Seriously.
The woman who couldn’t cite any specific newspapers she reads said the following in a recent interview:
Palin, who has long criticized media coverage of her campaign performance, also said she is interested to see if reporters are equally tough on Caroline Kennedy as she pursues the appointment to the likely-vacant Senate seat in New York.
“I’ve been interested to see how Caroline Kennedy will be handled, and if she will be handled with kid gloves or if she will be under such a microscope,” she said.
“It’s going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here, also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be,” she also said.
Well, I’m here in New York, and I can tell you that Caroline Kennedy’s getting hammered. An interview with the New York Times is coming across as much of a fiasco as Palin’s with Katie Couric, with Kennedy saying “You know” 138 times. Verbal tics are one thing, but this is ridiculous. Her poll numbers are in free fall after an initially positive response.
In short, the supposedly liberal-biased, class-ridden media is treating Caroline Kennedy the exact same way that Palin was treated.
If Palin actually read any newspapers, she’d know that.
Could they stop doing interviews with her now?
PAD
• 
As my girlfriend says to me constantly: It’s not about politics, it’s that she is a woman.
And I agree with that.
There is a huge double standard in how the media (and that goes for men and women in the media)goes after women compared to men.
They’ll quit interviewing her when people stop watching, and not a moment before. She, like Ann Coulter, are interesting to people in the same way the geek in the sideshow who bites off the heads of chickens is.
Don’t forget–it wasn’t a real interview. It’s for some Obama smear video.
Michaeljjt: “As my girlfriend says to me constantly: It’s not about politics, it’s that she is a woman.
And I agree with that.
Yeah, because the media never hammered Dan Quayle, Mike Dukakis, Joe “Gaff Machine” Biden, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or or any other politician tha way they have Sarah Palin.
Oh, wait… Yes they did. Guess it’s not all about her being a woman after all.
I saw a part of that interview and just shook my head in disbelief. She was yammering on about how “the media” was in a sad place because it was pushing the whole thing about her grandson actually being her son. She made the comment that it was sad and almost scary that “the media” was pushing stories to smear her that could only be sourced to anonymous internet bloggers.
I almost laughed at that one since most of the mainstream media called that thing a worthless internet rumor/garbage if they addressed it at all. Most of “the media” that I saw and heard keeping that thing in play were Fox News and the conservative talkers who were supporting her. They kept bringing it up over and over again as an example of how dirty “the media” or “The Left” was playing against her.
She’s playing to her base and even there she’s coming off looking stupid. If they push her along and run her in 2012 it’ll be another banner year for comedians.
Could they stop doing interviews with her now?
God, I hope not. Every time she does an interview, she re-demonstrates what an intellectual light-weight she is. Giving her a platform to speak is the surest way of destroying her chances of achieving national office.
Two years from now, some ultra-conservative up-and-comer is going to make their bid and then they’ll be the new Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.
On second thought, I don’t think that I need to use gender-neutral pronouns in that statement: Two years from now, some ultra-conservative up-and-comer is going to make his bid and then he’ll be the new Second Coming or Ronald Reagan.
Yep Jerry, and I never said they didn’t. But the way they go after women is different.
Here is my girlfriend, stepping in:
“Jerry, do tell all of us the last time a male politician of either party affiliation received coverage for his wardrobe at length day after day on major and minor media networks. Tell me the last time photos of a wide-eyed onlooker’s gaze reflected through the opening of a male candidate’s legs, just under the crotch, circulated virtually everywhere. The fact of the matter is that female politicians are viewed and critiqued entirely differently from their male counterparts, and their policy is often overlooked in order to focus on either superficial, physical nonsense or–heaven forbid–the fact they have the “audacity” to walk with their heads held high and speak aggressively in a man’s world. Both Hillary Clinton and Governor Palin have been criticized in a manner that their male counterparts will never have to face, at least not anytime soon. Criticize their policies, but leave their wardrobes, physiques, and hairstyles aside. And if the media is in any way threatened by their assertive confidence, then perhaps they should begin to do a semblance of historical research on their own and they won’t feel so small.
This is in direct response to Jerry’s comment and not to Peter’s original post, although frankly, I have a lot to say about that as well. Fin.”
I saw some of that Sarah Palin interview and I had the same reaction I always do. I started yelling at my TV and had to turn it off early.
Not only is she an idiot, but she can’t seem to open her mouth without saying that everyone is out to get her. Nobody is buying her idea that Katie Couric was saying people in Alaska don’t read, but she keeps pushing it. It wasn’t Sarah’s fault she looked bad, it was edited that way, even though she hasn’t actually watched the interview and doesn’t know that she looked bad even when they didn’t edit the answers at all. It’s the fault of McCain’s people for this, it’s the fault of the media for that, everyone is out to get poor little Sarah.
I can’t stand her. Someday an interview with her is going to come on TV and my head will spontaneously explode.
Michaeljjt’s girlfriend: do tell all of us the last time a male politician of either party affiliation received coverage for his wardrobe at length day after day on major and minor media networks.
2008, John Edwards got blasted in the media for getting a $400 haircut. It wasn’t as much coverage as Sarah Palin got, but $400 is way less than what was spent on her wardrobe.
Yes, women are treated differently than men, but Sarah Palin isn’t your best example. She would have gotten horrible media coverage if she was a man. She deserved every bit of bad coverage she got.
I read several newspapers everyday, live in New York City and do not feel Ck is getting even close to the heat Palin got. Palin didn’t deserve it, she proved herself several times and showed that she had experience, regardless of what anyone said. All this shows is that the media is biased, making stuff up and using their power to put someone in office with NO experience while bashing someone WITH executive experience. CK has never held an office and has been private and not forthcoming her entire life. She needs to be vetted as much as any Republican would be. I see stuff on her everyday but it isn’t near what Palin and others have taken.
The attacks on Palin over her kid were, as far as I can see, almost entirely done by bloggers. Andrew Sullivan is still beating that dead horse. I don’t think that there was very much mainstream coverage at all.
That said, I do think she was treated differently–Biden’s gaffes were shrugged off while hers were treated as evidence of her lack of intelligence.
Now whether that was due to her gender, ideology, the fact that we already knew Biden was a dope, the fact that without much else to go on the media went with first impressions, Tina Fey’s great impersonation, or what, I can’t say.
PAD’s right about Kennedy; she’s getting hammered. Justifiably so.
Criticize their policies, but leave their wardrobes, physiques, and hairstyles aside. And if the media is in any way threatened by their assertive confidence, then perhaps they should begin to do a semblance of historical research on their own and they won’t feel so small.
John Edwards’ hair.
Bill Clinton’s love of fast food that contributed to his gut and jowls.
Al Gore’s weight gain.
The string of pictures that always depicts the aging of a President after his time in office.
Yes, there is more discussion of women’s clothing than men’s. That’s probably because there’s little to no variation. But don’t start claiming that men get a free pass on physique and hair styles because it’s demonstrably untrue.
PAD
No opinion on Kennedy either way, but comparing someone up for one of a hundred senators, and one of the most junior if not THE most junior members to the Senate to someone who is up for the Vice Presidency? And with a would-be president who’s in his 70s? That’s the same? Really?
Formerly posted under Michaeljjt as his girlfriend:
Peter, I never claimed that men receive ZERO commentary. What I said was that the manner in which women are held up to the light on matters of appearance is far more intense. With respect to your examples, I don’t recall Al Gore’s weight gain and/or Bill Clinton’s love of fast food making the nightly news repeatedly for weeks at a time. In addition, let’s keep in mind that those were facts. Al Gore put on weight and Bill Clinton gorged on McDonald’s. The Sarah Palin wardrobe stats were entirely false, as all of those clothes were returned and the budgetary allowance was within range of any candidate running in the front lines that year. Of course only two media vehicles rescinded their inaccurate prior commentary, but that’s to no surprise.
Jerry, do tell all of us the last time a male politician of either party affiliation received coverage for his wardrobe at length day after day on major and minor media networks.
One correction here is that they didn’t do stories about her clothes. They were doing stories about how much was spent on her wardrobe for the short time she was running VS her “Average Jane” image. In that context you can find a number of male politicians who have been likewise hammered. John Edwards was ridiculed for months on end over his expensive haircut. Clinton once got an expensive haircut while sitting in Air Force 1 and that got play for months on end.
Do you just want to talk hair, makeup and wardrobe outside of that context? Al Gore did have his wardrobe brought up regularly when he was running in 2000 and they had mainstream media news stories about his hair and his makeup before the debates. Ronald Reagan’s hair color was an ongoing topic for most of his two terms.
Tell me the last time photos of a wide-eyed onlooker’s gaze reflected through the opening of a male candidate’s legs, just under the crotch, circulated virtually everywhere.
The low angle shot from the stage towards the audience in that manner isn’t new and it has been used for male politicians as well. And please define what you believe defines “circulated virtually everywhere” here. I saw a photo that maybe was the one you are describing maybe twice and I’m a news junkie. I read several news papers, about a half dozen news magazines and watch the just about news all the time. And I really mean just about all the time. The cable news channels are my default background channels when I’m home. It used to drive my wife nuts. Are you sure it was “circulated virtually everywhere” rather than it was just a photo that got under your skin and you’re giving it more play in your mind after the fact than it really had?
The fact of the matter is that female politicians are viewed and critiqued entirely differently from their male counterparts, and their policy is often overlooked in order to focus on either superficial, physical nonsense or–heaven forbid–the fact they have the “audacity” to walk with their heads held high and speak aggressively in a man’s world.
Yeah, sure… Male politicians are often turned into caricatures based on their physical appearance or backgrounds rather than their policies. Tim Kaine gave the Democrat’s State of the Union rebuttal a few years back, was a leading VP possibility and is now taking a major role in the Democratic Party. Half the coverage about him is about his eyebrow. It became such a joke that his staff made up pins and posters for the Democratic Convention that had a smiley face with a run away eyebrow on it.
Joe Lieberman was often ridiculed by talkers in the press during his VP run based on his weak physical appearance and his nasally voice. Mike Dukakis was made fun of based on his looks. Later, staying with Mike Dukakis, he became a national joke over the tank photo. Kerry was made fun of over his collage yearbook picture. Ross Perot was made fun of over his ears. Clinton’s gut and his love of McDonalds was press fodder for years. Al Gore coming back after his 2000 loss heavier than when we’d last seen him and sporting a beard was made fun of for months. There’s nothing to do with policies in any of that.
Both Hillary Clinton and Governor Palin have been criticized in a manner that their male counterparts will never have to face, at least not anytime soon. Criticize their policies, but leave their wardrobes, physiques, and hairstyles aside.
Too late, the men have already been criticized over their wardrobes, physiques, and hairstyles.
And if the media is in any way threatened by their assertive confidence, then perhaps they should begin to do a semblance of historical research on their own and they won’t feel so small.
Look up a psychology term called “Projection” and do a little research yourself.
Jason M. Bryant: “It wasn’t Sarah’s fault she looked bad, it was edited that way, even though she hasn’t actually watched the interview and doesn’t know that she looked bad even when they didn’t edit the answers at all.”
That’s nothing new in Palin logic. Remember when she first came out and claimed that she found the SNL parodies of her funny, but when asked about it she said she couldn’t really comment on what was actually said because she watched it with the sound off. Not with captions, just with no sound.
One of my favorite new reports of the 2008 election was THE DAILY SHOW (scary how often that comedy show does more actual journamism than the major networks; anyway…) where they had numerous Republicans talking about how sexist the coverage of Palin was — and then had clips of the same Republicans making sexist comments about Hilary Clinton.
The whole “liberal elite” is a traditional Republican boogeyman used to rally the base and make Republicans seem somehow like the minority. What Palin never mentions (and presumably hopes everyone will forget) is that she was under such scrutiny because she was kept so isolated from the media that she only gave 2 or 3 interviews to look at. Joe Biden was out talking to reporters every day; Palin’s handlers said she wasn’t treated with enough “deference” and so wouldn’t give interviews, leaving very little for folks to analyze. But it’s easier to paint the media as a evil liberal bully than to admit that they had a thoroughly inexperienced VP candidateand made a huge strategy mistake by keeping her isolated for most of the campaign.
The Sarah Palin wardrobe stats were entirely false, as all of those clothes were returned and the budgetary allowance was within range of any candidate running in the front lines that year.
The first may not be true. The second is DEFINITELY not true.
You know what? Maybe I was too quick to dismiss the idea of how great the level of the double standard out there really is. Why, just what would be different if Sarah Palin had been a man rather than a woman?
If Palin was a man: Palin, Palin’s handlers, Palin’s supporters and the campaign would never have been able to play the games that they did. They never would have been able to deflect the criticism of her spectacularly disastrous performances in two relatively softball interviews by playing it up as the sexist, “gotcha” media bullying the poor, fragile girl like they did.
If Palin was a man: Palin’s supporters, handlers and the campaign could never have built the narrative in the public square that Biden had to tread carefully in the debates and not be aggressive or he would be seen as picking on a poor, fragile girl.
If Palin was a man: We wouldn’t have been subjected to her supporters desperately trying to get people to believe through interviews, advertisements and surrogates that Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark was the evil, sexist Obama picking on and bullying the poor, fragile girl.
If Palin was a man: Palin would have been laughed out of the room for claiming that “he” thought that an interview would have gone more friendly than it did because the interviewer was another “male” and it was really unfair to blindside “him” with tough questions.
If Palin was a man: Palin would be getting called the biggest she-male and wuss on the planet right now for all of the whining and crying that she’s doing now.
The McCain Campaign, Palin, the conservative talkers and a number of the faithful out there played up the fact that she was a she every chance they got in order to deflect people’s attention away from the fact that Palin was a lightweight. If an interviewer was asking softball questions that she botched the answers to; it was because the interviewer was bullying her because she was a woman. If the press was talking about her lies, misstatements, baggage, flubs, hypocrisy or general lack of credibility; it was because the press was being sexist and attacking the woman in the race. If anyone wrote a serious piece on her that wasn’t fawning admiration; it was because the writer was sexist and picking on the poor, fragile, china doll girl in the race.
If Palin had been a man and they had tried to pull all of that based on “his” gender the results would have been far, far more laughable than they actually were.
Palin is a lightweight, a whiner and a crybaby. If Palin was a man and was acting like she has been since hitting the national stage there would be absolutely zero talk of “his” rising star or great chances in 2012.
So, yeah, there actually is a pretty big double standard in how Palin the female is being treated VS how Palin the male would be treated.
Gram: “I read several newspapers everyday, live in New York City and do not feel Ck is getting even close to the heat Palin got.
I’m not in New York and I see a lot of grief being thrown at Kennedy over her lack of experience and her basically only being considered at all because her family name makes her the political equivalent of a legacy admission. Is she getting the 24/7 national coverage and criticism that Palin got? No, of course not. Does that mean anything at all about biases? Maybe, but it could also have to do with the fact that Palin was running for VP while Kennedy is looking at a senate seat, the news is having way more fun with the situation in Illinois right now, there’s this little thing going on over in Gaza right now, we have an outgoing administration in it’s last month of existence, we have a historic incoming administration on the horizon, the bailout has become a nightmare, the economy has gotten worse and I could’a had a V-8. Somehow, with all of this going on now, I can kinda see where the national news media would spend less time per news hour talking about the New York Senate hopefuls than it did talking about the VP nominee for the Republican Party running up to a major presidential election. That could just be me though.
Just once in my life I would like to be a victim the same way these right-wing nut jobs think they are victims. Just once!
Also she’s supposed to be a religious person. Isn’t there tons of stuff in the Bible about being happy with what you’ve got and what the Lord’s given you?
I guess not…
Can someone, pretty please, explain to this twit that it’s supposed to be “15 MINIUTES of fame”, and not “15 WEEKS”?
Palin was a very poor choice for VP from the start. She was chosen purely because she’s a woman, not because of her intellect, experience, or any other quality. This was one of the fundamental mistakes of the Oven Chips campaign: The looked around and saw a pretty face with a vágìņá attached and said woohoo! Her inexperience in national-level politics led to a lot of blunders and because she wasn’t properly vetted there was a lot of fuel for the media and blog rumour mill – some of which was accurate, but most of it not.
Was Palin singled out because she is a woman? Almost certainly. Did she deserve it? Ðámņ right! If you stand up, flutter your eyelashes and say ‘hey look at me, I’m a woman’ (or ‘hey look at me, I’m a hockey-mom’!) you deserve everything you get. If, instead, she had said, ‘hey look at me, I’m intellgent, experienced and I have a vision for America’ perhaps the media would have focussed more on these claims than what she was wearing. Because of this, and this alone, she’s no feminist heroine and it irritates me that so many women treat her like one.
I’m not saying she’s dumb or shouldn’t be in politics, I’m just saying she’s totally green. Sadly, I can’t speak for Kennedy because we’re not getting coverage in the UK. But if she is getting the kind of heat that Palin drew, my advice to her would be to ignore this petty stuff and fight the fight on higher ground – facts, policy and experience!
I haven’t seen the entire interview with Sarah Palin, but in the clips I saw she claimed she was unfairly treated in the media because of her party affiliation and ideology. This is demonstrably untrue. There was plenty of negative media coverage about Obama during the ’08 campaign: Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial remarks, Obama’s “bittergate” remarks, and Michelle Obama’s “the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country” remark, just to name a few. Joe Biden received his fair share of scrutiny as well. Remember the frenzy over Biden’s “articulate and bright and clean” remark about Obama?
The media is quick to pounce on any politician when they screw up. It’s not the media’s fault that Palin piled up more screw-ups than the other side did.
Bill Mulligan: “That said, I do think she was treated differently–Biden’s gaffes were shrugged off while hers were treated as evidence of her lack of intelligence.”
All gaffes are not created equal. Many of Biden’s gaffes were simply poorly phrased remarks, or products of excessive candor. Palin’s gaffes reflected a distrubing tendency to respond to questions by robotically reciting talking points that often weren’t relevant, a lack of command of the facts, and an exceedingly narrow perspective.
Jerry Chandler: “If Palin had been a man and they had tried to pull all of that based on “his” gender the results would have been far, far more laughable than they actually were.”
True. On the other hand, I doubt the media would have scrutinized Palin’s family life as closely as it had if she had been a man. Yes, she ran as a “hockey mom” and put her family front-and-center, but if she hadn’t she’d’ve likely received the treatment Hillary Rodham Clinton did when her husband ran for his first term for president.
Remember when an exasperated Ms. Clinton said she supposed she could have stayed home and “baked cookies,” but instead chose to continue her career? She took so much dámņ flak for that remark that she ended up having to submit a recipe for cookies to Better Homes & Gardens to mollify the cookie-baking crowd. I’ve never seen a man held up to that sort of cookie-baking standard.
That said, I don’t think Ms. Clinton lost the nomination to Obama because of her gender. I think Obama’s campaign was more disciplined than hers. I don’t think Sarah Palin has been discredited because she’s a woman. I think she’s been discredited because she’s an idiot.
Let’s not forget that Obama is, y’know, black. This election was a testament to our nation’s ability to break barriers. We’ll see a female president in my lifetime, of that I am confident.
Jedebiah (or Michaeljjt’s girlfriend, or however she’s posting): “And if the media is in any way threatened by their assertive confidence, then perhaps they should begin to do a semblance of historical research on their own and they won’t feel so small.”
It doesn’t help to overstate your case. The media does treat women differently, and it is sexist. As has been pointed out, however, you’ve exaggerated the extent and nature of the unfairness.
Also, let’s not forget when the media was talking about Ms. Clinton as though she had the nomination all-but-sewn-up. This race was Ms. Clinton’s to lose, and unfortunately, she made the mistakes necessary to lose it. Did the media’s sexism help? No, but it wasn’t nearly pervasive enough or widespread enough to explain her loss. Obama simply had the clearer message and the better campaign.
Palin didn’t deserve it, she proved herself several times and showed that she had experience, regardless of what anyone said.
The only ‘experience’ I see is that she’s as much a hypocrite as any other politician.
Domestic? Bringing in the pork. Supporting corrupt politicians like Stevens.
Foreign? Maybe having gone to an uninhabited island so she could see Russia’s far eastern shore in person.
I could go on, but she’s not worth the keystrokes. She deserves every bit of the criticism she has received, and will continue to receive until she goes back to Alaska and shuts her yap.
Btw, could somebody inform Palin that she’s in desperate need of a new playbook?
The GOP SOP of attacking the media got old years ago. But she’s been doing it from day one, as if it’s the *only* thing she knows how to do. It’s just downright pathetic at this point.
All gaffes are not created equal. Many of Biden’s gaffes were simply poorly phrased remarks, or products of excessive candor. Palin’s gaffes reflected a distrubing tendency to respond to questions by robotically reciting talking points that often weren’t relevant, a lack of command of the facts, and an exceedingly narrow perspective.
You may be right, but I still maintain that if Palin had said something to the effect that the most important thing was “3 letter word-Jobs.” and then further splled out all “3” letters–“J.O.B.S.”– we would still be waking up laughing about it.
If she had asked a guy in a wheelchair to ‘stand up so we could see you” or talked about how FDR had gone on TV when the stock market crashed (which manages to screw up reality on at least 2 major points–the invention of TV and the election of FDR) I think Leno and Letterman might have actually burst a blood vessel from laughter.
I still think that Biden’s biggest advantage is that by this point we almost expect him to say goofy things. Judging from the way he’s being treated, being dissed by everyone from Harry Reid to filmgoers at a Benjamin Button showing, he’s going to be the administration’s punching bag for the next few years. I would not be shocked at all if Obama replaced him in 2012 with someone he has greater faith in, someone who will be able to carry on the legacy (yes, I’m getting waaaaaay to ahead of myself here).
The media’s (and the public’s) treatment of female politicians is arguably sexist, but Sarah Palin has no business complaining about the way they treated her. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary Clinton had ever winked at the camera during a debate?
Her wardrobe, meanwhile, probably wouldn’t have attracted nearly so much attention had she not spent six figures’ worth of the RNC’s money on clothes, hairstyling and makeup while constantly touting her Reg’lar Folks cred and always shouting-out to Joe Six-Pack and Jane Hockey Mom, who could have bought a perfectly serviceable house, possibly two, depending on the area, plus a new car, with the money she spent on her appearance.
Jerry Chandler is correct: a male candidate would never have been treated so indulgently as Palin was. I would add, also, that a male candidate with Sarah Palin’s credentials would never have been considered for John McCain’s running mate. He wouldn’t have shown up on the radar at all.
All that said? The substance of her candidacy (if you can call it substance) grossed me out far, far more than her wardrobe expenditures or her linguistic skills.
Coverage of Palin’s gaffes was an implicit challenge to her to interact with the media. Biden isn’t controlling enough to even play “do you know who I am” to have chairs squeezed-in for him to see a Cate Blanchet movie.
Ah, Sarah Palin. I am reminded of when one of my favourite authors said the following:
“A lot of Americans are stupid. Bone dry stupid. Stupid as a box of rocks. They were born stupid, they were stupid in school, and they became stupid grown-ups. And there’s enough of them out there to have a considerable impact on this country, because morons are running for high office and morons are voting for them and putting them in there. Americans are oblivious to the rest of the world, and if that were not the case, then maybe our leaders might have listened when the rest of the world said, ‘Stay the hëll out of Iraq, you morons.’ Many Americans have a fundamental arrogance that stems from a basic lack of intellectual curiosity. They don’t read. They don’t learn. They don’t think. They tune out with television or computer games or Ipods and obsess about what Lindsay or Britney or whatever other troubled pop tart is up to rather than caring about things that really matter.
The fact that one fifth of Americans can’t find the country on the map pales beside the likelihood that one fifth of Americans probably couldn’t find their own áššëš with both hands and a flashlight. And that stupidity is going to continue to be a hallmark of our country until we work together to remedy the situation from the top down.”
Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary Clinton had ever winked at the camera during a debate?
yeah, I never liked that either. I don’t like winks whether they come from Clark Kent (“Well, Lois, we can’t all be like Superman!” WINK) or VP candidates. It did give some good footage for some amusing animated gifs I am too polite to point the way to.
And if Palin was a man, there wouldn’t have been all the complaints about her not being able to raise her kids AND be vice-president.
Bill Mulligan: “You may be right, but I still maintain that if Palin had said something to the effect that the most important thing was “3 letter word-Jobs.” and then further splled out all “3” letters–“J.O.B.S.”– we would still be waking up laughing about it.”
It’s all about the context. Joe Biden has exhibited enough intelligence to suggest that the “J-O-B-S” gaffe was born of absent-mindedness. His infamous gaffe about Obama’s “spine of steel” was born of excessive candor. But when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, Biden knows his stuff particularly on the subject of foreign policy. He’s not a stupid man.
If Palin’s gaffes had amounted to the occasional odd lapse, they wouldn’t have received any more attention than Biden’s. Palin’s performance, however, was a never-ending string of ridiculous gaffes and an inability to say or do anything substantive. Her performance during the interview with Couric wasn’t just a bit off, it was astonishingly, jaw-droppingly bad; some of her answers were downright nonsensical. During the VP debates she was more polished but mostly she was the beneficiary of reduced expectations.
Biden didn’t get a free pass. He simply made fewer and less severe gaffes than did Palin.
Joe Biden and John McCain were both semi-gaffe proof. I say “semi” because they both got in trouble a few times, but the media let them slide a lot too. Even when they got caught for things, they were often laughed at, then everyone moved on without it really affecting anything.
Like when one of McCain’s surrogates said that he supported making insurance companies pay for birth control, then a reporter asked him a followup question and he said, “Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh” for almost a minute.
I don’t think sexism is part of that, though. Dan Quayle got blasted for those kinds of gaffes and it defined his reputation like that. I think Joe Biden and John McCain just have a likability that Palin doesn’t have. They have a persona that doesn’t make people want to hold stuff against them.
A) They’re not pretty in the way that Sarah Palin is (and honestly, Dan Quayle and John Edwards kinda have pretty-boy looks). I read a study awhile back saying that people really did give pretty people more favor, but they also turned on pretty people more when they made mistakes.
B) Biden and McCain were known for something other than gaffes. They’ve both had years in the Senate and were both fairly well known before this election. For both Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle, their presence on the ticket was essentially their introduction to most of America, including to the reporters covering them. By flubbing things early, they defined themselves by their mistakes.
C) John McCain and Joe Biden don’t whine. When John McCain went on Letterman and Dave grilled him on why McCain had ditched the show, McCain said, “I screwed up.” He didn’t say what he’d done wrong or take responsibility for any specific mistake, but he did say it was his fault and the audience loved it. Joe Biden often waves something off when people point out a mistake and just moves on with a laugh. Meanwhile Sarah Palin accuses people of trying to set her up. Nobody likes a cry-baby.
If any man ever whined as much as Palin does, he’d be a lame-duck governor by now. Yes, there is sexism still in the world, but Palin benefits from it and exacerbates it.
Jason M. Bryant: “Joe Biden and John McCain were both semi-gaffe proof. I say “semi” because they both got in trouble a few times, but the media let them slide a lot too.”
Again, I think it has to do with the frequency and severity of their gaffes. If Obama, McCain, or Biden had been as consistently goofy as Palin, their every mistake would have been magnified to the same degree as Palin’s.
Maybe Sarah should realize when you wink at a camera and point during a debate you come off like , I don’t know, a Saturday Night Live character.
Katie Couric was hardballing her? She can’t manuever around Katie Couric (and I mean no offense to Ms Couric but she’s hardly the McCarthy Hearings). When someone asks you what newspapers you read they don’t mean Alaska doesn’t get news, they want you to name a paper.
“I like the Washington Post. I watch Fox News. I listen to NPR.”
Just name one you moron… not, “I read all of them.”
And because you’re next to Russia doesn’t mean you command an army and protect us from communists. It means you command a National Guard of guys who show up twelve weekends a month.
Media bias? Remember Dan Quayle’s press? Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson, Trent Lott, Libby Dole and this douche in Illinois? The media likes a train wreck and for three month’s Sarah was the conductor of that train moving a 120mph with no brakes and the bridge was out.
She brought this crap on herself.
Bill Myers, frequency of gaffes is certainly a factor, though I think the other stuff I mentioned are also factors. How about I add frequency to the list under D?
Women are treated differently than men. It’s an obvious fact.
Women usually dress for attractiveness while males usually dress for confort or power. The amount of time, money, and energy that women devote to physical appearance is orders of magnitude above what men devote to same.
There is a lot more expectation of women in regards to their physical appearance. Just like there is more expectation of men to be brave and successful.
Jason M. Bryant, I agree. They’re all factors, so go ahead and add mine as another bullet on your list. 🙂
This week the Defense Minister of Spain, Carme Chacón (a woman) angered conservative politicians and pundits because she choosed to wear a tux to a military holiday. The Royal House, organizing of the event, required etiquette attire and her, beign rather young, didnt want to dress like going to the opera while all her subordinates wore gala uniforms. So she donned a facy tux and weve spent days hearing about it. Some call her disrespectful (¿?) and others say she is a radical activist using the holiday to “send a message”.
It has gotten so dumb that even women from across the political aisle have backed her decission. After all, no one ever demanded an explanation about how last president Aznar wore his hair… and boy was it ridiculous.
It would never happen, but I would love to see a total media black-out of Palin, a complete and utter ignoring to anything she does. I want to see if she has a massive, white-coat-needing tantrum when she finally realizes we meant what we voted and nobody cares. Sarah, politics aside, you are no Caroline Kennedy, and never were.
John McCain and Joe Biden don’t whine.
I’m going to repectfully disagree here. With Biden I suppose it depends on your definition of “whine” but in 1988 he displayed a classic meltdown when a reporter asked him what law school he attended and what class placement was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho
I’d be tempted to forgive the arrogance–it’s a dumb question–but apparently a lot of what he subsequently boasts about just isn’t true. It was this performance, on top of the plagiarism charges that brought down his campaign. It also prompted him to issue a great statement: “I exaggerate when I’m angry.”
Don’t make joe Biden angry. You can’t believe him when he’s angry.
despite all this, (and his awful pandering to the RIAA), I’ve always kind of liked him. There’s just a likability there. Even at his most arrogant he comes off better than most would–like a buddy who brags about some attribute that he clearly lacks, it’s funnier than it is offensive.
I won’t be too happy if he becomes president, above and beyond the fact that it means something bad happened to Obama.
Andrew Wickliffe said:
“Don’t forget–it wasn’t a real interview. It’s for some Obama smear video.”
Exactly. And probably all that really needed to be said about this.
El hombre Malo: This week the Defense Minister of Spain, Carme Chacón (a woman) angered conservative politicians and pundits because she choosed to wear a tux to a military holiday.
To me, that sounds awesome.
Dana Perino was on the Daily Show last night wearing a dress that made her look like she was going to formal party afterwards. I always think it’s weird when women wear something pretty to a place where their male counterparts would wear a suit. If Ms. Chacón chose an alternative, that seems great.
“If Palin was a man…”
If Palin was a man, he wouldn’t have been nominated, and we wouldn’t be talking about him.
Don’t make joe Biden angry. You can’t believe him when he’s angry.
Yeah, Joe can get angry.
But McCain also came across as a bit of a whiner during the presidential campaign, mostly due to the fact that he too was bìŧçhìņg about the way the media presented him (ie, going to the GOP playbook), a media that he felt adored him before the campaign.
Bill Mulligan: “That said, I do think she was treated differently–Biden’s gaffes were shrugged off while hers were treated as evidence of her lack of intelligence.”
I’m pretty sure that has to do with how long we’ve been exposed to his blunders. His are old hat. Even Bush, who still steps on a series of rakes every other week, stopped having every gaffe he made turned into the joke of the night a while ago because everyone just got used to the fact that the man can’t talk, can’t open doors and can’t hold a coherent thought for longer than a cup of coffee. Again, familiarity made them old hat stuff.
Palin’s were all shiny and new and they kept coming at a rate of one new one almost every time she opened her mouth. Biden and others also often had one-and-done gaffes. Palin would make a beauty of a gaffe, make another gaffe a few days later while explaining that her gaffe wasn’t a gaffe, make yet another gaffe explaining why the first gaffe was… And so on. And then she would get petty or pissy about the questioner her allowed her to put both of her feet in her mouth. Hëll, it’s months later and she and her supporters are still whining about the “What do you read?” question and spinning it into an evil, biased, gotcha attack on her, an insult to all Alaskans and spitting venom at Katie Couric.
Bill Myers: “True. On the other hand, I doubt the media would have scrutinized Palin’s family life as closely as it had if she had been a man. Yes, she ran as a “hockey mom” and put her family front-and-center, but if she hadn’t she’d’ve likely received the treatment Hillary Rodham Clinton did when her husband ran for his first term for president.
Remember when an exasperated Ms. Clinton said she supposed she could have stayed home and “baked cookies,” but instead chose to continue her career? She took so much dámņ flak for that remark that she ended up having to submit a recipe for cookies to Better Homes & Gardens to mollify the cookie-baking crowd. I’ve never seen a man held up to that sort of cookie-baking standard.”
Maybe, maybe not. Clinton got that treatment as a perspective First Lady as do most First Ladies. It was also stemming from her announcing at various stump stops that electing Bill was a two-for-one deal and, in some people’s eyes, basically talking about herself as the Co-President in Chief. She didn’t (for the most part) get that when actually running for the office herself. Other female politicians have also mot gotten that treatment when they didn’t make their kids and their motherhood a prop for their big debut.
Palin got her family looked into initially because she was a total unknown, she put them front and center as a part of her act and she was an abstinence only Republican with an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. But, if you will note, stories about her kids were fairly quick and only the fringe idiots kept trying to attack her through her kids.
And that treatment wasn’t female based. Edwards was attacked by the idiots of the fringe Right and Fox News anchors over his wife’s cancer. He was, they said, putting his ambition before his family since he wasn’t dropping out and/or he was exploiting her cancer for a sympathy bump in the poles. He was attacked for a time by people using his wife and his wife’s cancer as their weapon. No gender biases there, just a bunch of worthless áššhølëš on each side of the divide.
Bill Mulligan: “You may be right, but I still maintain that if Palin had said something to the effect that the most important thing was “3 letter word-Jobs.” and then further spelled out all “3” letters–“J.O.B.S.”– we would still be waking up laughing about it.
If she had asked a guy in a wheelchair to ‘stand up so we could see you” or talked about how FDR had gone on TV when the stock market crashed (which manages to screw up reality on at least 2 major points–the invention of TV and the election of FDR) I think Leno and Letterman might have actually burst a blood vessel from laughter.”
I don’t know. Again I think it’s a matter of how use to him we all are VS her shiny newness. Dan Quayle was once the Gold Standard for political humor, but once time wore on his comedy shine mostly wore off. He was still good for the odd chuckle, but he wasn’t the source of lines that got used for weeks on end. I remember a major network interview he did on one of the Sunday chat shows about the then candidates running for the Republican nomination to run for the 2000 election. When asked who he thought had the best shot at winning the entire thing he fixed the camera with his best “I’m a serious intellectual” look, used his most assertive voice and declared that whoever the Republicans ultimately chose they would unquestionably be able to beat Bill Clinton. In the 2000 election… I thought that would get the old Quayle play that week and it got at best a single night of jokes. Quayle’s gaffes were old hat and we pretty much expected him to cram both feet in his mouth whenever he opened it. We got used to him and the jokes wore out over time.
And, like I said above, even the gaffes of W. aren’t getting the play they used to get and haven’t been for about a year or more. Yeah, they still get some play, but the newness wore off and the longevity of a W. gaffe joke grew shorter and shorter. Palin was shiny, new and couldn’t open her mouth without stuffing at least one foot it in.
Plus there’s the nature of some of the gaffes. Talking about going on TV in the pre-television days is a gaffe that most people make a form of from time to time. Hëll, I was talking with a friend about the home entertainment boom that changed how we can watch what we want to watch and we both caught ourselves saying “DVDs” when talking about 1990. I know people that talk about “taping” something on their DVR. You get used to a technology being the technology and you sometimes slip up when talking about things like that.
Palin’s gaffes? Most of them came off as someone who was totally clueless just throwing out whatever she could, flailing about for an answer and ending up somewhere completely South of a correct answer or even an answer based in reality. When you try to prop up your international experience by citing nonexistent instances of Putin “sticking his head up” and invading Alaskan airspace and the further that gaffe by talking about your, in reality nonexistent, authority to scramble the military’s jets to go up and confront them… Them thar are apples VS oranges.
Eric Recla : “And if Palin was a man, there wouldn’t have been all the complaints about her not being able to raise her kids AND be vice-president.”
Where that was going on it was somewhat a response to the Republican Parties own hypocrisy. Here’s the party with a number of public members and supporters earning it, rightly or wrongly, the reputation of advocating “traditional” values, stay at home moms raising their kids and, in some of the fringe religious corners, woman being obedient. Suddenly you have that party plucking up an unknown female candidate in a transparently obvious attempt to try and cash in on the ticked off Hillary supporters. Of course some people were going to make a stink about that.
And, again, the mainstream media weren’t the ones running that line of discussion as much as the blogs and the radio talkers. Moreover, as I noted above, the closest thing you got to the MSM bringing that to the forefront in a heavy manner was Fox News and conservative talkers on the TV chat shows talking about how “the left” and “the media” were attacking her over such manners. As with the garbage about her grandchild really being her child; I was hearing more about that from her supporters than I ever did from the MSM and most of the MSM coverage of it was to call it worthless garbage and say that they weren’t going to discuss it.
Jason M. Bryant: “I think Joe Biden and John McCain just have a likability that Palin doesn’t have. They have a persona that doesn’t make people want to hold stuff against them.”
To some degree that’s true. I think a part of that though was in how they handled the ribbing they got. Most of McCain and Biden’s careers have involved their having some level of good humor about it. Palin played the “poor little me” card too much back then and now she’s coming off looking like a petulant child. Her interview for this propaganda video seems to be filled with her blaming everyone else for her inability to answer a question in a coherent manner, her playing the “poor little me” card and her just generally being petulant and a little bit catty about her interviewers.
We sometimes warm to people when they can take the barbs that are being rightly or wrongly hurled at them with some degree of good humor. Most of her barbs were well earned by her and she just whines about them and acts like a petulant little girl. Gee, I wonder why so many people are tired of her and wish she’d shut up and go away.
Susan O: “It would never happen, but I would love to see a total media black-out of Palin, a complete and utter ignoring to anything she does.”
Yeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just love the passive-aggressive tone with which she accuses Tina Fey and SNL of “exploiting” her, even though she herself chose to appear with Fey on the show. Did someone put a gun to her head and force her to appear on a show that was “exploiting” her? Talk about sour grapes.
I also love how she complains about how the campaign made her do follow-up interviews with Katie Couric, and wonders why, given how the first one didn’t go well. Um, well, gee whiz, Governor, maybe they did this because the first one was so catastrophic, and figured that you could improve upon your performance? And maybe because they figured the V.P. should be able to answer the kind of questions that would be asked of you? Just maybe?
Jerry–I’ll go you one better.
If Barack Obama had had a teenage pregnant unmarried daughter, forget it. He’s done. He doesn’t get to say, “Every family has its issues and we should be able to handle them privately” and the reporters back off. It becomes all about what a crap father he is, and what a lousy mother his wife is, and if you think that the “issue” of young black guys getting their girlfriends knocked up isn’t all over the place, then you are quite simply kidding yourself.
Everybody has their baggage. Every race, color or creed. And whenever the representative of any group runs into trouble, they get to claim that their particular group is being targeted.
PAD
Alan Coil: “If Palin was a man, he wouldn’t have been nominated, and we wouldn’t be talking about him.”
He shoots, he scores!