2012 Contracts Now Available on Intrade -- Palin is Underpriced

Intrade ^ | December 5, 2008 | Intrade

[Wonder Warthog]

"I tend to agree with you but it’s too early."

I have to disagree. One of the things that Democrats do is that they are ALWAYS campaigning for their positions. If Republicans are going win, they have to beat the Dems at their own game. If Jindal can handle gearing up for a run in 2012 AND do a good job as Louisiana's governor (and I think he has the horsepower to do that), then he is the perfect candidate. After all, that is what Obama did.

[org.whodat]

Do you really think Palin can't name news publications she reads.

NO, I think she proved very well she doesn't read any.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I meant it's too early to tell where this thing is going to go. I wouldn't bet on anyone right now.

I'm in Iowa. I know now who I won't be supporting.

[SmokingJoe]

I just read your links.
This is what it boils down to: Jindal was a elected to the United States House of Representatives from Louisiana's 1st congressional district-in 2004, then was elected governor in 2007, same as Gov Palin was.
Only thing is Gov Palin was a mayor, actually running a city for 4 years before she became Governor.
I give the advantage to Gov Palin in political executive experience.
I still don't see where Jindal’s foreign policy experience is at.
But more than all that, Gov Palin now has proven nationwide appeal amongst Republicans and energizes the base like no one else does right now, as was proved over and over again during the campaign, and most recently during the US Senate runoff elections in Georgia. Jindal? Who even knows much about him outside Louisiana?

[SmokingJoe]

“NO, I think she proved very well she doesn't read any”

Good for her.
I canceled my subscriptions to Newsweek, Time mag, the New York Times etc long ago, and I have been much better informed since then.
Hard as it is to believe, I used to actually pay good money to these brain dead publications, in order to read their anti-conservative propaganda. No more.

[jla]

Enjoyed reading your insightful comments on this topic. As for the debate coaching, what do you deem her weaknesses to be? Recall Reagan's performances vs Mondale. When laden down with excess information he stumbled, (not because he didn't comprehend it but because this wasn't how he naturally expressed ideas and thoughts), then, in the other debate, when he was unfettered and his personality and vision were wholly manifested, he indeed shined magnificently!

I believe that Sarah Palin, like RR, is innately adept in speaking confidently and passionately of a vision. Though they understand the details that it entails their focus remains on the goal, not the hurdles.

[teacherbarbie]

The secret is that many in the elite liberal higher polishing,speech consultants. That’s all she needs to do. I think she could stand to get another degree. I don’t think she likes school so that is probably out of the window.

[teacherbarbie]

While I admit VP would probably be better for her in 2012 because she basically wouldn’t have to do anything. She can’t make up for charaisma for Jindal. He has to have it on the top of the ticket. Look at Bush, Clinton, and Obama. They are people most people would like to have a beer with or whatever. Did McCain have charisma?

[nathanbedford]

I take your point about Reagan's improved performance in the second debate in which he was not expected to be force-fed a whole bunch of data. I think Palin's problem is 70 % presentation and 30 % substance.

First, I think she was unnerved by Gibson and by Couric. I know that sounds remarkable for someone who can come out of the backwater of Alaska and mount the national stage in front of the tens of millions of people and knock 'em dead at the convention. Nevertheless, I think she was terribly nervous in those two interviews and it undid her.

And talking about style, I think we should differentiate among the two kinds of exposure that a candidate endures. The first is the prepared speech. She is proven beyond doubt that she can deliver a boffo speech. However, in these efforts it is sometimes necessary, depending on the setting and the audience, to be formal and pedantic. She is not demonstrated an ability in this area yet and she must do so to acquire the precious "gravitas." At outdoor rallies she can literally let her hair down and let ' er rip and she will be wonderfully well received.

A second venue is the television interview Katie Couric or Meet the Press style. I believe that she can handle that experience better today but if you look at the last YouTube ambush by NBC news affiliate in front of the Turkey slaughter, you'll see Palin confident and unafraid because she is in her element. But you will also notice that she talked too fast and was a bit too earnest and smiled a bit too much. Her problem is not likability but weight. Those of us who love her will do so if she smiles a little less and those who hate her do so compulsively because of who she is, not what she says or how she says it.

Palin must identify her target which is the mushy middle who will like her but must not be able to conclude that she is a lightweight. Therefore, her forensic coach should work on voice tone, pacing, pauses, and posture all with a view to adding portent.

Additionally, she should have an inventory of handy phrases for each subject such as offshore drilling, Iraq or what have you. Procedurally, she should have an inventory of phrases ready to hand if she is put back on her heels which will kick up enough dust to get her out of a jam. These should be practiced and rehearsed so that she looks authoritative while she is shucking and jiving-all politicians shuck and jive the question is do you look good doing it. In Sarah's case, she always looks good, the question is does she looks smart?

I think a forensic coach will play back tapes with a view to alerting her to her nervous gestures and betrayals of insecurity. She has courage but I think she is also a woman of decency and politeness so she does not instinctively leapt to the counterattack when somebody like Charlie Gibson misquotes her to spring a trap that she is a religious nut. She does not look the camera in the eye as though she was staring a Katie Couric and ask her why she did not ask such a question of Barak Obama. She must learn that the audience hates Katie Couric and knows what she is up to and will tolerate a lot of spontaneous provided it does not appear to be whining.

Finally, she must overcome the present negative image created by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. That is to be done by self- deprecating humor. Clinton got away with that after his disastrous convention speech by appearing on Leno and making fun of himself. It got Huckaby to the brink of the nomination. If I were Palin I would somehow raise the money to hire a stable of writers, two should do it, but one of whom at least should have some comedic skills.

Ronald Reagan used wit and humor to skewer his adversaries who, like Mondale, were young and inexperienced.

[Always Right]

NO, I think she proved very well she doesn't read any.

Said some anonymous Internet poster about a governor of a state...

[org.whodat]

where Gov Palin energized the base and helped gain an extra 10% in votes for Chambliss, over what the polls had said.

LINK???

WELL???? Where is the link!!!

[jla]

Well put, as you're wont to do.
Though I think it would be a step in the wrong direction if she were coated and polished to an extreme where the actual grain has been obscured. (Not implying that this is what you prescribe)

Re: Couric interview, only my opinion but I believe Gov Palin responded to questions, (such as 'what do you read?'), as she did because she was much attentive to being led into a 'trap', thus thinking that a non-answer was her best option to avoid this, also, as you've alluded to, she wasn't totally free to let her hair down, being that she knew her place as second on the ticket didn't afford that to her.

I did come away from reading your post 'changed' in how I regard this grand lady. That is, I can critique her and still remain adamant that she is a Secretariat amongst a herd of mostly standard-breds.

...now if she'd only start putting g's at the end of verbs and cease describing things as "cool".

[org.whodat]

Said some anonymous Internet poster

To another anonymous Internet poster

I love in depth replies!!

[Gondring]

Gondring>>“Yes...any liberal who gave her answers would have been FRIED by FReepers”

SmokingJoe>Are you serious?

Yes, of course.

SmokingJoe>I suggest you watch some of Comrade Obama’s pathetic answers in the interviews that he did after he entered the race to be president.

Yeah, the FReepers never said a thing negative about 0bama for his poor answers. </sarc>

I reaffirm my point...a liberal giving a poor performance is flamed here. The lack of flaming of Gov. Palin is not becomes of her performance, but because of who gave it. The general public, though, doesn't give her a pass.

SmokingJoe>Gov Plain did a heck of a lot better [...]

I think she's far from plain! :-)

[Gondring]

This is true, but IMHO Palin needs to stay out of the limelight to some extent while she catches up or she might use up her fifteen minutes with the general electorate.

Exactly. And especially if she keeps building a caricature of herself just repeating "Energy Independence" when prices have dropped and the public's short attention span is elsewhere.

[Gondring]

Meanwhile, I repeat, it is wrongfooted to put the search for the spokesperson ahead of the search for the message. The process must be Darwinian. No one should be anointed.

Well stated.

[B Knotts]

I don't know who will end up being the best candidate, but it may well be Sarah Palin. She's not a lawyer, so she may not be the most well-informed on questions of constitutional law. But the president of the United States is an executive position.

The point of an executive is that they are capable of selecting and directing the right people to do what needs to be done. Whether she's familiar with particular Supreme Court cases is really irrelevant, if she has that executive capability.

The other thing is that the candidate must be able to be elected. While Bobby Jindal is a bright, capable guy, he does not appear to have the ability to connect with people like Sarah Palin does.

I'd be happy to support either Palin or Jindal, or another candidate who is actually conservative. It's too early to count anyone out, really.

[B Knotts]

Meanwhile, I repeat, it is wrongfooted to put the search for the spokesperson ahead of the search for the message.

Agreed. I've talked about this before. We first must come to some agreement on what we, as the conservative movement, believe.

[nathanbedford]

You know I have spent considerable time in Alaska and much of it in Wasilla. I can well understand how somebody with Sarah Palin's personality and energy could rise to become governor of that state by virtue of her merit. In Alaska, at least in the Wasilla area, everybody knows everybody else and you better be a standup guy. You can be as eccentric as an out- house rat, but you better be a straight shooter and you better not put on no airs.

These down-home virtues are what is needed but not what is prized in Washington. I believe Sarah Palin is up against two psychological forces which she must overcome.

The first is a phenomenon applied to all Republican candidates that I can remember since Eisenhower. I can remember being told quite earnestly that the man who commanded the biggest, most complicated, and most successful amphibious operation in history was really quite stupid. Every succeeding Republican president since Eisenhower (excepting Nixon who was evil) was stupid. This calumny is tried on against every Republican candidate who comes along. We saw what happened to Dan Quayle. Can you recall how stupid Ronald Reagan was? Bedtime for Bozo? George Bush Sr. was out of touch and stupid, although his wife was conceded to be house smart in a grandmotherly sort of way. We all know her son is a moron. Sarah Palin, like Dan Quayle, was left out there exposed, unprepared and unsupported and no one should be surprised that the result was the same. So when Palin drops her gs and says "aw shucks," that is all the Eastern establishment needed to hear to match up the person with the holes in the template.

Of course, President Kennedy was in near genius who sped read at an amazing clip. We found out later that this was a lie and that his Pulitzer prize-winning book was ghostwritten. We now know that he must have been in a thick drug-induced cloud for much of his tenure in the Oval Office. Do you remember being told how intuitive Bill Clinton was and how he could summarize an expert's presentation better than the expert? Al Gore was a genius who was too good for the schools he flunked out of. And Barak Obama, well one can only express astonishment that his coming was not announced by John the Baptist.

And this messianic allusion brings me to the main problem which Sarah Palin confronts in structuring her image. It is the Billy Budd effect. If you recall your Melville, you will know that Billy Budd was a figure of good whose very presence antagonized the first mate who persecuted Billy Budd unmercifully. The mate was driven to do this unconsciously because the mate was a figure of evil. The mate had his demons. So it is with the left in America today, they are driven to a visceral hatred of Sarah Palin because she is the 21st century figure of Billy Budd. Sarah Palin committed an unforgivable affront, she knowingly carried a Mongoloid to term. This cannot be forgiven. This is the ultimate reproach to the entire belief system of the left. Sarah Palin need not even open her mouth and she is hated with a cold and unremitting fury.

This is why I said that the left hates Sarah Palin not for what she says or how she appears on television but for who she is. The left must react as evil always reacts in the presence of good. Like the second mate, they must persecute Sarah Palin and they do not even know why.

But Sarah Palin should must know why if she is going to be able to cope with a brick bats that will come her way. She must know that she can never charm these people. The more she tries the more they will hate her. She must focus on her target, the conservative base which she will keep so long as she is faithful and the independent middle which is persuadable if she can appear to be a normal and a wholesome person.

[jla]

I'm prone to liken her to a Dickens heroine, Lucie (A Tale of Two Cities) or Esther Summerson (Bleak House).
Your points, as to what obstacles she must overcome, are valid. Her trump card, in my opinion, is her faith, which is genuine. Now this will benefit her as she will remain focused to what is virtuous. In other words, like RR, it will be no problem for her to do the right thing because that is precisely her nature.

On another note, how is it that the (mainstream) media became to be so inundated with liberals?