I’m starting a new feature here on GOP3, which will continue for the next two weeks. It’s a scorecard of the primetime convention performances, Olympic judge style.
Jesse Jackson Jr. gets an 8.5 overall – his delivery was good, message was decent.
Mike and Cheryl Fisher get a 7. Clearly they’re nice people, real people, but one lunch with Barack Obama does not give you a definitive judgment of his character and personality.
Caroline Kennedy gets a 5. The speech was really stilted and scripted – it was like a 4 for performance and a 6 for writing. She may be a very smart attorney and author and veep vetter, but not much of a stage presence.
The Ted Kennedy video gets a 6. It was well done, clearly well-produced. But it was also off message – John Kerry got beat in 2004, and nothing says “out of touch” like a movie about sailing their beautiful huge sailboat from Nantucket to Hyannis Port.
Ted Kennedy himself gets a 9. His presence was electric – the crowd went wild. The clear missing patch of hair was a powerful visual reminder of his illness. He gets a 9 for speech delivery – he stepped on a few lines, and when he leaned into the mike at big moments it was muffled rather than amplified. The speech gets an 8.5 for writing – one of the commentators said it was a Bob Shrum speech. There were parts that were really disjointed, but I assume that was Kennedy failing to read the lines right, not Shrum’s writing. But he gets a 10 for visuals – the place was rocking.
Claire McCaskill’s kids did a decent job – that’s a lot of pressure to be under for that young age. Sen. McCaskill herself only get a 7. For performance, a 7 – she tried hard to balance being on the attack and being positive, and it didn’t work that well. For writing, a 6.5 – the “that’s my American story. That’s my husband’s American story. That’s Michelle Obama’s American story” got old and wasn’t very interesting. And a 7.5 for appearance – I thought the blue dress clashed too much with the red of the background – I wish the backdrop was a little softer red. And the V cut on her dress could have been up an inch or two, more rounded.
The Michelle Obama video was nice … the focus on her father caught me a little off guard. The brother gets an 8 – he did his job just fine. Michelle gets a 9 – I liked her outfit, I liked her speech, I liked her podium presence. She needed to deliver a good speech that humanized her and her husband, and most pundits agree she did just that.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
I was totally wondering how you felt about Claire’s V-neck.
Does this mean you will analyze the RNC convention the same way? That would be very interesting…
Wow, didn’t expect to say this, but I agree with you on everything…except for critiquing Sen. McCaskill’s outfit. Seriously, nobody comments on the men’s outfits, so why the heck does everybody feel it necessary to dissect what the women are wearing?
But yeah, other than that pet peeve, nice analysis. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.
Yeah, it is not like she was wearing a sweater vest.
A 9 for a dispicable drunk murderer? Daniel…for shame you’ve been struck with too much compassion
Psst, Justin…it’s spelled “despicable.” And the rating was for the speech on Monday, not what he has done in his personal life in the past.
If we were grading politicians on their personal lives, many of the greatest statesmen would get dismal failing grades. (And many lesser statesmen would as well, of course.)
kat– thought I did. I tried to fit in the comment before my plane boarded this morning, had to rush it.
I really don’t give a damn about the difference between the speech and his personal life. It’s disgusting that Democrats would honor such scum to begin with. It highlights the ludicrous hypocrisy that invovles stringing up any Republicans for the slightest faux pas while fawning over a philandering drunkard who let a poor girl suffocate to death in car while he slept off his hangover and worked out an alibi with his lawyers.
At least one day soon he’ll be down with his brothers and Mary Jo Kopechne will be able to rest easy
and if the best you can do is justify his disgusting actions by saying ‘other politician’s have done it,’ that shows how any democrats will turn a blind eye to anyone with the last name of “Kennedy”
The fact remains that his speech was indeed high-quality–and that’s what the “9″ was for.
Personally, given the choice between fawning over a man who drove drunk and killed someone doing it but expressed sincere remorse, never drove drunk again, and went on to redeem himself through dedicated service to his country, and fawning over a man who caused the deaths of thousands of American citizens (soldiers and Katrina victims) through negligence, cronyism, and downright perjury–not to mention all but raped the Constitution (and also drove drunk in his day, but had the sheer dumb luck not to kill anyone doing it)–and has given no sign whatsoever of remorse (let alone tried to fix the tiniest part of the misery he caused), I’ll choose the repentant drunk driver any day, thanks.
Unlike many self-professed Christians, I actually believe in the power of redemption if one is willing to repent. I’m no Christian, but Jesus was right on that score, at least.
And by the way…another thing Jesus got right? There is no such thing as “too much compassion.”