I need to vent. After the speech, I heard pundit after pundit absolutely rave about how good the speech was, including the historians on PBS. The only ones who seemed to dissent were Jeffrey Toobin, Rachel Maddow and Michael Gerson.
What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here? Did they get caught up in the mood of the convention hall? Or is it as simple as they are all part of a conspiracy to make this race closer than it really is?
If you like to hear venting, join me under the fold.
To be a little more specific: McCain utters the words "change" and "maverick." Presto: the talking heads say he did a great job of showing that he was for change and was a maverick. It's like a freakin, Pavlovian response. And these are the same guys who belittled Obama for months for not being specific enough about policy.
My brief take on the speech is simple. The good part was McCain talking about his POW experience and his call to service; those sections of the speech sounded sincere and were not trite. The bad parts were everything else. He presented a laundry list of standard GOP policies and was vaguer than Obama has ever been when discussing how to change Washington. And of course, on a stylistic level, the speech lacked both cohesion and flair.
Honestly, I don't get it. I don't think I'm living in an alternative universe, and I believe I still speak the English language. So what happened to these pundits right after the speech. Some of these guys (particularly the ones on PBS) I actually like and admire.
Ok, my vent is over. I realize nothing I've said here is enlightening, but what vent is?
STATE BLOGS
