|
That's kinda awkward, but is it really that big a deal? I've had lecturers occasionally take a sip of water plenty of times before
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:That's kinda awkward, but is it really that big a deal? I've had lecturers occasionally take a sip of water plenty of times before In and of itself no, but Rubio's performance when contrasted with all the hype (Mexicans will vote for him! He knows who Tupac is!) kinda puts the kibosh on his presidential ambitions for a bit. Like Jindal, the previous Great Brown Hope, it just showed he doesn't have the it factor. It's been said before but you really don't put the guy with further potential on the SOTU response detail. Nobody looks good doing it solo, and if someone's even a mild goober like Rubio it's magnified immensely. What happened to Rubio is common to all these young, fresh, hip GOP up and comers; they're all cut from the same weinery College Republican cloth. Paul Ryan's performance at the VP debate being the most notable recent example. Dude was a complete herb that night, and we haven't heard squat about how "cool" he allegedly is afterward. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:That's kinda awkward, but is it really that big a deal? I've had lecturers occasionally take a sip of water plenty of times before Leaving aside the content of Rubio's awful address, his awkward grab for water was just the crowning touch on his poor performance. He looked badly prepared, nervous, and sweaty. At least Nixon had the excuse of being ill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Pausing for a drink of water during a speech is fine. The problem here was a combination of there not being a glass of water within reach during a high-profile speech being broadcasted on national TV and the speaker apparently thinking that he could quickly slip off and grab a drink between sentences without the audience noticing. Amateur hour all around. Also the delivery of the speech was bad independent of the production values. And the content of the speech was also bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
My favorite thing about Sippaquiddick is that Rubio blames his thirstiness on the fact that he had just finished giving the same speech in Spanish, which was supposed to be the highlight of having Rubio do this whole thing. It also begs the question: why the gently caress do they still do the response live?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I think the answer to that is obvious: to show confidence and poise. Avoid it being labeled as overproduced or too artificial. You don't want it to be an infomercial, when it already is being described as feeling like a canned speech. When you want it to look like a real "response" you don't want a big tape delay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Rubio's leadership PAC is now selling Rubio water bottles for a $25 donation. At least everyone's in on the joke this time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Rubio's leadership PAC is now selling Rubio water bottles for a $25 donation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yad_clT4T2Y
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
withak posted:Pausing for a drink of water during a speech is fine. The problem here was a combination of there not being a glass of water within reach during a high-profile speech being broadcasted on national TV and the speaker apparently thinking that he could quickly slip off and grab a drink between sentences without the audience noticing. Amateur hour all around. A couple of years ago we had Professor Timothy Snyder up at the university I work at giving a talk in support of his then-newly released book Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin (which is excellent and I recommend to all). In addition to the interesting things he said about the subject to hand, he also gave us all some valuable advice and that is this: Yale has never hired anyone that drank from a bottle during their interview, as they view that as infantile; always ask for a glass. Good advice, wouldn't you say Senator? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Yale has never hired anyone that drank from a bottle during their interview, as they view that as infantile; always ask for a glass. I was going to say that the bottle of water was pretty amateur also but figured that the bottle was probably just what was handy, not what someone actually provided for the speaker to use on-air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Would it have been less amateurish if he had paused, asked for a glass of water, then continued until a glass was handed to him from off-camera? I kind of feel that way. Instead of the slow lean over, looking at the camera at all times, grabbing a bottle thing. e: and now I see this was already covered in the SOTU thread. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Would it have been less amateurish if he had paused, asked for a glass of water, then continued until a glass was handed to him from off-camera? I kind of feel that way. You completely stole my post, so I'm glad I clicked "preview reply". A simple "excuse me", then not acting like a cobra with brain damage striking blindly at an object would have been totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
The water grab was dumb and awkward but not a death blow to Rubio like jindel's speech was but if that Yale thing is true then they can eat a dick while pulling their heads out of their asses. Who gives a flying gently caress except pompous douchenozzles if you drink from a bottle of water like 99% of the country. Though I guess pompous douchenozzles does really describe Ivy League schools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Fox News poll confirms thread title.quote:The latest Fox News poll asks the simple question, “Would this person make a good president?” I'd say they were covering for Morris, but you know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Other people drink water mid-speech but (and this is loving important) they don't look like goddamn raccoons in headlights doing it. Other people might get a bit of dry mouth giving a speech but (and this is important) they don't also break into a flop sweat and seize up like they came to halfway through a colonoscopy. That water bottle and his stilted delivery weren't what killed him, it was that he was already into engine fire bail out territory by the time either came around. You don't loving lean on your working-class-neighborhood house when you've been trying to sell that house for months. You don't follow up this particular SOTU address with the pie in the sky bullshit that you literally just lost ground in both houses with. In short, stop trying to play off that goofy-as-gently caress water bottle as no big deal, because nobody is going to argue with you on that. It isn't even a nail in the coffin and trying to salvage that disaster by deflecting the derision from looking creepy while drinking is exactly why the GOP is a bunch of fuckups at this point in time. If you think that bedshitting extravaganza was great were it not for that blasted cottonmouth then you ought to just stop now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
So FreedomWorks made an interesting video last year featuring Hillary Clinton that they were going to show at their conference.quote:In one segment of the film, according to a former official who saw it, Brandon is seen waking from a nap at his desk. In what appears to be a dream or a nightmare, he wanders down a hallway and spots a giant panda on its knees with its head in the lap of a seated Hillary Clinton and apparently fellating the then-secretary of state. Two female interns at FreedomWorks were recruited to play the panda and Clinton. One intern wore a Hillary Clinton mask. The other wore a giant panda suit that FreedomWorks had used at protests to denounce progressives as panderers. (See here, here, and here.) Placing the panda in the video, a former FreedomWorks staffer says, was "an inside joke." After being screened for staff, they decided not to use the video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
That video must leak, forcing whoever to denounce it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
I'm just shocked that the panda wasn't supposed to represent China.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:I'm just shocked that the panda wasn't supposed to represent China. I'm guessing that is the private joke, though I first thought of The Shining, and Paul Tsongas's "pander bear" (remember Paul Tsongas?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Has the SOTU response ever been successful for the person doing it? You're responding to the President, who has just finished giving a soaring, inspirational speech that has been worked on for months by scores of people, standing at the focal point of a huge, ornate room filled with history and every important person in Washington applauding near endlessly. Contrast that with a single lesser known politician alone in some rinky dink little room sitting in a chair with a single camera pointed at them reading a response that has to be extremely negative by it's nature. It's a recipe for failure every time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
thepedestrian posted:Has the SOTU response ever been successful for the person doing it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhvpN4SOTJw&t=157s Riptor fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
thepedestrian posted:Has the SOTU response ever been successful for the person doing it? If by successful you mean became a serious Presidential contender, no. The Bush era SOTU responses seem to be a mixture of lifetime Congresscritters or Beltway politicians with a notable Governor every now and then. I think it's largely done as a favor for the DNC/RNC rather than anything else. I doubt Kathleen Sebelius thought she was going to launch a POTUS campaign after giving one of these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Sippaquiddick 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:If by successful you mean became a serious Presidential contender, no. Quoted for posterity. Right above you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Quoted for posterity. Right above you. Did that speech launch Clinton into a successful Presidential campaign in 1988?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It also begs the question: why the gently caress do they still do the response live?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Did that speech launch Clinton into a successful Presidential campaign in 1988? That wasn't the question. Like Joementum said earlier, these speeches are usually done by lower level guys to propel them more into the spotlight without the risk of damaging the reputation of one of your big players. I believe Al Gore was also involved in one around then as well. That has been successful a few times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
To the surprise of roughly no one, Rahm Emanuel has presidential ambitions and is supposedly already lining up donors as a Hillary fallback.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:To the surprise of roughly no one, Rahm Emanuel has presidential ambitions and is supposedly already lining up donors as a Hillary fallback. Much like Cuomo, who he heck is his constituency?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Much like Cuomo, who he heck is his constituency? Obama supporters, Clinton supporters. You know, the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
I got called silly for thinking that Rahm would toy with 2016 back in the election threads (and you'll note he's been listed as a potential candidate in the OP of this thread since the start), but he's really the nightmare scenario candidate for the progressive left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Much like Cuomo, who he heck is his constituency? Neoliberal Clinton supporters who don't like unions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Neoliberal Clinton supporters who don't like unions. What percentage of the democratic party is that though? 10?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What percentage of the democratic party is that though? 10? How are you a regular D&D poster and serious about th...oh, right, D&D's a giant bubble. Biden will run so this isn't an issue, but if Biden and Hillary were both out of the way he'd be an early favorite with Cuomo right now. First President ever to kinda sorta volunteer to work with another country's army 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What percentage of the democratic party is that though? 10? Likely a majority these days. Rahm's big problem is the same as Cuomo's: the primary calendar and recruiting an activist base to be a contender in Iowa. Money can solve some of that problem (see: Romney, Mitt), but not all of it. The "let's just wait until Florida bails us out" primary strategy has already been tried once and didn't work. Maybe it would in 2016 though?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Adar posted:How are you a regular D&D poster and serious about th...oh, right, D&D's a giant bubble. They might be favorites because their fund raising connections but they wouldn't win a primary because the base hates them and they can't win any states until FLA. Also there is just a TON of revisionist history going on around Clinton I highly doubt the majority of democrats are anti union. Here's a poll saying that 71% of dems are pro union. http://www.gallup.com/poll/142007/americans-approval-labor-unions-remains-near-record-low.aspx mcmagic fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
It is also worth mentioning that Rahm is up for election in February 2015. I can't see him just being a one-term mayor, but winning that race then more or less gearing up for a presidential run a few months later?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They might be favorites because their fund raising connections but they wouldn't win a primary because the base hates them and they can't win any states until FLA. Also there is just a TON of revisionist history going on around Clinton I highly doubt the majority of democrats are anti union. While Americans as a whole may still support unions, unions are no longer the base of the party and apostasy on labor issues is no longer a major problem for Democrats in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:While Americans as a whole may still support unions, unions are no longer the base of the party and apostasy on labor issues is no longer a major problem for Democrats in a primary. Unions are still a huge part of democratic GOTV. I'm going to need to see a union buster like Rahm win the nomination before I'll believe it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unions are still a huge part of democratic GOTV. I'm going to need to see a union buster like Rahm win the nomination before I'll believe it's possible. In urban states in generals? Sure. In the Iowa caucuses? Not so much. The only one of the early states where the unions matter a ton is Nevada, but Rahm won't play well there no matter what he does. eta: Well, Michigan too, if it counts this time. oldfan fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:34
|
|