Television cameras like Palin

Miami Herald:

A couple of weeks ago, Fox News Sunday executive producer Marty Ryan called his political analyst William Kristol aside. Why, Ryan wondered, did Kristol keep touting the chances of an obscure first-term governor to be the Republican vice presidential nominee? ''You keep talking about Sarah Palin, Bill, but nobody else seems to have her name on their list,'' Ryan complained.

''And now, everybody's talking about her,'' Ryan said Thursday, laughing as he recalled the conversation. ``She was a game-changer for the convention and for the campaign. . . . She brings a buzz to the whole general-election campaign that might not have been there without her.''

The telegenic Alaska governor's free-swinging speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night will change the way television covers the rest of the campaign, TV journalists and political scientists said, boosting the vice presidential race from an afterthought and turning the Oct. 2 debate between Palin and Democratic candidate Joe Biden into one of the most highly anticipated events of the fall.

''She's a great story, and she's very good on television,'' said CBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield. ``What she did Wednesday night was the classic, archetypal, All-American tale: Spunky small-town girl comes to the big city, takes on the big shots, and wins.''

And it was a story that attracted considerable interest. Some 37.2 million viewers -- an astonishingly large number for a night when the presidential candidate wasn't speaking -- tuned in for Palin's speech, just one million fewer than watched Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last week.

The substance of Palin's speech was still being debated by journalists and political spinmasters Thursday and likely will continue to be for the rest of the election. Was she really against that infamous Alaskan ''bridge to nowhere''? Can America drill its way out of high gasoline prices? Are her opponents really elitists and congenital flip-flops? Is it fair for her to use her family as a political prop one moment and declare it off-limits the next?

But when it came to style and media impact, the verdict was in within minutes. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: ''The new star of this Republican Party. . . . She really did hit it out of the park tonight.'' CBS' Dan Bartlett: ''A political star was born this week. You just saw it on this stage.'' Fox News' Chris Wallace: ``A star was born tonight, a new star in the political galaxy.''

...

''She's very good, relaxed, comfortable with the camera,'' said CBS' Greenfield. ``There was one point when the Teleprompter was eating the first sentence of every paragraph of the speech, and she just rolled with it. The joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull being lipstick, that was not in the text. She ad-libbed it perfectly.''

...

While she is very good on TV, she brought something more important to the ticket. She is a person who can attack Barack Obama and get away with it.

He has mostly avoided attacks through his charmed campaign and it has been interesting to see how many of his supporters are trying to spin her response to his denigration of her experience as a mayor into a charge that she was being racist about community organizers.

This is a totally illogical response to a response. It will only make sense to those looking for an excuse to try to shut her up. It is an attempt to avoid a debate on the issue of the value of each's experience. She was saying that being a mayor of a small town carried more responsibility than being a community organizer. People who don't understand the difference in the jobs might try to make something racist out of it but they are going to look ridiculous in the process.