The Speech

One who is distinctly unimpressed is National Review's Jim Geraghty:

"I notice three glaring flaws from a speech that I'm sure will make Chris Matthews' leg explode, prompt Keith Olbermann to start chiseling at Mount Rushmore, and that will be hailed by many media commentators as the greatest in American history -- just as Obama's Berlin speech was, just as Obama's race speech was, just as his Iowa victory speech was, just as his 2004 convention address was . . .

"Obama's speech was predictable, it was implausible, and it was strikingly, inexplicably, angry.

"Predictable: I could have prewritten a lot of it -- 'four more years that look like the past eight,' 'voting together 90 percent of the time,' 'McCain is no independent.' Anecdotes of working men who have to ship their equipment overseas, the reference to 'a city drowning,' the implicit comparison of himself to Martin Luther King."

I respect Geraghty's analysis even when I disagree with him. But angry? I have no idea what he's talking about and doubt many people saw it that way.

And, finally, Woo-gate:

"Several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for Barack Obama as the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday . . .

"Standing on the periphery of the football field serving as the Democratic convention floor, dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd.

"Two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities to take each other's picture while wearing an Obama hat and waving a flag.

"Several others nearby screamed 'woo' during some of Obama's biggest applause lines."

Okay, but who were these people? Fifteen thousand media types got credentials, including commentators, bloggers and some who just seem to go to the parties.

For earlier Media Notes postings from the convention in Denver, go to thecolumn archiveon washingtonpost.com.