Obama speech reactions will abound on the web today. Many loved it; others were more lukewarm. Some of the latter observations? Here's Ross Douthat:

There was a lot of liberal boilerplate (recruit an army of teachers, tax the rich, etc.) that could have fit easily into any Democratic acceptance speech of the last twenty years; there was a series of swings at John McCain that, while often effective, seemed more appropriate to a veep's speech than to an address by a Presidential nominee; and then there was a half-hearted attempt to return, in the speech's final third, to the themes of post-partisanship and national unity that defined his '04 convention speech. The whole thing felt schizophrenic - part Clintonian laundry-list, part McCain-bashing polemic, part "beyond red and blue" peroration - and watching it I was left with the impression that Obama would have been better off just sticking with the high-flown inspirational style that got him here, and waiting for the debates to recast himself as the meat-and-potatoes guy who can throw a punch and get down into the policy weeds.

And Mickey Kaus, in "Mile High Letdown":

Why the slow, angsty movie-music at the end? I thought someone in the Politburo had died.

While parts of the speech were strong--and the DNC-produced biographical video was a home run--the thing that struck me most, watching from home, was the difference between this speech and the one that catapulted Obama into the national eye in 2004. That speech was largely positive. This one was largely negative, particularly its "America is going to hell in a handbasket" opening. Is this what it takes in a hard-hitting presidential campaign? Maybe. Will it ultimately sell? The 84,000 who hit Invesco field make a case that it might.

But it will be interesting to see what themes McCain runs with next week in Minnesota--especially if the crusty war veteran throws around more rainbows and sunshine than the guy who's built his brand on "hope" and fresh political change.