So...did anyone soften their opinion on Palin after her speech?

[Anonymous]

The comments about the "low blows" the "nastiness" etc. of Palin's speech are amusing to me.

Does anyone remember Ann Richards famous lines about George Bush spoken at a Democratic Convention? Something along the lines of "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." and "Woke up on third base and thought he had a hit a triple." The speech made her nationally famous for her humor and folksiness.

Lighten up people -- the conventions in this day and age are theatre and entertainment. Granted most of the speeches are dull as can be but all the more reason why there's no question Palin did what she needed to do out there.

[Anonymous]

"Does anyone remember Ann Richards famous lines .."

Ann Richards and Ronald Reagan were able to deliver attacks while still appearing dignified, speaking from a position of authority, and with a degree of class. Its hard to explain but some people truly have this skill and others just sound whining, snide, or as if they are reading what the speech writers wrote. Now I don't believe how well you can deliver attacks should be the deciding factor but it annoys me to see Palin compared to people with far more skill. To me, Palin came off as snitty and judgemental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Jane Smiley's novels and stories very much (though she lost me with Ten Days in the Hills), but she never does well when she veers into political commentary. She's well to the left of almost anyone I can think of, except perhaps Barbara Ehrenreich. And given her own history with marriage and parenting, it's more than a little hypocritical of her to not opine on the "chaos" of Palin's life.

I don't see why Smiley's lefty views and complicated personal life should keep her from opining. In fact, that complicated personal life is one reason she writes insightfully about complex human relations, but does not run for vice president.

I'm not suggesting her lefty views, many of which I share, should keep her from opining. I am suggesting that straight ideologues often have trouble seeing politics in anything but the most stark black and white terms, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right. And I am also suggesting that novelists, actors, musicians, etc. are often more effective when they produce their art than when they "endorse" a political candidate or veer into political criticism. It amuses me. (But then I can never think of Frank Rich as much other than a jumped-up theater critic.) I tend to prefer that art critics have expertise in art, music critics to have expertise in music, etc. When celebrities venture into political criticism, I just giggle because I frankly don't think their opinions on politics are any more valid than yours or mine. And I love Smiley's insightful writing about complex human relations but I don't enjoy her judgments of others' complex human relations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The comments about the "low blows" the "nastiness" etc. of Palin's speech are amusing to me.

Does anyone remember Ann Richards famous lines about George Bush spoken at a Democratic Convention? Something along the lines of "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." and "Woke up on third base and thought he had a hit a triple." The speech made her nationally famous for her humor and folksiness.

Lighten up people -- the conventions in this day and age are theatre and entertainment. Granted most of the speeches are dull as can be but all the more reason why there's no question Palin did what she needed to do out there.

Frankly, her speech shows her lack of class. She's a wild child from the frontier. Big hoop-ha. Palin also reinforced the fact that she's a small-minded petty gal. I'm sure she'd be entertaining for a couple hours having a beer with, but we already tried that for 8 years and what a flop.

Do you think the class and wit of Ann Richards is of a bygone day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Does anyone remember Ann Richards famous lines .."

Ann Richards and Ronald Reagan were able to deliver attacks while still appearing dignified, speaking from a position of authority, and with a degree of class. Its hard to explain but some people truly have this skill and others just sound whining, snide, or as if they are reading what the speech writers wrote. Now I don't believe how well you can deliver attacks should be the deciding factor but it annoys me to see Palin compared to people with far more skill. To me, Palin came off as snitty and judgemental.

Ann Richards' first campaign for governor was the first campaign in which I was deeply involved. She was and remains one of my heroes. I also felt strong affection for her as a person; she was really just a marvelous woman. When she lost to W in her second race, I was heartbroken. I actually see some of her in Palin: That direct, plain-spoken appeal; a willingness to publicly embrace the complexities of family life (and in Richards' case, her alcoholism); and a certain grit and strength. While I shared Ann Richards' political views far more than I share Palin's, I still find traits to admire in Palin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ann Richards' first campaign for governor was the first campaign in which I was deeply involved. She was and remains one of my heroes. I also felt strong affection for her as a person; she was really just a marvelous woman. When she lost to W in her second race, I was heartbroken. I actually see some of her in Palin: That direct, plain-spoken appeal; a willingness to publicly embrace the complexities of family life (and in Richards' case, her alcoholism); and a certain grit and strength. While I shared Ann Richards' political views far more than I share Palin's, I still find traits to admire in Palin.

Nicely said. Both Obama and McCain made attempts to separate respect for their opponents from disagreement with their positions and experience, and I wish we could follow suit. By the way, while the discussion of Palin's private life may have been regrettable I think much of it was less due to malevolence than to genuine curiosity about a politician unlike any we have seen before.

At this point, I see her as a person of outstanding skills and terrible political opinions. McCain, to me is a person of admirable courage and independence, who also has some positions I strongly disagree with, but not so much as Palin. Since Palin is so new to national politics, perhaps her views will modify somewhat to suit the new context, but that remains to be seen. Meanwhile, I would love to see us discuss the positions and abilities of all four candidates without demonizing them.

And also without demonizing their supporters, especially those on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ann Richards' first campaign for governor was the first campaign in which I was deeply involved. She was and remains one of my heroes. I also felt strong affection for her as a person; she was really just a marvelous woman. When she lost to W in her second race, I was heartbroken. I actually see some of her in Palin: That direct, plain-spoken appeal; a willingness to publicly embrace the complexities of family life (and in Richards' case, her alcoholism); and a certain grit and strength. While I shared Ann Richards' political views far more than I share Palin's, I still find traits to admire in Palin.

Nicely said. Both Obama and McCain made attempts to separate respect for their opponents from disagreement with their positions and experience, and I wish we could follow suit. By the way, while the discussion of Palin's private life may have been regrettable I think much of it was less due to malevolence than to genuine curiosity about a politician unlike any we have seen before.

At this point, I see her as a person of outstanding skills and terrible political opinions. McCain, to me is a person of admirable courage and independence, who also has some positions I strongly disagree with, but not so much as Palin. Since Palin is so new to national politics, perhaps her views will modify somewhat to suit the new context, but that remains to be seen. Meanwhile, I would love to see us discuss the positions and abilities of all four candidates without demonizing them.

And also without demonizing their supporters, especially those on this board.

I'm the PP and I just want to say I agree with you wholeheartedly. I really dislike it when political discussion devolves into the demonization of the opposition, as it so often does. I'm sometimes guilty of it myself. You raised a good point about Palin's views possibly being modified or moderated to suit the national political climate. It seems to happen to everyone eventually. Biden quickly adjusted his views on Iraq to make them seamless with Obama's; Obama was on Fox last night acknowledging that the surge succeeded beyond all expectations. McCain has altered his positions as he transitioned from senator to presidential candidate.

You also made a good point about the genuine curiosity that many people probably feel about Palin. Interestingly, a new poll indicates that more than half of registered voters believe that the media are actually out to get Palin, and 24% said they're more likely to vote for her as a result. I've been fearing a media backlash and it looks like that's becoming a reality, at least for now. We'll have to see how that plays out. I think most voters believe questions about her experience and beliefs are legitimate, while questions about her daughter's pregnancy or her son's maternity are not. I'm hopeful that the media will begin to refocus their attention to the more legitimate areas of inquiry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...

I think most voters believe questions about her experience and beliefs are legitimate, while questions about her daughter's pregnancy or her son's maternity are not. I'm hopeful that the media will begin to refocus their attention to the more legitimate areas of inquiry.

Speaking of the question of Trig's maternity (as opposed to Trig's maternity itself, if I may make that distinction), I never thought the discussion was a smear, since I don't care about Bristol's sex life, and felt it much easier to relate to a mother shielding her daughter than to a pregnant woman going through the Texas to Wasilla voyage.

I suppose some Reps truly believed it was intended as a smear, and perhaps some Dems really did intend it that way. Any Dems out there willing to admit they were being malicious? Any Reps willing to admit they knew it was not all a smear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just heard this amazing quote from the film bio of Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention:

"When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook, the world trembled and the world will soon be a better place."

In my neighborhood, the world is giggling!

Puh-lease, the world shook?!

Certainly that's hyperbole. How about this quote, though:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

I'd call that hyperbole too, wouldn't you? I'm an Obama supporter, but this kind of thing really bugs me. It seems that the Palin film bio people were just taking a page from Obama's book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just heard this amazing quote from the film bio of Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention:

"When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook, the world trembled and the world will soon be a better place."

In my neighborhood, the world is giggling!

Puh-lease, the world shook?!

Certainly that's hyperbole. How about this quote, though:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

I'd call that hyperbole too, wouldn't you? I'm an Obama supporter, but this kind of thing really bugs me. It seems that the Palin film bio people were just taking a page from Obama's book.

Yes, I'm the giggler and I must say this is also ridiculous! As a matter of fact, I was thinking I should have made a joke about her being "the One" instead of Obama. (another Obama supporter)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just heard this amazing quote from the film bio of Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention:

"When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook, the world trembled and the world will soon be a better place."

In my neighborhood, the world is giggling!

Puh-lease, the world shook?!

Certainly that's hyperbole. How about this quote, though:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

I'd call that hyperbole too, wouldn't you? I'm an Obama supporter, but this kind of thing really bugs me. It seems that the Palin film bio people were just taking a page from Obama's book.

Yes, I'm the giggler and I must say this is also ridiculous! As a matter of fact, I was thinking I should have made a joke about her being "the One" instead of Obama. (another Obama supporter)

We're giggling together then. To steal a line I enjoyed in the farce thread: I like you. Would you like to swing?

[Anonymous]

Hello? She didn't write her own speech. And... She's anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-science and as someone elsewhere pointed out, do we want someone who believes in "end of days" narratives to have their finger on the button? That is just one of billions of possible complaints about this creepazoid idiot of a woman.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I am FRIGHTENED that Palin could be a heart attack away from the presidency.

She does not believe that global warming is man made (therefore would not institute any global warming policies).
She does not believe in the Bush Administration's science that the Polar Bear is an endangered species (and they are notoriously adverse to list any animal as endangered).
She wanted to ban books in a library, and even threatened the librarian with her job (never mind our constitutional right to free speech).
She is against sex education (and look where that got her daughter).
She believes that GOD IS ON OUR SIDE in the Iraq war (doesn't that make her a christian-jihadist?)
She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools (lets throw out separation of church and state along with free speech)
She believes that the Jew DESERVE to be terrorized since that have not taken Jesus Christ as their savior.
She is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape.

REALLY???? Do we really want to go back 100 years? Do we really want to fight religious wars? Do we want someone who believes in the bible more than science? To LEAD OUR COUNTRY????

What I do not understand is how anyone who supported Hillary can now support Palin. Except for biology, there is NOTHING similar about the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She believes that the Jew DESERVE to be terrorized since that have not taken Jesus Christ as their savior.

Can you point to some data to support that this is Palin's belief?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fine. Then I guess I'm a better speaker than both Obama and Palin. I have given several high-level speeches without looking at my notes. And it was even harder for me than it would be for Obama or Palin in that I was subject to the constant interruption of difficult questions. Questions that weren't passed to me beforehand, so that I could practice an answer.

.

Wow. Do you speak often in front of 40 million viewers after being subject to a week's worth of scrutiny and personal drama? And has the future of the country rested in part how your brilliant speeches are received?