Sarah Palin's Speech

Pretty bad all told. And what bizarre television coverage on ABC. First all the cut-aways to Cindy McCain during Rudy Guliani's truly odiuos "speech." And why was she holding the little Down's Syndrome baby? And why was the baby even there? And how uncomfortable did Bristol and her baby-daddy look? I try to keep these blogs in proper English but tonight it's just too much. I should know better than to listen to Republicans speak.

A quick dissection:

1. Taking about fifteen minutes to introduce every member of your family may be a good way to address a Tupperware or Avon meeting, but Ms. Palin you are running for Vice President of the United States. It also kind of ruins the whole "family is off limits" meme your running mate has been floating all day. To Democrats I say, fire away!

2. She doesn't exactly exude charisma, and her overall tone was snide and patronizing. Not as bad as Guliani but it seems a serious misstep to let Palin follow in his attack-dog style, especially after his speech ran so long. They talk about Obama as if he just finished his undergraduate, which is especially rich coming from the "Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard," who only got a passport last year.

3. The essential thrust of the speech was, "John McCain is awesome, we're going to shake up Washington, Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal, I love my family and it's really large, p.s. John McCain is awesome."
The tax-and-spend/big government thing is like regressing to 1988, not to mention the current administration's idea of fiscal responsibility amounts to running a $300 trillion deficit. For the family bit, see above (plus, she really said her husband races "snow machines"?!). And finally, it's also rather bold to run on a platform of "shaking up Washington" with a six-term member of Congress under the banner of the party that has been in power for 30 of the last 38 years.
Also, John McCain is not awesome. John McCain is very boring.

4. Lastly - predictably, nauseatingly, the press is eating it up. It would be quaint to hear George Stephanopoulous say "she did really well for a first time in front of so many people," if it didn't speak to a press corp so willing to lower the bar. The NY Times says she "electrified" the party faithful. I saw many confused, bored, even sullen faces in the crowd. The speech was stultifying, full of tired talking points and just plain nonsense. I'm biased of course, but I actually feared she would give a great speech. She did not. But what I should have realized is that when the media lauded her speaking abilities beforehand, they were simply writing the preamble to the plaudits they would lavish on her afterward, regardless of her actual performance.

I have a feeling that real people aren't buying it, but it's so hard to tell, being in New York. Biden should eat her alive in the debates, but we'll see if anyone notices.

By the way, the first step is admitting you have a problem - I am an election addict.