Which of course raises the question: what was in her speech that she didn’t want (or if you want to be charitable, couldn’t be) reported?
One thing I think matters is that this was supposed to be a closed private speech. She was specifically asked if it was okay for media to be there, and she said, “sure, but if the media is there I will have to say different things.”
Actually, she had harsh words for the Chinese government:
As for the ‘attack’ on Obama, here’s what an Obama supporter who was there has to say:
Not hearing any complaints. Oh, and as for the report that she mentioned ‘Death Panels’, other articles in the media specifically say she did not mention them. Here’s the New York Times:
There’s a lot of commentary floating around from Palin haters on the right who are now saying that she’s finally striking the right tone. No over-the-top rhetoric.
The New York Times:
I’ve said for a long time that Palin is not a culture warrior, but more of a Libertarian. According to the NY times, she’s presenting herself as a libertarian or small-c conservative. Her message isn’t pro-life or anti-gay, it’s smaller government and more liberty.
If she keeps giving speeches like this, and follows it up with interview performances that suggest she actually understands the issues and isn’t just reading a speech written by someone else, she might make a fan of me again.
Yeah, the kind of libertarian who wants to force little girls to have rape babies and ban books from libraries.
So all the delagtaes who said she attacked Obama are lying, huh?
You do know that this is an absolutely common thing, right? Many political figures, including Clinton and various ex-presidents, give ‘closed door’ speeches. Guess who else has spoken at this very same conference? Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Alan Greenspan. Often I suspect it’s just a gimmick - they’re charging big fees for these speeches, and they want the people paying for them to think they’re getting exclusive, ‘insider’ information. If it’s a public speech, it’s hard to command six figure salaries.
Don’t ask me - ask the New York Times. They’re the ones who made the claim that she did NOT repeat the death panels thing.
Oh, and who were the delegates who said that? The only reference to it I’ve seen was an unsourced comment in the Breitbart report.
Breitbart is a conservative.
Your point?
That it’s silly to insinuate that the Breitbart article is making things up.
So giving her some more polish would enable you to forgive all the crazy, ridiculous, and ignorant things she’s said? I can’t tell if that’s what you’re saying or if you’re saying she ultimately needs to change some key aspects of her personality before you’d become a fan again. Why not just try to add a little style to someone that already has substance than try to add substance to someone who has a little style?
Not everything that’s reported incorrectly is a result of “making things up.” There’s plenty of sloppy journalism out there.
The Breitbart article directrly quoted a number of delegates, so either Breitbart would hav to be inventing the quotes or the delegates would all have to be conspiring to lie.
I’d be interested in knowing if she can keep watch on China from her backyard.
Woman’s such an inspiration to surveyors the world over!
It won’t matter to me. No matter how much you polish the turd, it’s still a turd. She is stupid, ignorant, and incompetent. Smooth talk, polish and smart handlers wouldn’t change the fact that she is simply stupid.
Which is why I said that just giving speeches won’t be enough to make me interested again. I want to see her go into some tough interviews and hold her own. Because right now, I tend to agree with you that she’s not intellectually up to the job. I’ll need to be convinced. The one possibility I’ll hold out for is that during the campaign she was so over-managed by McCain’s people that she lost her footing.
Take that question she flubbed about which papers and magazines she reads. That should be a slam-dunk, even if she doesn’t read. Anyone can reel off the names of newspapers. But it gets a lot harder if you’ve got some ‘handler’ prepping you like this:
“If you’re asked what you read, don’t say the New York Times. It will alienate our base. Oh, and don’t say The Washington Post - the interviewer worked there and may ask you a followup you can’t answer. In general, when asked questions like that, give a safe, noncommittal answer. If in doubt, stall or change the subject!”
You get enough of that crap about every possible subject, and soon you find that if someone asks you the temperature, you’re thinking, “What are they looking for? If I say it’s too hot, will that piss off people in Texas? What if I say it’s just right? Will that make me look indecisive?”
So basically, the only possibility I can think of (and it’s a remote one) is that her terrible performances were the result of nerves and being filled with so many warnings and directives that she kept second-guessing herself and kept trying to find ‘safe’ answers.
But it’s more likely that she’s just not quick on her feet. That’s my assumption, and it’s going to have to be up to her to disprove it.
See, my assumption is that she’s an idiot. But I agree, it will be up to her to disprove it.
Nobody coached her to make up “death panels,” nor can any amount of polish wash that kind of thing away.
If nobody coached her, then that’s evidence that she’s pretty smart, because the ‘death panel’ thing did more damage to Obama’s health care plan than any Republican politician has managed to do so far. I understand why from your perspective it was a horrible thing to say, but evaluating it as a purely political tactic, it was quite brilliant. Accidentally so, perhaps, but she singlehandedly shifted the debate and forced Obama to come out and say, “no, we’re not going to kill your grandmother.” And when a politician has to promise you he won’t kill your granny, he’s seriously on the defensive.
Were the media allowed to attend the speeches given by Clinton, Gore and Greenspan at the CLSA? It seemed from the story that the forum was fine with having the media attend. It was Ms. Palin that had a problem with media attendance:
Was Palin’s the only session closed to the media?
No it didn’t. If anything it helped to revive it by marginalizing the opposition as nutjobs.
This is a very strange tactic to praise, by the way. You’re actually expressing approval for smearing political opponents with preposterous lies? Seriously? I think there’s actually a name for that tactic. I’m sure I read about somewhere once…
…Ah, yes. Here it is:
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true in itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
-Guess who