RE: Oh Sarah
Democrat candidates tend to be career politicians who have done little else of substance--Obama, Biden, Kerry, Gore, Frank, Dodd--their adult life has been spent in the unreal world of politics. When they've done something outside the political arena, it's been practicing law--Edwards. Performing onstage comes naturally for them, because their whole life has been a debating freak show.
Republicans tend to be more people who've actually accomplished something outside of politics--military (McCain), business (both Bushes, though both had questionable success), even acting (Reagan), to give a few examples--and Reagan was the only strong communicator.
I think background has something to do with it. I'm not sure what can or should be done about that. Another thing is that I think republicans do a poor job of developing their young talent.
Example, Sarah Palin. She ends up as a VP candidate and gets hammered because she has no foreign policy experience, since she's only been governor of a state. But that state happens to be the only one that borders two foreign countries. How hard would it have been for republicans to say, once she became governor of Alaska, "Hey, she's an up-and-coming player with potential, but she needs to plug her foreign policy gap. She's working on this gas pipeline deal with Canada. Let's find a way to get her to Ottawa for a few photo ops with the PM. That can also buttress her energy credentials, which will have to be a strong point for her. And, oh yeah, while we're at it, can't we get some sort of seal-hunting agreement going with the Russians, that she can go to Moscow for a photo-op meeting with Putin. And fly her home through Paris and let her meet Sarkozy. The way Putin and Sarkozy lust after young, good-looking women, they'll be fighting to see which one gets her to come back first." If Palin had spent 2007 running those kinds of traps, I'm guessing she'd have been perceived vastly differently in 2008.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2011 08:18 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
|