BBC has a nice summary found here.
Let's analyze one part of her speech...
"After eight years of George Bush, people are hurting at home, and our standing has eroded around the world. We have a lot of work ahead of us. Jobs lost, houses gone, falling wages, rising prices. The Supreme Court in a right-wing headlock and our government in partisan gridlock. The biggest deficit in our nation's history. Money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis. Putin and Georgia, Iraq and Iran."
"After eight years of George Bush, people are hurting at home," - We were more hurting at home when the first World Trade center attack occurred in Bill Clinton's administration, during his first year in office. After many more attacks on US targets around the world for 8 more years, while Clinton was in office the whole time, 9/11/2001 happened. That's when we hurt at home. If she's talking about the economy - it's doing just fine, and has been, though you'd never know it from the MSM. Have you ever seen a headline proclaiming that unemployment for most of Bush's time in office is lower than that during most of Bill Clinton's??
Gateway Pundit has an excellent write up on this.
"and our standing has eroded around the world." - the biggest joke that the Dems keep telling. Look, Schroeder and Chirac (Germany's and France's leaders, respectively, during the early years of the Bush administration) are gone. They hated us. Merkel and Sarkozy, the current leaders of Germany and France, respectively, largely support the US. And there are many countries that are thankful for us, such as the former Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe, which are quickly emerging as solid, free-market economies and great allies of the U.S. The Dems never mention all the places where we are favored. They hate America, they project: everyone else hates us.
" We have a lot of work ahead of us." - translation: "Gosh, we can't wait to raise taxes on everything!"
" Jobs lost" - the unemployment rate has only recently crept up to 5.7%, which is barely higher than it was for most of Bill Clinton's years. For a long time under Bush they were at 4.4%, which is lower than the typical year in the Clinton administration. Unemployment in Germany? 10%. Down from 12% a few years ago. But that doesn't prevent the Dems from wanting to be more like Europe in every respect.
"houses gone," - wait, I thought the Democrat-controlled congress just passed a multi-hundred-billion dollar package to rescue all those unfortunate home buyers? Don't they lead all the oversight committees for this stuff? At least she could've made a specific criticism of the Treasury and the Fed, at least this would be credible.
" falling wages," - This one is mostly true - comparing wages to inflation, especially counting food and energy, are flat - or at least year 2000 levels. But this is after decades of expansion brought to you by Reagan and the 1994 Republican revolution. It was not brought to you by the first two years of President Clinton -when the Dems also controlled all of congress. That gave us a failed attempt to take over health care (thanks for failing, Hillary - have you released the records of those secret meetings yet?), a failed attempt to pass a fake $8 billion dollar stimulus after the recession was already over, expanded gay rights, and massive new taxes.
"rising prices". Wow, how'd she get that right? I guess she reads the news. And is she implying that the Dems will bring prices down if they control the White House, Senate, and the House of Reps? How?
"The Supreme Court in a right-wing headlock and our government in partisan gridlock." Not! "Gridlock" in this case I guess means that former head legal counsel of the ACLU, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, is not always getting her way, though she often does.
"The biggest deficit in our nation's history." Finally, she's spot on. The Republicans and McCain should own up to this and promise to fix it. But McCain loses no points here - he's the biggest opponent of earmarks - that nifty invention that lets any congressman slip in any amount of money for any project, on any bill - even if the bill is completely unrelated to the funds being earmarked.
"Money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis. " Now this is plainly false. Liberals are intentionally ignorant on economics. They're not stupid - in fact they're pretty crafty. But they intentionally ignore economic principals, which often fly in the face of their stated goals. Foreign governments have purchased U.S. Treasury obligations - government debt. This was not to buy oil, it was to finance all those unfunded mandates that Democrats think are unalienable rights.
"Putin and Georgia, Iraq and Iran." Why even mention these? I notice she didn't make a point, she just mentioned them. Let's review the Dem strategy on these critical foreign policy issues: run, run, run.