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
• 
PAD: “…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.”
PAD shoots, he scores!
PAD: “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.”
I understand conservative Republicans are suing to become a “protected class.”
If Barack Obama had had a teenage pregnant unmarried daughter, forget it. He’s done.
I agree. FWIW, I don’t think Bristol’s pregnancy necessarily says anything about Sarah’s parenting skills, or even her politics. (I question her commitment to her family because Willow and Piper spent all that time on the campaign trail rather than at home in Alaska attending school like normal girls, and because Trig was so often in front of a TV camera past his bedtime, but I digress.) Bristol getting pregnant doesn’t mean that Sarah (or Todd, for that matter) neglected her, or miseducated her. It means that Bristol had sex with her boyfriend and didn’t use adequate contraception. All sorts of teenagers do the same thing. Shìŧ happens.
That said, however? Yeah. If a liberal politician, especially a liberal black politician, brought his 17-year-old daughter to the convention carrying a five-month bump, watch the šhìŧ fly. We’d never hear the end of it.
James Ford: It means you command a National Guard of guys who show up twelve weekends a month.
…and thus we see how easy it is to mis-speak, even for a smart dude like James. Remember how people jumped all over Obama for his “57 states” slip of the tongue?
The 57 states comment was misspeaking, but Palin’s statement about commanding the Alaska National Guard was not. She definitely meant to say that she was the commander in chief of those units, which isn’t true. Governor’s only have authority over the National Guard for natural disasters, not for military operations. Also, ff the Russians ever did invade Alaskan airspace, the military response to that wouldn’t be under her authority either.
Not that she’s the first candidate to do little resume padding. She’s not even the first Governor to try and inflate her role over the National Guard. This is the kind of thing that I see as a more ordinary political maneuver, not really all that Palinesque.
Ack, I’m getting too into this. lucasb’s comment wasn’t really about Palin, but I used it as a jumping point for another Palin jab.
I really should stop talking about her. She’s not running for anything, she’s not affecting me, I should just stop worrying about her. If she actually does run in 4 years or 8 and if she does get the nomination (which I doubt), I’ll worry about her then.
Jason,
I think that there is a good chance that Palin will be the GOP candidate for the Presidency in 2012. She is still very popular with the GOP base i.e. the same people that think that Shrub did an excellent job. As a result, she will have a decent shot at getting the nomination.
Further, who else amoung the GOP has the name recognition to challenge her?
Yes, I know it is early, but do not count her out.
Palin is popular in the GOP base, but I have other reasons for doubting her ability to get the nomination. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened, I just don’t think it’s the most likely outcome.
For one thing, predicting four years in advance is tricky. Right after the election a lot of news shows were talking about 2012, but they weren’t really talking about 2012, they were still talking about the aftermath of 2008. Every name they came up with was either in the running in 2008 or seriously considered for VP in 2008. Yet most of the major candidates in 2008 were not running in 2004. So it’s easy to look at the people who ran this time as the crop for next time, but it’s more unpredictable than that. There’s a decent chance that the Republican candidate for 2012 will be someone who isn’t seriously being considered now, like Obama wasn’t seriously considered four years ago:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/?searchterm=obama
The part I’m thinking of starts at 1:45 and ends at “See you in 2030.”
The other factor is other Republican candidates. In the primaries you can expect to hear the word “electability” used by every candidate running against Palin every time they glance at her. They’ll say she already went up against Obama once and that went badly. They’ll point out that she’s incredibly polarizing and has proven that she alienates, not just Democrats, but also the Independants, without which a candidate can’t win.
The Republican base may like Palin, but they also like winning. Every one of her opponents will make it clear that she can’t do that. The base may still flock to her, or they may go to some other political rock star that pops up in the next coulple of years.
”James Ford: It means you command a National Guard of guys who show up twelve weekends a month.”
lucasb: “…and thus we see how easy it is to mis-speak, even for a smart dude like James. Remember how people jumped all over Obama for his “57 states” slip of the tongue?”
And thus we see how far someone will stretch one concept to claim it’s exactly the same as another. Thinking about something that has two common descriptors like “twelve weekends a year” and “one weekend a month” and having it come out as “twelve weekends a year” isn’t remotely the same as being unable to think of the correct answer at all and just reciting every bumper sticker slogan that you’ve been taught by your handlers.
A one time slip of the tongue (or the typing finger) isn’t the same as saying something that’s demonstrably untrue, being corrected on it, repeating the untruth, getting corrected on it, bulling up and repeating it yet again, getting called on it and called a liar for it and then crying that you’re being picked on by the big meanies in the media. She didn’t have slips of the tongue. She either had no answer to give or she said things that weren’t true, went back and tried to cover for her last answer by adding another untruth to the pile and then wrapped it all up by crying on Fox News Anchors’ shoulders about how bad the mean old MSM was being to her. A slip of the tongue isn’t the same thing as saying that you saw an SNL skit spoofing your interviews and found it funny and then, when asked what you liked about it, saying that you couldn’t really say because you watched it with the sound off.
Palin gets raked on because she’s flipping clueless half the time and she can’t give an honest answer the other half of the time. I actually almost wish she’d get the nod for 2012 so that the spectacularly huge flame out and crash she’ll have will pretty much guarantee that we don’t have to hear from her ever again after that.
Re: Palin in 2012.
For God’s sake, I can’t believe that after 8 years of a President that is the most hated in history, the Republicans will choose someone that shares all the traits that made Bush such a disaster.
I agree with everyone who wants a Palin blackout. There is NO need to keep talking about her like she’s a relevant human being any more. NONE. The election is over. She’s done. If we keep talking about her, she WILL come back in 2012, because the Republicans ARE that dumb.
Y’all forgot to mention that it’s not just that she’s a woman. It’s that she’s a hawt woman. God help us.
If you can’t face Katie Couric without being emotionally shattered, how well are you going to do against the likes of Kim Jong Il?
>Further, who else amoung the GOP has the name recognition to challenge her?
The lunatic governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. A Bush wannabe. There is also Jeb Bush, evidently the old man was pushing him during the luncheon this week.
Jason M. Bryant: “Also, ff the Russians ever did invade Alaskan airspace, the military response to that wouldn’t be under her authority either.”
Besides, if the Russians ever decided to mount a full-scale invasion of the U.S., I doubt they’d limit themselves to Alaska as their sole point of entry to the North American continent. Also, they have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) capable of delivering nuclear warheads, with a range of up to 6,000 km. The Alaskan National Guard may be plucky as hëll, but… c’mon.
I’m a guy who dislikes Palin, but even I can admit that she was treated unfairly.
The bloggers were just as influential in this election as mainstream media, so claiming that “only the bloggers” were responsible for sexist attitudes is moot (unless you are trying to debate the political leanings of the corporate media).
People wondered if Palin would have time to raise a family and still maintain her presidential duties?! WTF? I’m young, but sit seems that most (if not every) president had a family to raise. Why should Palin be any different.
The extent of the clothing and sexual harassment was something no male would have had to face. I’m not saying that she didn’t ask for it at times (with her outfit that looks like a librarian stripper, etc.) but it is still criticism that only a woman would face.
I’m a guy who dislikes Palin, but even I can admit that she was treated unfairly.
The bloggers were just as influential in this election as mainstream media, so claiming that “only the bloggers” were responsible for sexist attitudes is moot (unless you are trying to debate the political leanings of the corporate media).
People wondered if Palin would have time to raise a family and still maintain her presidential duties?! WTF? I’m young, but sit seems that most (if not every) president had a family to raise. Why should Palin be any different.
The extent of the clothing and sexual harassment was something no male would have had to face. I’m not saying that she didn’t ask for it at times (with her outfit that looks like a librarian stripper, etc.) but it is still criticism that only a woman would face.
I’m no Palindrome. I was pretty much against the idea of her being anywhere near DC from her the first time I read anything about her. Now, it could be that she just doesn’t communicate well. I know an awful lot of people who are really smart who don’t express themselves well at all. (Why is everyone looking at ME like that?) I’d like to think that maybe Palin’s that way, but every time she opens her mouth, that possibility gets that much smaller.
Bill, I don’t know that some of the stuff about Palin’s family wouldn’t have come in if she were Sam Palin. When someone has the “conservative” label applied to them, male, female, other, and their children get pregnant as teenagers out of wedlock, that’s gonna get some play.
The lunatic governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.
I’m not debating that he’s a lunatic, but I wonder where that comes from. I heard about an excorsicm or something, is that it?
As for Palin, I would think that whatever issues people have with her being treated differently as a woman, would be matched by a certain level of anger at the GOP’s cynicism that Palin could win the women’s vote despite the fact she holds viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to many of the common viewpoints of Women who are Democrats.
jasonk: I’m not debating that he’s a lunatic, but I wonder where that comes from. I heard about an excorsicm or something, is that it?
I wouldn’t call him a lunatic, but he has some issues.
The exorcism happened when he was in college, I think. He thought his girlfriend was possessed by a demon and he did an exorcism on her. Only priests are supposed to do exorcisms and I’ve even heard that Catholics are supposed to get in serious trouble for doing them if they’re not priests, but I guess nobody took it seriously enough for that.
I really don’t know much about him otherwise. I having trouble imagining the Republican party picking an Indian to be their savior. A big part of why they lost this last election is because they got so xenophobic that they lost the Hispanic vote.
East Asians are honorary whites as far as the Republicans are concerned. They’re what minorities “should” be.
South Asians may be close enough for political work…
Alex A Sanchez: “I’m a guy who dislikes Palin, but even I can admit that she was treated unfairly.
The bloggers were just as influential in this election as mainstream media, so claiming that “only the bloggers” were responsible for sexist attitudes is moot (unless you are trying to debate the political leanings of the corporate media).”
Alex, the bloggers aren’t the media and most of the serious media didn’t acknowledge the fringe bloggers more idiotic claims other than to rubbish them or, as did the Palin supporters, promote them while claiming that “The Left” was unfairly attacking Palin. So Palin’s assertion that the MSM was using made up stuff and low road attacks sourced to anonymous bloggers is a giant load of baloney.
Moreover, if you want to talk about the bloggers to give credibility to her claims you pretty much shoot her point in the foot. The bloggers on the Right savaged Obama. They made stuff up about his family, they posted photos of him wearing “Muslim” clothing, they made up stuff about his background and got their fake “who is the real Obama” brought up and discussed seriously in the mainstream media via Fox News and conservative guests on chat shows far more often than the fringe bloggers got their Palin nonsense in there.
People wondered if Palin would have time to raise a family and still maintain her presidential duties?! WTF? I’m young, but sit seems that most (if not every) president had a family to raise. Why should Palin be any different.
Been answered several times in this thread already. It wasn’t played up very much by the MSM (that body of news organs that she directed this round of comments at) and what little play it got was more about the hypocrisy of the GOP and the Republican Party.
The extent of the clothing and sexual harassment was something no male would have had to face.
Sexual harassment? Sexual harassment?!? Dude, not even she’s claiming that she was sexual harassed by the media. And if you’re just claiming that the media was wildly sexist in their coverage of her… No, it wasn’t. The vast majority of the coverage on her was about what she said, what she claimed she said, what programs she did or didn’t support, what bridges she did or did not support and her generally clueless nature.
The clothing only came up in the end and, as has been addressed here already, it wasn’t about the cloths. The discussion was about how much $$$$ was being spent on her to create the image they were presenting VS her “ah shucks” Plain Jane Average persona that they were also presenting. And that is something that has been done to male politicians as well for years now.
Moreover, if you want to talk about the bloggers to give credibility to her claims you pretty much shoot her point in the foot. The bloggers on the Right savaged Obama. They made stuff up about his family, they posted photos of him wearing “Muslim” clothing, they made up stuff about his background and got their fake “who is the real Obama” brought up and discussed seriously in the mainstream media via Fox News and conservative guests on chat shows far more often than the fringe bloggers got their Palin nonsense in there.
In fairness, some of the anti-Obama stuff came not form bloggers on the right but from bloggers who were pro-Hillary. Not the same thing.
Been answered several times in this thread already. It wasn’t played up very much by the MSM (that body of news organs that she directed this round of comments at) and what little play it got was more about the hypocrisy of the GOP and the Republican Party.
MSM reporters were not shy about bringing this up. from Politico: Swarmed by reporters upon coming into the convention, McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt suggested Sarah Palin was facing a double standard because of her gender.
Questioned if Palin, who just gave birth in Apirl to a baby with Down syndrome, could handle being vice president and the mother of a young family, Schmidt shot back: “I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”
It’s disingenuous for them to claim that this was done to expose hypocrisy. The premise–Republican hate single mothers–seems to be unlikely on the surface since Palin’s daughter did not get 1/1000 the grief from the right that she did from the left. When it first came out there was speculation that conservative voters would demand that Palin be booted off the ticket. Didn’t happen–she got bigger ratings and crowds throughout the campaign than McCain did. It would seem that the assumptions of conservative voter attitudes could use some reevaluation but too many reporters are busy watching their jobs vanish to give that much thought.
Bill Mulligan: “The premise–Republican hate single mothers–seems to be unlikely on the surface since Palin’s daughter did not get 1/1000 the grief from the right that she did from the left.”
I don’t think that proves anything about conservative hypocrisy or lack thereof. For one thing, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Most teenage unwed mothers don’t have monied families upon whom to rely. While I don’t think conservatives “hate” them for this, many of them are quick to moralize about the problem and resist the idea of government subsidies to help these young women and their children.
Sarah Palin is successful and powerful — exactly the sort of person conservatives tend to reflexively swoon over, and liberals tend to reflexively pillory. Hence, the role-reversal: you had evangelical conservatives “forgetting” about their “family values,” and liberals “forgetting” about their agenda of “compassion.”
Ultimately, none of this has any bearing on Sarah Palin’s capabilities or lack thereof. Just because some of the criticisms leveled against her are irrational doesn’t mean others aren’t legitimate.
Bill Mulligan: “In fairness, some of the anti-Obama stuff came not form bloggers on the right but from bloggers who were pro-Hillary. Not the same thing.”
At one point some, but not all, came from pro-Hillary blogs to be sure. However the majority of what was aimed at Obama prior to the election was coming from Right Wing sites and bloggers. Moreover, where the Left Wing nuts trying to peddle their ideas that Palin’s grandchild was really her child were actually dismissed by commentators on CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg and the Network news shows, the right Wing Blogger nuts were having their garbage given prime time discussion and, in some cases, promotion as legitimate, fact based stories by Fox News. Jerome Corsi was given a number of guest spots on shows to peddle his book that was fabrication after fabrication sourced often sourced in the footnotes to anonymous bloggers, Right Wing blogs and even his own opinion pieces. When he was beaten up so badly over his falsehoods that he was forced to make corrections in the second (Or was it the third?) printing of the book; Fox News had him on again to promote the fact that the Obama Campaign didn’t dispute a single fact from his book (a lie) and that the corrections the publisher wanted were (in a series of more lies) completely from his desires, weren’t related to anything that the Obama Campaign had pointed out and didn’t change a single accusation he made about Obama. Several of the Fox News Zoo then went on to continue to promote the “facts” that were ultimately sourced back to Right Wing blogs or anonymous bloggers.
I mean, even Keith Olbermann, Keith freaking Olbermann, told guests who brought up things about the grandchild being her child and some of the more vulgar garbage that this kind of crap was beneath series journalism.
“MSM reporters were not shy about bringing this up. from Politico: Swarmed by reporters upon coming into the convention, McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt suggested Sarah Palin was facing a double standard because of her gender.
Questioned if Palin, who just gave birth in Apirl to a baby with Down syndrome, could handle being vice president and the mother of a young family, Schmidt shot back: “I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”
Okay, who asked the question what news group was he or she with? That’s one of the things I addressed above as well. The McCain campaign and the Palin supporters would take something that was asked or said by a blogger or fringe “news” organ and then talk about how “the MSM” and “The Left” were unfairly attacking this poor, poor woman. But you only saw much of it ever being promoted by fringe bloggers who may or may not have believed it and Palin’s own people/supporters on MSM shows to condemn “The Left” for promoting these things.
Now, there was a flurry of discussion on some MSM shows about her being able to raise her kids while doing the job right after she was introduced. It was usually in the context of the questions being asked about her once she was introduced and the majority of MSM programs stopped talking about it in about a week.
“It’s disingenuous for them to claim that this was done to expose hypocrisy. The premise–Republican hate single mothers–seems to be unlikely on the surface since Palin’s daughter did not get 1/1000 the grief from the right that she did from the left.”
Not expose it, but rather to discuss it and point it out. The fact that Palin as a “working mom” and Palin’s daughter as an unwed, teenager mother didn’t get the grief from many on the Right is exactly what the discussion was often about. A huge number of Right Wing talkers, groups and politicians (currant and past) who had a history, in some cases a recent history, of talking about the moral failings of this country by citing the numbers of people having pre-marital sex, the numbers of teenage, unwed mothers and the “modern women” who have swallowed the “feminist line” that woman can have it all by working and raising their kids with no problem turned on a dime and praised Palin as an inspiration to women everywhere that you can be whatever you want to be, even VP, while raising a family and shrugging of the daughter’s pregnancy because, hey, everyone makes little mistakes here and there in life and it was no big deal since the daughter had a family that loved her and would help support her while she raised the child.
Many of the MSM moments that I saw where a person was discussing these things was when they were talking to a Right Wing guest or commentator who had a history of those comments, many on record for, amongst other tings, condemning Hillary as a bad role model for aggressively pursuing her career while her daughter was younger, and asking them where that moral outrage and condemnation was now and about the hypocrisy in this matter of so many on The Right.
And I don’t believe that Republicans hate single moms any more than many others who had the above conversation do. However, no one who is honest can deny that many Conservative groups and many Republicans have spent much of the last three decades complaining about the demoralization of our society and cited as some of the prime causes parents (women) working while their kids are home alone or in daycare, the sexual revolution leading to unmarried couples and premarital sex and the rise of teenage pregnancies. When you have a guest or commentator who is on record wit these statements; it is a legitimate question to pose to them and ask how this went from being a horrible, demoralizing thing to being A-Ok and being given a free pass in their eyes.
Besides, as I said before, this line of questioning didn’t play long in the MSM and most of the Palin criticism was based on legitimate policy issues or the now classic blunders that she herself provided every third second.
It would seem that the assumptions of conservative voter attitudes could use some reevaluation but too many reporters are busy watching their jobs vanish to give that much thought.
Not really. The assumptions put forward were just fine and mostly accurate. They, like many on the Left, condemn the other side’s failings while excusing or enabling the exact same failures from their team’s players. How many “War on Drugs” and “Mandatory Heavy Sentences for Drug Crimes” talkers and politicians turned around on a dime and declared the need for compassion and understanding when Rush got caught with his hand in the Hillbilly Heroin jar? How many “Castrate the Bášŧárd” feminists turned around and defended Bill Clinton and demonized his accusers before the first fact of any case was known?
But, as interesting as all of this is, it has nothing to do with Palin’s latest round of stupidity. Her claims are that the MSM is in a sad and scary place because it was promoting these things and it was promoting stories based on anonymous bloggers rather than discussing stories about her record or sustentative issues. Not true. Most of the stories were based on her record, her claims about her record VS her real record, her statements about her positions, her then growing list of campaign whoppers and her inability to answer simple questions with anything remotely resembling coherent thought. The MSM and even the more reputable blogs left a lot of the garbage that was floating around out there alone.
The clothing issue wasn’t about fashion or some other fluff. It was pointing out the unbelievable amount of cash that was being shelled out for her wardrobe in such a short amount of time VS her “I’m just a common, plain Jane, average person” image. Was it sexist? Only if you think that the same thing being aimed at John Edwards this election cycle was aimed at him because he was a woman.
Palin is, yet again, flat out wrong and coming off as a whiner.
The reason Palin doesn’t shut up is that she’s trying to position herself as the new Republican candidate for 2012. I think this became clear during the past election when Palin stated that she would support a constitutional ban of gay marriage, something McCain opposed but the far right loves. You don’t directly contradict the person who’s VP you want to be unless you’re looking past them and to your own future. Her current “liberal media” comments further the far right agenda.
from Politico:
Well, Politico is not only not MSM, it’s also right-leaning (albeit pretty fair overall).
And I’m sure McCain’s campaign manager suggested a lot of things to the media. 🙂
If the figure was $15-25K, about 99% of the verbiage thrown about would never have existed.
Sarah Palin is successful and powerful — exactly the sort of person conservatives tend to reflexively swoon over, and liberals tend to reflexively pillory.
I’d take issue with that. Carolyn Kennedy wasn’t chosen for her humble origins. Most of the superstars of the left that I can think of are both rich and powerful and it hasn’t hurt their street cred.
(And isn’t it really an insult to liberals to think that they see success as something worth pillorying a person over? I know Rush Limbaugh would think so but…)
Hence, the role-reversal: you had evangelical conservatives “forgetting” about their “family values,” and liberals “forgetting” about their agenda of “compassion.”
I don’t know any evangelical conservatives who praised Bristol Palin for being pregnant. That would be hypocritical. As would them being compassionate toward her if they had previously dismissed all such kids as šlûŧš or something. If anyone can name the guys who did such a thing I’ll gladly add them to The Big Book Of Shame.
Most conservative families I know have acted in these circumstances the same way most liberal families I have known did; they sigh and move on. You deal. I think some of Palin’s critics were disappointed that she did not carry out their preconceived notions of how conservatives should act. It’s probably because they don’t know very many.
Now, there was a flurry of discussion on some MSM shows about her being able to raise her kids while doing the job right after she was introduced. It was usually in the context of the questions being asked about her once she was introduced and the majority of MSM programs stopped talking about it in about a week.
So we have no disagreement here. Me, I would say that any such flurry should never have occurred and 1 week is about 7 days too long. I agree that it did die down rather quickly, possibly from a sudden realization of how inappropriate it was.
here’s an example from The Washinton Post–as Mainstream as it comes–
Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil.
…Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.
Has the Washington Post ever written anything like that about a male candidate? If so I will withdraw the accusation of bias, though not of the stupidity of the question.
There have been attempts made by some to claim that the MSM never actually questioned whether Palin’s status as a mother of young children disqualified her for VP or raised questions as to her fitness as a parent. You didn’t, which I appreciate. But if there’s any doubt, here’s a few I was able to find (CHRIS MATTHEWS, professional journalist, must not know my savvy internet search methods, most of which revolve around putting words into google.)
Co-anchor Bill Weir On ABC’s Good Morning America: “Adding to the brutality of a national campaign, the Palin family also has an infant with special needs. What leads you, the Senator, and the Governor to believe that one won’t affect the other in the next couple of months?” (August 30)
CNN “Newsroom” anchor John Roberts– “The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child.” later followed by “She has an infant — she has an infant with special needs. Will that affect her campaigning?”(aug 29)
(I note that shortly afterwards, on the same program, Cokie Roberts mentioned that this kind of talk angers women voters. Good for Cokie.)
The Washington Post piece by Sally Quinn was also on the 29th. As you point out, the idea died afterwards. That it came up at all is shameful, no matter who it is directed at.
Many of the MSM moments that I saw where a person was discussing these things was when they were talking to a Right Wing guest or commentator who had a history of those comments, many on record for, amongst other tings, condemning Hillary as a bad role model for aggressively pursuing her career while her daughter was younger, and asking them where that moral outrage and condemnation was now and about the hypocrisy in this matter of so many on The Right.
Anyone who condemned Hillary as a bad role model for aggressively pursuing her career while her daughter was younger and then praised Palin for doing the same deserves to be called out by name. I didn’t see these so I’d appreciate knowing who they were. I’m not saying your wrong, I’d just like to have the sources–right now I don’t have much to go on.
Well, Politico is not only not MSM, it’s also right-leaning (albeit pretty fair overall).
I wasn’t saying that Politico was–I assumed that the reporters they were talking about were. Perhaps an incorrect assumption on my part.
Bill Mulligan:
> Don’t make joe Biden angry. You can’t believe him
> when he’s angry.
Are you saying not to make him angry because we wouldn’t like him when he’s angry?
I’m just saying when he grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs.
Is he also wanted for a murder he didn’t commit?
Bill Mulligan: “So we have no disagreement here. Me, I would say that any such flurry should never have occurred and 1 week is about 7 days too long. I agree that it did die down rather quickly, possibly from a sudden realization of how inappropriate it was.”
I agree that it should be one week too long and that it is an arguably tasteless line of questioning to take, but does it back up the claims from the Palin supporters of biases or sexism? The more I dig around the net and read the stuff questioning Edwards’ ability to be president due to his family situation the more this seems like even treatment. If men can be questioned by the press as to how they’ll deal with the death of a sick spouse if elected into office is it not equal treatment to ask a mother how she’ll deal with the issues of a newborn special needs child if elected into office? It actually seems like equal treatment in a way. It’s equally low and vulgar, but it does seem kinda equal.
Bill Mulligan: “here’s an example from The Washington Post–as Mainstream as it comes–“
Oh, Mulligan, bless your heart…
It should also be noted that the writer, Sally Quinn, is an editorial writer rather than a news reporter and her column is named On Faith. It’s a religious POV column rather than a news column. It was also looking at this issue in the context of the overall negatives that she may face in an election. It also seems to be addressing the issue of the Right and their base and the hypocrisy in their words when moralizing to the masses VS their actions.
More from Sally Quinn’s column: “Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.
Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain’s choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:
“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.””
***************************
“She has no national political experience, especially in the area of foreign policy. That fact that she is not of Washington also will be difficult for her. Barbara Bush once told me that her husband had been a congressman, UN ambassador, ambassador to China, and head of the CIA and they thought they were prepared for the vice presidency (under President Reagan). But she said nothing can prepare you for the criticism and scrutiny of being in the White House. Sarah Palin is not prepared for that.
Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I’m the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn’t get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother’s role is different from a father’s.”
Not a really swift or classy thing to do, but she was listing the entirety of the negatives she saw Palin facing with her overall chances for election.
Bill Mulligan: “Has the Washington Post ever written anything like that about a male candidate? If so I will withdraw the accusation of bias, though not of the stupidity of the question.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200155.html
“Sounding no less eager than her husband to continue campaigning nationwide, Elizabeth Edwards said her illness should present no obstacle to the campaign, save for more frequent visits to the doctor. Both said that they will slow down if necessary but that doctors have assured them they will not have to.
“I don’t think we seriously thought about it,” Edwards said, when asked if the couple had discussed suspending or ending the campaign.”
Elizabeth Edwards has long played an active role in her husband’s political career, and she said Thursday that she believes it is important for the country to elect him president. The candidate, asked about his mind-set at such a painful time, said managing through a crisis would be a test of any future president.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900146.html
“The Edwardses didn’t want his son to be remembered for his death, but his life, those close to them say. They started a foundation in Wade’s name to support causes important to him, such as scholarships and a computer lab where students can get after-school help.
A person close to the Edwardses, who did not want to be quoted talking about their family decisions, said they are talking more openly about their experience with Wade’s death because they believe it helps answer legitimate questions about how they will cope with Mrs. Edwards’ cancer.
When asked during last Thursday’s news conference how they could stay focused on the campaign _ and perhaps eventually with running the country _ Mrs. Edwards cited her husband’s work on the Wade Edwards Foundation.”
Edwards was asked in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes” why he and his wife want to go through a presidential campaign when she has a finite period of time left.”
Somewhat mild and not as straight forward, but then news columns can’t quite get away with what editorials can. But the fact is that they and others were posting stories where the issue of Edwards’ wife’s health issues where discussed as a negative in the face of his possibly getting the presidency.
Oh, and what did Sally Quinn write in her column after the revelations about his affair?
Forgiving or Enabling Immoral Behavior?
“The problem is, SHE LET HIM DO IT. She not only agreed to his run for the presidency, she encouraged him to do it, knowing the toll it would take on the family given her health problems. But, worse, she let him do it knowing that he had had an affair. What on earth was she thinking? She said in the Daily Kos, “This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well.” I’m sorry but it was not a private matter. Not when you are running for president. The press would surely have left him alone had he not run. The mainstream press left him alone while he was running, but if he had won the primaries she had to know it surely would have come out. It always comes out. Repeat… it always comes out.”
Again, even in retrospect, she discusses the candidates family situation, his wife’s health issues, and the toll it could take. Equal treatment if only equally crappy.
Jerry wrote: “I actually almost wish she’d get the nod for 2012 so that the spectacularly huge flame out and crash she’ll have will pretty much guarantee that we don’t have to hear from her ever again after that.”
You’d want her to get the nomination for the presidency? Not a good thing to wish for. What if she actually won by some cruel twist of fate?
Okay, in all fairness, it’s always possible that she could use the next four years to learn about the world (and for that matter how things work in the United States- such as the fact that the vice president does not run the senate) and be that much more qualified for national office. However, based on what I saw of Palin’s performance in this last election (and I don’t have faith in her abilities at self improvement), she shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House.
Jerry, how about if she decisively loses the New Hampshire Primary next time around? And the Iowa Caucuses? Those early losses should also curtail her presidential hopes.
Myself, I’d rather not see her on the national stage again. I wouldn’t even want to see her doing an infomercial. To paraphrase Jeff Daniels in his song “If William Shatner Can, I Can Too” (singing about Adam Sandler, in this particular verse), now that Palin has lost her bid for the vice presidency, I wish she’d just… go away.
Rick
But she probably won’t. She loves the spotlight and publicity, even if it’s bad. As to her attitudes on her political failings, she’s of the Frank Burns school; it’s either God’s Will or somebody else’s fault. That abdication of personal responsibility is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, Christians or Moslems or whoever. You see it a lot these days. And it annoys the hëll outta me. For all I can do to fix it, which is nothing.
If Sarah had just stepped up and said “I screwed up, it’s my fault, yes, I made a mistake and I’ll fix it”, the Republicans might not have gotten pounded so hard this time. But considering the act they were trying to follow, it still wouldn’t have made much difference.
When The Kinkster ran for governor of Texas in ’07, he did a number of PSAs, one of which had the line, “A politician is thinking about the next election. A statesman is thinking about the people.” Say what you will about the man, Minnesotans, but your former governor, Jesse Ventura, was one of the best you will ever have, because he got in, did what he wanted to do for the state, and got the hëll out. Sarah Palin would like to make her governorship of Alaska a stepping stone to higher office; she doesn’t give a rat’s festering ášš about the state or the people. And you can by all the Gods tell her that I said so.
That goes double for you, Blagojevich. I’m glad you’ve been impeached.
Still waking up, coffee hasn’t kicked in yet. Whoa, there it goes, all systems online, light a fresh smoke and I’ll be running at full capacity.
Good morning, campers!
Miles
Good points, Jerry. Sally Quinn does seem to be an equal opportunity creep. It’s especially galling to have her question the ability of someone to do what she herself did!
And while I think the statement from Richard Land and Al Mohler deserves little more than the eyeroll any daughter of mine would give the guy who told it to them. it doesn’t mean that a woman can’t have a career–only that she should submit to her husband’s authority in family matters. Not my idea of marriage but not the same thing as Saudi style Jane Crow laws.
You’re quite right that the questions Edwards got were of an analogous nature, though they seem to me to have been more on the level of “shouldn’t he be spending whatever time is left with her” rather than “Would this make him unfit for office.” Not that this is in any way a good question since A- It’s nobodies dámņ business how these two people deal with this crisis and B-as it turned out, Edwards was able to juggle marriage, a campaign and an affair with a ditzy mistress all at the same time. The man can multitask.
Judging form the popularity of this thread, she isn’t going away any time soon. She still brings out crowds and seems to have helped at least one Republican senator keep his seat in a runoff. If she can do that in 2010 she will have a lot of momentum. She is not popular with the media or Democrats (but I repeat myse…oh, never mind) and that won’t hurt her with the base.
It’s unfortunate for her future prospects that she doesn’t seem to have learned the right lessons from this election.
“Jerry, how about if she decisively loses the New Hampshire Primary next time around? And the Iowa Caucuses? Those early losses should also curtail her presidential hopes.”
I’d be fine with that. Just so long as she does what she does best (look clueless) and fails with the spectacularly huge flame out and crash that I think she would than I’m a happy camper.
“It’s unfortunate for her future prospects that she doesn’t seem to have learned the right lessons from this election.”
Don’t enter into politics these days if you look enough like Tina Fey that she can play you on SNL?
Um, sorry, but that’s a PLUS for this liberal. (I have much TIna Fey lust….)
How about don’t enter politics if Tina Fey can play you on SNL and no one can tell the difference.
Um, sorry, but that’s a PLUS for this liberal. (I have much TIna Fey lust….)
Have you seen the vanity faire cover? http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Optimized_tinafey-vanityfair.jpg
Hootah! Vootie! Rowf! (comical tex Avery sequence where my jaw falls to the floor, my eyes pop out, and various parts of my body tear off and fly around the room…wait a minute, that’s not funny at all. It;s horrifying. What the hëll was tex thinking? Jesus.)
That should be a poster.
Pad Says:
“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.”
Obama took his daughters to a demonstrably racist church for over a decade. I remember very little “crap father” references to him in this regard.
Bill Mulligan: “I’d take issue with that. Carolyn Kennedy wasn’t chosen for her humble origins. Most of the superstars of the left that I can think of are both rich and powerful and it hasn’t hurt their street cred.”
Bless your heart, Bill Mulligan, you do have a point. The far left hated Palin and extreme right loved her because she is an evangelical Christian and a social conservative. Both sides “forgot” some of their core values as a result.
Bill Mulligan: “As would them being compassionate toward her if they had previously dismissed all such kids as šlûŧš or something. If anyone can name the guys who did such a thing I’ll gladly add them to The Big Book Of Shame.”
Well, no, I don’t think too many people went from one of those cartoonish extremes to the other. The problem with your argument is that it presents a false dilemma between two unrealistic extremes.
Several years ago, Bill Bennett was advocating that welfare subsidies to unwed mothers be reduced or cut. This, he postulated, would discourage teenagers from having children they couldn’t afford to rear. Yet when Palin’s daughter was revealed to be pregnant and intended to keep her baby, Bennett and his ilk practically saluted her for choosing “life” rather than abortion. Never once did they discuss the mixed message they might be sending to the majority of unwed teenage mothers, whose families lack the financial werewithal of the Palins.
Also, as Jerry Chandler already pointed out, the Christian right has been yakking for ages about how unwed mothers is either a sign of our moral decline, or a causal factor. They were remarkably silent about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.
Anyway, this is all really something of a smokescreen. Rather than letting the extremists dictate the terms of the debate, I believe we should judge Palin by her merits. Unfortunately, she has very few. She faltered or even descended into nonsensical gibberish when asked boilerplate questions by Katie Couric. She continued to tout oil as the solution to our energy problems at a time when everyone else seemed to realize that oil is a commodity subject to wild price fluctuations, and one that is running out. She declared that rural America was the “real America,” failing to realize that most voters live in cities and suburbs. The list goes on and on.
It’s not just her ignorance that bothers me; it’s her completely over-inflated opinion of herself. Sarah Palin was simply in the right place at the right time; John McCain, known to wildly roll the dice from time to time, took a gamble on Palin and lost. Everyone seems to realize that… except Sarah Palin.
Bless your heart, Bill Mulligan,
You bášŧárd!!!
Vengeance shall be mine! You’ll, you’ll rue this day! Mark my words! Oh such rueing there will be!
Oh, Mulligan, bless your heart…
Oh! Ohhhhhhhhh! (Sam Kinison sound effect) You even brought Chandler into it! Gloves off, man, gloves off! I’ll darken the sky with your ashes!
(For the uninitiated, “bless your heart” is how folks in the south say “You were born with an extra chromosome” or “He or she is just too stupid to know better”.
Example– “Did you see the hat Sylvia wore on Sunday, bless her heart.”
I share this bit of cultural anthropology with Myers and THIS is the thanks I get! Yeah, well, I wasn’t BORN in the south, Myers! I’m, among other things, Irish/German. Know what that means? We invade your country and throw up on it! Get ready for a big heaping helping of rue!
I also asked Sean Scullion and Micha to “bless your heart” as well. I probably should have waited for at least one of them to chime in before I gave it away. Oh, well.
Obama took his daughters to a demonstrably racist church for over a decade.
This, of course, is an outright lie.
That Bill Mulligan, God bless him, sometimes misses the jokes right in front of him, but we love him like a brother anyhow.
[i]Obama took his daughters to a demonstrably racist church for over a decade. I remember very little “crap father” references to him in this regard.[/i]
Palin took her kids to a church where they shrieked and shouted about witches, and one of the pastors proudly proclaimed how he made a woman’s life a living hëll in Africa “because she was a witch.”
How much crap [i]for her parenting[/i] did she get for that?
Nice big glass house you got there.
Rich, I don’t know why, but angle brackets work on this site instead of square brackets for stuff like italics.
All I want to know is whether or not “Joe” is Biden’s FIRST name or MIDDLE name because some campaign runner somewhere doesn’t like alliterative names.
Yeah, and I’d like to say I was above all this heart blessing and I’d recused myself on moral grounds after vowing to never besmirch the name of Mulligan, but truth is I’ve been away from the computer for a while and it’s only now at work early this morning that I see all this. Sorry, Bill. (Either of you, bless my heart…)
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at January 11, 2009 10:50 PM
“That Bill Mulligan, God bless him, sometimes misses the jokes right in front of him, but we love him like a brother anyhow.”
Or at least like a 2nd cousin on both sides of the family, bless his heart.
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant
Rich, I don’t know why, but angle brackets work on this site instead of square brackets for stuff like italics.
Because this site uses standard HTML markup, not BBCode.
===============
An interesting post on Huffington Post entited Sarah Palin’s Big Obama Lie.
The List of Those WHo Will Shortly Be Engaged in Massive Rueing grows ever larger…
I’d hit you back with some other quaint colloquialism but I’ve only been here for a dozen years, barely long enough to escape “F***ing Yankee” status. All I know now is what I learned from Foghorn Leghorn.
Bill Myers is so dumb, he thinks, I say, he thinks the Mexican border pays rent.