TNC nails it here. And this reminds me of what annoys me about historical analogies: they're just that. Analogies. Since we aren't in Isaac Asimov's universe and we don't have formally cyclical history it doesn't mean anything at all, as two moments are never quite the same. Two people are never quite the same. What works for one might not work for another.
But, yeah, Jindal really screwed things up. What would have been more interesting is, if instead of a prepared speech and a teleprompter, Jindal had watched Obama's speech with a pencil and pad of paper and just made a few notes, then talked extemporaneously about what he thought about the speech. Sure, this approach might well have been as disastrous as what Jindal did, but I can't imagine the results would have been worse--if Jindal really is as bright and talented as his boosters declare, then surely he can make an off the cuff speech, no? It might have had more freshness and energy than the guy actually produced.
Actually, considering recent history with these cross-party responses, I suspect my response would be better. More risky, certainly, but as the Ferengi would tell us, the greater the risk, the greater the latinum.
