It wasn’t the sound breaks that sunk him.
Well well, I’ve noticed on FR tonight that the media isn’t going to have to palinize jindal, we’ll do it ourselves.
In all seriousness, if Jindal had given a knock out speach, he, his family, all his friends and thier dogs would be critisized until the next election. Jindal is a smart guy and while the delivery may have been bad, the substance was not, i’ll give him that.
Oh cripe. God bless him, he meant well. But the speech and delivery were embarrassing. What is the GOP doing? They need some serious preparation and thought into their responses.
God help us.
I really doesn’t matter about the Sound Breaks. I watched the Obamanation on TV and listened to Jindal’s response on XM. I found both experiences quite disheartening.
First of all, histrionic Pelosi and goofy Biden were a huge distraction. Obama didn’t have a chance with either his message or his two moronic stooges sitting in the background.
Jindal’s message was sophomoric. He may be a great Governor and a nice guy, but, he isn’t ready for prime time. If this is the GOP’s new leadership, they are in deep doo doo!
*Poof*. You're colored curious.
I was watching MSNBC to catch the "financial responsibly summit" a couple of days ago, and it took them two or three tries over the first few minutes of Obama's speech to get the sound right. They fixed it just as McCain stood up to speak from the audience...
It happens. Sometimes/often it really is just what it looks like it is
Pollgasm: Joint Session Reaction
The numbers: 68% of viewers said they had a positive reaction, compared to 24% negative. And an astonishing 85% said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction the country is headed in (though granted, feeling more optimistic than before might be a low bar), and only 11% said it made them more negative.And 82% of speech-watchers say they support Obama's economic plans as outlined in the speech, with only 17% against.
The positive reaction numbers, as CNN warns, are fairly typical of initial joint session speeches.
But the economic numbers? 82 percent? That's a crapload of radical communists.
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/02/pollgasm_joint.html
What was the over-under on President Who’s uh’s?
I was listening to Fox News when Obama and Jindahl spoke, and I found the breaks in the sound irritating, as well.
I made it a point not to watch, but to listen only, because I wanted to hear content without being influenced by backdrop and the swooning crowd for Obama’s speech. As Brit Hume said, the person who gives the response is always at a disadvantage because of the setting. Obama, say what you will about him, delivers a good speech (as Rush says, Obama can say nothing better than anyone else). By just listening to them, the contradictions in Obama’s speech were somehow even more apparent than if I had been watching.
As for Jindahl, the thing that struck me immediately was that he was using too much expression, almost like he was reading a bedtime story to a little kid. But for actual content, I think he was right on. The problem is that there is no comparison between his delivery and Obama’s delivery. Obama has it all over Jindahl, and the talking heads were quick to jump on that and pan Jindahl.
and this morning c-span had trouble with the feed for Bill Bennet
and Qwest communications who set up the RNC convention had trouble with the audio there too. (did we mention qwest is a major democrat donor and the founder is pro-homosexual supporter?)
that said sometimes incompetence is just incompetence.
Wonder if he was purposely bad in order to get some media coverage. Had he been great, the media would have ignored him. This way, everyone around the water cooler is saying, “Who’s Jindal?” Then of course they go to YouTube or Google and they start seeing the ‘real’ Jindal.
Although I didn’t watch any of this last night.