I assume most of you watched it. What did you think?

After seeing her speak there, I think that she’s been seriously underestimated politically. She’s composed, likable, has tons of charisma, and is able to throw a few punches without looking bitchy.

I think that the Dems have a serious problem with her on the ticket. Most of the stuff on the scandal list is fairly obscure, frankly. I was listening to Fox yesterday to see what they were saying about her and they’re calling the more well-known rumors out and out lies.

Thinking about it some more, I’m really annoyed by all of this. I was reading Megan McArdle’s analysis of her speech, which is much more thorough than mine and in her final point she brought up something interesting:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/thoughts_on_sarah_palin.php

“We might as well not bother to talk about policy issues in this campaign; we’re now in all out culture war, with the coasts and the heartland fighting for control of Ohio.”

It’s true. Nobody talks about the issues. I mean, I’m sure the Presidency has always been a popularity contest, but are more people going out and voting because they THINK they share values with the candidates, or because they KNOW they share values with the candidates?

Actually, thinking about that even more, there’s an interesting argument to be made there… is voting for someone you perceive as “like you” any different than voting for someone who claims to uphold the things you do? Either way they could be lying, but it’s probably harder to affect a different personality and lifestyle than it is to say that you’re for specific positions.

I think we tend to assume that people who make the same life choices we do have comparable or at least sympathetic views to ours, and they usually do—that’s how we choose our friends, after all (shared interests and lifestyle). Since you never have all of the information available and you never know exactly what someone in power is going to do with it until they’ve done it, maybe it makes sense to pick people more like you instead of waiting to see whether someone was lying or not. Interesting. Thoughts?

Post updated by cameron on 2008/09/04 08:59

I agree with you on underestimating her—I posted about the potential for that on like.. Tuesday in the Palin thread.

Anyway, as to your final paragraph, putting a finger on exactly how/why someone votes for a candidate is a hard thing to put your finger on. Maybe it’s for policies, maybe someone’s a single issue voter, maybe someone wants to vote for someone “like them” etc etc. Personally, in this election, my reasons for voting lie somewhere between policy and believing that Obama is someone who won’t appoint a bunch of yes men and will have an administration that critically thinks about how to improve things (In the way that I think they should be improved, granted).

The problem with her and the same-life-choices-average-American type is that there is a narrative of “average”, I think. She was going on and on about small towns for example, and I thought, what the hell? What’s the demographics on that? How many people actually live in small towns versus how many live in suburbs + cities? Why is that particular experience deemed to be universal or more valuable and relatable? We’ve romanticized the hell out of it.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe small towners far outnumber us surburban or urbanite folks. In which case, okay. I withdraw the point :)

Anyway, I think it’s hugely media narrative. She represents average Americans! Except black women. Or poor people. Or Hispanics. Or whatever group you want to peg into one monolithic experience. And this isn’t something Republicans are only guilty of—Democrats have picked up on the fact that they really need to emphasize a good down-homey “American story.” And the rhetoric just irks me for some reason. BUT I’m not the voter who cares about whose life most resembles my own. I want the smartest pick I can vote for, no matter how much arugula he eats.

I digress. Sorry for the rant-y tone.

On the speech in particular, great job overall, those people were super excited about her. But omg, if I hear one more Republican (her) talk about the “status quo” my head will explode.

Yikes. I swear later.. when I’m nt on my lunch break.. I’ll be more cohesive about things I say :)

Post updated by julie on 2008/09/04 10:58

Didn’t we just have a discussion about who the “average” American is and discover that there are in fact waaay more people living in cities than there are in rural communities?

Oh, yes? I remember Sam saying somewhere something about average Americans and you (I think) saying to the effect of: what the hell does that mean anyway? and then my attention may have lagged from there, sorry! In which case I defer to that.

Hmm. I think that a LOT of those people living in cities probably have small town or suburb-based roots, though, since a lot of people shy away from big cities to raise kids.

Plus, there is that idealized idea of the American small town life.

Are you more familiar with Grapes of Wrath or The Jungle?

Granted, my viewpoint is probably obscenely skewed towards caucasian middle-class ideas about America.

Both! Former English major in the house! Woot!

Seriously though, that’s my point – we’ve idealized it like crazy. It’s a huge part of American culture to glorify small town living. We glorify lots of things. National hobby, I guess.

My viewpoint is plenty skewed too. Being raised in the suburbs, and there fostering a ridiculous imagination, I tend to fear rural areas (like some people fear cities) as hotbeds of lurking serial killers and rapists. But I think I might be in the minority :)