary gal” forcefield is a powerful shield indeed:

You’re entirely right- that line of defense seems to be very effective. And yet it surprises me- it’s the same argument that many made about Bush vs. Gore in 2000. Sure, Bush lacked experience, but it’s another trait of the ‘ordinary guy’ that’s so endearing. You’d rather drink a beer with George Bush than most other politicians. And many people voted Bush based upon this kind of logic.

Has anyone learned after the last 8 years that this country doesn’t need an ordinary ‘guy’ or ‘gal’ trying to handle the most complex job in the country? Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts were far from ‘ordinary guys’. And thank God for it.

That giant sucking sound is the “communist(y) organizer and his campaign circling the drain.

she’s blatantly lying about Obama’s energy plan

she’s blatantly lying about Obama’s tax plan

So…what exactly did she lie about?

Giuliani’s Jerusalem lie definitely needs to be called out though, that was despicable.

Out. Of. The. Park.

Why? Not just because of the delivery, not just because of the zingers, not just because of the content.

But mainly because her actions and her life match her words.

she’s blatantly lying about Obama’s energy plan

she’s blatantly lying about Obama’s tax plan

the crowd eats it up yum yum yum

This was, in the Dude’s opinion, the line of Rudy Giulliani’s speech–and the speech had a lot of great lines. It was brilliant and McCain should think about using it in some ads in the coming weeks. Something like this:
(Deep male voi…

Watching Chris Matthew’s right now and he’s accusing Palin of picking a fight with the media. LOL

CanadianGuy on September 3, 2008 at 7:28 PM

I saw that idiot Matthews too, and had to laugh out loud at his crap about how it’s the media’s duty to dig up every bit of dirt it can find on national candidates, so it can inform the American public about those candidates’ character and integrity.

How many months was presidential candidate John Edwards touring the country last year with his friggin’ mistress on his campaign payroll, while at the same time Edwards was giving interviews with his wife Elizabeth, claiming she’s the one great love of his life, and even having the media photograph their renewal of vows ceremony? Meanwhile, Edwards has fathered a child by his mistress, has paid off one of his campaign staffers to falsely claim the baby is his, is using one of his campaign’s political fixers to pay off both the mistress and the lying staffer . . . and the MSM isn’t interested in reporting any of this stuff.

Who are these idiots trying to kid?

“Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

Now this is a good line. There is mileage to be gotten out of this.

And I agree with those who have been so courteous as to withhold the tomatoes for my criticism. Good or bad will mostly depend on delivery.

I am keeping an eye out for lines that can be spun against here though. There has never been a candidate in history who is more open to negative punditry. One wrong line will be repeated and spun by the media and Obama for eternity.

So far, it looks like there are no “100 years” or “5 million dollar” statements that can be ripped out of context.

As for Bill, I’m surprised he didn’t ask her to produce an itinerary of her every waking moment while juggling marriage, motherhood and career. But she handled him with wit and confidence, while also pointing out the blatant liberal hypocrisy of Sally Quinn and others, as evidenced by their newfound “respect” and “admiration” for full-time mothers.

she plans to defend small-town America and its values, and stress her role as an outsider in reforming the political culture in Washington DC. However, she won’t ignore the steady stream of smears that flew out of the commentariat this week

Hope and change only works in Washington if it’s not hope and change.

“I guess you could say that I got my start in a form of community organizing, except in Alaska we call it the PTA.”

Damiano on September 3, 2008 at 8:24 PM

I like the line but now it’s out there it won’t have the impact it might have. But I said community organizing sounded like the PTA myself. Or maybe private social work where they apply for grants.

But even then he doesn’t seem to have accomplished anything worth touting. So basically, he was a failed community organizer. I mean did he make a difference at all? Why don’t they have testimonials. It is all just hype.

“I guess you could say that I got my start in a form of community organizing, except in Alaska we call it the PTA.”

Damiano on September 3, 2008 at 8:24 PM

maybe it’ll go better with her delivery…the mockery needs to be subtle or Keef’ll die on air.

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

Damiano says… weak.

She lowers the role of Chief Executive of a town to that of a wannabe lobbyist.

Damianomatic Political Speech Fixer says:

“I guess you could say that I got my start in a form of community organizing, except in Alaska we call it the PTA.”

 Update 2 – 8:22 PM: Here are more excerpts, via Ed Morrissey.
Update 1 – 7:51 PM: Here are a couple of excerpts from Gov. Palin’s speech:
“Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some …