Gut reactions to the Palin speech
Sep. 3rd, 2008 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Overall: not a great speech, but not a terrible one either. Rather disjointed at times -- the first several minutes felt more like an Oscar acceptance speech than a presidential one -- but once she got down to business she generally stayed on-message. She jabbed *very* hard at the Democrats, indeed to the point of coming across as rather nasty at times: she manages to make Biden look like a nice guy by comparison. That's likely necessary in her positon (she can't afford to look weak); we'll see how it plays with the general electorate.
I listened to most of the speech in the car, so I was surprised when I got home that my reaction to seeing her on TV was quite different from hearing her. She's oddly weaker visually than audibly: her body language comes across as much more hectoring to me than her tone alone does.
As for the content -- no real surprises. I'm irritated by the sheer volume of lying and exaggeration it contained about the Democrats, but by now I should expect that of the Republicans. (Mind, I expect some of it from any political campaign: it's just the quantity that annoys me.) It was very much a speech of battle lines, defining a lot of bad guys who she is against: the political establishment, the media, city folk, democrats, etc. I'd love to hear how that plays among the independents: it was an intensely partisan speech in a political environment that has otherwise been focusing on unity.
Her consistent use of "our opponent", never actually naming Obama, feels weirdly smarmy to me, and oddly out of place in a campaign that has often been on a first-name basis otherwise on both sides. I suppose that was done because she's the one person involved who *doesn't* actually know any of the players personally, but it was quite noticeable.
I can't say I *liked* the speech, but it would have been surprising if I did. I'd say that she hit the necessary points, but left plenty of holes that the Democrats have presumably already begun poking into. I don't know if it will win a lot of people over from the center, but it ought to at least help shore up the right wing...
I listened to most of the speech in the car, so I was surprised when I got home that my reaction to seeing her on TV was quite different from hearing her. She's oddly weaker visually than audibly: her body language comes across as much more hectoring to me than her tone alone does.
As for the content -- no real surprises. I'm irritated by the sheer volume of lying and exaggeration it contained about the Democrats, but by now I should expect that of the Republicans. (Mind, I expect some of it from any political campaign: it's just the quantity that annoys me.) It was very much a speech of battle lines, defining a lot of bad guys who she is against: the political establishment, the media, city folk, democrats, etc. I'd love to hear how that plays among the independents: it was an intensely partisan speech in a political environment that has otherwise been focusing on unity.
Her consistent use of "our opponent", never actually naming Obama, feels weirdly smarmy to me, and oddly out of place in a campaign that has often been on a first-name basis otherwise on both sides. I suppose that was done because she's the one person involved who *doesn't* actually know any of the players personally, but it was quite noticeable.
I can't say I *liked* the speech, but it would have been surprising if I did. I'd say that she hit the necessary points, but left plenty of holes that the Democrats have presumably already begun poking into. I don't know if it will win a lot of people over from the center, but it ought to at least help shore up the right wing...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 03:35 am (UTC)Now we wait and see how it played to the independents. Because honestly, she could have done a striptease and then given the speech through her bare ass, and that crowd would have screamed for more.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 03:45 am (UTC)That's because she looks like Tina Fey.
Tina Fey is much cuter, though. I think I'll vote for her and Jon Stewart.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 11:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-05 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 04:05 am (UTC)ERRY
If I could just reframe the point that Cal was making.
BARTLET
I understand the point that Cal was making. I was sitting next to him when he made it,
my ears are connected to my brain just like every body else. And I'm saying what's next?
CAL
Sir, not to put my head in the lion's mouth but by saying the name of your opponent in
public you're essentially giving him free advertising.
JERRY
Cal thinks you should start referring to him as "my opponent" or "the other guy"?
CAL
Sir.
BARTLET
You're not afraid he's gonna make me look like I can't remember his name?
JERRY
No.
BARTLET
I am. I think it's going to make me look like I can't remember his name. I think it's
going to make me look addled. I think it's going to make me look dotty. And even if it
didn't make me look like those things it would remain a stupid idea. What's next? Nothing?
Excellent. [leaves]
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 02:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 06:01 pm (UTC)I'm more interested in how independents felt about it -- the folks who aren't going to be prone to an automatic positive or negative gut reaction based on tribal loyalties. I don't consider many of my friends to be especially "independent" in that regard: the deep antipathy to anyone remotely linked to the current Republican leadership just runs too deep...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 06:58 pm (UTC)As you know, I teach training classes to adults as part of my job so there are lots of different little things I tend to notice when I'm watching these speeches. Obama and Biden were clearly both much more comfortable speaking in front of a large group than Palin was (not that I slam her for that, it was to be expected). There were many physical mannerisms that gave away the fact that she had little idea how to manage a large audience as a speaker (although she does know how to play to the camera). Then I realized that the RNC audience was actually larger than the population of the town she had been the mayor of. :-)
What really struck me though was how many shots of the audience showed lots of people who looked bored. Yes, they'd cut to the random, excited people, but in the background you could always make out people just sitting there, not applauding or waving signs, just looking tired. I don't remember seeing that during Biden's speech to a much larger audience. The fact that the cameras kept cutting back to the same people just reinforced the idea that the crowd wasn't really behind her speech, they just rallied when they heard one of the talking point sound bites.