No surprise...

Of course, Ryan latches on to the ONLY reference to a Democratic President in the entire speech... and that a reference to FDR.  I would expect no less, mores the pity.

Want to find something to be afraid of?  How about the over-all nature of the entire speech?  How about the vast amount of coverage it is getting this morning compared to what came out of the RNC last week?  How about the enthusiasm it is garnering in otherwise rather tepid circles?

I listened to the entire thing.  It was a good speech, and it was very well given.  Obama did a masterful job of making himself seem personable, friendly, enthusiastic and energetic... all at the same time.  He mocked the "right" while ignoring the "left", all without making anyone but Romney and Ryan into specific examples.  He brought the baggage of special interest into the ring by touching on gay marriage, coverage for birth control and abortions, amnesty for illegals, the future of Medicare and unemployment coverage... all without addressing them, but only as examples of GOP intolerance and bigotry.

He is very, very good at purposely misleading the issues in the eyes of his audience.  He spoke of the GOP's drive to keep "health" decision choices out of women's hands, when that is NOT NOW, nor has it EVER BEEN the issue with the GOP.  It isn't a question of whether a woman can obtain birth control or abortions if she should choose... she can, in all fifty States.  It is a question of whether or not the Government is going to guaranty coverage for such proceedings through insurance providers.  He (or his speech writers, I should say... no way did he write that!) made sure that was NOT touched on, only the narrow, intolerant "Not gonna happen!" attitude that he wants to portray as the GOP platform.

He did something else in the speech that is very rare nowadays... He specifically addressed conservative claims and concerns about his positions.  He did it very well, too.

He admitted to wanting to raise taxes on those making more than $250k, but did so by saying:  "I want to reform the tax code so that it's simple, fair,and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000, the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a whole lot of millionaires to boot."  Masterfully done!  He is not admitting to wanting to do anything that hasn't already worked in the past.  It worked in Clinton's second term, it will work here.

When conservatives call out Obama on expanding government, or that he is of the opinion that more government solves everything (something we've all said here, too), he says:  "We don't think the government can solve all our problems. But we don't think that the government is the source of all our problems, any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles. "  In other words, government isn't the problem, as Reagan said it was... anymore than the rest of the "bad things" the GOP keeps rambling on about.  He even included "corporations" in his list, which is NOT something I've ever heard a conservative call a "problem" in the past.

He went on to say:  "We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we certainly don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules."  I assume this is an attempt to put to rest the question of how to get people OFF of the dole, once they are on.  He has made himself seem rationally opposed to "lifetime welfare"... but gives no specifics at all as to how to avoid the trap.  This is borderline brilliant, in my opinion.

Finally, he said:  "We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe."  How many times have you heard Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, rant about "rights with no responsibilities" when discussing the Democrat's fascination with the "nanny state"?  He took Kennedy's famous line and twisted it perfectly to fit into the liberal agenda WITHOUT making it impossible for moderates... or even conservatives... to support the words, if not the sentiment they were given in.

He did this again in the speech when he quoted the very first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln.  And again, when he quoted Dwight Eisenhower.

This was a great speech for him.  He'll see real "bounce" off this, and you KNOW it will be quoted ad nauseum for the rest of the campaign.