TheAgitator.com
[Insert Name Here]
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008Sometimes you catch a bit of a news report or a piece of text from an article that beautifully frames what a phony game all this convention business really is. Happened to me this evening while reading the Washington Post, with this passage:
Sitting around a dining room table, the McCain team has talked to her about Iraq, energy and the economy but has focused on what she should say in her speech, struggling almost as hard as she has to prepare for what will be, along with a debate in October, her main opportunity to shape the way she is viewed by voters. Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was "very masculine," according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and "we had to start from scratch."
Few politicians write their own speeches anymore. But even my jaded eyes bugged at the idea that McCain’s campaign had already written tonight’s speech before they knew who the running mate would be.
This speech is playing out like Peggy Hill in a Yo’ Mama contest.
I’m guessing that the feedback will be that her criticisms are too petty and mocking in their tone. Then Republicans will say this criticism of her is sexist because it is just short of dropping a hard “B.”
I mean she is kinda being bitchy, no?
that’s sexist to speak out against palin man. unbelievable!!! don’t you know?
/sarcasm.
in all seriousness, that Hannah/Hendrix analogy i posted here in another thread fits so much more squarely with this quote. nice find btw!
Same talking points, no individual touches necessary. For a party that claims to be so at odds with Hollywood, they sure do know how to follow a script.
“Few politicians write their own speeches anymore. But even my jaded eyes bugged at the idea that McCain’s campaign had already written tonight’s speech before they knew who the running mate would be.”
That’s because it doesn’t matter who his running mate is. Or either of the candidates. Or anything.
The only thing that matters is that the voters be given a choice between two candidates preapproved by the ruling elite.
The presidential election is a classic example of the brainbuster — neither choice is right or wrong, it only matters that one choose.
Just to focus on the Republican head of the monster for a second: I am becoming more aware of the similarities in the following analogy from a “rise to power” perspective only:
Palin : McCain
Hitler : Hindenburg
Think about it.
Uh, yeah that would be sexist. Unless your willing to call Biden bitchy. This is what VP candidates do. Just how old are you guys, anyway?
“I’m guessing that the feedback will be that her criticisms are too petty and mocking in their tone.”
Odd. I’m guessing you’re going to be wrong.
“…McCain’s campaign had already written tonight’s speech before they knew who the running mate would be.”
I really, really, really feel like I SHOULD be surprised at such a thing. It SHOULD amount to a revelation about the cut-and-paste nature of what passes for political discourse these days.
Is it a surprising revelation? Sadly, no. It’s not even terribly surprising that a campaign manager would be so nonchalant about the practice that he mentions it to the Washington Post.
What is surprising to me are the throngs of unapologetic partisans who can hear such a thing, and not give it a second thought.
#6, it’s the fact that people in positions of “power” are so brazen in their statements. The police do the same thing, because we are all Citizen Nothings to them. It’s the same as saying to us “I will do what I like, and you can’t do a thing about it, so shut up or you will be killed.”
One of these days, the next revolution will begin …
Oh yea……Obama ALWAYS speaks off the cuff the cuff…..uh….uh…uhmmmmm………we need to…..uh…..hmmmm…….it’s hard to……uh….hmmmmm….ummmmm…………
Buzz,
If Biden did that during his speech I would probably call him an asshole. Those seem to be gender-specific counterparts.
The word bitch is not sexist by itself. It’s sexist when you use it in places to describe a woman where you would not describe a man in any negative way at all for the same behavior.
So is anyone going to talk about the sarcasm and petty jabs in her speech as a negative? Liberal Media? Even the democrat talking heads are staying away from this whole thing. Did she really “knock” this speech “out of the park?” I thought her inflection was labored, like a bad actor? Anyone?
I thought she came off as a lightweight with good lines and no substance.
And each democratic speech is a wonder of freshness.
As one commentator put it -
Snobamas’ speech could have been given by any democratic candidate of the last 40 years.
That’s hardly change.
In truth Palin is the ONLY real change in this election. I’m sure if Snobama had picked her though the press would be in love with her.
Her inclusion on this ticket has exposed the sickening hypocrisy of the left.
#8
I think the point of the post wasn’t the fact that Obama uses speeches, it’s that the GOP VP speech was written before there was even a candidate, meaning the candidate didn’t matter.
I don’t think anybody was arguing that Obama speaks extemporaneously all the time.
Though for the record, Obama wrote his 2004 keynote speech, his Feb. racism speech, and his acceptance speech himself. I find that somewhat impressive.
Dude it is theater, not some sort of policy discussion group at a think tank. Look at the Democrats convention, the final night was much like a major entertainer performing. This isn’t where substance is delivered it is stuff to make the viewing audience feel good.
America, Fuck yeah!
There is NEVER any subtance. Ever. Really.
Was there substance to Obama’s speech? No. Was there Substance in Bush’s last acceptance speech? No. Kerry, Gore, Clinton and Dole? No. It is all about theater, kabuki. The performance not the message. Giving details and substance would bore the shit out of people and possibly scare them (Medicare is tens of trillions of dollars out of balance).
Complaining that there is no substance to a convention speech is like complaining about the lack on nutritious content in twinkies.
And just as a disclaimer, I don’t particularly like Palin. I find her views on creationism/evolution sophmoric, abortion distasteful, and drugs weak and pathetic. Her claims of opposing pork at best over-blown if not outright false. But to knock her for lack of substance is just stupid. She isn’t supposed to put substance into such a speech for crying out loud. None of them are. Its the Republican Party Karaoke Night.
Um, didn’t they just report that her teleprompter was broken halfway through the speech and she had to ‘wing it’ at least half of the way?
The funny thing is, Obama may be one hell of a teleprompter reader, but he speaks no better than Bush when he has to talk on-the-fly. It will be apparent during the debates.
“They” (meaning Red State, that paragon of intellectual honesty) did report that. They lied.
I’ve done this in my job in law. I can write an argument for a hearing that will be presented by someone else without knowing who will deliver it. Invariably, whether I know who will be delivering it or not, they will rewrite significant amounts of it. That’s just the process.
Palin is different enough from your average Republican that I can see where they would need to start from scratch. On the other hand, if it had been Lieberman/Pawlenty/Thompson, it would have been pretty much the same speech delivered three different ways.
David, as opposed to any other media source? … yeah, they never lie or stretch the truth … oh no. The fact is, we have Politico (a liberal site) arguing with Red State (a conservative site) … who you trust just shows your own bias.