Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Like who? Hell, even the National Review thought Michelle Obama was good.
-spence
|
the only review that I saw in NRO of Michelle's speech was by Jonah Goldberg....this is what he said...
"There were many points where I thought what she said was simply untrue or ludicrous, but rarely dishonest. Political wives are almost always immune to the charge of dishonesty because you have to assume their love for their husband is sincere."
didn't really get this, I guess if your love for your husband is (assumed)sincere you can go ahead and tell all of the whoppers that you want and not have your honesty challenged?
"Barack Obama is always courageous and does the hard things because they’re right? What movie has she been watching over the last four years?"
" I thought as a political speech it was excellent and did nearly everything she needed it to do."
"Will it convince anyone already leaning against Obama to change their mind, I sincerely doubt it. Will it win back a few waverers? Quite possibly. Will it fire up the Democratic base? Absolutely."
so I guess if your definition of "good" is firing up a room full of bussed-in zombies
chanting... "Forward"..."Backward"....."Forward"....."Backward "
with a well delivered but at many points "ludicrous" or "untrue" presentation... sure it was "good" and maybe excellent...but I imagine most Americans are a little wary of "good" speeches at this point
just for the record, I don't think much of the conventions and/or speeches on either side...
some interesting points about the "points" from someone else who admits she was "good"
"you missed quite a performance. She has become a pro at public speaking. She reads the teleprompter as smoothly as her husband, with emotion added in all the right places. It went over just fine in the hall, with Democrats mooning over her"
http://www.americanthinker.com/print...s_on_fire.html