Last night Harry Reid’s press secretary Jim Manley categorized Sarah Palin’s speech as “shrill and sarcastic.” A debate immediately erupted on CNN about whether or not “shrill” constituted a sexist slur. Campbell Brown felt it did; Paul Begala disagreed. Here is why Campbell Brown was right: Because Palin’s speech was not shrill.

Palin was tough as nails, policy-specific, open, and at times, mordantly lethal, but never was she shrill. If she had taken the stage and complained about unfair press (instead of brilliantly stating her allegiance to the higher authority of the American people) or if she had screeched out a litany of standard conservative plaints (instead of turning Obama’s every vulnerability into an exquisite joke), Manley’s critique would have some purchase, and therefore be merely descriptive. But describing Sarah Palin’s performance as “shrill” is like calling Leila Ali “prissy” after she knocks out her opponent in the first round. Manley’s comment was a default, anti-female mischaracterization, and from the twists and turns we’re now seeing on the Left, probably not the last to come from the office of a prominent Democrat.

Yesterday, I wrote that it was up to Palin to steer media opinion away from the salacious and irresponsible coverage of her personal life. With one speech, she’s managed to earn defenders in the media who will now stand up to the political class as they take their turn in the anti-Palin muck. Let’s not forget that it was Campbell Brown who, a day earlier, grilled Tucker Bounds on the Palin pick as if she were part of a House Un-American Activities hearing and not a newscast. I’d say Palin pulled it off.