Y'all well know that I really don't like Sarah Palin. In fact, more than one of you has yelled at me about this. And I find the whole schtick about how the media is just a bunch of elitist hooligans who are out to get her really grating.
That's why I really wish the media wouldn't act like, well, a bunch of elitist hooligans who are out to get her. I've coined a new phrase to cover the situation: Palinoia. It's when you think people are out to get you, and then they do their best to justify your erroneous belief.
The Newsweek cover was a sexist embarrassment. Hell, they wouldn't have highlighted an article about Hillary Clinton with that stupid nutcracker, yet there's apparently a photo of "Sarah Palin doll as slutty schoolgirl". This is enormously disrespectful to someone who, like it or not, was a vice presidential candidate, and deserves to be treated the same way that her predecessors were. If you wouldn't put a photo of Joe Biden in his running shorts on the cover, you should damn well extend the same courtesy to Palin, however much you dislike her.
Then there's the Associated Press, putting 11 reporters on the task of "fact checking" her book. I put the words in quotes because the CJR notes that much of this herculean feat is not checking facts, but quibbling with interpretations or sentimental boilerplate about the hearts and minds of Alaskans. But the deeper question is how come Palin's book gets a team of fact checkers, when books by other politicians get the standard gloss?
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down. And really, guys, if you'll just back off a little, she'll do the job for you. Have you seen that resignation speech? How about we all act like she's a former governor and vice presidential candidate, rather than Public Enemy #1?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"If you wouldn't put a photo of Joe Biden in his running shorts on the cover, you should damn well extend the same courtesy to Palin, howeer much you dislike her."
I don't think this has anything to do with respect for Biden...
Obama topless bathing suit pics on front of Washingtonian.
Though even in a bathing suit, the look is more respectful.
first -- please forward your blog post to your associate, Mr Sullivan, who has breathlessly announced he cannot blog for some indeterminate period of time because he must devote his concentration to all things Palin. Good heavens -- this is like watching your interesting but odd uncle drink way too much at the family Thanksgiving and pee his pants in front of everyone.
The whole Palin thing is wacky --
I get why people can conclude she wasn't qualified to be VP. I am in that camp.
I can get why people disagree with her. She is a populist, social conservative.
What always surprises me how some people HATE her. Why? She was a decent governor of Alaska who for a social conservative practiced a pretty moderate social policy. Outspoken social conservative? Is she any worse than any number of outspoken types from the other side?
Go figure.
Are you kidding me? A decent governor?!
Are you from Alaska?
I am, and she was a lousy governor, and a quitter.
Last winter Palin brought a PLATE OF COOKIES to villagers who are paying over 10 dollars a gallon for heating fuel - 10 dollars a gallon for fuel, 8 dollars for a box of Cheerios, and 10 dollars for a gallon of milk.
Palin ran on a platform of open transparent government, yet her administration thwarted nearly every FOI request made, telling people they needed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for e-mails.
Palin and her staff used private e-mail accounts to also thwart FOI (Freedom of Information) requests.
Palin fired an entire Board when they recommended that the Stat- run dairy be shut down after it had been run into the red by millions of dollars, appointed her high school chums to a new Board to keep the dairy running, and then cost Alaskans millions of dollars - all for 12 (TWELVE) dairy farms. Socialism indeed! In the end, the dairy was shut down.
Sure, she got a nice approval rating when she sent every Alaskan a check for $1200.00 dollars, along with the permanent fund check of $2069.00. Palin bought that 80% approval rating.
Palin is a pathological liar who is petty, vindictive and just smart enough to be dangerous.
Put 100 pounds on her, and what do you have? NOTHING.
Megan: Palin posed for those "running" photos, and they perfectly show her shallow cheesecake intelligence and appeal.
By the way, check out the photo of Palin in the May 2009 Esquire magazine.
The one of Ms. Palin sitting on her kitchen counter, in a Colts tee-shirt and pantyhose, wearing 4 inch high-heeled knee-high black patent leather boots - playing a game of Scrabble.
Trash is as trash does, my elitist mother from Iowa said.
Well, that's a perfect example of what Megan's talking about-- you not only reach the boiling point in a couple of seconds and start shrieking like a tea kettle, but when nobody responds to you within an hour, you do it yourself.
I just had a flash of Joe Biden sitting on his kitchen counter, in a Colts tee-shirt and pantyhose, wearing 4 inch high-heeled knee-high black patent leather boots.
Thanks a heap for putting THAT picture in my head, Megan.
Sheesh, lady, get a life. Your creepy stalker-like Palin obsession advertises a seriously unfocused mind. Did your elitist mother from Iowa ever advise that you seek medication?
"Put 100 pounds on her, and what do you have? NOTHING."
Do you have a weight problem?
Anyway, where do you get all the stuff you spouted? Point to sources, please.
do you honestly believe palin would have been selected by the alaska political machine for grooming and then selected by mccain in desperation if she were a 250lb housewife?
her entire appeal is in being the cat at a dog show. she is goodlooking for a lady politician, and without that, she wouldn't be popular or even in politics.
I am an ALASKAN, who reads, writes, remembers, and engages in critical thinking.
Go to The Anchorage Daily News.
Try www.themudflats.net.
Juanita, you cannot be an Alaskan. Even the most ardent Alaska Palin supporter can quote chapter and verse on "Dairygate". Which is why her tirades against socialism were so ironic and laughable.
@Miss Demeanor,
So why should we only pay attention to Ms. Palin's Alaskan detractors and not her (over 50%, I think) Alaskan supporters?
And since she's grown beyond just Alaska, don't you think a veto from her Alaskan opponents is a little bit OBE?
Well of course Palin posed for those running photos, jackass. They were for RUNNER'S WORLD. WOW, a person in running gear on the cover of Runner's World. The horror.
Palin bought that approval rating? So is that going to be the standard line for talking-points-plagiarizing morons like you? I am curious, given the rest of your post, from which website did you copy that one? As for buying approval ratings, that has been the standard Democratic platform for decades. Except of course you would need to amend it to read "Buying approval ratings with other people's money".
"Put 100 pounds on her, and what do you have? NOTHING"
And you could turn Joe Biden into Clark Gable and you would still have the most inconsequential VP in the history of the Republic. He makes Dan Quayle look like John Adams. And it is apt you used the word nothing, because that is exactly what this administration has accomplished. And those on the right are saying I told you so, because Obama was the one candidated in the race that had less experience than Palin, and boy does it show.
The left better be glad Palin is around because it at least partially distracts, the media anyway, from the incompetent train-wreck in office now. However, given his approval ratings, it really isn't distracting the public that much.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments.
Take your vitriol somewhere else - it adds up to nothing.
And talking about appearances is a pretty odd to do for a supporter(I am assuming) of a guy who would not have won the Democratic Primary if his skin color would have been different. And please, don't try and pretend it didn't play a huge role in his defeat of Hillary Clinton. It sure as hell wasn't experience or a record of accomplishments that won him the nod. Which is unfortunate, because the entire country now has to deal with the fact he is completely clueless.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments.
Because Bush's record is so good, eh? Reversing 8 years of crap is easily doable in 9 months?
"Put 100 pounds on her"
Well, put 100 lbs on Obama, have him talk in a high, squeaky voice, and make him a person of pallor, and what do you have?
You'd have a guy who's at least smart enough to handle a Katie Couric interview and an actual press conference.
I don't hate Sarah Palin. I hate the idea that a person as ignorant as her is being talked about as a presidential contender. What makes her different from "outspoken types from the other side" of comparable stature is her utter lack of knowledge. I will provide examples upon request.
What I also find appalling is her lack of political convictions outside of her social conservatism. One of her signature acts as governor was to increase taxes on oil companies operating in Alaska. If she needed to do this to balance the state budget it would be one thing. But to increase taxes that already had a large enough surplus to send checks to each Alaska resident puts her economically to the left of any elected politician that I know of. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired someone to lobby the federal government for money (as well as a city manager so that she didn't have to actually run the town). Now she recites Republican boilerplate about small government but mangles it in a way that obscures the fact that it is boilerplate. She has to rely on boilerplate because she has never developed her own views.
I wish Sarah Palin well personally, but I don't want her anywhere near the levers of national power.
...but you're quite happy having a inexperienced, egomaniacal do-nothing amateur near the levers of power.
I'll bet you can point to a slew of "signature acts as senator" that make President Kumbaya suited for the job he now holds.
Take your time.
Another tea-kettle boiling! This one has a Confederate design on the side- cool!
I don't bother to look at this nonsense very often, so I have taken my time.
I deal in facts, you deal in things that you cannot possibly know - like what I think of President Obama. When you don't have a good response just switch the subject.
Try reading the letters section of the magazine version of the Atlantic to see what intellectually honest opinion letters look like.
They talked about Joe Biden as a presidential contender, once upon a time, too.
I have to agree with you on the Andrew Sullivan comment. He was the first blogger I read and basically is responsible for much of my interest in politics. But the way Palin has changed him is absolutely crazy to watch. You would think he is trying to prevent a hostile takeover of our government and the majority of the population is willingly moving in lock-step to every word of Palin's. That is hardly the case, even amongt conservatives the enthusiasm is limited.
But what I really don't understand is his unwavering devotion to Levi Johnson. This kid is clearly some frat-boy douchebag who makes the Palin family look positively refined. But in Sullivan's world he is the loan beacon of truth in this murky mess.
Sullivan isn't trying to prevent a hotile takeover of the government, I guarantee he thinks if Palin actually ran for president it would be a complete bloodbath.
He's trying to prevent a takeover of the GOP. He's a self identified conservative remember? And the current state of the GOP in this nation leaves him with no serious conservative party to identify with. He spends much time lamenting that. And Palin is a shining beacon of everything that is worst about the modern day GOP and the fringe lunatics which have somehow taken over the base of the party and driven it into the ground. Palin might not have a hope in hell of winning a presidential run, but that won't stop her from taking a serious run at winning a GOP primary with the state the party is in these days.
What Sullivan really wants is a serious GOP again, and as long as people like Palin are a significant force guiding the base that isn't going to happen.
What merde.
Sullivan has made a political and psychological bet with the Ruling Party. If I had a dime for all of the times the Sullivan blogged that Obama was a "conservative of doubt" and had "Oakeshottian" tendencies, I'd be sitting in the Bahamas now kicking back with a bottle of Coronas at my own beach house.
Sullivan was deceived and taken to the cleaners by a con man and doesn't want to man up and admit it. So, he descends into the High Wierdness of Trig Trutherism.
I think Palin needs to fly to D.C., knock on Sully's door, and give him a big ol' Mommyhug. I wouldn't trust anything Sullivan posted about Palin write now if Jesus Christ the Righteous Himself vouched for what Andrew wrote.
And the current state of the GOP in this nation leaves him with no serious conservative party to identify with.
Please. No sentence should ever contain "serious" and "Andrew Sullivan" unless it's used in the phrase "serious psychological problems."
This is a guy who thinks Palin somehow faked her last pregnancy while Governor. That makes him considerably crazier than the Birthers, who are merely claiming Obama's mother faked a birth certificate decades ago to benefit her son.
Go back and read Sullivan's columns on Hillary Clinton. His obsessive loathing of Clinton seemed to be driving him to mental instability. I stopped reading him. Then he took up the issue of Sarah Palin and her baby, and is apparently giving SP the same treatment he gave the foremost Democratic female politician. He claims feminist sensibilities, but from my perspective he harbors something quite different. I'm shocked that he is still considered a serious commentator. Is he really?
His initial reaction to Palin was actually very positive. It wasn't until significant amounts of reading what she had to say did he start hating her so much.
'I can get why people disagree with her. She is a populist, social conservative.
What always surprises me how some people HATE her. Why?'
You answered your own question in the bit I emboldened, in essence. To put in in more detail, she's a populist, female social conservative who is credibly pro-life because of her son Trig. Note how much of the obessive hate, if you listen to it very long, ends up touching that child in some way, most obviously in the case of Andrew Sullivan but you can find it elsewhere if you read the fine print.
She infuriates the organized feminists because she doesn't spout their tropes and is pro-life. This is parallel to the hatred for Clarence Thomas, not just because he is conservative, but because he is a black conservative. Nobody generates more hate from the organized Left (including the old media) than a member of a designated victim group who refuses to play the role.
She's pro-gun. Pro-hunting. She's popular with the southern and midwestern 'hicks' that many in the elite media and organized left (and swaths of the GOP leadership too) utterly and completely despise.
She represents, in their minds, 'small town America', and they hate small town America, remember we're talking about people who have a trope of referring to the entire lower 48 States between NYC and LA as 'the flyover'. Think about the arrogance inherent in that shorthand for a moment, and imagine the reaction of a mind that accepts that shorthand as natural when faced with someone not just from the flyover, but from Back of Beyond, Alaska, acting as if she's just as good as they are. A lot of what we're seeing is the outrage of an offended closet aristocrat.
Abortion is the Democratic Party activist core's highest priority. That's not just a matter of my personal perception, polling data taken at the 2004 Democratic Convention produced exactly that result. Previous GOP Presidents affirmed social conservative positions but didn't emphasize them as primary, but there's a deep sense that she might take them more seriously, and social conservatism is anathema to this set.
This isn't new. The news media for years have portrayed the social conservatives as being fanatical haters while the Dems and organized Left were supposed to be 'reasonable'. In fact, the reverse is far close to the truth, it's just that it took while for perception to catch up to the truth because the media took sides.
But they are who they are, and Palin, just be being who she appears to be (we don't even know how much of that is real or not yet) compels them to cast aside the mask.
HC,
Obama kicked abortion to the curb very early on. He rightly characterized the issue as overly distracting from pressing problems, then set a legislative course from the high ground. He won't look back.
George Will is a conservative. TheRaven may not agree with Will or other conservative brains like Gingrich but respects the fact that they have them. Palin is simply a moron with a narrow talent for reactionary oratory. This isn't about gender. Unfortunately, America is loaded with stupid white people, so her little talent found a big audience. No surprise she quit Alaska, the entire state's population is a fraction that of a large county in the lower 48.
Let me illustrate Palin not by expressing hatred for her but rather with comparison to another female politician who was intensively disliked, in many countries, for far longer than Palin has enjoyed her feeble celebrity. TheRaven is an ardent fan of this mystery woman and in fact holds her up as the gold standard for judging potential female candidates for President of the United States.
Our model female President was instrumental in reversing adverse economic conditions. She fought an impossible long distance war and won a decisive victory. She broke crippling national strikes. She was a target of terrorist attacks, some of which killed close allies. She was highly educated and a disciple of fair dealing, free market economics, diplomacy and the rule of law. She was highly articulate and didn't shy away from substantive policy issues. She influenced positive change in South Africa, led her country for nine years and earned grudging respect from the Russians, who nicknamed her 'the Iron Lady'.
I am of course talking about Margaret Thatcher, who while accused of many things by a multitude of detractors, was never called a 'liberal'. Thatcher was Christian, but nowhere close to fundamentalist.
So, as opposed to objectively arguing about emotions Palin manipulates in a gullible, largely evangelical population, which is obviously impossible, why don't you compare Palin to Thatcher in every objective category of leadership, knowledge, negotiating ability, diplomacy and other essential Presidential qualities. Then come back to everyone here in McArdleville and let us know how Palin really stacks up. (Hint: you can't bluff this one).
(TheRaven having spoketh thus fondly recalled Reagan and Thatcher standing firm against liberal naysayers and Russian tyranny)
Abortion is the top issue of the organized Dems.
It's true Obama made some empty talk about it being a distraction, but everyone knows the score: the deal is that he'll appoint liberal judicial activists to the Federal bench, who are then expected to rewrite the State and Federal laws to match liberal preferences by fiat. That's been the deal for decades.
By the way, I don't have to 'bluff' anything, you lost the debate when you used lines like: 'loaded with stupid white people', and 'gullible, largely evangelical population'. If your only argument is 'she's stupid', phrased in personally pejorative terminology, then you lose.
I accept your concession of both ignorance (about the 'evangelical population', as you put it) and of rhetorical defeat.
As for Thatcher, I do indeed recognize her brilliance and both her strengths and weaknesses, as well as the contempt liberals held her in for those strengths at the time. In fact, they spoke of her in terms not too different than those used about Palin now. That doesn't prove anything about either woman either way, but it does tell us something about their enemies.
'I can get why people disagree with her. She is a populist, social conservative.
What always surprises me how some people HATE her. Why?'
You answered your own question in the bit I emboldened, in essence. To put in in more detail, she's a populist, female social conservative who is credibly pro-life because of her son Trig. Note how much of the obessive hate, if you listen to it very long, ends up touching that child in some way, most obviously in the case of Andrew Sullivan but you can find it elsewhere if you read the fine print.
She infuriates the organized feminists because she doesn't spout their tropes and is pro-life. This is parallel to the hatred for Clarence Thomas, not just because he is conservative, but because he is a black conservative. Nobody generates more hate from the organized Left (including the old media) than a member of a designated victim group who refuses to play the role.
She's pro-gun. Pro-hunting. She's popular with the southern and midwestern 'hicks' that many in the elite media and organized left (and swaths of the GOP leadership too) utterly and completely despise.
She represents, in their minds, 'small town America', and they hate small town America, remember we're talking about people who have a trope of referring to the entire lower 48 States between NYC and LA as 'the flyover'. Think about the arrogance inherent in that shorthand for a moment, and imagine the reaction of a mind that accepts that shorthand as natural when faced with someone not just from the flyover, but from Back of Beyond, Alaska, acting as if she's just as good as they are. A lot of what we're seeing is the outrage of an offended closet aristocrat. That includes some former 'conservatives' who just can't stand Middle America and went over to Obama and the Dems because of it.
Abortion is the Democratic Party activist core's highest priority. That's not just a matter of my personal perception, polling data taken at the 2004 Democratic Convention produced exactly that result.
For years, the news media, which is dominated by social liberals, systematically portrayed their cultural-conservative opponents as 'haters', 'intolerant', etc and themselves and their political allies as reasonable and intelligent. But the truth has always been closer to the opposite of that, and Palin, just by being who she appears to be (whether it's for real or not, we don't even know yet) hits them where they live and forces them to be who they really are.
Sorry about the double post, I thought my software ate the first one so I retyped it and tried again, and ended up with two.
Well, the AP is being run by a guy who thought he might get to be the Robert Gibbs of the McCain administration. So maybe he's just sticking up for his boy.
Maybe they're scrutinising Palin so carefully out of guilt over their failing to scrutinise Obama adequately.
Ouch and Heh! (No relation to the inventor of those terms.)
Kid Mugsy apparently only tuned into the 2008 election after the Democratic primary was already over.....
Why doesn't someone fact check Dreams from my father. Large sections of that book come across as complete bullshit.
Now, they pretty much have to. What's AP's answer to why they haven't?
I believe it was "shut up!" but it may have been:
"I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn't, and what is fair and what isn't."
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/120525.asp
Because the MSM "fact checkers" can't afford now to show how biased they truly are. But you don't need a battery of fact checkers to know who Barack Obama was before the election. All one had to do was do a little research into whom he associated with before and at the very beginning of his political career...being surprised that he "lurched" left after the election is literally, to deny WHO he is.
No Mrs. Palin, is the embodiment of what feminism is supposed to be about. She had a career, married a very good man, had childred, worked in the family business...saw a problem in her city, ran for office and got elected. Saw what a mess her state political party was in and challenged themm and (holy shit) won. Yet, despite that she's a conservative. And that in a nutshell is why the left hates her. She is what they aspire to be, yet rejects their basic tenets. The only feminist who supports Mrs. Palin (not politically) is Camille Paglia...who wrote stridently on how badly the media was portraying not just Palin, but Mrs. Clinton as well.
This is the argument that infuriates me because it is so wrong.
When the American people (and the media) learned about those characteristics of Sarah Palin (all of the valuable attributes you listed), she was VERY popular and rightfully so.
She only lost her popularity when she revealed herself to be a moron. If she had come across as a competent politican who had all those attributes you stated, she would have remained very popular.
So how do you square that with her increasing popularity?
She is suddenly proving she is not a moron?
People don't gain in IQ points, so the only way to understand her surge in popularity is people are realizing she was unfairly portrayed as a moron by news organizations with an agenda, and this portrayal was uncritically accepted by liberals and/or Democrats.
I'm sure there haven't been any right-wing bloggers who've thought of that. We don't know who has fact-checked his book, but we can be sure that if the fact-checking didn't find anything, we wouldn't hear about it. The reason Palin's book has been checked is that most of the material happened within the last couple of years. No one is going to check whether Palin's dad actually handed her eyeballs on a hunting trip, and no one is actually going to peruse Obama's Punahou days to see if he got 5 rebounds one night. It's the fact that she lies so frequently about things that basically just happened (see Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace's rebuttals of basic campaign facts), with such brazen stupidity ("I thought Katie Couric's interview would be light-hearted and fun" -- yeah, because CBS News just wants a fun interview), that she has to run the gauntlet.
Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace are polical hacks of the worst sort. You are an idiot if you believe anything that either one of those parasites says.
By the way, its just a coincidence that their trashing Palin will help their employment prospects in the future, Right?
What they really should be saying is something like, "we really screwed up in that campaign", but that won't play so well when their trying to get hired for the next one. So instead it's "that Palin is such an idiot, we would have won without her".
I've coined a new phrase to cover the situation: Palinoia. It's when you think people are out to get you, and then they do their best to justify your erroneous belief.
Is it an erroneous belief when they are tearing you down? You could argue that the Newsweek cover was accidental (I don't), but the fact checkers? The vitriol?
And sorry, but if someone thinks that $50,000 is middle-of-the-road for a wedding, that person is an elitist.
I share your outrage. This demand for truth and facts from Sarah Palin is an appalling sign of our cultural degeneracy and will not stand! Free Sarah from facts - today!
This demand for truth and facts from Barack Obama is an appalling sign of our cultural degeneracy and will not stand!
Fixed it for you.
I saw the Newsweek cover and thought, gee, if we're going to have a vice-president who's totally unqualified, why not one who's at least good-looking.
Seriously, what I find strange is how much effort the media invested in making sure we didn't fall for the siren song of Sarah Palin - VP nominee! - versus their interest in anything troubling about Obama, who was actually running for president. Granted, I'd vote for her if she were the GOP nominee, but much as I dislike him I'd probably even vote for Huckabee unless the Democrat was somebody Liebermanish so that's not saying much.
So, why the fuss? For all the right's enthusiasm, I think Palin still inspires a lot more fear on the left than love on the right. Frankly, it's a bit disturbing to see them invest so much emotion in one woman, especially with the questions it raises about whether their real fear is that a conservative woman will be taken seriously as a political actor.
gbarto --
My fear is that such an unserious woman will be taken seriously as a political actor.
We already have unserious men as both elected members of our Executive Branch.
We already have unserious men and women as members of the Senate and House.
Your fear was realized a LONG LONG time ago
One word. Biden.
Derek
Oh, you mean like the Serious Men who've driven us into the ditch over the past two decades?
The same ones whose enablers keep yelling that Palin is such a dolt?
Those Serious Men?
Call me when Palin bequeathes the nation a 12 trillion dollar debt, then pretends that "Health Care Reform" will not only be revenue-neutral, but REDUCE the deficit.
You'll notice the Chinese weren't smiling while grilling Obama about this nonsense over the weekend. The Banker never smiles.
Right, so the solution is to put someone in power who has so little understanding of the issues she can't even answer questions on them to a reporter, or hold a press conference. It's actually even worse: she refuses to even invest the time to prepare to make it look like she knows the subjects.
And yes, based on what Palin has said (tax cuts for every problem, spending increases on military, no entitlement cuts), 12 trillion dollar debt will be miniscule compared to what they would be under her ideas.
The idea that the left is AFRAID of her is such pathetic wishful thinking. Nearly everyone on the left would LOVE her to be the front-runner in 2012... so we could simply wipe the floor with Rs and move on to more important things.
The reason the left focuses on her is largely that we are simply so utterly appalled that the right has sunk so low as to tout her as their savior and inspiration. Because, honestly, we WANT to think well of folks on the right as worthy, sensible opponents but fellow Americans just with a different philosophy. Palin just makes that idea increasingly difficult to believe, and it's endlessly startling.
All the same things were said about Reagan in the late 70s.
Palin makes Ronald Reagan look like Albert Einstein.
Reagan had brains. He was at least smart enough to hire intelligent and competent people, and to listen to them.
Reagan would be called a RINO and run out of the GOP today. He dared to raise taxes when it was needed, talked to our enemies, and granted amnesty to illegals. How much more RINO can you get?
"The reason the left focuses on her is largely that we are simply so utterly appalled that the right has sunk so low"
If you're correct in your assessment of Palin (which remains to be seen), then the best way to help the right get over her is for the left to calm down and get a grip. I'm still not sure how much substance she has and am waiting to see how she develops over time. But she deserves a chance. Given the bizarre, frenzied attacks she keeps getting from the left, I can't help but side with her.
The only thing that's clear here is that she deserves far, far better treatment than she's gotten. Take a deep breath and show some decency. If you're correct about her, then it will all work out on its own.
Ann: Decency like the Mean-girl junior-high name-calling in her latest work of fiction?
"The only thing that's clear here is that she deserves far, far better treatment than she's gotten."
You could say this about nearly any public figure who's received tons of unfair, ridiculous attacks, including Obama. Welcome to politics.
I should also mention that plenty Democrats want to keep the story on her because it helps Dems to have her seem like the face of the Republican party. Keeping the spotlight on Palin serves political interests just as much as keeping the spotlight on Rev. Wright.
Keeping the spotlight on Palin serves political interests just as much as keeping the spotlight on Rev. Wright.
I dunno. The Democrats didn't want to keep the spotlight on Rev. Wright after a certain point. Republican talk radio is still siding very much with Mrs. Palin.
Ryan.
I think what Drew meant was that keeping the spotlight on Palin serves Democratic Party political interests just as much as keeping the spotlight on Rev. Wright serves Republican Party political interests.
"Given the bizarre, frenzied attacks she keeps getting from the left, I can't help but side with her."
So you're playing into the left's game. They know that the more viciously they attack Palin, the more frenzied her 20%-base will be in coming to her defense, to the point of kicking out anyone in the GOP who doesn't fall in line behind her (see: NY-23), effectively shrinking the GOP and dooming its chances in national elections.
If Obama's incompetence and complete and utter inability to accomplish anything, at all, continues, the guy Shecky who lives down the street from me could defeat him in 2012. There is a reason his approval ratings are so pathetic. Obama is actually worse than the most fevered of right-wingers could have ever imagined. Whether it be a discussion of unemployment, deficits, Afghanistan, Iran, NK, bowing before unelected monarchs, etc, the left cannot name anything he has gotten right. Democrats cannot point to anything tangible Obama has achieved, yet all of their time is focused on Palin. It has become a bit of a joke actually. Criticizing Palin as a lightweight whilst the head of their own party is busy being rebuffed and mocked by heads of state around the globe.
The Obama Record: Record deficits, record unemployment, no legislative accomplishments.
I'm not so sure. 52% of the American people were giddy enough to vote for the fool in the first place, and I'm not convinced that even a poor performance by The One can snap them back into sentience. I'd like to think that Obama's fate was tied to his performance--if that were the case, I'd have no worries for 2012--but I'm afraid that the same sheep who were dazzled by the bells and whistles in 2008 will remain enchanted enough to pull the lever for him again, the GOP candidate notwithstanding.
:lol:
Thank you for the admission of fear.
If the Left really believed she was a liability to the Right, they wouldn't be trying so hard to destroy her, they'd be building her up the way they did McCain, who they really did recognize as an easy opponent to beat.
To all the Palin fans who use the "the left is afraid of Palin" joke, let me disabuse you of that little delusion.
It's dumb.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not a leftist. I tend to be more toward the middle, turned off by the fanatics of any stripe. But I generally vote democratic, although I gave money to John McCain in 2000. (something I came to deeply, deeply regret, especially after he picked Palin to be within a old man's heartbeat of the presidency. What a FOOL!)
I'm not afraid of Palin, unless you mean I'm concerned about the distant danger that she would 'energize' (or turn on) enough people with serious inferiority problems that she might actually get elected to something.
She doesn't scare me, but her fanaticism and lack of education does repel me. I HOPE she keeps talking and I desperately hope she continues to speak for the so-called conservative GOP. She's a gift from God. She's the best thing I could think of, in fact. The longer she's around, and the longer she's getting attention for the primitive-pentacostal, nativist, know-nothing strain of thought that's temporarily on the rise in this country, again, the more discredited it will become... again. It's not the first time that this kind of thought has reared up and roared. Fortunately for all of us, most people eventually regain their good sense and drive it back underground and back into the back woods where it belongs.
So Run, Sarah, Run!!! Don't you let them nasty ol' elitist snobs keep you down, girl!
Sweet Jebus, what have we become?
I'd find this line of argument more credible if Huckabee got the same treatment. Unless you seriously think that Palin has a better shot at the nomination than Huckabee does in 2012.
I don't, but neither do I think his brand of down-home folksy wisdom will wear well outside of the Bible belt and the old Confederacy. Besides, the Club for Growth hates his guts.
But let's look at the field of known wannabes, though.
Pawlenty isn't liked even in Minnesota, and is busy running away from his record.
Romney is mistrusted by the pentacostals and evangelicals and Catholic bishops on the right, and is too establishment, anyway. His money will buy him ballot access, but I don't see him winning many primaries.
Gingrich isn't much of an electoral winner, is he? What has he run for, lately?
Crist is toast.
Maybe the new Va governor would be a candidate, but I doubt it. He seems like an intelligent man. Bit of a closet bible-thumper, but too smart to commit suicide.
I think the smart money is that anyone who has a serious shot at the top job is gonna go do charity work in Rwanda or something in 2012 and let the third teamers take it in the neck.
Hemmingplay illustrates my sincere wish for more candidates that don't pass through the east coast, finishing school, ivy league filter. I am so sick of these trustifarian snobs I could spit.
Yeah, it always amazes me that this high dudgeon comes from people who nearly put John Edwards in the job. You'd think they'd slink off in embarassment for at least one election cycle.
Well, "fool me once.." etc. Having been fooled by Edwards probably makes one more aware of when the other side is doing the exact same thing.
Hey Megan? Here's Obama topless on a cover of another magazine.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/12153.html
So, like, come on, already. That picture was one that PALIN agreed to. Newsweek used it because it demonstrates what a clown she is: it captures nearly all of her pretentious addiction to being a celebrity (the knowingly using her own sex appeal to sell herself, the blackberries, the draped American flag) all in one shot that SHE APPROVED. It's not sexist. It's a dead-on image of exactly what's wrong with her: in visual form.
Drew, you know that picture is from a spread in RUNNER'S WORLD from this summer, right? She approved it for a spread about her being a runner...
Yes... so? It's an image she approved as a means to promote herself: to sell her own image to people. It's part of her life, her career, her carefully managed public image. It is thus entirely relevant to who she is and how she presents HERSELF... and thus fair game. If Newsweek had snuck into her bedroom to gain compromising photos that would be one thing. But this is an image that contains things that she clearly believes about herself: part of selling the product that is her. Why isn't it entirely fair game on that basis alone?
Because Newsweek is attempting to act as a news organization and runner's world is an entirely different beast.
But more to the point: you didn't know that, you thought it was a picture Palin KNEW would be used in newsweek. Palin wouldn't pose for a newsweek cover in running shorts, that's not how she would 'sell the product' as you put it.
Its a lame attempt by newsweek to give people like you a reason to say - see that's how she poses for a newsweek cover, she's an idiot. Congratulations on proving them right.
Hey Drew,
How come there aren't any pix of Obama smoking?
For one thing, because the image was under embargo (though Newsweek didn't know that, apparently), so she had every reason to believe that it would not show up anywhere.
First of all, Newsweek is basically an opinion magazine, not straight news any longer. Second of all, I don't see how what you or Megan is saying about her not expecting Newsweek to use it has to do with anything. It's an image she intended to put out to the public in order to sell herself. For all I know, it was copyright infringement to use it. But that still doesn't magically make it illegitimate as commentary on her goofy self-salesmanship.
I had no idea so many people here were so far to the left of TNC. http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/yes_its_sexist.php
She POSED for the damn picture people. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!!! Should we also not quote the stupid things SHE says because that is sexist? My god. What is sexist about publishing a photo SHE POSED for? And there are pictures of Obama smoking if you look for them.
I think the picture is tacky, and Newsweek's use of it is tacky and sexist. However, Palin should never have posed for a photo that she wouldn't have wanted used out of context. She's a politician in the internet age; people will use these photos in unflattering ways. I would condemn serious photoshopping, and think media should be somewhat circumspect in using candid, unflattering shots when the person didn't know they were being observed. But Palin posed for this, and certainly should have foreseen that it would be used out of context. Especially since it's a sexualized shot that has nothing to do with running (the hair? the makeup? the flag?).
In several other circumstances, Palin has been head-slappingly naive or just outright dumb. In her book she's flabbergasted that Bristol's pregnancy becomes a media topic. Bristol is quite understandably humiliated that the whole world knows. But REALLY? How could Palin not foresee and warn her daughter that this would happen??? Did she never notice the fuss about Jenna Bush's underage drinking? Or mean jokes about Chelsea Clinton's appearance? What was she thinking?!
And she claims she thought Katie Couric's interview would be fluffy, working-mom stuff. REALLY?! She was a VP nominee and she didn't expect to be asked about actual issues? She was an unknown quantity and didn't expect to be tested and asked to prove herself?? She didn't suspect that Couric was going to exploit this opportunity for a ratings boost? Or know that Couric has, thank you very much, done plenty of serious interviews and knows how to ask tough questions? She didn't understand that the impact of her gaffes would be magnified more than Biden's, given that he's been considered a serious player for 35 years? That's just incomprehensible.
What part of that photograph says "I'm a runner"? The Blackberry? The borderline-desecrated American flag? What incompetent handler allows her to pose for that? And then neglects to ensure that the licensing rights are with someone they trust?
So, you're saying she was asking for it by the way she dressed?
Nice.
Um, exactly. She dressed like that and posed, so it is absolutely fair game to publish that ridiculous piece of camp. These aren't hidden camera photos. If I ever looked at a picture I posed for myself and then cried "Sexist!!!" I would hope I'd be committed soon after.
Please make sure you never serve on the jury of any rape trial, ever.
Thanks.
Except they majorly cropped the shot and then dropped the light by about 20-30%. Which changes the entire tone of the picture.
Why should Sarah Palin be torn down?
She didn't know that Africa was a continent and not a country. She didn't know which countries were in NAFTA.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sarah-Palin-Thought-Africa-Was-A-Country-Not-Continent-According-To-John-McCain-Campaign-Insiders/Article/200811115145092?f=rss
If the idea of someone that utterly ignorant being in control of 4000+ nuclear warheads doesn't scare the sh*t out of you, I don't know what could.
Perhaps a person willing to allow a religious extremist nation like Iran acquire nuclear weapons? Or a person willing to back out of promises made to our allies to appease our enemies?
There are plenty of stupid politicians. How about the one who thinks he invented the internet? Or Jimmy Carter. Or like anyone in the House. Have you ever listened to the crap they spout off on the floor?
Oh, I get you, you mean like Bush. And Reagan.
At least when Gore was claiming to invent the internet, he made sure he was claiming it over something invented by the American government and not a Canadian corporation.
Or that there are 57 states.
If you seriously believe Obama actually thought there were 57 states, as opposed to making a joke about how long the primary process was dragging on, you're pretty delusional.
And if you seriously believe Palin is actually as stupid as you are suggesting, then you are the one who is delusional.
And yet here you are seriously thinking Palin believes Africa is a country. It must be really easy to think your people are smart if you explain away all the stupid things they say but hold the other side to every word.
Obama may have been tired when he made that statement, but it was definitely not a "joke"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
This kind of false equivalency is truly maddening. Sure politician's say stupid things and make mistakes, but any serious comparison between Obama's gaffes and Palin's gaffes reveals a completely different kind of error.
The problem with Sarah is that she says ridiculous things , and then she stands by them over and over again. Her statement about proximity of Alaska to Russia being a qualification is an absurd proposition at all levels, and yet she stuck to it. In addition, she didn't seem to understand why it was such a stupid thing to say. Obama's gaffes tend to be more superficial errors, but Palin's error are much deeper and semantic.
Ask yourself a very simple question when comparing Obama's errors with Palin's errors -- could you imagine making that kind of error? I think an intelligent person can admit to making many more of Obama errors but would never admit to make many of Palin's errors.
Also -- Palin could present herself so much better if she was willing to learn about these issues, buy, by and large, she doesn't value knowledge, she values gut instinct and "values" (whatever that means).
Obama's statement was a joke - it got a bunch of laughs.
He wasn't joking; watch the tape. The guy just flubbed; no need to fabricate a lame excuse to cover for him. Now, when Obama flubs, it's cute. When a Republican flubs, it's cause for national attention to whether or not that person is "smart enough for the job." We know that Biden plagiarizes speeches, lies about being "under fire," and is generally sub-sentient, but it's laughed off as being 'likeable goofiness'--no serious indictment of his intelligence, though, comes into play.
Double standard? You bet.
@Dave in VA,
You might as well save your fingers. There aren't enough pixels in the entire interwebs to peel back the onion layers of liberal rationalization/justification.
If the idea of someone that utterly ignorant being in control of 4000+ nuclear warheads doesn't scare the sh*t out of you, I don't know what could.
I've come to peace with Obama/Biden having that power... It just takes will power and taking each day as it comes.
>>I've come to peace with Obama/Biden having that power
You're in good company. Medvedev, Khamenei, Hu Jintao, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il share your sentiments.
"It just takes will power and taking each day as it comes." Piercing, unassailable intellect deftly concealed under folksy truisms, people.
as opposed to someone so ignorant that he is going to raise taxes in a recession??
Buh... Obama signed tax cuts/refunds/rebates into law during the recession. And, yes, he plans to raise higher-bracket taxes as we come out of it, just as he campaigned he would.
I must have forgotten about the tax cut/refund that ObaMao signed into law for me. Oh, that's right, I actually have a job so I don't get a "tax cut." And, by saying "he plans to raise higher-bracket taxes as we come out of it" you are somehow ignoring the health care bill as a tax increase?
Do you believe everything you hear from "McCain aides".
It seems obvious to me that McCain ran a horrible campaign and realized that he was a certain loser after the stock market crashed in September. At that point campaign was more directed at making sure that Palin got the blame for the loss, than actually trying to win.
Unlike Obama, who doesn't know how many states there are, or that Austrians speak German, or ("student of history" that he is) that Hirohito wasn't aboard the USS Missouri for the surrender. The man is the single most ignorant guy we've ever had in the White House, and I have serious doubts his LSAT scores were much above the 50 percent level.
Everyone in the public eye says dumb stuff all the time. The only question is how the media plays up those comments. Since Obama is "brilliant," everytning dumb he says is either a joke or a slip of the tongue. Because Palin is "stupid," everything dumb she says is the result of her total lack of intelligence. Had these same news outlets not said exactly the same thing about brilliant Carter/stupid Reagan, brilliant Mondale/stupid Reagan, brilliant Gore/stupid Bush, brilliant Kerry/stupid Bush, more people outside the MSM would take it seriously.
Fact is that Republicans whose views match those of Democrats are always touted as smart and pragmatic folks whom the GOP should embrace. Republicans with conservative views are always stupid or evil (or both) people whose nomination will inevitably lead the Republicans into disaster. If Palin suddenly endorsed Obamacare, abortion-on-demand, the carbon tax, and a nationwide ban on oil exploration, and then wrote a Vanity Fair piece about how destructive and evil Rush Limbaugh is, you'd be amazed how fast the media would discover that she was so much smarter than she's given credit for.
the media cuts her endless slack, as they do any incompetent and unqualified white feminist woman trying to have it all. see also nancy pelosi for a dem example.
so the dkos brigade are mean to her. wow, that is so totally going to hurt her with the republican base! totes!
the media falls all over itself to make sure that palin's every babbling utterance is treated as srs bizness.
btw, palin=obama.
just for the record. another reason (a very few) liberals rail against palin is because she is the lady-version of obama. they both might as well have been vat-grown, they are so alike in being unqualified power-hungry narcissists who were carefully grooomed by political machines for higher office (the alaska machine for palin, the chicago one for obama).
anyone trying to claim there's more than a whisper of difference between the two (note that palin sure loves redistributing wealth when her hand is on the piggybank) is really just deluding themselves.
they are both also pretty culty and new-agey. obama's more of the nebulous unitarian newage christian, while palin carries water for the charismatic/israel and magic-obsessed newage christians. and both are pretty obvious prosperity-oriented christians (also newagey and cultish).
i am only surprised neither of them has slipped and started talking about 'the universe' when they speak of 'god' personally agreeing with their decisions to greedily grab for power and/or money over and over.
>>white feminist
Ahh...it's her color now!
Thanks for playing.
You have serious doubts that his LSAT scores were much above 50th percentile? Then how, exactly, did he get into Harvard Law? I know what you're going to say, but please understand that 50th percentile LSATs aren't nearly good enough to get you into Harvard even under their most lenient affirmative action standards.
Also bear in mind that he did not just graduate from Harvard Law. He did so magna cum laude, as president of the Law Review. In other words, all those people who had the really good LSATs - he bested pretty much all of them. You have to be really, really smart to accomplish what he did at Harvard.
By the way, not all Austrians speak German. Student of history that you are, I thought you might like to know that. And who cares whether Hirohito was on board the USS Missouri? I have a graduate degree in history, and I didn't know that. I also don't care, because that's not the sort of thing true students of history care about. That's just trivial minutae.
I'm in Austria. All Austrians speak German. Some also speak Italian. Some also peak Hungarian. Just like some Americans also speak Polish. Don't try to excuse away a common and idiotic misstatement.
I've said dumb things before too... once made a comment about speaking Brazilian, but immediately realized I misspoke and said Portuguese in the next word.
Next you'll tell me that I'm just a student of history, who realized that Brazilian is just a slang way of referring to the native langauges of Amazon tribes, who don't speak Portuguese.
Don't be so silly in defending your guy... please...
Thanks for illustrating the pathetic state of our liberal arts graduate degrees.
It is very important which leader is present at which historical meetings.
You know which national leaders were at Yalta, I hope?
Yeah, he graduated from Harvard Law, and was on Harvard Law Review, and yet no one can point to a single publication of his during his enlightened presence at Harvard.
I know you can't bear to think that people attain positions for reasons beyond their intellect or ability, but it's true. The sooner you grasp this reality, the wiser you'll be.
You have a graduate degree in history and didn't know Hirohito wasn't at the signing on the Missouri? You got robbed; you ought to ask for a refund. "True students of history" get the facts right. Try it.
If I may take the issue from its national beginning, McCain's selection of Palin showed that he didn't have the ability to coherently think through a political problem like Nixon. The central problem that Obama presented to the Republican nominee had to do with identity politics. Obama stood to be the first black president. McCain had his own positive identity issue, loyal airman in the face of torture who was after that apparently generally good natured. The fact that McCain was briefly ahead in the polls after selecting her reflects not so much on Palin as on the fact, in my view, that people were ready to credit McCain over what he had to offer but needed him to look, say, smart. Briefly, Palin and picking her looked that way. On the other hand, it appears as if the pick was an identity one, 'pick a woman,' and really it was not thoughtful that he could really run against Obama on the identity issue; Obama's strength there was going to over match anything McCain could put together. He had to have someone who showed the Republican ticket had serious political and intellectual abilities to deal with economic or other problems. He couldn't try to beef up his 'identity offense' and expect to win and yet that is what he did.
Of course as it turned out, the economic meltdown removed any chance McCain had, so we don't know if the gamble would have paid off otherwise. Probably not, but it was still his best shot.
I have to disagree. This is the standard line, but McCain dug his own grave with so many mistakes.
1. Picking Palin
2. Understating the economic problems (appearing out of touch) and not distancing himself from Bush earlier.
McCain had a very large amount of good will among independents and democrats at the beginning of the campaign -- he squandered it through the campaign.
His message should have been.
"Bush messed up. But I'm a safe agent of change. I love america -- remember I was a pow. I'm a reformer (and there was some evidence of his reformer/maverick status)". Let his team depict Obama as scary and make McCain look even better as the safe agent of change.
I voted for Obama. At the beginning of the campaign, I would have been ok with McCain winning, but by the end I was very glad McCain lost -- because of how he ran his campaign so foolishly. I compared it to how Obama ran his campaign and saw a large difference in competency and , as we have learned with Bush, you need a competent president.
Steve - would you vote for Obama today?
as we have learned with Bush, you need a competent president.
True. But it is easy to mistake that for "you need a competent presidential campaigner" -- when in fact that is a very different thing.
I would vote for Obama today if he were running against mccain, yes.
It is clear that he has struggled in some areas as president, but I still have faith in his ability to succeed because he does adapt as the situation changes and I generally agree with his priorities.
The big problem for me in judging him on the economic front is that I really don't see any consensus on what actions are prudent when we have an economy like the one we have now , and had when he took office. Everyone on both sides of the political spectrum seems so damn certain that their solution is correct, despite the fact that every crisis has it's own unique shape.
Obama gets blasted for the huge deficit despite the fact that a large part of it is due to factors that were inevitable when he took office (i.e. financial bailout, bad economy with lower revenues).
My point is that is is hard to judge a president during times that are very atypical. I think it's much easier to judge Bush as a loser because he was president during a much better time, and despite the red herring that 9/11 was an economic a-bomb (instead it was a large grenade), things were pretty good when he took office, nad yet he CHOSE to lead us into a trillion dollar war and he chose to ignore a blooming economic crisis.
I agree with Shelby that the campaign and presidential skill set may differ significantly -- how do we get around that?
I agree with Shelby that the campaign and presidential skill set may differ significantly -- how do we get around that?
My preferred solution is to examine the candidate's managerial experience, preferably running a large and complex organization -- a company, a non-profit, a government unit. Lack of such experience may not mean lack of ability, but at minimum indicates that candidate will have a great deal to learn on the job. I think it's a good idea to minimize what an incoming president has to absorb, as there's already so much.
I don't entirely understand why anyone still cares about Palin. If she is a nobody, why must everyone obsess over her? The election was over a year ago now. Palin is sooo last season/congressional session.
I think she is basically a straw(wo)man at which people direct their Bush hatred. Bush hatred is the sole reason non-liberals voted Democrat.
Nope, trust me, we hate Palin on her own (lack of) merits. Has nothing to do with our hatred of GWB.
slowp, and what would those merits be?
All the more reason to keep her in the spotlight slowp. Just to watch you blow a head gasket throwing your temper tantrum over her.
You know, there are any number of incompetent Republicans out there. Why not keep them in the spotlight, fact check their books, attribute Tina Fey quotes them, etc?
Not to mention, there are plenty of incompetent Democrats out there that utterly fail to stir any hate in me at all. Biden jumps out at me as an example, and he is actually in an elected position.
Methinks the Democrats doth protest too mightily.
(My apologies for the butchered quote)
Biden can at least handle an interview by Katie Couric (with the same questions, even, she interviewed them both before their debate).
Palin receives as much attention as she does because she's the only leader of the GOP that's held political office right now (the others being Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity, who haven't.)
On the contrary, Bush hatred itself is a symptom, or manifestation, of the same emotional energy that drives Palin hatred. If she does become President the libs will hate her worse than they did GWB, because she's more of the things in GWB that they hated.
So I guess the entire Atlantic blogging staff won't be taking off the next couple days to fact check Going Rouge.
You guessed right.
Andrew, for example, will not be "going dark" to fact check Katrina Vandenheuvel.
As someone who works in marketing, I think it's brilliant. Members of my extended family are solid Palinistas and they started passing around emails "commenting" on her looks as soon as she appeared on the national radar. Many of these emails were downright exploitative and really made me wonder whether or not universal suffrage is a good idea. I predict this cover will drive very high Newsweek sales in exurban and rural Wal-Marts across the country.
As a citizen, I agree 100% with Ms. McArdle.
Oh, Skullberg, the definition of serious is definitely not "agrees with me." I think it is indisputable that Obama seeks to marshal the full power of his brain in his decision making. I very often disagree with him, but I would never call him "unserious."
I think it is indisputable that Obama seeks to marshal the full power of his brain in his decision making.
I'm just not sure that's enough up there to be called serious. He reads to me like someone who hangs out with smart people, learned how to act and talk like them, but never learned the actual substance.
He has no basis to interpret, respond or decide, just say the last thing he heard someone smart say hope his charisma and lack of a critical media get him by before anything falls down.
"He has no basis to interpret, respond or decide, just say the last thing he heard ..."
Who are we talkin' about there, Skullberg, really?
Barack H. Obama - I think we all know that.
It seems you have more skull than brains, Skullie. I am going to go out on a limb and guess you never made it to Harvard Law, never taught law at Chicago, never wrote two books, never got elected to the Senate, and in general never learned anything except how to peddle closet racism and reveal your own ignorance.
You would be wrong, but by all means, question me and not the demonstrable lack of insight of our President - I thought we went through this with the last one.
"Closet racism"! That's fantastic. Sometimes I think the "Democrats call anyone who disagree with Obama racist" thing is overblown, but here you are trying to prove me wrong.
nickzi,
Please enlighten me,
what is the evidence that Obama is a genius? The smartest man to ever be president, according to many progressives.
The only skill that I've seen from him is excellence in publicly reading a speech.
Thats evidence acting ability, not intellectualism.
I have to agree with JoshinHB -- look at how abysmally Obama did during the debates when he did not have his sacred teleprompter -- does everyone remember how embarrassing it was when he lost every debate so thoroughly.. oh wait, that didn't happen, I wonder why he did so well...
Because he was debating a semi-senile fool that was more interested in being liked by the MSM and Washington establishment, after the election, than actually winning it.
I would question the racial prejudices of anyone who thinks Obama to be a dunderhead who just regurgitates what someone else has said.
It doesn't make you a racist if you disagree with Barack. It doesn't make you a racist if you think he's a poor president.
But if you think he's not brilliant, despite all objective evidence to the contrary, then something else is at work. Maybe it's just blind ideology. Do you think Bill Clinton is an idiot as well?
Muzzybelly you are an excellent progressive.
I asked for evidence to back up your assertion of Obama's brilliance.
Your evidence is to reassert his brilliance and call me a racist for asking for evidence.
I'm pretty sure Obama won all the debates he had with McCain. Post debate polls were generally on the order of 65-35 for Obama. Just because he doesn't speak off the cuff in the same way that he delivers speeches doesn't mean he has nothing to say. Also, his interviews and press conferences (no teleprompter there) show that he's at the very least given the topics he talks about a great deal of thought. You may not agree with his conclusions, but I can't see how any sane person can call him stupid.
It's probably not racism, merely simple partisanship. Although, if someone says they hate Bill Clinton, but he's smart, and also say that Obama is stupid. That would be really suspicious.
Sounds more like Bush, Skullberg. Hear something someone he thinks "smart" said, and immediately decide to implement it without thinking about whether it's actually a good idea.
That's fair, I think it applies to both men, and a good lot of other politicians - Palin included.
Clinton was intelligent, Eisenhower as well - but I don't think we're blessed with any standout intellects in the white house or congressional leadership of either side right now.
The biggest problem for me was that it wasn't even well-executed identity politics. I don't particular care for Kaye Bailey Hutchinson or Libby Dole, and I certainly would never have voted for either of them, but if McCain had picked either of them for his running mate, my response would not have been derisive laughter. I'd have actually been quite concerned about their effect on the race. In fact, my biggest initial reaction to the Palin pick was embarrassment on behalf of those two and every other reputable female Republican currently serving in politics who got passed over for Palin, a woman about whom I knew absolutely nothing in August of '08 except that she was embroiled in a serious abuse of power scandal. That, of course, was before I learned that Palin was one of the most obstinately and willfully ignorant human beings (male or female) to hold a major elected office in my lifetime.
But then, if your entire political philosophy is predicated on the innate inferiority of everyone who isn't an elderly white Christan male, why should you actually seek out a qualified female running mate instead of the one you think looks the hottest? In McCain's mind, everyone who voted for Obama did so because of racial politics, and everyone who voted for Hillary did because of gender politics. So, QED, just put an attractive female on the ticket. Her ovaries will get all the Hillary voters and her looks will get the young male demographic.
Sometimes, I like to fantasize about who would have been picked as running mate had Hillary won the nomination instead of Obama. Jindal? Ken Blackwell? Michael Steele? Hell, Wiki informs me that Jimmy Walker is a Republican. I bet fans of "Good Times" would have put McCain over the top. DYNO-MITE!!!
The Newsweek cover is lame, but let's not kid ourselves, this is largely the way she likes to portray herself -- hip, sexy, patriotic. (That being said, someone at Newsweek should be horsewhipped.) Btw: when's the last time a US politician has been on the cover using an American flag as a prop?
As for the fact checking, I think the deal is that most politicians are just as dishonest as Palin in trying to shape a false narrative about themselves, but they spread out their work over years (for instance, Guiliani's told hundreds of serious whoppers, but he's told them over 25 yrs), and the slow burn of lies over time ceases to be interesting.
Palin, otoh, by trying to effect an almost instantaneous rehabilitation, has packed SO MANY lies into her recent appearances, that the effect is more like a raging fireball of all consuming dishonesty. Horrifying, but captivating.
Personally, I'd rather poke my eyes out than have to be one of the fact checkers, but of course that's what bloggers are for -- looks like your pal Sully is hunkering down bigtime: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/to-our-readers-an-update.html
I hope the Atlantic is giving him hardship pay.
Do you think this next post will be the last one of Dr. Sullivan's great gyno examinations? I'm so anxious to hear what one of America's foremost experts on human female reproduction has to say about the gestation and birth of Trig Palin.
They should give everyone else at the Atlantic hardship pay for having to defend this douchebag as a co-blogger.
I love Andrew Sullivan, because you hate him so much.
See how that works?
He seems more in need of medical leave.
I found this sentence pretty foolish:
How naive. Shouldn't a libertarian reflexively think of incentives? There's nothing unhealthy about this particular "obsession".
Why is the media obsessed with Britney Spears? Because articles about her sell. Sarah Palin is the Britney of politics. People just love talking about her, even if they are not the type to discuss politics. Instead of unemployment, health care or climate change, which can be fairly complex topics, you can discuss how Palin's doing, Tina Fey's impressions, her baby, the daughter's baby, etc. She's the embodiment of personality politics.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise - she's good-looking, draws huge crowds, her book is already a best-seller, and she provides an unending source of blunders to feed our famished media. Not to mention her immediate family.
You colleague Andrew Sullivan does have something of an obsession with her and the whole pregnancy thing. But he is right about something: she seems to be a pathological liar, i.e., doesn't resist making false assertions even when they're easily verifiable.
But, as for AP, the Newsweek cover, the CNN panels opining about her new book and whether Levi Johnston will drop by in Thanksgiving (I kid you not), Oprah, Barbara Walters etc., it has a very simple explanation.
Ratings.
Cosign. As for the commenter who thinks that Palin is a serious thinker, whereas Obama is not... please let me have some of what you are smoking. It must be the good stuff!
What is your evidence that O is a serious thinker?
His academic work? You can go read his class materials when he was teaching constitutional law online. That's gotta be worth something?
It really knocks you out. Like you've been stoned, except Biblically. Deaf, blind, dumb, and dead, all at once. I mean, if it works for Sarah...
Sam has it exactly right. The treatment of Palin is driven by economics of the media.
But the other side of the coin is why so many people hate her so much -- because she is a perfect symbol of a political system gone to hell, where someone as uninformed and uninterested-in-actual-policy can become so prominent.
You can hate Obama for his ideas/polcies, but at least he has them. I have no idea what Palin's ideas/policies are beyond...
drill, baby drill
the real America in the middle and south is what counts
the elitests are to blame for everything
the truth just doesn't matter, and if anyone challenges you on
what you said before, you just call them an elitest
I'm sure that has nothing to do with how the media treats her... none.
Can you be more specific here?
You can hate Obama for his ideas/polcies [sic], but at least he has them.
He does? I mean sure he has them today, but are they the same tomorrow? He floats on the political wind without ever justifying his changing positions. Like I said above: he's around people who have ideas, he's learned to sound like them but he's not a deep thinker in his own right.
I don't quite get this idea that Obama is an empty vessel. Sure there is some adjustment as conditions change, but has he changed that much?
As far as the 'deep thinking' goes, I'm not sure how you define such a thing. Clearly he has demonstrated in his education (as a student and a teacher) that he is capable of comprehending very complex issues - do you disagree with that?
And do you at least agree that his presentation of issues is far more nuanced than Bush (and/or Palin)?
As far as the 'deep thinking' goes, I'm not sure how you define such a thing. Clearly he has demonstrated in his education (as a student and a teacher) that he is capable of comprehending very complex issues - do you disagree with that?
I do - as I am sure you disagree wit Bush's Harvard MBA clearing him of any intelligence questions. He's demonstrated he could graduate law school and lecture in a law class (though I don't think he taught anything super deep). Those require some intelligence, yes, and a ton of memorization and linguistic skill - those I give him. Deep thought, core principles and studied positions he's not proven that to me.
And do you at least agree that his presentation of issues is far more nuanced than Bush (and/or Palin)?
No, like I said, he sounds like he's giving nuance but I don't see it in practice. Maybe you can show me an example of him doing so in person?
Steve Says
"I don't quite get this idea that Obama is an empty vessel. Sure there is some adjustment as conditions change, but has he changed that much?"
How about ridiculing HRC in the dem primaries for supporting mandatory health insurance then making that the center of "his" proposal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/obama-health-insurance-mandate-not-a-tax/
Oh yeah, except its not his proposal its Pelosi's.
So that example shows lying or flip-flopping, take your pick, and being an empty vessel - in that there is no OBAMA HEALTH REFORM proposal.
I mean its only the center piece of his administration and a 50 year progressive dream, so why should he actual propose anything.
re: Obama trying to sound smart repeating things other people tell him:
Andy McCarthy:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTcwYmFmMGFkMDliMmY5ZDY0MDdjMzZkZDRmNzYwZTI=
"though I don't think he taught anything super deep"
Constitutional Law - Just a remedial course for people like Skullberg.
There is no such thing as bad publicity, it seems. Palin is going to make a fortune. This is why she resigned the governorship, in my opinion- there is far more money to be made outside of elective office. Honestly, she should put people like Sullivan and whoever run AP on the payroll. They would be worth the money.
She doesn't have to. Sam Roberts has this right. The relationship between Palin and the media is symbiotic.
There's really nothing new about the way the "elitist hooligans" have been treating Palin. Gibson asked her about policy and political philosophy in the most hostile setting (the "Bush Doctrine" question was phrased in an occult and naive manner and he refused to elaborate on what *he* meant by the term). He asked Obama how his mother felt about him winning the Democratic nomination. It was Hannity, not reporters, who brought up the issue of Jeremiah Wright and Ayers, and they let him off on the Rezco friendship with a "it was sure was a bone-headed thing to do". But they sent teams of reporters to sift through her garbage. And of course the reason the campaign went public about Bristol being pregnant was because Sullivan was claiming that Palin faked her pregnancy. He's never apologized for that. He acts as though Palin *tricked* him somehow.
The implication that Palin's "palinoia" came before the media derangement is a pretty ignorant position.
You're not a liar if you believe your own lies, and if you can convince everyone else that what you say is the truth. If you can't convince them, they're simply wrong, and you move on to the people who want to believe what you say, no matter what. This is the essence of politics.
I agree with Bill as it applies to Palin, I don't think she is all that aware of her lies, because she dismisses anyone who calls her on what she says. I think this is not the typical politician who knows when they are lying.
Ann
I don't agree with this assessment, but, even if I did, it would be pretty damning in itself. She's been in a presidential ticket and, had she won the elections, she could be Vice-President right now (and possibly President soon).
The fact that you don't know "how much substance she has" shows that she's not exactly interested in debating policy, outside of writing Facebook entries about Obama's non-existing proposals concerning "death panels based on level of productivity to society".
To state the obvious, "the left" doesn't have magical powers that prevent Palin from sharing her views on policy matters. To blame "the left", or indeed someone else besides Palin herself, is to engage in the most transparent exercise of victimization.
I definitely don't think the left is afraid of palin now, but the fury came so fast and so furious that I can't help thinking there was a moment of panic from the left: the first woman vp might just be an accomplished, energetic, independent hottie whose husband stayed home with the kids. Then we got to know her.
Now I think a lot on the left are annoyed that she won't judge herself the way they judge her and run away crying.
One more pretty obvious thing about substance. From the Katie Couric interview:
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.
Pretty substantive question. From Palin's answer we must conclude that almost everybody that writes in McArdle's comment section is an "elitist hooligan", since they would be able to give a more substantive and accurate answer about the function of the bailout.
And there's, of course, this:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
Couric was accused of making a "gotcha" interview in part because of this question. But, to any other politician, this would be a fluff question. Obama, McCain, Biden and all other primary contenders - hell, pretty much any politician - wouldn't mind a bit answering this question. It's this sort of inability to hold Palin to the same standards of a normal politician - from the left or the right - that makes Palin defenders sound so unreasonable.
I tend to think that the reason Palin flubs softballs like this question isn't that she doesn't read, but closer to what she said: she resented the question. But that's still largely her own fault: she came into it with a huge chip on her shoulder. If she hadn't this would have been a total fluff question like it is to every other human being on the planet.
Don't even get me started on her bizarre response to the "So, muse vaguely about the Supreme Court and some decisions they've made you oppose" question, where she couldn't even call to mind the SC case she personally spent lots of time actively opposing and decrying.
Yeah she read the question as condescending, and actually has a point. But reporters are going to ask stupid questions sometimes, and her job is to answer gracefully and as best she can. Palin takes everything SO damn personally instead of blowing it off as juvenile political gamesmanship. Remember when she flipped out over some random dude with a website posting something insulting about her baby? Obviously the guy is a toolbag, but that's just the internet - get over it! It's very difficult to take someone seriously who engages in ongoing public fueds with comedy show hosts and 19-year-old loser dropouts. She needs to chill out.
I had a go at her book today in Borders. I expect all candidates' books to be pretty vapid, and hers was no exception. But one odd thing stuck out - you'd think by now she would have learned to leave her kids out of the public discourse, if she wants them left alone. Yet the entire book is about the family - there is really very little of any political substance. I read the entire VP campaign in a half hour. Hillary's book, while boring and didactic as hell, was at least not about making Chelsea's halloween costumes.
Left afraid?
No, but they're delusional.
I have a local friend who has been making jokes all week, day after day, about me going to stand in line at a Borders in Victor to get a signed copy.
This after me reminding him over and over that not only was a never a McCain fan but that I was never a Palinite.
Of course I voted against Obama, but that's not the same thing (and everyone even slightly to the right of center who voted against Palin have more to answer for than I do).
The Andrew Sullivan melt down is pitiful. Pitiful. If it goes on will he get a paycheck after New Year's?
Of course he will. You may not like him, but the fact is The Daily Dish is one of the most read blogs in the country (not just political blogs). It's hard to see the Atlantic getting rid of the employee who single-handedly guarantees the greatest share of the Atlantic readership.
"... but the fact is The Daily Dish is one of the most read blogs in the country ..."
Is it really? I used to read Sullivan frequently, but I stopped when he became fixated with gay marriage, and haven't heard that there was any reason to go back.
The Andrew Sullivan melt down is pitiful. Pitiful. If it goes on will he get a paycheck after New Year's?
There is something really weird going on there. He announced today that he was suspending other stuff on his blog so he could devote time to Palins book. And then there was his obsession with Trig ... His website has gotten to be 'all Palin, all the time'.
Perhaps I can submit a better analogy than the Biden one, one that might have more resonance with leftists.
I presume that no one will contest that some African leaders are thugs, plain and simple. Some are also truely as uneducated as some like to think Palin. South Africa's Jacob Zuma comes to mind as a possible example.
Nonetheless, mainstream media outlets would never dream of playing up the African-as-savage angle in a story about such a leader. There are a litany of reasons that any leftist could enumerate: (1) the stereotype itself is odius, even in cases in which it happens to apply; (2) the leader represents a non-trivial slice of the populace, whose values have a legitimate democratic role, however much you may disagree with them; (3) for government to fufil its legitimate duties, public offices need to be treated with a modicum of respect, even when held by a political enemy; (4) treating political enemies as sub-human has a history of poor outcomes; (5) respectfully questioning those with odius opinions is a more effective way to convert those on the margin than treating them with derision. (Derision may fire up the faithful, but they are already convinced.)
I would submit that the reason all those reporters are jumping on Palin is the same reason FOX tends towards shouty coverage over reasoned, calm debate. Heat sells more than light.
Palin is a polarizing figure. Therefore, ANY coverage of her will sell copy. What else would these reporters cover? Afghanistan? Yeah, there's a topic that voters aren't sick to death of. Health care reform? Yawn. Numbers. Who cares.
The more besieged Palin is percieved to be, the more the teabaggers will love her.
Speaking as a moderate democrat, I would drive voters to the polls for the republican primary to help Palin win over somebody like Bobby Jindal who would reinvent the republican party, and bring brains and cunning to the game.
Sarah, they are soooooooo crazed with fear over you, because, I suppose, if you were ONE OF THEM they would worship and adore you since you are so beautiful. they think that we are like them and will vote for you as our President and that you will win because of your beauty.
Also, they can't find their own version of you, which must be very exasperating.
Poor dems-who-can't-get-over-Sarah-Palin.
There is simply no room for discussion on Palin. There are qualities in which she is clearly deficient, and either you think they are important or you don't.
For instance, consider her education. If she were to win either president or vice-president, she would be by far the least educated person to hold that office in 50 years. Of course, she has no advanced degree. Her alma mater is a school with an 80% acceptance rate. Here is a list of famous alumni. If you remove those who achieved success in Idaho politics (you'd expect that from Idaho university), the list is pretty sorry. Mostly football players.
http://www.students.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=86938
Either you think that matters or it doesn't. To me, it matters a lot. I'm not an educational elitist. I know plenty of unimpressive people who graduated Harvard, and plenty of really impressive people who graduated from "second-tier" schools like Cornell, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, Bowdoin, Amherst, etc. But University of Idaho is just in a completely different world. I have never met an impressive person who graduated from a school with non-competitive admissions. To attend college in Idaho is, to me, a pretty strong signal that you can't attend college at a good school. I mean, what would have been wrong with the infinitely superior University of Washington, other than its admissions requirements.
The excuse given by Palin supporters is nonsense: she couldn't afford to go to a good school. That's true of a lot of Americans. It is not true, however, of exceptionally bright people. How did Clinton go to Georgetown and then Oxford, or Sotomayor to Princeton, or Obama to Columbia -- or, on the other side of the aisle, Bobby Jindal to Brown? Because they were exceedingly smart, and they were given scholarships. If Palin was anywhere close to their league, she would have done better than Idaho as well.
In my opinion, the president should be a person in the top 5% (ideally, higher) in intellectual ability. The candidates who should be in the discussion for that role are brilliant people like either Clinton, Bobby Jindal, John Edwards (who I think is really smart, though he's a scumbag), Giuliani (who I have come to detest, but he is also really smart) . . . and Barack Obama, who quite clearly is brilliant even if you disagree with his judgments or positions.
Others who support Palin obviously disagree. But they ought to be honest about it. They ought to be honest that they are OK with a person of average intelligence becoming president. Stop pretending as if Palin is a brilliant person. She's quite clearly not.
Plus she had to pay out-of-state tuition for Idaho (unless someone knows something that I dont?). And swapped schools like 5 times or something?
and Barack Obama, who quite clearly is brilliant even if you disagree with his judgments or positions.
And there you lost it... He's an empty suit - that's clear to anyone paying attention.
both he and palin are empty clothing items. that is bafflingly unclear to most people, who keep falling overfirmly into either palin-worship or obama-worship.
Whatever you say, genius. I'm sure that your intellectual accomplishments trump graduating at the top of the class at Harvard Law.
But more to the point, Obama has moved, inspired, or touched literally billions of people. That's about as far from an "empty suit" as one can be. I don't think one could level a more inaccurate charge at Obama than that. Joe Biden? I like him, but if you called him an empty suit, I wouldn't think you were crazy. There is some truth to that. Obama? LOL. I'll bet you think Gandhi was an empty suit, er loincloth, as well.
When your grandkids are reading their history books, an Obama speech or two is going to be in there next to those of Lincoln and MLK. Deal with it. Those are HIS speeches. I'm sure some people helped draft them, but the substance, the final expression, the rhetorical power -- those are quintessentially Obama's. He's been consistent in message, tone, theme, nuance, insight etc. over all of his books and speeches for years.
When your grandkids are reading their history books, an Obama speech or two is going to be in there next to those of Lincoln and MLK.
Name one memorable line from an Obama speech. One line. His speeches will be studied as much as Carter's are today (and I remember Carter's "inordinate fear of Communism" line, at least).
Muzzybelly,
Your cultish devotion to Obama is distubing.
That you are educational elitist makes this even worse.
The fact that most east cost elites that I see on Tele share your devotion is frightening.
God I can't wait till this cult is over.
It takes a scary sort of Obama fanatic to compare him to Ghandi, MLK, and Lincoln after one year in office and a few only decently written speeches delivered well. This might be the most absurd thing I've heard from someone in an O hoodie so far.
"God I can't wait till this cult is over."
Frightenly these cults don't ususally just run out of gas and fade away.
Jonestown
Heavens Gate
David Koresh
Colonia Dignidad
I have a different take on this, although with a similar conclusion.
For a lot of time I had no idea on where she had graduated, nor did I care much. I think there's something to the notion of the existence of a relatively closed political circle of Washington "insiders" that doesn't reward merit as much as family and social connections.
That said, since Palin entered the national scene, it quickly became obvious that her idea of a national policy was little more than a grocery list of cliched positions, which contrasted with her strong and well-formed opinions on Alaskan exploration of oil and natural gas.
It's hard to find somebody neutral about Palin now, but at the time most unbiased people drew the same conclusion: she didn't have an informed opinion about several major issues of national interest simply because never bothered to gather the necessary relevant knowledge.
It's a mystery to me why anyone would have the desire and ambition to run for an office for which one is so thoroughly unqualified as Palin was. And not just for President of Vice-President, but for any Cabinet position.
Most baffling of all was the attitude held by many pundits and politicians that she already had "the essential" - she was a charismatic media star with the ability to draw out large crowds. Actual knowledge and thought out positions on war, the economy, etc? The very reasons that, at least in part, should make you want to run in the first place? Plenty of time to learn that once she was in power.
Any elected official relies to some extent on the opinions of his/her staff and experts. It's one of the reasons we can expect a fair share of broken campaign promises and such. But it's quite clear that Palin, if elected, would no more than a figurehead.
No, no. What is frightening is that Palin would likely NOT be a figurehead. Have you seen her exhibit any behavior that might be vaguely described as humility? I haven't. That's what is so scary. Not simply that she is a dimwit (relatively speaking), but that she would insist on making all the decisions herself.
Not to defend Palin per se, but this is an incredibly ignorant and classist statement. Lots of people attend schools like the University of Idaho because they're not from a family, or region, that understands the college system real well, so they pick their colleges for bad reasons. Or they can't afford to go elsewhere. Or they know one person attending the school. Or some other reason.
To name two bloggers you might have heard of, Will Wilkinson is a proud graduate of the University of Northern Iowa, and my fiance graduated from North Florida. They are both incredibly impressive people who happen to be from small towns.
I'm sure Muzzlebelly would never even consider voting for a president without a tip-top, super-duper, list of fancy degrees. You know - someone like Harry Truman.
Of course, he'd also rule out a college dropout, like Bill Gates. He'd also rule out a college dropout from a really no-name school - like Steve Jobs.
...because they're not from a family, or region, that understands the college system real well, so they pick their colleges for bad reasons.
It's always amusing when people who base their vote for President on what schools he attended try to chide other folks for being elitist.
"Some of my best friends went to small Midwestern colleges!"
(Minnesota State University, Mankato, 1984, BTW)
I didn't say that everyone who goes to a less selective school picks their colleges for bad reasons. But some people do. My mother decided to go to a small college in Pennsylvania rather than Radcliffe because she thought the girls at Radcliffe looked frumpy. She was from a small town in Western New York, and she had no idea what was implied by that decision.
What a sheltered, sad life you have led.
Oh, please, what classist nonsense this is. Since a degree from Harvard seems to be your yardstick for intellectual ability, where is your recognition of the intellectual superiority of Bush and Bill O'Reilly since both have graduate degrees from Harvard?
Obama is not clearly brilliant. If he were, we would be permitted to see his stellar grades and examples of the erudite scholarship he exhibited during his tenure at Harvard. There are even questions about how much Bill Ayers ghost wrote his "Dreams" memoir. He stumbles without a teleprompter and was almost never allowed to go unscripted anywhere during his campaign (leading to the "Joe the Plumber" moment when he was). He was a Constitutional law instructor, not a professor, which actually does require scholarship. The only memorable case he argued as a lawyer was helping Acorn shakedown banks into lending to unqualified candidates. Yeah, Mr. 57-states, Austrians-speak-Austrian is sure a smarty.
For instance, consider her education. If she were to win either president or vice-president, she would be by far the least educated person to hold that office in 50 years. Of course, she has no advanced degree
Gee! Elitist, much you moron? The last 50 years, huh? Hmmmm...lessee...I seem to recall one Ronald Reagan...two time governor of California, and two-term President of the U.S. that trounced highly edumacated Jimmah Cartah and the brilliant Walter Mondale (who only got three more electoral votes that I did the year he ran) didn't have "no advanced degree"...yet the man pretty much single handily brought down the Soviet Union. I wonder how such a numbskull was able to attain such success with a degree in Economics from that Ivy League school-- Eureka College? Wait! It wasn't an Ivy League school. Nor did he have an "advanced degree" hmmmmmmmm..
I'm guessing you'd rule out voting for Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, who graduated from University of Nebraska?
Based on your standards, you guys better not run Nancy Pelosi (Trinity College, DC, no advanced degree), or Harry Reid, who went to Southern Utah and Utah State.
We have a person of sub-average intelligence currently in the White House, so what's your point. And if he is so brilliant, why is he reluctant to release his transcripts. Hell, Bush and Kerry weren't afraid to do that. And Al Gore wasn't afraid to embarrass himself, either.
Whole thread populated by andrew sullivan loving lefty butt boys.
If she's such such a stupid c**t, why do you prog losers spend half the day screaming about her?
Pathetic f**cking morons
That's it, win us over with your bright sparkling wit and tremendous political insight.
I have no desire to win you over to anything. You and your ilk are a sick joke.
You didn't even get the "sick joke".
We do it because it gets people like you so mad.
Megan - don't you sit next to Andrew so that you can haul and let him know what a mess he has got himself in? What a waste of talent for Andrew Sullivan to go after her as you are pointing out.
But let me still say this - I have a lust in reading what Andrew would come out. And that is where you can find the obsession of many American males about this female called Sarah, include myself. I guess most males in this country wonder how perfect an example can be of 'beauty and wisdom do not go together'.
About the Newsweek cover - there is this dark side where men like myself feel: Aha! to thrash Sarah means to relegate her publicly where she belongs - a toy, a sex object. How do you think our old man John McCain picked her up? Why would journalists, Media and readers have to work harder to thrash her when the 'cheap route' of designating her as a simply attractive, but stupid, female body is ever present? Sarah is our intellectual, political whore; serving a need.
After all these journalists and their readers, including myself, we are humans searching for an easy path to set aside a proven garbage. We do not want hard, intellectual routes in keeping aside Sarah. Our sexist, baser instincts are easiest things to do the work.
But wait a minute, you are talking even easier way - just ignore her and let her destroy herself. May be that is a bargain even we dumb, Pavlovian American males also cannot reject it.
Done deal Megan, we will listen you in this regard.
America’s elite and Palin-haters worldwide should not be so quick to dismiss or disregard the future of Sarah Palin. No other national political figure so completely fills Middle America’s vacuum of frustration and hate for the Left and Right as Sarah Palin.
Middle America has been abandoned by the Left and Right, who have saddled it with a $700 billion taxpayer bailout, an unnecessary and costly war, a soaring deficit, and an overall neglect of the pocketbook issues that impact Middle America every day. Where are job creation, quality public education, affordable healthcare, and fiscal responsibility, to name a few?
Middle America is mad as hell at the Left and Right and they just might be willing to roll the dice on someone like Palin, who lacks an Ivy League education, is a working class hockey-mom with a disabled child, and who has blue-collar roots like many of the folks in Middle America. The status quo on the Left and Right have produced nothing material for Middle America, which may toss conventional wisdom into the toilet and throw the lever for Palin, figuring it has nothing to lose, and it may be right.
The Ivy League educated on the Left and Right have delivered little to nothing for Middle America, perhaps precisely because they are out of touch with the issues that someone like Palin understands personally.
However, to say that Palin is a salmon swimming upstream is an understatement. The results of a CBS News survey released Monday indicate that 66 percent of respondents do not want her to run for the White House in 2012. Seventy percent of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research poll said she is not qualified to be president.
More difficult for Palin is the fact that the trend is not her friend—public opinion is moving in the wrong direction right now.
In the CBS survey, 43 percent of GOP respondents said Palin would have the ability to be an effective president. Only 11 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents agreed.
However, there is an opportunity for Palin among independents, where Palin’s rating is 41 percent favorable, and 48 percent unfavorable, according to Gallup.
These numbers are not great, but there is plenty of time if she can move the needle by appealing to Middle America and independents, which is where elections are won or lost.
Clearly, Palin has put the monkey on her back, especially with her resignation from Alaska’s governorship in July, a self-inflicted wound that will be difficult to explain away. However, don’t put it past Palin to put lipstick on this pig and paint herself as a victim of politically motivated and baseless ethics charges that prevented her from successfully serving the people of Alaska, forcing her to do the noble thing and take the bullet by resigning.
We can say what we want about Palin, but no Republican in recent history has created such frenzied excitement across the country as she has. Just take a look at the fervor she stirs as she wheels across Middle America on her book tour.
Perhaps this is a misreading of the tea leaves, but one could argue that she creates a wee bit more excitement than Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two Republican front-runners for president in 2012. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman just may be queen.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com
I liked conservatism a lot more when conservatives were elitist, overeducated snobs, rather than angry, resentful populists.
"Not qualified to be President"?
Last I checked she's over 35 years old, and a natural born US citizen. How does that not qualify her?
In 1972, the President of the United States discovered that a couple of two-bit hack burglars broke into offices of his opponent; they got nothing from their foray, and the whole exercise was in vain, as the election was never close. The President told his inner circle just to shut up about the incident, and he attempted to do so, until he was finally harassed out of town.
36 years later, an unknown with a thin resume and questionable skill set was nominated for VP on the ticket of a sickly candidate for President. Though she was asked, directly or indirectly, a million questions, she just shut up about all of the incidents of her life, never answering anything beyond the lightest of puffery, and yet she apparently remains a viable candidate for national office.
Strangely, folks like Megan McArdle believe that Palin being asked all these political and personal questions is an indication that she has been "bothered" by the national media, and having been persecuted for so long, we should all just leave her alone now.
Given the relative implication of Megan's position, I can't shake the image of her having a shrine in her home to the misunderstood Saint Richard Nixon.
Not so much Saint Richard Nixon as the King of Thebes who every Oedipus wanted to kill. I was one of those who enjoyed the show, but you don't get to be over 30 without realizing that the King ordinarily gets to sweep something under the rug. As Nixon said, "I am not a crook." For Nixon's broader political abilities we have this which compares the Obama bow to that of Nixon to Mao.
Sorry, late to the party.
It's when you think people are out to get you, and then they do their best to justify your erroneous belief.
No, it's when people ARE INDEED out to get you, but they may have some basis for doing so.
Look, unlike Megan I like Sarah Palin. I just have deep reservations about her as a candidate for high-level office. She's been by most accounts a good, if beleagured, governor for Alaska, and I sympathize with many of her attitudes -- while finding the semi-faux-populism grating. But she fumbled badly in initial interviews, while having full reason to know what was coming, which set the stage for a stumbling VP candidacy. Then the abrupt resignation, which suggests she cannot be relied upon to stick to it if elected.
That said, the media's reaction to her book -- as it was to her candidacy -- has been utterly absurd. Something like half the national political pundits have demonstrated their own profound lack of seriousness over the past couple of weeks. They really and truly are out to tear her down, and why is beyond me. But it ain't paranoia on Sarah's part to see it.
Respectfully, good governors do not spontaneously resign for no apparent reason.
I can think of several, quite apparent reasons. Ambition. The opportunity to cash in on one's 15 minutes of fame. Revenge. Deciding that being in the game means not being way up in Alaska. Frustration that your national image has checkmated your ability to do day to day stuff. Marital stress. A baby. The fact that she chooses not to tell which one(s) it is is not ipso facto evidence that she doesn't have them.
Once again, this is the quadruple standard that only applies to Palin-- no one is obsessed by the fact that Obama used a senate seat as a footstool, or that his secretary of state did too. What's routine for everyone else is a scandal when Palin does it.
Actually, I don't think anyone thought Palin said to herself, "You know what the big ticket to the White House is? Alaskan, Hockey Mom Governor" and then proceeded to make that happen...
But I think a strong case could be made that Hillary certainly saw NY Senator as a ticket to the White House, and Obama might have had some distant hopes in 15 years. I don't think Obama realized it was a possibility so soon until he saw how open the field was...
So does that make them worse than Palin for pre-meditating to leave their post? Palin left her post because she was ineffective in the aftermath of losing an election for higher office.
There probably should be a policy, that once you are going to run for office, you have to immediately resign. No state or district should go without their elected officials simply because you want a back-up plan like Kerry, Obama, Hillary, Lieberman, and McCain.
Amazing.
Megan, it's easy for you to criticize her decision to resign, because you don't have any real responsibility to anyone besides yourself.
I thought the reasons she resigned were obvious, and they were damned good.
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/07/palins-resignation.html
You're spot on about muzzybelly's repulsive classism, though.
Muzzy, I've met some damned impressive people from all walks of life, from every sort of university and college, and from NO university and college.
You REALLY need to get out more, dude.
Right. That would stick if she had quit the Governorship before running for Vice-President. She didn't. She got paid while campaigning like all the other ticket candidates. Then she lost and returned to Alaska. A few months later, she quit.
She quit the Governorship and betrayed the trust of her voters for no discernible reason.
Megan,
As Mgmax says, she gave her reasons. I agree with you that on balance they are outweighed by the responsibilities she assumed by seeking and winning office. That, plus the problems she displayed as VP candidate, is why I expressed reservations. When she was governor, I think (as a non-Alaskan who was aware of her before 2008) that she did a generally good job, though certainly I certainly don't support everything she did.
I think that when you run for governor, you are promising to, y'know, be governor for the rest of your term, unless you have better reasons than she gave.
There's a very important moral distinction between quitting a job to run for something, and continuing to draw the salary and hold the seat while not doing the work and running for something. So why is Palin on the bad side of it, again? Besides because she's Sarah Palin.
Mgmax:
Palin's "on the bad side of it" because she quit her job, leaving Alaskans in the lurch. She had an important post and should not have abandoned it, certainly not for the reasons she gave. The "moral distinction" you highlight is irrelevant to this.
"I think that when you run for governor, you are promising to, y'know, be governor for the rest of your term, unless you have better reasons than she gave."
Everyone that says "she's a quitter and should be blackballed" either doesn't know the facts or is a partisan tool spouting talking points
She resigned because an ethics law was being abused, causing her state to waste millions of dollars, and freezing the state government from addressing any other substantive business.
All of the accusations have been shown to be frivolous and personally motivated. It is a quirk of the Alaska law that every complaint had to be investigated. If these had been civil lawsuits, after the 3rd complaint the judges would summarily dismiss the cases and threaten / enforce sanctions against the complant.
Resigning was the right thing to do for Alaska.
I would think that a libertarian would appreciate a politician, any politician, that didn't believe in their own indispensiblity.
Everyone that says "she's a quitter and should be blackballed" either doesn't know the facts or is a-hola partisan tool spouting talking points
Martin,
It's obvious you didn't bother to read the link I provided, explaining why I thought Palin was right to resign. You didn't even tangentially address the argument.
You don't think that impending bankruptcy as a result of an unending stream of spurious ethics complaints from bitter Dems who could not even figure out that their guy won was a good reason? I don't know if it was the only reason, but it had to be a factor. My understanding (admittedly thin) of Alaska law is that she could not set up a legal defense fund to cover her costs, but had to pay them herself.
As John Madden would say:
"Here's a lady (Megan McArdle), that doesn't bother doing any basic research before formulating an opinion."
Hang on. Did I miss when Joe Biden posed in his shorts for Runners' World?
Let's face it. There were exactly two reasons Sarah Palin was selected as a VP candidate: she's a know-nothing Christianist and "starbursts". The Newsweek cover is a perfectly accurate depiction of what Palin brings to politics. My only criticism is that she isn't pictured leaning on a cross or kissing Jesus's ass.
Stay classy.
And you are an example of what liberals bring to an arguement. Nothing.
What if Palin, since the election, has designed her career for this? What if its a calculated plan by the GOP to get the media to pay no attention to their policy or any of their other politicians. The Democrats are regularly scrutinized for health care, foreign policy, and there reaction to the economic crisis, while the media obsesses only over Palin on the right. She's a sacrificial lamb, taking all abuse that would otherwise be directed at Republican opposition. Well, maybe not sacrificial. She sells books, makes money, and gets free publicity. Not only that but whatever happens she's a win for the Republicans. If the public accepts her they've now got a major female conservative leader, that they can point to and say see we're not just interested in the welfare of old white men. If they hate her, then the media spends its time lambasting her instead of the Party as a whole. And when 2010 comes 'round nobodies going to remember GOP inaction they'll remember the Democrats were in office when unemployment hit 10% and that Guantamo stayed open a lot longer, and that they don't like Sarah Palin. I'd rather be on the side that only has to say I'm not her and not the one that has to defend 2 years of complete control of the legislative and executive branches that didn't produce what it promised.
I like Sarah Palin, but I wouldn't vote for her as president after she resigned as govenor of Alaska. Having said that, she was right about "Death Panels." From the Houston Barnacle:
NEW YORK — Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.
Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.
But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.
"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.
My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer almost 10 years ago at the age of 41. Thankfully, the good doctors at MD Anderson have treated her, and she is doing fine. But according to the death panel, her life isn't worth it. Screw them.
Garr. I believe the point of contention regarding mammograms is that, as with any radioactive procedure, they can actually raise the risk of developing breast cancer, and as with any medical test, they may cause more stress and angst than they are worth.
The point of running the numbers here isn't to determine that so and so's life isn't worthy, it's to assess whether you are saving more breasts and/or lives than you are destroying.
But don't let that get in the way of a good Ditto.
bupalos,
No, the issue was false positives, and how some women would endure biopsies, surgeries, and chemo that they otherwise wouldn't have had because of the false positives. It was not about mammograms causing breast cancer.
But don't let those facts change your preconceptions.
And by the way, DITTO!
Bupalos,
IIRC, the article states that after analyzing the statistics, a doctor would have to do 1,500+ mammograms a year to save one life when comparing starting mammograms at 40 vs. at 50.
Basically, what they are saying is the cost of 14,999 mammograms isn't worth it. Better to let that 1 person die.
Except that there are more than 15k mammograms done on 40- to 50-yr old women, I think.
Let's say there are 150,000. That means this task force compared the costs of 150k mammograms vs the otherwise avoidable deaths of 100 women, and said, "Eh, Let 'em die. It's not worth the cost." No matter what nice name you give the group, that's a death panel, deciding that the life that may be yours isn't worth the expense to the govt.
The exact numbers may be off since I'm going from memory, but you get the idea.
I see that the "AP has 11 fact-checkers working on Palin's book" meme has really caught on. As far as I know, the source for that tidbit is Sarah Palin's facebook page.
Madeline, the simplest of searches outside the liberal media bubble would reveal frequent quoting of this signoff to the original AP piece:
"AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_el_pr/us_palin_book_fact_check - it is an AP piece
"By CALVIN WOODWARD (1), Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Fri Nov 13, 6:14 pm ET
...
AP writers Matt Apuzzo(2), Sharon Theimer(3), Tom Raum(4), Rita Beamish(5), Beth Fouhy(6), H. Josef Hebert(7), Justin D. Pritchard(8), Garance Burke(9), Dan Joling(10) and Lewis Shaine(11) contributed to this report."
Wow. I know you think you're pretty clever Megan, but this is a straight rip off. Matt Taibbi had a blog post titled "Palinoia" on November 2nd. Also, "Palinoia" isn't a phrase, it is a word. I can't believe you have a job writing at the Atlantic.
What publication, might I ask, do you write for?
None. I'm not a writer. Yet I know the difference between phrases and words. Who do you write for?
For most major media outlets, sensationalism trumps substance every day and twice on Sunday. It is no surprise that they are addicted to political spectacle over analysis and debate, and Palin is a circus with an endless number of rings. She is the gift that keeps giving for anyone who can not deliver anything with more depth than your average celebrity entertainment piece.
Sadly people attack her and draw sympathy and attention her direction. Really, just publishing her speeches and Facebook posts would suffice.
If the media were as hostile to Obama as Palin, he'd still be just a failed community organizer.
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down. And really, guys, if you'll just back off a little, she'll do the job for you.
No kidding. I remember when Palin claimed she had campaigned in 57 states. And who can forget that ridiculous speech where she claimed middle America was full of bitter religious gun-clingers? Then there was that comical bow to the Emperor of Japan, the embarassing gift to the British PM of a box set of DVDs with the wrong region code, insulting the Special Olympics... thank God we didn't elect this dunce.
Yeah, OK.
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That’s why I say, I like every American I’m speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.
But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans.
And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.
This bailout is a part of that.
How did Couric dared to ask Palin about the bailout? I've never seen such a hostile interview. Couric is mean! Wuuuaaaaaa! Wuuaaaaaaa!
And your point is, what? Have you seen Obama give a more coherent answer to that question while the press fellates him?
If you wouldn't put a photo of Joe Biden in his running shorts on the cover, you should damn well extend the same courtesy to Palin, however much you dislike her.
Are you at all aware that Sarah Palin made the decision to strike that pose for Runner's World? Do you wish to contend that Sarah Palin was not conscious on that day, and therefore Sarah Palin is not responsible for the pose she struck, the outfit she wore, the accessories she held, and the flag draped over the chair?
She agreed to the shoot, she did what she wanted to do, and now she's complaining that a non-running-themed magazine chose to run the same image. Even if you sympathize with her stupid mistake in not stipulating that the image be used only in Runner's World, it's still her stupid mistake.
I'm as elitist as they come in terms of educational pedigree, but to view it as a criterion for poitical office is only slightly less inane than judging candidates on who their great-grandparents were. They're both markers but really, how much do they matter vs. what the candidate has done since then? There is little more pathetic than to see someone whose greatest pride is where they went to school 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The reaction to Palin is proof of Robin Hanson's maxim that politics is not about policy. It is about the prestige and status of certain groups. Her being a woman makes the arguements more vicious and petty than normal. Palin is a member of a group that liberals hate and so they vent their spleens at her. Talking to a liberal about Palin is like asking a Serb why they hate Kosovars.
Further to Tinisoli's comment above, given the prickly hypersensitivity of everyone in the Palinosphere, its hard to believe that a rag like Newsweek would use that photo without first getting informal endorsement from someone in Team Palin.
One can imagine a lightweight like Maureen Stapleton speaking for Palin and saying "why sure we would love to have that photo on the cover of Newsweek! Shows Sarah as a lady of the people, and its a good shot of her gams to rile up her slobbering male base." Then Newsweek runs it and Team Palin does it's favorite pirouette, becoming grievance buffoons for the umpteenth time, and ginning up the masses with their indignation (cause they sure can't do so with substance).
Friendly suggestion to Megan: better be careful how far down the road of sympathy you travel with the Palinites' pique. When she wins the GOP nomination in '12, her VP will likely be that guy who gained You Tube fame by crying that everyone should just leave Britney alone. You just may find yourself positing that, indeed, everyone really should just leave Britney alone - and President Palin, while they're at it.
What's wrong with having a vice president who is totally unqualified? We already have a president who is totally unqualified!
It's a fairly straightforward play of words. But the Taibi entry is hilarious:
Apparently Palin during the campaign last year heard someone shout at her in a ropeline about Todd Palin’s membership in the Alaska Independence Party (AIP); she immediately blew this up in her mind to a major threat and directed Schmidt to issue a press release saying that his seven-year membership in the party was an “error,” the result of checking a box on a ballot by mistake, a clearly absurd if not actually insane excuse. As the lone grownup in the equation Schmidt unhesitatingly pulled rank and told her to shut the fuck up, noting that Todd had been in a secessionist party and it was useless to deny that fact, sensibly advising her to just smile and say “Todd loves America” if it ever came up again.
I wonder if Schmidt will ever write his own book regarding the McCain campaign.
The Taibbi piece is indeed priceless. Obama misspoke on the stump and asserted that there were 57 states? What. a. freaking. idiot.
Course, read Taibbi's piece and set aside ideology for an instant, and you may conclude that for Palin v. Obama 2012 to be a contest of intellectual equals, Obama would probably have to believe that there are 570 states.
And the excuse for not being able to figure out a better gift than a DVD set that has the wrong region code?
Yes, he IS an idiot.
Course, read Taibbi's piece and set aside ideology for an instant
Yes, and let's judge Obama by reading Ann Coulter pieces and setting aside ideology.
I read threads like this occasionally because I'm interested in the reaction to Palin described here. I'm also interested in the almost complete silence on the democratic side about Palin's true counterpart, Joe Biden.Obviously the strategy is to compare Palin to Obama, for two reasons: she appears to be not nearly as intelligent, certainly not as worldly or wellspoken, and she offsets the fact that his experience to hold the office is practically nil, as were his legislative achievements (being a lawyer, I am not dazzled by Harvard degrees, much less unproduced undergrad transcripts; and writing 2 books about yourself does not strike me as a qualification).
But is she dumber than Biden? Who can prove that? I recall he is academically indistinguished. Does she lie more? He stole another man's entire life story, a british public man at that, and did it on national TV. Is she less accomplished? He's been in the Senate over 30 years and no one I know of has ever identified a single critical piece of legislation for which he was mainly responsible. He may have been the Senate's biggest gasbag, which is noteworthy I suppose.
When the coversation turns to what a V-P selection says about the pres. candidate, I'm not so sure Obama gets the better of that. But I know you won't find Andrew Sullivan examining the lies of Joe Biden.
"But is she dumber than Biden? Who can prove that? I recall he is academically indistinguished. Does she lie more? He stole another man's entire life story, a british public man at that, and did it on national TV"
He stole Neil Kinnock's life story, a 3 time loser against Thatcher.
You'd think he'd at least steal a winning biography.
On her own merits, Palin's kind of forgettable, but I can't help but be fascinated at how much pain her existence causes liberals. (Sullivan in particular has a near-psychotic obsession with Palin's genetalia that cannot fully be explained.)
She's a populist political leader, so what? Pay her the same attention you pay Huckabee, or Nader.
Several readers pointed out that Palin's Idaho pedigree does not disqualify her for public office. This is certainly correct. A prestigious university degree, like talent, is overrated.
What is not overrated, as Colvin discusses at length in the linked book, is effort. Effort, not talent, not Ivy degrees, puts one on the road to greatness. Colvin talks about many historical figures who worked painfully hard to become great - the pain often a function of endless self-criticism on the road to refinement and improvement.
To any supporters of Palin paranoia reading this: ask yourself - do you want for a President one who responds to criticism with defensive paranoia or one who responds with effort and improvement? Would anyone argue, with anything close to a straight face, that Palin has shown the faintest hint of improvement - at anything - since she burst national 15 months ago?
The problem with Palin is not that she's stupid, or that she went to Idaho, or that she has a weird family. The problem is that she appears to be perfectly content with exactly where she's at, a place arguably not good enough for local dog catcher, and certainly not the demands of the Presidency.
Responding to critics who say as much with paranoid refutations entirely misses the point of what characteristics great leaders should have, characteristics Sarah Palin, almost inarguably, lacks.
I happen to agree with this, she seems to have floated upward based on good looks to a considerable degree. The trouble is, there's no argument you can make against her on that basis that doesn't equally apply to the golden figure in the White House who glided from elite college to elite law firm to elective office whenever somebody needed an impressive young black man to fill a spot, yet whose own record of accomplishment or struggle remains vague and opaque. Would anyone argue, with anything close to a straight face, that Obama has shown the faintest hint of improvement-- at anything-- since the New Hampshire primary?
Mgmax, reasonable people can disagree about whether Obama has improved much in the past 18 months, fwiw I remain largely a skeptic.
However, it doesn't seem like there's much dispute about Obama's approach, specifically whether he subjects his actions and decisions to self-criticism on the road to improvement. Someone mentioned Obama's terrible "cling to guns and religion" gaffe earlier in this thread. A terrible error, but by any account Obama fretted and stewed over that incident, agonizing over it - and, it would appear, learning from it. Is such stewing enough to make him shrewd in tense nuclear negotiations? Surely not - but these things are cumulative, aren't they?
One doesn't sense that Palin approaches life or her role with the same rigor, though in fairness, we can't be entirely certain...
Having said that, I think Mgmax hits on a critical perception for why Palin's lack of effort may be overlooked spinning forward into 2012: too many people see Obama as the minority beneficiary of progressive social policies, without necessarily having ever tried that hard either.
I feel as though the scales are falling from my eyes. This must be why people still consider Palin a viable President. Most people understand that hard work is usually the sine qua non of success, and most people also know that Palin has basically mailed in her entire life.
The problem is that in an Obama v. Palin presidential battle, a large part of the population will perceive it as "Mail-it-in Candidate #1" vs. "Mail-it-in Candidate #2".
Don't know if I endorse this view - but I finally get where people are coming from in overlooking Palin's obvious "low effort" flaw: there's too much of a suggestion that the current President suffers from the same malady, and from a results perspective, he hasn't yet done much to disprove the notion.
Add in a bit of racial resentment for the perceived opportunity for minorities to mail it in and enjoy the spoils, and Palin becomes like the perfect revenge candidate.
Interesting.
"One doesn't sense that Palin approaches life or her role with the same rigor"
No, YOU don't sense that Palin approaches life or her role with the same rigor.
Because you are capable of seriously saying that a woman who defeated her state's corrupt establishment on some key issues, and deals every day with the challenges of a handicapped child, is a lightweight in the struggles of life next to a creature of the Chicago machine* who once had to think over some indiscreet things he said at a fundraiser.
Honestly, there could not be a more perfect example of how Obama gets an A for effort for waking up every morning and Palin could save a crashing busload of orphans and somebody would be on her case for having done nothing to provide daycare for them. It's like the old Bob & Ray spelling bee routine where one kid gets "onomatopoeia" and the other gets "cat."
* See: endorsement of Stroger, Todd over Claypool, Forrest
"Don't know if I endorse this view - but I finally get where people are coming from in overlooking Palin's obvious "low effort" flaw: there's too much of a suggestion that the current President suffers from the same malady, and from a results perspective, he hasn't yet done much to disprove the notion."
I've long had a theory that too long out of power parties typically run the candidate who most reminds them of the successful incumbent they hate, believing his qualities to be the secret to electoral success. Thus the Republicans replaced a callow Southern governor yuppie with a history of 60s-style personal excess with... George W. Bush. And the Democrats replaced a go-along-to-get-along type who had his career handed to him by WASP elites with... Barack Obama.
Obama was too lazy to stay at the elite law firm, where real work is required, and instead went to some "activisit" firm.
The problem is that she appears to be perfectly content with exactly where she's at
The phrase is "lack of ambition". While I don't agree that you've described Palin, I'm not sure that the nation faces a critical lack of ambitious people to seek high office. (Arguably the current system deters highly talented people who are not ambitious enough to subject themselves to a really repellent election process.)
>
I'm curious as to how, exactly, a belief can be both "justified" and "erroneous."
Either they are out to get her, or they aren't. The whole point of your post seems to be that, in this case, they are. I.e., "There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down."
If you're right, then how is she wrong when she says the media is targeting her?
Is it still paranoia if they really are out to get you?
When Andrew Sullivan is claiming your son is actually your grandson and that you faked your pregnancy as part of an elaborate plot to cover up your daughter's pregnancy, I think it's fair to say they are not only only out to get you but are seriously deranged as well.
Strangely enough, I don't recall anyone complaining about how sexist and disrespectful it was when people were posting the photos of Vladimir Putin (an actual head of state) going fishing without a shirt on.
If a person does not let preconceived notions prejudice their view on a subject, that peorson has an opportunity to learn. To dismiss Pailin with the foolish statements made by most of the previous commenters, will leave one ignorant of opportunity. To think Palin less qualified than Obama to hold high office is to apply different standards to each person. Obama has less executive experience even now than does Palin. And it shows. Palin loves America and Obama hates it. Andrew Sullivan is out of his mind.
Hey Dave, give the man a break. I'm also unable to give coherent answers while your wife fellates me. Only pleasure moans.
Unfortunately she is, to put it bluntly, way uglier than Palin. Therefore she's unqualified to be President. A mean bj, though.
Look! TallDave found another 8 year-old to play with.
For those following the theme, I just have to point out this is another poster child > for Megan's mandatory requirement of nose-holding, right wing know-nothing fellow traveling.
200 posts and counting for another one of these self-disavowed "Of course you know I don't like populist know-nothing X, but doesn't it seem like populist know-nothing X is right in a way?"
MegaDittos, and keep those Atlantic G&T's flowing, girl!
Palinoia
A pseudo-psychological term describing the
second stage of the grief cycle experienced by
politicians whose careers have a terminal economic
disease: atrophy of the tax-and-spend organs,
followed by economic catabolysis.
As psychologically immature individuals, politicians
do not believe that they are capable of error, or even
that they may experience a misfortune; Every reverse
is the result of an evil act by a back-stabbing enemy.
Their anger is directed toward the new political
paradigm, particularly its prototypical protagonist;
Their successor to the pinnacle of power, Sarah Palin.
How can anyone seriously compare Obama's intellect to Palin's? Whatever nonsense you might say about graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (if you think they just give that out to people with LSATs in the 50% range, you're drunk), he went on to teach constitutional law at Chicago. You can read his syllabi and exams online, for crying out loud! The syllabi are thoughtful and well-planned; the exams are well-crafted, etc. That the Palin commentariat could believe an idiot, or even an average American, is capable of doing that job is beyond me.
Of course, I can't prove that Palin doesn't have the brainpower to succeed in teaching law, but I'd be happy to wager a substantial sum of money on it. You can trash his positions on policy or his motives, but to call Obama dumb seems beyond the pale.
I also have no problem with anyone going to the University of Idaho. Good students come from all places. I suggest, however, that someone who attends five colleges in six years is anything but a serious student, and not someone I would later trust in a position of power without significant countervailing evidence. I haven't seen any to date.
Will Palin defenders flat-out defend the proposition that she is qualified to be president of the US? Or can you only deflect the question by attacking the other party?
Can you provide an objective list of qualifications that she lacks but that Barack Obama had on 11/19/2008?
We elected a president, not a law professor. I would rather have someone with common sense, say Ronald Reagan, than an elite who has no common sense. For that matter, I think one of our greatest presidents, Abe Lincoln, was self taught.
Believe me, some of the smartest people in the world don't have a lick of sense. Buckley famously said IIRC that he would rather be ruled by the first hundred people in the Boston phone book versus the Harvard faculty.
The US has become a damaged nation. Facts no longer matter. People make up stories and repeat them without concern for any facts. The Republicans invented this and cling to it. Palin is a perfect example of a person who invents a story they like and repeats it over and over again, regardless of it being wrong. Inconvenient facts are ignored. It is an ignorant and dangerous trend in the US that even permeates business and may even soon overcome higher education. It has certainly damaged our K-12 schools.
Facts and reality matter. President Obama is one smart man. VP Biden is also one smart man. I've met and talked to them both. They are capable of listening, thinking and changing their minds when presented with facts. Will they be successful leading the nation? I don't know yet...none of you do.
Sarah Palin is not a smart woman. She has disregard and disdain for facts and has proven she cannont form a coherent argument that holds water. George Bush also was not smart enough to be president (his father was very smart, however). And both Sarah Palin and George Bush are phony populists who are playing on the not-so-smart republican demigraphic who are willing fooled when they hear stories they like, once again without the support of facts.
Until we fully reject this dumbing down of the US we are doomed to continue to decline. The rich will contiue to get richer and the morons who form the core of the populist republican base will continue to get poorer and not even realize just how badly they are being screwed by these charlatans preaching their brand of stupidity.
President Obama is one smart man. VP Biden is also one smart man.
You would think they could demonstrate this, but I still have yet to see it.
I actually think your claims resonate well with "Until we fully reject this dumbing down of the US we are doomed to continue to decline." Until we can identify the empty suits in the White House as such, we will not be able to correct our last mistake.
Skull, it is impossible to make a man who does not want to see something see it. You obviously have not listened to anything they have said with an honest ear. They may or may not have been correct about everything they have done, but you cannot deny the thought that goes into their policies. These are thinking people who are trying to make policy based on facts.
I agree that it is too soon to say they will be successful at governing. They can be brilliant and fail. I would argue President Clinton's presidency failed to live up to promise and he is also avery smart man. Obama/Biden are not even a year in office and you make these pronoucnements - once again without facts, but you like the story that they are stupid like Palin and failures already...which you all repeat over and over now. And it just isn't true. In fact, you are scared at how smart they are, and using the Republican play book you declare the exact opposite as you offensive play.
You want them to fail, and, by coincidence makes the entire nation the worse off. I never wanted George Bush to fail. I wanted him to succeed, because that would mean the US succeeded as well. But he failed and we all suffer still with his mistakes.
So, Skull, I reject your made-up, unsubstantiated story, created by right wing, again without facts to substantiate it. You cannot represent a policy still being deveolped as a failure, you can only wish them to fail. And that makes you dishonest, disloyal and deceitful. And it is time other Americans stood up and called you people out in your lies.
I first saw BO speak at the 2004 DNC and I turned to my roommate at the time and said, "he's going to be President" and not with shock or horror. I was genuinely impressed and thought he was an extremely bright and sophisticated politician.
Since then, the bloom has come off the rose. I"m making no claim about the success/failure of his presidency. I agree it is too young to judge that, he has 2 more years before we really know where this is all going. As for his intellect, I've seen nothing but well prepared speeches and ham-handed actions.
I never said I wanted him to fail, you've made that up to argue with a caricature of people with opposing views. But your 'if the President succeeds, America succeeds' union simply isn't a truism like you assert.
So, Skull, I reject your made-up, unsubstantiated story, created by right wing, again without facts to substantiate it.
What story is that? That I doubt the intelligence of the President?
You cannot represent a policy still being deveolped as a failure, you can only wish them to fail.
What policy are you talking about?
And that makes you dishonest, disloyal and deceitful. And it is time other Americans stood up and called you people out in your lies.
How so? What lies? And using this logic, I assume you've labeled every critic of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as such? I mean they're outcome is still being determined.
I felt about the same, and I had high hopes in January.
He campaigned on competence, transparency, post-partisanship, pragmatism and accountability but has turned out to be a bumbling deceptive hyperpartisan ideologue who blames everything on Bush and/or Fox News.
Maybe if they could drill two holes in the front of your thick skull, someone might be able to shine some light in there. Just seein'.
"VP Biden is also one smart man".....Is it smart for a man, in anger, to repeatedly make demonstrably provable false statements? Biden's career has been littered with this imtemperate pattern of lies that he has been given a pass for by lemmings in the "progressive" media. His one size fits all excuse for making up lies to fit his needs? "I spoke in anger." Biden is such the quintessential buffoon with a temper that for you to take the position that he is "one smart man" forever disqualifies you as someone whose opinion should even remotely be considered, as you on the left like to say, "serious".
It is always the left who claims that conservative candidates aren't "well read", "serious", "knowledgeable", or of adequate "intellectual firepower". And what have you given us instead? That bastion of intellect Jimmy Carter, that beacon of morality, William Jefferson Clinton, and now Barack "57 states" Obama. Well, thank you very much. I have never subscribed to the theory that the best President is necessarily the smartest candidate. If that were the case, then lets dispense with the vote and put in office he or she who scores highest on a national IQ exam. (Correcting, of course, for the inherent cultural bias in all tests that liberals claim exists in all tests that attempt to find out who the achievers are). Were Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin "smart men"? Butchers, every one, and yet probably smart by most people's standards. You can take your ivy league education, your law school education and your East Coast elitist attitude and I wouldn't give you a single vote without an underlying PHILOSOPHY that was consistent with the founding principles that our country started with. I'll take philosophy, moral courage, honesty, and integrity and vote for it over your "serious, knowledgeable" candidate every day of the week.
Well, if helps if you don't want to be a disdainful, East Coast, Washington, D.C., insider elitist to be proud of your stupidity, right?
I know, anyone that doesn't long to be an East Coast, DC insider is just stupid. That uppity Sarah. Who is she to deign to set aside those designer waders and trod with intellectual giants the likes of Joe Biden, BO, and smartest of them all, Nancy Pelosi.
I think we're in one of those The Queen Doesn't Wear Any Clothes, situations. Sarah Palin aspires to be an East Coast, DC insider. Otherwise, you don't get to be President. So for her, it's either dress moose...Or be an East Coast, DC insider.
The sign on President Palin's desk will read "The Pipeline Stops Here, ya betcha".
The US has become a damaged nation. Facts no longer matter. People make up stories and repeat them without concern for any facts. The Republicans invented this and cling to it.
So now you're claiming you're a Republican? You just made up a story and repeated it without concern for any facts, you know.
President Obama is one smart man.
Not really. Walking into a room full of elected officials and bragging they have to do what he says because "he won" is pretty dumb, don't you think? After all, they won, TOO. Many in districts he lost by wide margins. In 4 years or 8 years, Obama will be gone and most of them will still be in office and making policy. Let's not even get into the Hartford police fiasco. The fact is that Obama is neither particularly intelligent nor politically savvy. He is surrounded by people who are, however, and are using him as a puppet to control the levers of power that they themselves can't reach.
"It's when you think people are out to get you, and then they do their best to justify your erroneous belief."
Regardless of one's opinion of Palin, to suggest that the media elites are NOT out to get her is delusional.
Maybe you think they're justified, and one could debate to what extent it is self-actuating versus conspiring, but there simply is no doubt that they loathe her and make no bones about trying to run her down.
They aren't out to get her if what they say is true. They are merely reporting the facts. If they, like Fox "News", were lying about Palin, then there would be grounds to say they were out to get her unjustly. Sarah Palin is her own worst enemy every time she opens her mouth with her half-brained pronoucements that are just plain wrong. She is a treasure trove for any reporter - revealing lies and mistakes from politicians is what they do.
Do a lot of people dislike Sarah Palin and find her danerous to the American way? Yes, I am one of them. Am I out to get her? No, I am out to stop her, however. That is as much my right as it is hers to say what she says.
Please Republicans, find a worthy candidate. Sarah Palin could not even make it through one term as governor of Alaska which has to be one of the easies jobs out there. She has no business even being considered President. You make yourselves look foolish by even taking her seriously.
I can only hope the press focuses on exposing her for what she is. But they may have to turn their stories into a coloring book to have it make sense to her base - preferably a coloring book that only require a black crayon and a white crayon.
They don't like black crayons.
Of course, all those red-neck Christians who follow Sarah around in their pick-ups hate black people too! Your insight is amazing. Nostradamus-like.
You forgot to mention funny, and witty, as well.
Nostradamus predicted the future.
I was only talking about crayons.
Angry, much?
Megan and the small minority of individuals who are having cognitive dissonance understanding why Sarah Palin is admired, loved and respected by MOST AMERICANS... aaaaaah, you'll NEVER "get it".
Just sit back and grit your teeth. LMAO!
Sometimes all I get is a splitting headache from reading posts like these.
It is difficult dispensing insight to the uninformed masses...please don't let that little headache stop you. We await your next revelation.
From the West comes a woman who travels to the East.
She grows weary of her crown, as it is not encrusted with enough jewels and gold.
Her eyes have seized upon another, and the mob wishes to place her on the throne, in the White Castle.
She will betray all whom she pretends to love, and all whom pretend to love her will forgive her.
"...is admired, loved and respected by MOST AMERICANS"
If by "MOST" you mean "way less than half" or by "AMERICANS" you mean "REPUBLICANS" then you are mostly right. If, that is, "viewed favorably" is synonymous with "admired, loved and respected."
Let us pray. Please I pray Jesus God do not allow me to ever "get it."
"Obama/Biden" have been in office less than a year.But is this a 2-headed man? Let's give you Obama's intelligence, such as it is. Fine law school grades, I'm sure. Delivers a good speech.
What proof is there of Biden's smarts? Seriously. Someone talked to him and said he sounded smart? If he's so smart, why does he say so many damn fool things that Obama's people have to correct? For that matter, how stupid do you have to be to try to steal another man's life story?
The only relevant comparison for election purposes was Palin to Biden.That's all that was ever done before, but here Palin has to be held next to Obama so hopefully no one hears Biden.No one has demonstrated that he is superior to her in intelligence or ability or truthfulness. And Palin would have faded from the scene if the media and the democrats did not spend so much time dragging her forward for their own purposes. The fact that she got and gets trashed is precisely what makes her a heroine to some people. Not to me. But spare me this "heartbeat from the presidency" tripe while that fool sits in that office--with, by the way, his friend Galbraith doing an Iraqi oil deal that would make Cheney and Halliburton blush.
Interesting deflection Megan. I don’t recall Sarah asserting that the media was out to get her even when they started after her. I know you are a lib, but let’s try to be truthful on occasion.
This is too funny:
Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:
The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”
Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”
But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of Dreams From My Father, written by Barack Obama.”
Good thing she didn't write it...her book, that is. Just proves all those damn liberals wrong. She's way too smart to actually write it herself.
Yeah, unlike all those other politicians who wrote their own books. Maybe some day, if Sarah studies really really hard and goes to a school in the Northeast, she can write something all on her own as good as "It Takes A Village".
Her hand was shaky, is all.
Her next books:
"It Takes a Mob to Make An Idiot".
"Sarah Barracuda: Taking Names and Settling Scores"
"The Idiot's Guide to Running for (and Losing) the Presidency While You're Pretending to Run For VP"
"Senselessness and Unsensibility"
"My Life on the Outside Looking In: I Want To Be One of You!"
"Trust Me, It's A Gut Thing!"
"Sarah Barracuda: The Life and Times of the Deadly Political Outsider Who Climbed to the Top, Lost Her Footing, and Kept On Falling Down the Other Side"
Odd that you seem to think the "media attacking Palin" meme has some relevancy. Maybe you should check with Sullivan to understand how eeevil Palin, and her evil tricky deceptive uterus really is.
Never before have I seen a homosexual man so deeply involved with and concerned with the uterus if a single woman; and the birthing process... its amazing in how obsessed he is.
If you want to try to explain to someone that they're taking things too far and doing themselves and their cause no good; you might start with your co-worker.
"Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin's unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it's vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else."
So all news will stop on the Dish until the book is analyzed, and a new in-depth investigation of Palin's uterus (who may have helped write the book) is commenced.
But yeah, its people you don't know who are taking this too far... like the AP or something. Certainly not one of the writers where you work, not at all. Its all someone else causing the problems.
Lying to yourself to avoid seeing the idiocy of a co-worker; its not just a river in Egypt.
Palin's approval now higher than Barack's.
Atlantic doesn't like the link.
Nope. They just didn't take the bait.
This atheist will vote for Sarah Palin at any opportunity. That I would also bite her thigh I contend is irrelevant. Her heart's in the right place, and she needs only to, uh, bone-up, on her peace-thru-strength forign policy points, and some real economics [Mises, Rothbard, Friedman] as opposed to the rubbish which inhabits the fetid mind of our first and last Arab president, Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, shake hands with OhBummer, would you? Now count your fingers.
Oops, I wuz typin' with my elbows...
"This atheist will vote for Sarah Palin at any opportunity. That I would also bite her thigh I contend is irrelevant. Her heart's in the right place, and she needs only to, uh, bone-up, on her peace-thru-strength foreign policy points, and some real economics [Mises, Rothbard, Friedman] as opposed to the rubbish which inhabits the fetid mind of our first and last Arab president, Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, shake hands with OhBummer, would you? Now count your fingers."
Why do people care about Palin? Obama is the thesis candidate, and Palin is the antithesis. Obama represents racial equivalency (enforced by elite opinion), the possibility of homosexual drive equivalency (cf. Chris Matthew's leg). Palin is the untouched, racially pure girl from snowland, cool in the libidnous thoughts of Osamas and other men. She has the antithesis values. Roll over you filthy animal; not to like her virginal appeal/cliches is to be one of them - a thesis supporter.
278 comments and counting.
It's not often that Megan has so many comments in a thread. Time to revisit one of the posts' assertions:
Man, did Sam Roberts hit the nail in the head or what? She will not get off the news cycle soon. Not while she sells so well.
The number of comments in this thread is a nice illustration of what Sam Roberts said. They also supports one of his other assertions:
She's the embodiment of personality politics.
One just has to take a quick glance at the comments that praise her. They're all personality and symbolism.
As for the left, there's not the usual "ignore or confront" dilemma that you find when deciding to write about, say, Ann Coulter. That's because a large part of the right-wingers sees the earing down and mockery of Palin as a sign of fear. Which further reinforces the belief that Palin is the best human being to walk the face of the Earth since Reagan, or possibly Jesus. Which improving her chances to be one of the 2012 Republican primary candidates. Which is great news for the left.
And, of course, Palin herself sells more books. It's really a situation in which everybody wins, at least in the short run.
Then let me humbly offer a comment that is not all "personality and symbolism". Conservatives have watched for years as liberals have accused every conservative candidate of not being bright, or smart enough, or well read or whatever intellectual deficiency you choose to assign to them. In the meantime, all your candidates are described as intellectual heavyweights. It is so blatant and misguided, that you even described Al Gore and John Kerry as being unusually bright. (!?) When all is said and done, the image you try and create really doesn't matter because regardless of the candidates true intelligence, it is philosophy that really matters. The best read candidate that nevertheless subscribes to socialist principles will still take this country down a dead end path that is inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to failure. As this pertains to Sarah Palin, I don't give a rat's ass whether she has read "the classics". I care about her philosophy and whether she will push for small, unintrusive government, free-market economics, individual freedom, reestablishment of property rights etc. Whether she reads Nietzsche at night or The Adventures of Superman doesn't make a bit of difference. It's her philosophy of governance that matters.
You are wrong. Republicans used to be very smart people. The first George Bush was a very smart and couragous man who's presidency is way undrerated. Nixon was very smart and had it not been for a major character flaw would be regarded as a great president.
The presidency is too dificult a job for even an average intellect - see W for all the proof needed there. Democrats do not have the only smart candidtates. Unfortunately, for some bizzare reason, Republicans now believe they must run decidely average to below average people in order to be more in tune with the common person. Well, I don't want the common person running the nation, I want the best person.
Sarah Palin is, at best of average intelligence. She is a hypocrite of significant merit on moral issues, which could have been a strength, but like most loudly obnoxious "christians" she is not a very good christian - she is a selective christian in denial. Shame on her for holding herself above others on morality.
The most important issue is she is a hawk who is too stpuid to be trusted with the miliatry. A smart hawk I can support, a stupid one, one who is apt to invade a country that she can't find on a map, is plain dangerous. This woman is a disaster and if I was not a true American I would almost wish you nominate her because she should be easy to beat. But, I could not take the chance she might win based on the foolishness of the common person to be easily misled. I'd rather have a great Republican win than a mediocre Democrat...because I really don't care about parties. It is you foolish people who think of your party as some team that you must support even when it is wrong that are hurting the US. Wake up people, before it is too late.
"Democrats do not have the only smart candidates"--name one and tell my why they are so smart because every one I am aware of is wrong on almost every issue.
"Republicans now believe they must run decidedly average to below average people.."--I guess that memo leaked where the GOP made that decision. Smoke-filled room, consensus agreement on the new plan to search high and low for dimwits to run for office all across the land.
"I don't want the common person running the nation, I want the best person."--Translation--don't apply unless you were a legacy admit and graduated from the short list of acceptable colleges/universities, aka the Ivy League.
"...she is not a very good christian.."--as compared to whom? All of the PERFECT Christinas you know? Name one.
"Shame on her for holding herself above others on morality."--Translation: Shame on her for being a Christian.
And that last paragraph...such nonsensical contradictory hypocritical drivel....I can't bring myself to comment further.
On second thought, lets take a crack at that last paragraph.
"A smart hawk, I can support, a stupid one, one who is apt to invade a country that she can't find on a map, is plain dangerous."
Would a good example of that be the...oh what was it? Oh yes, The Vietnam War brought to you by JFK, the pride of Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford Business School and prosecuted to perfection by Robert McNamara, Berkley alumn and graduate of Harvard School of Business Administration.
Amazing how much better things go with the
"smartest and the best people" running the country. If they hadn't been so doggone smart, maybe they wouldn't have found Vietnam on a map and just think of all the trouble we could have avoided.
-->it's her philosophy of governance that matters.
Right. Sure. So what do you call pushing through windfall taxes on the Alaskan oil companies and distributing government checks to all the residents?
What do you call lobbying the feds for the most expensive, most useless transportation project in the country?
Just an ordinary American gal shopping for approval rating points.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the oil companies were getting their oil and profits from the resources of her state.
Her motto/philosophy is:
...I love the love of the crowds, it's the doing the actual job thing that I can't stand.
...I love running for office, so long as I don't actually have to run the office.
..I love running for office and away from reporters, questions, thoughts, ideas, so everyone will notice what a MILF I am!
MILF? MILF? Tell me you didn't just say that. Are you old enough to drive?
What would you suggest I call her, Grandpa, a cougar?
Its just the MILF comment seemed so out of place in a perfectly accurate soliloquy describing Barack Obama. I guess if you just replace "mother" with "man", then it all makes sense.
It's perfectly understandable that you would become easily confused; the light from Queen Palin's crown must have blinded you.
So that would make such a belief something other than erroneous, wouldn't it? Something like a "completely justified belief", wouldn't you say? I sure would.
They talked about Joe Biden as a presidential contender, once upon a time, too.
But that was before "Plugs" was caught plagerizing other people's speeches, wasn't it?
But he was forgiven for that because, as Joe explained so eloquently, he plagiarized in anger. Only a leftist gets a pass by using "I can't control my temper" as an excuse for being a liar.
The American Left has lived in terror of the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan since he retired in 1989. Their vicious, unfounded, frankly unhinged attacks against conservative politicians since can be seen not not so much as personal attacks but pre-emptive strikes, under the theory that you kill it BEFORE it grows up to become a problem. Palin scares them more than most because like Reagan she's a populist ex-governor of a large western state with a large following on the right.
I think their angst is misdirected. Not in that Palin isn't a threat to them, she is, but that they fear her because she might run for President and win. I don't think she's running for President: it's much worse (for them) than that. I think she's aiming for Oprah's spot as top TV talk show host. Her recent appearance on Oprah proves she could handle the job easily and she's more popular than Limbaugh w/none of his baggage. Oprah's retiring in 2011 so she certainly has a shot at the title if she plays her cards well. Then we'd have conservatives as hosts of the most successful radio AND talk shows in the country.
This is, what, the fourth soliloquy by a conservative describing a political wet dream? My favorite one is still Juanita's. Gotta love the expression "large western state", though. Not many other ways to put Alaska and California in the same bag.
One things needs to be clear: you wingnuts are the ones comparing Palin to Reagan. Don't come crying when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Ooooo, Palin just drives liberal old me nuts. She's so virtuous and so eager to destroy our fine progressive plans. She's our biggest nemesis. I hope the Republicans don't figure out what a sleeping giant they have there and really Take Their Country Back by supporting her. That would be like being thrown in a briar patch!
I see you've exhausted your supply of intellectually satisfying retorts so we can just call it a day.
Nope.