I'm going to be the exception on the conservative side of the blogosphere. I'm not going to analyze the speech given last night by Sarah Palin. Let's just say that virtually everybody but the hyper-partisans on the other side agrees she did a phenomenal job.

Which is why the criticism that Michell Malkin reports is so galling.

Right on cue, the Beltway snobs dumped on Gov. Sarah Palin’s brilliantly crafted and delivered speech tonight by immediately pointing out that the speech was “written for her.”

What officeholder — from mayors to the President — doesn’t have speeches written for them?

First, how dare anyone criticize the use of speechwriters as long as Barack "Deval Patrick" Obama and Joe "Neil Kinnock/John Kennedy/Robert Kennedy/Hubert Humphrey" Biden are running on the Democrat ticket.

Second, the use of speechwriters is standard practice. Even such signature words as "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" were, in part, the product of the speechwriter's pen. Why, now that a woman is using one, is it suddenly a problem? Could it be one more example of the double standard raising its head again when a qualified, competent woman raises her head above the crowd?

UPDATE: Just found this interesting take on speechwriters. I can't say I agree with the comparison -- especially since, like ghostwriters for books, their use is broadly accepted and widely disclosed.

And it looks like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (which my spellchecker keeps appropriately trying to change to "Madcow") objects to the standard practice of including phonetic spellings in teleprompter texts. Heck, when I preach (every now ant then) I use phonetic spellings in my text for words that I might trip over or misread. It isn't a sign of stupidity -- it is a common tool to prevent mistakes.