In his speech Thursday night, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama said:

John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

Hearing those words, Stephen Green commented, “Uh, dude, McCain wants to have like ten debates, and you winced at holding three of them.” James Taranto contended that with that line, Obama was hinting at a “favorite theme among Obama supporters . . . that McCain has an unstable temper.”

When I heard those words and as I ponder them today, I wonder if the Illinois Senator himself has the temperament to serve as commander in chief.  I mean, this guy gets upset when the McCain campaign puts out a critical and mocking ad.  

He alleges his rival’s team is “going to try to do is make you scared of me,” because “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”  And yet offers no evidence to back up those allegations.

It doesn’t seem that someone who is easily rattled by criticism has the temperament to serve as President of the United States.  Or someone who makes wild and inaccurate accusations about his opponent’s campaign.

Ever since several left-wing gay blogs linked some of our posts on Sarah Palin, our spam filter has been inundated with nasty comments, some repeating the tired tropes about how self-hating we must be, others making wild, inaccurate and mean-spirited allegations about the next Vice President of the United States.

That said, some bloggers and pundits have offered some thoughtful criticism of the Alaska Governor and questioned her qualifications for the second highest office in the land.  In the interest of having a civil discussion on the benefits of John McCain’s choice, I thought I would share some with you.

Of the conservative web-sites I check regularly, the folks at Powerline have expressed the greatest amount of criticism of Sarah Palin.  John Hinderaker fears “she may be the Geraldine Ferraro of 2008.”  Given her lack of “foreign policy and national security background.”  Paul Mirengoff is similarly disappointed.

My friend Dale Carpenter calls the pick a “breathtakingly bad choice,” believing Palin “was chosen primarily as a political stunt to drive wedges and manufacture excitement.” He offers a more extended analysis of her weaknesses. While I don’t agree with Dale, he makes some pretty solid points, so make sure to check out his post — and, if you have time, the comments section which follows.  (H/t Instapundit.)

I’ll make my case to Dale when we have dinner next Monday in Minnesota.

Of those who blog National Review, David Frum offered the harshest assessment of Palin, wondering whether she was the irresponsible choice. Ramesh Ponnuru has been similarly skeptical, throwing cold water on Palin.

On the whole, these guys do offer some strong arguments. If you’re looking for serious criticism of Sarah Palin, follow those links and consider their points. It’s too bad that some of those faulting her in the comments section of this blog are not similarly thoughtful.

UPDATE:  Amy Alkon is not happy with the pick, offering “in a V.P. candidate, if we had a female, I was looking for something a little more…barren. Battle-ax-ish. Thatcheresque.”  Now read the whole thing, bearing in mind they don’t call her Sarah Barracuda for nothing.

When I watched Obama’s speech, my initial reaction was that it was one of his worst.  Still, he had greater fluency that does George W. Bush in most of his addresses.

The Democratic nominee came across as distance and, at times, angry.  He didn’t seem to connect to the crowd, though I have read reaction online that many at Invesco Field were move by their candidates’ remarks.

In listening to television commentary and reading blog and pundit reviews of the speech, what struck me was the great diversity of views.  On FoxNews, Dick Morris called it one of the greatest speeches ever.  Charles Krauthammer, with whom I normally agree on most things political, thought it wasn’t a great speech but a smart one.  He thought it worked.

Bill Kristol offered a similar assessment.

Michael Barone was not so impressed.  While less critical than yours truly, he thought the speech was “workmanlike rather than . . . inspirational.”  He also pointed out that it’s “pretty easy to refute” Obama’s “notion that John McCain is the (90 percent) same as George W. Bush.”  Thus, he concludes “that the major themes of Obama’s speech . . .  may not be sustainable.”

In a similar vein, Athena (AKA Peggy Noonan) doesn’t think that “six months from now,” people are “going to remember what he said.”  Well, she did say they’d “remember the Parthenon” which, after all, is her temple.

Simply put, “there were things about it that didn’t work.”  

Noonan said those who described the speech as symphony were engaged in “fatuous suck-upping.” And Peggy has crafted some pretty symphonic addresses of her own.

Well, with Peggy calling the speech a “flop-a-lini,” I think I’m on pretty solid ground with my criticisms.

(Via a reader who found the link here.)

More commentary here as well as the video which I couldn’t manage to upload.

Over at Red State, Jeff Emanuel contrasts the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin and the Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama (via Instapundit). And while he references their “previous public jobs,” he does not discuss the manner of their various elections.

That difference really distinguishes the two candidates, showing the one-term Alaska Governor to be a much tougher competitor, a more formidable foe, than the junior Senator from Illinois.

Back in 1996, both won election to office, Palin as Mayor of Wasilla, Obama to the Illinois State Senate. And just how did that Democrat win against Alice Palmer, the incumbent Senator of his own party?

The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

That’s right, he had her name — as well of the names of his other potential rivals — removed from the ballot.

And Sarah Palin? How did she win election that year? She rain against a three-term incumbent Mayor John Stein and beat him.

Obama gets the incumbent’s name removed from the ballot. Palin defeats him in an open election.

Now, let’s turn to the first election to statewide office.

(more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!*

When we get linked on conservative and libertarian blogs, I find no noticeable increase in hate comments (even as the number of comments (and new “commenters”) increases).

When we get linked on left-wing blogs, particularly left-wing gay blogs, there is significant such increase. (And an increase in my hate mail.)

*Will be investigating how that link impacts the comments.