But is her being there authentic because she’s went there as a NASCAR fan, or is it fake because she went there to plug her and the NASCAR demographic? Well, given that here comments sound completely engineered, thinking its engineered seems reasonable. Thinking that she’s really a fan, but can’t talk about something she’s a fan about without breaking into prose, is just silly.
Let me ask it like this: As a gouvenor, maybe I like state fairs. Maybe I like other people’s babies, erven like having my picture taken while I’m kissing other people’s babies. Some people do. So me, as a campaigning gouvenor, going to State Fair and getting my picture taken kissing babies might just be totally spontaneous, not engineered to manipulate people for my political benefit at all.
Maybe. Could be. Or it could be the same standard manipulative political trick, the one so transparent its become the standard for a politician sucking up.
Think about how rediculous this is — you believe she’s being honest because she’s an honest person, right? You know she’s an honest person because she told you (you don’t know her. you never met her for more than a meet-n-greet), So her saying things that sound like campaign speeches can’t be campaign speeches, because she told you to believe her and that its not just campaign speeching.
So you trust her to tell you if she’s lying. I’m sure if Romney went to Daytona he’s say he really hates this whole car racing thingy, its so dirty and all, but he figured he had to put in some facetime. Yeah, I’m sure that’s what he’d say.
The worst thing is . . . .Romney would say something that actually made you think he really liked it.

“She was describing the event, they were some off the cuff remarks, she wasn’t talking about herself.”

That’s where you are right and wrong. This may fit the liter definition of “off the cuff” (not prepared) remarks:

“I’m thinking about this good, active, speed-loving event that a lot of Alaskans, too, are really into.”

as she’s clearly Mad-Libing a pre-selected list of buzzwords (good, active,speed-loving). Hell, she used “speed-loving” in each sentence. Her words were prepared — the actual sentence was spontaneous.

And she literally didn’t talk about herself since she never said hyer own name, but she did say “Alaskans” and “we” explicitly 5 times in two sentences, and implicity at least twice more.

Just being spontaneous and not talking about herself? Could’a fooled me.

But she wasn’t talking about herself, or delivering canned GOP soundbites. No sir — she’s totally not a politician. She’s so real and just talking her mind. In fact, I’ve had this exact same conversation with my friends sitting around and talking NASCAR, so it feels so natural and not “fake politician” at all. We all refer to Nascar as that “good, active, breath-taking, speed-living slice of Americana”. Usually around the fifth beer. That’s about as “political establishment” as a photo of you kissing a baby at the State Fair.

I have real trouble believing you actually believe conversations like that are “real” as opposed to the same “politician-speak” that every single politician has done since the dawn of politics. By definition that’s not being “unapolegetic”.

btw . . . “unapolegetic”? That’s one of those buzzwords too.

@manning:

“I will not vote for Obama/Biden, regardless of the invectives against Palin.”

Fair enough. My vote in 08 was a “not vote for zombie McCain and Palin” democratic vote (as it will be in ‘12 if she gets on). Sometimes, for whatever reason, people end up on your “no” list. If Obama is on your “no regardless of what he says or does” list then our two votes are pretty settled even at this early point (again, assuming Palin runs/gets on ticket).
If I were a betting man, I’d put a few bucks on “Romney not outracing Palin” but just because I assume the majority of any large group is stupid. On paper, Romney may be the more qualified candidate — but is that sort of common sense logic really what guides a majority of votes? Sadly, I suspect not. On this one though, I would love to be proven wrong.

@still liberal:

“Larry the Cable Guy had about 30,000 people show up for a comedy show at the University of Nebraska. Does this amazing fact now allow him to run for President, or that his political musings gain importance?”

President? Probably not. Gouvenor? I could see it.
His musings gaining importance? What do you think would happen if Larry The Cable Guy wrote a book of political reflections? You think that crowd of 30,000 might buy one or two? Multiplied by a hundred shows across the country?

That’s why (like I told Manning above), I personally think Sarah The Cable Gal wins against Romney, just because “I like this fictional character because they are so real” seems like an acceptable way to live your life nowadays.

Larry the Cable Guy had about 30,000 people show up for a comedy show at the University of Nebraska. Does this amazing fact now allow him to run for President, or that his political musings gain importance? I don’t think so, but he is just slightly below the razor thin levels of political accomplishment of candidates Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Obama and Palin share one other major factor: The only thing they seem firmly committed to is an overweening sense of self-importance and self-promotion.

Get er done!

I saw this quote from Palin earlier:

“It’s an All-Americana event. A good, patriotic, wonderful event that’s bringing a whole lot of people together. I think it’s good for our country.”

First off I do find her too chock full of phrases to be taken seriously, or that she is genuine, she just comes off to me as another kind of politician taking advantage of something she is good at. For that I don’t begrudge her anything, I wish more people did what they are good at, but that she tries to come off as being so selfless about it when it seems more promotional, I don’t buy it. I also don’t have the foggiest what an All-Americana event is, does that mean its good, patriotic and brings a whole lot of people together? Who defines that? I could say that about my neighborhood block party, if someone raised a flag or said the pledge of allegiance. Getting people together is nice for our country, unfortunately, many people in either party such as Palin and Obama somehow end up driving more apart than they bring together. By that experience neither one is patriotic or an All-Americana event.

The most anyone can do now is to make her decision to run a bit harder, the primary decisions to vote for her harder, and the GOP decision to select her as the final candidate/or running-mate harder.

One can conclude then, that Palin-bashing now has this precise intent: rightly or wrongly, to make her road harder with the voters between now and 2012.

My guess is that her popularity with the masses of rightwing voters will not be shattered at all by her critics on either side. She will be outrun by Romney, however, for President (if he runs) as he has recognizably much greater governing experience, but she just might make it to his VP slot on sheer voter attractiveness.

What Palin needs to “improve” her P-speak is to indulge in a little moderation. It seems like just about every comment out of her is chock-full-O-nuts with buzzwords and trigger phrases. It makes the dialogue sound absolutely forced, since nobody talks like that in the real world. If you are going to have brightly-painted oratory, either have it in a formal setting like a convention speech (where such language is somewhat expected) or you have to build to it, as if the emotion and passion slowly (and naturally) built up inside you over the course of the conversation.
By making every utterance a speech, she emphasises the perception (correct or not) that she doesn’t really have anything to say except pre-arranged talking points. It sounds far too forced — and by definition forced implies it isn’t genuine or natural.