Thursday, September 4, 2008

veep.










I watched Sarah Palin's acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention. oh my. She was certainly poised and had a great command of the audience, who were fawning over her. Palin is articulate, witty, and a good dresser - three big plusses in my book.

But . . .

So much of what she said was empty or worse, deceitful. Palin barely mentioned the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care for all of her italk about Obama's lack of substance. She boasted that she had fought against earmarks in Congress, but as governer requested the single largest per capita earmark in U.S. history. She didn't, in fact, say 'no thanks' on the bridge to nowhere until it became clear that it was a nationally unpopular undertaking. she actually called the term "bridge to nowhere" insulting, presumably in reference to the small community of people who lived on the island to which the bridge was being built. this is what they mayor of Ketchikan, the town that would have been the starting point of the bridge, had to say:

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, 'I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting,"
Weinstein said.

Her critique of Barack Obama was so familiar - it would be refreshing to hear either side come up with new takes on old issues, or new criticims altogether, which is another sign this campaign has gone on too long - and simultaneously vitriolic and mean-spirited that it was almost painful to watch at times. While i understand the strategy of pointing out your opponent's perceived weaknesses and shortcomings, she seemed to get a great deal of pleasure from tossing pointed barbs at Obama. Her dig about his parting the waters? About the presidential seal that his campaign designed for him? Her insults hurled about not only his job as a community organizer but all community organizers? I mean, really?

I think Andrew Romano from Newsweek said it best:

It was short on specifics substance-free. It was largely negative--and while sarcasm works in the moment, it tends to curdle as time goes by. And many of its assaults on Obama's record were misleading.

I'm hopeful that the rhetoric can become increasingly issues-based. Hopeful, but not expectant.
And ready for the upcoming debates . . .

2 comments:

Anna Jordan said...

Fully agree. I found her to be far more articulate than expected and she was definitely more candid and personable than I find McCain.

However, she was definitely lacking on specifics and spent most of her time utilizing negative jargon, and largely, fear based rhetoric. I found her lecture to be less "pro-McCain" and more "anti-Obama" than anything. Which is always disappointing, no matter how qualified or not you are.

Anna Jordan said...

Also... I think you'd like this guy:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/.

I love him!