Sarah Palin

I’ve been observing the ideological war in the media in the wake of the Tucson tragedy and I’ve been wondering how Sarah Palin would respond to the fingerpointing regarding charges that her heated rhetoric may have played a role. Today, she responded with a video::

It will go down as the “blood libel” speech, as she used that loaded term to accuse the media of an unwarranted pointing of fingers at her.

Was this another gaffe -or- was this part of a very controlled and disciplined Sarah Palin who is taking upon the role as a leader? This WaPo article isn’t missing the fact that the video was a stark departure from her prior history of Tweets and Facebook updates, where she reacts with off the cuff “reflexive spasms”. The article ends with this::

“Republican operatives report that Palin has been calling around in recent weeks to seek advice not only on whether but how she should run for president in 2012. This statement might suggest she is not only seeking that counsel, but taking it as well.”

Hearing the video in its entirety, it uses very specific language invoking God and country to get her message across and frame it in a way that will resonate with her base and show she can “talk the talk” of sounding like a presidential candidate.

So, I don’t think the use of “blood libel” will be a gaffe, unless she plays into criticism of its use. I do wonder if a little contrition would have been a better tactic, in that her base is already sold on her, but contrition may have made inroads into support of the coveted moderates. I get a sense that a little of Palin’s feistiness goes a long way and showing a bit of humility could broaden her range without necessarily diluting her brand.

While Sarah Palin’s recent use of “refudiate” twice would be a double facepalm moment for most politicians, perhaps she gets a bye because of her folksy patois. I do think she’s self-conscious of appearing none-too-smart and rather than just shrugging these things off, she gives them too much play, which is more fodder for the press and pundits. Of course, this keeps her in the limelight even more. While I think that might be shrewd for being a political celebrity of sorts, I think all of this self-consciousness undermines her credibility as a potential political candidate to an important demographic—educated suburban/urban moderates and independents.

This reminds me of the old Fox show In Living Color and Damon Wayans’ character, Oswald Bates, full of his own unique patois::

Just in case anyone cares, if you type in “refudiate” in Twitter…

there is a spellcheck that lets you know you’re in neologism territory…or are just misspelling words.

Song:: The Stills-‘Lola Stars & Stripes’ {lyrics}

Twitterversion:: [blog] Sarah Palin’s “Shakespearean” neologism of “refudiate” reminds me of an old Damon Wayans character. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Notes from north of 49ºN

“But how could she mince around in high heels and then, in the next breath, work as a crisis volunteer for rape victims and march in Barrie’s Take Back the Night rally? Isn’t that a conflict of character?”

“It seems to me that she’s pushing the boundaries of several stereotypes about what makes a woman attractive. In fact, according to The Independent, “she entered the contest in the hope of launching a modeling career that might fund her athletics training.” So the lady was just using the contest to meet her “real” desire: to be an Olympian. Nothing wrong with hustling the system, right?”

Video:: Biden to Obama, “This is a big f*cking deal”

The signing of the healthcare bill last week was significant in more ways than one. I feel it galvanized the Democrats and I also feel it was critical for Obama to make the healthcare bill “personal” and get fellow Democrats to be rowing in the same direction. I think this was quite a challenge, as the liberal factions of the party are ideologically distinct from the more conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

In the wake of the signing, the Democrats got good news in the form of a public opinion poll reporting 49% saying the bill was a good thing, compared to 40% saying it was bad. There was also a spike in donations, with $1M pouring in last Tuesday without a direct ask.

There has been a backlash and alleged incidents of offices being vandalized. The Republicans needed to respond to thwart any momentum, but I’m not convinced their strategy is sound. Sarah Palin started a bit of controversy with her reload and targeting comments in a speech in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, NV::

The media tried to whip Sarah Palin’s “targeting” and “reload” comments into pageview fodder, but I think the big issue for Republicans is a lack of a message that resonates with a country in the economic doldrums. John McCain claims that Palin’s words are just political rhetoric::

While this all makes for good drama, I’m not sure how effective this type of press coverage is in building support. I can’t help but think of the utter carnage of the 1994 midterm elections. Bill Clinton was weakened by a lack of support in Congress from his own party as a Washington outsider and…Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. This C-SPAN footage is a bit dry, but it shows a systematic delineation of undermining public support of Democrats and was more successful than many anticipated. The Democrats would go on to lose 8 seats in the Senate and 54 in the House, earning a majority in both.

I think there was and perhaps still is an opportunity for the Republicans to pick up quite a few seats, but there needs to be rhetoric that moderates can sink their teeth into. Without a more substantial agenda resonating, I predict low turnout, as voters sit the midterms out.

Twitterversion:: Post healthcare, Dems get bump in polls & donations last wk. Rep. backlash ensues. Doubtful if 2010 will be another 1994 @Prof_K

Song:: Okkervil River-‘Our Life Is Not a Movie’

Sarah Palin has gotten on Obama’s case for being a “charasmatic guy with a teleprompter”, but it looks like her hand was literally caught in the crib note cookie jar for the post-speech Q&A::

I think the only thing more embarrassing would if “left” or “L” were scrawled on it.

Here’s a short MSNBC {not Olberman} story on it::

and the full speech::

It’s interesting how social media enables the viral spread of stories like this. Is this unfair? Does this really matter? Why is this news? It reinforces what many think of her and there may be more than a little “trainwreck” effect, i.e., it’s gruesome, but one cannot help but slow down and gawk. Of course, the writing on the hand—it’s satire, people.

Twitterversion:: Pic of Sarah Palin’s “crib notes” for Tea Party speech Q&A {video of full speech avail.} spread virally via social media. #ThickCulture

Song:: David Bowie-“I Keep Forgettin'”

Updated:: 18 June 2009 10:53 EDT

Overshadowed by rather serious events in Iran and subsequent stutter-steps by mainstream media in its coverage, David Letterman got into a dustup with Sarah Palin over allegedly tasteless jokes about her 14 year-old daughter, Willow.  The Huffington Post has a 1:43 compilation of the affair::

Dave went to great lengths to apologize and Sarah Palin accepted his apology on Tuesday.  Old news.  Now, one group is clamoring for Dave’s firing.  Just to be clear here, Dave is protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech, but that doesn’t guarantee employment.  Ask Don Imus about how big media can frown on inappropriate humour. The FireDavidLetterman site announced that Olive Garden supposedly dropped its sponsorship of The Late Show::

In a Politico article, according to Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager::

“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden.

but, this HotAir post finished the paragraph with this::

“There will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for The Late Show with David Letterman in this year’s broadcast schedule.

We have not yet finalized next year’s advertising plan but will consider our valued guests’ opinions when doing so.”

The context being that the contract was already allowed to expire and no ads were planned.  So, they caved to pressure.  Or, did they?  Apparently, the sources confirming the pulling of the ad sponsorship weren’t authorized to speak for the company and the NY Times reported there was no such decision.  The Politico article was updated and the title revised from this::

to “Olive Garden Backtracks on David Letterman Ads.”  Well, as the story d/evolved, quel surprise, comments from the Twittersphere started to trickle in, some defending Olive Garden, some critical of the chain, and a handful advocating a boycott for allegedly pulling the ads {recent} and for sponsoring Dave {2+ days ago}::

Olive Garden is in a tough PR spot.  If their online demos {Quantcast} are fairly similar to their customer base, their market trends towards being white, female, 18-49, with 0-2 kids, making under $60K, and with some college.  In other words, moderates.

Dave.  Well, he’s getting a bounce from all of this.  According to the NYTimes Media Decoder blog {16 June}::

“In preliminary national ratings, Mr. Letterman pulled in 700,000 more viewers than Mr. O’Brien Monday night, 3.9 million to 3.2 million, his biggest margin yet over his new competitor. Mr. Letterman routinely trailed the former ‘Tonight’ host Jay Leno by a million viewers or more.”

O’Brien still owns the coveted younger demos.

Update:: Video of Fire Letterman Protest from New York magazine

Twitterversion:: #newblogpost #Palin supporters want #DavidLetterman fired. Advertiser #OliveGarden flinches? Dave gets ratings boost. http://url.ie/1qzi  @Prof_K

Song:: Lolita – Throw Me The Statue

Video:: Directed by Matt Daniels

I saw this politically-flavored ad in New York City this weekend and it struck me as unusual.

In an election year, we can expect to see many product advertisements that utilize political imagery or poke fun at political culture. Along the same block, I saw a display featuring cardboard cutouts of the two presidential candidates bearing various wines and spirits. But most of these ads, do not take a political perspective or mount a critique. They tend to be of the “whether you support Obama or McCain” variety. This ad for a storage company make a very clear criticism of Sarah Palin — albeit on experiential and not policy grounds.

Is this actually unusual? Is it permissible because NYC is a fairly liberal place? Or perhaps because Obama-Biden are such clear frontrunner? What do you think?

Bear with me with my French references.  First Bourdieu and now Ségolène Royal. Last spring, I followed the Royal/Sarcozy campaigns in the French Presidential elections, which was full of frames.  Ségolène wasn’t a folksy “hockey mom” type with (say) non-Parisian French and a homespun demeanor of  a country “girl” from Provence.  No, “Ségo” was a “hottie” Socialist, who was the daughter of a general and a disciple of François Mitterand in the 1980s.  She and her romantic male partner, François Hollande (also a Socialist politician) both won seats in 1988 and rose in the ranks of the party throughout the 1990s.  Despite having 4 children out of wedlock, Ségo navigated the French culture wars.  I’m sure it helped she was deemed as sexy and charming.  Her version of femininity resonated with many.  In early 2006, Salon.com, true to type when it comes to missing the point, had an article comparing Ségo Royal to Hillary Clinton.  The Salon.com similarities are superficial and incidental in my book, but the Salon piece did bring up two issues:  (1) the issue of credibility and (2) having an ideologically confused message/platform.  In a post mortem article on her loss, these issues would sink her, along with Sarcozy’s “on code” messages tapping into the concerns and worries of many French citizens.  While her specific “femininity” frame may have helped her, it may have also been a dual-edged sword.  What are the “rules” for a woman be sexy and credible with the masses?  In the end, Ségo’s credibility was hurt by her policies seeming improvised, as she was campaigning.  In addition, the socialist “code” wasn’t on track and failed to resonate with the fragmented left.

How can this relate to McCain/Palin?  I think that McCain was expecting to use Palin as a critical “selling proposition” to the ticket, in addition to having a “wow” factor.  I think Palin was expected to mobilize the conservative base while still having appeal to the moderate “everyperson,” i.e., hockey moms and Joe Six-pack.  If Palin is going to be front-and-center and in the campaign trenches, I’m afraid the “credibility” issue will always be an albatross.  She has been framed in a certain way and now she has to expend so much energy to dispel that perception.  Think Swift Boat veterans in 2004.  Was she framed this way due to her gender or her brand of femininity?  Even if she appears competent and knowledgeable, is the public primed to expect a gaffe from her and will this undermine the credibility of the entire ticket?