It's not all bad, by any means. The speech is actually quite thoughtful. La Palin is framed well and - jerky emphases and idiosyncratic intonation aside - delivers her script reasonably well. The whole thing is a conscious attempt to present herself as calm and considered - a leader, not just an agitator - which suggest she has the right strategic intentions. But she's made a couple of big mistakes.
The biggest and most obvious is the insertion of the phrase 'blood libel'. Yes, it was may have been knowingly inserted to rile her many vocal opponents, and thus play to her narrative of victimhood. But this is entirely at odds with her other goal, which is to to present herself as a national figure who can stand apart from the fray and deliver wise, Reaganesque wisdom. The phrase is so incendiary that it has blown away the rest of the video. For most Americans, certainly those who aren't already Palin supporters, all they will know of this video is that one gory soundbite.
Second, I suspect she has misjudged the national mood. I mean, obviously, it's very hard for me to tell, from over the ocean, what that mood is. But I should think it's shock, mixed with deep concern for the victims of this tragedy. That's to say, for most people outside of what Palin would call the 'elites', this is barely about politics at all. It's certainly not about Sarah Palin. Forcing her way into the story like this is like gatecrashing somebody's funeral.
All of this is compounded by the airless nature of a video message, which makes her look and sound a bit weird - like she's the political equivalent of Michael Jackson, trapped in her Neverland with a video camera and an oxygen tent. She really needs to get out more. I'm sure she can do so without running into that nasty Katie again.
As I've said before, this was a big opportunity for Palin. She actually had a case to make, and could have risen above the sniping and moved her political character forward. As it is, with those two words, she's taken a big step backwards. It's becoming clearer than ever that once Palin moves beyond the comfort zone of her base, her political instincts are very poor. I think this may be come to be seen as the moment that Palin's momentum, already slowing, went into reverse. That's to say, it marks the end of whatever prospect she had of winning her party's presidential nomination.
Her other mistake is that she is misusing the phrase blood libel. It normally means the antisemitic trope that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood for matzos. (We don't of course, at least not in my circle.)
Posted by: NicoleS | January 12, 2011 at 08:58 PM
Some random reactions to the video:
Palin doesn't do sincerity well. The tactically timed head-shakes, the lip-biting and odd emphases, remind me of the host of an infomercial, not a national figure of some stature.
Who is the congressman who introduced a bill to muzzle free expression, just days after Rep. Giffords read the First Amendment in Congress? If it matters, why doesn't Palin make this clear?
She says the an act of violence begins and ends with the person who committed it. Does this idea make sense? "No man is an island," remember?
Her critics "mock America" by trying to rein in political speech. Maybe her critics are on the wrong track, but it would have been good form for her to show a bit of respect for differences of opinion, rather than once again impugning the patriotism of others.
Could "blood libel" possibly be some sort of dog whistle for Christian fundamentalists? Otherwise, it's just an embarrassing mistake.
I agree that it's as if she's trying to crash a funeral.
Posted by: Hal | January 12, 2011 at 09:34 PM
Palin doing well truthfulness. The logical head shakes over time, the lip biting and odd accents, told me a variety of commercial, we determine the country of some renown.
Who is the representative present barrel invoice expense of concept, but time after Rep. Giffords study of the First Conference of change? If it grants, why not make clear Palin?
She says the action begins and ends with the associated individual attack. This concept is to create a feeling? "No man is an island," remember?
Experts' lie in America "the government trying to arrange an interview. Perhaps experts monitor wrong, but it would be an excellent kind to demonstrate that a little looking to change sides, then individualized the patriotism of others have.
Can "blood libel" is probably a kind of dog whistle Religious fundamentalists? Otherwise it's wrong but uncomfortable.
Posted by: reviewer us laptops | October 26, 2012 at 03:44 AM