Bobby Jindal v. Tim Kaine

As Matt points out, there has been a lot of criticism of Bobby Jindal's performance last night. I've also come across saw numerous comparisons to Kenneth from 30 Rock (who, btw, is a page, not an intern).

These comparisons are needlessly harsh and unfair. Last year, Governor Sebelius gave a lackluster performance. Not necessarily as rough as Bobby Jindal's, to be sure, but she does have several years of experience on him. A more apt comparison is Tim Kaine's awkward, stilted, mechanical delivery from 2006's State of the Union.

How awful was Kaine's performance? Well, it has been almost completely scrubbed from the internet. I spent way too much time looking for an embeddable version to present to you, but one simply does not exist. The best I can do is link to the AP version on the Washington Post website. Go watch it.

I don't think Kaine is a bad speaker, and as I Tweeted last night, Bobby Jindal is, typically, charming, honest and articulate in interviews. The problem for those who give rebuttals to big presidential speeches is the format itself. There is simply no way to succeed.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

The President, Bush or Obama, arrives behind Washington luminaries like the Supreme Court justices and cabinet members. The applause goes on for upwards of 10 minutes. Then they get to deliver a speech in which nearly every sentence gets a reaction from thousand or so assembled audience members. There are cheers, there is anger. Every person in the room is keenly aware that they could be on camera.

If you have ever performed on stage, you must know how important an audience response is. The relationship between performer and audience is truly one of give and take. The energy of one feeds the energy of the other.

After the speech, there is another 10 minutes of wading through the crowd, shaking hands, signing autographs. The President is a celebrity in that moment, second to none.

Then, abruptly, cut to the response. The pascal lamb chosen to deliver the opposition response is alone in a mansion. What could be more alienating to the American people?

He or she speaks directly to the camera. There is no chance to make eye contact with a real person. There are no applause, there is no booing. The only people in the room are instructed to stay as quiet as humanly possible. If there are journalists, they are likely projecting an air of skepticism, or even worse, neutrality.

Jindal did come off condescending and robotic, as did Tim Kaine in '06, and I don't for a moment blame either of them.




Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!