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

[Anonymous]

The Republicans have found their new Ronald Reagan, but this time she's a mother of five. As a Democrat, I don't agree with many of her policy positions. But as a woman, I was terrifically impressed with her ability to not only take the crap of the last week, but to land some real zingers. And like the PP, I'm thrilled to see a woman on the GOP ticket.

I've been certain McCain chose her for many reasons other than just the fact that she's a woman, and I've been worried about the smugness of Democrats and pundits who've been so dismissive of her. Many of those same people are still posting on this thread. They have no idea what we're in for. If Palin is able to sustain this level of performance on the campaign trail, we're in for a very close election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was brought to tears. As an HRC supporter, I really have been missing having a woman on the national stage. I guess I was spoiled by a woman finally having relevance and power during a presidential election. I also think it is wonderful that the socially conservative republican party is willing to embrace this working mom, and that the proven sexist pundit class may have some egg on their face for bashing her so fully.

This is so unbelievably self-indulgent. You know what really brings me to tears? Women who can't get past themselves and their navel-gazing enough to realize that there are people out there REALLY suffering--every day--and not because they miss seeing a woman on the national stage. Yeah, it would be nice. I'm a feminist, too. But THIS woman at THIS time in history? Is she RIGHT for the country? Is she ready to meet all the challenges that could come her way?

I fail to see how it advances our sex when the first women the Republicans pick for a national ticket is grossly less qualified than many women in their party? Why not THOSE women? I'm no fan of Christie Whitman, or Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Olympia Snowe, but good Chr*st, at least I could believe they were picked because they were qualified.

Alternate take: The campaign managers already had their hands full trying to keep McCain on message. Here was a near blank slate whom they had seen to be an effective speechmaker. Who could be more qualified than someone who would mouth the words they give her. She may or may not do a decent job of fielding questions at press conferences or the debate, but if they give her a few good sound bites, that's all the vast majority of voters will see. Meanwhile, she can land as many low blows as they like, while 'Bama and Biden have to pussy-foot (sorry) around the fact that it's ungentlemanly to attack a mom.

[Anonymous]

16:27 here. Blake Dvorak of RCP posts:

The McCain campaign must be giddy with this news, just out from Nielsen: Sarah Palin's speech generated 37.2 million viewers, just a 1.1 million viewers fewer than watch Barak Obama's Invesco Field acceptance speech. As Nielsen notes, only six networks carried Palin's speech compared with ten for Obama's.

That means a lot of people are intensely curious about her, and watched her last night. As I've said before, McCain didn't target us DCUMs with this pick. He targeted working-class whites and independents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc., while simultaneously picking someone who would energize his base way beyond expectation. And a lot of his targeted voters saw her last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have found their new Ronald Reagan, but this time she's a mother of five. As a Democrat, I don't agree with many of her policy positions. But as a woman, I was terrifically impressed with her ability to not only take the crap of the last week, but to land some real zingers. And like the PP, I'm thrilled to see a woman on the GOP ticket.

I've been certain McCain chose her for many reasons other than just the fact that she's a woman, and I've been worried about the smugness of Democrats and pundits who've been so dismissive of her. Many of those same people are still posting on this thread. They have no idea what we're in for. If Palin is able to sustain this level of performance on the campaign trail, we're in for a very close election.

We were already in for a very close election.

[Anonymous]

Jane Smiley's piece expresses best the feeling of rolling in the mud I had while listening to Palin's speech. I especially agree with Smiley that Obama extended her respect by refusing to go into the daughter's pregnancy (does anyone seriously think Palin and other Republicans would have been capable of acting graciously if something like that happened in Obama's or Biden's family?) and all he got in return was mud.

This is one paragraph from Smiley's piece: "It's obvious to everyone that Sarah Palin's life is chaos. Her record as mayor and governor is chaotic and her personal life is chaotic. Could she have orchestrated and survived two years of campaigning for the presidency with the panache, the energy, the organization, and the personal growth that the Obamas have shown? Of course not. How the campaign goes is how the administration goes. Palin is showing stress, desperation, and vindictiveness already. And speaking of that -- Obama extended respect to her and she returned contempt. Is she a mean girl? Not as harmless as that. She's more a Lady MacBeth. She IS the Republican party. She shows as clearly as anyone ever that if we as voters embrace something small, we get what we deserve."

Read full piece here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/nothing-to-offer_b_123882.html

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have found their new Ronald Reagan, but this time she's a mother of five. As a Democrat, I don't agree with many of her policy positions. But as a woman, I was terrifically impressed with her ability to not only take the crap of the last week, but to land some real zingers. And like the PP, I'm thrilled to see a woman on the GOP ticket.

I've been certain McCain chose her for many reasons other than just the fact that she's a woman, and I've been worried about the smugness of Democrats and pundits who've been so dismissive of her. Many of those same people are still posting on this thread. They have no idea what we're in for. If Palin is able to sustain this level of performance on the campaign trail, we're in for a very close election.

We were already in for a very close election.

PP here. Agreed. But closer, I think, than we would have seen had Obama tapped HRC and McCain picked someone who doesn't energize his base as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was brought to tears. As an HRC supporter, I really have been missing having a woman on the national stage. I guess I was spoiled by a woman finally having relevance and power during a presidential election. I also think it is wonderful that the socially conservative republican party is willing to embrace this working mom, and that the proven sexist pundit class may have some egg on their face for bashing her so fully.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this statement. There's nothing in common between the policies of these two people, the only thing they have in common is (sorry) ovaries. How does a HRC supporter like someone who has such different political views just because she is a woman? The political agendas of these two people are the opposite. It's really nice to see a woman raise to high levels but not just because she is a woman. I think that is sexist.

[jsteele]

Its interesting reading all the different analysis of Palin and her speech. I keep seeing the point that this speech was not aimed at DCUM members brought up. Rather, we are told, this is for the "non-elites" who live in the fly-over states. The point is often supplemented with some sort of personal relationship the poster has with those states. I'm not sure I'm buying it.

Just to put forth my credentials, I also hail from the great midwest and my parents and brothers continue to live there. Although, since the state in question is Illinois, my roots may be tarnished in this case. Illinois, of course, has elected two black senators, one of whom was a woman. Maybe that makes the state too elite. Nevertheless, I don't think Palin's speech is going to go over well with the undecideds out there. I think the speech was aimed at the socially conservative Republican base and will have the effect of shoring up support among conservative women. But, I think it will have the opposite effect on moderate Dems and independents.

I checked my home town's newspaper today. Coverage of Palin's speech is on page A6. The headline story is about a local human services agency
that helps victims of sexual assault seeing an increase in services but a decrease in funding. Also on the front page, city home sales prices decline further. My feeling is that other than conservatives, people are going to be receptive to the partisan body blows Palin was throwing. How is that going to effect their lives? Wasn't that what they just went through for Bush's two terms? How will it help with the economy?

Every time I've been home I've been struck by the number of stories about local soldiers killed or hurt in the war. This is a big deal out there. How will Palin's low blows at Obama help with that?

I keep hearing about how I'm an arrogant elitist and even though I know Palin is telling lie after lie, its going to go over so well with people in Ohio or some place. Well, guess what? Those people aren't stupid either. The truly elitist attitude in my opinion is believing that just because someone hasn't been to an Ivy League school or isn't knocking down 6 figures, they can easily be hoodwinked by a proficient teleprompt reader who happens to have a pretty face. If that were true, network news broadcasts wouldn't be losing audience to someone like Wolf Blitzer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Palin's speech is going to finish the job started by Hillary's speech and push moderate and independent women firmly into Obama's camp.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Its interesting reading all the different analysis of Palin and her speech. I keep seeing the point that this speech was not aimed at DCUM members brought up. Rather, we are told, this is for the "non-elites" who live in the fly-over states. The point is often supplemented with some sort of personal relationship the poster has with those states. I'm not sure I'm buying it.

Just to put forth my credentials, I also hail from the great midwest and my parents and brothers continue to live there. Although, since the state in question is Illinois, my roots may be tarnished in this case. Illinois, of course, has elected two black senators, one of whom was a woman. Maybe that makes the state too elite. Nevertheless, I don't think Palin's speech is going to go over well with the undecideds out there. I think the speech was aimed at the socially conservative Republican base and will have the effect of shoring up support among conservative women. But, I think it will have the opposite effect on moderate Dems and independents.

I checked my home town's newspaper today. Coverage of Palin's speech is on page A6. The headline story is about a local human services agency
that helps victims of sexual assault seeing an increase in services but a decrease in funding. Also on the front page, city home sales prices decline further. My feeling is that other than conservatives, people are going to be receptive to the partisan body blows Palin was throwing. How is that going to effect their lives? Wasn't that what they just went through for Bush's two terms? How will it help with the economy?

Every time I've been home I've been struck by the number of stories about local soldiers killed or hurt in the war. This is a big deal out there. How will Palin's low blows at Obama help with that?

I keep hearing about how I'm an arrogant elitist and even though I know Palin is telling lie after lie, its going to go over so well with people in Ohio or some place. Well, guess what? Those people aren't stupid either. The truly elitist attitude in my opinion is believing that just because someone hasn't been to an Ivy League school or isn't knocking down 6 figures, they can easily be hoodwinked by a proficient teleprompt reader who happens to have a pretty face. If that were true, network news broadcasts wouldn't be losing audience to someone like Wolf Blitzer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Palin's speech is going to finish the job started by Hillary's speech and push moderate and independent women firmly into Obama's camp.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I can't. First of all, Illinois is not usually a swing state, and of course in this election there's no doubt which way it will go. Second, you mention that your family's still there. Are they Democrats, Republicans, independents? That's really just a question for you. My own parents are still in the midwest and they're firm Republicans, so you can imagine the feedback I'm getting from them. Third, since your hometown is in Illinois, I imagine it covered the DNC more avidly than the RNC, given that the Democratic nominee is from Illinois. But regardless of the paper's coverage, the impact is going to be seen among voters who watched the speech more than among those who read newspaper coverage of it, I think.

Again, I'd love to agree with you. But I don't think the pick or the speech is aimed at HRC supporters any more than it was aimed at blue-collar workers and at the Republican base. And I think a fair number of moderate, independent women will be happy to see a woman on the GOP ticket and so will give McCain another look. The issue of choice is not necessarily a major one to many of those women, so some will go with McCain, probably more with Obama. The question really comes down to how many votes McCain has to pull from Obama in those key swing states. Will Palin get enough of those voters to take another look at him? That's what he is banking on. Some will be women, sure, but working-class and middle-class men are also part of that calculation. Palin has already paid off for him by galvanizing the Republican base. Now he's hoping she has some crossover appeal to working-class and middle-class men, not just women.

BTW, I thought Carol Moseley Braun was a disappointment. What did you think, being from Illinois?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was brought to tears. As an HRC supporter, I really have been missing having a woman on the national stage. I guess I was spoiled by a woman finally having relevance and power during a presidential election. I also think it is wonderful that the socially conservative republican party is willing to embrace this working mom, and that the proven sexist pundit class may have some egg on their face for bashing her so fully.

PP, I fully understand this statement. It's painful to look at the Democratic Party now and have to wonder just how many votes it takes to get a woman on the ticket. I imagine African Americans would be feeling the same way were the outcome reversed and HRC had not tapped Obama as her running mate. But then I realize that would never have been allowed to happen.

[Anonymous]

"The Republicans have found their new Ronald Reagan, but this time she's a mother of five"

Are you crazy?? Palin is no Ronald Reagan. He was governor of a state with a major ecomony, complex issues, many different constiuencies and a brilliant politician.

Her speech did not my change my view of her. It didn't convey any depth, her experience is non-existent, and the sarcasm and nasty jokes were not something that I would expect from a leader. I could really see her though as one of those television pundits, Perhaps this couldbe her next gig after they lose the election. Reagan has great humor and always presented himself as a leader.

I personally could care less about her family and whether she is or is not a good mother. The republicans are trying to hard to spin this one (BTW no one had to ever spin Reagan he controlled the message with great skill) but this is not what they do well. They are better at attack not defense. They can't pur her up on the platform of vote for me because I'm a hockey mom and parade her children out for the public and then cry foul when she is criticized on these factors.

I feel sorry for Palin, she a pawn and the real culprit is McCain who sold out the country by choosing someone completely unqualified to sit in the second most powerful position in the world. I hate how the republicans are only defending this by saying how likable she will be. Sorry I may choose to watch a TV show because the character or actor has a likeability actor but this is not how I would choose who should lead the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The Republicans have found their new Ronald Reagan, but this time she's a mother of five"

Are you crazy?? Palin is no Ronald Reagan. He was governor of a state with a major ecomony, complex issues, many different constiuencies and a brilliant politician.

No, I'm not crazy. This is the major theme of the right-wing pundits' coverage of her speech, and Obama and Biden are on the record today calling her a brilliant politician. And then of course Ronald Reagan's son published an op-ed today saying she's the new Ronald Reagan. So no, I don't think I'm crazy. I'm just lifting other people's words.

[Anonymous]

Hated the speech on so many levels, but my main beef was this:

Biden was introduced by his son, who spoke of the family dynamics and personalized his Dad for us. Then Biden took the stage and pounded home policy beliefs, spoke of his voting record, tried to educate us on his political views. In contrast, Palin spent the better of her intro talking about her personal life, her kids, herself...and never addressed her political beliefs and commitments. What is her stance on the war, the economy, I do not know. Just know that she had plenty of barbed comments about Obama's experience...I just thought it was very weak on substance and did not showcase her as a knowledgable politician (or person, really). So she is "real". So am I, but I could never be second in command of this country.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
As much as I'd like to agree with you, I can't. First of all, Illinois is not usually a swing state, and of course in this election there's no doubt which way it will go. Second, you mention that your family's still there. Are they Democrats, Republicans, independents? That's really just a question for you. My own parents are still in the midwest and they're firm Republicans, so you can imagine the feedback I'm getting from them. Third, since your hometown is in Illinois, I imagine it covered the DNC more avidly than the RNC, given that the Democratic nominee is from Illinois. But regardless of the paper's coverage, the impact is going to be seen among voters who watched the speech more than among those who read newspaper coverage of it, I think.

Illinois is divided between Chicago and "downstate'. Chicago is Dem, the burbs are Rep., and the rest is Rep with a few Dem outposts. My parents and brothers live a a purely Republican area and are registered as Republicans because doing otherwise would be like being a Rep. in DC. However, my parents generally vote Dem. for the Presidential election. My point about the local paper is that it addresses the issues that are important locally. Palin does not appear to have been as important as falling housing prices. I agree that there will be impact from those watching on TV, but I'd bet most of those watching are already decided. The undecided were probably not interested enough to watch.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I'd love to agree with you. But I don't think the pick or the speech is aimed at HRC supporters any more than it was aimed at blue-collar workers and at the Republican base. And I think a fair number of moderate, independent women will be happy to see a woman on the GOP ticket and so will give McCain another look. The issue of choice is not necessarily a major one to many of those women, so some will go with McCain, probably more with Obama. The question really comes down to how many votes McCain has to pull from Obama in those key swing states. Will Palin get enough of those voters to take another look at him? That's what he is banking on. Some will be women, sure, but working-class and middle-class men are also part of that calculation. Palin has already paid off for him by galvanizing the Republican base. Now he's hoping she has some crossover appeal to working-class and middle-class men, not just women.

This is where I totally disagree. Yes, she galvanized the base. But I think she pushed crossover women toward Obama. I'm not sure how it will play with blue collar men, but I don't think she will be the deciding factor. I also think that you are over emphasizing the "woman on the ticket" aspect. If there is one issue that is particularly tied to the "coastal elites", its feminism, or as they call it out there "women's lib". To the extent that Palin is seen simply as a "woman" candidate, I think it hurts her.

Anonymous wrote:
BTW, I thought Carol Moseley Braun was a disappointment. What did you think, being from Illinois?

Yes, of course. As I said above, Illinois is divided between Chicago and everything else. She was in good with Chicago, but she ignored the rest of the state. She started to focus on being a national leader, wasn't particularly competent, and was corrupt. That doesn't lead to much success. I thought she had blown it for all black people and was surprised when Obama came along.