Palin-Mania; UPDATE: Newsweek Joins the Mania!
[Guest post by DRJ]
Former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue will be released next Tuesday, November 17, and the media is awash in anticipation … or dread. It’s hard to tell.
Using an advance copy, the AP fact-checked her book and didn’t find much to like, something I can’t recall it attempting with Presidential candidate Obama’s already published books. Palin replied that the AP and other media outlets are “erroneously reporting” the contents of her book, and John Ziegler confirms the AP did a poor job of fact-checking.
Meanwhile, MSNBC investigates why Palin drives us wild. Note MSNBC’s use of a well-known and long-debunked photo-shopped pic of Palin.
Sometimes the best thing about Sarah Palin is that she drives liberals crazy.
— DRJ
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Newsweek asks, in an image that you probably think I am making up but that Politico insists is real: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?” Newsweek adds: “She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.”
Thank God for the Unbiased Media. Now can we go back to bashing the partisanship of Fox News, please?
She does indeed drive liberals crazy, but admit it, she drives some of you guys crazy too doesn’t she. You couldn’t have liked some of that stuff she was coming out with last year. It was almost like she and McCain were trying to lose that election. Did any of you ever consider that, or don’t you go in for those conspiracy theories, are they the usual fare of liberals?
I’m hoping that Ms. Palin does not run for president next time. I honestly don’t think I can stand another period of the kind of media frenzy that would usher in.
mikeb302000 (41eabc) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:29 amWho is Ms.Palin?
AD - RtR/OS! (e029b6) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:56 amCheck out the take over at Powerline on the same subject. I would link to it but alas I do not know how.
BT (74cbec) — 11/14/2009 @ 3:51 amMikeb90210 – Nope, those conspiracy theories are all yours. But your … I honestly don’t think … was the truest thing you have said around here.
JD (cfbd15) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:29 amHear Hear! Who is Ms. Palin?
Oh, that’s right. It’s the libs’s oh so subtle way of taking a shot at her.
Good job, mikeb30200!
Good job.
Icy Texan (d5af0f) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:33 amMadCow had Anna Marie Cox on last night and they were practically salivating over this book. It was rather unseemly.
JD (0fdde5) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:07 amIt seems to be a guest on the MadCow show, you have to have done a blackface photoshop (Jane Hamster), be a serially dishonest sockpuppet (The Gleeeeeens), or became famous for blogging about assf*cking (Wonkette). Their standards of JournoListing would embarass actual journoLists.
JD (0fdde5) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:10 amwhy is it that so many libtard skanks loathe Sarah Palin? Ok, that SNL “actress” pleased the left with her portrayal of Palin, but does anyone really believe that “look up my colon” Couric did not do a hatchet job on Sarah? How can anyone say Palin lacked leadership experience when comparing her to Ear Leader Urkel? Or intellect when compared to an airhead like Clueless Joe Biden? Yeah, the media is so fair and unbiased.
aoibhneas (6d7589) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:20 amThe Trib’s Clarence Page “reviewed” the book, using the AP and Media Nutters for fact – checking. Think that’s bad? HE ADMITTED THAT HE HASN’T EVEN READ THE BOOK. Die, Tribune, Die.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:38 amHey I could tell the photo was a fake! They put Palin’s head on the body of a semi porker!
Mike Myers (710e8b) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:52 amMark Steyn points out that AP assigned 11 reporters to “fact check” the book and they found less than one “error” per reporter. One error, he points out, was actually a fact that they confirmed but who’s counting ?
Now, it’s off to the USC Stanford game which should be exciting and possibly depressing. The Trojans have developed a leak this year.
MIke K (2cf494) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:32 amLeaky Trojans? That’s an unpleasant thing to contemplate.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:36 amEven more unpleasant: that bogus “fact check” article. Most of the alleged errors are just the reporters playing word games or making stuff up, like their mind-reading of Palin’s ambition. These are nitpicking at best. How many errors could we find in a similarly sized collection of articles from those AP reporters?
I ordered Palin’s book a couple of weeks ago, so I’ll see for myself.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:47 amI can see 2012 from my house.
Official Internet Data Office (967528) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:48 amCome on guys. Palin is a complete joke. Yes she rocked when emerged at first. But it seems like the more we get to know her, the less she is liked. She has great looks but that’s just all she has. Looks.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:49 amLeaving out two words, the same could be said of Obama. but it would be the MSM like Evan Thomas, who said he had to step down in order to become president, or Matthew’s restless leg (ahem) syndrome, or do I need to go on further.
bishop (996c34) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:56 amThe issue here, which has been stated repeatedly, is the difference in treatment that Joe Biden’s bizarre lies and insanity has received from the MSM. It’s fine not to like Sarah Palin, based on policy differences. But people who don’t like her had better be just as sniffily dismissive of that great fool Biden. Or more so. Biden has had many decades to learn his craft and still is a lying idiot.
Unless, of course, there is some sexism at work. Which there is.
Even if Newsweek put together that foolish cover trying to sing BIden’s praises.
No, it is a combination of sexism and a weird “don’t go off the plantation” mentality. Women are supposed to be Democrats. Palin was not. And she is attractive and charismatic. So she must be destroyed.
Ask Clarence Thomas about the liberal plantation. And if you don’t like Thomas, you had better be calling for the expulsion of Charles Rangel. Wait, I hear crickets chirping.
The treatment of Palin by the press is not sexism, no, not at all.
Right. More partisanship uber alles.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:05 amI’ve been thinking about the way Palin’s book has been treated compared to another recent political release, David Plouffe’s book.
I saw one kind of fact-check about Plouffe’s book, but certainly 10 reporters from the AP weren’t assigned to it.
Plouffe’s campaign book is both a hagiography of Obama’s last campaign and a step toward 2012. It’s full of assertions like the campaign staff didn’t know about Wright and Obama hated campaigning. All of these “admissions” address a current concern about Obama. Yet, it was taken pretty much at face value.
So I’m trying to figure out what it means that Palin is being held to a different (stricter) standard than Plouffe.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:16 amOf course she is being held to a stricter standard, MayBee.
As Mark Steyn pointed out, Obama’s already-published books didn’t get nearly that kind of media scrutiny. The combination of prejudice, ignorance and fear with which the MSM views Palin is truly ugly.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:24 amPartisanship, MayBee. That has led the press to sexism.
Here is a thought experiment: would the press act this way toward Hillary Clinton? And if not, why not?
Partisanship has led the Left toward sexism and racism both. Because nothing, and I mean nothing, is more important to the Left than a “D” versus “R” designation.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:26 amPalin is a complete joke.
So is Hillary “sniper fire” Clinton. And I won’t say anything about the Joker (or Bozo) in the White House.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:26 am#18
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:31 amIt’s quite simple. She ran for vice president. Plouffe didn’t. Running to be the nations number two does that a lot.
Two words: Joe Biden.
Sexism married to partisanship creates a nasty intellectual child. Period.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:32 amMedia Honesty:
AD - RtR/OS! (78a4c2) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:36 amI am shocked to hear otherwise reasonable people going off on the media; after all, haven’t they proven their journalistic competance and integrity in their coverage of Katrina, and the looting of Iraq?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574519354014954972.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
It’s quite simple. She ran for vice president. Plouffe didn’t. Running to be the nations number two does that a lot.
The question has been raised about why Biden got off Scott – Free with his idiotic and brazen lies. How about answering that one?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:39 amMayBee
BT (74cbec) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:39 amPlouffe is part of the Washington/Liberal Media Club, Palin is definitely not. This is just a continuation of CNN’s fact checking SNL on their very timid Obama skit back in October. At least in that case you had one left wing media outlet “fact checking” another. But this is now the second time that this strategy has been played out. Expect plenty more of this.
MayBee you hit the nail on the head, this is just a look towards 2012 and the re-election campaign of Our Savior. One theme that will be developed by our media bettors will be something on the order of “Will the US re-elect a black man? Will whites vote for him in the numbers they did the last time? And if they don ‘t doesn’t it prove that we are a racist country? I am sure there will be plenty of other themes that Rohm and his media friends will be coordinating between now and 2012.
I will take Hillary-Bosnia sniper fire-Clinton over Sarah-I can see Russia from my house-Palin in the White House any day. Say what we will about Hillary. But a moron she’s not. And I say this with respect.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:40 amThe Emperor-
Aside from Biden, as mentioned above–
Plouffe’s book was about OBAMA’s campaign. Obama ran for President. It had many of the same themes as Palin’s book, except it was about the man running for and currently occupying the number 1 spot.
I think some of it is sexism, but BT is also right. Palin has to be destroyed ahead of 2012. I don’t think she’ll run, but her criticism seems to sting him.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:49 amLovey, you’re an idiot. But that’s stating the obvious. Every time you lie or continue a debunked lie of someone else, Lovey, you continue your dishonor.
Sarah Palin said you can see Russia from Alaska. And you can. That “from my house” bovine byproduct was a lie from the get-go. The fact you continue to run with that means you got nothing… nothing but dishonor.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:50 amLet’s not talk about Biden. Let’s talk about Hillary. The media ripped her apart during the primaries last year. Yet she held out her own. Showing herself to be a qualified and capable politician. I didn’t see her whining about how the questions asked her were unfair. She took much more fire than Palin. She earned everyone’s respect as a possible Commander in Chief. Palin is a joke and you all know it.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:54 amHere’s another interesting example. The Twitter-world went crazy with the latest Palin Facebook posting yesterday, where she said about KSM: “hang em high”
Tapper even posted about it at his blog (from Tokyo). One of my favorite tweeters (@andylancaster) responded to Tapper:
Why does the media report on Palin’s every word and then collectively question her relevance?
I thought that summed up the oddness of it all.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:55 amThe Empty Roar just proves that her facts are all derived from SNL!
AD - RtR/OS! (78a4c2) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:57 amThe difference between the two is that Hillary actually did tell a lie about sniper fire in Bosnia, while Palin never said that she could see Russia from her house.
So, you’d rather have a deliberate liar in the White House than someone who has told the truth.
Some chump (8ef001) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:59 amBut a moron she’s not.
But she’s a certifiable liar, which, no surprise, a person of the left is so kissy-kissy, feel-good-feel-good about. Another example of why when “progressives” dominate the management or operation of something, corruption and flakiness are more likely to follow and flourish.
BTW, this is the specific quote that lousy TV show (ie, Saturday Night Live—at least 20 to 30 years past its prime. But I guess desperate members of the public do need something to watch on Saturday evenings) parodied:
Accurate geographically and otherwise, and certainly not a lie.
Meanwhile, and come to think of it, Hillary “sniper fire” Clinton is such a clumsy liar, she actually has to be sort of a moron to have no hesitation about all her dishonesty…
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:00 amShe’s shown some depth on policy lately. It’s actually really hard to get a grasp on it because 99% of the time I think about Palin, it’s in reference to some lame attack.
So I guess the left’s insanity is actually working to some extent. It’s easy to dismiss her, because the level of attention she gets is not justified by anything she’s done. On the other hand, I know she’d be a good leader… just at a basic level. I don’t even agree with her on a few social issues, and yet I know she’d be a great leader. I think she’s able to put together a coalition.
Regardless, she would have a great impact on the primaries. Even if she doesn’t run, it will be challenging to beat her, and I think she’ll keep ’em honest.
Did any of you catch Althouse’s attack on Palin. I thought it was kinda over-the-top and not very well thought out. But I’m sure it’s earned Althouse a short term boost in readership.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:05 amI will agree with The Emperor that Hillary would have made a good president. I wouldn’t have agreed with her often, but I think she at least understood the job.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:06 amWhy does the media report on Palin’s every word and then collectively question her relevance?
Because she’s good copy. She’s either asking,’How do you like me now?’ or defending dirty laundry scoops.
steve (3e5dfa) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:12 amEmperor, when I compare Palin to Hillary, I think Hillary really suffers for it.
Let’s just put partisanship aside for a moment. It’s clear that Palin was attacked much more than Hillary. At a more personal level, and much more harshly, and by a much larger portion of the media, Palin was attacked in much less honest ways. Yes, Hillary was attacked… but for Hillary’s actual flaws. Palin was attacked for some of her flaws and a ton of things Palin is not responsible for.
Also, Palin earned what she has… she did not marry someone who earned it for her. Palin is scandal free, after some extremely harsh investigations, but Hillary is not. Hillary didn’t earn it, and what she got she hasn’t managed well. I think Palin is not perfect in how she handled power, but most of that is democrats using her reforms to force the Alaskan government to not serve the people unless Palin gave up power. That’s not clearly a testament for or against Palin.
Hillary is a democrat… that’s why she’s considered acceptable. That’s really it. Democrats won’t give a minority, woman, or gay the time of day unless they are also a democrat. The attacks on Palin prove that the democrats have no interest in equality. She should stay home and raise the kids? Are they kidding?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:14 amMaybee, Hillary has shown how good she is at real problems, not fake Senate or First Lady ones, in her complete disaster as a Secretary of State.
She’s corrupt to the core, but that’s not the main problem. She’s not good at foreign policy. There’s a reason she never had a dent in politics until her husband became a popular president.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:17 amSay what we will about Hillary. But a moron she’s not.
So Biden’s a genius in your estimation. Brilliant.
Let’s not talk about Biden
Sure – after all, he’s only the freaking Vice President of the United States. Instead, let us discuss the oh – so – put – upon Hillary, who got flattened by a Chicago Machine lightweight party hack. Then allowed herself to be effectively neutered and deemed completely irrelevant by the same lightweight. She’s brilliant, I tell you!
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:19 amNow this is interesting. You are discussing a “fact-check”, and you can’t be bothered to get your own facts straight.
FAIL. Try again, skippy.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:22 amHillary is a democrat… that’s why she’s considered acceptable.
And she’s has spent a few decades longer debating and promoting public policy issues on the national stage. It’s comparatively new to Sarah Palin. One gives long, wonkish answers, the other soundbite fusillades.
steve (3e5dfa) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:25 amAll politicians lie. It’s part of the job. We choose leaders not merely because of their perceived moral superiority but for their competence, depth of understanding of the issues, experience and likability. On that score Hillary beats Palin: Hands down. Except you fell on your head at birth, I can’t imagine how anyone will say Palin is more fit than Hillary to be President. And I am no fan of Hillary’s.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:32 amI suggest you all read MayBee’s post at comment number 36. That’s one honest commenter there. Among many.
“Let’s not talk about Biden”.
Funny, didn’t you argue Plouffe isn’t relevant, since he wasn’t a VP candidate? Why are YOU now arguing that we don’t talk about her opposite number, but instead a failed primary P candidate?
If you are going to bring an argument, bring an argument instead of merely a pose, Emperor-Who-Hath-No-Clothes
Of course, fact-checking Biden finds that facts about his life aren’t just wrong, they belong to living people from Scotland.
Or is that the reason you want to change the subject?
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:37 amNo Dmac. I never said Biden is a genius. Unlike Palin, he was not picked to save Obama’s “failing” campaign. He is just regular Joe. No glamor no glitz. Just Joe.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:42 amLovey, MayBee’s been here long enough to know your tactics. You prop up MayBee now, but soon enough you will denigrate her (at least, I think it’s a “her”). Just as you did NOYK and many others. You are a worthless passive-aggressive scam and all the regulars know it.
And, while I admit I haven’t heard everything Palin has had to say, I can’t think of any lies she’s told. Unlike Veep Biden, Prez Obama, SecState Clinton, Speaker Pelosi, Prez pro-tem Reid, Gibbs, Podesta, Rangel, Frank, MSM, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, who lie on a regular basis.
As I said about a certain member of management in a previous job I had, the left believe Truth is a very powerful weapon, to be used in only the most extreme cases.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:42 amAnd not just politicians, as this thread illustrates.
This character is just a partisan Moby. I’m sure that, during the last election, this was one of those “I’m a concerned Christian long time Republican…”
Oh, and MayBee, better watch out. The nice comments come before the fury, as you will remember from prior posts.
But the bit confusing SNL’s “humor” with what Palin actually said was priceless. And typical of the fact checking: if you don’t like Palin, you don’t bother to check any bad gossip.
Getting to the topic instead of the Moby, the proper comparison of MSM bias was the treatment that Biden received versus Palin.
Scratch a Leftist, and you find a person with sexist and racist tendencies. Because it is AAAALLLLL about the “D” versus “R.”
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:45 amNo, he is a partisan hack. He is a serial fabulist. He is dishonorable—he has told multiple people he would support them, and then stabbed them in the back. He is a fool about foreign policy, yet was put on the ticket for his “expertise” (remember partioning Iraq?).
Short version: you like Obama. That’s it. All the intellectual limbo business is in support of your partisanship.
Oh, sure, you will claim you aren’t partisan. But no one is buying that bilge.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:49 amLoveless could easily have written the tease on Yahoo replete with snark from the corksuckers at AP: “Sarah Palin’s new book reprised familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven’t become any truer over time.” And the sheeple buy into that crap. Yeah, I know her denigrators here have no trouble daydreaming endlessly about sex with Urkel.
aoibhneas (6d7589) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:50 amPlouffe’s book was about OBAMA’s campaign but it was also about the Associated Press’s campaign and Newsweek’s campaign and CBS News’s campaign and also NPR’s campaign. You can’t separate them I don’t think.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:51 amMr. Feet, you are dead right. Plouffe’s book should have all of the MSM as coauthors.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:52 ambut I think she at least understood the job.
Understood?! Maybe if the job she was anxious to latch onto was manager of a used-car lot, sales rep of an aluminum-siding business, or supervisor of a boiler-room phone-call center somewhere in Florida. Of course, some may say the ideal qualifications for the presidency, or, for that matter, any major job in government, are geared in a similar way. But I don’t buy into the cynicism that all politicians are crooks and liars. But if they are, this guy appears to fit the bill…
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:54 am#44
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:56 amJeff, is Joe Biden releasing a memoir anytime soon?
And here is the best illustration of what is going on in the MSM (from Politico):
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_dom_11_23_09.html
This is the clearest example of classic projection I have ever seen. The MSM remains the problem, in that the are pushing their agenda.
They know more than voters do, after all. So they will tell everyone what to think. Instead of, well, reporting news.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:57 amEmpty Roar at 43 – You are claiming “Cackles” Hillary is more likeable than Palin?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:58 amAs opposed to this, from a couple of weeks ago:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/biden-newsweek1.JPG
See what I mean?
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:58 am“I can’t imagine how anyone will say Palin is more fit than Hillary to be President. And I am no fan of Hillary’s.”
All due respect, but you’re not supposed to like Palin… you’re her ideological opponent.
Palin is a good leader. She’s honest enough to clean house, even when it’s her party that is the dirtiest (that’s not the case anymore up there, thanks largely to her). She’s made huge, huge deals with foreign countries and oil companies that were considered impossible by many other leaders who tried and failed, over and over.
Hillary! has never actually accomplished anything. I don’t know why she’s considered a better candidate than, say John Edwards. She was senator… didn’t do anything there. She was first lady, and understandably didn’t do anything there. She’s had many major embarrassments as SecState, but that may be because she’s a good subordinate to a bad president.
Regardless of all that, Hillary has had a much longer time to lead than Palin has, and Palin’s accomlished a whole lot more. She was polarized by the Obama campaign (which includes NBC, ABC, CBS, in my opinion), but as a Mayor, Governor, and leader of the coalition of pissed off conservatives, she’s obviously got leadership skill. She ain’t perfect, but I don’t think that’s such a problem these days.
Granted, I think the GOP should be able to find someone with much more leadership experience at higher levels, but compared to Hillary Clinton, Palin is simply more qualified in basically every way.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:01 amUnlike Palin, he was not picked to save Obama’s “failing” campaign.
Yeah – they selected the sage of Rhode Island for his supposed foreign policy bona fides. How’s that working out for them so far? Wasn’t his recent howler something about using nothing but drones to win the war in Afganistan?
He is just regular Joe. No glamor no glitz. Just Joe.
He is just regular Village Idiot Joe – you know, the one who claimed that FDR addressed the nation on Black Friday during the onset of the crash…on TV.
No brain, no gonads. Just Blow.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:02 amJeff, is Joe Biden releasing a memoir anytime soon?
Indeed he is – it’s titled My mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:05 amIt appears that Sarah Palin didn’t say “I can see Russia from my house..”. My bad. She actually said “You can see Russia from Alaska” where she lives. It was what she had to offer as one of her foreign policy experience. My apologies.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:05 amNeither is Hillary.
Let me get this straight, you say:
1) Let’s not talk about Plouffe’s memoir, he wasn’t the VP candidate.
2) Let’s not talk about Biden, he’s isn’t writing a memoir.
3) Let’s talk about Hillary, who is in neither of these categories. Because I think she stacks up better against Palin, or something.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:08 amHere’s the political math: Obama < Hillary < Palin.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:08 amFunny how saying “I’m wrong” is somehow transmogrified into more snark. Own your own words. Which are little more than partisan snark and “I didn’t read anything or think very deeply” political analysis.
As Dmac just demonstrated to you.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:09 am“It was what she had to offer as one of her foreign policy experience. My apologies.”
Come on dude, I ponted to specific foreign policy experience Palin had with a major oil pipeline. It’s something other governors failed at.
I point at specific accomplishments of Palin. Successes that make a major difference in the world.
What about Hillary… you don’t seem to be pointing to her success in foreign policy. Is Iran getting nukes and Pakistan falling to our enemies Hillary’s fault? Of course it is, actually, but when democrats fail, they don’t have to take credit.
She is in charge of the USA’s foreign policy for the past several month… when we have suffered many failures. Where are Hillary’s successes?
Meanwhile, Palin’s actual successes are ignored for some reason. Why?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:12 amAll politicians lie. It’s part of the job. We choose leaders not merely because of their perceived moral superiority but for their competence, depth of understanding of the issues, experience and likability.
That you tolerate, if not embrace, dishonesty is illustrated by your disingenuity in using a phrase like “issues, experience and likability,” largely because of its high-minded-sounding, artificially-fair-minded quality. IOW, using that instead of a more honest and accurate statement of “I prefer liberals and leftism, plain and simple.”
And when people say “all politicians are dishonest,” they rarely follow that up with a more revealing statement along the lines of “but I can live with lies from a liberal, not from a conservative.” Or, to be fair, visa versa.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:16 amI agree. Joe Biden tends to be an idiot.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:17 amWhy?
Comment by Dustin — 11/14/2009 @ 10:12 am
“D” & “R”!
AD - RtR/OS! (32db6a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:18 amIt doesn’t get any more simple than that.
It was what she had to offer as one of her foreign policy experience
Unlike Hillary, who offered…what, exactly? Dodging the sniper fire in Bosnia? Wait, wasn’t that the same trip where Biden claimed they had to land because of incoming fire from ground – based attack systems? Joe somehow forgot that they had to land because of a bad snowstorm. Courageous stuff, no doubt.
All lies – every one of them. But then again, Palin lied about…what, exactly?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:18 amComment by The Emperor — 11/14/2009 @ 10:17 am
Self-recognition?
AD - RtR/OS! (32db6a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:19 amI’ve sent SarahPac a hundred smackaroos and can’t wait for her to run against Obama in 2012.
If the last election is any indication, this time around she’ll destroy the Republican party once and for all. If it hasn’t already done so by 2011, with no small thanks to her, and she’s forced to run on either the treasonous Alaska Independence Party or Tea-Bagger Mouthbreather tickets.
Assclown Pumpkinhead (f0d390) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:22 amObama < Billary < Dirt (also on YouTube) < Palin
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:22 amWell, anyway, Secretary of State = not president.
Diplomacy fails America, just as a basic definition of what diplomacy in today’s world means from the position of power. Our Secretary’s of State are all unpopular. Colin Powell, Albright, Condi… their unpopularity stems from the nature of this horrible job. Obama put Hillary in the perfect place to eliminate her.
Obama doesn’t want Hillary to have a chance in 2016… Obama has his own corrupt faction. They are making many billions off of ‘stimulus’, and are not going to give that up to any other democrats. Obama will attempt to pick a successor, and he was wise to eliminate Hillary as a rival.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:23 amOh, crud, missed a closing tag. Admin? Fix it?
[fixed. –Stashiu]
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:23 amUnless you forgot the /sarc tag, that comment certainly justifies your handle.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:26 amMister Weimer, don’t worry too much about that leftist sock puppet.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:27 amAssclown pumpkinhead, I realize you think your obscene hatred is clever. I also encourage democrats to donate to Palin, in an effort to prove their point that she’s going to destroy the GOP.
But we all know that democrats will be voting in GOP primaries for Palin’s closet GOP rival. Unlike Sotomayor, Palin is not a supporter of secessionists. but really… so what if she is?
What’s the horrible problem with people discussion secession? It’s a valid point… the constitution these states agreed to has been repeatedly breached by the federal government. It’s not really fair to make it some unpardonable sin to let states consider this carefully. A lot of dems think it’s just about tax dollars flowing to red states… it’s really about our fundamental rights.
That Palin was willing to talk to people who are concerned with this is not stigma. It’s common sense. If you want to exclude all those people, who don’t want any kind of horrible thing… just don’t want to be under a particular government, then you’re only proving their point.
More thought than you’ll actually consider, but I hope some foolish democrats fall for your idea, and actually give money to Palin in order to ‘destroy’ the GOP. Any GOP that Palin would destroy is one I don’t really care about, anyway!
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:30 amPlease don’t call me Mister, I work for a living. 😉
I’m also fairly new here, so I’m guessing Pumpkinhead is a long-standing commenter of the troll sort.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:31 amComment by Assclown Pumpkinhead — 11/14/2009 @ 10:22 am
Aren’t you late for your appearance on Lock ‘n Load with The Gunny?
AD - RtR/OS! (32db6a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:32 amIsn’t it time for these puerile dirty socialist and misogynist Newsweek propaganda whores to lose their place at the checkout line and also take TIME with them? When you do a cover like that you’re acknowledging that your gay little magazine has no readership what is right of center to lose and if you’re blatantly only trying to appeal to 52% of the population why should the other 48% have to look at Evan Thomas showing his ass?
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:32 amUnless you forgot the /sarc tag, that comment certainly justifies your handle.
Comment by Jeff Weimer — 11/14/2009 @ 10:26 am
Yeah, you’re right. I forgot to add an “s” at the end, to make it a little more recognizable to the regulars around here who know very well what I’m talkin’ about…
(Hi folks! Did ya miss me?)
Assclown Pumpkinheads (f0d390) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:32 amHas Sarah Palin ever lied? Hmmmm.. Let’s see…. 8)
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:33 amNewsweek Editor Jon Meacham on the Sarah Palin “Bad News” cover:
Apparently, “America is a center-right nation.”
steve (3e5dfa) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:33 amNot that I’m aware of – but many of the previously – banned Trolls come back as Zombies in another guise. Takes about 10 minutes to figure out who they’re really representing.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:34 amI see the Newsweak cover photo is from a Runner’s World photo shoot. The shot certainly seems appropriate for RW as Sarah looks in shape and her legs are toned and she looks like a runner.
And remember that photos of Micehelle O going sleeveless is perfectly fine because she has those freakin’-awesome, upper arms guns. But Sarah in shorts, well you just can’t take someone like that too seriously, you know.
PC14 (82e46c) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:38 amAhhh..Dmac…Dmac..Dmac….when I think of you: First thing that pops into my head is:
Classy.
You don’t want to know what the second word is…but it also starts with a “c.”
Wink.
Assclown Pumpkinheads (f0d390) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:39 amApparently, “America is a center-right nation.”
Comment by steve — 11/14/2009 @ 10:33 am
Please send that memo to Lindsey…
AD - RtR/OS! (32db6a) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:41 amHe’s forgotten where that center-line is.
Why would someone even want to comment where they were banned? Get a life! It’s beautiful outside here in Texas. I’m going to have a nice Saturday, but Assclown, I encourage you to keep telling democrats to donate to Palin. This is a clever, clever way to destroy the GOP. Especially now, when dozens of GOP districts have freshmen democrat congressmen running for reelection, and Palin will need the money to ‘destroy the GOP’.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:43 amWait, wasn’t that the same trip where Biden claimed they had to land because of incoming fire from ground – based attack systems?
Oh, sheesh. I didn’t even realize that the guy currently one step away from the Oval Office also had his Hillary-sniper-fire moment:
Newsweek asks, in an image that you probably think I am making up but that Politico insists is real: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?”
There was an article in the LA Times several months ago about the makeover of the ailing Newsweek magazine. The editor pretty much said that opinion-driven coverage, pure and simple, was the new thrust he was attempting for the publication and implied that objectivity was not a big concern of his.
Newsweek is now a variation of “The Nation” or “Mother Jones,” and the way that various parts of the MSM are losing profitability on a constant basis, Newsweek’s bottom line probably will soon also resemble that of esoteric political-niche magazines.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:43 amOf course, as have we all. The difference is, has she lied as blatantly as Hillary and Joe Biden, in the service of furthering herself politically? I haven’t seen it, even in all the detail-oriented coverage she’s gotten the past year or so. There isn’t anything of note there. Exaggerations? Sure, probably. You don’t campaign by downplaying your efforts, but by celebrating them. To that, she’s overplayed her hand with small beer (seeing Russia from Alaska) instead of explaining more substantive things about negotiating fishing treaties with Russia, trade delegations to all Pacific Rim countries, and negotiating as a Governor with the country of Canada for the gas pipeline.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:50 amDmac, you know how it is with banned trolls. They sockpuppet in and show how awesome their arguments are. Again. Troof to powder, as usual.
Newsweek is funny:
Um. So there is no drive toward ideological purity going on right now in the Oval Office? I see lots and lots of reaching out to folks on the Right who disagree with current policies, don’t you? You know, the folks who the President himself called “teabaggers.”
Nope, Newsweek! The current Administration is certainly a Big Tent of ideological differences, from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi to Charlie Rangel to…to…to….
And right on cue, they accuse Republicans of the problems they themselves are having.
It’s not working.
2010 is coming. The polls are sinking. Virginia and New Jersey woke up, and so are many other voters The voters just aren’t smart enough to see how darned smart this Adminstration is, and how brilliant and insightful the policies. No matter how many times Newsweek and Time and MSNBC explain it to us.
Seriously, it’s a weird world where the President bows to hereditary leaders, but insults his political dissenters.
But no worries. Gibbs will explain it wasn’t a bow (again). And later own, bovine byproduct is actually chocolate pudding.
When Newsweek used the term “compromise,” I don’t think they meant “compromise one’s own values, and honesty itself.”
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:55 amDustin: It’s beautiful outside here in Texas. I’m going to have a nice Saturday, but Assclown, I encourage you to keep telling democrats to donate to Palin.
Don’t need to, we’re all just tickled that she got a book and is on Oprah and is seriously considered a spokewoman for the GOP, and is probably going to run, and we’re giving her money like crazy. She’s more entertaining than a WWF cage match with nuns.
As, for the second part of your comment. I am touched for your concern with enjoying my Saturday, but it’s a gray rainy day in Brooklyn and so…and so…well I should actually go out anyway. Thanx for the reminder, Dustin.
The rest of you Pumpkinheads…smell you folks laterz!
Assclown Pumpkinheads (f0d390) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:55 amGotta love that. The implication is of course that Obama is centrist and very reasonable and that any opposition to him by the GOP is just right wing nutbaggery.
If it is true that America is a right of center country Mr. Meacham, then why is it that your publication is so far left of center? Isn’t that a bad business model? Could that be part of the reason you and your fellow travelors in journalism are in such bad financial shape?
BT (74cbec) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:56 amNewsweak’s pathetic attempt to become an Economist Lite is so very, very, sad.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:00 amThat cannot be real.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:07 amI think this proves one thing, as happyfeet would say, Newsweek is very ghey, except that’s not necessarily true either, because Hill Buzz and
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:09 amTammy Bruce, among others are among her strongest
supporters. just the people at Newsweek who think Biden is a idiot savant, we’re all socialists now,
there are no death panels, but it would be great if there were
Seriously, that can’t be real, that Newsweek cover. It’s preposterous, for one thing, and wouldn’t they use a photo of their own?
That pic belongs to Runner’s magazine – who owns Runner’s magazine? The same folks who own Newsweek? Would the photographer have the right to sell? Would Palin herself have any control over the image?
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:12 amNewsweek’s sales are so far down they resort to putting Sarah Palin on the cover in order to peddle their silly claptrap. If this scam works maybe we can look forward to Ann Coulter in a real short skirt.
ropelight (fcea50) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:16 amAnn Coulter is like, a thousand.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:18 amRunner’s World, rather, published by Rodale press.
Rodale doesn’t seem to have any direct connection to Newsweek.
Who would control the image? How does that work?
Nice of Newsweek to cover up the blue star, if it is. Where did Politico get that pic of the cover, anyway?
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:20 amWhoops. deleted part of that post.
It seems so photoshoppy. Somebody prove that is real.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:22 amRopelight, Time tried that a while back:
http://www.adpulp.com/archives/AnnCoulter_Time.jpg
But then again, look what Esquire did with WJC:
http://artsytime.com/img/people/best-magazine-covers/best-magazine-covers19.jpg
I’ll bet you that Chris Mathews has that framed in his room.
Eeewwww.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:31 amSomething I wrote that we on the Right (all branches, especially if you folks live in the NY/NJ/CT area)
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2009/11/35-things-conservatives-libertarians.html
1. Newsweek writes the Obama message of the week. Find their editors and get to know them. Ask nicely first, if they can’t see our side, ask harder at their house.
2. Fareed Zakharia is the International Editor of Newsweek and has a CNN show. However, because he was allowed to Hate Conservatives, Republicans, President Bush and Governor Palin and has an Ivy Degree, he is allowed a platform to hate Jews and Israel. Get him off both platforms.
The left is allowed to hate Jews and israel because it was OK to hate Bush and Palin (who support Israel). Don’t you love that logic?
JSF (9d1bb3) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:35 amI don’t understand how this could be the cover after that muslim fundamentalist terrorist person killed all those soldiers in Texas.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:36 amObviously Palin is not irrelevant to the left in any way, shape, or form and that scares them. Just like small children, the only way to to respond to fear, is to attack. So they continue to do so. It’s a good sign. Her Facebook / WSJ essays reveal a sound mind who can do the heavy lifting of strong and cohesive thought on a number of subjects. Looking great on top of that is just
another plusthorn in their side.I think the Newsweek cover is unintentionally great: they’ve thrown up another attempt to discredit her by showing her in short shorts – gasp!- in an attempt to make the reader further question her credibility (because shorts = vapidity or something like that). The obvious ploy is painful. I haven’t heard them yet, but I’m sure righteous feminists and newsies everywhere will be howling in defiant support of this as much as they all did when the appropriateness of Mrs. Obama wearing denim shorts became an issue. Because the left is fair, credible and even handed in their judgements.
This just all speaks to a pathetic attempt to distract the readers from the substance of Palin, of which there exists a substantial amount – just ask Althouse. You think her bitchiness this week is because Palin lacks it?
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:38 amNo. I don’t see that, Dana. When they do this sort of thing they go a long long way towards ensuring our Oval Office remains a bitches-free zone. It’s deeply women-hatey. Evan Thomas is a misogynist piece of shit Ivy League tool.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:44 amyeah I kinda thought that one might get filtrated
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:45 amhf, Time takes things a bit more seriously, which normally wouldn’t be saying much but comparatively speaking, is saying a whole lot.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:49 amI didn’t even think of that happyfeet, well she’s
bishop (996c34) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:51 ama hunter, a prolifer, her son’s an Iraq War vet,
she’s the toast of the tea partiers, clearly the
real enemy by the lights of the DHS memo last spring
Sarah Palin personifies everything liberals and feminists say they admire in women, athletic, happy marriage, motherhood, career. You name it and Sarah Palin lives it.
More than any woman in this country, Sarah deserves to be a cover girl. The caption ought to read: Uncle Sam’s Best Friend. How did we get along without her?
ropelight (fcea50) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:10 pmJSF,
That is a nice list at your link.
#20 is interesting, about Navasky running Columbia Journalism Review. I’ve sparred with some of their less-than-accurate writers, and now I know why. I’ll be sure to mention this when pointing out CJR’s biases. Reporters who don’t aspire to be ideologues need to know CJR’s agenda.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:44 pmI didn’t know there was still a print version of Newsweek. How’s that doing? This will sure lighten up on their postage bill, once both customers and advertisers cancel.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:48 pmBet you they will never run a cover showing off Hillary’s legs!
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:53 pmThey have Newsweak at my local Vons. Each cover screams desperately, “Buy me! PLEASE!!!””
I’ve managed to resist the temptation.
However, I did spent $50 recently on a year’s subscription to Rush’s 24/7 podcast. I’d been downloading it from a torrent site, but it was just too much hassle. And I like voting with my dollars for the kind of journalism I find valuable.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:58 pmForgot to mention: Rush will have Palin on his show Tuesday.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 12:59 pmI like what Camille Paglia writes about Palin: she disagrees with her politics and policies, but is delighted to see her standing up for what she believes. And not in some trollish way (“…you run to bring down the Republicans…”).
But that is because Paglia is a real feminist, not someone who only supports strong women when their politics agrees with her own.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:03 pmDear Dana:
Don’t take Professor Althouse too seriously. When it comes to being “dumb,” I can imagine that she has some sympathy with the word, having said she would vote for BHO a year ago, believing that he would do things he did not, and would be a person he is not.
That is “dumb.”
Most of us weren’t fooled. It takes a great big professor of law to get all starry eyed and be played by an inexperienced Chicago racialist pol with entitlement issues.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:11 pmLate to the party, and I have no idea if it’s been said…
But looking at that pic, if that’s a problem, I have a list of possible solutions. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:18 pmLefties claiming they are not scared of Palin are lying, period. I went to DU to get reaction to BHO’s Japan trip, but, boy, I found a jewel. THIS thread shows they are, in fact, scared shitless of Sarah:
sybilll (59a98a) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:21 pmhttp://tinyurl.com/yem5mmm
The comparison to the way the media was laughing at Ronald Reagan in 1979 was damn near orgasmic. Enjoy.
“109. Sarah Palin personifies everything liberals and feminists say they admire in women, athletic, happy marriage, motherhood, career. You name it and Sarah Palin lives it.”
I totally agree. But you forget she’s beautiful first – a lot of feminists find that somewhat threatening. Like beauty and brains are mutually exclusive.
And that sound your hear? Michelle upping her lunge count. I foresee Daisy Dukes for next Summer vacation.
em (11cf60) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:21 pmI don’t have a Von’s card, just Ralph’s. Which, I live on top of one so that works out fine.
Hey maybe the little president man might come out and say that Newsweek is being very unfair to denigrate a former governor and a woman who cares about her country very deeply and has been a role model to many young women.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:26 pmPerfect calves and ankles. Knees a trifle bony. Thighs way too skinny.
nk (df76d4) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:35 pmAlthouse notoriously had a teary-eyed breakdown when meeting with Libertarians a couple of years ago. She was horrified to find out they didn’t support government no-discrimination laws (as anyone having read a lick about Libertarians would have known), and demanded they prove to her they weren’t racists.
In trying to explain to Althouse why private discrimination might be OK, I later pieced together that my tablemates had posed the question of whether or not Althouse would want to have the right to refuse to serve KKK members if she owned a restaurant–say, the KKK members were planning to have a weekly luncheon meeting at her cafe?
My interpretation of what happened is that because she didn’t want to appear to be hypocrite, she refused to answer and kept asking more and more abstract questions about their example. When she was backed into a corner, she lashed out, suggesting that people who disagreed with her feelings were racists. Eventually, she was so upset that she began crying. Of course, at that point the possibility of civil intellectual discourse completely evaporated.
After that, I’ve had a hard time taking anything Althouse says seriously.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:37 pmAnn Althouse probably lives too much in her own head but she’s good people. If she were the worst we had to deal with America would be America again.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:40 pmMichelle upping her lunge count.
Yeah, well me too!
Sarah Palin personifies everything liberals and feminists say they admire in women, athletic, happy marriage, motherhood, career. You name it and Sarah Palin lives it.”
Then how do we explain the bitter vitriol and mockery of her by the feminists? I suggest it boils down to the basest of female responses: jealousy. (See: Althouse)
And that simply demeans women everywhere. If Palin were a size 16, with short sensible hairdo, there would be far less resentment toward her. Women are the ones to appear to have reinforced that beauty and brains are and must remain, mutually exclusive. Gad, we’re a shallow breed…
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:45 pmLefty women are, Dana.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:49 pmI think that slights how the knives came out for Hillary, who is an ugly woman and hard to look at besides.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 1:50 pmI suggest it boils down to the basest of female responses: jealousy.
I have to say “huh?!” It actually boils down to her being of the right, virtually all her opponents being of the left. It’s as plain and basic as that.
I’ve said previously that if most of black America suddenly acquired the ideological characteristics of Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, a lot of both white and black (and Latino and Asian, etc), pro-diversity, pro-civil-rights people would find their ardor for civil rights and certainly diversity dropping — if not crashing — by several degrees. A variation of the same concept applies to women, feminism and liberalism. IOW, kisses and hugs from the left directed at women like Hillary, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, a shrug or a stare by the same crowd directed at any female of the right.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:00 pm[…] Patterico: MSNBC used “a well-known and long-debunked photo-shopped pic of Palin.” The […]
Daily scoreboard « Don Surber (df6652) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:00 pmDana, feminists hate Palin not because of her adherence or non-adherence to their goals of empowering women but because she is a powerful woman who does not bow leftward. Ie., she has obtained influence and success without worshipping the whole leftwing package of modern feminism.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:30 pmI think that slights how the knives came out for Hillary, who is an ugly woman and hard to look at besides.
And who was it throwing the knives? I suppose “ugly” is subjective. I don’t think she is, and has finally found a look/style that works for her as a 60+ year old woman.
It actually boils down to her being of the right, virtually all her opponents being of the left. It’s as plain and basic as that.
I think that’s ultimately the essence of it – that she’s never *needed* feminists to garner the success she has is unforgivable, but you’re foolish to think her physicality doesn’t play a big part of it. It’s precisely why Newsweek chose that particular photo to use of her for the cover in spite of there being a plethora of other possible photos to use – ones that didn’t show a lot of leg or with a cheerleader appearance.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:56 pm[…] Patterico: How many MSNBCs does it take not to know the most famous Photoshopped photo ever was Photoshopped? (answer: 1) […]
Jules Crittenden » Palin-Palooza (98837e) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:57 pmOh, an interesting and smart observation of feminists’ loathing of Palin by one very serious feminist.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 3:10 pmoh. last time I saw her was at that press conference where she got all pissy with I think some Chinese guy about a question she thought was about about Bill or something. I thought she came across pretty heinous. Graceless.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 3:12 pmbut you’re foolish to think her physicality doesn’t play a big part of it.
But I bet you if you took the exact same looks of a Sarah Palin and had comments like the following emanating from such a person:
“I’m pro-choice 100, if not 1000, percent!”
“The war in Iraq was horrible and cruel to the Iraqi people!”
“Carbon dioxide is a death threat to planet earth!”
“Taxes, high or low, are a sign of generosity and kindness from one American to another!”
“Free healthcare is a right, not a privilege!”
“Undocumented people are treated cruelly by too many Americans and deserve our respect and love!”
“Unions should be permitted to know the identity of every prospective member who will be voting to unionize!”
“Not allowing two people of the same sex to be legally and symbolically recognized as married is unkind!”
“America tends to be too pushy and imperialistic and needs to act more humbly before the nations of the world!”
…you’d find a lot of Palin’s critics, female or male, zipping their lips.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2009 @ 3:54 pmFor somebody variously derided as an idiot, a joke, unelectable, somebody who’s 15 minutes are up, among numerous other slurs, the liberal media and progressive hive community-based reality sure spend an awful lot of time and effort trying to marginalize somebody they keep insisting is not a a threat. WHY IS THAT?
In fact, many say they would love for Palin to run for national office because it would mean a walkover for Democrats. If that were true, you would think the stories appearing would be significantly less negative in order to encourage her to run.
It’s clear by their continued obsession with Palin that the left views her as a significant threat. There is no other way to interpret their behavior.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:02 pmThe NYT gets in its shots about Palin’s “erratic” book.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:08 pmThe New York Times. they once got very upset when a different president *almost* bowed the the very emperor Obama bowed way down for yesterday.
The New York Times… virtually every smear against our troops has been on their front page, and followed by a buried, late, and half assed correction.
Like Newsweek, they are ramping up the viciousness. It’s not going to feel very justified to many folks. Often, conservatives are bashed for being thin skinned. In this case, it really will be impossible to take any accusation against Palin seriously. I don’t see how this helps the democrats. Most of their power is legislative. Palin being polarized gives her much more power to push red districts away from freshmen dems. That’s why I laughed at some commenter on this blog donating money to her ‘to destroy the GOP’.
Maybe this stuff makes her seem less moderate… not that it;s her doing. But it actually helps her gain the sympathetic support of a hell of a lot of motivated voters. This is going to have a direct effect on 2010’s election. If Palin is not nominated, she will be able to shape more 2012 elections. The left clearly doesn’t know how to solve a problem like Sarah.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:33 pmBradley, ironically two editors of The Nation have released their own Going Rogue – An American Nightmare – to be released in conjunction with Palin’s book. It includes a veritable who’s who of American feminists piling on.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:36 pmHillary was attacked on the left because she was perceived as more conservative than Obama.
Obama himself was actually at his ugliest in that primary… which he basically didn’t win. But that’s none of my business.
There’s no doubt that Mccain would have treated Hillary with the same laudatory treatment he gave Obama.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:41 pmLook at Newsweek’s cover!
If you look at the actual photo, a significant aspect of the staging is the ‘Blue Star’ banner. That’s what the photo is about, Palin’s life outside her work. Her family, her fitness, her happiness, her patriotism. They mock her fitness and beauty, as though that’s somehow a sign of her being ridiculous…
But much more offensively to me, it is quite obvious that they made sure that their lettering covered up the prominent ‘Blue Star’ of the banner. You hardly even notice it unless you remember the photo.
That star was the point of the picture. Such that this picture is newsworthy, it’s a big part of the actual facts that Newsweek is not only failing to show its readers, but actually taking steps to hide. It’s also pretty offensive to people who love our troops.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:12 pm“…If Palin were a size 16, with short sensible hairdo, there would be far less resentment toward her…”
You mean, if she were Janet Napolitano?
AD - RtR/OS! (32db6a) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:18 pm135
Yep yep yep…
I agree
EricPWJohnson (a74c57) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:25 pmok explain the significance of the blue star I was sick that day I think
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:31 pmhappyfeet, it’s a fairly well known thing (this is not intended as a diss).
Blue Star Mothers hang a star for every child they have serving in a war.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:35 pmHere’s the Blue Star Mothers website. It’s an organization for mothers of men and women who serve or have served in the military.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:41 pmBlue Star Mothers is sexist! I gots me a blue star hangin from my winder! And I ain’t no momma! Where do I go?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:47 pmI’m late to this thread but I wanted to address the risible claim of The Emperor that Hillary Clinton is competent. As SOS Clinton has had two major issues on her plate: Iran and Honduras. She did nothing on Iran and got the uncomplicated situation in Honduras exactly backwards. She is Obama’s lap dog and if she had any integrity she would have resigned.
Despsite her vaunted reputation she has no personal accomplishments as a politician. The much maligned Palin, in fact, has a resume that would make Hillary blush.
Hillary is Bill Clinton’s long suffering wife. But for that no one would have heard of her.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:51 pmJohn, sometimes, reality is a bit sexist. There really is something special about a mother’s love for her son or daughter in war. But bless you and hang your star proudly anyway.
What I was getting at, is that this was carefully obscured by Newsweek’s typeface. This was the core component of why the photo is framed off center… they are talking about Sarah’s personal interests, and that darn family is like #1.
If they are going to reproduce the picture to make some point, it’s unfortunate… hell, it’s aggravating, that they would obscure the meaning of the picture. That, right there, would have taken the wind right out of their sails.
Palin has skin in the game. She’s loving. That’s just not fitting Newsweek’s narrative that Palin’s existence is bad for all of us (perhaps the worst condemnation of anyone I’ve seen on their magazine cover… worse than they would say about Osama Bin Laden).
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:05 pmDustin – The liberal media hates conservatives more than they do terrorists, especially conservative women.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:22 pmoh. got it. I’ve heard of that I just didn’t snap.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:40 pmwell actually no I didn’t know about the hanging a star part
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 6:41 pmThe editors of Newsweek can be described by a British term “fuckwits”
Mike Myers (710e8b) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:27 pmDana – that post was great, thanks for the link. I made it about half way through the comments – all 486. Fascinating stuff.
The link is in #132 comment for anyone else who might want to read the post. Thought provoking for sure.
em (11cf60) — 11/14/2009 @ 7:29 pm“She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.”
So honorable of Newsweek to be concerned for the welfare of the GOP. (rolls eyes)
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/14/2009 @ 8:38 pmThe emperor said – “She actually said ‘You can see Russia from Alaska’ where she lives. It was what she had to offer as one of her foreign policy experience.”
No, that is not why she said that. I don’t know how many times I’ve read that accusation but it is completely, totally wrong.
What Palin said was, to the effect, that she had foreign policy experiences with Russia. That was part of her foreign policy experience. She said it was necessary, for after all, Russia was close to Alaska, in fact, so close that….(etc).
And she didn’t say that she could see Russia from where she lived.
Anyone that spins it any differently is responsible for spinning a lie. It should be stopped.
Colorado (0c9d05) — 11/14/2009 @ 9:51 pmDana,
Bradley, ironically two editors of The Nation have released their own Going Rogue – An American Nightmare – to be released in conjunction with Palin’s book.
Better titled, “Going Rogue, A Loony Left Nightmare.” These people are so scared to death of Palin they’ve lost any semblance of rational thought.
The left/media demonization of Palin is so over-the-top it cries out for a great Iowahawk parody. But how do you parody a parody?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:10 pm70% Of Americans Don’t Think Sarah Palin Is Qualified To Be President
WASHINGTON (CNN) – More than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, according to a new national poll.
Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House. Republicans appear split, with 52 percent saying she’s qualified and 47 percent disagreeing with that view.
The poll indicates that about half of the country, 51 percent, has an unfavorable view of Palin, with 42 percent seeing her in a positive light. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned say Palin’s not a typical politician, and feel she’s a good role model for women. Fifty-six percent add that Palin cares about people, and a similar amount think she’s honest and trustworthy. But the survey indicates Americans are split over whether Palin shares their values, agrees with them on the issues, or if she’s a strong leader.
“Sarah Palin has one advantage that many past Republican candidates have not shared – Americans think she cares about people like them,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But her biggest Achilles heel is the number who think she is not qualified to be President. Those numbers are similar to what Dan Quayle got in 1993, when only 23 percent thought he was ready for the White House.”
In a very early look at the next race for the White House, the survey indicates that nearly one in three Republican voters, 32 percent, say they would be most likely to support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a hypothetical battle for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, with Palin seven points back at 25 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 21 percent. Five percent said they would back Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, with one in ten suggesting they would support some one else.
“Huckabee appears to have more support among Republicans than Palin and her unfavorable rating among all Americans is twice as high as Huckabee’s,” Holland says. “Palin may attract a lot of attention but the GOP may be looking elsewhere for their frontrunner.” source, cnn.com 10/28/09
Palin/Dobbs 2012. Nominate these quitters on a new Conservative Party ticket in 2012, please! What a gift.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:41 pmDCSCA just answered my question. A living parody, it is.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:46 pmThat’s just plain stupid, there, why vote for Huckabee, the man who makes us long for the days
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:50 pmof Jim guy Tucker
I think it goes without saying that Jon Stewart is not going to demand that MSNBC and Newsweek admit they used a doctored photo.
What I hate about this is I grew up reading Time and Newsweek and learned about world events thru their semi-objectivity (whatver bias was there in the 1990s was slim or unnoticable). In an attempt to keep what few subscribers they have those 2 magazines are “Mother Jones Lite”, as mentioned above. Is this the time to say “I didn’t leave the MSM; the MSM left me”?
Roger (dfa727) — 11/15/2009 @ 8:59 amSorry, forgot to say “allegedly doctored photo” in my post above.
Roger (dfa727) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:03 amTime used to be center right and known for its snappy prose. What a change. My copy of Palin’s book hasn’t arrived yet but I have a list of people who want to read it after I do.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:12 amComment by happyfeet — 11/14/2009 @ 3:12 pm
Hillary exhibits more grace and class toward Palin than a whole lot of others on the left. She sets a nice example. Refreshingly so.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:25 pm