Hello all! I am curious what everyone thought of Gov. Palin’s speech last night. I thought she did a good job. While the speeches last night reminded me why I am a Democrat, I thought from a non-partisan viewpoint Palin did a lot of what she needed to do. She handled the large crowd well, introduced herself, argued her experience was enough and more than the opponents’, attacked the credibility of Obama, and argued for the McCain/Palin ticket. I think she also sounded knowledgeable on the issue she highlighted, energy. While I disagree with her and McCain’s policy ideas to solve many of these problems, I thought she touched on policies many Republicans support.
There were some interesting parts to her speech. First, I thought it interesting she spent what seemed like a long time talking about her family. Since female candidates with children usually avoid prominently displaying them, her long discussion of her children and husband seemed interesting. I am not sure if this helps or hurts her, but its worth noting. Second, I don’t like how she uses her son Trig as a reason for people to vote for her. In my opinion it makes her son seem like a political game piece. However, I do think her discussion of her son Track and her nephew made it seem like she could relate to the mothers and fathers with children serving in
Last, I thought her attack on the media for sexism was interesting. I agree that many of the comments and questions about her ability to lead have been sexist because they have asked if a mother of 5 can juggle being VP and her children. However, Palin also chooses to emphasize her role as a mother (both in this speech and others), so the question is, does that make it fair game for the media? I’m not sure that it does, but I think her decision to emphasize that role make it more complicated than just a sexist media. Also, Palin commented about Hillary Clinton’s complaints about sexism saying that women should just “plow through” media’s sexism, and that any “whine” about it does women a “disservice.” It seems that she has changed her mind about that, so it begs the question, is this just a political strategy? Is it an attempt to make us feel sorry for her, and/or to make former Hillary supporters vote for her even though they disagree with her on the issues? It seems unlikely that this would really work in tricking many women to vote for her, but the decision to mention it in the speech is not meaningless. Below is the video where she comments on sexism faced by Hillary.
I am interested to see what others think about her speech, and especially about the sexism she faces and how it might be being used as a political strategy.
Posts
5 comments:
I agree that her speech did everything that it needed to do. I never dismissed her as stupid, so this did not surprise me. This was obviously the most important speech of her life, but it wasn't the first time she had spoken to an audience. Her early career included pageants and television broadcasting. She has not exactly spent her life shunning the spotlight. I did find it odd that so many pundits seemed surprised by her performance.
At one point I thought she was going to make a case for why her experience as a small-town mayor was relevant.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
But it was ultimately just a chance to make a joke about Obama's experience as a community organizer.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
It seemed like she missed an opportunity to briefly discuss what she accomplished as a mayor. Perhaps she did things that were impressive.
I applaud this post because the fact that Palin is a woman HAS to have an effect on the campaign. Being a woman, a mother, a wife is part of who she is, and at this point many in the country don't know who she is yet. Talking about her children and husband is a must. If she didn't, I think more people would be skeptical about why she avoided the topic. She is a "hockey mom"...that is who she is, and by discussing her family to the extent that she did, she was allowing America to see her authentic self.
I disagree with you about the use of her son Trig. I come from a very small family, and have no living relatives on my mother's side. However, my uncle was born with a moderate case of Downs Syndrome. This disease has always been very dear to me, and I admit that I have some biases when it comes to the topic of special needs children. I do not think she was using him as a political ploy. He is a living, breathing member of their family, and these days probably a lot of their attention goes to those special needs. The problems that parents of special needs children face are real and not easily understood by someone who does not have to deal with them regularly. As a child, my family's day-to-day experience was affected because of my grandparent's declining help and the need for my mother to step in to help take care of her brother. I was very happy that she acknowledged this, and I think it helped Americans get to know her and her family's life even better.
My contribution to this discussion will be simple. YES HER DISCUSSION OF GENDER IS PURELY POLITICAL. She is using accusations of sexism to fend off what have been very damaging questions regarding her nomination. And funny enough, I think the daily show gives all the proof necessary to prove that this is simply another campaign strategy.
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
Carl I L O V E this clip. It is hilarious and oh so pointed. It should be mandatory viewing for America, or it would be if I ran the world anyway.
Lets be clear on this point though, the talking heads are correct the second time around. It was the poo-pooing of Hilary's campaign that has made them look so buffoonish right now. In other words, its tough for a know sexist to call someone else out on sexism. Still, sexism is sexism. That O'Reilly stuff was killing me.
The point you are making seems dead on though, this is political opportunism and hypocrisy by the likes of Rove and O'Reilly. I still think the McCain campaign should call foul any sexism in the treatment of Palin. They just shouldn't be jackasses when the shoe is on the other foot (a valuable lesson for us Dems that want to revel in the Baby-gate headlines...oops, I think that's me).
I think you were right, Kelly, when you stated that criticism of Palin's obligations as a mother were sexist. However, the Republican party crying sexism has become sexist itself. The Republicans appear to be guarding Palin so much right now that there's an assumption that Sarah Barracuda can't defend herself. For more on this, see:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157543
Post a Comment