Geraldine Ferraro was never like this.
After a middling start of her speech, Sarah Palin hit her stride. Palin's speech so far is MILES better than Biden's — and will probably be better than McCain's.
UPDATE: Wow! What a speech. She lacks Obama's (or Reagan's) eloquence, but she has something that Obama lacks (and Reagan had) — an ability to effectively depict her opponent as a phony without seeming too mean.
2d UPDATE: I flipped quickly from ABC to NBC to CBS and the initial concensus was very positive, though when I switched back to NBC Tom Brokaw was undercutting the "Bridge to Nowhere" point by slightly misstating the facts.
" MUSH ALL Y'ALL HUSKIES! Go Sarah
I think MSNBC has dialed down the sound of the crowd. The crowd SOUNDS louder on C-Span and even CNN. Maybe I am paranoid.
I am curious to see how well she debates the bundle of hairplugs.
Andrew Sullivan's nastiness goes to 11 (read his live blog)
When she learns to fully utilize the teleprompter she will be unstoppable. I see flashes of brilliance and soon she will be brilliant speaking but it's a bit uneven now.
Her speechwriter certainly had fun with this. "The presidency is not a journey of personal exploration." She has the advantage of being able to attack much harder than others- because she is a young, beautiful woman.
She proved she can play inside baseball with the best of them. But I would have added more foreign policy. She needs to prove that.
Thus, there was no need for foreign policy -- just a solid speech that demonstrates she's a viable candidate on top of being awesome and exactly what the base had given up hoping for. She more than delivered. It's awesome.
(and I can't believe anyone with cable bothered to watch anything other than C-SPAN... but then I also can't stand talking heads interrupting things; MSNBC would be torture even if I was a total liberal. I don't watch any of these events -- conventions, State of the Union, etc. -- on a "news" network.)
Funny, I thought it started slowly, but then got funny and "real." (Sorry, Long day and I'm out of adjectives.)
What strikes me is that that I was saying to Mrs. Hoosier that that is trajectory of Giuliani's best speeches when he is really "on." Slow start. Funny. Some zingers that you don't expect. And you can forget that he's reading from the teleprompter, since his delivery is natural.
You could do worse as a speaker than being like Rudy at his best.
I did not see her speech, so I'll take your word for it. But one question - how can she be "MILES better than Biden" but only "probably" better than McCain?
Biden is a much better public speaker than McCain.
Morella survived a long time in my quite liberal district because she was "nice Connie." It's a good gig, but the second she had to go to negative in 2002, it meant she lost the middle.
I think the point is, McCain hasn't given his speech yet. Hence the "probably."
A few days ago, when people were trashing Palin, I predicted that McCain would be on the bottom, Biden and Palin in the middle, and Obama on top.
Now I'd put Obama a definite first. Palin not too far behind, then Biden much farther back, then probably McCain (we'll see).
For months I'd been saying I think McCain lucked out with the scheduling, as a good part of the nation will be watching the Skins-Giants game tomorrow night. But now I see the game is scheduled for 7 pm. I assume the NFL moved it up so as to not conflict with the RNC.
For someone as smart and savvy as you are, I'm surprised that you think that Palin should be quieter and nicer.
First, Palin doesn't win by being the sweet victim and asking for sympathy. How did Hillary's complaints about sexism play with those who weren't already her supporters? Palin wins by winning (beating the men at their own game).
Second, what you suggest her doing is not Palin at all. Alaska is littered by the bodies of her political opponents. The honest ones she just beats; the corrupt ones she discredits and humiliates. She is by far the toughest politician of the four national candidates.
Her style should appeal to 70s feminists (if only she didn't oppose abortion).
That you can't see that Palin did extremely well suggests that you so vehemently disagreed with what she said that you couldn't appreciate the performance.
Wait, it's not Palin/Giulliani?
Every stupid charge they've brought against her, she shoved right back down there throats. If Walsh/May played against a high school team, it couldn't be any more one-sided than Palin returning Obama's serves.
Advice to Obama/Biden: Concede now, before she really hurts you.
The anti-Palin narrative was voluminous: she's unprepared, she's mired in a corruption scandal, she's patronizing to women -- take your pick, there are about 20. The pro-Palin narrative the McCain campaign settled on was that she was a good person taking a bad rap from an unfair press. That's the framework she's operating in for this speech.
So for the average mildly sympathetic voter, the full-bore negativity is perplexing given the background McCain's own campaign laid out.
The problem is one of schizophrenia. If there's something we did learn from Clinton's campaign, it's that you can either try and rally women based on solidarity around mistreatment, or you can try and transcend gender by playing hardball. Both come with risks, but you have to settle on one, because each style undermines the other. And if the advantage of Palin's new style is that it would appeal to one of the most definitively liberal groups in America were it not for the issue they think is absolutely most important, I think the net-negative assessment still holds.
She lost the middle, so she went negative, but it wasn't enough.
"So for the average mildly sympathetic voter, the full-bore negativity is perplexing given the background McCain's own campaign laid out."
I think your analysis is exactly right for the demographic you're talking about - the problem is there just aren't many of that demographic out here whose votes are in play.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people already full-bore negative (i.e. wrong trackers) looking for someone to speak to their concerns.
Evidently, Palin has been assigned that detail and may well have pulled it off, at the cost of alienating the demographic you mention.
I think Ezra Klein's analysis is similar to mine: Palin's speech would have been fine if she was Josephine RNC Speaker, but it didn't advance her as a VP. Most importantly, it sacrificed the long-game for the applause (or, more often and tellingly, the boos) of a good attack line.
Anybody with her background can memorize a speech. The real question is, how's she going to do without a script? She doesn't look ready for MTP to me. But maybe I'm just more critical because I don't support the ticket.
Wow, Jim's really gone overboard now. Palin's won one major race in Alaska running on an anti-corruption and change platform against one of Alaska's most corrupt politicians. True, she did it against the party establishment but beating a crooked politician isn't exactly a sign of political toughness that you attribute to her. I'm willing to grant you that Palin may be all of the things that you say she is. But you're basing this on what evidence?
And many of those voters have for some time had a growing contempt for the media peddling the stories. I suspect the NYT attempt to discredit her because of a pregnant daughter and her husband's 22-year-old DUI actually help her.
Not all Hillary voters are PUMAs. In the Scots-Irish back-country swing states, Hillary cleaned Obama's clock, and Palin is following right in her (class-based) footsteps.
The gender issue might be masking the more important one: class.
I think you can attack her on her experience all you want. Just apply the same standard to Obama, or, you know, a higher standard, since he won't have time to learn on the job. But just don't do things like, you know, accuse her of faking a pregnancy. Or criticize her for calling Hillary a whiner when she was simply pointing out how people react to what they perceive as whining (I seem to recall that Hillary in fact was labeled a whiner with regard to the media coverage). Or call her insensitive because she laughs nervously when someone calls a cancer survivor a "bitch" and a "cancer". To get back at Palin for this, this humble and kind and fragile cancer survivor started the rumor that Palin faked her pregnancy to cover for her daughter. Or maybe you could try to blame prenatal care for a fucking genetic disorder.
Seriously, attack her for legitimate reasons. Like stretching the truth about her role in the Bridge to Nowhere. Or take the NYT tack and write an article about how governing Alaska is easier than governing any of the other states. Or whatever. Just bring up good arguments about her that aren't based on quips from anonymous people who claim to be from Wasilla or opponents who make up faked pregnancy rumors about her.
I honestly don't care about her experience. She seems like she's actually a pretty savvy politician if she can go from being "almost recalled" to getting 80% of the vote in her re-election bid and garner an 80% approval rating. All I really care about is that she's pro gun. According to an e-mail sent to David Codrea, she came through on a promise to get the state to cooperate with Class III weapons dealers. I don't think you'd ever see Obama or Biden ever doing a favor for gun dealers even if it was a simple matter of making sure the government was complying with the law.
I think, David Schraub, you're misremembering the facts of Morella's loss to Van Hollen that year. The district that she represented, which had been trending Democratic throughout the 90's, had become close to unwinnable to a Republican after the 2000 redistricting which replaced a lot of suburban/ex-urban Republicans in her district with urban (and African-American) democrats.
Van Hollen ran a strictly partisan race in a very partisan district. His line was pretty much this: "She may be nice but she's a Republican, and she may not agree with them, but she helps keep them in leadership."
By the time she went negative, to the extent she did, she had already lost.
I lived in Arlington at the time and remember the race vividly because it was emblematic to me of what had gone wrong with Congressional politics in this country.
Once she got going though, I would have to call it one of the most effective political speeches of the last several years. I liked the mix of rhetoric and substance delivered with a folksy style with an ironic edge. I have to say I am looking forward to her upcoming decade(s) in national politics.
This was a GOP political convention and she was supposed to rouse the base and skewer Obama.
Plus we are comparinmg the VP of the GOP to the P of the Democrats. Telling isn't it.
Those voters aren't in play. They were never going to vote for a black man. But even in that demo I wouldn't be surprised if some of the younger women might swing to Obama because of Palin's extreme anti-choice position. Not they would ever admit it in public.
In any event, she's surely not going to swing any feminists and I think even as they energize the fundie base, they're also scaring the few remaining disgruntled Hillaryites who didn't go PUMA crazy into getting out to vote for Obama, where they might have just sat it out otherwise.
Same for independents who don't like either candidate. Just my opinion. I'll be interested to see how it plays out once Palin gets more exposure.
Palin had already cost McCain my vote, but the anger in the Hall tonight might have done so anyway. I think she seemed small, because she was pretty flat and because she had no substance in her speech beyond praising small towns, fearing new taxes and pretending being the mayor of 6000 souls is more experience than Obama has. There's an argument to be made here, that's not it.
I'm confused by why the GOP seems so angry still. They've won almost every presidential election during my life, control the SC, made huge inroads into the Great Society - with all this success, what are they mad about?
HGB
"They were never going to vote for a black man."
And you were never going to consider a Scots-Irish hick a human being.
Never is a long time.
No. She gave a good speech, but she *did* come across as mean. Her attacks were mocking and smug, not at all like Reagan, who called you friend as he cut you down.
" Tom Brokaw was undercutting the "Bridge to Nowhere" point by
slightly misstating the facts."pointing out that Palin was lying."Fixed your post.
I've seen this notion that Palin is suppose to appeal to the mods a few times already. It seems like its a liberal talking point to try to convince Palin to be less than she is.
And I assure you, women are able to process the complicated two-part notion of 1)His friends were big-time jerks. 2)I very sweetly and with a smile knocked his block off which he deserved.
The crushes on Palin are becoming silly.
I started laughing and my wife gets this 'waah?' face.
I remind her why old Plager-Joe wasn't president back in 88, and she got the joke.
Neither network had an ounce of shame, though.
New defintition of "silly"?: adj., Heterosexual, male, and alive.
Um, no, I won't trust you.
If anyone thinks Obama could do that, they are lying to themselves.
Can you please explain. How were they using Biden to "cut down" Palin's speech? It would seem normal to seek Biden's response. Doesnt seem shameful to me at all.
Even better:
As always, the left overplayed their hand.
Yes, of course your side is right. Sen Biden only provided reasonable comments on her speech and positions. In fact, the whole thing was objective.
It is entirely proper to allow Sen Biden to deliver comments on her speech and treat them like they came from the coverage team. It was just because she is so evil and her daughter is so pregnant that his comments trended into the non-approval zone.
That was a question. I did not see the interview with Biden. But I dont find anything unusual in allowing a politician to respond to an opponent's speech. How did the media treat Biden's comments "like they came from the coverage team?"
Much as Sarah Palin has slightly misstating the facts.
Biden wasn't president because back in the 80s he copied British speechs instead of having his writers revise them.
This morning CNBC and CNN both had Biden on in the middle of their coverage team switches, and allowed him to ramble about what a lightweight she was-- just like he was one of their own team. They didn't even softball him, they just threw it over to him to hit the talking points.
That's going to leave a mark.
But that implies multiple viewpoints. Which is a no-no.
The Republicans are right. No further discussion is necessary, or indeed, permitted.
The most amazing line of the campaign thus far came from McCain's people after Campbell Brown called 'em on the "commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard" nonsense.
Really, people, think about this:
After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.
That's what journalists are supposed to do?
FoxNews has spoiled these people -- they think the news is supposed to just be free advertising.
And you were never going to consider a Scots-Irish hick a human being.
Never is a long time.
Point taken. That was sloppy prose. Chalk it up to the late hour. Way past my bedtime. So let me rephrase, it's highly unlikely that demo will vote for Barack and it's impolitic to say so, but it's because he's black and racism is not dead.
And for the record, I consider every member of our species to be a human being worthy of respect, whether or not they agree with my politics. Which is more than I can say for the GOP's behavior last night. But I assume you were making a rhetorical point and not presuming to judge my mindset.
Now go ahead and tell me Joe Biden, who has changed his position on Iraq 180 degrees, is a "foreign policy expert."
Um, how is it "nonsense" that as Governor she maintains control over the AKNG?
Don't worry, I'm sure you have some incoherent, and snarky answer...
It's the spin that her position as head of the National Guard gives her "military experience". Was the same true of Bill Clinton then? It's been pointed out in a number of places that when the Guard is activated for military service, the Governor has ZERO responsibilities for oversight.
Federal service, yes. In state service the governor is the commander in chief acting through the AG.
Does anyone know if the 297th Infantry is under her command or Bush's when they scout for Russian landings?
When has she said this?
What "military experience" does Obama or Biden have?
How is "military experience" relevant to being VP?
Other fun facts:
And,
But go ahead and belittle her, as an Obama supporter you're simply creating a caricature of yourself.
McCain himself.
Name one time when Palin has taken command of the AKNG? There's an answer to the question even if McCain's own spokesman didn't know it.
Ace - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Bill Clinton.
I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough.
A link to an actual news source would be nice.
Ace - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Bill Clinton
What is the question?
When has she said this?
What "military experience" does Obama or Biden have?
How is "military experience" relevant to being VP?
Huh?
You don't read real well.
Whatever,
Or is the bolded part too nuanced for you?
By the way, you may also want to read this:
This is still a democracy. The people, including the press, do not owe leaders deference. They owe the people deference - and a willingness to provide any relevant facts the press asks for promptly.
As for Teh Ace, man, you make it all too easy:
Ace: Um, how is it "nonsense" that as Governor she maintains control over the AKNG?
What Campbell Brown asked was any example of a CINC *decision* that Palin had made. If her CINC prowess is a qualification, then let's hear about it, is the idea.
McCain's flack was caught like a deer in the headlights.
Here's why:
"Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard?" CNN journalist Campbell Brown asked Monday while interviewing McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Just one?"
Bounds couldn't, because Palin has never personally ordered the state guard to do anything.
At most, she's approved requests that were brought to her, like permission to send a C-17 plane to Louisiana for Hurricane Gustav. And Bounds couldn't even come up with *that*.
But if you're being paid per comment, Ace, then no harm done.
In that spirit, I'll pass along a question from Mark Kleiman's blog:
Is there anything in Palin's speech last night that George W. Bush would disagree with?
Anything?
Good question.
Is there anything in Palin's speech last night that George W. Bush would disagree with?
Anything?
Good question.
Disagreeing with Bush is the key to a good speech? How odd. How did people know what to make of Churchill's wartime speeches, given that W was not yet available as a measuring stick?
Units that are on active duty are not under the command or control of the Governor which means she has ZERO say in the activities of that unit.
I'm still waiting for your response to my question as to whether Bill Clinton's time as Governor gave him "military experience" and whether Democrats should have highlighted that position as an example of his foreign policy experience as McCain and his supporters have done?
it sure tells you a lot about mccain.
You are usually better than this. Frankly, after the "Sarah is Really the Grandma" crap on his blog, he lacks the credibility to tell me that today is Thursday.
But it ain't gonna play with independents. And they're just judging her on her delivery of a prepared speech. Wait till they get a taste of her actual resume...