Much of the criticism of Obama by Republicans has been that he gives a great speech, but has no substance. However, it would seem that a lot of supporters of the McCain-Palin ticket are now reassured that Palin is ready to be VP because she gave, well, a good speech.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: 2008 Campaign, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Couple of random thoughts on last night:
– I was initially worried about the order, though there was little they could do about it. The key to putting on a group of speakers is to build to a climax. Romney before Huckabee feels right, but Huck had the possibility of being more memorable than Rudy. And would Palin be able to follow Rudy? However in the end it worked well. Rudy topped Huck and Palin outdid Rudy.
– Expectations are everything. When commentators spend a week or so making her sound unqualified then she was bound to succeed. As long as she didn’t 1> drool on the teleprompter or 2> push out a kid on stage she was going to be successful. I’m guessing that some breathed a sigh of relief when she didn’t demonstrate how to field dress the code pink protesters that attempted to get on stage. She was bound to beat those expectations.
– I wonder if she lost the handicap when the Veep debates come up. Once she could have won if Biden didn’t turn her into a quivering, sobbing mass. Now some won’t be satisfied if anything except his hair plugs survive.
– Obama has to stay the happy warrior. Neither McCain nor Biden have the ability to inspire and charge a crowd. Palin does, and Obama once did. However since dispatching Hillary he’s turned risk adverse and somewhat dour on the trail. That strategy will not work with Palin on the in the mix.
– This was never going to be an easy race for McCain. He’s not an exciting candidate, and this isn’t a good time nationally to be an R. It’s obvious that McCain saw this as a way to shake up the race and give himself a chance. I think he did that. The Intrade odds moved a about 2 points, giving Obama about a 58-42 odds advantage. It’ll be interesting to see where those odds go in the next week.
– I’m convinced that people are asking the wrong question. People are interested in how she’ll play to the Hillary voter. However Obama and Hillary TOGETHER got about 37 MM votes in the primary, and he’ll need another 30 MM to finish it. He’ll get most of Hill’s half, but where does the 100MM or so that didn’t vote in the primary but will vote in the general go? That’s where a fresh face with 5 kids, one in the military, who can run a state and cook fresh game can help.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
The reason they are saying she’s ready because she gave a good speech is because quite a few media peeps claimed she would fall flat on her face therefore confirming their opinion that McCain was unfit to be president because he made such a rash choice and didn’t vet her properly, thereby confirming what they already knew in that she was not experienced enough to give a good speech to a large crowd.
This is just another example of what I wrote earlier. Ignore the entire conversation of a topic and critize the one sentence you pull out of it. McCain, Palin, or the Republicans did not create this issue, but when responding to it, are criticized for it by the same people who did create this issue.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Moonage:
I will freely admit (indeed, already have) that she gave a better speech than I expected. However, I never argued that she was going to trip all over herself (indeed, I have already commented on how her intro speech was better than Quayle’s).
My point, and it isn’t that complex: the GOP’s main attack on Obama (as was, btw, Hillary’s) is that he is great at giving a speech, but what else has he got? Yet, Palin gives a good speech and that’s good enough for many in the GOP to decide that she is ready to be the veep (and, by extension, president). That is a pretty remarkable double standard, not that it isn’t par for the course in politics.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I wonder if the GOP had forgotten what it was like to listen to an inspiring speaker during the Bush/Dole/Bush campaigns. You forget how a good speech CAN affect you, and so when the Democrats found a good orator, he was dismissed because to GOP activists, sure, he’s a good speaker, but we don’t agree with anything he says (which throws cold water on being inspired). They kind of saw themselves as above all of that (when they weren’t).
Now Palin comes along, and basically inspires GOP activists, and they kind of forgot their criticism of Obama as “just a guy who gave a speech”.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
No, that’s not the main attack. That’s an interesting bonus line, but not the main one. The main one is more interesting and has a chance to succeed. The “he gave a good speech” line was small and wouldn’t be successful.
The main thrust of the McCain campaign is that Obama isn’t ready to lead and would be over his head in the Oval Office. This comes partially from the lack of experience, but moreso from the fact that he’s not like us — not in a racial sense, but in a values sense. He’s very urban, not small city or rural. He’s very liberal, not in the center of the spectrum like McCain. His background is with radicals, not the folks from middle America.
This election is still Obama’s to lose. His folks know this and that’s why he’s on a short leash right now. Each mention of an arugula salad or bitter folks in the heartland reinforce the message that he’s not like us.
Obama’s campaign has gone into the political equivalent of basketball’s four corner offense — and it has a good chance of succeeding. It remains to be seen if the Palin nomination can introduce the shot clock.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Well, I guess I would say that the “he gives a good speech” attack is a manifestation of the experience argument, rather than a spin off thereof, but that is splitting hairs.
However, the inexperience argument redounds rather heavily onto Palin as well, and really just reinforces the point of my post.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’ll break my silence for a little while to talk on this because I think a lot of folks are really thinking around the issue.
Palin did in her speech some very specific things, and they were things that in my gut I suspected she would do. I’ve made posts on that here and elswhere that were pretty much ignored.
People are looking at how good her speech was today, and criticizing her for giving a good speech that had no substance. That figures; we don’t like what we heard, so we are just going to change it. We’re going to lie. We’re going to say it was an empty speech lacking substance.
It had an awful lot of substance. The attacks it made on Obama were substantive and will be difficult to rebut. It laid out Palin’s resume very nicely. It spoke in gereral terms (and I would argue that Obama did no more with his speech, and no one can do much more with the time they are given) about policies that she enacted during her career that curbed government spending and fixed systems that were broken. She laid out specifics. There was far more about what she had done in terms of policy and governance than Obama had in his speech, and there was also a decent-sized spattering of what a McCain/Palin administration would do in the future.
She talked about her experience - oh, yeah, you know, I thought she might have a little bit of that - in governing an energy producing state. But, noooooo, people aren’t concerned about energy these days. People don’t care about experience dealing with oil and gas infrastructure. Nooooooo. That’s not important! Gas prices aren’t on anyone’s mind.
I’m beginning to wonder if Dr. Taylor and the good captain even watched the same speech. It’s very unlike the Dr. Taylor that I have been reading for the last few years to so brazenly and inexplicably ignore facts, and look for nothing but the negative in a candidate. That is what you’re doing, whether you know it or not. If you couldn’t listen to that speech and understand that it held far more substance than anything that’s come out of Barack Obama’s mouth; if you can’t understand that this woman will have far more appeal to normal women than Hillary Clinton ever could; if you don’t see that she is an enormously strong and vibrant individual who DIDN’T NEED to directly say what she would do if John McCain died - then you’ve lost your spot on that map of the blogosphere that you posted some time ago, which planted you squarely in the middle. I don’t know where you’ve gone, but you are not there anymore.
Everything else about her speech told us what we need to know about what would happen if McCain died: Sarah Palin would govern with strength, intgrity, courage, and compassion. That message was transmitted on all frequencies, and if you didn’t receive it, then something is wrong with your radio.
Furthermore, she was brave enough to do what most politicians would never think of. She called the media on their unethical behavior and challenged them to a fist fight. Which is the best thing for republicans to do, because the media will never paint them in a good light anyway. Especially not right now.
And she managed to bring tears to my wife’s eyes. That’s not an easy thing for a politician to do. In fact, there has never been a politician in her life that she has found, in her words, “inspriring” and “uplifting” to women. My wife has never found a political speech interesting enough to sit through. Palin managed that. And if she did it to my wife, there were probably millions of other women around the country who were similarly affected, because my wife is not that strange. She’s a hard-working, normal woman who was on the fence about who to vote for until she met Sarah Palin.
Hillary Clinton can never mobilize the same type of women that Sarah Palin can. Let’s face facts. Hillary Clinton is who she is because of who she married. And for most women that would be tolerable - except the guy she married is a sleaze, and she puts up with it, because he is the ticket to power. For many women Hillary Clinton is a disgusting disgrace.
No, Palin won’t get the Hillary vote. But if you think she’s not going to stir an awful lot of mom’s out there who did not marry a sleazebag to advance their careers - you’re not living on the right planet.
This whole debate is nuts. That speech was a political home run if ever one was hit. If you can’t see that then I think we’re watching different ball games.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Cap’n D:
In fairness, the post you are responding to isn’t criticizing Palin one whit (indeed, it says she gave a “good speech”). Indeed, I have said a number of positive things about the speech, despite your assertion above.
In regards to my overall response, I still don’t see that she made an argument for being the understudy to the president. I never said she didn’t talk about her experience, but it didn’t make the case I thought she needed to make.
I also don’t know what I have said that has offended you, but all I have done is continue to analyze and comment on daily politics like I always have.
In re: the oil/energy thing, as I continue to state, I am not sure what it is about her that makes you think that she has some ability to provide some unique insight to energy. Alaska sits onto a pool of oil, and therefore energy policy in Alaska is pretty straightforward: drill and pump it out of the ground. Yes, “drill now” resonates with voters, an I am not opposed to more domestic drilling. However, McCain already had that issue and I don’t see what Palin brings to the table that especially enhances that.
And it appears that I have offended you, but I really don’t know why.
Ultimately I find her candidacy problematic, but I have made no secret of that.
I tell you what, I agree that the speech was a success for the short term, but I have long-term doubts about the entire proposition.
I can almost live with the notion (but not quite) that the speech was “home run” but like a commentator on Fox News said last night, it was a home fun in the first inning. Like I say, I am not quite at that point, but I can live with the metaphor. Even if I stick with “home run” I would note that a home run is not the whole ballgame.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I will directly contest one thing you said: it takes no bravery, nor it is all that unusual, for a politician to attack the media.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“I never argued that she was going to trip all over herself (indeed, I have already commented on how her intro speech was better than Quayle’s).”
The person being interviewed wasn’t responding to your question. The point I’m making is that in responding to the question asked, the person responded accordingly in regards to the context of what led up to the comment. It had nothing to do with Obama but was a reaction to what others had said about Palin. In order for your response to have been appropriate, the entire context of the discussion should have been dissected rather than just taking one line and applying to something it had no reference to.
“My point, and it isn’t that complex: the GOP’s main attack on Obama (as was, btw, Hillary’s) is that he is great at giving a speech, but what else has he got? Yet, Palin gives a good speech and that’s good enough for many in the GOP to decide that she is ready to be the veep (and, by extension, president). That is a pretty remarkable double standard, not that it isn’t par for the course in politics.”
It’s only remarkable because you’re taking the one line out of context of the entire discussion. In context it means a lot less. The person responding was responding to accusations made by others, which you are dismissing by your own admission. Therefore, the context is meaningless and the one comment carries all the weight only because it contradicts something else unrelated to the discussion that contained the comment. That’s bias. That’s exactly what I’m complaining about. The discussion was not about Obama. The discussion ( debate ) was about whether or not Palin belonged on on the podium at all. You are turning this into something it’s not. Now, if all Palin ever does is speak rhetorically, then the Obama/Biden camp has something to complain about, and will. If all Obama continues to do is speak rhetorically, then the Republicans have the same right to complain, as they are now. If one side complains and never provides specifics, then peeps like you and me have the right to out them. But, to “out” someone for pointing out that Palin’s FIRST speech was good enough to merit being on that stage, that’s cutting a little close to the bone dontcha think? Obama’s had a bunch of speeches. Probably over a hundred by this point. How’s about giving Palin say, ten speeches before commenting on how remarkable the double standard is? If she’s as vague as Obama is at that point, your point becomes valid. Until that point, I think the Republicans can honestly question his content, point out his oratorical abilities, and still say that Sarah Palin can deliver a good speech as well.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I was not offended in any way by anything you said. If I was, I would have told you that. I was an infantryman. I’ve been called everything but my mother’s son. Politics do not offend me.
What I did say is that I question whether the lens through which you are analyzing and commenting (as you have always done) is focused in a way that closely enough resembles mine so that I can connect with your commentary and analysis and have it make sense.
What my lens tells me about Palin’s speech is pretty different from what yours says, and is also inconsistent - in my opinion - with the fairness with which you usually approach these speeches. That’s my opinion. I’m sticking with it because I’d be a liar if I said anything else.
It’s not a matter of taking offense. I call things like I see them, if I’m wrong I’m wrong.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I’ll admit I find her candidacy problematic as well. However, as a Republican, I have found McCain to be problematic for a long time as well. However, the one thing I have always admired about McCain is not so much his maverick reputation as his commitment to what he considers doing the right thing. It may not always be the right thing, but once he jumps in, it’s feet first. Now, Obama has taken a lot of slack over choosing Biden not so much because Biden is a bad person in any way. He’s a fantastic guy. I’ve met him several times. The problem Biden presents for Obama is Biden represents everything Obama said he was running against. He’s a DC insider, a lifelong politician, white, male, upper-middle-class, liberal politician who doesn’t mind occasionally selling out his core political beliefs to get something else he wants. Where’s the “change”? That to me is problematic. McCain, who’s always championed the mavericks, even to my chagrin as his most famous legislation he tied the worst politician of all time, Feingold, to. He doesn’t mind pissing me off. He doesn’t give a rat’s peetootie what I, as a Republican, thinks if he feels he is doing good for more people that can’t get the access to DC I can. I’ve met him several times as well. Biden was more cordial. What Palin represents to me is McCain staying true to himself. He picked a maverick just like himself. If he had picked someone as safe as Obama did, this race would be over. Those who have admired McCain for his mule-headed determination and complete disregard for the status quo for thirty years would have known he had sold out. Instead, we got a 21st century McCain as an under-study. I also feel that McCain jumped on the opportunity to assure history is made. We’ve had opportunities in the past with minority candidates running, Obama’s not the first. However, what McCain has done is ASSURE that a minority will be in the White House whether he wins or not. Given that aspect, he has already gotten one thing he wanted. And, quite frankly, it’s probably a bigger issue than who wins the race in November.
So yeah, I know you’ve got issues with Palin. But, in the long run, I really think Biden was the much poorer choice politically. The Republicans won’t even have to point out the differences between what Obama is preaching and what Biden represents. Since the invisible, amorphous enemy can’t make such an obvious distinction of a complete contradiction of values in the choice of a running mate, they seem to be attacking everything else they can about McCain’s choice while ignoring what that choice represents in the big picture of the country, and the much smaller picture of the individual who chose her.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Capt’n D: Fair enough. we shall see how it all plays out.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You know, it’s a bit off-topic, but I love baseball so much I had to go here -you might want to re-think repeating the analogy of the home run in the first inning. I’ve been playing and/or coaching baseball most of my life; I currently pitch for an amateur league here in Geogia and help out with one of the local youth leagues. Baseball is closer to my heart than religion.
I was taught as a pitcher to not give up a run in the first inning, and especially not a home run. In aggregate (in major league baseball history) when a team scores a run in the first inning, they have a winning percentage of over .700. It’s even higher if there is a first inning home run. It sets a tone for the rest of the game and, speaking as a pitcher, it really gets in your head when you go out there and the guy socks your first or second pitch out of the park.
I started this season by pitching three complete games and giving up only two runs. They came late in the games and didn’t result in a loss. My fourth game, a guy hit my first pitch so far that I think it’s not landed yet. I gave up 8 runs by the 5th inning and we lost the game 12-4. It was the worst shelling I endured all season.
The funny thing is, I didn’t make a mistake. It was a good pitch, and the guy just pounded it. It wasn’t that I was not a good pitcher. It was all about the hitter being a good hitter (in fact a former professional minor-league player, and four year starter at UGA); but when that happens you lose confidence and make mistakes, and ultimately end up losing more often than winning. I can count on one hand the number of times I gave up a first inning home run and stayed in the game longer than the fifth inning. It’s even easier to count the number of times I was able to get a win in that situation.
I’m sure that you didn’t intend to convey that McCain now has a serious statistical advantage against Obama, but by calling it a first inning home run, that’s really what you did.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I understand your point, and you will note I was not fully comfortable with the analogy in the first place.
Still, I think you know what I mean: the score in a given inning is not necessarily indicative of the final results.
Perhaps “touchdown in the 1st quarter” is more apt.
As Texas Rangers fan who has seen my team score a lot of runs, but fail to win the game, however, I won’t put too much stock in an early homerun.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I know. It was a silly aside about baseball that was meant to lighten the mood.
I understand what you meant.
I’m a little upset that baseball season is over. I mean my baseball season; I don’t get to play again until April. April!
I had my best year ever. I went 13-3-2. I pitched a no-hitter. And we lost the game! Can you believe it? In the fifth inning a guy reaches on an error. . . steals second. . . goes to third on a sac fly. . . scores on another error. We lost 1-0.
I am Charlie Brown.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
No worries.
And I sucked at baseball/softball, so you trump me there.