Vanity Fair's New Sarah Palin Expose

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 07:12:38 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the October issue of Vanity Fair, a new expose on Sarah Palin.

The Guardian has the highlights in case you don't want to wade through it:

She managed to spend $3,000 (of campaign funds) on underwear (including Spandex girdles). More on the shopping spree here.
She calls on angels to protect her from demonic attacks
She's a bad tipper
Her Facebook and Twitter feeds may be ghost-written
The McCain Campaign gave her books to increase her learning curve on issues
She doesn't hunt

Sarah's response, according to the Guardian: [More...]

"Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous – sources that are anonymous – and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references."

And to think how close this woman came to the Oval Office....John McCain should never be forgiven for his Hail Mary pass. What a cartoon.

< Joran Van der Sloot: New Televised Prison Interview | Monday Night Open Thread: Obama's Economy Move >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Vanity Fair's New Sarah Palin Expose | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Tru she is not fit for office (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 07:37:12 PM EST

Also true the VF author has already admitted to one factual error. Sloppy reporting does not help.

And I completely agree with Palin on anonymous sources for so-called political profiles. it is gutless, and purely manipulative, whether it is VF or Politico.

If she is officially relegated to gossip only, that is fine with me, but I don't think were there yet.

What was the factual error? (none / 0) (#5)
by Jack E Lope on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:55:31 PM EST

Do you refer to this, at the end of the article?

Clarification: Lindsay Hayes, identified in this article as Sarah Palin's speechwriter, left that position in April.

Is that the "factual error"?


: No (none / 0) (#7)
by CoralGables on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:04:20 PM EST

the factual but quite meaningless error is the author mistook one down's syndrome baby for another. It had no bearing on the substance of the article.

Are you serious?? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by goldberry on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:54:40 PM EST

Who cares what Sarah Palin does or how much she spends on underwear? Is it her money? Can't she do what she wants with HER MONEY? That she earned? Are you saying that a woman who makes her own money can't spend it as she wants? What kind of message is that, Jeralyn?
I can't figure out why it's necessary to keep bashing Sarah. No one who reads your blog is going to vote for Sarah anyway. Who is the intended audience Of this kind of post? I ask because digby seems to be on the same kick. It makes no sense except as the liberal version of the three minute hate.
Is that the purpose and if it is, is it a good use of valuable blog real estate?
Jeez, no wonder progressives get no respect. They have completely lost the plot.

: Not her money. (none / 0) (#6)
by Jack E Lope on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:57:33 PM EST

For Sarah, the campaign bought about 30 pairs of shoes, roughly $3,000 worth of underwear (including many Spanx girdles), a pair of Bose headphones costing more than $300, and even her incidentals and toiletries. Charging a campaign for underwear would appear to be unprecedented.

Emphasis mine.

: it was campaign funds (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:34:22 AM EST

If she'd stay out of politics, I'd leave her alone. Since she won't, when there's something unfavorable about her, I may write about it. With her daughter about to be on national tv, and her showing up in the audience, I don't want her to have yet another platform.
Obviously, TalkLeft readers wouldn't vote for her. But TL posts are read by many more people than who comment, and through Google and other search engines, they can reach people who might not know these things about her.
One of the great things about having a blog is I get to decide what to write about. If you don't want to read, you are free to go elsewhere.

: She Is A Celebrity (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:30:32 AM EST

And deviant, behavior is often quite interesting particularly when it seems to be such odds with her public persona.
OK, nothing compared to Amelda Marcos shoe collection.... although who knows, Palin may only wear each item once and save them, she could have thousands of pairs of underwear.
And a Politician who is an underwear junkie, is a great metaphor.

I agree with Goldberry. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:39:59 PM EST

Drivel that might get a few smiles or giggles at a club or on a commute seems to be the main discourse of liberals these days about Sarah Palin.

She has come a long way since John McCain put her in the limelight, and I am not saying that she will come much further, but I would caution the laughing smirkers that they had the same ideas and talked the same talk about Bush in 2000, and 2004, and before the last few months about the Republicans in 2010.

If you laugh at someone while calling them an idiot, and then that idiot takes what you treasure most, then who is the idiot?

: Also about Reagan (none / 0) (#14)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:28:58 AM EST

she doesn't hunt? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:12:10 AM EST

that can't be true! i thought she went out and took down polar bears, mano a mano, with her bare hands?

say it ain't so!

: That does it. If Sarah Palin doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by oculus on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:33:31 PM EST

actually hunt I could never, ever, vote for her.

was it just me (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:45:42 PM EST

or does that response seem rather, um, pregnant with sexual innuendo?

: It came off as rather misandric... (none / 0) (#25)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:01:33 PM EST

...to me. I was wondering if anyone would comment on her response or whether $arah would get a free pass from the enlightened around here.

Hasnt this (none / 0) (#2)
by Left of the Left on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:42:55 PM EST

already been widely discredited?

Discredited by whom? (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:49:38 PM EST

I read it, and it's not an nth of what I expected from all the noise surrounding it. Nothing about it seemed wildly off base. And she'd have filed a lawsuit already if it were the "hatchet" job some have said it is.


: ok, discredited may be too harsh a word (none / 0) (#10)
by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:10:59 AM EST

but it's definitely suspect. I know its the national review, but I link to it since it has all or most of the criticism in one place. Whats notable is it isnt just conservative criticism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245538/palins-new-defenders-liberal-feminists-katrina-trinko

: Also (none / 0) (#11)
by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:13:53 AM EST

The White House isnt suing the Globe or National Enquirer over the divorce and alcoholism stories. Her not suing doesnt mean its accurate.

Doesn't everybody and their dog (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:28:49 PM EST

wear Spanx now? It's all the rage, Wanda Sykes even does a bit about her "Esther" rolling down her Spanx in the middle of a show.

: I want to see (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Zorba on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:53:32 AM EST

the Spanx-wearing dogs. ;-)

I've seen and read enough to (none / 0) (#13)
by Anne on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:15:49 AM EST

know that Sarah Palin isn't anyone I would ever vote for, and the VF piece didn't change that. If anything, it confirmed that Sarah is all about Sarah, and if she is as out-of-control as VF portrayed her, I'm pretty sure the inevitable imposion will be along soon enough. Andthat - please, please, please - will be that.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that a lot of the anonymous sourcing for the article came from Republicans who are repelled and repulsed by her and don't want her making over the GOP in her own image - which the article went out of its way to make clear is along the lines of the Wicked Witch of the West made up like Glinda the Good Witch, or Joan Crawford with the wire hangers ready for her close-up.

Pretty scary stuff - but I think that was the point.

Wouldn't it be nice if Sarah Palin were this country's biggest problem? In the meantime, she sure makes for a good distraction - Look! Over there - Sarah Palin in Spanx!"

What a world, what a world...

But does Jesus know (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:58:24 AM EST

she wears naughty monkey pumps? Isn't that like promoting sexual deviancy and the theory of evolution all at the same time? :) These are questions that prey upon me :)


Well...I always thought the red ones (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Anne on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:10:09 AM EST

looked suspiciously like the ruby slippers the Wicked Witch of the East was wearing before the tornado dropped Dorothy's house on her, so she might want to steer clear of Kansas, lol.

So that you can stop agonizing over this difficult question, try looking at it this way: I'm sure Jesus wants Palin to put her best foot forward, and if that means the naughty monkey pumps, so be it; others will just have to get control of their, um, reactions to them.


: Pretty funny Anne (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:16:40 AM EST

i harbor a secret love (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:32:42 AM EST

for sarah palin's shoe collection. Not that I would ever wear any of them. I do not have the coordination or grace to pull off heels like that. I would fall over, break my legs, etc... And I always feel ginormously tall in anything > 2". But I certainly appreciate those that can pull them off.


: Oh, I would wear most of them! (none / 0) (#21)
by vml68 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:02:14 AM EST

As a short/petite woman, it would take 10" heels for me to feel ginormously tall... :-)