Action/Reaction

So what did people who make waaaaaaaaaay more money than I do think of McSame's McSpeech?

Slate's Mickey Kaus:

The Larger Issue: The speech reeked of extra cooks making too many unintegrated additions. What does it say about McCain's management ability if he let the process for this crucial effort get out of control? It's not like he didn't have months to prepare. Or were the months the problem? Palin's Wednesday night text, presumably written in a few days, was much better. Maybe the McCain campaign didn't have time to kill it with improvements. ...

CNN's Bill Schneider:

My view is: It was a simple and sincere speech that gave testimony to his character, avoiding most divisive social issues. But it did not seem to answer the question, "What are you going to do about the nation's terrible economic problems?"

His answers seemed very much part of the past: cut spending, cut taxes. He really needs to find a new and bolder economic plan.

He tried to claim some of Obama's major campaign themes Thursday: unity and change. But when McCain talks about change, he talks about changing Washington. When the Democrats talk about change, they're talking about changing the way things are going in the country.

If voters are choosing between two men, they will probably choose McCain. If they're choosing between two policies, I think Obama has the edge: His are newer, smarter and fresher.

The NY Times goes over the righty blog reactions:

As Rudy Giuliani wasn’t on stage tonight, we actually got to see the movie we were promised — although the Opinionator thinks Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, has a point that “it was pretty weak. I can’t believe they didn’t do a better job given what they had to work with” and Megan McCardle of the Atlantic has a good question: “Do we need the tribute videos? There’s something of the whiff of creepy totalitarian propaganda films about them.”

The Power Line guys were...not impressed.

It took a bit of courage to begin by expressing gratitude to President Bush for "leading us in those dark days following the worst attack on American soil in our history, and keeping us safe from another attack many thought was inevitable." While McCain is obviously his own man, I don't think he can run entirely away from the record of the Bush administration, which he supported more often than not.

It was nice, too, to say a few kind words about Barack Obama and his supporters.

So far, the loudest applause has been for his comments about Sarah Palin.

There were two Code Pink protesters who had to be dragged out. They pulled them up the aisle right next to where I'm sitting. I shared some thoughts with them.

I'm not crazy about the recitation of McCain's sympathy for individuals who live in various swing states. I suppose this is a response to polls that say one area where McCain lags behind Obama is in "understanding the problems of people like me."

Paul Krugman nails the entire theme of the RNC however:

What’s the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn’t “flashy enough” for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted that Democrats “look down” on small-town mayors — again, without any evidence.

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

And that's pretty much it. With eight weeks and four days to go, the real race begins now.

Strap in. The country's at stake.