Well, that was a heck of a thing! The Republican convention, like the Democratic one before it, started out pretty slow. In this case, it was partly mother nature's doing.
Strangely enough, even as Hurricane Gustav wreaked devastation on the Gulf Coast, it may have been a blessing in disguise for the GOP. After all, what a contrast the Jindal and (admittedly largely symbolic) McCain responses made to that of Blanco, Brown and Bush a few years back.
Only trouble was that last time around was the one that really counted, and both the Republican Prez and the Democratic Governor of that state blew it, so it was almost a bit like bombing on opening night of a Broadway show, getting reviews so bad you are forced to close early, then putting on one great performance in the final week of your run... too little, too late.
On the interwebs, the reviews for the GOP festival to stave off despondency were mixed. Nevertheless, even the most strident leftist blogger can hardly deny the historical significance of the nomination of Sarah Palin and the momentousness of her subsequent acceptance speech. We are talking about a forty-something woman being given a spot on the ticket of the supposedly reactionary American party, people. Regardless of if it was done cynically, in desperation, or with genuine forethought, the fact that it was done at all speaks volumes of American society in the first decade of the Twenty-First Century.
If the scale of attacks on a candidate is any indication of concern and outrage from the other side --and seeing how the right went after Obama, I think it is fair to make that correlation, then some on the left are both very concerned and very outraged about Palin indeed! Whether you love her or loathe her, Palin definitely has buzz.
I had a good laugh the next day when I overheard two left-leaning people talking about how hockey moms were real bitches compared to soccer moms (heh heh). Proof, to me, that the whole hockey-mom thing had struck a nerve, even with those who disliked her. I also heard some more nonsense that day, with some attempting to diminish the feat she pulled off, i.e. "she basically just read a speech that a Bush speechwriter crafted for her... how hard is that?"
Well, first of all, if you really believe that Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates normally write their own speeches all by their lonesome, I have an exciting real estate investment opportunity to tell you about. Second, Palin did not exactly just "read" off the bloody TelePrompTer... oh, the TelePrompTer myth has been debunked, yes indeed, but no one can tell me that what they witnessed that night was some woman "reading a speech".
What Palin did was deliver a speech, and deliver it with a skill that few politicians I have seen could match, including, in my humble opinion, the Democratic V-P nominee. So credit where credit is due: as is the case when Obama speaks, regardless of what you think of the content, the delivery is dynamite.
In contrast, McCain's speech I found plodding, earnest, and serviceable at best, except for the section where he spoke about his time in North Vietnam, which is something everyone else does alot for him, but he has seldom done himself, at least until recently. That portion, and the brief section at the very end where he began to show some passion ("Fight With Me!") were the highlights of the acceptance speech given by a man not known for his oratory, but as the signs said for putting "Country First".
There were a couple of lines in each speech that I really found effective.
Palin:
"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change,"McCain:
"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change
us."
Funny, I had just been thinking about that neat metaphorical device I kept hearing over the past few weeks (the Democrats used it too) but could not quite pin down, and then Juliet Lapidos of Slate comes along and names it: Antimetabole.
Probably the most famous example of this is JFK's exhortation from his 1961 inaugural address:
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country
I tried to think of some Canadian examples of antimetabole, but couldn't, so like any mediocre memory-deficient blogger would, I googled it. I came up empty. I guess Canadian pols are not as fond of that rhetorical technique as their American counterparts.
The Slate article actually mentions one of the most resonant ones of the 2008 campaign, somewhat in passing:
"In the end the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it's
whether the president delivers on the speeches."
That one was spoken by Hillary Clinton, and it may well be the premise upon which the entire election hinges:
Can I trust this person's words? Can I trust them to bring about the change they have promised?
