I just kept thinking "Shit."

I don't think this will be Obama/Palin as much as Biden/Palin.

Any right-wing crank can loft mockery at the Democratic candidate, but the dynamic has shifted. As I watched the speech (and by any rubric, she's a skilled public speaker) it occurred to me that the Dems' move now is for Biden to take the gloves off and bully her into the ground; (as a blogger somewhere in the 'sphere mentioned, she's the one who described herself essentially as a "pit-bull in lipstick.")

Biden, who's at his best in attack mode (very entertaining as well), now has carte blanche to batter her around (rhetorically) with no fear of the victim-playing we've seen leading up to last night (not so much by Palin herself, but mostly by her supporters). Biden's got it in him, too.

Will it work? We'll see. But despite my generally pessimistic feelings about this election, I'll take my chances in a toe-to-toe, Obama vs. McCain/Biden vs. Palin tag team cage match. Obama/McCain should be no contest, and while Palin's shown she can hit batting practice, can she hit live pitching?

And I can tell you that from out here in the swing state of Ohio, the conservative right has bought the trash hook, line, and moose meat. I'm trying not to get sick. And never mind the fact that she filled her speech with half-truths and exaggerations. They LOVE her here. And they're all so SMUG now. Tell me it's different in Chicago, at least. Please.

Clearly it's not different in Chicago if the estimable Michael Miner thinks Palin kicked Obama's ass. Thanks for the shout-out, Mike, but as an earlier commenter noted, anyone can hurl mockery, particularly when it's written by a great team of speechwriters ... they've been doing it much of the week from the stage in St. Paul and it this had been a 6 p.m. speech she could have used the same words and read the teleprompter just as well and most of the delegates would have just kept on chattering on the floor like they do for all 6 p.m. speeches. She did fine ... a smarmy, mostly content-free speech that did little to allay what ought to be and probably will be the concerns of mainstream voters ... but fine. She no more kicked Obama's ass than Rudy did an hour earlier...in fact she spoke with considerably less dynamism and showed considerably less rhetorical range. But just as Tim Noah predicted at Slate, folks positively burst with amazement that she didn't come out and fumble and stammer and sweat.
You're right that this presages the "game on" phase of the campaign, but so would have a red-meat speech from Pawlenty or Romney (though Romney is a stiff). What's magnified it into a "great" speech, to borrow a word from your headline, is exactly this sort of enthusiastic analysis.

But Rudy didn't do it in prime time and he won't be heard from again, whereas Palin was rolled out as the lipsticked pit bull that's going to have her teeth in Obama's leg for the next two months. She chewed real good.

Eric, do you think journalistic folks burst with real amazement at Palin's performance? Most journalists are as knowing -- or is the word jaded? -- as Tim Noah, and I suspect they set themselves up to be amazed because amazement makes a great story line and it makes writing simple. Noah's piece was nicely written but it contained no great flash of insight. In fact, you or I, if we'd had our wits about us, could have written a column predicting that someone would write a column predicting exactly what Noah predicted.

All unfolds according to a familiar design. I was genuinely enthusiastic about Palin's speech but not surprised by it.

I've read quite a bit of analysis of this speech as I assume you have. I've even watched it again and, frankly, it seemed even more ordinary the second time, and bit nasty. They put her in prime time and, because she's no stranger to the teleprompter or to making speeches, she did fine. It still looks to me like a middlin' jump over a low bar, and I've yet to hear anyone of any political affiliation say why it was any different than they would have reasonably expected. So what were you "genuinely enthusiastic" about as you watched? The attacks on Obama were familiar, though the wording was a step up.
The urge to declare that a star has been born here is peculiar and highly uncritical. She reads a good speech pretty well in front of a rabidly adoring crowd -- hey, who wouldn't be "radiant," as Whet put is -- and normally keen, cynical observers are hoppping up and down and declaring the advent of Rolanda Reagan.
As Kevin Drum says in his blog -- well, maybe. Let's see how radiant she is at a real news conference or under the sort of grilling that the rude gasbag Bill O'Reilley tried to give Obama tonight.
Maybe then we can say that your enthusiasm was merited and my roll of the eyeballs was obtuse.
Or maybe you can convince me otherwise now. But "Palin kicked Barack Obama's ass" doesn't persuade.

Michael - In judging the merits of Palin’s speech, there’s a huge difference among three standards: was it a great speech for the convention audience; was it a great speech for independent voters; was it a great speech for the well-being of the country? As to the first, I agree, it was a great speech. The jury is still out on the second. As to the third, it was a tremendous and dangerous disappointment and failure. On the culture war front, it was redolent of Spiro Agnew, an earlier would-be pit bull who blasted elites and media types. He and Nixon set down a template that has served the GOP well for 40 years – snobs vs. average Joes. My deep concern is that as candidates such as Palin erode the nation’s trust in news organizations and mock the role of a free press, we become less able to distinguish between fact and opinion, propaganda and evidence. I was at an Illinois Press Association luncheon three years ago where Barack Obama was the main speaker. His big complaint to a roomful of his home state’s professionals wasn’t a whine about unfair coverage or a rant over ideological bias. It was the observation that too often when we cover issues, especially complicated ones, we rely on a “he said-she said” approach to reporting, as if in every case both sides presented equally weighted “truths.” We use this as a crutch to replace the hard work of digging up data and support in reporting, he said. Our role, he urged, was to bring a third “witness” into the mix – one that involves weighing the claims of sources against facts, evidence, and real-world experience. He challenged us to do that with every statement he ever makes. From the perspective of journalists, that’s a key difference between the candidates this year, but it should be a major issue for all Americans. To make a straw man of the press and then posture to stand up to and vilify it for perceived personal slights for the sake of your party is craven and disingenuous. To actually stand up to the press and demand better of its professional standards for the sake of your country is what democracy and the 1st Amendment – and all our jobs in the journalism business - are all about.

I hope I don't seem to be endorsing the idea that a star was born. Nor that I think it was a great speech by the second or third of John Ambrosia's standards. But I think there's a fourth standard. I think it was a great speech for supporters of Brack Obama who worry that he's trying to waft his way into the White House. There is a patina of self-regard to Obama that disconcerts a lot of people, and makes them want to see how he stands up to belligerent, in-your-face disrespect. Obama needs the debates, and now that he's clear about how the Republicans mean to trivialize him, he should be ready for them.

I agree with Eric Zorn - Palin came across as smarmy and nasty. I also agree with Miner's last point -- struggle is good. When Palin was picked, I was kind of glad that things were getting shaken up a bit with a fresh face. I follow politics pretty closely but had never heard of Palin just 7 days ago. But after her speech, I was so ticked off about her mean-spirited swipe at community organizing that I went and made another donation to Obama's campaign. I've talked to several others who have done the same. Let's hope that Palin kicked a lot of complacent ass, so we can all make sure she's not a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

I wonder if Palin's snide approach will wear well?

Michael - I hope you don't think I was being over critical of your assessment. I wasn't, and your point about a fourth standard is well made. But I wanted to introduce the media aspect of all of this. There is a new Rasmussen poll out tonight that says that 51% percent of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin's campaign. In the longer view, this is a much bigger problem for everyone to overcome, I think, than Obama's need to stand up to attack.

But of that 51 percent, an unknown percent approves, and of the balance, and unknown percent wishes most reporters were.

More seriously, good reporting tends to justify itself, and reporting that fills in the blanks about Palin won't be resented by so many people because they'll feel entitled to what they learn. And, of course, if the Democrats cut her down to size the public won't feel so protective of her.