by Damozel | Sadly though, she's not any brighter. True, she "exceeded expectations" by---after a hell of a lot of rehearsing, one hears---stringing her words together into actual sentences !!!!!!! Otherwise....wow. (BTW, nobody's mentioned this, but I've got to say: compared to Palin's screechy timbre, my girl Hillary's oft-maligned voice is positively dulcet, like the sound of far-off softly ringing bells late on a violet-tinted summer afternoon.)
One of my all-time favorite debate moments ever: Palin explained that she'll be presiding over the Senate, giving President McCain the benefit of her wide-ranging insights, and, it appears, enjoying all those powers that co-president Dick Cheney so lovingly expanded. (To be fair, I doubt she meant it---she still isn't quite sure just what the Vice President is really for, it seems.)
Did Obama rehearse for his debate last week? He spend five days preparing for the debate, memorizing the slogans written by David Axelrod. Why the different standard for Palin? And certainly you were aware that last week everyone acknowledged that Obama had "low expectations" for his debate because foreign policy was not his forte. Again, different standards.
I'll grant you that Obama can speak in complete sentences but only when he's reading script from the teleprompter, he's saying "uh" more than saying "change."
Here's Barack "Complete Sentences" Obama speaking without the teleprompter (begins at 48 second mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&feature=related
I doubt you'll comment on it because it doesn't fit your template. So he reads eloquently from a teleprompter but stutters and stammers extemporaneously ... and you're mesmerized!
Posted by: Close Observer | October 03, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Oops. Wrong link. The stuttering obama series is ... well ... let's just say it's a target rich environment. Here's the correct one - an impromptu response to a question; he begins at second 48.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeW4UyPzdGk&feature=related
We all know he is incredibly inexperienced to be President, but what does this say about his intelligence?
Posted by: Close Observer | October 03, 2008 at 04:41 PM
CLOSE OBSERVER:
Not every woman is strong and I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. And my point---which you missed---was that she succeeded in stringing together her substance-free remarks into complete sentences which: good for Sarah.
She's still wrong, ridiculous, and a sign of the depths to which the GOP has plummeted by following its previous policy of offering us sock puppets for the corporatists who have destroyed our economy. By now, even the credulous can see the strings working and Palin's "folksy" mannerisms---gosh darn it!--evoke no one more sharply than George W. Bush.
I don't have a "template." Obama wasn't my first choice for the nomination and there was a time before he rolled over on torture [back in Jan.] when--still believing in the McCain mythos---I might have said, "For a Republican, he's not THAT bad.'
Obama might occasionally stutter. The difference between him and Palin in vast and unbridgeable. It is the difference between a person who worked his way to becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review and a teacher of constitutional law....and Sarah Palin. He knows things a president needs to know. She doesn't even know things a governor of a thinly populated state ought to know.
Palin should be a deal-breaker for any "close observer."
Yes, Obama has his failings. But they are nothing compared to the horrifying prospect of being stuck with the Palin puppet---because her speech showed that she knows NOTHING--- as president.
Posted by: Damozel | October 04, 2008 at 03:11 PM