Something like “I’ll ALWAYS be proud of my country, forever and ever.” In a really smug and self-righteous tone, of course.
I think it invites the question of why she wants to secede from it, though.
I think you just got a warning yesterday to take personal comments to the Pit. Thanks for obliging.
It was some allusion to what she said about not always being proud of her country (no, not the actual quote).
But I meant to comment on this, as well. I agree that family members should be off limits. But surely, if a family member, particularly a possible First Lady, takes to the hustings, what she says there is fair game.
I meant to address this earlier. It’s obvious why Palin’s on the ticket, and it has nothing to do with taking away former Hillary supporters. She’s the anchor for the ticket to the GOP base. I’m sure they’re hoping to peel away some PUMA types but that number was never large enough to justify picking her solely for that reason.
Again, people on my side need to stop underestimating the intelligence, er, or the way that the GOP knows its audience, as well as independents.
Hey Shayna, do you think the response to her tonight was ‘extremely tepid’?
I came her after reading and watching even left-wing commentators grudgingly admit that it was a masterful speech. Wolf Blitzer said, “A new star was born tonight.”
And yet, I knew before I opened this thread that the usual suspects would be saying that the speech was horrible. Such is world of the ‘reality based community’ on the Straight Dope these days.
This race just got a lot closer. Palin hit a homerun out of the park tonight, and everyone outside the SDMB knows it.
I was, and am, unaware of that. Can you point me to it? But it was a legitimate question. And your non-answer is an answer in itself.
You sure you weren’t watching a replay of one of Hillary’s speeches? You just described her to a tee.
Of course you didn’t see these qualities in Hillary, whereas I saw them exactly as you describe above.
Guess it just boils down to whose ox is at the podium, huh?
Makes me wonder who really is the shit, and who really is a phony.
I’m sure you know who my money’s with. 
Some of the post-speech articles (at least on CNN) point towards Mitt Romney as the culprit, though as an attack, it’s pretty indirect and pretty mild:
Referring towards Michelle Obama’s statements months back that she was truly proud for the first time in her life of being an American. I doubt most people who haven’t been fixated on the elections would have the foggiest idea he was referring to her statement.
The cab;e news people always praise every speech. Palin did a fine job of reading a routine GOP hate speech off a telprompter. The base was very happy. The base was already going to vote for McCain. So I guess it depends on how you define “successful.” In my opinion, she was only going to be successful if she could gain any new votes she didn’t already have. She failed in that regard. It’s easy to fire up the choir. If that’s your only criterion for “hitting it out of the park,” then she succeeded (not that there was any way she could have not succeeded. All she had to do was stand there and read a teleprompter. She had enough television experience to do that. How could she have possibly screwed that up?)
As far as making any difference in the polls or the election? Epic fail.
Did I say her reception was extremely tepid? If I didn’t say that, feel free to infer that I don’t believe that. Furthermore, please show me where I said her speech was horrible. I believe I said it was well=delivered and hit all the right talking points. That doesn’t mean I should ignore all the lies and bullshit the writers threw in it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10147119&postcount=6
This thread is about Sarah Palin’s speech, not how I’ll handle a potential Obama loss. If you want to admonish me to chill out, take it where personal comments are allowed. You may feel free to infer absolutely nothing from my refusal to allow you to hijack this thread about my personal feelings.
I agree. That’s why I was an Obama supporter.
Yes I did. Where do you get off telling me what I saw in Hillary. I’ve said over and over on this board that I think she has a hard ceiling on who she can appeal to, and I’ve been saying literally for years on this board that I thhink she’d be unelectable in a general election. Don’t make assumptions about my opinions, ok.
ETA, I will say that Hillary has a little bit broader base of appeal, though. Hilary is a moderate while Palin represents the most extreme fringe of her party.
Thanks for the answers to my Michelle Obama question. I was afraid I might actually have to watch Palin’s speech to figure it out.
Yeah, I just found it myself. I do not think it merited a waring. It was a commentary on your blind partisanship, which affects the debate. I brought the issue up to Dio, as well. And I will infer what my mind tells me to, thank you very much. But what it tells me about you actually IS grist for a pit thread, if I felt it was worth my time. Which I don’t.
And this thread is about Sarh Pailn’s speech AND people’s reactions to it. And some of those reactions, on both sides, will be off due to partisanship. But nice try.
I suppose I might deal with a McCain presidency much like I dealt with the Nixon years, but I worry that the drugs will be much more expensive.
In Obama’s case, he sat on the board of directors for several organizations that were involved with providing grants to organizations or young adults from disadvantaged (read “poor inner-city”) neighborhoods. These organizations go beyond charity work by trying to rebuild their communities (hence, “community organizing”) and offering their residents–especially students and young adults–opportunities for their future.
For instance, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation provide grants to nonprofit organizations involved in education, the arts, employment opportunities, and so on. Obama also served as chairman of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was involved specifically with improving public schools.
Both Barack and Michelle Obama were involved with Public Allies. PA offers paid apprenticeships to young adults from diverse cultural and social backgrounds. The apprenticeships are carried out with local nonprofits, the idea being that the young adult learns career skills while building a stronger connection to his or her community.
And, of course, throughout this time Obama was practicing law (mainly writing and researching) with a firm that specialized in civil rights cases.
In other words, Obama was involved in building up local communities and helping to provide opportunities to disadvantaged young people–or, more simply, “community organizing.”
I could have sworn that you were quite happy with the prospect of Hillary as president during the Democratic primaries. I remember because your “Fork Hillary” OP’s seemed to indicate a distaste for her which was belied by your subsequent posts in those threads.
One more thought that’s occured to me: by mocking the phrase “community organizer,” Giuliani and Palin et al are either willfully ignorant of what Obama was really accomplishing in Chicago, OR they (and perhaps some in their audience) are fully aware that Obama’s work is with inner-city minorities, but they don’t regard such work as laudable as, say, serving on the PTA or being the president of your high school’s Christian Athletic Association.
Maybe, maybe not…
But, to my mind at least, devoting yourself to serving and rebuilding impoverished neighborhoods is a far more noble endeavor than trying to ban books from your local library because they have bad words in them.
And much more respectable than abusing your political power to fire people who won’t get involved in your family’s personal grudges.
I thought it was exactly perfect. Also, I hated it–Palin’s (and Giuliani’s) speeches exemplified everything I despise about conservative rhetoric.
But it was perfect. She fired the republicans up. “Undecideds” who lean conservative are going to get warm. She bitchslapped Obama, and as some poster on the board (I forget who) has remarked–that’s what politics is all about anyway. (At least in the good ol USA.)
My question now is how Obama and his people should be responding. I agree with their policy so far of actually answering criticisms and smears rather than ignoring like Kerry tended to do. But most of this didn’t even rise to the level of smear, much less criticism. It was basically very clever namecalling for the most part. I’m not sure how that can be answered effectively and constructively, at least not in a way that is politically persuasive.
-FrL-
Are you of the opinion that Obama doesn’t read off a teleprompter, or have speeches written for him?
The fact is, great oratory is a lot more than reading off a teleprompter. Obama is a natural at it. It’s about knowing where to put emphasis, it’s about timing, it’s about forceful delivery, and tone. It’s knowing when to speak quietly, and when to shout. When to pause for reflection, and when to race through a passage. It’s a gift that many politicians never manage. Obama’s got it. Palin’s got it as well.
It’s like comedy. Give a good and bad comedian the same joke, and one will deliver it in a way that makes you laugh, and the other will deliver it and get complete silence. And it’s not easy learning to deliver it well.
We can certainly differ regarding the content of the speech. I noticed a few whoppers myself. I’m not a fan of the cultural conservative stuff. Obama throws some whoppers around himself - all politicians do, especially when speaking to their followers.
Contrast Palin’s performance with Hillary’s typical speeches. She’s not very good at it. She sounds shrill when she shouldn’t. She comes across as smug sometimes when she should come across as forceful. Her delivery can be wooden, with awkward pauses where they don’t belong.
And of course, George W. Bush is the poster boy for lame speechmaking. You can give him the best speech in the world and he’ll mangle it - putting strange grins where they don’t belong, weird pauses in the middle of statements that should be connected, offer up a deer-in-the-headlights look as he reads the teleprompter, etc.
Palin’s got the gift. No doubt about it. You can see why McCain picked her - his main personal vetting tool was apparently watching numerous speeches she’s given.
She’s also good off the cuff. She’s good in an interview. I’ve seen a few, and she’s sharp. Don’t underestimate her. She’ll be a good match for Biden. I won’t declare a winner, because in those kinds of debates the winner is often the one who manages to not step on a land mine planted by the other side. But she’s capable.
Is there any speech that could possibly have been given that you wouldn’t have called an ‘epic fail’? I doubt it. Frankly, I think this particular speech, delivered by this particular person, is about the only thing that could have moved the polls in McCain’s favor. He’ll get a bump from it. Whether it’s a game-changer, I don’t know. You’ve still got to call Obama the prohibitive favorite. But I do believe she’s closed the gap a little, at least temporarily.
Until now, I’d never been told that being able to field dress a moose was a firm qualifier for elective office. With any luck at all, I never will again.