« Prev

Slog

Next »

Palin: Underwhelming

gobama.jpg

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin better have thanked the baby Jesus this morning for low expectations. Prior to her speech (written, BTW, by former George W. Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully) Palin was widely criticized as an unknown quantity—a barely tested, unvetted, small-town mayor and PTA mom with no foreign policy credentials, a history of corruption, and zero prior presence on the national stage. Given that setup, if Palin had merely managed to appear composed, human, and literate last night while reading her prepared remarks to an adoring crowd, the media would have declared her speech a triumph. Hell, if she’d driven onstage in an F350 pickup, dragging a bloody caribou and waving an Alaskan secession flag, they would have probably declared it a draw.

Fortunately for Palin, she went above and beyond the media’s laughably low expectations. Many, including many at this paper, found her charismatic, tough, and ball-busting—like, in her own words, “a pit bull in lipstick.” She blasted the “elites,” the “pollsters and pundits” who said she wasn’t qualified—and then, in a mean-spirited, snarling pit bull of a speech, completely ignored the substance of their accusations. Instead, Palin focused almost exclusively on Barack Obama, sneering contemptuously that his work as a community organizer involved no “actual responsibilities” (would she say the same thing about, say, MLK?), mocking him for wanting to “read [al Qaeda terrorists] their rights,” and identifying him, by association, with “San Francisco” values.

Did it work? In context, sure. Palin’s speech was directed at the Republican base—where “base” is defined as “hard-right, xenophobic white people who want to control what women and gays do with their bodies but are scared Big Guvmint’s gonna take their guns away and give ‘em to the terrorists.”

As for the rest of America, well, if you set aside those aforementioned low expectations, I’m not sure which new supporters Palin was hoping to win over to McCain’s cause. Almost every single sentence included at least one tired, generic, circa-1995 Republican catch phrase— to name just a few: “media elite,” “profile in courage,” “small-town values,” “massive tax burden,” and “permanent political establishment.” (Like, say, her running mate—a 26-year veteran of Congress?) If Obama’s popularity has demonstrated anything, it’s that people are ready for a new plan—and with it, a new rhetoric. Calling Obama a do-nothing, tax-and-spend liberal isn’t just wrong; it isn’t interesting.

And speaking of rhetoric: It’s highly ironic that Palin dwelled on Obama’s use of rhetoric (“when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot…What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?”) in a speech almost completely devoid of substance. I’m not just talking about the fact that she didn’t talk about policy (and lied, as the AP and others have documented, when she did address it). I’m talking about the fact that, unlike Obama, she failed utterly to respond to the widespread, well-documented criticisms of her as a candidate. Palin’s pitch for herself as vice president was a combination of smears and biography—as if knowing your small-town constituents and having a baby with Down Syndrome (or, for that matter, being a prisoner of war) qualified a person to occupy the White House!

The strength of Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention last week wasn’t just that he “turned back the waters,” whatever that means; it was that he acknowledged his opponents’ attacks and systematically dismantled them. Palin may get away with ignoring her opponents’ criticisms when she’s in front of an adoring audience; but those criticisms aren’t going to go away just because she adopts a folksy tone and mocks Obama’s comparatively extensive experience. And attacking him on his strengths—community organizing, charisma, and ability to bring people together—isn’t going to play among undecided and Republican voters who are thinking of voting for Obama for exactly those qualities. Again, this was the RNC, not a debate—and in the debates she won’t be facing Obama, but Joe Biden, a vice-presidential candidate whose Congressional experience can’t be dismissed with a cute rhetorical flourish about “actual responsibilities” or “small-town values.”

But the biggest reason I think Palin’s (and McCain’s) fearmongering, don’t-let-the-terrorists-win rhetoric won’t work is personified in McCain’s opponent. Cheesy as I’ve often found all the hope and change stuff to be, the clear truth is that it resonates with a huge segment of the American population, and not just the longtime Democrats who vote in every national election. About 21 million people watched the Republican convention in its first full day—4.3 million fewer people than watched the first day of the Democratic convention, and 600,000 fewer than watched Day 2 of the 2004 convention, which featured the much-less-dramatic renomination of George W. Bush. Those numbers are anecdotal, of course, but I’m hardly going into uncharted waters when I say they speak to a larger trend in American politics. People don’t want to be told to be afraid of what they don’t know, afraid of a new party in the White House, afraid of change in the economy and the health care system and Iraq. People want to let go of those fears. By playing up the theme of fear—the same fear they’ve embraced for decades, the fear that if you don’t grab yours, some immigrant/black guy/uppity woman/PC liberal elitist will—the Republicans are missing the fact that people are actually sick of the politics of resentment, backlash, and recrimination.

Finally, about those Hillary voters. As Annie predicted, they aren’t being fooled by the theme “any pair of boobs will do” (a phrase that originated, I believe, on Shakesville). Palin is on wrong side of a majority of America’s female population on nearly every issue that could be categorized a “women’s issue”: Abortion rights, abstinence-only education, gun control, fair pay, education, and much more. Women aren’t stupid. Most of us who supported Hillary did so because she was the first progressive, smart, charismatic, Democratic female candidate for president we’d had. Now that she’s no longer in the running, the vast, overwhelming majority of us—including Clinton herself—are supporting Obama—a fact that shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying even a little attention for the last eight years.

Comments (36)

1

Yeah, what ECB said. Great post.

Posted by testify! | September 4, 2008 1:24 PM
2

ECB, in contrast, hits it out of the park.

Posted by Just Sayin' | September 4, 2008 1:26 PM
3

thank you. it was a generic speech prepared for a generic candidate who had not been selected at the time it was written. to be fair, she nailed it, but there just wasn't much to nail. i mean, "styrofoam columns"? let. it. go. you're running for vice president, not last comic standing.

my only concern is that this is the kind of dipshit populism that wins elections.

Posted by brandon | September 4, 2008 1:28 PM
4


Well reasoned and, I hope, correct in the long run.

Posted by bohica | September 4, 2008 1:30 PM
5

Lovely.

Posted by Abby | September 4, 2008 1:31 PM
6
Women aren't stupid.
To be fair, about the same percentage of women are stupid as men. And since "Low Information Voters" have become such a coveted, courted demographic it seems reasonable to assume that Palin is pitched squarely at them, in particular female L.I.V.s. Posted by flamingbanjo | September 4, 2008 1:32 PM
7

I can think of no "community" that needs better organizing than the "United" States of America - I guess Palin just wants us to continue hating each other.

Posted by ReverendZ | September 4, 2008 1:33 PM
8

Most of the women at my work, some of whom are conservative, didn't watch it.

Those who did noted it seemed to be all about Fear and 9-11 and turned them off.

But, hey, reality has a bias.

Grats, ECB.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 4, 2008 1:37 PM
9

Excellent analysis ECB. I truly hope you're right, and that style doesn't triumph over substance which seems to be the case last night.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 4, 2008 1:44 PM
10

Via Drudge:

"PALIN RAISES MONEY -- FOR OBAMA! **Exclusive** Obama scores $8 million since Palin's speech from over 130,000 donors - on pace to hit $10 million by the time John McCain hits stage, campaign says... Developing..."

I wonder about the non-substantive stuff having an effect on a lot of voters. Many don't want a complicated answer, they want an easy answer delivered by an attractive, charismatic figure that professes to be just like them - a mom. WE know it ain't true.

It remains the job of the Obama campaign - and its many surrogates, including the Clintons - to continue to define McCain and Palin as more of the same, and its the of the media to keep reporting the facts, regardless of Republican whining about bias.

Posted by matt | September 4, 2008 1:45 PM
11

Exactly and right on ECB!
Gawd that was pathetic - that nasal voice trying to look tuff and give a hard look. I just kept thinking clown car.

Even more pathetic was all the talking heads going on and on how she pulled it off.

Damn, I can't wait til some debates start and the GOP's scraficial lamb gets cooked. Then she can go back to obscurity with her ridiculous self.

Posted by irl | September 4, 2008 1:48 PM
12

Erica,

I'm really happy to be writing for the same paper as you.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | September 4, 2008 1:51 PM
13

I have no snarky/evil/vicious comment for this. Only: ECB FTW! Big time!

Posted by Mike in MO | September 4, 2008 1:51 PM
14

@6 hits it.

Women aren't stupid, but Palin was nominated to appeal to those of them that are. And there's plenty of them - they're called "independents" or "undecideds".

Posted by max solomon | September 4, 2008 1:53 PM
15

Aw! how sweet is 12?

Posted by Mike in MO | September 4, 2008 1:55 PM
16

Totally awesome. You absolutely hit the nail on the head with this post.

Posted by Hernandez | September 4, 2008 1:55 PM
17

12 is adorable, and you reminded me why, even when I disagree with you (obviously not now), you are still an amazing writer. This is awesome, and I wish everyone would read it. You articulate my incoherent feelings wonderfully.

Posted by Jessica | September 4, 2008 2:03 PM
18

The new R motto: any pair of boobs will do: Vote McSame/Palin

Posted by Phenics | September 4, 2008 2:09 PM
19

Wow. Thank you for such a great post.

Posted by Steven Miller | September 4, 2008 2:13 PM
20

Nice one, ECB. Welcome back. You were really missed.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | September 4, 2008 2:14 PM
21

If I hear any further handwringing over Palin, I am going to forward this post. Thanks for fighting the good fight, ECB.

Posted by kid icarus | September 4, 2008 2:14 PM
22

Great post, Erica. BUT, I can't help but have deja vu from 2000, and even more so from 2004. George W. was such a complete and utter moron, that I thought there was no way that people wouldn't see through him. And yet he was elected. Twice.

Granted now the Democrats have a much better candidate running, but still. I am nervous about the "low information voters". Nervous enough that I won't feel good about this whole thing (despite all the Palin scandals) until Nov. 5th.

Posted by Julie | September 4, 2008 2:33 PM
23

@22,

But he was likable. Palin isn't nearly as likable, and McCain is repulsive.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 4, 2008 2:47 PM
24

ECB for VP in 2016!

Awesome post.

Posted by Fe Man | September 4, 2008 2:50 PM
25

W00t! Great post, ECB!

Posted by NaFun | September 4, 2008 2:58 PM
26

Might want to revise your "biggest reason":

"Those numbers are anecdotal, of course, but I’m hardly going into uncharted waters when I say they speak to a larger trend in American politics."

The latest numbers from The AP show more than 40 million people watched Palin last night. That's more than a million more viewers than the record set by Obama during his acceptance speech last week.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 4, 2008 2:59 PM
27

I am so with 22. After 2004, I will never underestimate the stupidity of the American voters.

Posted by Mike in MO | September 4, 2008 3:31 PM
28

37,244,000 WATCHED PALIN ... [24,029,000 BIDEN; 38,379,000 OBAMA]...

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | September 4, 2008 3:58 PM
29

True, @13. But we have to give commenters nods too, so I have to give @27 the win.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 4, 2008 3:59 PM
30

Holy crap, ECB, when you're not writing about bikes, you have some great things to say.

Posted by Nick | September 4, 2008 4:14 PM
31

Erica, I don't think I said this on your last post but it's incredibly good to hear your reasoned arguments again. This was a fantastic summary and I too am glad you're back in the saddle. SLOG wasn't right without you.

Posted by Donolectic | September 4, 2008 4:28 PM
32

B-b-b-b-but, Erica, PC sez we have to apologize for being mean to Hillary by voting for McCain/Palin! Or something. I think that's what she meant, though.

Great post.

Posted by Fnarf | September 4, 2008 4:40 PM
33

Yes. Great post.

And I realize you're talking about your generation here...:

"Most of us who supported Hillary did so because she was the first progressive, smart, charismatic, Democratic female candidate for president we’d had."

...Don't forget about the great Shirley Chisholm who, in 1972, became the first major party woman/African American to run for president.

Posted by homage to me | September 4, 2008 4:40 PM
34

Excellent post ECB.

Posted by madootz | September 4, 2008 5:12 PM
35

Good job, ECB.

Posted by Mark | September 4, 2008 5:39 PM
36

Good piece. I wish I had more faith that American people would do the right thing though. But I don't. And if it looks like they might not, I fear the right will just steal the election again. In short, I feel we're screwed. The only upside is that it makes me glad my father died this year so he won't be subjected to the horrors that lie ahead of all of us.

Posted by Diane | September 4, 2008 6:10 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.