Men who read speeches well (like the Democratic candidate) are called great orators or great speakers. Lithwick couldn't bring herself to say it about the uppity woman who transformed the election the very first time she addressed the nation. Republicans have been struggling for months to find a way to conclusively demonstrate the contempt with which the coastal elites hold the rest of the country. Palin is it.

Palin has given exactly one speech on the national stage. One. The majority of it was prewritten before she was even selected as a running mate.

There is a difference in being a great orator and being able to read a snarky speech. When Palin delivers hundreds of good speeches on the national and international stage (or, for that matter, just 100 speeches), then we can start the comparison.

So, Larry, does that make you a "middle-America" elistist? Everyone is an elitist of some sort so come off it. Come up with some real issues to talk about not O'Reilly talking points.

I'm comparing to Generic-Man, not to any other candidate. Reader of speeches is insulting, no matter the # of speeches given. They're all reading others' work.

I didn't claim she was superior, just deserving of the same basic respect that any other governor would automatically receive.

Well, Larry, on the national stage, the only thing Palin has done thus far is read a single speech. That's it, nothing else. So, I can see why "reader of speeches" may be offensive to you. It should be "reader of a speech."

If any other Governor from any of the other 49 states suddenly arrived on the national scene as a complete unknown to all except a very small handful of people, then they too would face the scrutiny that Palin has received. In fact, probably even more so.

Thus far, all I know of Palin is that she was mayor and a city council person in a city with a population under 9,000; that she has been governor of a state with a small population for under two years; that most of her biography of her short political career has been either embellished or (worse) fabricated (e.g. she actually supported the bridge to nowhere; she supported ear marks; etc.); her husband used to be a member of a secessionist party and she addressed that party this year; she recently addressed a bizarre church that believes that Alaska is the only place that will be safe from the coming apocalypse; she is currently under investigation; and several weeks ago she admitted that she didn't know what the VP did.

So, yeah, I want the media to do much more in vetting this woman than the McCain camp did. Sorry, that one speech is not enough for me.

Obama had his coming-out speech at the DNC. Was he a "reader of a speech"?

spruce:

If any other Governor from any of the other 49 states suddenly arrived on the national scene as a complete unknown to all except a very small handful of people, then they too would face the scrutiny that Palin has received.

I have no problem with scrutiny. I have a problem with scrutinizers presuming that the object of their work is the "bottom of the barrel" before they begin, as I have seen her elsewhere described. Lithwick's language betrays her conclusion...

Sure, if all we knew of the guy was the one speech. However, he was elected to the U.S. Senate after that and was in the public spotlight the entire time. He then began a successful bid for the Democratic party nomination. Over the course of 18 months, he was in numerous debates; held countless interviews; and delivered several historic speeches.

When Palin leaves the carefully guarded Republican fortress and faces journalist and critics alike, we can then discuss if she is more than a "reader of a speech."

is what I read in your comment.

Most of the Electorate has been looking for a reason to Vote for McCain or a reason to Vote against Obama.

With Governor Palin they seem to have found a reason for both.

I don't see how your hypothesis explains the opposing gushers of enthusiasm among voters and of outrage/contempt among the pundit class.