And sure, he is an honourable man.

Last week my wife and I were watching Governor Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, and something struck me. No, it wasn't the fact that Sarah Palin, though attractive and charming and a good public speaker, is letting herself be used as a human symbol, like a velvet sash around John McCain's shoulders that reads, "Good Old-Fashioned Family Values." It wasn't the fact that the speech sounded like a more sophisticated version of a schoolgirl crush-gushing -- "Oh, and Johnny's the handsomest, and the coolest, and the sweetest and nicest and strongest and bestest EVER!" -- and though it hurts me to so belittle a grown woman, the performance she gave was the source of that perception, one I would never have of Hillary Clinton making a similar speech. It wasn't the fact that her speech pandered to the audience , who laughed and hooted and chanted "USA" at all the right moments, who might as well have put their hands over their mouths and said, "Oh, sit! She jus' dissed him, yo!" every time Palin made a snide, sarcastic remark about Barack Obama's past "sins" including his statement that the working class clings to their God and their guns, a statement that, were it not for the right-wing's propensity for making mountains out of molehills and for beating dead horses into large wooden crosses to which they nail their opponents (Al Gore never said he created the Internet. Never. Think about that for a second.), would have been seen as what it was: the simple truth. The working class does cling to God and guns, and to heterosexuality and the miracle of life. The educated liberal elite clings to books and high ideals, to the ACLU and Woody Allen movies; what's the difference? It wasn't a terrible thing to say, it wasn't insensitive or evil or even terribly condescending. But it upset people, because Rush Limbaugh and his ilk immediately took it up as a cause celebre, and used it to upset people -- and yet their pandering to the lowest common denominator, their perversion and corruption of the freedom of the press and American democracy, and their underhanded and deceitful use of divisive partisan politics are never seen for the vile, condescending actions that they are.

None of that surprised me about Sarah Palin's speech; she called herself a pit bull with lipstick, and "embraced her role as John McCain's attack dog," as one article put it, and so I expected a lot of things that would irritate me. What surprised me about Sarah Palin's speech is -- I have heard it before.

The signal moment for me came here:

"I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed . . . when the roar of the crowd fades away . . . when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger . . . take more of your money . . . give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

It was the bit about "dramatic speeches before devoted followers." And I thought, But you're giving a dramatic, even a melodramatic speech, in front of the Republican National Convention. Then there was that comment about the cloud of rhetoric, as if rhetoric were anything more than a way to ensure that your audience hears what you want them to hear -- and if you want them to hear the truth, then rhetoric is your friend and your audience's friend -- and the dig about the styrofoam columns, which Palin said as she was standing in front of an enormous video screen showing a waving American flag in a blue sky (Yet her devoted followers cheered as though she had made a genuine point instead of a cheap and obviously hypocritical insult). And I thought, But you're using a cloud of rhetoric to obscure the actual issues, with these little digs and barbs instead of substantive criticisms of your opponent, and then accusing Obama of using rhetoric as though you would never stoop to his level.

That's when I remembered.

Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable:
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus,
And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits and put a tongue
In every wound of Caesar that should move
The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.
-- Julius Caesar, III:ii:211-231

See, I taught that play for six years; I have pointed out to hundreds of students that when Mark Antony says this to the Roman citizens -- his friends and countrymen, as he famously calls them at the beginning of the speech -- he is absolutely, unquestionably full of crap. The crowd of Romans have been manipulated, all right, but not by Brutus. The Stoic Brutus convinced the crowd using logic, not emotions. Mark Antony -- using all of the tricks of public speaking, including crocodile tears, visual aids, and simple repetition of a memorable statement (To show that this column, at least, can be non-partisan, Senator Joe Biden did the same thing as well in his acceptance speech the week before, when he got the audience chanting along with him, "That's not change, that's more of the same." But then, I seem to recall the line "I have a dream" appearing many times in a single speech. Can't remember who said it, though. Some reverend guy.) has swayed the crowd back the other way, has convinced them that Brutus and the conspirators were evil murderers, and Caesar was the greatest thing in Rome since the invention of the orgy. And no matter how simple-minded the crowd is -- and they are simple-minded; Shakespeare was no fan of the common man, and it shows in his depictions of them -- they have to realize that something's wrong when they get convinced, and then re-convinced, in the space of a quarter-hour. The easiest thing to believe is that someone is lying to you. Antony tells them all that Brutus was the one lying to them, the one using wit, words and the power of speech to stir men's blood, and they are happy to believe him. After all, he said that he's a plain, blunt man. Plain blunt men don't lie, so he must be the one telling the truth; which makes Brutus, then, the liar. The tricksy bastard.

I'm gratified, in a way, that at least the Republicans are reading their Shakespeare.

I've watched Barack Obama speak, as I assume most Americans have by now. He's a good speaker. He says lofty and idealistic things, and uses very poetic and stirring words, and yet he sounds as though he's simply having a conversation, as if this is just what he believes, and he's just laying it out there for the audience, take it or leave it. It's hard not to believe him. The most important reason it is hard is this: he's telling the truth. We really should keep corporate taxes high, and taxes on the richest 5% of the population; they get what amounts to a free ride in this country, and everybody else pays for it. Even if their taxes go up and they no longer get a free ride, they will still be willing to remain in the US because a cheap ride, while not a free ride, is better than an expensive ride -- and a cheap ride in the social equivalent of a Cadillac is pretty sweet, if you're only kicking in a few bucks for gas. We really should have affordable health care for every American, as a step to getting free health care for every American, and the only way to make that happen is through a government program. College really, really should be an affordable possibility for all Americans. The man's right, and he sounds right, and he sounds like he knows he's right. So we believe him.

But what to do, then, if you are on the other side? If you want to defeat Barack Obama even though he's right, how do you do it? (The real answer, by the way, is that you state very clearly that two people can have differing opinions and still be right, and you make sure that your positions are just as right as his, and then you present yourself as a reasonable alternative, and treat your opponent as another, and you let the people decide which reasonable, thoughtful set of positions and beliefs is right. But who the hell wants to do that.) It's easy -- you call him a liar, and you use every trick you can think of to make him out to be a liar, including false moral outrage, shoddy logic and sophisticated theatrics. And the most important thing you do is this: you make sure that everybody in the audience believes, absolutely, that politicians are all manipulative, deceiving, egomaniacal con men, and you give them the proof they need to accept it: you manipulate, you deceive, you act like an egomaniacal con man. And then, when everyone can see that you are the scum of the Earth, you point, and you say, "Look, he's even worse than me! Wouldn't you rather have the lesser evil?"

Then just keep smiling and waving at the camera. In front of a big, electronic American flag.