> First off, to my conservative friends: Congratulations. For all the talk of her being another Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin has acquitted herself much better than Quayle ever did, and for all the talk of her being another Thomas Eagleton, I can't imagine her being dropped from, or withdrawing from, the ticket now.
>
> Only a fool would deny that Palin is a very rousing public speaker, or that she's firmly cemented the conservative base's support for John McCain. And speaking from the left end of the spectrum, the fact that so many of my fellow liberals have been reduced to nit-picking the factual content of her rhetoric is troubling to me, because even though a significant number of claims that she and her fellow Republicans have made at their convention are provably untrue, if the success of Ronald Reagan proved anything, it's that even those in the political middle prefer to print, and believe in, the legend.
>
> Likewise, the Democrats run into an additional minefield if they turn too much criticism, however deserved it may well be, onto the first and only female vice presidential candidate since Geraldine Ferraro, because now, conservatives get to reap the rewards of all the liberals' hard work on behalf of feminism, since they can now make claims of sexism when male politicians make the unbelievably stupid missteps of either referring to Palin as "shrill," or questioning whether a mother with so many children, especially when one of them has special needs, should be working outside the home, because this is precisely the sort of commentary that feminists have derided as sexist for decades. Joe Biden has a well-earned reputation for his debating skills, but Palin puts him into a Catch-22, because we now know that she won't shy away from being an attack dog, but even if he simply follows suit, he risks looking like Rick Lazio running against Hillary Clinton.
>
> So, that's the good news for conservatives. Here's the good news for liberals:
>
> Palin has been the only high point of an otherwise underwhelming Republican National Convention. Hurricane Gustav rendered the first night a wash, since the Republicans responded appropriately (hey, credit where it's due) by focusing more attention on relief efforts than on their own campaign. George W. Bush's cameo-by-video reflected a Catch-22 of its own, since as the incumbent president, he had to be seen offering support for his party's nominee, but at the same time, with close to 80-percent disapproval ratings nationwide, his remarks were so perfunctory that he almost seemed apologetic for reminding anyone outside of the conservative base that he still existed. Joe Lieberman crossing the aisle to defend the right wing, interspersed with his complimentary remarks about Bill Clinton, not only failed to sustain even the simple goodwill built up by Fred Dalton Thompson's folksy charm, but almost seemed to make the attendees uncomfortable. And yes, Palin filled the Republican National Convention to capacity on one night, but Barack Obama filled the Democratic National Convention to capacity on every night. Especially in light of the frequently-seen empty seats in the first nights of the Republican National Convention, it's going to be embarrassing for them if McCain, their presidential nominee, isn't able to generate the same attendance numbers as Palin, their vice presidential nominee.
>
> And that's another problem with Palin; she's coming close to outshining the "boss." If Palin herself was the Republican nominee, this race would be nothing less than terrifyingly chaotic for everyone involved, because there would be endless internecine strife, among every possible dividing line in the country, as black men would face off against working-class white moms with jobs, who would go up against affluent and academic liberal feminists, who would still be holding grudges against black men, and regardless of who won, it would basically mark the open declaration of civil wars within both liberalism and feminism, and perhaps even conservatism as well (which already has its own civil war between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives simmering slowly beneath the surface). As it stands, though, since Palin seems to have weathered the storms of her controversies to date, her new biggest anchor becomes the guy whose ticket she was brought in to shore up in the first place. If McCain cedes all, or even most, of his attacks to Palin, he risks looking weak, which increases concerns about his age, but if McCain says, "Thanks for the lift, Sarah, but I'll take it from here," then he's right back where he started, and where he started was so weak that, I'll say again, he needed to bring Palin onto the ticket in the first place. And given the number of conservatives I've heard from who have said that Palin is their ONLY reason for voting for McCain, as opposed to simply sitting this election out, it really is that much of an all-or-nothing scenario. Yes, Quayle's missteps "outshone" anything that George H.W. Bush did, either good or bad, in 1988, and the elder Bush still got elected, but the elder Bush was also coming off what remains arguably the most popular presidency of the 20th (or even 21st) century, whereas McCain is coming off what has been almost statistically proven to be the most unpopular presidency of either century.
>
> But Palin made a great speech, or so the media says. And in terms of appealing to the conservative base, and sounding professionally put-together and well-delivered, yes, she did. Of course, this is the point where I offer the disclaimer that I am a filthy LIEbral whose opinion is biased, before I start attacking her speech, but I think what's most damning is to compare it to Obama's speech (finally, tying into the title of this article!), from a perspective that's NOT liberal. Pat Buchanan hates blacks, liberals and Democrats, in that order, and yet, he deemed Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention "the greatest convention speech" he had ever heard, at such length that, as Keith Olbermann noted, "We had to stop Pat Buchanan gushing over Obama's speech for the sake of time. Perhaps that will tell you the story better than anything else we could say." In national polls, and even among my conservative friends, I was hard-pressed to find many negative comments of substance about it. It was a remarkably eloquent, hopeful and non-partisan speech, which expressed the belief that mutually beneficial compromises and mutually respectful relationships could be achieved between those who nonetheless disagree about how best to run this country, AND which managed to take aim at McCain's positions while still praising his committed service to, and concern for, the welfare of this country. Like his later remarks declaring Palin's family "off-limits," which he did by pointing out that his own mother got pregnant with him when she was the same age as Palin's daughter (holy shit, a politician calling attention to his own less-than-perfect background, to deflect criticism away from his opponents on those same issues?), Obama took the high road and reached his hand out to the opposite side, and even if it was only a gesture, it was one that made moderates and independents, upon whom this election hinges, feel included, rather than excluded.
>
> ... Please tell me that you're all smart enough to guess where I'm going with this next.
>
> In the wake of her speech, I've heard Palin described as "Reagan-esque" by any number of conservatives, but when Reagan talked shit about someone, he did it in such an affectionately and gently mocking way that, even if you agreed with his opponent, you instantly felt ashamed for them. With both Mondale and Carter before him, all Reagan had to do to rebut even their most well-worded, smartly thought-out arguments was chuckle, shake his head, shrug his shoulders and say, with amused pity, "There you go again," and you felt like you were watching Ward Cleaver indulgently putting up with the well-meaning but misguided mischief of the Beaver. Palin, by her own admission, is a completely different political animal. If I was a conservative who had slogged through the otherwise underperforming Republican National Convention, Palin would probably seem practically Reagan-esque to me by now, too, and the media certainly helped her out by setting the bar so low beforehand, by reporting on her series of scandalous revelations to such a degree that I suspect a number of overconfident Democrats were halfway convinced that she'd open her speech by spelling "potatoe." And if I was a conservative working-class mom with a job, I'd probably love her, precisely because she pisses off affluent and academic liberal feminists, and part of the reason why the feminist movement is so fractured right now is because so many rural and less-educated women, who actually practice the feminist goals of working outside the home and demanding equal treatment in their careers, still subscribe to an otherwise overwhelmingly right-wing agenda, and they feel that richer, more urbane left-wingers who self-identify as "feminists" are looking down on them with barely repressed contempt (which, to be honest? A lot of them are).
>
> "Hockey moms" and wistful Reaganites aside, though, how does Palin play to moderates and independents? Well, a statistical majority of both would prefer abortion to be legal to at least some degree, which is even more true among moderate and independent women, so Obama has made the smart move by broadcasting Palin's blanket opposition to ALL forms of abortion in his latest ads. Likewise, the economy is still the biggest concern for most voters, and aside from blasting Obama's supposed lack of a plan for dealing with it, Palin was shockingly silent about offering any solutions of her own, other than echoing Rudy Giuliani's "DRILL, BABY, DRILL!" More than anything, though, I was struck by Palin's attempts to revive the dialogue of the "culture war," in an election year that's already proven to be less receptive to it than many pundits and politicians had feared (or, indeed, hoped for). And when even The Moderate Voice is condemning you as a HOLY SHIT SCARY extremist who's all style and no substance, you're in trouble. The unnecessary pot-shot at "community organizers" is already brewing a backlash, especially since community organizers tend to be non-partisan as often as not (indeed, in the town that I report on, probably a statistical majority of "community organizers" who work on behalf of the underprivileged in our community are themselves registered Republicans), so while that line might amuse the far-right water-cooler, expect it to fall silent just about everywhere else fairly soon, unless the Republican Party is so stupid that it wants to make a number of its own people feel inadvertently mocked. And as I've scanned through the comments sections of the stories linked on Google News, I've seen the reader praise for Palin matched by at least as many former fence-sitters who have declared that her speech inspired them to do whatever they can to block her bid for office.
>
> And here's how it breaks down in numbers - Obama got a 4-point bounce out of his almost universally lauded speech at the Democratic National Convention. Gallup currently places Obama at 49-to-42 percent over McCain, from polls taken before Palin's speech, so IF Palin can give McCain a 4-point bounce, AND IF Obama DROPS 4 points, THEN you'll see McCain in the lead ... by one point. As inclusive as Obama's speech was, and as energy-filled as the rest of the Democratic National Convention was, does anyone really see this happening, when you consider how exclusive Palin's speech was, and how lifeless the Republican National Convention has been otherwise?
>
> Bottom line? Republicans, you do yourselves, your party, your heroes, and yes, even your current candidates a disservice by comparing Palin to Reagan. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I knew Reagan, I grew up during the decade of Reagan, and Sarah Palin, while you may look like a hot combination of Tina Fey and Mariska Hargitay, you are no Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan did not have to lower himself to the level of "a pit-bull wearing lipstick" to make his points. Ronald Reagan dissed his opponents in ways that made even liberals like me grudgingly feel like he was their kindly old grandfather, whereas you, Sarah Palin, thrust out your jaw and scrunch up your face, as if to indicate, like the South Park parody of Al Gore, that OMG YOU GUYSTH THISTH IS STHUPER STHERIOUSTH!!!111
>
> Which is why I say that you, Sarah Palin, are the grown-up version of Tracy Flick from Election.
|
|
