The protesters. "Please don't pay attention to the ground noise and the static." McCain smiled. "Please...please...please...please." Smile--"Americans want us to stop yelling at each other." I thought that was a good line. But then McCain looked really annoyed when the crowd started yelling "USA!" when he was trying to speak again. It got under his skin.
"She's worked with her hands and nose." A funny flub: "She knows...", was what it was supposed to be. He did it again with the "parents and students" line, when he had to start over and emphasize the right word to make the line make sense.
"Change is coming." McCain stole Obama's message. Pretty good. Palin allows him to do that.
McCain's timing was off. He couldn't decide when to stop for the applause. Also, he kept looking down too at the end of each line. Palin was much better at delivery, and Obama too. McCain's speaking was really horrible. It just doesn't come off as believable.
He did show passion with fighting the big pork-barrel spenders in Congress. He had kind of a Sister Souljah moment talking about how Republicans "lost the trust" of Americans. "We're going to change that." He delivered this line so flatly, however. "He's really not a good speaker," said my wife. "He strikes me as very insincere. Let's get him off the stage and get Palin back up there."
There was a big monitor on the wall right under to the camera. (I finally saw it in a wide shot.) So McCain kept looking into the camera, just like Palin and Rudy last night. It was much more effective than the Dems, because looking into the camera connects with TV viewers.
McCain looked stiff walking out. The podium was the right size--he didn't look like he was hiding behind it. His arm disability was very distracting. Brian Williams explained it last night, so we were looking for it subconsciously, and we never got over it.
He talked about hearing the news of Pearl Harbor as a kid. He's old! A contrast with Obama, reminding me of Dole, of looking to the past. He talked about "changing the way government does almost everything." But this was belied by his look, which I always describe as doddering. Does he have the energy to deliver all this new change? He just didn't seem vigorous enough. The night before he praised Palin on the stage and didn't know where she was and had to do a 360-degree turn, looking like an old grandpa who's not sure where people are when he's talking about them.
The phrase "caretaker government" was ringing in my head as a description of what a McCain term would be. All the talk of his biography--he's had a great life. Now he should be put out to pasture? I think the Republicans overdid it with his bio. Why can't he be satisfied with the life he's led? In other words, the question was not answered, why should he be president? "Because he puts his country first." That's alterization, not an answer. The answer is "Because he's a maverick who will shake up Washington." This answer was an afterthought, however. It's clearly stealing Obama's message, but the important point is that it was actually McCain's bio that was front and center. But loving your country and serving your country is not a reason why you should be president. Then we would all be president! His call to service was fine and all, but it did not answer the question, "So McCain serves a cause greater than himself, so what? Why should he be president?" It is an attack on Obama--he's only in it because he's power-hungry.
At the end it was "fight this, fight that; stand up, stand up, stand up and fight." I thought it fell flat. My wife: "That was good." I suppose it was. What do I know?
I give it a C. Not bad, but certainly not good.
3 comments:
I agree, McCain is a horrible speaker. I felt like there were flashing "applause" signs telling the audience when to cheer. And, I agree that McCain is a noble war hero - but that has zilcho to do with running a country. He needs to stop praising Obama and continue to paint Obama as "all fancy talk". In order to win, McCain must be the candidate who can't make speaches, but knows his stuff and is sincere, while painting Obama as a good speaker but horrible leader.
I had a couple of different reactions: When he started out his Pearl Harbor bit by saying "When I was five years old..." I was thinking, Gosh, when was that? The Great Depression? The 20s? When he said Pearl Harbor I thought, Oh, he's younger than I expected! So that part had the opposite effect on me because I calculate poorly or have a poor grasp of history relative to time.
I also was aware that he was a POW but unaware of most of the specifics of his imprisonment; although every speaker had mentioned it, I thought it was a wise choice to give some more details. I like the part about how much he hates war - I think that hawks get cast as loving war, and it's good to point out that no one 'loves' war, some just see it as necessary. I liked the end too.
I think the speech could have had a little more substance, but then again that's what debates are for; let's be honest, conventions are about theatrics. I think, if Saddleback was any indication, McCain will do well head-to-head against Obama.
Funny that a word like "change" can be owned by one party. Does it have copyright laws attached?
I find it even more humorous that liberals keep harping on his age because of Palin's experience.
Sounds like they believe U.S. would be worse off if McCain died in office, but better off if Obama died and the office was left in Biden's more capable hands.
Finally, I would rather have someone in office who really knows sacrifice for his country then someone who only knows how to play up half his race. The race that played a marginial role in his upbringing.
Post a Comment