<p>It is hard for me to be objective about this. I wonder if this is me:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Does she come across as really self-satisfied? She seems really annoying, like someone who would have been really full of herself in an off-putting way.</p></li>
<li><p>Or is she just folks for people?</p></li>
<li><p>Weren't most of her comments sort of "inside baseball"? I just thought she offered a lot of zingers that were only really accessible to inside politics types</p></li>
</ul>
<p>"Some politicians use change to promote their careers. Others use their careers to promote change."</p>
<p>You don't have to be inside to know what that means.</p>
<p>That's what they said about Hillary.</p>
<p>A lot of people can't accept a woman that believes in herself.</p>
<p>Similarly, Michelle Obama, whom I hate for her sense of ENTITLEMENT (unlike Palin, who don't believe the world owes them anything)...
'I</a> want to rip (Bill Clinton's) eyes out. Kidding!'
<a href="http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/07/15/michelle_obamas_$600_earrings">http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/07/15/michelle_obamas_$600_earrings</a>
Political</a> Radar: Obama: Nothing Personal
Anyway, besides the fact that she's an ungrateful entitled woman...
Her recent speech at the convention was raved, ONLY because she stepped down from entitled girl into wife, mother, demure. Not that I cared. She did believe in herself before, but believing in yourself does not make you accomplished or lend yourself to respect.</p>
<p>People just can't stand woman that believe in themselves.</p>
<p>Her speech was vomit inducing, it was nothing more than rhetorical pathos. She spent like, 20 minutes describing her family and her kids' names instead of just getting to the point.
Instead of actually proving how McCain would be the right choice, she just regurgitated the fact that he was a soldier and that her son is now a soldier (despite the fact that military experience has no bearing on one's qualifications to be President).
And to top it all off, her attacks to Obama weren't even accurate. For example, she insinuated that he would raise the taxes of all Americans, regardless of income, indefinitely, which just isn't the case. </p>
<p>I could go on and on, but it was a pretty horrible speech (as was Giuliani's before her).</p>
<p>^^^Hippo not every person knows who she is, she introduced herself and her family to American voters. Both of those speeches were good and not just good they were funny :P</p>
<p>That speech was pretty bad if you ask me. She can read off the teleprompter and speak alright, but the speech itself, with the constant pausing and random family descriptions, wasn't really interesting to me. I was expecting more on policy and policy attacks, since Palin is the VP nominee, not necessarily character and character attacks (ouch on some of the stuff against Obama).</p>
<p>I will state that I'm probably a bit biased, but I felt that she needed to come out a lot stronger than that to convince me of her qualifications and such.</p>
<p>The way she connected taxes to Americans was by refering to small business and the fact that business employs ppl. It is true the American ppl will be affected if the businesses that employ and provide services for them will be.</p>
<p>I agree with Echelon; I didn't expect all those character attacks especially when Obama said nothing but kind words about her (family shouldn't be a part of politics,congratulating her being the VP Rep. nominee) etc..I wanted her to talk about how SHE would be a helpful asset to the White-House and such..</p>
<p>^^Obama said good things about her? Or did he say that families are off limits? Those are not kind words, but rather the say thing Obama had said many times before.</p>
<p>Obama attacked McCain bad. Palin attacked Obama better.</p>
<p>I think it's a pretty big attack for Obama to diminish Palin's experience, all the while, touting his by boasting about his success at beating Hillary. LOL</p>
<p>Olbermann said it was a great speech, fwiw</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't have to be inside to know what that means.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But does that resonate? This is the whole "he is so ambitious line." Last time I checked John McCain was ambitious to want to be president -- and I don't see him having changed a whole lot in his long time in Washington.</p>
<p>Anyway, I find her awful, and most importantly, not projecting any gravitas at all. I thought on the stage together he looked like a grandfather, and she looked like his granddaughter. </p>
<p>Dbate and PugFug are just going to say it was great...I wish I could get the impression of someone who was genuinely in the middle.</p>
<p>I watched it on Fox and of course they pumped it up, but for right now, I am going to stick with my own impression that she didn't do anything to press the notion of what a McCain presidency would actually do. All she did was launch a few zingers, many of which were inside baseball IMO, that is appealing to the people who are already convinced.</p>
<p>Another big point I think is that her story is being dissected so thoroughly in the papers right now that when she says she is a cutter of government waste and you find out she was actually for the bridge to nowhere even though she said she was against it. Well, her statements are belied quite directly right in the same timeframe.</p>
<p>And since it is pretty much guaranteed that McCain is going to be at best mediocre giving a speech tomorrow (based on other performances), if that's the high point of speechifying this ticket offers, they are really in trouble....</p>
<p>I don't understand this. All of these threads are beyond me.</p>
<p>I really don't. I can't comprehend them, especially when you admit to your biases that clearly determine your opinion.</p>
<p>What am I saying?</p>
<p>BedHead, you hated the speech before it even started. Pugfug, you loved it before it started.</p>
<p>You can kid yourselves all you want and say that you wanted to see what it was like, but think about it for a second and realize that that is a load of crap. I've seen both your posts, and do you honestly think that any speech at all would have changed your opinions about it? </p>
<p>Everyone on this forum is so entrenched in their ideology that they are completely blind to anything that is positive about the candidate/party they dislike and anything that is negative about the candidate/party they like.</p>
<p>Intelligence is completely absent on both sides (although Cervantes likes to say differently). I mean, look at this. Dozens of threads. Literally thousands of posts. A 200+ page thread.</p>
<p>For what?</p>
<p>If you disagree with the choice and hate Palin, NOTHING she said or could have said or will say will change that. If you love her, the exact opposite is true.</p>
<p>Why this futile and utterly disgusting attempt to alienate the others? Okay, liberals outnumber conservatives on the board. They will clearly win. Whoop-de-doo. Palin was an awful pick. Great. Can we move on now?</p>
<p>It's not so much the lack of civil discussion but the absolutely ridiculous level to which everyone is brainwashed, either by themselves or their party.</p>
<p>Can this please end? The opinions about the speech were formed before it started.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Get off your high horse. Did you read my first post? I said I wanted to get the opinion of someone neutral. Don't be so full of yourself.</p>
<p>Oh, please. The fact that your response was that incomplete just shows that I'm right. If that sounds arrogant, I don't even care. Anyone, including myself, who is still discussing Palin is unbelievably full of themselves because to debate something in such a totally useless manner takes someone who is absolutely convinced they are right.</p>
<p>Your first post? Let's take a look:</p>
<p>"She seems really annoying, like someone who would have been really full of herself in an off-putting way." </p>
<p>Yeah, okay. This comes right after saying "it's hard for me to be objective" and "is it just me." </p>
<p>I mean, really? Come on. You might as well have said "I thought the speech was blahblahblah." Anyone who was actually interested in a neutral opinion would have presented it much less divisively. </p>
<p>Let me try:</p>
<p>"I'm interested in neutral opinions. The analysts on CNN and other networks have been saying that Palin needs to present herself as a worthy contender, explain why McCain is the best pick, explain economic issues, and show that she does not lack experience.</p>
<p>Did you think she accomplished these goals?"</p>
<p>There. See? No opinion in it. A genuine desire to hear opinions, and opening a debate that supposedly wants neutral opinions with a neutral statement, not a loaded one.</p>
<p>The speech doesn't really offer a lot of insight about her since she obviously did not write it.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, despite the lavish praise the media has bestowed upon it (and who didn't see that coming?) I actually thought it was a pretty terrible speech. Granted, she did have to "introduce" herself to the American people, but did she have to devote so much time to talking about her family? People have already criticized the choice as a cheap "political ploy" to lure disaffected female Hillary supporters. The emphasis of this speech does little to dispel that. </p>
<p>And the few policy points she did make were totally off. She praised McCain's ridiculously brash "We are all Georgians" statement and also seemed to have the same hostility towards the UN, making one assume that she supports the disastrous unilateralist policies that characterized Bush's first term and that even he is pulling away from (We are actually speaking to Iran and Korea now). And as a previous poster pointed out, she totally mischarecterized Obama's energy and tax policy. </p>
<p>It's quite depressing that people regard this pile of crap as an effective speech. She said absolutely nothing substantive, but because she delivered it in a forceful confidant way, it somehow is regarded as successful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, please. The fact that your response was that incomplete just shows that I'm right. If that sounds arrogant, I don't even care. Anyone, including myself, who is still discussing Palin is unbelievably full of themselves because to debate something in such a totally useless manner takes someone who is absolutely convinced they are right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no I didn't have time to fully flesh out a post because my 16 month old daughter was demanding my attention. What I said was meant as a jumping off point.</p>
<p>I am sure given the time, though, that I could strangle you in your own pigheadedness verbally. If you came to a forum such as this expecting a perfectly laid out debate on the pros and cons of her speech in exactly the form you wanted, you are rather naive.</p>
<p>Now that I am not in charge of my daughter for about five minutes, I'll give a fuller accounting of my impressions of her speech.</p>
<p>It was an impressionistic delivery of a bunch of fairly obvious points, it didn't lay out any real reason to vote for McCain other than just a vague bunch of sound bites that were delivered with confidence. Her delivery didn't make up for the overall lack of substance of her presentation.</p>
<p>Yes, I came to it thinking that McCain had made a tremendous blunder in choosing Palin. If she had delivered a good speech with the gravitas that I have wondered that somehow she might have, though, I would think differently about it -- and I'd be worried.</p>
<p>But I thought she was pretty flat, very full of herself. And by the way, the Republican audience was about as white and old as you can get.</p>
<p>Now, Baelor, before you try to school me again on writing an incomplete post, why don't you tell me what your impressions were. And don't pretend you don't come to it with your own biases. Don't strain credulity by suggesting that. Or are you really that naive?</p>
<p>I'll give you a preview: I have my own biases. Obviously. I am quite amused by your pathetic attempt to demean whatever I have to say by assuming that I'll pretend not to have my own bias (you know what they say about that, don't you? ;))</p>
<p>If you have seen ANY of my posts, then you would know that that is something I would never do. Or do you think I think I'm God? I wouldn't be surprised if you do, but then again, your na</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't. I can't comprehend them, especially when you admit to your biases that clearly determine your opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll give you a preview: I have my own biases. Obviously. I am quite amused by your pathetic attempt to demean whatever I have to say by assuming that I'll pretend not to have my own bias (you know what they say about that, don't you? )
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You bothered to deliver a huge lecture to everyone on this thread about their lack of what you would consider the right approach to posting -- an attempt to not show bias -- and then you turn around and say "well, of course, I have my biases, too"? Uh, who comes across as pretty silly -- and, er, pathetic?</p>
<p>I never claimed to not have biases. You did actually imply that you don't -- and when called on it, you said you do.</p>
<p>Don't bother posting tomorrow. I won't really care what you think.</p>
<p>If Baelor and BedHead are done arguing...</p>
<p>Although many of the news commentators have praised Palin's speech, I just didn't think it was that... powerful. She was coming (not directly, but still) after Romney and Huckabee (both of whom I don't agree with, but made much more compelling speeches than Palin).</p>
<p>In a campaign perspective, she did what she needed. She gathered media attention for McCain, gained support, and attacked the living hell out of Obama (I'll leave it up to the obviously partisan-loving people on CC to dispute the rhetoric and whatnot). </p>
<p>So, did I like the speech? Not particularly. Was it effective for the majority of the American public (specifically the independent voters), especially those who are on the fence and want to like her (either because of moral conservatism, being female, her "maverick" image, whatever)? Yes, absolutely.</p>