Palin Has Her Work Cut Out For Her Tonight
This is a real make-or-break speech. The media narrative surrounding Sarah Palin has become overwhelmingly negative. She needs to replace the narrative with a positive one by exceeding expectations in a major way. Leaked excerpts indicate she will attack Obama – but that’s not going to be enough. This is truly about her. I’m expecting a home run, because it’s going to take one to redeem this pick.
The point is not to pile on Palin…it’s to say that there is a lot riding on tonight. I’m rooting for Palin, I truly am…I want to like this pick…but she needs to convince me and millions of other Americans tonight that she is the right person to, yes, to use the hoary cliche, be placed one heartbeat away from the presidency…
UPDATE 9:16 p.m.: Well, Rudy’s speech has had a few moments, but overall, he brought the bombast…I much preferred the conversational style he brought in 2004. There is too much demagoguery in this speech…and it’s not going to appeal outside of the base. I keep saying the base is not big enough to win this election, and I’m still convinced of it…
I have to say, I’m very disappointed in this convention up to this point. The Republicans are not reaching out on economic issues, and it’s going to hurt them…
UPDATE 9:31 p.m.: A tumultuous welcome for Palin, in a pointed response, no doubt, to the controversies…
UPDATE 9:39 p.m.: What a pleasant surprise so far! Palin is doing very, very well…let’s hope she can hold up this pace…
UPDATE 10:12 p.m.: She needed to knock it out of the park…and it’s gone, baby, gone! Fantastic job…There was real enthusiasm at this convention for the first time, and let me tell you something, as someone who was beginning to have his doubts: she’s on the ticket to stay. Yes, she was harsh (overly so, perhaps) on Obama, but the red meat was not only welcome in the convention hall, it was delivered with a certain flair that has to have even hard-core lefties somewhat disconcerted. While she lacked the soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama, she certainly has a homespun way that is very engaging.
Leaving aside the specifics, it was a masterful performance, delivered very well, indeed, and at the most critical time, and if she’s not enough to win this election, no longer can it be said that she will lose it.
The candidate who was left for dead has just landed a hay maker on the jaw of her critics (this one included) – and probably wowed a good portion of America, to boot…
UPDATE 10:26 p.m.: Judging from the intensity of the pushback at Kos (where there are 78 front-page posts all saying that she’s a small-town mayor who sounded like she was running for student council), I judge that there is indeed a note of panic among the left that Palin was not the giant flop they anticipated, but rather a big hit.
From the right, I find myself identifying with Jim Geraghty:
What did we see tonight?
Tonight, we either saw a watershed in American politics, a tour de force, the most striking and graceful debut in our nation’s political life, and a national introduction that makes Barack Obama’s 2004 convention address look like small potatoes… or we saw what we wanted to see, and the country’s persuadable independents saw something else. I’m afraid to believe. If I’m wrong, I don’t really know what Americans want. I know conservatives are thrilled to pieces, and they ought to be. She knocked it out of the park. I don’t think she could have delivered that speech any better. Even if I hadn’t suggested a line, I would say that the speech hit almost every note just right. (Did the Obama fans feel this way? Is this what their exultation feels like? Wonderful. I’m glad they get to experience it too.)
Well, not quite identifying – it was pretty damn good, but that watershed stuff is a bit much…but I, too, am anxious to see how it played to independents…
UPDATE 10:37 p.m.: Naturally, Andrew Sullivan hated it…no worries, Andrew, just spread some more rumors, you’ll feel better!…
UPDATE 10:40 p.m.: From the left, Ta-Nehisi Coates:
I still think the massive lack of vetting and her far right position on abortion is a problem, but I see what her conservative backers see in her. She could be effective.
UPDATE 11:00 p.m.: Let’s hear from a couple of pros.
Jay Carney, TIME’s Washington bureau chief:
Maybe it won’t help them win. Maybe it will turn out to have been too negative and sarcastic for the current public mood, especially coming after Giuliani. But two things are clear after Sarah Palin made her do-or-die debut before 20-plus million people tonight. She is amazingly self-confident. And she knows how to nail a speech.
As I predicted earlier today, Sarah Palin did just fine. In fact, she delivered a brilliant speech. It was a classic Republican speech–written by Matthew Scully of the Bush speechwriting shop–chock full of conservative populism, a cultural “torpedo” as Chris Mathews is saying as I write this, aimed directly at Barack and Michelle Obama. She was far more effective, using fewer words than the over-the-top Rudy Giuliani, in tearing down the Obama candidacy. There was not much substance–issues don’t matter, remember?–and her description of Obama’s policies, particularly his tax policies, was quite inaccurate.
But that hardly matters. Palin established herself as a major-league performer, a very effective messenger for the perennial Republican themes of low taxes and strong defense. And a new theme–government reform–that changes the terrain of the election and will have to be forcefully countered by the Democrats.
UPDATE 11:59 p.m.: Michael Crowley of the New Republic, in a post entitled, “Focus Group: Palin Was (Alarmingly) Strong”:
Several moderate-Democrat friends of mine have been emailing–few if any would ever vote for McCain–but all agree that Palin was very strong. The more liberal among them are a little panicked.
Also from the New Republic, Bradford Plumer:
Just about every liberal I know thinks that Sarah Palin unleashed a terrifyingly effective speech tonight.
Yes, she delivered the speech well.
I thought the line about being mayor of a small town being like being a community organizer, except with real responsibility, was below the belt. Way below the belt. Especially at a convention where they’re at least making a show of honoring public service. Seems awfully small to knock Obama for his service to poor communities.
There were some good lines (notably, “Some politicians use change to advance their career; John McCain used his career to advance change”), but my roommate and I couldn’t shake the idea that even though it was well-delievered, if you take out all of the personal reference, it was a speech anyone could have given. Sure, that’s true of a lot of political speeches. But really, it appears the speech was literally written before she joined the ticket.
Yeah, I didn’t like the mocking tone, especially with respect to the community organizer bit (also a big theme with Rudy)…but I disagree that anyone could have delivered this speech. She has a certain je ne sais quoi…and I’ve been monitoring the big dog lefty blogs, and they are pushing back VERY HARD, always a sign of nervousness…
Does any of this change the campaign dynamic? Well, probably not…but she not only stopped the bleeding, she counter punched…
McCain and Palin’s only chance is to get the Clinton voters back into McCain’s column – don’t see how this comes close to achieving that. Perhaps they figured they’d go down swinging. Entertaining, but doesn’t seem like a smart strategy.
And yet, even with this great speech, in the end you’re voting for McCain for president… not Sarah Palin.
Why do I have to keep reminding people of this on a daily basis?
Oh my god, politicians don’t write their own speeches! Who knew?
Was the bio in the first 1/4 pre-written? Was the middle part about her energy experience written for Joe Lieberman?
Obama belittled her experience as mayor. She returned the favor.
Great speech. Test #1 passed.
Test 2 is the interviews. Test 3 is the debate. We’ll see how she does.
Where is Jacques with the withdrawal prediction?
General impression:
A bit more negative than I’d like in a first introduction to the candidate. But just about the right level of negativity for the VP nominee accepting that nomination at the Convention. (Compare to Biden’s speech…)
That the two tasks had to be combined into one speech made it a really tough speech to pull off — and that much more impressive that she did.
My takeaway from nominal Night 3: Piper was absolutely adorable. She stole the show. If America is starting to fall in love with the Palin family, then that has the potential to be yet another game-changer.
The appeal to parents of children with special needs was excellent — heartfelt and genuine. The fact that her sister has raised another child with special needs just makes it all that more real.
Fargus-
I didn’t like that line either.
And I loved the speech, and am ecstatic (as I may have mentioned before) that McCain picked Palin instead of Lieberman, Romney, or Pawlenty.
But, I don’t think it can count as below the belt after Obama’s denigration of small-town mayors, and continued refusal to recognize that she had held some sort of electoral office of some relevance since being Mayor of a town he didn’t even bother to pronounce correctly. But I still thought it was a bit of a low. She didn’t need to be that negative to be out-of-the-park effective at making her case.
Digger-
You won’t have to remind people of that much longer. One of the CNN commentators after the speech made that point as well. I think the left is going to switch its fire back to McCain — surprisingly, he’s the softer target.
Random musing:
There’s a MoveOn.org ad showing in the right margin at the moment that has a prominent “VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN” sticker pictured at the top of it. Isn’t that a Campaign Finance violation? I thought independent groups had to avoid certain “magic words” — and that “Vote XXX” where XXX is a candidate’s name (as opposed to YES or NO on a ballot initiative) was the most magical phrase of all… Has the law changed, or do I just not understand it? Or does that not kick in for another two or three days?
“if you take out all of the personal reference, it was a speech anyone could have given”
That’s gotta be the most unintentionally hilarious thing I’ve read in a while…
Clint – I am forbidden by terms of service of commenting on the last couple of paragraphs you wrote – (I can’t be seen as inducing people to click or not to click) – but anyone else want to handle the question? It’s a good one…
What in Joe Biden’s speech was as negative as anything in Palin’s speech? When did Obama personally denigrate Palin’s experience as mayor? And Boris, all I’m saying is that the attack lines could have been read by any of the night’s speakers.
Lots of thought.
Perfect speech. I think she has earned the right to be sarcastic, so didn’t have a problem with that. I find it wholly ironic that lefties who were complaining all last week about not enough ‘red meat’ are now upset that she jabbed back.
I know little about the VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN stuff on MoveOn.org. I think they can do it up until 60 days out. I’ll forward the question to NRO, see what they think.
Actually, I’m fairly convinced that quite a bit of the speech was written in the last 24 hours. I think they wanted to take direct aim at some of the criticisms and critics that have come after her. I think three or four days ago, you would’ve seen an entirely different, and much softer speech.
I think we can put an end to the speculation that she’s going to drop out now.
Speech could’ve been done by anybody? Who else could talk about Alaskan oil the way she did? At least half the speech was personal…who could’ve done that?
And I utterly reject the jab that the speech was “written for her”. Unless you directed that same criticism at everyone else who has gotten credit for delivering a great speech in the last two weeks, that criticism is at the very least, utter hypocrisy.
The “jab” was not that the speech was written for her. It’s that it was written before they knew who’d be giving it.
Eh, a bogus issue unless Obama sits by the hearth and writes his own speech’s, long-hand, of course, with a quill pen and ink bottle to boot.
I would agree with you on the “below the belt” shot by Palin except for this:
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.”
In love, war, and politics, turnabout is fair play.
Chris: In their defense, I think I’m the only one who was really complaining about lack of red meat. And I’m fine with Palin laying the wood to Obama. I just wish his side would fire back. Politics is no game for the meek.
After the things the Obama campaign, the NY Times and the left wing blogs have been saying about Palin and her family for the last 5 days I don’t think a line about being a “community organizer” could POSSIBLY be considered below the belt.
She’s the first thing I’ve enjoyed in this whole never-ending campaign. Even some of my lefty friends up here in MA admitted she was great.
I thought the speeches were delivered well, but were devoid of substance and sometimes demonstrably absurd. Among the more egregious examples:
1) Mitt Romney railing against “liberal Washington” and everyone else railing against Washington insiders. Which party is it that controlled the White House for the past eight years and Congress for six of those years?
2) Rudy Giuliani’s applause line of “How dare they” question Palin’s ability to be mother and VP at the same time: who exactly is questioning it? As far as I can tell, only Doctor Laura, who is hardly a Democrat.
3) Rudy Giuliani saying that Obama “never led anything:” Let’s forget about the fact that he led a political campaign which earned him the nomination, and let’s not compare how he did in that role versus how Rudy did. By Rudy’s standard, McCain never led anything either. How come Rudy is backing him for President then?
4) Sarah Palin complaining about how “if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone,” shortly after she accepted her position from a card carrying member of the Washington elite. Moreover, she is unqualified for reasons which have nothing at all to do with not being from Washington or in the elite (whatever that is).
5) Sarah Palin saying we should move forward with “solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources” without mentioning that McCain consistently voted against supporting these sources.
6) Sarah Palin touting McCain’s “record of actual achievements and reform” without mentioning what exactly those achievements were. His two signature achievements – McCain-Feingold and the immigration bill – were probably opposed by most of the people in the hall, and McCain himself now says he would vote against his own immigration bill. Ever notice how immigration – which was the hot topic of the Republican primaries – has yet to be mentioned at the convention?
While McCain may well discuss solutions to actual problems in his speech tonight, none of the speakers I have seen has even bothered to discuss why their programs are better than Obama’s. The Republican argument for reinstating them in the White House is the following: Obama’s resume is too thin; McCain’s POW status shows that he has character and for that reason ought to be elected; McCain/Palin will bring change to Washington. It’s all narrative and no substance. However, this ignores the obvious point: the Republicans have more or less controlled Washington for the past eight years, and McCain has stated that he is in complete agreement with Bush on “the major issues of our time.” If he intends on continuing the policies of the Bush administration – and he has yet to tell us how he would do things differently – how exactly does this constitute change?
Ryan,
You may have been the only one here, but I read a few lefty blogs. I’m generalizing, but this is what I read:
1) DNC: where’s the ‘red meat’? Where’s the ‘red meat’?
2) DNC: finally some ‘red meat’. And Biden’s up next. Now we’ll see some real stuff.
3) DNC: Well Biden’s speech was pretty good. And he got some good stuff in, but I wish he’d attacked harder.
4) RNC: Palin is a laughingstock
5) RNC: Palin is a laughingstock
6) RNC: Palin’s going to drop out
7) RNC: Ok, she’s good at reading a speech that was written for her, but she shouldn’t have attacked like that.
“all narrative and no substance”
I haven’t bothered to check, but I think we were all complaining about the same thing during the Dems convention. The substance is buried in the platform and committee activities, who the heck is actually watching that paint dry? Don’t forget the purpose of these prime-time speeches (hint: it ain’t designed to be a policy discussion). As Fargus or Jacques said of Obama: go look at the (McCain) website if you want to know the details on his policy proposals.
Also, it’s not as if there is a singular, all or nothing Bush policy that McCain will continue or not, so I don’t know quite what your getting at other than making an attack similar to Obama’s weak attempt to paint McCain as a clone of Bush.
1) I realize that the speeches aren’t meant to be a policy discussion, but there should at least be some nodding reference to the fact that there are issues facing us and hopefully McCain and Palin have some ideas on how to solve them. Unless I missed it, nobody yesterday even mentioned the economy, immigration, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, health insurance, the environment, or who will be this year’s America’s Next Top Model.
If you’re going to run as the party of change, why not tell us what the changes will be? Or is simply repeating ad nauseum that you are agents of change supposed to be sufficient?
2) McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time and has publicly said that he agrees with him on the major issues of our time. If that’s not being a clone, let’s just say it isn’t being a maverick either.
peter peter peter peter,
1) It’s a decent argument. Many people have mentioned that other than the war and taxes, Bush’s policies are at best centrist and at worst left-of-center. You bring up a point, but it’s hardly an “egregious” example of anything. Campaigns exaggerate and deflect. And conventions do it even more so.
2) You’re kidding me, right? From reading your posts, I get the impression that you watch every single piece of news there is, and yet you missed this? Here’s a link from a very liberal women’s group. More on Sally Quinn, this time from CBS. CNN’s John Roberts and Dana Bash. MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell. Amy Robach on NBC. Liz Hunt at the Daily Telegraph.. Bill Weir at ABC.. Mark Shields at PBS. Kate Zernike at the New York Times. Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the New York Times. A better question would be who hasn’t asked this question?
3) Obama led a campaign. You talk about “absurd” examples, and you keep bringing this up? Nobody’s buying it. And I don’t think anyone on the left or right would question that McCain has been a leader in the Senate.
4) I don’t even know what your point is here, but there’s certainly nothing absurd in that statement.
5) Why should she when he’s been campaigning on doing those things for months?
6) McCain-Feingold was opposed by most people in the hall? Wow, how did it pass then? What’s McCain’s pork record, by the way? I’m sorry that she didn’t mention examples for you, but they’re not hard to come by, whether you agree with them or not.
Good point, but some have argued that’s not the purpose of convention speeches, and I could certainly change Obama to McCain here and make the exact same criticism about the DNC.
And this quote from an Obama supporter is laughable:
1) George Bush is a liberal? Who knew?
2) Giuliani referred to purported Democratic objections to Palin’s dual role as mother and VP. Your examples are all from journalists. Which prominent Democrat has made that objection?
3) Giuliani said that Obama should not be President because he hasn’t led anything: i.e., no executive or management experience. McCain was not a “leader” in the Senate in the sense of running an organization, which is what Giuliani was referring to.
4) It’s absurd to insist that those who question your qualifications do so because you are not a member of the “Washington elite.” There are plenty of reason to question her qualifications which have nothing to do with where she lives or whether she hobnobs with Carl Bernstein and Mary Matalin. It’s also absurd to lampoon the “Washington elite” when John McCain is as tied to Washington and its elite as anyone on Earth.
5) So McCain’s been campaigning for alternative energy sources while voting against them?
6) Campaign finance reform and immigration reform have never been very popular among the Republican faithful.
7) Plenty of substance in Obama’s speech last week. Let’s see if there is substance in McCain’s speech tonight.
I’m still going to take Chris’s side a little. The point of the convention isn’t to lay out actual policy details. They’re on the websites; if you care, go look. (I will say that it’s the media’s job to do so, and they have spectacularly failed in that regard, as usual.) Throwing red meat to your own guys is exactly what you should be doing at a convention. Palin’s speech was utterly masterful in that regard.
On the substance, though, Peter wins for sure. Republicans love to throw around this argument that George Bush isn’t really a conservative, as if we’re supposed to believe that eight years in the White House (with control of Congress for six and the Supreme Court for roughly forever) aren’t enough for us to establish what the Republican Party really wants to do with the levers of government. It’s so laughable that it should be given the same response as Peter’s “all narrative and no substance” comment: complete scorn. We know what the GOP is about, we know what McCain is about, and they are not different from one another in any important way. Even if they ever were (which is only semi-arguable – McCain is a far more down-the-line Republican than a very large number of his Senate colleagues), they certainly are no longer.
peter,
1) I’ve been wondering why liberals haven’t figured that out for years. It’s no secret to conservatives.
2) Stop moving the goalposts and denying reality. Here’s the quote from Rudy:
If that’s not an attack on the media, I don’t know what is. I don’t see the word Democrat in there anywhere.
3) Quote:
Wrong, peter. Try again.
4) You’re really reaching.
5) No. He’s just been campaigning for them.
6) Good point. Show’s his mavericky-ness and the fact that he’s bucked his party. Thanks for propping up McCain there.
7) True, and I expect that from McCain tonight and will be disappointed if it’s not there.
Ryan,
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on what Republican control over the White House and Congress has brought us.
1) If George Bush is a liberal, I’m Keith Richards.
2) Who is McCain/Palin running against, the Democrats or the media?
3) Not sure what your point is. Giuliani bashed Obama because, as a Senator, he never “ran” anything. McCain, as a Senator, never ran anything either. If running something is sine qua non for being elected President, why doesn’t it apply to McCain?
4) Not at all.
5) What’s the point of campaigning for them if you vote against them? Palin said that a McCain administration will push for alternative energy – why would anyone believe that when he voted against them in Congress?
6) He bucked his party on immigration until he recanted.
7) Me too.
1) He’s a centrist, and in many cases, a left-of-centrist, Keith.
2) Stop moving the goalposts. You said Rudy’s “how dare they statement” was absurd since no one had done that. I pointed out numerous examples where they had. You then claimed he was talking about Democrats, when he clearly wasn’t. Peter, you’ve lost on this point. You have no reasonable comeback other than to admit that I’m right.
3) Guess you missed the part where he said “he’s never run a military unit. he’s never had to lead people in crisis.”
4) Then we just disagree.
5) I believe he said that it’s one thing to have a certain set of energy views when gas is $1/gallon, but that $4/gallon gasoline alters your views. This is a big deal for me. I’ve been on the “energy independence” bandwagon much longer than ANYONE in Washington that I can see, and it seems apparent that McCain finally “gets it”. Obama just as clearly, doesn’t.
6) Thank God.
You’ld be hard pressed to convince me that the Supreme Court is “controlled” by the President, or anyone for that matter. Filled by the President? Sure, but vetted and approved by the Congress too.
Doesn’t the Congress get some of the credit/blame for the current state of affairs – however it is you view them? You can’t let the last two year’s Democrat controlled Congress off the hook while simultaneously blaming everything on the Republican controlled Congress of 2000 – 2006. Well, I guess you can but you would be wrong to do so.
Man! The more you guys talk the less I like any of these characters!
1) George Bush centrist or left of center? I guess his Supreme Court picks, enthusiasm for secret rendition, tax cuts for upper income homes, disregard for the environment, and using lobbyists to write regulations are the tip-off.
2) Giuliani did not specify who “they” are, and the “they” in the preceding paragraph referred to McCain and Palin. In a speech supporting the Republican ticket, I think it’s reasonable to think that “they” referred to the Democratic opposition.
3) How many people does a fighter pilot lead?
4) Fine.
5) On July 28, McCain voted against the most recent energy bill, which supported alternative energy sources. I guess he got it within the last five weeks.
6) Agreed.
TMS: the operative clause is
“we’re supposed to believe that eight years in the White House (with control of Congress for six and the Supreme Court for roughly forever) aren’t enough for us to establish what the Republican Party really wants to do with the levers of government.”
I was not referring to Bush, but rather to the entire Republican Party. If Bush isn’t a conservative, as Chris argues and I’m willing to grant, then neither are the vast majority of Republicans. Certainly John McCain isn’t. Which makes me wonder what use there is in arguing about who’s conservative and who isn’t. Shorter version: if Bush isn’t really a conservative, then the Republican Party isn’t really the party of conservatives.
This, of course, is something I have been arguing for well over a year now – there is nothing even slightly conservative about warring for “freedom”, torturing human beings, or using the power of the state to spy on citizens – but it’s nice to know we’re all in agreement here.
One quick point – I complained about lack of substance at the Democratic convention, but then Obama laid out an agenda pretty well in his speech. Since there has been no substance or agenda to speak of at the Republican convention, I expect the same from McCain…
What is a Chicago style “Community Organizer”? It’ a guy who practices getting out the vote for the machine. That means registering the illegal aliens; that means registering the felons; that means registering the cemetery headstones.
Obama was a party hack, developing and then delivering the votes for the machine; and simply doing the nitty-gritty work in the vinyards of Chicago machine politics…
One quick point:
For once, Ryan and I are in nearly perfect agreement here. I wouldn’t phrase some of what he said quite that way, but that’s a matter of degree, rather than a matter of disagreement. And while this information may be a surprise to people like Peter, it’s no surprise to conservatives. Ryan’s point is exactly why Republicans got their hats handed to them in 2006. It wasn’t that Democrats put really wonderful people on the ballot, or that the Democratic base was just rushing out to destroy Republicans, it was that conservatives had lost faith in the Republican party. I still haven’t regained my faith. And I’ve had many an unpleasant discussion with phone operatives for the RNC who have called me up asking for money.
I don’t remember if I’ve said this here before, so I apologize for repeating myself if I have. This year I am strongly considering voting for President and to re-elect my Governor (who has actually been a conservative), and leaving the rest of my ballot blank. There are no down-ballot Republicans that I know of that deserve my vote, especially my Congressman. I’d lump my Republican Senator in there too, but lucky for him, he’s not up for reelection this year.
And, for ages, the only reason I was even considering voting for John McCain (because I don’t consider him a conservative) is because I don’t want any more Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court. I’m not foolish enough to believe that with the Senate he’s going to face that he’d nominate another Scalia or Roberts, but anybody he’s going to put up there will have to be better than a Ginsberg (that’s my opinion, of course, and I know that if you’re on the left, you’d feel exactly the opposite…you’re entitled).
Fortunately, Sarah Palin IS a true conservative, or pretty close. There are things I disagree with her on, but far fewer than most Republicans. I don’t know how she feels about illegal immigration, but I suspect that her views are closer to mine than to John McCain’s.
Ok, that’s all I have to say on this thread.
I never said that George Bush (or the current Republican Party) was a true conservative. I just said that he isn’t a liberal.
If you want to use Barry Goldwater as the epitome of true conservatism, then there is a wide gap between his philosophy and that of Bush and the GOP. I think there is a lot to admire about true conservatism, but very little to admire about Bush and the current crop of Republicans. (Excepting John McCain, who I do admire.)