Actually, I will disagree with Josh Marshall, I thought McCain's presentation was pretty darn good, and he'll get a bump, and the race may be tied by early next week.
The problem with the speech, however, is that in the process of trying to elevate the man, it indicts the party. Yes, it sugarcoats it, but the fact that it happened at all - and that for McCain to have any chance, it HAD to happen - leaves voters with the following choice:
Change Washington with a guy who's been there for decades, and with a political party brimming with people that have been responsible for the past 8 years of failure to follow their philosophy, which was tacitly acknowledged by McCain last night; or
Change Washington with a guy who's relatively new, with a political party that has been mostly out of power for the past 8 years and with philosophies that have been largely ignored by the Republicans for most of that time.
If a change is what is desired, then it really leaves voters with only one option. That realization will probably be coming home to voters in the next two months.
One other thing that struck me last night - we have two different kinds of pronoun candidates. McCain is an "I" and "you" guy. If you look at his speech, the use of the word "I" jumps out even for a campaign speech.
Obama is a "we" and "our" guy.
I think there's something very important there. If change is to occur in our national policies, I don't believe that an "I" can do it - can't change the environment, can't win against the dollars.
The President will need people power, and know how to build it and how to use it.
A President needs a "we".
Also, if you read his book--Audacity--there's a bit in there about the phrase "our kids" instead of "those kids". He heard that from a woman in Illinois, and it struck him how much referring to "those" kids makes it acceptable for them to have substandard education and healthcare.
Interesting linguistics.
When the nominee has to use the convention to re-engage his base - he's in trouble.