Lipstick Indeed
Jason Kuznicki on Sep 4th 2008
Sarah Palin’s “lipstick on a bulldog” ad lib was all too accurate, even if the substantive points of the speech were not: For starters, she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.
And altogether, the speech was a rather nasty piece of work, wasn’t it? I suspect most commentators wouldn’t be calling it “brilliant” or “a home run” if she’d had a suit, a tie, and a penis. Some commentators all but say it, too. And of course the Republican base liked it. They like anyone who attacks the Democrats and happens to be female. They like Ann Coulter, for crying out loud, so we have to admit the bar is set pretty low.
I know there are these huge impulses to over- or under-sell Palin’s performance, but: It was a typical vice-presidential attack-dog speech, no more and no less. With a few family bits thrown in. That’s all.
Filed in The Bureau
When she started rambling about her family, my wife said, “What the hell?” and changed the channel, so I didn’t see the rest of the speech. But reading it, it appears to be an awful mess. Perhaps she delivered it well, but it reads as though she’s jumping wildly from topic to topic, and it does sound nasty., as well as having more lies than the average political speech. Looking at it I got a flashback to Mean Girls.
I’m sure it played well to the conservatives, and I’m sure the believe it terrifiied the Democrats, but I think if she plays the whole campaign this way–shallow and snarky–she’s not going to help McCain pick up many independents.
And John Stewart had a great segment on the Daily Show last night, showing multiple Republicans contradicting themselves about Palin. Nothing’s funnier than using a person’s own words against them.
Oh yes — the Daily Show clip was a riot. Also, I’m pretty glad that I’m immune to this kind of thing.
I understand that some straight guys are too, and more power to them.
Oh, I’m not immune. When Palin smiles, well…. I’m reminded of my aged aunt who liked Clinton because he was so haaandsome. But I’ve dated attractive crazy women before, and my alarm bells are ringing.
[...] after her speech, rather than after she was introduced, I’d say the nastiness Jason and I both sensed was sensed by a goodly number of others (note: I wasn’t moved to contribute to anyone except [...]
There’s a long tradition of vice presidential candidates playing bad cop to the presidential candidate’s good cop when it comes to attacking the opposition. These speeches serve multiple, often conflicting purposes. (Besides, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking Palin wrote the speech.)
Viewing her performance as dispassionately as I can, I’d say Palin’s speech was a fairly strong success. She came across as poised and articulate (on balance, I’d give her higher purely oratorical marks than McCain), played well to the Republican base and did a reasonably good job of defining some of the terms of the rest of the campaign. Most of her barbs were covered with at least a thin patina of humor and I don’t think most undecided voters watching thought she came across as mean-spirited or bitchy. (Oh, and some of that money pouring in to Obama might well have been panic contributions after her speech, too, you know.)
Sure, you guys aren’t going to swoon, but they weren’t going after you. I’ll tell you what, though. If yesterday is any indication, when Palin ‘debates’ Biden, if Biden isn’t extremely careful she’ll be handing him his ass.
I liked how the published text of the speech spelled the word “nuclear” as “new-clear.” Is this to emphasize that nuclear power should be our “new” focus for an environment “clear” of pollution? Or is it just making damn sure Palin didn’t say “nukyuler” and instantly recall GWB to the minds of all those listening?
I suspect most commentators wouldn’t be calling it “brilliant” or “a home run” if she’d had a suit, a tie, and a penis.
I’ll not come across a one-liner that for the rest of the year. In fact, that could have been the entire post and it wouldn’t have lost a thing.
Oh, I’m not immune. When Palin smiles, well…. I’m reminded of my aged aunt who liked Clinton because he was so haaandsome.
I do not understand the sentiment. Even Palin’s beauty pageant pics don’t really stir anything in me. Maybe I’m just too young.
Sure, you guys aren’t going to swoon, but they weren’t going after you.
Point well taken. I just have trouble taking Palin seriously. But my wife (part of the target audience) absolutely adores her. Politics really is about in-group/out-group behavior. Pretty unappealing if you ask me.
I have friends that thought the speech was brilliant in style, even if it lacked in content. And since style seems to be what’s winning elections it has them worried.
I really didn’t like her speech. I kept waiting for something substantive, but it never came. I’ve made a lot of assumptions about Palin, but I’ve found it hard to find any hard evidence to back up what I believe her positions are. It’s difficult to find direct quotes attributed to her.
I’m interested in seeing what the next two months bring, but I’m guessing it’ll be more rhetoric like this speech than any real substance - not because I don’t think she could provide it, but because she is too smart to give any hint that her personal views might influence her politics.
I’ve dated attractive crazy women before, and my alarm bells are ringing.
Exactly my reaction. I wonder how many other men are thinking the same thing?
[...] like Ann Coulter, for crying out loud, so we have to admit the bar is set pretty low. Positive Liberty » Lipstick Indeed « I actually think this is great news for McCain. If he can win the “people [...]