My impressions are the following.

The good:

She humanised herself with her family. That pleases the base and others who like that.

She tried to wedge Obama against 'small town America'. That's smart tactics because it's worked before.

She avoided her own social issue positions, so she avoided controversy. That was smart to make a good impression.

She showed she was feisty and people will see strength in that.

She did the best she could by painting her background and record as a silver lining and/or positive, which was wise use and characterisation of it.

The neutral:

She never explained her social platform issues and that made her appear as an empty suit, but a less controversial one to the non-base voters. All this will catch up though for better or worse depending on each voters' views.

The bad:

She overdid it at times with the attacks and it came off more smartass than tough and an unlikeable aspect along with her likeable sides.

She went after Obama's wife, which opens up her husband for attacks. That he was an AIP member is going to come back on her. They will also delicately but firmly infer or refer her daughter's pregnancy as being evidence that her support of 'abstinence only' doesn't work. She opened the door to making these things fair game by attacking Michelle where she can't credibly rebut it with the 'this is my family and they're off limits' and claim they are irrelevant.

She touched upon issues of reform and cited some examples from AK, but she shockingly IMO repeated the lie that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarking when she supported the Bridge to Nowhere federal funding and huge piles of earmarks right down to her mayor days.

This last point really is a problem. Personally it infuriates me because I hate bold faced provable lies and the Dems will surely use her comments to nail her as a fraud and insincere. Once you get caught red handed in a lie on a main point of 'why me's, you're in trouble and rightly so. When I was initially impressed by her first speech when chosen in Ohio, I was infuriated to learn she was hoodwinking me. I already don't find her credible given that and what I've learnt generally on her real record on earmarks, which is as stinky as Stevens until it became national news. Worse, it dovetails beautifully into the GOP are greedy and wasteful spending pigs backlash. I'm stunned they think they'll pull that lie off, especially citing that bridge once again.

By being too 'barracuda' (her nickname) she lost the usual chivalrous shield of being a woman insofar as being challenged hard. She'll have it from general sexist comments, but not on the courtesies that come with being a woman from aggressive reply and landing political punches.

__________________