Palin did deliver a nod to families with special-needs children, an oft-overlooked – but growing – group in America. Palin’s four-month-old son, Trig, has Down syndrome.

And children with special needs inspire a special love. To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

On her husband, Todd: He is “a story all by himself,” Palin said. His interests and background “all makes for quite a package,” she said, adding, “We met in high school, and two decades and five children later, he’s still my guy.”

Throughout the speech, cameras cut to Palin’s family, seated in the VIP box. At one point, they caught 7-year-old Piper Palin licking her hand and wiping baby Trig’s hair down with it.

All over the country, moms of all political stripes put partisanship aside ... and cringed together.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies … or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia … or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries … we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.

One pundit described this section as Palin’s “substantive grounding” as a vice presidential candidate.

Near the end of the speech, when it was clear that Palin had delivered and met the expectations of the media’s glowering eye, the cameras cut to Cindy McCain.

She was downright giddy.

The only quibble I had with the speech was Palin’s repeat of her comment she made last week about opposing the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.” She actually lobbied for the Gravina Island Bridge as a gubernatorial candidate, but as governor, she decided to use the federal funds designated for the bridge for other purposes.

Palin should have left the reference out. Not only is it disingenuous, but it also gives the Obama campaign, journalists and the chattering class at large the opportunity to say, “Palin was actually for the Bridge to Nowhere – before she was against it.”

The speech wouldn’t have hurt in its absence. It was the only real blemish – and it’s a significant one – on the address.

That aside, the postgame analysis of the speech was almost as entertaining as the speech itself. You know I watch CNN, and for nothing else than for my two favorite pundits, Gloria Borger and James Carville. I was disappointed that we didn’t get to hear Carville’s take on Palin; instead, we had to settle for Paul Begala, who definitely had his pants in a twist after that speech.

Anyway, the normally stuffy CNN panelists –

SIDEBAR: Incidentally, CNN’s punditry has grown to the point that it’s bordering on qualifying for its own congressional representative in the next census. Come on, CNN: Big tent, yes, but this is ridiculous. Upwards of 15 people over four platforms participating in these panels? That’s just too much. And anyway, more of anyone else means less Gloria, and that’s a bad thing. END SIDEBAR

– were beside themselves after Palin’s speech. Republican strategists were, understandably, elated. Alex Castellanos described her as “unflinching,” even evoking one of my very favorite movies – “The American President” – in his analysis. David Gergen said a Democratic friend of his had told him that Palin reminds him of former Texas governor Ann Richards. And Leslie Sanchez said Palin showed “compassion, intelligence and strength.

“Finally we stopped thinking about gender and saw her as a leader,” Sanchez said. “There are a lot of people who are going to be excited about this ticket for the first time.”

Amy Holmes, the self-styled Independent who used to write speeches for former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said Palin proved how she earned that high school nickname, balancing “toughness and femininity very well.

“She hit it pitch perfect,” Holmes said.

Even the CNN anchors were seeing stars. Ed Henry described reaction this way: “If it had been a fight, it should have been stopped early.” Anderson Cooper interjected that Palin was “authentic” and repeated Palin’s line about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

On the smile with which she delivered some of the strongest attacks against Obama, “She puts the knife in, and you don’t even know it’s been done,” Cooper said.

Wolf Blitzer was similarly stricken.

“Whatever you think about her politics, clearly a star has been born here in the United States,” he cooed.

Ah, love. It’s a many splendored thing. It’s the April rose that—apparently—grows beyond the early spring.

So it was clear why the Democrats were uneasy. But their discomfort led them to curious, and surprising, lines of attack.

Palin has been called a “game-changer.” By definition, that term means someone who changes the game.

(Hey, I’m not a writer for nothing.)

The presidential game to this point has been the Republicans attacking Barack Obama for being basically an empty suit, someone full of high-minded speeches but who lacks the experience and judgment needed to be president.

After Palin’s speech, Obama’s surrogates suddenly found themselves in the strange position of having to cast Palin’s speech as – dare I say it? – just words.

“The American people prefer substance over style,” Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said.

Obama supporters downplaying the efficacy of a speech?

Game-changer.

In addition to the partisan split on the panel, a gender rift developed between Brown and Borger in Minneapolis and Paul Begala in D.C. on the issue of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s response to Palin’s address.

Reid had described as “shrill” Palin’s attacks on what she called the “do-nothing Congress.”

The word met with marked disapproval from the ladies on the set.

Brown argued that Democrats have to be careful in hitting back at Palin, since a word like that – “shrill” – has sexist overtones and could be construed as an insult.

Borger nodded away in agreement (as I was doing on my couch).

In defending Reid, Begala was reduced to comparing the word choice to some people who referred to Hillary Clinton as “the b-word” during the primary campaign.

You’ve heard of apples and oranges?

That comparison was like apples and hydraulic roof drives.

Brown, who continued to demonstrate the undignified argumentative streak she has developed this week, argued that the word is almost never used to describe men’s speech and reiterated that Democrats risk alienating women if they use language like “shrill” in attacking Palin.

Brazile agreed with Begala, though almost reluctantly, before Blitzer broke up the fun.

I couldn’t get a read on Brown. She was all over Palin earlier this week, but tonight, she seemed like her biggest fan.

Game-changer.

And then there was the whole line of conversation about whether Palin was kicking off a new culture war. Carl Bernstein delivered some predictably partisan and barely-intelligible remarks about how “Palin would make a great Republican secretary of the interior: ‘Drill, drill, drill,’” while Gergen, Brown, Borger, Begala and Brazile hammered away on the class warfare idea. Brown argued over that Palin’s speech was aimed at rural voters, while Gergen argued that it was meant for the base. Inexplicably, no one pointed out how much of rural America is the GOP base. But CNN demographic oracle John King reminded the panel that if Al Gore had won “in small-town America” – or even in his own state of Tennessee – in 2000, no one would have noticed what happened in Palm Beach County, and he would have been introduced as “President Gore” last week in Denver.

Game-changer.

One thing’s for sure: Tomorrow on the morning talk shows, for the first time in four days, there won’t be much – if any – news about Bristol Palin.

Game-changer, anyone?

The job for the Obama campaign is to figure out how to proceed with Sarah Palin. Do they ignore her and risk being perceived as minimizing her? Or do they engage her and risk coming across too strong in doing so? If they do engage her, do they make her experience an issue, running the risk of highlighting Obama’s own short career in the U.S. Senate against the experience of a war hero? Or do they give her a pass on what is undoubtedly her weakest point and give up what may be their best opportunity to weaken her—and, by extension, the GOP ticket?

Tonight in a cluttered office somewhere, the Obama campaign is trying to figure out how to handle what has become, in the last four hours, its very big Palin Problem.

You guessed it …

Game-changer.