After Barack Obama wrapped up his stirring speech the other night - amid a raucous round of applause from an enthusiastic audience - I was about to switch the dial when a news flash announced that Governor Bobby Jindal would respond to the President's address on behalf of the Republican party.
Since Mr. Jindal was being hailed as a rising star on the political landscape - and I was quite unfamiliar with his background or take on things - I dashed to the kitchen to snatch up a brewskie and returned in the nick of time to catch the speech in its entirety.
When Jindal stepped into frame at the right of the screen and proceeded to sashay down the hall of the stately mansion, I cracked up!
The Gov is a swish!
I expect part of the problem was due to the sharp contrast between the two men.
Of course, Obama was also at an advantage.
For starters, the Prez was fortunate to be standing at a podium with two feet squarely planted on the stage beneath him. From a psychological (and subliminal) point of view, the image was a strong manly one that smacked of leadership qualities.
But, the fact he was orating in a packed house had its benefits, too.
In order to reach out and be heard in all the recesses of the historic building, Barack was forced to project; consequently, he came across as confident, straight-forward, and sure of himself.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jindal's lone appearance in a hushed room, negatively impacted.
Notwithstanding the gookey-walk which undermined his "image" from the get-go, the decision to have the Republican speak to the American people in an almost confidential aside, worked against him as well.
At times, he came across as an upscale gay man gossiping about this 'n that at a cocktail party.
Perhaps, he offended the director when they arrived on the set to capture him on film - who knows - just maybe an insider planned an act of sabotage all along for whatever reason.
God knows, the direction and setting were all wrong.
Were I in charge, my approach would have been entirely different.
In view of the fact Mr. Jindal is obviously a bit fey, and his mannerisms a tad effeminate, I would have take precautions to minimize those flaws on-camera.
For example, I would have placed him in a masculine wing-back chair in front of a desk - in dark mahogany - for instance.
No crushed velvet, or decorative detailing on the furniture, please.
In fact, I would have set the camera at eye-level, and shot up-close to also avoid extraneous distractions in the background as well.
I started to pen this post yesterday - and as I was drafting it - half-wondered if I was being too harsh.
Since I am on vacation, I chose to save the draft and finish up today.
At that juncture, I headed out to the pool to catch a few rays.
Of course, during the course of the evening, the response to Mr. Jindal's wimpy appearance was swift and none-too-flattering.
Yup, I was "right on", in my original assessment yesterday at the crack of dawn!
One pundit shook his head in disgust.
"Disastrous."
What an understatement!
Jindal's speech was characterized as sing-song.
"It smacked of a valedictory speech," another groaned.
A poorly-written one, I might add.
As to the content, well, the barbs were more stinging.
A columnist for the New York Times reported that the message was stale and promoted an insane notion that the GOP had become too moderate.
A senior editor at American Spectator, Quin Hillyer, sprang to the Governor's defense, though.
"What Jindal lacked in presence he made up for with transparent believability."
Huh?
Then, Hillyer when into attack mode in respect to the President.
According to the smarmy journalist, Obama's speech offered up socialistic policies wrapped in well-disguised Orwellian tricks of language.
That's quite a mouthful!
Supporters have taken a stand in the aftermath of the fall-out.
"A politician can come back from "disaster," they stridently argued.
Well, if Louisiana can, why not it's Governor?
Thumbs up to Obama!
No comments:
Post a Comment