I have a feeling tonight will not go as well with independents and wobbly Dems as John McCain and Sarah Palin might hope. One reason? Well, how about this from MSNBC:
Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was "very masculine," according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and "we had to start from scratch."
Is was so masculine that you had to start from scratch? I still don't think these people get it. When you have to completely rewrite a speech because the gender giving it is not the same gender you wrote it for originally, then you haven't gotten past your own gender issues.
Exactly how much would you have to rewrite a generic, assumed to be for a male, Democratic stump speech for Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Feinstein? Usually not much. What? Was it peppered with references to football playing and wrestling and such, I suppose?
So why do the Republicans need to completely rewrite a speech that ostensibly was written for a Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney? How masculine was this speech?
Within the answer to that lies the difference between a Democratic female and this Republican female. I say this because I cannot imagine that it would have to be changed extensively for an Elizabeth Dole or Christine Todd Whitman either.
I would love to get my hands on the original speech. I am not sure that will be necessary because I think we will be able to tell a lot about that speech from the one given tonight.
The Republican leadership does not know how a strong female political leader should act. They didn't watch the Margaret Thatcher that Reagan so admired. They will screw this up.
Democratic, and even most Republican, women politicians are not a whole lot different than their male counterparts. The article says:
Palin is likely to emphasize her areas of policy expertise -- particularly energy and political reform -- rather than focusing on her biography or gender.
That would be good, except that if you have to rewrite a speech because it is too "masculine" it tends to undermine that concept.
I have privately commented that Sarah Palin gave me the distinct feel of Dolores Umbridge of Harry Potter fame when I watched her give her introductory speech. If I get that feeling again tonight, well, the conservative, particularly the religious right, base may get excited, but I have a feeling it will turn off a whole big chunk of the middle that John McCain needs to win this.There has also been some speculation that maybe McCain is throwing this. I don't think so, but he may have done so accidentally. There are a number of sources that seem to indicate that McCain wanted Joe Lieberman or, failing that, Tom Ridge as his VP. The right wing said 'no' to any pro-choice pick, which both of them represent. McCain said 'no' to the plain vanilla/supposedly safe picks of Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. So, instead McCain said, "Hey Right! You wanted a rabid social conservative? Here you go! Let's see how this dog hunts!"
Judging from what appeared to many to be pained expressions during Sarah Palin's speech last Friday, he may have been regretting his decision even last Friday. He has a history of making quick decisions, not necessarily right, but quick. McCain on decisions from his book, Worth the Fighting For:
I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.
This is the John McCain we're going to have America. Expect a whole lot more of this in the future. If that's what you want from your commander in chief, by all means elect this guy. I, personally, might feel safer with GW. At least the advisors to tell him to do stupid things think for a moment before acting.
He didn't intentionally sabotage his own candidacy. He may, nevertheless, have sabotaged it.
Sarah Palin may recover some from the last week. Tonight's speech could go real well. But, no matter what, she has views, opinions and a record that is very far to the right of your average American. If everything else goes well, the McCain campaign still has to make the working class and independents and disaffected Hillary voters swallow that record. We won't even touch the experience thing.
I don't see it happening.
Of course, I didn't forsee the American people electing a over aged frat boy who couldn't even pronounce 'nuclear' in 2000. Nor did I forsee them reelecting a guy who, very obviously, misled them into a war that costs us $120 BILLION dollars a year to this day, and still can't pronounce nuclear, in 2004.
So, of course, maybe I'm way off base. I hope not. Please, God, I hope not!
The fact the the Republicans had to rework a speech for it's masculinity? Well, that gives me hope that I'm not off base.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern Sphere: Related Content
