Sarah Palin’s first speech

Starting at 11:00

This is her first event on the campaign. So what did she say?

1) Thank you and suck up to McCain.

2) Here is my adorable family.

3) “My oldest son is going to Iraq” – lots about that.

4) “I’m a typical mom.”

5) Stop wasteful spending, lower property taxes, fight corruption. (Does any politician support wasteful spending or corruption?)

6) A number of line item government issues, nothing major.

7) Some nice statements on why one should run and how one should serve.

8) More sucking up to McCain. Talking about McCain being independent. Points out that McCain was a POW.

9) Apparently her job is to remind us that McCain fought for the U.S. and that is why he should win (as opposed to Kerry in 2004 I supose).

10) Some generic foreign affairs comments. And mentions that she is the mom of one soldier and the “commander in chief” of the Alaska national guard.

11) John McCain is a hero.

12) Says that she is a woman and that this makes her nomination major. And then sucks up to Geraldine Feraro and Hillary Clinton. Major sucking up to Hillary’s supporters because apparently she’s the Hillary replacement.

13) Vote for us.

25 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Car 31 says:

    Palin’s press has the first three front page articles here.

    Methinks ill.

  2. DavidThi808 says:

    Ok, I’ve watched this twice and the thing that strikes me about this speech is there are better speeches in college student council elections.

    First off, it was a very disjointed rambling speech. Clearly it was thrown together fast and was very likely written by Palin. There was no effort to accomplish anything.

    Second, there was no soaring rhetoric. Campaigning nowadays is showmanship and she did not display anything close to what’s expected nowadays even at the congressional level in most races. You can be mediocre at this if you’re the right person at the right time, and she was in the governor race. But she is not as a VP.

    Third, in this amateur presentation it was a very obvious and heavy-handed message at the end as to why she’s on the ticket – to pick up the Geraldine Ferraro/Hillary Clinton supporters. And she’ll get a couple.

    But you want to get Hillary devoting every waking second to getting Obama elected – this speech just did it. And the vast majority of Hillary’s supporters are not going to support someone so far on the right regardless of gender.

    THe bottom line is I don’t think she can close the sale with very many voters.

    • RedGreen says:

      However, I don’t think Palin has anything to do with peeling off disgruntled Hillary voters.

      She gives the faux PUMAs something to rally around, but they are McCain provocateurs anyway, they were never going to vote for Obama.

      But, as Danny (the other Red) said in one of the thousands of Palin comments in another thread, this was all about energizing the conservative Christian base, which has been tepid about McCain. The campaign raised $3 million today, some of which can be attributed to this choice, though some was panicked giving after Obama’s speech; and Dobson endorsed McCainthis afternoon, citing the Palin pick.

      The other purpose was to dominate the news the day after Obama’s speech. Mission accomplished.

      There’s so much bad news about Palin coming down the pike, they’re going to look back at this lackluster introduction as her high point.

      The McCain camp treated Pawlenty and Romney shabbily, too, which means they can probably count out Minnesota and Michigan. The mechanics of the tease this week probably have the Rove acolytes patting themselves on the back, but it’ll come back to bite them.

  3. Skyler says:

    Then received a slew of press inquiries for Senator Gravel, because he was an Alaskan.

    When I spoke to Mike on the phone, he was impressed. She’s already a better speaker than McCain, and with training, she’d be a force to be reckoned with.

    Biden will always beat her in policy debates. But she’s got him beat on form and image.

    • BlueCat says:

      You can’t be serious. I can’t imagine a less likely looking or sounding candidate for the presidential ticket.  Hearing her speech… this is Alaska’s idea of a governor?  I can’t think of another female governor or senator who isn’t many times more impressive if a woman was what he wanted. An alternative to Hillary”? Absurd!

      Add this to Senator Stevens carrying on like a feudal lord, above the law, naming things after himself right and left and Gravel with his strange primary ads and you have to wonder what the heck is wrong with Alaskans. Is it the water?  Whatever it is, Dems really got lucky with this ridiculous pick.

       

    • She’s already better than McCain.  But considering I didn’t think much of her speech – either content-wise or delivery-wise – that’s not saying good things about the ticket.

      She needs some serious training.  There’s too much bubbly there, and the little cheerleader claps aren’t helping either.  It really ups the enthusiasm, but is a real killer when trying to take her seriously.  Her relatively high voice adds to that image, but she delivers well with that voice when she’s not too “perky”.  Once she got going past the initial introduction, she was confident and only slipped once or twice, and minor stutters at that.

      As to speech content, well, it was a decent introductory speech, but some of the points of her deeds and beliefs are belied by the facts.  She’s not likely to survive the media onslaught with all of those intact, so she’d better bone up on national issues if she wants to get past next week.

  4. sjintheknow says:

    Do any of you think you may be one sided?

    Not one good comment for Gov. Palin, the first woman Republican Vice Presidential Candidate.

    Then only praise for your Savior Obama and his side kick Biden.

    Anyone who reads this Fourm must realize that no good every comes from seeing only one side.

    You are sad people who really do not have brains to know the American People will not and Do Not Trust Obama.  No matter how you down this VP Candidate she will come out doing very well for the McCain Camp.

    If Mitt had been chosen you would have been as mean and ugly as you are about Gov. Palin.

    People who are looking for positive news about Obama and McCain need to go to FOX NEWS.  

    Biden sucked up to Obama in his acceptance speech also, so try and tell the truth folks.  Oh, that’s right I forgot Liberals have a hard time telling the truth.

    • RedGreen says:

      Did any of us forget to say she cuts a strong figure and seems to be leading an admirable life? OK then, I’ll say it. I’m sure she was a fine mayor of a small town, and seems to have done a great job raising a big family. I’m impressed her husband has stayed true to his blue collar roots. She’s preserved her award-winning Congeniality and puts a friendly, if a bit too perky, face on extremely conservative social values.

      But she gives a new meaning to the soft prejudice of low expectations. She isn’t remotely qualified to take over as president, and that’s the No. 1 requirement for vice president. I’m really worried about McCain’s judgment (and Bill Kristol’s, since he’s been her biggest cheerleader).  

    • The only side I’m on for this particular thread is the honesty of what I thought of the speech itself.

      If you want the truth, we would’ve been much more brutal about Romney, but not because of his speaking abilities which are strong.  No, Romney had his own set of baggage to carry.

      Way back when, I said I thought Palin would be “the maverick” choice for McCain, and perhaps a stronger running mate than the others.  I stand by the first part of my statement: Palin is the GOP VP candidate choice most likely to enhance McCain’s maverick image.  But for the other part of my statement, two things have changed: one, I just got to hear her speak; and two, I know a bit more about her.

      I gave my open opinion of her speaking ability above; I’ve written a bit on just the beginnings of what we know of her background in other threads.

      • sjintheknow says:

        This woman will make a big difference for this election.  I could see the worry on Obama’s face as he answered his first question on Palin.  

        This choice is great.

        • RedGreen says:

          It was puzzlement that McCain could make such a dismaying choice. McCain probably had no choice, as he was facing a trouncing across the boards if he went with a conventional pick (Romeny, Pawlenty). But all Palin does is throw confusion into the mix for a week or so, it doesn’t change the game the way Meg Whitman or Mike Bloomberg could have done.

          • sjintheknow says:

            RedGreen you would have had a bitch about Whitman or Bloomberg.  Liberals have nothing good to say about anything McCain does!

            • RedGreen says:

              I would have wondered what on earth Bloomberg was doing accepting the offer, but I would have praised McCain for making it and rightly pointed out that it was a serious game-changer.

              I have plenty good to say about things McCain has done. When he considered switching parties in 2001, I heaped praise on the guy. When he was so alarmed by the Rovian tactics running the White House that he discussed joining John Kerry’s ticket, I thought he was most definitely putting country first. When he denounced the first Bush tax cuts as too tilted to the wealthy, I said, there stands a principled Republican.

              But you’re right, since he’s renounced the principled stands he once took and reversed himself on every position that got him in trouble with the Far Right, I don’t have much good to say about him. I guess I’m happy he appears on Leno and Letterman so often and guest hosts Saturday Night Live, not to mention all the movie and sitcom appearances — he’s such a celebrity, it would be strange if he stopped mugging for the camera now, just because his campaign has decided there’s something wrong with being the kind of celebrity John McCain has always been.

            • Go Blue says:

              It’s not just liberals, it’s just about everyone who doesn’t subscribe entirely to the neo-con school of thought.

              From the WaPo

              But the most important question Mr. McCain should have asked himself about Ms. Palin was not whether she could help him win the presidency. It was whether she is qualified and prepared to serve as president should anything prevent him from doing so. This would have been true for any presidential nominee, and it was especially crucial that Mr. McCain — who turns 72 today — get this choice right. If he is elected, he will be the oldest man ever to serve a first term in the White House.

              In this regard, count us among the puzzled and the skeptical. Not long ago, no less a Republican strategist than Karl Rove belittled Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, noting that picking him would appear “intensely political” because Mr. Kaine’s experience consisted of only three years as governor preceded by the mayoralty of Richmond, which Mr. Rove called “not a big town.”

              Using Mr. Rove’s criteria, Ms. Palin would not fare well. Her executive experience consists of less than two years as governor of her sparsely populated state, plus six years as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 8,471). Absorbed in Alaska’s unique energy and natural resource issues, she has barely been heard from in the broader national debates over economic policy and health care. Above all, she has no record on foreign policy and national security — including terrorism, which Mr. McCain posits as the top challenge facing America and the world. Once the buzz over Ms. Palin’s nomination dies down, the hard questions about her will begin. The answers will reflect on her qualifications — and on Mr. McCain’s judgment as well.

              McCain’s judgement is flawed since he made a campaign calculation instead of a presidential choice.

              • RedGreen says:

                How can anyone claim the Palin pick puts country first? McCain chose to put winning a weekend news cycle first, and the country will be stuck with his choice long after this weekend is forgotten.  

  5. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    Sorry there is no meat here.  You can be an attractive women and command politcal respect. She is mom. Period.  And a wonderful mom.

    When top republican strategist say she was a beauty queen, pompon girl and miss congeniality, and has raised four kids and had a disabled child instead of getting an abortion, what are they saying?  She is the type of women that old men like – “pretty face and will do what we tell her.  She can be controlled.”

    Her speech was awful and lacked any glimpse of what her job will be.

    And her hair – we can save that for another thread.  And before you all jump on me for attacking a woman about her hair – John’s hair is pretty bad (what is left of it) as well.  At least Romney would have made up for that issue.

    Speaking as a woman, this choice pisses me off when there are so many really qualified women on the republican side.

    • parsingreality says:

      Not so much responding to your post alone, WLJ, but this recurring theme.

      What is a “family values” woman doing running for VP with a Down’s Syndrome child, still nursing, Dad not a stay at home type?  If he were, I wouldn’t have much issue with this, although those early months are very important.

      She has put politics before the well being of her child.  

      • Go Blue says:

        Tell me your honest opinion from this analysis by the NY Times

        “In a way, McCain has set a trap on the experience argument,” said Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996, “because if they start picking on her on experience, it’s going to backfire with women.”

        We’ve already seen McCain use the POW card on everything from not understanding the economy to trying to legitimize his foreign policy agenda. Do you think we’ll see something similar from Palin when she is criticized for not having any foreign policy experience what-so-ever, that her critics are simply sexists?  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.