Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike KeliherGov. Sarah Palin proved tonight she’s a good speaker. She looked very good in comparison to turgid speakers who preceded her like Fred Thompson last night and Rudy 9/11 tonight. 
She’s lively. She’s bright, as in light. She can punch a line across. Her timing is good in delivery of key phrases most times, although she misses about a third of the targets she aims for in timing. She can work the crowd, continuing to talk over their applause sometimes to keep her momentum, stopping her talk and letting the crowd go nuts other times while she smiles and nods. She does a great job of moving her eyes and her attention around the room, of pulling the crowd in, of showing with bobs of her head and movement of her eyebrows and her smile what she cares about.
She smiles at what she’s saying, looks like she likes what she’s saying, sounds like she’s alive. She is doing a great job of firing up the conservatives, and by embracing her small-town experience and roots while scorning Obama’s community organizing in a big city, she’s reaching into the undecided middle. Chris Matthews on MSNBC called her a “torpedo” aimed at Barack and Michelle Obama in terms of families, a cultural shot right at the heart of Obama’s persona.
Democrats have come up against a force here. It’s the same force — absent substance — that worked for George Bush. But Palin is ten times the speaker Bush was and is.
Personal opinion — she’s competely unqualified to be president should something happen to the aged McCain, and McCain’s choice of her is reckless and rash and would endanger the country he claims to put first. And some of what she said was just a lie — Obama will raise taxes on a steelworker, for example.
But, she did a very good job tonight, she jabbed at Obama with zest and a smile, and in a dull field of dreadful GOP speakers, she is not just a breath of fresh air but wind and rain and sunshine all at once.
Palin stumbled when delivering a few sentences about foreign issues — the only time she was dull and clunky. When talking about family and state government and no new taxes and small town values, she was kickass.
She’s trouble for the Dems. A smart pick by McCain in terms of getting elected. A frightening choice for the country.
What do you think?
– Bruce Benidt
Filed under: Communications, Politics, Speaking and presentations | Tagged: Sarah Palin
From a technical perspective, it was a good speech. Benidt covered all the right points on that score so I won’t repeat them. I will, however, point out that with five days incommunicado to prepare and the services of some of the GOP’s best wordsmiths at her side, it’s hardly surprising that Governor Palin showcased her above-average skills to good effect.
As James Carville noted pre-speech, though, when was the last time anybody gave a bad acceptance speech? Even some of oratorical stinkers of the last 40 years – Dukaksis and GHW Bush, for example – managed to put one out their on their night of nights.
You can also see what Governor Palin will be doing for the next 60+ days – hitting small towns in swing states to deliver tonight’s message: “I’m just like you and this election’s about character; that’s why my man is John McCain.” She’ll mostly stay away from the national media but do a lot of local media where the questioning is likely to go a little easier. When she does do national media, I’d guess she’ll sit down with a Sean Hannity or someone similar.
I do agree with Benidt that she’s potentially troublesome for the Dems, particularly if her message gets traction and the drip-drip-drip of disclosures is shut off.
Unfortunately, though, her performance tonight didn’t do anything to convince me that she’s ready to be a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world. I’m not the demo they care about, of course, but I’ll be interested to see how that issue plays with others.
- Austin
I’ve come to think of McCain’s choice of Palin as Savvy/Scary — very savvy on his part to pick an “average” mom to be his running mate. Scary for the US because beneath the surface appeal there is not much there.
The trouble is that the demographic that McCain is aiming for – the soccer moms, will not dig beneath the surface to examine her record, her amount of time in office, etc.
For many, it will be as simple as thinking: “she’s just like me and understands my daily life.”
If I am Obama, I am running scared. As of last night, the adage that a VP can only hurt – hot help – a candidate officially has been rewritten.
Palin also is rewriting the elitist notion that only Beltway insiders are suitable for office.
This is a whole new paradigm that has upset the media, Washington elites and the entire Democratic establishment. Their reaction is quite revealing.
Anybody recall Peter Hutchinson’s pledge NOT to campaign on the “Five G’s” — god, gays, guns, gambling and gynecology? Sorta seems like adding Palin to the ticket is the inverse (less the gambling part, I guess) for McCain. It’s difficult to conclude Palin brings anything to the McCain ticket that is really about “Country First” in terms of addressing substantive issues like national security, energy policy, health insurance, etc. But she’ll be great for re energizing the culture wars (and, of course, defending the nation from the threat of militant caribou).
Not sure why Obama should be scared. Palin appeals to exurban evangelical mom’s who AT BEST would sit this election out.
McCain is trying to energize a base that doesn’t really like him.
What is the new paradigm, Z?
Agree it was an effective speech, both for the social conservative base and for rural swing voters. Last night, the reporters were all cheerleading. I hope today the reporters will report…
Applause line: I’ll be a special needs advocate. Question: Have you helped get help to special needs kids?
Applause line: I fight earmarks. Question: Does seeking and winning earmarks really constitute fighting earmarks?
Applause line: I stand for the average family? Question: What have you done to help the average working class family by improving health care and education?
Applause line: Obama has authored two memoirs but no legislation? Question: True? Has Palin authored any major legislation?
Applause line: I fought the bridge to nowhere? Question: Why did you support it during your campaign and why are you funding a road to nowhere up to the edge of the defunct bridge?
Applause line: I know how to balance a budget. Question: So why was there a deficit when you left office in Wasilla?
Applause line: I always put country first. Question: Why didn’t you speak out against the cessation agenda of your husband’s former political party when you addressed them?
Applause line: I took a pay cut as Chief Executive of Wasilla. Question: But didn’t you hire the town’s first-ever City Manager to do the managing for you? Given that, did Wasilla taxpayers pay more or less for executive management?
Applause line: I’m a reformer and change agent. Question: Will you change the Bush economic policy, the Bush foreign policy or the Bush social policy? If not, wouldn’t your administration be substantially the same as the Bush Administration? (By the way, this is the only Palin-related thing I’d mention if I was Obama.)
This is not dirt, Steve Schmidt. This is not yellow journalism. This is stuff voters deserve to know.
The guy who should be worried is Biden if he has to debate her. He has to walk a fine line and not be condescending or arrogant or sexist – all things he lapses into easily when he loses focus.
Don’t think there is any question – perhaps a good running mate but if elected, a questionable VP. But then, good old Danny Quayle didn’t do any damage except to the English language.
It’s the “Bush the maverick and Cheney the iron fist ticket” from 8 years ago.
I will give her credit for her moxy (think she’ll put Air Force II on ebay, too?) and ability to appeal to the conservative core. But she’s going to get slaughtered on foreign policy and most social issues. I don’t think she can translate Alaskan citizenship into a strong platform of leadership for the entire country or our global position. And I think enough people will see past this ticket’s pledge for change, and realize they actually won’t be able to shake up much of anything.
Separately, I was glad to hear Guiliani wonder aloud if we’d be asking a father of five if he has time to run the country.
Whoa! AP is fact checking her speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
I’m going to look back and see if they did the same for Biden and Obama last week.
Excellent op-ed piece in LA Times this morning by Gloria Steinem on Palin: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
I wish I could take credit for saying it first but when Dems are put in the position of saying women should stay at home to raise kids we’ve (the GOP) won the battle!! And they are saying it … to Palin.
Up til I got a look at Sarah Palin I still thought that Mike Huckabee was McCain’s only chance to do better than Goldwater, but maybe not. She bears a child with Down’s syndrome, diagnosed early, and then institutionalizes him, but she supports her pregnant unmarried 17-year-old daughter. That is one helluva social straddle, which McCain himself couldn’t come close to. Can it be interpreted as a complete lack of value system?
I hope the Obama forces can get the local media to dig for some substance from her. If they can get answers to the serious questions maybe the national press will pick them up,
I hope the McCain forces can get the local media to dig for some substance from Obama.
Wait a second. How can this be even happening? A woman no one ever heard of is now the galvanic force in her political party. And the political party is distinguished essentially by corruption, deceit and abominable leadership; with a disgraced president granted seven minutes by satellite at his own convention. Are there historical precedents for a political party so ignominious actually retaining office?
At least for the moment doesn’t this look like a painting by Salvadore Dali–lacking any rationale? Or, those Repulican strategists are smarter than anyone.
Bill Dewey:
“She bears a child with Down’s syndrome, diagnosed early, and then institutionalizes him, but she supports her pregnant unmarried 17-year-old daughter.”
Just curious but where did you get the part of institutionalizing her son? From what I’ve seen/heard he’s going to be a part of the family like the other kids.
The Dems are not saying it. The GOP Is just saying they are. Classic Rove tactics.
@?…Here is some reading for your nightstand – http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.
We underestimate McCain’s cynical tack to the right at our own peril. Be afraid. People see what they want to see. The Palin pick resulted in millions of suddenly energized voters who will rationalize or ignore all the points Joe raised, safe in the knowledge, in this case, that their vote for McCain/Palin will protect the lives of the unborn. Two Bush terms are evidence these are the foot soldiers McCain needed to bring this thing home. That’s democracy, folks. Love it or leave it.
What I saw in Palin last night was right wing talk radio sludge in an attractive package. She benefitted from low expectations and delivered her divisive screed well enough for millions of people to come to the conclusion they could not have performed similarly in such circumstances, hence she must be qualified to be VP. It’s human nature to be attracted to someone who represents not just who you are, (PTA and Hockey mom) but more importantly, what you think you can become (Governor/VP/leader of the free world). Studies show this is why so many people vote against their economic self-interest: it’s not because they believe they are among the rich who will benefit from a tax cut, but because they believe they will someday achieve that status.
BTW, my favorite moment of the night came courtesy of angry Rudy. “How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that!” he screamed. Didn’t help, though, when at that very moment the camera cut to Cindy McCain holding Palin’s infant son, mom nowhere in sight. I’m not one of those questioning a parent’s ability to successfully balance a busy career. Just saying the visual didn’t exactly reinforce Rudy’s words.
@ X-dressing Bush
Um, no. Palin don’t fly with independents so far.
MI Independent voters didn’t really dig Palin:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/michigan-indepe.html
Independent females in NV liked her speech, but not her policies so much:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/female-clinton-supporters_n_123794.html
She is red-meat to a conservative base – nothing more.
Austin says: “Unfortunately, though, her performance tonight didn’t do anything to convince me that she’s ready to be a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world.”
Wait for it…
“…I’m not the demo they care about, of course, but I’ll be interested to see how that issue plays with others.”
As Groehler would say, “Bing!”
—–
Kris M.: “The trouble is that the demographic that McCain is aiming for – the soccer moms, will not dig beneath the surface to examine her record, her amount of time in office, etc.”
Thanks for that ignorant generalization. My mother (a baseball mom, not a soccer mom, but who’s counting) appreciates it.
—–
Dear Mr. Lang: “Are there historical precedents for a political party so ignominious actually retaining office?”
Umm…2004?
—–
“Bush with Lipstick”: Thanks for the great contribution above. On the issue of voting against one’s own economic self-interest: I’m vaguely familiar with these studies you refer to, but I wonder a bit about the findings.
Sure, perhaps aspirations or dreams play a part, but isn’t it possible — perhaps more likely — that people vote against their own economic interests simply on principle? Not “what’s good for me” but “what’s good for we”? Am I naive for even considering that?
Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas is all about BWL’s comments about voting against your own economic interests. Mr. Frank’s premise is that people respond to the social issues – the sanctity of the family, moral decay, abortion, local control of schools – and the rhetoric of anger – toward the media elite, toward illegal immigrants, to Washington insiders, greedy corporate CEOs – and overlook that with those values come an economic program of deregulation, reduced oversight, reduced enforcement and tax code shifts.
The result is companies able to operate with reduced OSHA regulations, less environmental protection, without unions and tax code inequities. This reduces working people’s economic stability and their overall quality of life. Frank documents how this has happened in a number of communities like Garden City.
The tragedy is that these social voters rarely get satisfaction on the issues they care about. Abortion is still legal and widely available, modern culture is still seen as toxic for children (led, ironically, by Fox which has brought us such family values affirming programming as “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire and “The Simple Life”). We’ve passed a lot of legislation making same-sex marriage illegal, but momentum seems to be running the other way on that issue as well.
Well worth a read.
- Austin
Mike: I do think most people make principled votes. Hell, half the country doesn’t even bother, so it’s either principle or self-interest that compels people off their collective asses and into the voting booth. When it comes to economic issues like tax cuts for the weathiest among us, absent evidence that trickle down economics really works, I tend to think it’s more about aspiration. Hard to stand on the principle of “what’s good for we” when the Bush tax cuts have resulted in a sputtering economy and a widening income gap. Yet McCain is campaigning on a promise to make those cuts permanent. It’s an appeal to hope that makes Obama look like an amatuer in that department.
Mike, I’m not certain you really understand what I mean when I say “Bing!”
Don’t leave us hanging!
- Austin
Kelly, maybe you’re right. I suppose I should understand buzzwords and catchphrases before I co-opt them, eh?
Yep. And until I need to use it again, I think I’ll keep its meaning to myself for now.
Next time, try “oh, SNAP!”
But I didn’t mean “oh, snap.” I meant, “Exactly! Right on, brother!”
Is that not how you meant “bing!”?
Of course not.
to tps: I just heard that once, if it’s wrong I apologize to whomever deserves an apology for the error.
to ?: I’d like to hear more details, too.
to Dennis Lang: I would nominate the Republican party in 2004 too, but Mike Keliher beat me to it.