While many on the Right are licking their lips over the meat thrown them, the media is still trying to find a line between praising the speech and yet still defining the issue.
An article in the Washington Post has got to the brass tacks of it in short order: A strong convention speech alone can't answer the questions about her readiness.
Ms. Palin's Introduction - A strong convention speech alone can't answer the questions about her readiness.
REPUBLICAN vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the convention last night was an impressive debut on the national stage -- well-delivered, with an appealing combination of charm and bite befitting her description of a hockey mom as a pit bull in lipstick. The Alaska governor proved herself more than capable of making a strong case for nominee John McCain and landing some pretty good zingers, aimed at both the Democratic nominee and the "Washington elite." Mocking Sen. Barack Obama's résumé, she observed that "a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
--
To question her readiness is not to doubt her talent or intelligence; nor is it a reflection of gender bias, snobbery or any of the other sins that have been ascribed to those who worry about Ms. Palin as vice president. Ms. Palin last night noted tartly "that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone." It is a good applause line. But the fact is that Ms. Palin has an astonishingly thin résumé -- mayor of a small town, governor of a sparsely populated state for less than two years -- for someone hoping to ascend to national leadership. The country will need to hear much more from Ms. Palin before being convinced of the soundness of Mr. McCain's judgment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Hear, here! Right on point without missing a beat. Well done and thanks for the fish.
While most of the Traditional Media is focused on the delivery of a speech which she didn't write and had little input on, they hit the nail on the head and bring the issue into focus.
All well and good that she can deliver read a speech, but where does she stand on the issues? How has she proven that she is in line with the American people and able to serve our needs?
When are the people she hopes to govern going to get the answers they deserve about her past and what she plans for our future? How will she deal with the actual 'transient issues' of today: health care and the economy?
Can she tell me why she wants to abolish abortion and contraception, even for married couples, outlaw gay marriage and cut social programs while giving tax breaks to corporations and extorting 'God's War (tm)' on Islam and ridiculing Jews (in the name of 'converting' them)?
Can she explain why she says she will be on the side of parents with children with disabilities when she cut those programs in her state by more than 60%? Can she explain why she is supporting her unmarried daughter's 'choice' to keep her baby while desiring to remove that choice from the women of this nation and cutting funding for young mothers and children?
Can she explain why she is running with McCain and mocking Obama when she instigated a wind-fall tax in her state and gave money to people, which Obama has called for?
Can she explain why she says she's against big government and raising taxes when she made new positions in her government offices and raised sales tax? Can she explain how she is against 'pork' and wasteful spending when she has requested and received more pork for her State than any other in the country and built a $14 million sports stadium for a town of 5100 people? And how she left a town which had never been in debt $20 million in the hole?
Can she, in short, explain why she lies so much and what lies we have not yet encountered?
Is her biggest lie that she is ready or qualified at all?
(Read the rest of the article, it's well worth the 2 min of your life it will take)