Fake, in other words. Fake, fake, fake.
There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too “masculine.” While we all wondered to ourselves what might make a speech masculine or feminine, no one batted an eye at the underlying revelation: that the campaign was writing the nominee’s speech before knowing who the nominee would be.
Never mind the prehistoric days when a politician might be expected to write his or her own words; speechwriters have been around since long before television. But traditionally their job was to channel their bosses’ thoughts and ideas into poetry, or at least comprehensible English. Nowadays, apparently it’s naive to expect a speech even to reveal something of the essential views or character of the speaker. Instead, campaigns — not just the McCain campaign — draft their speeches with an eye to which demographic groups need to receive which messages, and then we in the media rate the speeches based on how well we think they hit those targets.
[From Putting Words in Palin’s Mouth – PostPartisan – Quick takes by The Post’s opinion writers]
and why exactly was the original speech “too masculine”? What does that mean exactly? Were there dick jokes or something? What happened to the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling? Guess it doesn’t apply to Republican speechifying.