Is no one going to say that Sarah Palin rocked the vice presidential debate? Who is so arrogant to think that they could do better with just five weeks' preparation?
She did a great job. She memorized speeches that she trotted out in good moments. And she had such nerve! Most of us would be too shy to flagrantly disregard the question, but she knew that was her job. She knew her job was to give set up answers and fit them in the best she could, and she did that. She delivered her lines very well. She played to the camera. She was friendly, and charming, and eloquent as long as you didn't mind that she talked about whatever she wanted.
The thing is that most of politics is not about giving the right answer. It's about giving any answer the right way. The world is not bashing Kennedy for beating Nixon in the classic debate where Nixon wore all the wrong stuff and the wrong makeup and could have said anything and he still would have lost. No. No one is complaining about Kennedy's dependence on style in that debate. And we didn't generally bash Reagan for being a great orator even though we thought he was probably losing his mind even before he got to office. He was still a great orator and could deliver his messages in a mesmerizing way.
So give Sarah some credit. She did a great job. Sure she's probably not ready to move into the White House. But that doesn't mean she didn't do a great job. She can only do her best. And she did. And you have to respect someone who takes a huge risk and does a good job. Look, if you think she's unqualified, don't vote for McCain, because he's the bozo who selected her. But since she's there, learn something from her. Take advantage of a fun, capable woman who is rising up to the occasion. She's ignoring the taunts (even I have thrown some) and she has enough of a sense of self that she's plowing forward.
But really, it's hard to believe that she will be on the winning ticket. It's hard to believe that anyone could choose McCain after he has shown such poor judgment. But Palin will land on her feet. She'll get some TV commentator job, or some interior secretary job, and she'll learn the ropes, and she'll succeed.
If you are wondering why your own career is stalled, consider that it's because you don't have mentors like her. She is scrappy and she knows how to manage her image. It's not small peanuts, and it's hard to find a woman who is as good at it as she is and public about how she's doing it. Take advantage of the learning opportunity.
Subscribe -- free!
Very insightful analysis, one that the mainstream media does not engage in. I think you are at your best when you "tackle" these kinds of topics and issues in a way that others do not.
Posted by Robert Avsec on October 6, 2008 at 7:46 am | permalink |
Anything Sara Palin is a gimmick, a failed attempt by out dated ideas to try and bamboozle voters into electing anyone but the black guy. Just like the idiots in Virginia who advertised "Republicans vote November 4 all others November 5" This is the Palin way.
Posted by David Rotter on February 23, 2009 at 4:10 pm | permalink |
I agree with Robert – this is vintage Ms P at her best … and how do you manage your public image Penelope … this blog is part of it I imagine .. cheers le
Posted by Le on October 6, 2008 at 8:09 am | permalink |
I have enjoyed following this blog and delving through the archives, but I'm afraid I have to take exception to today's posting.
"Who is so arrogant to think that they could do better with just five weeks' preparation?"
I and many people I know could do better. In fact, if all she learned in five weeks is what she presented in public, she is a slow learner, besides starting out pretty ignorant. I can excuse (regrettfully) such ignorance in a guy flipping burgers, but not in a public official, certainly not at her level.
"She delivered her lines very well. She played to the camera. She was friendly, and charming, and eloquent as long as you didn't mind that she talked about whatever she wanted."
Well, I did mind. If I ask you a question on behalf of the public and your response is to babble about something entirely unconnected, then you are arrogant in assuming you are above being questioned. An rude to boot, for assuming my question didn't deserve an answer.
"The thing is that most of politics is not about giving the right answer. It's about giving any answer the right way."
Style is indeed important, but only because many people do not look/see beyond it. What this says is that politicians are manipulators and the public is naive and unperceptive. That's probably true to some extent, but it does not make that sort of behavior admirable.
"Sure she's probably not ready to move into the White House"
Understatement of the year!"
"It's hard to believe that anyone could choose McCain after he has shown such poor judgment."
She didn't choose McCain – his handlers chose her and she jumped at the chance for advancement. She is ambitious, but ambition without integrity is dangerous and I see arrogance rather than integrity in Sarah Palin. Sometimes there is a fine line between self-confidence and arrogance, and Palin is way over the line.
"She is scrappy and she knows how to manage her image."
You are right on this to some extent, but I suspect the image-management that succeeded in Alaska may not be as successful when subjected to more intensive national scrutiny. Time will tell.
"Take advantage of the learning opportunity."
I shudder to think what young women would learn from Sarah Palin. She is not a suitable mentor. She is an excellent bad example.
Your admiration for her behavior is rather like admiring the Nazis for their efficiency in carrying out the Final Solution.
Posted by Ray Saunders on October 6, 2008 at 8:15 am | permalink |
This is ridiculously after the fact, but I am so shocked by Penelope's take on Sarah Palin that I couldn't help but read the comments. I found that Ray Saunders's comment saved me the trouble of commenting. All I have to say is….EXACTLY, perfectly stated. Thank you.
Posted by maylo on March 18, 2009 at 12:37 am | permalink |
Penelope,
New reader and I have enjoyed the in your face attitude. I agree with you fully concerning Palin. She is doing a great job, deserves respect. I am happy to have a woman in this sort of role.
However, we are talking about a position that demands the most qualified persons.
When a team loses the super bowl, they don't go home a winner, but a loser. You don't get anything for losing.
I am just wondering, is she the best we have to fill that role?
BW
Posted by Brady Wood on October 6, 2008 at 8:18 am | permalink |
"if you think she's unqualified, don't vote for McCain…" The focus needs to stay on qualifications. Plain and simple. And doggone it,
let's hope that if Obama becomes president that he faces his learning curve with the same strong mentors,and is as fast a learner as Palin has been. Of-course, he won't need help "dressing up" after all he is from the big city of Chicago. Is this post sincere? I would like it to be- but I keep hearing the whisper between the lines…. you can not make a silk purse from a sow's ear…"
Katybeth
Posted by Katybeth on October 6, 2008 at 8:21 am | permalink |
Oh come on, she acted like a cocktail waitress, with the winks and the flirtiness. I wouldn't hire someone who behaved like that in an interview, and definitely not one who announced she wouldn't be answering the questions I asked. This woman is doing terrible things for professional women.
Posted by Ask a Manager on October 6, 2008 at 8:26 am | permalink |
Sorry, you just lost an avid reader with that post. Come on…
Posted by Jason on October 6, 2008 at 8:34 am | permalink |
A good job? Any actress could do the same "good job." She reminds me of the plucky character in Legally Blonde. Fun to watch, but WAY out of her league.
I find her mannerisms and obnoxious "down home style" over the top. She's Cotton Candy – sweet, fluffy, but no substance. Too much of it rots your teeth and makes you sick.
What I'm afraid of is that people will vote for her (err … I mean … McCain … we still vote for President in this country? Right?)not because she is qualified, but because she "plays up to the camera and is friendly and charming." Being "scrappy" and "in control of her image" are not the skills we need in the leader of our nation.
Posted by Glad Doggett on October 6, 2008 at 8:49 am | permalink |
Sorry to see that we can't avoid political pontificating even in a career management blog. Maybe I'll add you back to my RSS reader after the election.
Posted by Bob on October 6, 2008 at 8:56 am | permalink |
Sorry, Penelope, got to disagree with you on this one. Palin did NOT do a great job. She did a lousy job, even at trying to do the things you say she was supposed to do. She couldn't even speak in complete sentences, constantly winked at the camera in her girly way, invoked the name of Biden's dead first wife in an attempt to make herself look warm and fuzzy … need I go on?
And there are plenty of people who could have done way better with five weeks to prepare … dare I say I could have, you could have and your other commenters could have.
What will be left of her image after November 4 if she loses? Nothing. She had the chance to be the next star of the GOP and she has done nothing by make a laughing stock out of herself. Even if it means my career would tank, I would never model myself after her or anyone like her.
Posted by PunditMom on October 6, 2008 at 9:12 am | permalink |
I absolutely agree that delivery and confidence counts for a lot. In my field, especially with two former coworkers who stand in my mind of examples of What Not To DO, we have the problem of technical ability and NO delivery. I'm starting to agree that a polished, confident but glib delivery goes over better with an audience (even an astute one) than 30 minutes of "um, um, well uh, um, this is actually a facet of formulary apportionment, which, um, you know, um is part of the Constitutionality, um, of interstate taxation, you know." I just sat in a professional meeting where one task force head gave an update on his group – FIVE MINUTES of "um, you know, uh, um, you know." Guy knows more than I probably ever will on the technical details, but no one has patience for the "Um Report" any longer.
Posted by MJ on October 6, 2008 at 9:33 am | permalink |
Palin pulled off what has become the classic conservative move: disguise your hatred for anyone not as white/christian/conservative as you with a charming smile and vapid non-responsive answers that duck any tough question.
If the same people who voted TWICE for George Bush haven't LEARNED anything from that, if those same people vote for the McCain/Palin ticket… well, then our country gets what it deserves.
Posted by Paul on October 6, 2008 at 9:38 am | permalink |
You didn't lose this reader with this post. I agree completely. I'm not planning on voting for McCain/Palin, but I have to admit she came off very well in the debate. Although I like Biden's message better, which is why I'll be voting that way. But I give props to Palin for being so scrappy – a term that's used for me often. We need to celebrate us scrappy women often!
Posted by Heather on October 6, 2008 at 9:42 am | permalink |
I don't think I agree with you on this one. I think she came across like Margie from the film Fargo (but not quite as smart.) When she did say something relatively smart I just wanted to yell, "Ya Maar-Gee" (actually I did Tweet that quite a few times during the debate).
I also think that Biden could have taken her down a couple times, but he seemed like he was trying to be a gentleman. That bothered me, too, because if a guy was doing the whole "Joe Six Pack" routine, Biden would have verbally slammed him into the podeum.
Posted by GenerationXpert on October 6, 2008 at 9:45 am | permalink |
Who kidnapped Penelope and submitted this post under her name?? This post doesn't seem to have any purpose – just a rah rah rant for Palin, a great actress with little real substance. Come to think of it, this post seems to resemble her speaking style – meandering and pointless. I would have expected better.
Posted by prklypr on October 6, 2008 at 9:55 am | permalink |
Sure, she formed (mostly) coherent sentences. I applaud her for that. But I don't think that's such an amazing accomplishment that we should all now fall to the ground and praise her talents. A high school debater could and would have done a better job.
It still remains–I'm not buying what she's selling. And I think (though I don't have the data to back it up) most undecided voters didn't buy it either.
Posted by Anna on October 6, 2008 at 9:57 am | permalink |
ok, in the few minutes from opening my favorite pages to getting to the comments, the number of comments goes from 1 to 12 and I bet its around 20 by the time I finish and submit.
Look, I will be the first to concede that McCains chances are looking slim. The problem is really McCain – the right has never been excited about him and while Sarah has rallied the Republicans, she is still only the VP.
That said, I commend you on the brilliance of this post. Several of my friends (why are all of my friends for Obama?) have tried to go with "she didn't answer the questions!" or "she was not even debating Biden, she was just getting out her message! (the second point is how her message is all lies).
My response is that she played it exactly right. The point of the debate is not the debate. Just like the point of a war is not really to shoot guns and kill people. She realized what her purpose was (1 – don't look dumb, 2 – attack Obama) and she got it done.
Some brief points:
1. I am from Wasilla. (I never knew Sara Palin) So I get the whole moose killing, ANWR drilling thing.
2. Nobody in Wasilla talks like Sarah Palin. I seriously don't know where the hell that accent came from.
3. I actually thought she did horribly in the debate: The "folksy" style REALLy turns me off and I thought she looked fairly inarticulate and not particularly deft in the format. (I was relieved to hear everyone else thought she did well)
4. (Last point) I saw the softball interview on Foxnews where they asked her about the Katie Couric question about magazines and news papers. I know nobody else on here will believe me on this one, but her answer ("I read everything – the same as everyone else") actually made perfect sense to anyone from Alaska. You would not believe the questions Alaskans get about living up there – do you live in an igloo, do they have roads, how do you mail things, do you have a pet polar bear, etc. Her frame in answering that question was defensive, but distinctly Alaskan – she did not take it as face value, but took it as "what sort of media actually makes its way up there?".
5. The cynical part of me can't help but wonder if you are only able to be objective about Sarah Palin now that they are 7 points down :)
Posted by david rees on October 6, 2008 at 10:12 am | permalink |
Wow. Such widespread disagreement with me. I get where you guys are coming from. She's not my dream candidate or anything. But still, I want to take a shot at clarifying myself.
The range of men who are in the spotlight and showing the underbelly of their career maneuverings is very wide. We have lots of biographies, and tabloids, and live role models in our own workdays of men like this. The number of women in positions like this is much smaller.
But the best way to figure out who we want to be ourselves is to gather information about a wide range of possibilities for ourselves. I like watching Palin because she is full of possibilities that I haven't seen in the spotlight before.
For example, I am a casual public speaker, and it feels very natural to me. I get criticized sometimes for not being more formal, but most of the more formal speakers are men because most public speakers are men. I like seeing the informal speaking model reflected back to me. (Whether or not it's good for the country.)
Most people who have big career success are not public figures — we can't see really what they are doing. I really appreciate that I am getting a glimpse at something different with her. It's good for all women. On some level. I just wish we could see that — beyond the politics part of all of it.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on October 6, 2008 at 10:16 am | permalink |
Wow, I lost track of the number of "nazi" references in the comments. That tells you more about the commenter than they care to admit.
Sarah Palin, with six weeks on the national scene took on a sitting senator and two-time presidential candidate and pushed him back at times. She did not make the "Hezbollah out of Lebanon" and "Article 1" errors, he did and they are in his area of expertise.
In any event, if the McCain/Palin ticket loses, Governor Palin will go back to Alaska and finish her term and likely be re-elected in a landslide as she is the most popular governor in America. In four years, the $40B pipeline deal she negotiated with Canada and the private sector will be under way and she will be well positioned to run for President if she chooses.
Posted by The Opinionator on October 6, 2008 at 10:36 am | permalink |
Sorry Penelope, the vast majority of people with an ideological preference lack the ability to look objectively at the other side.
Despite totally disagreeing with Obama-Biden, I actually liked Joe Biden in the debate and I thought his measured, controlled performance was *exactly* what it needed to be and I already aired my issues with Palin.
Yet most people seem unable to view the "other side" as anything other than evil. They can't just have a different world-view or a different ideology, no – the only way to discuss them is to cast them as dark, dangerous and evil.
Framing the decision in terms of good and evil completely transforms the election from a job interview to a moral crusade. I see no signs of this changing.
Posted by david rees on October 6, 2008 at 10:43 am | permalink |
I thought the only thing she did well was ask Biden if she could call him Joe.
From that moment on, I was struck by how patronizing she sounds–as if she thinks her audience is made up of children. Actually, it's an annoying way to talk to children.
Posted by KateNonymous on October 6, 2008 at 10:56 am | permalink |
I honestly don't understand the venom that is spewed towards Sarah Palin by so called "liberated women". I have no doubt that if she was running on the democratic ticket, she would be greeted with open arms.
Posted by Hockey Mom on October 6, 2008 at 10:57 am | permalink |
Uh, gun-loving, gay-marriage hating, environment destroying, fiscally unsound xenophobes are NOT welcome in MY version of the Democratic party, WHATEVER package they come in, even if she's a GILF.
Posted by Paul on October 6, 2008 at 11:03 am | permalink |
Love the reference to Legally Blonde! Palin does remind me of Reese Witherspoon's character, all fluff and little substance. And kudos to the guy from Wasilla for setting us straight on some of her Alaska-isms. It's an interesting and valid perspective.
Posted by prklypr on October 6, 2008 at 11:03 am | permalink |
@Hockey Mom, I find her manner irritating (at least on TV) and her politics abhorrent. Both would be true for me no matter what party she belonged to. Except that because of her political opinions, I can't imagine that she would run on the democratic ticket.
By the way, I'd also find that manner and those political opinions objectionable in a man, regardless of party.
Posted by KateNonymous on October 6, 2008 at 11:04 am | permalink |
So many people assume that "good job" means that she fit what they expected or wanted. They missed your point. She gave a great performance. And just like "office politics" is something people like to think they are above…the "performance" is something people need to learn. It does not matter if you are smarter if no one cares to listen. She has taken great advantage of her opportunity and stayed in the spotlight. The only one doing better than her is Tina Fey.
* * * * * *
That Tina Fey comment cracks me up. She is the best part of the political season — by far.
–Penelope
Posted by Dave on October 6, 2008 at 11:10 am | permalink |
Penelope, you say "it's hard to find a woman who is as good at it as she is and public about how she's doing it."
What about Hillary Clinton? I don't recall you writing this many (or any) posts about Hillary Clinton and her performance during and after her campaign.
The bottom line is that Sarah Palin was hand-picked by McCain like a daisy from the side of the road on his way to the White House. Her performance at the debate was a surprise because she appeared to be DOING her job. But that doesn't mean it was a GREAT job.
* * * * * *
The what-about-Hilary-Clinton comment is an interesting one. I just wouldn't want to be her. I'm sure she's a genius, and a really hard worker. But she's not fun to watch, she's not inspiring to me. She seems very my-mom's-generation to me. Like old news. Or like a great example of a great achiever for someone who is not in my shoes. I love that some Republican-image-maker decided that Sarah can wear her hair sort of like a school girl. Women with power can do that now. Women could not have done that a generation ago, I don't think. It's a million things like that that add up to the freshness I see in her.
–Penelope
Posted by Kathy on October 6, 2008 at 11:22 am | permalink |
Great post! I'm not a fan of Palin's politics and agree that she's nowhere near prepared for the White House. It's so refreshing though to see someone acknowledge the positive rather than take every possible shot to knock her down. Of course she's not a role model for every aspect of life, but it takes courage and determination to be in her position. She's no doubt concerned at this point about how every word that comes out of her mouth will be judged–I think that explains her hesitancy to give any answer sometimes. Many presidential debaters have done far worse–including some who won office. Credit to you for being mature and unbiased enough to recognize here accomplishments.
Posted by Darren on October 6, 2008 at 11:25 am | permalink |
Sarah Palin is a fascinating lesson in personal branding. Whether you agree with her politics or not, it's clear that she's very targeted with her message (or her handlers are), played to her strengths, and is delivering it effectively. The goal was to energize the base and she did that. The rest of us who don't agree with her politics? We're not her target audience. It's niche marketing at its best.
The other lesson I take from Sarah Palin's candidacy is to just get in the game. From the PTA to mayor to governor to VP candidate, you have to admire the bio. She's "only" 44 and has a long and successful political career ahead of her. Unfortunately, since my political views couldn't be any further from hers.
Posted by LC on October 6, 2008 at 11:40 am | permalink |
Thanks for writing this post–I said the same thing on an internet forum and received similar responses. I don't agree with her politics. I think her lack of knowledge is reason enough to not give McCain a vote. (If I were American instead of Canadian.)
However, as a 22-year-old female University student, I tremendously appreciate her attitude; I respect that she does the best she can with the resources she has. I haven't yet learned how to conquer my insecurities in arenas where I don't feel very competent, despite the fact that I've got a lot of useful skills at my disposal. Sarah used the skills she did have, and managed to keep her head above water. Examples such as Sarah Palin are appreciated.
Alison (new reader)
Posted by Alison on October 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm | permalink |
@ Paul, Sorry to see that Joe Biden has no place in your party (Biden said no on gay marriage, is a Clean Coal supporter after BO took him aside, and is the owner of two guns).
If it makes you feel better, Palin vetoed a bill in Alaska that would have denied benefits to same-sex partners.
Posted by The Opinionator on October 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm | permalink |
She did okay. She sounded more sure of herself than she has done in recent interviews. She had that folksy charm going on. She said what she wanted to say. But I would not go so far as to say she "rocked the debate". I'm not saying that I would do better with five weeks' preparation – though I would argue that the VP needs more than five weeks' preparation and that is, perhaps, the point. But really, she was not that convincing. Her job WAS to answer the questions or at least to engage with them in some way. I'm sure her performance would have played well with the base. I can't imagine for a minute that it would have convinced any swing voters who are in fact looking for answers to hard questions.
Posted by Caitlin on October 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm | permalink |
Penelope, I think you have it backwards.
Sarah "rose to the occasion" with "5 weeks of prep" from the most elite minds & resources of modern day political stagecraft.
If that inspires you – more power to ya.
But the real "mentors", in the true sense of the word, are the people, ideas and techniques that enabled Sarah to pull it off.
Posted by Jeff S on October 6, 2008 at 1:11 pm | permalink |
Right out the door, we get a supposedly friendly, folksy, "Hi, can I call you Joe?" (to a US Senator!) then we find out it was a calculated set-up just so she could work in "Say it ain't so, Joe." (If Senator Biden had said something like "Sarah Plain and Not-So-Tall," all hell would have broken loose.)
Folksy my eye. Manipulative, calculating, power-abusing (Troopergate and other issues), hypocritical about government funding, and yet doesn't even know the name of her own local newspapers. She's fluff. Dangerous fluff. McCain could have picked any one of a number of women with substance. He picked her, and that makes him fluff, too. How dare he risk putting this country in the hands of someone so vapid.
And oh, BTW, Penelope, this post isn't showing up on your front page. I only found it thru RSS.
Posted by Lisa H. on October 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm | permalink |
Paul,
For a guy so concerned with the conservative party's stereotypical behavior ("hatred for anyone not white/christian/conservative" as us). You sure do a lot of name calling.
I'm voting for McCain/Palin, but I thought Biden did a pretty good job of staying calm, cool and collected…even evoking emotion at one point.
Posted by Dara on October 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm | permalink |
I have not read the comments so far but I think we *think* she did really well only because of the incredibly low expectations she had set up for herself so far. Yes, she way a million times better than she was with Katie Couric.
Okay, we will give her some credit and learn from her because she did an incredibly good job of dodging questions and fitting what she knew in the right places. But I hope most of America could see through some of this ;) ( yes, and I did learn the wink from Sarah Palin!)
Posted by Maya on October 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm | permalink |
So, she was able to wing a difficult "speech" (because let's face it, that was hardly a debate) and memorize stuff, and she's cute and doesn't have a stalled career. Does that really a vice president make? And are we really supporting someone for office just because we like them and they *didn't* fail?
I'm sorry to see such low standards apply to such an important race. We really need to expect more of our potential leaders, folks.
Posted by Sara on October 6, 2008 at 3:04 pm | permalink |
I am sorry to use this language, but this statement by Ray Saunders "Your admiration for her behavior is rather like admiring the Nazis for their efficiency in carrying out the Final Solution.." is fucking ridiculous, to say the least. You were mildly intelligent in your posting Ray Saunders, but the ending really burnt any good ideological bridges you had built along the way..
Posted by funkright on October 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm | permalink |
I think for as much as Palin has been ripped to shreds (think: Katie Couric) by the mainstream media, you have to give her props for standing up on two feet at the debate.
Regardless of what I feel about SP, the obvious bias and hatred against her is what makes me want to cheer her on even more. I consider myself a strong public speaker but if I was in her (red) shoes, I would have crumbled by now.
Grit, the woman has grit.
Posted by Stretch Mark Mama on October 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm | permalink |
@Ray, I liked that one: Your admiration for her behaviour is rather like admiring the Nazis for their efficiency in carrying out the Final Solution.
I guess you forgot performance. It is important in politics that your performance is convincing, especially if what you plan to do is from a human perspective may be not exactly correct. But I heard she is only interested in shooting wolves from helicopters, not so bad after all.
"But the best way to figure out who we want to be ourselves is to gather information about a wide range of possibilities for ourselves."
Interesting in so far as I thought that we start looking for "who we want to be" in ourselves. And if nothing pops up there, it might help to set a few quality standards before browsing the country of "unlimited possibilities", who knows what we end up with, only because it is "different" from what we knew so far.
And I would be interested to understand this:
"Wow, I lost track of the number of "nazi" references in the comments. That tells you more about the commenter than they care to admit" from the Opinionator. I mean, what does it tell you?
And of course I am still interested to understand what American politics is about, so I appreciate the comments a lot. The more provocative the post, the more comments, the more I learn. Great system :-)
Posted by Juki Schor on October 6, 2008 at 3:43 pm | permalink |
I grew up in Wisconsin and Michigan so I feel qualified to talk about her "folksiness". Her style is not fake! Go to any supper club, diner, American Legion Hall, grocery store or church in the midwest or small town America and you will find friendly, confident, outgoing people who are not afraid to talk your ear off. Her politics may leave a bad taste in your mouth but when she winks at the third grade class and asks if she can call Joe, Joe she is just being friendly. Let's focus on the bigger issues.
Besides having her as a mentor we should take a lesson from her in old fasioned manners.
Posted by Benjamin Strong on October 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm | permalink |
I have to agree – Sarah Palin rocked…
But… How do you know she memorized anything? Come on…
Sarah Palin is the "real deal".
Regarding the "was probably losing his mind" comment about President Reagan… That is a new low for you, Penelope.
Bummer
Posted by Chris Young on October 6, 2008 at 9:29 pm | permalink |
sarah is beautiful. she stands tall and holds to her beliefs. she is a woman but not a victim which might be why liberals have a tough time with her. hillary gets trampled and embarrassed by her husband and a grossly under qualified candidate so she is acceptable.
gov palin is not a product of affirmative action. she is a woman of achievement and respect. we should celebrate her success.
Posted by Jeremiah on October 6, 2008 at 10:33 pm | permalink |
Penelope, a response to your response:
Reading your comment, I see now that you think of yourself as the "fun, capable woman who is rising up to the occasion." Who's "ignoring the taunts and she has enough of a sense of self that she's plowing forward."
And that's makes perfect sense. She's around your age, she's good looking and you think she's being underestimated because of her age and the way she looks. No doubt, if you were given the same opportunity you'd also grab it by the horns and try your best too. And you'd want others to acknowledge your efforts.
But for all the "freshness" you see in her, Gen Y women are probably looking at her and seeing that she's very clearly playing the gender card for all it's worth. I know I am. She's playing cute and winking at the camera which really makes me cringe. Maybe her image, her speech and her mannerisms appear "fresh" to the older generations, but to the younger generations, she sounds and looks sort of old fashioned.
Seriously, a beehive hairstyle?
Posted by Kathy on October 6, 2008 at 10:51 pm | permalink |
I'm not going to address the politics of either side. I don't have to agree with (or respect) what Palin said to acknowledge that she did a better job in the speech than I anticipated. Being in the business of writing speeches and delivering messages, I was struck by the fact that she did seem to speak to her audience well. Her delivery was good and she held her own, even if she didn't always answer the question asked.
Posted by paloma cruz on October 6, 2008 at 11:05 pm | permalink |
I agree with the basic premise of the post and although I think she's a complete joke of a candidate for U.S. V.P., I admit to being impressed by her performance. Although everyone admits she benefitted from bottom-of-the-barrel expectations, and I'm sure that was at least your subconscious as well.
But the more important point is what does performing well in a prepared debate have to do with be qualified to think on your feet, inspire millions of people, and make difficult decisions that alter people's lives in fundamental ways? The skills required for her impressive debate performance are largely irrelevant to what I'd consider to be the important competencies for running our government.
The connection of this topic to the business world is the difference between choosing between the job candidate that interviews the best and the one that is actually the best for the job. If you don't hire the 2nd one more often than the first, eventually it will catch up to you.
Finally, someone please explain to me why our leaders should be someone we can sit down and have a beer with? Why can't they be someone smarter and with more vision than me? Why can't they be someone I aspire to be more like? I have plenty of people that I can go to happy hour with. What I need is damn leader that can make intelligent long-range decisions and respond to crises with tranquility, action, and forethought.
Posted by Brian Johnson on October 6, 2008 at 11:17 pm | permalink |
I read a blog post where a woman said she closed her eyes and just listened to the debate so she missed all the winking and smiling and so on.
She said Biden was clear and logical and Palin was the complete opposite. Everything I've heard from her is mostly "word salad" –what brain damaged people produce when their language center is impaired–just a collection of words without grammatical structure or logic or coherence.
Yes, she is shiny and pretty and it is well documented that people only hear about 7% of what you say and go by how you look/act/project for the rest of it. So by that standard, she will win every time.
The tragedy is that we need a government of people who can actually string a complete sentence together under stress.
Posted by Sarah on October 7, 2008 at 12:01 am | permalink |
Chris–how can we know she memorized anything? are you kidding?
Posted by Sarah on October 7, 2008 at 12:02 am | permalink |
What's equally disturbing is the lack of experience of Barack Obama. Really what has he accomplished? Look at his track record, it's dismal at best. Go all the way back to when he ran for Senate. Tell me he was more eloquent and had more style and more substance than his opponent Alan Keyes. Not! So the mantra is that America wants change? I can agree but the change Barack is about is not the right kind of change unless you're an advocate for higher taxes, funding every spending program you can, redistributing income and enlarging government! That's change? That's socialism! What are people thinking? So when you question Sarah Palin's experience versus Barack Obama and it concerns you, give me a break. The reality is we live in a highly irrational world. The vast majority of people just don't think. How about some real change? Why don't we reward the risk taker who starts his or her own business rather than take more from them when they succeed and give it to those the government deems more appropriate. Higher taxes, income redistribution, more funding for every social program the government can think of, less incentives to business owners, fewer tax incentives for those who actually work — if that's appealing vote for Barack Obama. It's a vote towards socialism.
Posted by Jeff Payne on October 7, 2008 at 1:43 am | permalink |
@Penelope: The what-about-Hilary-Clinton comment is an interesting one. I just wouldn't want to be her. I'm sure she's a genius, and a really hard worker. But she's not fun to watch, she's not inspiring to me. She seems very my-mom's-generation to me…Women with power can do that now. Women could not have done that a generation ago, I don't think. It's a million things like that that add up to the freshness I see in her.
I must admit that this response to Kathy's comment got me worried. After half a year in the white house the freshness will be pretty much gone, and then what? Are you seriously saying that your president and VP's job is to inspire you, give a fun show and help you overcome inner limitations like "a woman with power can (not) wear her hair sort of like a school girl"?
What if it turns out that Palin can wear her hair like that because she still is a school girl? Great perspective. I wouldn't want to be Tarja Halonen (Finnish President) or Angela Merkel (German Chancellor), but I wouldn't want to exchange them for a school girl, no matter how fresh she looks.
May be it would be good to have some relevant criteria for the public on how to recognise what makes a "good" politician, seems to me that things have gotten confused a little bit.
Posted by Juki Schor on October 7, 2008 at 2:02 am | permalink |
Outstanding post – you always bring a different perspective to the table. Palin certainly has balls, if not anything else, and that audacity will see her through a fairly successful political career.
Posted by Yu Ming Lui on October 7, 2008 at 4:37 am | permalink |
David Rees pointed out that most people cannot get over their ideological persuasion, viewing the other side as "evil". I agree. (Seems to me the Republicans have raised this narrow thinking to a high art: Witness the Republican rallies, where the audience boos and cheers predictably when McCain/Palin criticize the Democratic ticket.)
Penelope implies that she CAN get over the ideological thang and learn from the opposition. Penelope has also written many times in the past about welcoming criticism, truly believing that criticism is constructive. Which it is.
I think this is an important point: to be able to learn from those who are different from you, and who may oppose you. Takes humility and restraint.
CAK
Posted by chris keller on October 7, 2008 at 4:46 am | permalink |
Wow Penelope, showing your Gen Y colours there. Going for the all sizzle and no substance of Palin.
Been able to sell yourself and pump out the spin might be great for selling product but is that really what anyone wants from a VP of the USA?
Is that really going to build trust and respect for someone with the required skills or just blind ignorant faith?
Of course Ms Palin is quite familiar with the latter but is that what the USA needs in a leader?
Posted by Nigel on October 7, 2008 at 5:55 am | permalink |
@Opinionatpr's comment on "In four years, the $40B pipeline deal she negotiated with Canada and the private sector will be under way…"
Time magazine's article "Palin's Pipeline to Nowhere" suggests otherwise. This article supports my fear that Palin, while commendable in motive and theory, still has a lot to learn about reality.
I think Palin has saved McCain's campaign, however, two months may give us too much time to learn too much about her. Her freshness might become a little too exposed.
Posted by sophie on October 7, 2008 at 6:56 am | permalink |
@HockyMom's comment on "I honestly don't understand the venom that is spewed towards Sarah Palin by so called "liberated women…"
I'm surprised this surprises you. Women are notorious for their spitefulness to one another. When they should be banning together and supporting one another towards a goal beneficial to each of them, they instead stab each other in the back.
And compare themselves: "Is she getting ahead faster than I? Is she more qualified than I? Is she skinnier than I?"
That said, I would like to think that women, liberated or not, are not voting for Sarah Palin just because she's a woman. If that's the case, I wish Republicans would have come up with a more professional image. Condoleeza Rice would have been my vote.
Posted by sophie on October 7, 2008 at 7:07 am | permalink |
Penelope, Love your blog. It is one of the highlights of my day when I receive an email with a new posting.
I know this is a career blog, not a political one, but would like to bring up one obvious point that nobody really seems to be addressing.
Palin is inexperienced, there is no doubt about that, but is Obama. Which is better, an inexperienced VP or an inexperienced President?
I'm definately not a McCain fan, but to be fair, if we are talking about experience, I'm more comfortable with that inexperience being in the VP position rather than the Presidency.
Posted by David on October 7, 2008 at 7:21 am | permalink |
Really, would you stop talking about politics. You have no clue and are quite annoying. I was waiting for the comment of she did well with only 5 weeks to prepare and a special needs baby at home. Stick to what you know. It is NOT politics.
Posted by Joy on October 7, 2008 at 7:45 am | permalink |
Politics aside, I get what's interesting and copy-able in Palin's performance. I think that's the problem though. Because I also have long, long years of "Be a good girl…" training that makes the idea of standing up and saying, "Of course I can do it!" When any idiot can see that I can't, unthinkable.
Posted by Liz on October 7, 2008 at 7:59 am | permalink |
@HockyMom's comment on "I honestly don't understand the venom that is spewed towards Sarah Palin by so called "liberated women…"
I have friends in both parties, and to me, it's funny to watch them squirm on this issue. Trust me, no one hates her because she's a woman – all the unjustified venom I hear is based on the fact that she's lower class.
Also liberals hate that anyone would think of avoiding criticism of another woman simply because she's a woman (Republicans used to say they felt this way too, btw).
Posted by Liz on October 7, 2008 at 8:02 am | permalink |
I agree with many above who said they or people they know could have done better with 5 weeks prep. As a former career counselor who has prepped many for interviews and presentations for high level positions, I wholeheartedly agree that her performance was not up to par, regardless of gender or initial expectations based on previous appearences.
Posted by Physiology PhD Mama on October 7, 2008 at 8:09 am | permalink |
Hi P,
I like your analysis of the debate, but I think there is a Palin opportunity that would fit the brazen careerist platform even better: stealing your competition's message.
Change was supposed to be Obama's calling card for this election, however the GOP trumped his message by enlisting someone who is truly an outsider. What I find more interesting than her debate approach (stick with the pre-planned message ala Clinton/Dole in '96) is her hijacking the impression of a new kid on the block ready to take on washington. A big gamble for the GOP.
In the workplace we are constantly challenged to define and re-define our brand. With less than a month left, it will be facinating to watch the Obama ticket wrestle the 'outsider' brand back and see how they will deliver the message
Posted by Rich on October 7, 2008 at 8:16 am | permalink |
Most articles on print and web here in DK is "Palin this & Palin that", so from the old site of the pond, she's setting the agenda and press coverage.
Thanks Penelope for the angle!
Posted by a reader in Denmark, Europe on October 7, 2008 at 9:08 am | permalink |
@sarah: too bad there isn't another VP debate – I think if more people tuned in with their eyes closed (it's called 'listening'), we would get a clearer picture of which candidate has a more coherent platform. Word salad, anyone?
Posted by prklypr on October 7, 2008 at 9:28 am | permalink |
I think this is a great post– love her or loathe her, Palin can teach us a lot about what "looks like" a leadership attitude. Palin's performance(s) also offer lessons to organizations about how they can present themselves to look authentic in areas where they are not. If interested, check the post Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how at http://www.AuthenticOrganizations.com
Posted by CV on October 7, 2008 at 9:34 am | permalink |
Staying within narrow confines, as in 'politics is politics' and 'career advice is career advice' and never the twain shall meet shows a lack of creativity and inability to make applications, IMHO.
To me, the debates ARE like a job interview. Playing games at the debate podium is like playing games in an interview: faking it, turning on the charm to cover for the lack of a substantive response, winking or flirting or joking—all of that is nuts. You want the job? Get serious about your interview/debate. Address the questions/issues in an in-depth manner.
What if, at an interview, the interviewee tore down the accomplishments (or even the lack of accomplishements) of her predecessor? How would that sell in her interview?! What if the interviewing panel, while reviewing the interview, called the interviewee a "pit bull"? Would that be favorable? I think not.
Rather, back to another of Penelope's points, that the best person for the job is a nice person, who might even walk around the office, offering to help others.
So, in the end, I guess I would NOT want Sarah Palin as my mentor. I don't like the games. I don't like the ruthlessness. I don't like the character defamation.
Brand-shmand . . . I don't even know what that means in this application. I like the guy who is sticking to the issues, asking us to read his full plan for more info/details. I like that he is attacking less. I like his serenity in the face of nastiness. That is the interviewee I would hire . . .
CAK
Posted by chris keller on October 7, 2008 at 9:39 am | permalink |
Biden made a goof in explaining the legislative role of the VP: "…as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html
Here is what the Constitution says: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
How could someone who has been US Senator for so long make such a blunder?
Posted by Tom in TX on October 7, 2008 at 9:43 am | permalink |
I give Palin credit for having the ba**s to stand up in front of a world audience and pretend she is qualified to lead our country. Don't you have to wonder if she goes to bed at night thinking, "Oh s**t, what if we win?"
Posted by Susan Greene on October 7, 2008 at 11:04 am | permalink |
@Chris Young – Re Reagan's "losing his mind" — my husband has Alzheimer's, and that is not an insult; it's a tragically accurate description of what happens. We just hope it doesn't happen to the President while he's in office, which is one of the bazillion reasons I won't be voting for McCain/Palin.
Posted by Jean Gogolin on October 7, 2008 at 11:24 am | permalink |
I rest my case on Tina Fey. $5 million book deal. Tina Fey is a better mentor than Sarah Palin. Who's smarter, really? It's all relative to what you want to achieve.
Posted by Dave on October 7, 2008 at 11:31 am | permalink |
Penelope,
Did you mean that Sarah Palin should be my mentor or that should should be my role model?
I don't know that she would have time to take on all the BC readers as mentees. But many of us may be interested in using her (or some of her behaviors) as a model.
Cheers,
-Craig-
Posted by CraigM on October 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm | permalink |
McCaing Poor Judgement???
Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:
Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.
More Poor Judgement by O:
In apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?
That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).
That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)
That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor. Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.
That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.
That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?
Posted by mark on October 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm | permalink |
I gotta tell ya, Penelope, after reading this post, I'm wondering who spends the most time in the shallow end of the intellectual pool, you or Palin? I figured out a while back that the Brazen part of the "Brazen Careerist" was that you make most of your stuff up as you go along, and I'm fine with that, but your swings on the Palin situation really make me wonder about your intellectual and emotional stability; or whether you are just messing with us. "Interior Secretary"???. You CAN'T be serious. Forget that she clearly stated many times that she would expand on the Cheney doctrine which maintains that the office of the Vice President is not a part of the Executive branch, and oh by the way, we don't even have to respond to congressional subpoenas, let alone answer your questions about what we do. I mean, is that what the Republicans think this country really wants from our leadership?
I loved the comment about whether you would hire someone who behaved that way in an interview, which I think pretty well sums the debate up. I think that presenting Sarah Palin as a valid candidate for the office of Vice President epitomizes what has become of our political process, pandering to the lowest common denominator in the populace, but at the same time obeying the wealthy donors.
But you know what? Doggonit, I'm pleased that she is in the contest, because she really exposes the Republican party for the narrow, out of touch, isolated party that it is; and it makes the job easier for the Democrats; they almost don't have to do anything, simply use the old strategy for dealing with fools, which is to give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves.
I know it's difficult to criticize someone for trying to expand their horizons and challenge themselves, but there have to be some realistic limitations. I would love to be running the Fed or skating on a line with Alexander Oveshkin, but it ain't gonna happen. We aren't talking about a big fish in a small pond here, we're talking about becomming a big fish in the biggest pond. We don't need actors or "quick studies", we need wisdom and leadership.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 7, 2008 at 1:24 pm | permalink |
I've been thinking about your comment on casual speech, Penelope. I think that's a Gen X trait. I'm wondering when you get criticised in your public speaking for not being more formal if it's from Boomers.
Posted by GenerationXpert on October 7, 2008 at 1:25 pm | permalink |
Wow, Penelope, when I saw this post I thought,"here she goes again, trying to get people stirred up." I love the fact that you enjoy doing this, and what a great post!
I absolutely detest Sara Palin, as do many others here. But what you were trying to do was say that here is someone who is making the most of the moment. Sara's probably not so stupid that she doesn't realize she's not up to the job. She's just taking her 15 minutes as far as it will get her. And she will indeed land on her feet, probably as a political commentator of some kind. Or maybe – Dancing with the Stars?
And if you read PTs post carefully, you can see that she is not endorsing her or her stupidity. But sometimes we can learn something – or emulate something, in this case poise and guts – in someone we absolutely detest.
A good lesson for all us, particularly when we're mired in politically emotion.
Posted by Cleveland A on October 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm | permalink |
@Juki. Here we have a saying about our political process: "Politics is a lot like sausage: if you watched it being made, you would never eat any". I appreciate you comment re what really matters is what happens after the shine wears off, once someone has been in office for a while. Are those qualities going to do the job?
Sarah Palin obviously did the best she could with what she had to work with, but I had an uncomfortable feeling I couldn't shake during the debate, and it wasn't the waitress-at-the-diner mannerisms. Here's what it was: It reminded me of being in a final exam trying to answer an essay question about a book or an article I hadn't gotten around to reading. What's scary about her performance is that it was the best that her trainers could come up with.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm | permalink |
I appreciate the objectivity of this post, especially since I know you are not voting for McCain/Palin. I agree with the non political points made but really disagree with the crack on Reagan.
Ronald Reagan's management style should be a model to all managers for his ability to be optimistic, his sense of humor, his ability to delegate & his effective communication & execution of a broad vision. Read Peter Robinson's "How Ronald Reagan Changed My life" & you would never say that Reagan was "losing his mind". The massive economic turnaround & winning the cold war speak to his greatness.
I will also say that there is more to Palin then just image. She comes across as extremely authentic and her decisions are guided by a idealogy not polls or focus groups. As long as everyone keeps underestimating her she will continue to do well. She is a rock star. Think about it. You didn't watch that debate to see Joe Biden.
Posted by Neil C on October 7, 2008 at 2:16 pm | permalink |
@Neil C. I have to comment on Reagan. Reagan didn't "win" the cold war. The centrally planned economy of the Soviet system lost it's empire because centrally planned economies and communism do not work. You can only make so many transmissions for tractors that will never exist, ball bearings for shafts that will never be milled, without running out of resources. The tab for Reagan's policies is only just now coming due. Fun, isn't it?
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm | permalink |
@Neil C. – Reagan was indeed "losing his mind" at the end of his term; he was in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's and that is its precise definition. However "authentic" Sarah P. is, I would rather not have a rock star for President. I did watch the debate to see Joe Biden, who is more than qualified to be President and demonstrated it.
Posted by Jean Gogolin on October 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm | permalink |
@SteveC: "Politics is a lot like sausage: if you watched it being made, you would never eat any".
:-), thanks for that one. You are right, watching it being made kind of lowers the appetite tremendously. What about a vegetarian version with healthy content?
Posted by Juki Schor on October 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm | permalink |
@Steve C.-What exactly is the tab for Reagan's policies? He fundamentally changed our economy to allow it to flourish over the next 15 years after he left. The crisis now is a result of a weak dollar, high energy costs & the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with Reagan & everything to do with liberal Democrat policies of caving into the environmental lobby by not drilling for oil & forcing banks to lend to poor people & minorities who can't pay back mortgages.
Jean-Reagan was not diagnosed until he was 3 years after he was out of office. Penelope said in the post that he was losing his mind when we elected president. That is why I disagreed with her.
I am looking forward to Obama raising my taxes. I don't pay enough now & the deadbeats that don't work deserve more of my money.
Posted by Neil C on October 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm | permalink |
I don't know.
I'd bet she wouldn't share with us if she had a recent bikini wax or lament on how eccentricity twist the male mind in bed.
That's what we need right now truth in politics.
By far you would make a much better VP candidate. She's just another pretender.
Posted by bilbo on October 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm | permalink |
Neil C. You mean Reagan the father of trickle-down economics and deregulation? The father of let's lower taxes and borrow against our future instead? Ronald Reagan invented the freaking deficit. Thank God Paul Volcker was around to clean up after him. I can tell you are passionate about being a Reagan Republican, and I can tell you from experience that trying to get through to anyone who uses the words Reagan and greatness in the same sentence is like trying to convince Rush Limbaugh to abuse pain killers. It's too depressing to go over the history again, so I'm going to let you have the last word and suggest we let everyone else discuss current events and let old Ronnie rest in peace, wherever he is.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm | permalink |
@Neil C. I know Reagan was not diagnosed until some time after he left office, but in fact, the effects of Alzheimer's begin long before the diagnosis. I'm quite familiar with all this because my husband has it.
I agree with you on all other points, though. Sorry to be a nitpicker, but Alzheimer's is typically not well understood by people who have not had direct experience with it.
Posted by Jean Gogolin on October 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm | permalink |
Sarah knows how to manage her image? Is that why she let Katie Couric interview her AFTER the debacle with "Charlie" Gibson? Sarah Palin has abdicated her image management to her handlers. She knew how to manage it in Alaska but has no idea that she is not in Wasilla anymore, Toto. God help us all if McCain wins and dies of cancer or a heart attack (maybe even before Jan 20 09).
Posted by Mitchell York on October 7, 2008 at 6:36 pm | permalink |
This is a great analysis of Sarah Palin's performance. She did do exactly what the public had wanted, in the best way she could after 5 weeks of cramming. Charming beats competent every time, at least on TV.
The sad part is that the public had wanted her to perform the way she did, and that she's an acceptable VP candidate from a major party for so many people.
Posted by janya on October 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm | permalink |
Ah jeeze, I was going to let this go but there is one comment I just can't walk away from….Here we are in a situation where no one in the bloody free world can force banks to lend a dime to even the most creditworhty corporations in existence, but a few posts back Neil C. blamed the current financial crisis, for the most part, on "liberal Democrats", per se: "The crisis now is a result of a weak dollar, high energy costs & the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with Reagan & everything to do with liberal Democrat policies of caving into the environmental lobby by not drilling for oil & forcing banks to lend to poor people & minorities who can't pay back mortgages." Let me repeat: "FORCING(my emphasis) banks to lend to poor people and minorities who can't pay back mortgages". Elitist and racist overtones aside, to put it mildly, this baby just screams out for attention. Oh yeah, us liberal democrats dragged those mortgage brokers and real estate brokers and ratings agencies and investment bankers just kicking and screaming into the sub-prime, commission-oozing mortgage mess. Yup, forced 'em right into it, poor little right-wing Wall Street bankers.
I knew we were powerful, but even I, a commie-loving, work-hating, republican-bashing, ex-hippie weatherman backpacking pinko democrat never dreamed we could pull that one off. C'mon, what planet are you republicans from, really? Ok, I'm done.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 8, 2008 at 12:07 am | permalink |
This article has definitely made me think. We can all be inspired by the confidence Palin has shown in furthering her career. I am sure her visibility will take her far.
Posted by Margo Wei on October 8, 2008 at 12:20 am | permalink |
ok, great article, good analysis of Sarah Palin's performance.
Here's the question, however. Sarah Palin has demonstrated her incompetence on national TV. She accepted a job, that the better part of the country is sure Sarah is not even approximately qualified for. She's picked a bozo of a boss (granted, he's mostly a bozo for having picked her for the VP spot), and let herself become the target of all those taunts.
Is the visibility going to be worth the public humiliation in terms of promoting Palin's career in the long run? Is this a good way to go about building a career – putting oneself in the spotlight, even when ridiculously unqualified? Should a career woman really want a mentor like Sarah Palin?
Posted by janya on October 8, 2008 at 9:13 am | permalink |
A good post but very controversial due to the politics angle. I didn't see any category listed for image so I did a search on your site and read a couple of posts on image management that I really enjoyed. I especially liked your advice in the comments section of the 'How to manage your image' post -
"Everyone — male or female — needs to pay attention to the image they project. We all want something in life, we each have goals. How well we align our image with our goals affects how successful we are at reaching our goals."
Image management appears to me to be very individualistic and requires customization.
Posted by Mark W. on October 8, 2008 at 10:16 am | permalink |
I find this post so utterly dismaying that I hardly know where to start.
You've written often about the value of being a good person. What Palin showed during her debate is the willingness to do anything to WIN. Not the definition of a good person, not someone a good person would want as a mentor.
She's gotten worse since the debate, with hyped- up rhetoric falsely portraying Obama as someone who pals around with terrorists– prompting someone in her audience to shout "Kill him!" I'm afraid that in her eagerness to win, she will incite a real culture war– the fighting in the streets kind. The assassination of public figures kind.
I hope Repubicans are quietly contacting their party and asking party leaders to tone Palin down. If one of her whacked-out followers winds up killing Obama, it would usher in a time of true horror for our country. And, I would think, the end of the Republican party.
How can this woman possibly be seen as a mentor?
Posted by Kristin Ohlson on October 8, 2008 at 10:29 am | permalink |
IMO, Sarah Palin is not a good choice for VP of the USA in 2008. Maybe in a few years, but not now. If she had been groomed and coached earlier in the year when her name apparently first appeared on McCain's radar, maybe her responses to questions would be better up to speed by now. She displays a lot of confidence, but her answers during her interviews and the debate left me scratching my head. What did she say? Did she answer the question? Did that make any sense? Polititians have a way of deflecting questions from the matter at hand to what they want to say. We are all accustomed to that. Sarah Palin's answers sound like pre-recorded messages, where the tape was badly spliced, creating sentences with words and phrases that don't belong with each other. I fault her coaches and the lack of time to adequately prepare. I believe she will take this opportunity to make something bigger for herself, but it won't be as the vice-president of the USA. I agree with an earlier poster, that had John McCain chosen Condaleeza Rice, the current polls may be different.
Posted by gt on October 8, 2008 at 11:05 am | permalink |
Poise and self-belief without competence or integrity – maybe Palin is a good mentor for today's corporate world.
Posted by 123fun on October 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm | permalink |
The larger theme – one that seems to be thoroughly missed by most of the posters here – is that while you can learn a lot from everyone, the people who have the most to teach us are the successful people who are least like us.
How many times do we write off other people’s success to factors outside their control when we don’t like them, but attribute their success to their own individual greatness when they have qualities we admire?
The people who made it to the top of any organization – especially those you can’t seem to connect with – all made it because of their hard work and use of their unique gifts. To explain the entirety of their success to causes outside their control – nepotism, diversity, blonde hair, office politics, etc. – is to make yourself feel better at the expense of looking at them objectively and spotting the strengths you don’t have.
The successful people who look like us, and talk like us, and think like us, have much less to teach us than the successful people who don’t. It’s far easier, however, to believe that people who are just like us are the superior people in the world, as that implies that we now possess all the attributes necessary to succeed.
At that moment, we have stopped learning and our inevitable descent begins.
For those of you who seemed to have missed it, the lesson from Legally Blonde wasn’t that Elle Woods was over her head. It was that Elle – despite not looking, sounding or acting like everyone else at Harvard Law – was the only lawyer smart enough to get her innocent client acquitted.
Posted by Kevin on October 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm | permalink |
@kevin-
Thanks – I was going to post the same thing. It seems like most of the commentors totally missed Penelope's point. It seemed rather straight forward, but I'm not a partisan. That probably is why it was so easy to see what her point was.
Posted by Taylor on October 8, 2008 at 9:09 pm | permalink |
@Kevin. Excellent point and well put. As Taylor pointed out, once you pull the partisan goggles off, you can see a lot more clearly. For me, I guess it's more like knowing your enemies better than your allies. But I really see the value of what you are both saying. The only people I ever knew who really intuitively understood the concept of an opportunity cost were "uneducated" farmers and single mothers on welfare. That's without ever having stepped into an economics class. They got it way more deeply than most of the students majoring in economics at university, because they had to maximize the utility of every penney. Sort of the same thing you are saying. For me, I wish I could understand how one can truly not be a partisan, given today's political climate. What's the secret? I get so pissed off at some of the drivell I hear spouted out as fact, it's a blessing I haven't got my hands on a rocket-launcher. Thanks for the bird's-eye views.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 8, 2008 at 10:38 pm | permalink |
@Steve C.
I really believe the two issues are one and the same. We have become such a partisan country, because we’ve been led to believe that the people on the other side “don’t get it” and therefore aren’t worthy of engaging in real dialogue and discussion. By definition the, we “do get it” and need to consider our own positions no more.
Dialogue requires listening, which requires at least a modicum of respect for the other person and their views. True conversation requires understanding the inherent worth in the positions of others, such that you can help them see other points of view, but so that you can also use their perspective to refine your own.
As people, we love independence and therefore love choice. We are consumers who not only consume to live, but consume to demonstrate or values. Too often, this is used against us, as we are presented A vs. B options by the very groups that benefit from those categorizations. It is only when we realize that the answer is neither A nor B, but a C which inherently respects the underlying values of the original choices, that we can work together as a team.
Without that, any exchange is merely shouting your position in an ever-louder fashion.
Today we too often label ourselves by the words that divide us – as republicans or democrats, conservatives or liberals, pro-life or pro-choice. Until we first think of ourselves as Americans – people not only with a shared set of values but a need to work with everyone to solve our current issues – we’ll fall deeper and deeper into trouble.
Posted by Kevin on October 9, 2008 at 9:39 am | permalink |
@Kevin
I agree. At some point we have to step back and ask, why is it that we all wanted to live together in the first place? Our adversarial system and the spoils to the winner seem to be pushing us over the edge. What is so painful about watching someone else get a break?
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on October 9, 2008 at 10:01 am | permalink |
@Kevin-
If you wouldn't mind, please e-mail me at 295anderson@gmail.com
Thanks.
Posted by Taylor on October 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm | permalink |
@Kevin:
The people who have the most to teach us are the successful people who are least like us.
I still don't get it. Let's take G. Bush instead of Palin. He is definitely least like me. So I could learn from him how to be successful, after all, he has been President of the US. But then, wouldn't I have to become like him? That is not what I wanted, as I have different values. So, I would have to look for "teachers" who are not only successful but also share my values and goals for a certain position. Otherwise I am ending up learning from people who are successful in things that I wouldn't want to be successful in. My question is, are there neutral strategies in becoming successful that can be applied anywhere with any values or goals, or does "success" or the will to being successful change people in a way that I ultimately would have to change my original values in order profit from their teachings?
I mean, I wouldn't go to war for oil in Irak. Instead I would try to become independent from oil and learn from people who can show me how to do that. Bush or Palin wouldn't be the person to teach me that although they are successful. I can learn from a most successful mass murder like Stalin how to be successful in that, but does that also apply for promoting solar energy, for example? If so, I agree to study his strategy. But I doubt it, because I believe that people choose their strategies for success according to their values. If success is the only value, it starts to feel creepy to me. I don't feel comfortable with strategies that go with any value or goal and are just focussed on being successful. Certain goals one cannot reach without being brutal. If your value is to be a kind person, certain goals will not be on your plate and I still think it is good that way.
Posted by Juki Schor on October 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm | permalink |
@Juki Schor
Thanks for the question. Rejecting their decisions and values isn’t the same as rejecting their skills, abilities, or perspectives.
It’s too easy to say there’s nothing redeeming about Bush and write him off. But how does someone with no redeeming qualities get to be President of the US? He can’t.
Stalin was one of the most successful mass murderers, but he didn’t start out at the top and didn’t reach the top through mere violence alone. How did he get people to follow him when he had nothing? He must have found a way.
Certainly values come into play. But excluding things which are clearly illegal, or that you feel to be immoral, leaves most strategies open for all to use. Do we use legislation, protest, popular opinion, market forces or some combination? Do we trade favors with influential groups because our proposal is too important to wait, or do we only work with people we like – with the possibility that our proposals will never materialize?
If we look at skills like how to give a speech, or remember names, or network, these are even more benign. Some people HATED Ronald Reagan’s values, but admired his optimism in difficult times. Other people HATED Bill Clinton’s values, but admired his ability to connect with people at all levels of society.
The last thing to look at is their perspective – how they see the world – both in terms of how it is and how it could be. We’re all limited in our ability to imagine, because we all have a limited set of experiences from which to project. If we simply look at the world the same way that those like us do, our ability to create a better future is severely limited.
We need the perspectives of others, both to incorporate their ideas into ours and to understand how our vision can be expanded to become a vision shared by a larger group.
Simply pushing for solar energy – for example – without understanding what everyone else is thinking in the energy and surrounding spaces, leaves you vulnerable to a changing landscape.
What are the petroleum people doing that we can incorporate into our vision and use to help sell our ideas? How will the future of the petroleum industry both help and hurt our cause? If we simply write them off as last century’s energy producers, we’ll never be able to co-opt their best ideas, find areas of agreement, or form coalitions with them to further our goals.
The beauty of this approach is that we’ll find much to admire in those we initially don’t like, and we’ll find ourselves being much more open, respectful, and engaged with people who initially seem different than us – a good outcome if there ever was one.
Posted by Kevin on October 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm | permalink |