Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 11, 2010, 09:10:29 AM
-
Though Palin's not so smooth televised peek at her crib notes recently may not have helped her image, I nevertheless thought the below comparison of her and Obama re: crib note technology, was pretty funny.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/02/10/crib-notes-technology-cost-analysis/?print=1
-
That is pretty good. Considering Obama takes his teleprompter even when talking to school kids, I don't see where he has a leg to stand on.
-
On the other side of that, do you think average American really give a damn if you writes notes on her hand? That strikes me as a big deal about nothing.
That picture of Obama using a big teleprompter setup in a school room is much worse IMO.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fphoto-hub%2Fnews_gallery%2F6%2F4%2F646457%2F1264430322987.JPEG&hash=c78c3ca090ef6fed2c385d5e2ce0f2f381a34d94)
-
On the other side of that, do you think average American really give a damn if you writes notes on her hand? That strikes me as a big deal about nothing.
Ha! That depends on what your definition of "Average American" is. :)
If it's your average Oprah, Dr Phil, MSM etc. viewer, then yes. If it's your average APS member, then probably no. My own view is she could have been a bit smoother peeking at the notes, but I recognize that most politicians, and public speakers in general, refer to notes.
And you're right, it certainly isn't nearly as obtrusive as a teleprompter in a classroom, though that didn't seem to get nearly as much media attention. Maybe because "they" figure Obama is intelligent and high tech, so of course he'd have all that cool stuff with him. It's not "cheating" if you have fancy equipment.
-
Technically the teleprompter is far worse. Having some notes on your hand is one thing - having to read the entire speech because you can't improvise worth a damn is the stuff of Brezhnev-era nomenklaturshiks.
-
The other thing to remember is that every single one of the reporters and opinionators on TV who are talking about it are also reading from teleprompters. :)
-
Considering Obama takes his teleprompter
I wonder if TOTUS is hackable?Friends, Romans, Zombies, lend me your ears...
-
I did extemporaneous speaking in High School, did pretty well in big competitions. Damn sight better to look at your notes than sit there and go ....ummm.... well, I think...umm. In competition I was allowed a 3x5 notecard. 30 min prep was assigned once you got a topic. A good talk was 5-7 minutes. I counted once, I had over 500 words on that notecard. =D
I love how this is a big issue and that little smug ass Robert Gibbs wants to make fun of Palin at the daily briefing. Come on fat boy, let's see your boss say anything original without a script!
-
I wonder if TOTUS is hackable?
Go F*** yours America!
-
Go F*** yours America!
Isn't that what his speeches already say, in better words?
-
Isn't that what his speeches already say, in better words?
MB wins the interwebz.
-
I have decided that most , not all but most, of the people that are so down on Palin fit into one of two categories.
Women: They hate her because they are intimidated by her and shamed by the fact that she is more of a woman they can hope to be.
Men: They hate her because they are intimidated by her and shamed by the fact that she is more of a man they can can hope to be.
-
Stop the presses! Palin is a transexual! ;)
-
I have decided that most , not all but most, of the people that are so down on Palin fit into one of two categories.
Women: They hate her because they are intimidated by her and shamed by the fact that she is more of a woman they can hope to be.
Men: They hate her because they are intimidated by her and shamed by the fact that she is more of a man they can can hope to be.
:lol: classic!
Seriously though, I love that people mock her behavior because they can't offer any real counterpoint.
-
Many people don't like her because they think she's dumb. They think so because they're too dumb to think anything other than what they're told by the MSM.
People also don't like her because she comes across as one of them, and they don't think they're qualified to lead.
Some men don't like her because they think attractive women are dumb. Only Golda Meier would be satisfactory for high office in their view.
Many women are simply put off by attractive women, but will blindly vote for a good-looking guy.
Then there's the people who confuse eloquence and ivy league educations with core beliefs and leadership ability.
Sarah Palin is unique because she offends such a vast sweep of screwed-up people. ;)
-
Many people don't like her because they think she's dumb. They think so because they're too dumb to think anything other than what they're told by the MSM.
People also don't like her because she comes across as one of them, and they don't think they're qualified to lead.
Some men don't like her because they think attractive women are dumb. Only Golda Meier would be satisfactory for high office in their view.
Many women are simply put off by attractive women, but will blindly vote for a good-looking guy.
Then there's the people who confuse eloquence and ivy league educations with core beliefs and leadership ability.
Sarah Palin is unique because she offends such a vast sweep of screwed-up people. ;)
You Betcha! =D
-
Technically the teleprompter is far worse. Having some notes on your hand is one thing - having to read the entire speech because you can't improvise worth a damn is the stuff of Brezhnev-era nomenklaturshiks.
Okay, but it is at least somewhat troubling that she needed notes for such simple words..who can't keep three buzzword concepts in mind without a scribbled note?
I'm seeing a same trend with this incident: Sarah Palin pulls a political boo-boo, like failing to name a single thing she reads to Katie Couric, and her supporters come out explaining how it was actually a smart move and/or irrelevant.
-
Okay, but it is at least somewhat troubling that she needed notes for such simple words..who can't keep three buzzword concepts in mind without a scribbled note?
I'm seeing a same trend with this incident: Sarah Palin pulls a political boo-boo, like failing to name a single thing she reads to Katie Couric, and her supporters come out explaining how it was actually a smart move and/or irrelevant.
The trend I see is people who don't like her who continually bring up one not so great moment from one long interview. It says more about you than her. I don't see you bringing up all the bad moments of Obama's interviews over the last 5 years. He has had many.
-
SS, perhaps Obama should write the number of US states on his hand, and the name of the city in which he's speaking.
...who can't keep three buzzword concepts in mind without a scribbled note?
Who can't speak to a class of fifth graders without a teleprompter? Was he afraid they'd trip him up? Maybe he should go on Jeff Foxworthy's show.
What's more, does anyone know what's written on that teleprompter? Is it only the speech, or are there stage instructions such as "point finger" or "raise nose in air"?
-
"raise nose in air"?
My guess is the instructions are more like "keep nose down" .... "keep holding nose down"...."BRING YOUR NOSE BACK DOWN!!!"
-
I'm seeing a same trend with this incident: Sarah Palin pulls a political boo-boo, like failing to name a single thing she reads to Katie Couric, and her supporters come out explaining how it was actually a smart move and/or irrelevant.
People here have compared Sarah Palin to Barack OBama. I don't think it's quite fair - nobody suggested Barack OBama as a conservative candidate.
But consider this, SS:
What conservative candidates are there who have Palin's name recognition, who have not crippled themselves with scandals (I liked Sanford more. Sadly many people see his failings as disqualifying) and who are not statist thugs?
-
The comparisons with Obama only serve to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left and the media. Of course, most everyone here is already aware of that.
If you want to compare apples to apples a little better, compare media treatment of Dan Quayle to treatment of Joe Biden. :)
-
SS, perhaps Obama should write the number of US states on his hand, and the name of the city in which he's speaking.
Who can't speak to a class of fifth graders without a teleprompter? Was he afraid they'd trip him up? Maybe he should go on Jeff Foxworthy's show.
What's more, does anyone know what's written on that teleprompter? Is it only the speech, or are there stage instructions such as "point finger" or "raise nose in air"?
This is a good point - are you saying you wouldn't laugh if you found out the teleprompter only had three phrases on it, and they were all Obama campaign buzzwords like "hope" "change" and "yes you can"?
We don't know what's on the teleprompter, but I think it's safe to assume he's got a script on there. It means he's fanatical about controlling his message to the point that not one word can go off script. Free-handing it can get nasty if you don't choose your words carefully each time, and not everyone does.
I'd sure have a colossal laugh if I found out the guy needed his buzzwords outlined in big letters for him, and I hope you would too.
How are these scribbles on Palin's hand any different from that?
Micro, there aren't any good candidates. Palin has some scandals, and is constantly experiencing this kind of fail at her public appearances. Maybe she's better than the others, though I doubt that - a scandal hurts a campaign less than, well, poor campaigning.
-
Micro, there aren't any good candidates. Palin has some scandals, and is constantly experiencing this kind of fail at her public appearances. Maybe she's better than the others, though I doubt that - a scandal hurts a campaign less than, well, poor campaigning.
So, what is your suggestion?
Remember that, de-facto, we have to support someone. It's not like we can somehow not run a candidate in 2012 and 2016. Palin is quite obviously the best person that can currently run. I've explained previously, in other threads, why she is favored. You've not responded to my points, and are instead choosing to attack her supposed inability to campaign.
-
As long as we're talking about candidates here, I feel this is a good time to bring up that I always thought Fred Thompson should have won the nomination. Perhaps another shot?
-
So, what is your suggestion?
Remember that, de-facto, we have to support someone. It's not like we can somehow not run a candidate in 2012 and 2016. Palin is quite obviously the best person that can currently run. I've explained previously, in other threads, why she is favored. You've not responded to my points, and are instead choosing to attack her supposed inability to campaign.
I think I have responded to that point - the answer is, whoever you support, Sarah Palin is not going to win a national election any time soon. Her inability to campaign is not supposed; it is demonstrated, and crib noting such simple words is yet another demonstration. This fact alone (ie, the fact of her inability to campaign) makes her not the best person that can currently run, because someone with half her policies and twice her chances to win would get us more.
-
Et tu, Brute?
-
How are these scribbles on Palin's hand any different from that?
Does anyone know what was written on Palin's hand? I doubt very much she can write small enough to fit a 45 minute speech on her hand. If she needs that, I'm sure Obama would lend her the TOTUS.
As for Fred Thompson, it would seem that he just doesn't have the fire in him. He fell out of the race much too early. Perhaps he saw the handwriting and knew a Republican couldn't wind. Or maybe Nixon was right, and Thompson is lazy.
-
As for Fred Thompson, it would seem that he just doesn't have the fire in him. He fell out of the race much too early. Perhaps he saw the handwriting and knew a Republican couldn't wind. Or maybe Nixon was right, and Thompson is lazy.
I really like Thompson's stance on the issues, and he's an eloquent speaker who seems to be a straight shooter. Unfortunately as Monkeyleg said, and from what I saw in the primaries, he just doesn't seem to have the drive for a campaign. If somebody could stick a burr under his saddle and rile him up a bit, he'd be an outstanding candidate.
-
As long as we're talking about candidates here, I feel this is a good time to bring up that I always thought Fred Thompson should have won the nomination. Perhaps another shot?
Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.
-
As long as we're talking about candidates here, I feel this is a good time to bring up that I always thought Fred Thompson should have won the nomination. Perhaps another shot?
Perhaps a shot of Red Bull, too, to get Fred into gear.
-
Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.
Which is why he should have won. ;)
-
Which is why he should have won. ;)
Bingo.
-
We don't know what's on the teleprompter, but I think it's safe to assume he's got a script on there. It means he's fanatical about controlling his message to the point that not one word can go off script.
Uh, do you remember when his teleprompter went fubar, and he actually repeated a topic, um, then mentioned that he'd already been over it? As I have said in the past, his teleprompter-dependency certainly means something, but let me be clear - I don't think it means what you think it means ;)
Her inability to campaign is not supposed; it is demonstrated, and crib noting such simple words is yet another demonstration.
Campaigning with/for a "maverick" like McCain is not the best way for a "true" conservative to get started in national politics. I wonder if you'd be able to say the same thing if she'd been chosen as a running mate for, say, Romney or Huckabee(not that either of them are what I'm looking for, but certainly closer than McCain). Maybe she'd have done better if she didn't have to support someone with baggage like cap'n'trade, McCain-Feingold, etc. His staff screwed the pooch with Palin overall, anyway.
I don't mean to excuse Palin - she has made her fair share of oopses - but she did not go down without a good amount of help(as you mentioned).
This fact alone (ie, the fact of her inability to campaign) makes her not the best person that can currently run, because someone with half her policies and twice her chances to win would get us more.
I'll say again, if we actually had a candidate with the balls to come out and speak up for liberty and laissez-faire, we might stand a chance. The strategy you advocate didn't get the R's very far in '08 - they offered a candidate who was honorable and respectable, with a long history of service, but who was willing to give on all the wrong things.
Who is this "us", anyway? The "us" you seem to represent here should be awfully happy with who's in office now.
...I liked Thompson, too. I'd vote for him in a Republican primary.
-
quoting myself:
Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.
Which is why he should have won. ;)
You might have something. I've often wondered if a President should not be elected so much as dragged kicking and screaming into office. Maybe we'd get a better one that way.
-
quoting myself:
You might have something. I've often wondered if a President should not be elected so much as dragged kicking and screaming into office. Maybe we'd get a better one that way.
Yup.
I once read a book that had a story about a country that was set up that way -- the nominees were usually selected against their will, and forced into office if they won. The reason it was against their will is because the entirety of their wealth - every thing of value they owned - was placed into the government coffers once they won the election. If the government lost money, they lost money. If the government ran a surplus, they made a profit. Taxes were also set constitutionally, so they couldn't simply raise taxes if the government started running into the red; they had to do it honestly.
As a result, the government never ran a deficit. ;)
-
Et tu, Brute?
Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul. From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.
If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene. I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.
-
Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ralph Nader. From what I can gather, he is far more up
our your alley than Barack Obama.
If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene. I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin Barack Obama can't do the job.
-
Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul. From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.
If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene. I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.
There was and is far more to suggest that Obama can't do the job, but that hasn't stopped him from trying and it didn't stop people from electing him or many in the media from continuing to support him.
(I posted this before I read Monkeyleg's post.)
-
Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul. From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.
You know exactly what I think about electability. I may haul out the demotivator again, if you like. You also know what I think about Ron Paul.
OTOH, RP isn't running. And nobody is going to even let him within a mile's radius of the nomination if he does run.
-
Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul. From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.
If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene. I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.
The more you lefties howl about Sarah, the more fun it is to support her.
:-*
-
SS isn't really a lefty.
-
So he says. I disagree. If he looks like a duck and talks like a duck...
-
If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene. I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin Barack Obama can't do the job.
I'm assuming you're just trying to be antagonistic towards shootinstudent and not actually arguing this point, right? Even if you don't like him, claiming that current president wouldn't be "a viable candidate that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene" seems a bit ridiculous. ???
-
Barry got himself elected, but he's proven pretty inept at implementing his policies. It wouldn't be hard to make a case that he can't navigate the political scene.
-
Barack Obama isn't leading the Democrat party, it's being led by Pelosi and Reid. Obama can't even control his own party. That's not a leader.
He could have avoided the "new kid in town" problem by surrounding himself with Washington veterans, as did Clinton and Bush. Instead he chose the Chicago mob and some far-out lefties. He doesn't have the time in the senate himself to have forged sufficient alliances to push his agenda, so Reid and Pelosi are doing the work for him, but also dictating the substance of the legislation.
-
Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)
Those two skill sets are entirely different - campaigning is not nation-managing, and never will be. So it's entirely reasonable to believe Barack Obama isn't up to tackling the nation's problems (so far he's done nothing but prove that), but whether or not he can run a campaign sufficient to make up for it is a different question entirely. Anyone who would say that after his last showing is jumping the gun, imho.
There's lots of room for talking down Obama's leadership; there's precious little anyone can say to him about being an effective campaigner.
-
Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)
I suspect Obama had about as much to do with running his campaign as a California surfer does with making the gnarly waves he rides.
-
There's lots of room for talking down Obama's leadership; there's precious little anyone can say to him about being an effective campaigner.
I would disagree.
1. He had a swooning media love affair praising him every night on the news.
2. He had a fairly mediocre opponent who had trouble even energizing his own party faithful.
3. He had an electorate that had pretty negative feelings for the previous Republican President which gave him a built in advantage on election day.
Despite that, he really didn't have a great margin of victory.
IMO, even though he was always praised for his speaking ability, he really wasn't/isn't that great and made a number of highly publicized mistakes. His dependency on the teleprompter was known even then. It would have been worse had not #1 been true.
He selected a VP running mate that makes verbal mistakes at a rate measured by the hour. He is worse than Democrats ever dreamed Dan Quayle was. Again, #1 made it a non-issue.
IMO, that doesn't make him a good campaigner or decision maker. The main thing I might say is either he or his campaign staff did a good job of managing the media. However, he rarely even talked to the media except under very controlled conditions. If they didn't love him already, they would have chaffed at that a lot more so I'm not sure I can even give him credit for that.
About the only positive thing I can say is that he did realize that he had no one capable of running the Defense Department and got Gates to stay on.
-
Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)
"Running the White House well" could be construed to mean setting the thermostats right. If you mean running his staff well, then you have to look at the disastrous appointments of "czars" with views so whacked out that almost nobody in the country approves of them. I could create a long list, but that's a start.
The "national political scene" isn't running a campaign. It's working with members of congress--from both parties--to advance your agenda. It involves friendships, promises made, promises kept, alliances, and all of the other things that people usually deride when they describe "politics." Done properly, though, politics is not bad.
One problem for Obama is that he didn't give sufficient help to members of congress in their campaigns, and there was a lot of resentment about that. He was only concerned with his own election, and screw everyone else. That's bad politics.
-
Whatever else you may think, Obama did a good job running his presidential campaign.
It says so right there on his resumè :P
-
I contend that no one could look good given the same level of antagonistic media scrutiny Palin has received. Obama would've been crying like a little girl if he'd received even 1/4 the negative attention Palin has. Saying "Palin is a bad campaigner" is meaningless. No one on God's little green dirtball could've managed to not be portrayed as stupid/incompetent etc by the media, given the same position.
-
Obama would've been crying like a little girl if he'd received even 1/4 the negative attention Palin has.
There's been a lot of tantrums coming from the White House now that many in the media are doing real reporting.
-
The media were favouring Hillary Clinton early on folks - Barack Obama beat the democratic establishment into selecting him, which was not easy to do. He was helped along by the mediocrity of Hillary, but the Clintons have never been media or campaign fools, and he beat them. Go back to your early (pre-kick off) articles about Obama and tell me how much "love" there was for him.
There's also the fact that his campaign won fairly easily. I'd say that's successful campaigning, myself, but then again I'm no expert. This despite 25 percent of the population in some quarters thinking he's an African born muslim.
-
Whooo boy. SS, can we get some of what you're smoking?
Hillary had been leading in the popular vote, but had Michigan and Florida pulled out from under her when the DNC decided not to count those states' primaries. (I can still hear the 2000 DNC rallying cry: "count every vote!"). This reminds me of Obama's campaign expertise exhibited when he ran for state office and sued to have his opponents removed from the ballot.
There's also the fact that his campaign won fairly easily. I'd say that's successful campaigning, myself, but then again I'm no expert.
No, you're no expert. First off, McCain was leading in most polls right up until the financial fiasco, and he blew that chance. Obama didn't do anything right, McCain did something wrong. Given the level of "anyone but Bush" sentiment, and the anti-Republican mood, the Democrat nominee should have blown his opponent out of the water. Remember the predictions of Obama winning by 20 points? Seven points isn't a blow-out.
Obama is such a fantastic campaigner that polls show if the election were held again today, he would lose. And, bear in mind, he's been continually campaigning since he took office.
-
This despite 25 percent of the population in some quarters thinking he's an African born muslim.
The best kind of statistics are the ones you make up yourself... ;/
-
quoting myself:
You might have something. I've often wondered if a President should not be elected so much as dragged kicking and screaming into office. Maybe we'd get a better one that way.
This is essentially how we ended-up with George Washington as our first President.
Best one we ever had; be sure to raise a toast to him on Monday.
Sawdust
-
Whooo boy. SS, can we get some of what you're smoking?
Hillary had been leading in the popular vote, but had Michigan and Florida pulled out from under her when the DNC decided not to count those states' primaries. (I can still hear the 2000 DNC rallying cry: "count every vote!"). This reminds me of Obama's campaign expertise exhibited when he ran for state office and sued to have his opponents removed from the ballot.
No, you're no expert. First off, McCain was leading in most polls right up until the financial fiasco, and he blew that chance. Obama didn't do anything right, McCain did something wrong. Given the level of "anyone but Bush" sentiment, and the anti-Republican mood, the Democrat nominee should have blown his opponent out of the water. Remember the predictions of Obama winning by 20 points? Seven points isn't a blow-out.
Obama is such a fantastic campaigner that polls show if the election were held again today, he would lose. And, bear in mind, he's been continually campaigning since he took office.
Yeah, you need to review your timelines of Michigan and Florida. And yeah, I'm so smoking that I correctly predicted the win. I guess that must have been just blind luck, calling it for Obama. I mean, so many people (including Micro, who is not even American) were just off their rockers before that big win. Pure luck.
Or not.
-
And yeah, I'm so smoking that I correctly predicted the win. I guess that must have been just blind luck, calling it for Obama.
A rock could have predicted a Democrat win in 2008. The fact that McCain had a slight lead up until the financial meltdown speaks volumes about Obama's "expertise."
-
A rock could have predicted a Democrat win in 2008. The fact that McCain had a slight lead up until the financial meltdown speaks volumes about Obama's "expertise."
That.
-
There's been a lot of tantrums coming from the White House now that many a rare few in the media are doing real reporting.
FIFY =D
-
A rock could have predicted a Democrat win in 2008. The fact that McCain had a slight lead up until the financial meltdown speaks volumes about Obama's "expertise."
Yes, but this misses the point, which is that a Democrat win is a different thing entirely from this versus that Democrat winning. The Clintons held the reigns of the Democratic party at that time, were skilled media manipulators, and had run two near flawless campaigns that managed to overcome scandal after scandal after scandal. Obama beat them. That to me is a pretty good indicator of campaign expertise.
I agree that he's shown no sparks as a leader, but again, those are different skills entirely.
-
...skilled media manipulators....
Make that "manipulated media" and you've got a point. Hillary's treatment by the media was almost as biased as McCain's. The media was in the tank for Obama early on.
I'll give Obama's people credit for utilizing the internet very well, and for theatrics. In the end, though, a very junior senator with a resume as thin as Obama's would never have gotten the nomination had he been white. Not ever.
The Clintons held the reigns (sic) of the Democratic party at that time...
The Clintons owned the party when the DNC chairman was Terry McCauliffe, the Clinton's boy. Howard Dean wasn't owned by the Clinton's, and wasn't exactly a friend.
-
Good catch on reins - I always make that mistake.
It looks like, after all this back and forth, we actually agree on the fundamental point:
I'll give Obama's people credit for utilizing the internet very well, and for theatrics.
Theatrics and communications are the core of campaigns. That's why people who are not necessarily good presidents sometimes handily win elections, and people who would be excellent presidents don't even get close.
What aspect of the PR game has Palin handled well?
-
Since it was the McCain people running the PR during the campaign, her own campaign management skills are up in the air. We don't know. However, she seems to be pretty good at connecting with average Americans. Even when the media was smearing her, she was drawing huge crowds at speaking engagements. What will happen in the future I don't know.
-
...she was drawing huge crowds at speaking engagements.
She was drawing as many people as Obama. Where will SS go with that?
-
Since it was the McCain people running the PR during the campaign, her own campaign management skills are up in the air. We don't know. However, she seems to be pretty good at connecting with average Americans. Even when the media was smearing her, she was drawing huge crowds at speaking engagements. What will happen in the future I don't know.
Zactly. She started off pretty well but (IIRC) once she clashed with McCain's opinions, she suddenly just started parroting his talking points and a lot of people then just lost interest. I was really surprised how many people were ragging on her, yet still supporting McCain. His people put there thumb down and came out worse for it.
-
Since it was the McCain people running the PR during the campaign, her own campaign management skills are up in the air. We don't know. However, she seems to be pretty good at connecting with average Americans. Even when the media was smearing her, she was drawing huge crowds at speaking engagements. What will happen in the future I don't know.
Well, let's see - that Katie Couric interview was no shining moment. Then there was that speech she gave while resigning as Governor. And the crib notes on her hand. Yeah, not too sure that we don't know about her PR skills.
Howard Stern draws a big crowd. So does Britney Spears. Neither have serious chances of winning national office any time soon. I think we need to find alternative measures of PR talent there...
-
Well, let's see - that Katie Couric interview was no shining moment. Then there was that speech she gave while resigning as Governor. And the crib notes on her hand. Yeah, not too sure that we don't know about her PR skills.p
Howard Stern draws a big crowd. So does Britney Spears. Neither have serious chances of winning national office any time soon. I think we need to find alternative measures of PR talent there..
And Palin is so incompetent, such an idiot, and is so poor at campaigning that she doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance to be elected to anything, that you and your liberal fellow travellers feel it necessary to constantly attack her.
Doesn't make sense.
-
And Palin is so incompetent, such an idiot, and is so poor at campaigning that she doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance to be elected to anything, that you and your liberal fellow travellers feel it necessary to constantly attack her.
Doesn't make sense.
Oderint dum metuant.
And, they do. Fear is the only explanation for the absolute visceral hate directed at Gov. Palin.
Going after her kids? Yeah... these people are seriously afraid and their only tool is to destroy someone, even if it means destroying their family.
In fact, I think they take joy at destroying someone's entire life.
-
Theatrics and communications are the core of campaigns. That's why people who are not necessarily good presidents sometimes handily win elections, and people who would be excellent presidents don't even get close.
What aspect of the PR game has Palin handled well?
Of what she has had control of, her resignation speech from Alaska Gov was poorly done. But, she has been masterful in using the 'net. For a while there, it was "Palin with Facebook vs BHO with the entire MSM." And Palin gave BHO a run for his money, despite having zero resources.
-
Well, let's see - that Katie Couric interview was no shining moment. Then there was that speech she gave while resigning as Governor. And the crib notes on her hand. Yeah, not too sure that we don't know about her PR skills.
Howard Stern draws a big crowd. So does Britney Spears. Neither have serious chances of winning national office any time soon. I think we need to find alternative measures of PR talent there...
As mentioned much earlier in the thread, since you forgot, the Couric interview was a failure of the McCain campaign. They set up a hostile interview and allowed them to edit it down as they saw fit. How many Hostile interviews has your hero President Obama done? It's an easy answer.
You are the one who keeps making a big deal about the notes on her hand. No one else gives a damn. Since you already don't like her, I'd say that was a deciding factor.
I didn't even see the resignation speech. I just find it funny that you try to slam her for that when it was your ideological buddies who were dumping her with lawsuits while she was governor. If that happened to you, I think I'd just laugh at you. :D
Honestly, I don't know if I would vote for the lady or not, but these petty attacks are nuts. It reflects on you, not her.
The last point would be that if I really wanted to come up with reasons why Obama isn't fit for office, I could come up with a whole lot more than this. If that is your best shot, it is pretty weak.
-
Okay, again here folks: lots of media attention does not correlate to someone being a "threat" politically. Tiger Woods gets lots of coverage. I doubt that's because the liberal establishment thinks he might win an election. Same goes for Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter - the latter have been routinely barbecued, along with Bill O'Reilly. I don't think anyone would make the argument that it happens because those people are serious contenders for a national office.
Media go after people because it generates ratings. Palin's looks were probably a part of it, and her baby daddy story was a big help too. It is a business like any other; needs to sell stories to survive.
Going back to the Couric interview, I don't see questions as "so what do you read?" as particularly sneaky attacks. Most APSers who participate in this forum could have done twice the job she did in answering the substantive questions. Even for interviews that are tough, you can do better than outright failure, which is what she did in that interview. It's not the McCain campaign's fault that she didn't know how to interview.
The thing about this thread is, I'm not slamming her leadership skills or management talent. I just find it baffling that anyone would call her a great campaigner. If there's any ideology messing with the facts here, I'd say that's it. Just because you like Palin's policies doesn't mean that having words like "tax break" scribbled on your palms for a speech is a slick PR move.
-
Who called her a "great campaigner"?
-
Just because you like Palin's policies doesn't mean that having words like "tax break" scribbled on your palms for a speech is a slick PR move.
And you, of course, know this is what was scribbled on her hand.
How much media coverage are Huckabee or Romney getting right now compared to Palin? When was the last time you saw either of them on a magazine cover? How many editorial cartoons have you seen in the last five months about either of them?
Without going back and reading every post, I don't think anyone is saying she's a great campaigner. She does appeal to people, though, and she draws crowds. Even if she doesn't run, I suspect the candidates will ask her to appear for them. She's doing that now in several states (including here in Wisconsin).
What's interesting is the reaction to her by liberals like SS. It's very similar to the visceral and sometimes unhinged hatred of Bush and Reagan.
-
I don't think the Palin Derangement Syndrome is caused by feeling threatened, politically. I think it's more personal.
She's an ideological threat to feminazis and the emasculated "men" who follow them, in much the same way a conservative black man who succeeded without affirmative action is a threat to the race baiters and community organizers.
Going back to the Couric interview, I don't see questions as "so what do you read?" as particularly sneaky attacks. Most APSers who participate in this forum could have done twice the job she did in answering the substantive questions. Even for interviews that are tough, you can do better than outright failure, which is what she did in that interview. It's not the McCain campaign's fault that she didn't know how to interview.
You're a lawyer, right SS? So I'm sure you're familiar with people who've been interrogated for hour upon hour until they finally crack and confess to a crime they did not commit? Hour after hour of hostile questioning and you're bound to blow the occasional softball. If that's all you've got, I think your case is pretty weak.
-
And you, of course, know this is what was scribbled on her hand.
How much media coverage are Huckabee or Romney getting right now compared to Palin? When was the last time you saw either of them on a magazine cover? How many editorial cartoons have you seen in the last five months about either of them?
Without going back and reading every post, I don't think anyone is saying she's a great campaigner. She does appeal to people, though, and she draws crowds. Even if she doesn't run, I suspect the candidates will ask her to appear for them. She's doing that now in several states (including here in Wisconsin).
What's interesting is the reaction to her by liberals like SS. It's very similar to the visceral and sometimes unhinged hatred of Bush and Reagan.
FYI - the cameras caught what was on her hands. It was three words: "Energy", "budget", and "tax"
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6185820.shtml
But yeah, now we're all in agreement that she isn't great at campaigning. And, hopefully, we're acknowledging that the hand-scribbles actually hurt, as opposed to help, her odds of national election. I would say the same is true of looking like a deer in the headlights when asked "So what do you read?", and resigning as governor because it was too hard.
Balog,
I'm sorry, but there is just no way to compare a police interrogation to the Katie Couric interview. If Katie's questions would crack you, Richard Simmons could intimidate you into a confession all the same.
-
I'm not sure how people continue to claim SS is a liberal. He's displayed ant-war news now and again but I don't really see how he's a liberal.
-
I'm not sure how people continue to claim SS is a liberal. He's displayed ant-war news now and again but I don't really see how he's a liberal.
He defends liberals and liberal agendas pretty regular. If the shoes fits and all that. :)
Another site I post on has a liberal leaning guy who claims not to be a liberal. He may not be, but he ends up defending that side of a lot of issues and comes off as the resident lefty.
-
and resigning as governor because it was too hard.
Yep. Keep repeating that, maybe it will become true.
You should be proud she resigned, your side sued and sued and sued (like liberals always will) with frivilous suits until the costs were unbearable.
I'm sure that's what a governor is supposed to do, spend time and money defending against POLITICAL ATTACKS USING THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
-
She saved her state millions of dollars in attorney fees. How incompetent of her!
And, hopefully, we're acknowledging that the hand-scribbles actually hurt, as opposed to help, her odds of national election.
Thanks for filling me in on what was scribbled on her hand. Now I know something I didn't before, which is that she had scribbled on her hand three topics that she wanted to touch on, but then was speaking about them extemporaneously. Obama speaks much better, but he needs to read a speech writers lines from a teleprompter. Both get crowds fired up with their speaking. So who's better at working the crowds?
Keep on complaining about Palin, SS. If you ever stop bashing her, I'll know that her days in the public spotlight are over. I don't read Time or Newsweek, you see. I'm obviously not presidential timber, either.
-
Balog,
I'm sorry, but there is just no way to compare a police interrogation to the Katie Couric interview. If Katie's questions would crack you, Richard Simmons could intimidate you into a confession all the same.
;/ Ok... how about someone who gets tripped up after 12 hours of hostile deposition? I'd really love to see you sit down and spend a good 10-12 hours fielding questions from someone who's only goal is to make you look bad. And really, given the fact that the Wizard of Uhh's managed to get elected as PotUS I believe you're overestimating the negatives here.
-
Not only that, but the interview wasn't to advance her ideas, but McCain's. Her job was to carry his water, not hers.
Judging by my own focus group (aka Mrs Scout, who has almost zero interest in politics), the "notes in the palm" thing has endeared Sarah to more voters.
-
He defends liberals and liberal agendas pretty regular. If the shoes fits and all that. :)
Another site I post on has a liberal leaning guy who claims not to be a liberal. He may not be, but he ends up defending that side of a lot of issues and comes off as the resident lefty.
that's not OS is it? :lol: sounds like him. [tinfoil]
-
No, it is a completely unrelated site.
I have to agree with scout, to me the notes on her hands only makes her appear more "normal" and makes me like her a little more.
The funny thing to me is that the incessant, petty attacks don't turn me away, but rather drive me to defend her more. I would have criticized Bush a whole lot more during his Presidency if the left hadn't engaged in so much of the same. If they would have just focused on the stuff he deserved it for, I would have agreed and often did.
-
The funny thing to me is that the incessant, petty attacks don't turn me away, but rather drive me to defend her more. I would have criticized Bush a whole lot more during his Presidency if the left hadn't engaged in so much of the same. If they would have just focused on the stuff he deserved it for, I would have agreed and often did.
I think everyone is guilty of that. Clinton supporters circled the wagons when he was going through the Lewinsky mess, and used some pretty lame statements to excuse him. The same could be said of Bush.
If someone thinks that Obama is screwing up things for his party in November, or that the Republicans are fools for liking Palin, it's probably best to follow Napoleon's advice, "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
-
Yeah, it all goes back into how you do it. If you stick to the actual events and facts, it is easy to discuss it. Once you fall back to personal attacks or take a "holier than thou" attitude, everyone gets defensive.
-
No, it is a completely unrelated site.
oh i forgot we had an OS(now that i think about it i think we have 3 or 4 :angel:), oops :facepalm: