home

What She Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:35:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On Sarah Palin, I'm with Melissa McEwan:

Open Thread.

< What's Next For Hillary | Friday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What She Said | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    'Bama Jeff update... (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    I don't think he'd mind me sharing...in case anyone else was worried about our buddy.

    He's back in 'Bama figuring things out, said he's taking a TL break...too disgusted for politics, and who could blame him, the country he has served and loved has failed his family miserably.  But all things considered he is doing allright.

    Send him positive vibrations.

    Devastating things are taking place (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    It will continue like this as long as Geithner and Goldman Sachs' treasury have their way.  I am ashamed of the course we are on and insist staying on and what it will do to people until a solid majority of Americans decide that this will not stand and will not be tolerated.  Be well Jeff and family, my thoughts are with you.

    Parent
    A grifters economy... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    ain't the half...it is DHS and papers please and keeping families apart.  No jobs and no basic human dignity.

    The new American way..."family values" my f*ckin' arse.

    Parent

    OH NO!!!! (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    Jeff....I'm so deeply deeply sorry.

    Parent
    Dude's a vet... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    and DHS won't let his kid in the country no matter how many hoops he jumps through.

    I try not to throw "evil" around, but I don't think there is a better adjective for some of our bueracratic systems...they are deeply truly evil.

    Parent

    This just makes my blood boil... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    I think I'd be marching myself to my Representative's or Senators' local offices and/or I would call the local news station and fill them in.

    It's unconscionable to me that these kinds of actions would even have to be necessary, but if we can't make the people who represent us actually perform some useful service, what good are they?

    With everything Jeff has been through this last year, this is an especially painful kick in the...teeth; I know life isn't fair, but enough is enough already.

    Jeff, if you're reading, I'm sending good thoughts your way, asking the universe to give you the strength to deal with this latest blow, and hoping things turn around quickly.

    Parent

    Can (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    You give give a short two sentence summary of what is happening to him.  I honestly  dont know.

    Parent
    I don't wanna speak outta turn... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:28:14 PM EST
    here's what he shared.

    Parent
    I'm going to make a prediction: (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    Sarah Palin will never be elected to a single office again.

    I'm so confident that that's either true or almost true that I don't pay any attention to her or what people say about her.

    Sexism in the media is a continuing concern, of course.

    My problem with the Palin coverage (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    has always been the fact that she seems to come in for more criticism than her male counterparts for essentially the same crimes.  Is she wrong about everything?  Pretty much.  Has Obama been wrong about everything?  Pretty much.  Lilly Ledbetter doesn't exactly make up for illegal wars, siding with Wall Street, and being worse than Bush on civil liberties.

    Similarly, does she say stupid things? Routinely.  Does John McCain say stupid things?  Routinely.  Does Joe Biden say stupid things?  Routinely.  Yet somehow people rarely call John McCain or Joe Biden stupid or imply they are beneath the jobs they have.

    Along the same lines, does she get history wrong and/or twist it for her own purposes?  Of course.  As hipparchia at Corrente said, kind of like this guy:

    We didn't actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

    My main issue is that Palin is treated as if she is so much worse and says stuff so much dumber than the rest of our political class (almost exclusively men) when, in fact, they say incredibly stupid, ahistorical stuff all the time.  They may sound smoother when they do it, but most of the policy discussion in this country is incredibly wrong and stupid (austerity!) and yet when it comes from almost anyone's mouth but Palin's it's treated seriously, including by progressives.

    Note that I'm not advocating that Palin be treated seriously, I'm suggesting that the other politicians be mocked and maligned just as much for saying stupid stuff, particularly when so many of the "serious" leaders are in positions to do real damage with their stupidity (although I grant you that sometimes they aren't so much stupid as lying, not that that's any better).

    I was going to demur (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    but then, I remembered a guy running for president who said that there are 57 states in this great land of ours.

    Parent
    It must have been tough in the USSR (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    Does anyone even know how many "autonomous Republics (regions?)" there were?!

    Parent
    On the one hand, I also believe we should (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    be calling out stupidity no matter who it's emanating from, but on the other hand, it pains me that the system is now such that there seems to be a preponderance of stupid and it's a matter of choosing the least gaffe-prone candidate who can make nonsense sound like it matters because of how it is delivered.

    Sarah Palin just plain offends me, because she represents to me just how low our standards have sunk.  But Obama offends me, too, for the massive bamboozling okeydoke he put over on the voters, who thought they were getting "change," and instead got Bush III.  And the worst of Bush III, to boot.

    Honestly, the quality of the likely candidates is so bad I think people will stay home in droves.

    Parent

    That's part of what gets me (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 08:09:11 AM EST
    about all the focus on the left on Palin.  Obama is either deeply stupid or deeply corrupt and dishonest.*  And, unlike Palin, he's in a position where his stupidity/corruption affect a great deal of people.  Thousands of people - overseas and in this country - are dead or will be because of Obama's policies.  And yet, Palin, who may not even be running for political office, is the one I'm supposed to be so offended by and to do anything (including vote for and support Obama) to protect the country and the world from.

    I have no doubt that Palin would make a terrible President.  But the reason for that isn't that she's dumber and/or more corrupt than Obama.  It's that she'd do basically the same thing as Obama.  Palin may have said "drill, baby, drill", but she's not the one who greatly expanded offshore drilling and covered for BP.  That would be the alleged wonderful guy in the White House who has all of our best interests at heart.  But, hey, he probably knows the Paul Revere story, so that's nice.  

    *  Although I'd probably vote it's some of both.  Personally, he strikes me - as so many of our elite do - as having a mediocre, albeit well-educated, mind.  In fact, those things are probably related.  If you look at the list of people who have absolutely wrecked this country, it's littered with Ivy League graduates.  Whether that makes them stupid or not, I guess, depends on your definition of stupid.  They are certainly wrong about most everything, but they probably can tell you the capital of Canada.  Which is why I refuse to pretend that Palin is so much worse for being wrong about everything and unable to tell me the capital of Canada or the Paul Revere story.  I think what offends people is that she almost revels in being wrong about everything, when the inside game is to at least pretend that you aren't stupid and/or corrupt.  In that way, although a liar, Palin is actually a great truth teller.  She's who are political leaders are, even those we think of as being "smarter" than her.  

    Parent

    She, like so many Americans... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    ...wears her ignorance and stupidity and intellectual laziness as some badge of honor.  

    Also, what sets Palin apart is the isolation she was raised in.  You do not get a well-rounded view of life or the world living in isolation, unless you are a very anomalous and sharp intellect, and, well, she ain't.

    That said, I agree with you, for all of Obama's academic record, he doesn't seem able to do a damn thing with it to help anyone but those who don't need help at all.

    Parent

    "our" political leaders (none / 0) (#38)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 08:10:35 AM EST
    not "are" political leaders.  Ugh!  Must go get caffeine.

    Parent
    Except bdb you seem to be (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    unaware of the times in our history when a major ignoramus has been elevated to the highest post in the land and as a result we got some awful policy with horrible long-lasting consequences.  Andy Johnson comes to mind -- barely literate and only thanks to his wife in his adult years, someone with the crudest and most vile regard for blacks who helped enable the destruction of Congress' Reconstruction policy and who helped return blacks to a form of slavery for another hundred yrs.  His name sake who governed a hundred yrs later also, someone with a very poor education who was largely ignorant and crudely simplistic about FP who thought if we didn't fight 10k miles away in a tiny SE Asia country, the commies would soon arrive in San Francisco.  

    Reagan, the C-student from a third tier college who spouted simplistic RW corp-friendly slogans and who got briefed by staff about important, complex issues in the WH by reading dumbed down one-page memos and/or watching a specially prepared 1/2 video on the subject because his short attention span couldn't tolerate more.  We got trickle-down economics for the rich, Iran-Contra and at least one term of governing pushing brinksmanship in the cold war against the Soviets (until cooler heads finally prevailed, and/or he saw a Hollywood film on nuclear war which woke him up).

    I don't doubt some of the best educated types have also screwed up in the WH, but otoh more often than not our country has benefitted overall from having someone in the WH who knows what to do, often because he knows what has and hasn't worked in the past because of a good education, either through the traditional route or through disciplined and substantive self-education.  That and consistent intellectual discipline and curiosity to continue to learn tend to produce positive results in our leaders.

    Palin shows no signs of being intellectually disciplined or curious, nor of course does she seem to have learned much of anything at the various colleges she attended in search of a degree.  She's joke worthy like Shrub or Quayle because she just doesn't seem to have done much to educate herself in her adult years and time in office.

    Frankly, I want someone in the WH as smart as or preferably smarter than I am, and I don't want this country to continue to lower the bar on the highest office.  Someone who knows climate change is at least in major part human-caused, someone who has a basic grasp of US history and geopolitics and economics, someone who at least knows enough to argue about FDR and the economic decision during the 32-3 transition (even if he finally got it wrong).  

    Palin probably would have confused Roosevelts and talked about how she liked FDR keeping America safe for guns when he was with the Roughriders, but didn't like it when he went all socialist with Medicare and socialized medicine and isn't entirely happy with the guy being on Mt Rushmore.  I think we run a huge risk with another idiot sneaking into the Oval -- we've already had at least 3 too many in the past 45 yrs.    

    Parent

    I'm well aware of the costs of having people (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:38:26 PM EST
    who follow the wrong policy (whether because they are stupid or because they are corrupt) in the White House.   As I said, I believe Palin would make a terrible President.  Her policies would be disastrous.  But I also think the "well-educated" Obama is also a terrible President and his policies are disastrous.   W went to Yale.

    Lincoln, OTOH, was self taught.  Lyndon Johnson went to Texas State University.  Truman didn't graduate from any university.

    As for risking putting another idiot in the Oval Office, it's pretty much guaranteed that the next president will follow disastrous policies whether it's because they are stupid or corrupt.  Obama has already shown himself willing to double down on pretty much every terrible Bush policy.  The GOP candidates seem likely to do the same.  

    And that's my problem with focusing on Palin - it implies she's somehow different from the rest when she's not.  That's what both her fans and her detractors get wrong.    She's awful.  But so is everybody else.  And it's that hard truth that so many people seem reluctant to accept and, IMO, too often use her as a way to ignore.


    Parent

    BDB, you tend to paint with too (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:18:41 PM EST
    broad a brush on this one.  Both on the stupidity matter and the education discussion, which seems rather muddled.  I don't buy your equivalencies.

    The point I'd make, briefly re stupidity in our pols is there's stupidity and then there's stupidity.  One type bespeaks the tendency of most people to commit a gaffe once in a while, particularly the more one tends to be in the spotlight or tends to talk (see, e.g., Biden, Joe).  And there is a continuum.  

    Obama is sort of typical in being smart and educated but occasionally being prone to utter the gaffe or make an error historical nature.  But his flaws here are all too human and common -- who hasn't said something stupid at times in life? -- and the historical error more a reflection of his personality or ideology, rather than revealing someone ignorant of history.

    Someone like Palin is at the far end of the spectrum, displaying an appalling lack of basic history and geopolitics, someone so ignorant that she's perceived as not even having a basic grasp of simple US history.

    Presidents like HST and Johnson the Second are somewhere in the middle, both being mostly self-taught (T with his book reading, J with his learning about Congress and politics on the job) but both, especially/mostly the latter, had serious huge gaps in their understanding of things necessary to be an effective prez, Truman being very dependent on and swayed by expert advisers.

    On education, my point is that you can get it the traditional way through formal study, or be self educated.  

    Again someone like Palin represents someone towards the opposite end, someone who, despite the college degree seems not to have learned anything there.  Much like Shrub, who received an Ivy degree, but evidences nothing to suggest he cracked open a book in his four yrs nor in the years since so cannot be considered your typical "Ivy League Elitist" in terms of actual education and knowledge.  

    Both Palin and Shrub -- as with say Quayle -- are very worthy of our scorn and ridicule for their ignorance and even their seeming pride in being dumb.  I submit it's dangerous to continue putting these (proudly) ignorant people in the WH because one of these days, it's going to really come back to haunt us.

    Parent

    At this point, I am hard-pressed to believe (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09:29 PM EST
    that the terrible policies coming out of the Obama WH are the result of benign ignorance; if he doesn't understand economics or fiscal/monetary policy, for example, he has hordes of people at his disposal who do, so one can only conclude that this Ivy League-educated lawyer is choosing to use his intelligence in a very malignant way: because these are the policies he believes in.  So much for smart.

    Not-so-bright people, those who can't name all the presidents, or who can't place important people in the right place in history, who don't know which one is FDR and which one is TR, can be equally malignant in their agenda: because that's what they believe in.  

    Whether it is from ignorance or willfulness, it  doesn't matter much when the result is the same.

    Neither one of these legacy parties is going to offer a choice that will result in this government doing what needs to be done to get the country on the right track, because the next resident of the Oval Office, whether it's Obama or a Republican, is not going to be representative of the people, but of the elite.

    Parent

    I Would Argue... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    ... that the only reason she is what she is is because she a good looking woman.  No way a man with her resume/intellect/crass hatred gets further then dog catcher, much less the VP ticket.

    There was like a 6 month period that some idiot rebuplican made some idiot comment in reference to doing her, every day.

    Is it sexism if it propels her career rather than hinders it?

    You can't paint all media the same, maybe some are, and some aren't.  I know she rubs me the wrong way and it has nothing to do with her sex, but then again I could care less about the emails.

    Parent

    Ahem ... Reagan? Bush ll? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 06:07:29 AM EST
    If I'm not mistaken they both made it so much further as to become POTUS.

    Parent
    At the time she was picked for (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:35:07 AM EST
    the 2008 ticket, Palin was governor of Alaska, and for some people, that was all the credibility she needed; hey, it worked for Reagan and George W. Bush, so why not for Palin?

    And looks have been a part of politics for as long as I can remember; the dashing, handsome JFK sure wasn't hurt by his good looks next to the beetle-browed, sweaty Richard Nixon, was he?

    And yes, I'm willing to say that women who take advantage of the effect their looks have on others are being sexist, even if it is to their advantage.  I don't like to see that, because it makes it so much harder for women who just want to be accepted for their intellect and abilities.  

    What bothers me most about Palin is that I think she's just so wrong on so many issues, and many people make the mistake - as they did with GWB - of thinking that just because she can get down to their level that she's right about what this country needs to do and where it should be headed.

    I truly don't think Palin is going to throw her hat in the ring; she would not have bailed on the governorship if she was.  No, Sarah Palin is Donald Trump in peep-toed pumps - all about herself and her brand, always on the lookout for new ways to make money from it, carving herself out a nice little niche where she will do quite well.  Not a bad business model, but it only works because the media, out of an abundance of self-interest, continue to make sure she remains relevant.

    It's the same old story: it's all about the money.


    Parent

    FDR (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by the capstan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:08:36 PM EST
    "We didn't actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly."

    We've seen this one before: I do believe he declared the bank holiday almost immediately.  Since he was elected only days after I was born, I am not saying I personally recall all that he did.  But by the time I was 6 months old, I was living in Ga. near a CCC camp my father was building. BTW, that was a bit less than 6 months after his inauguration in March of '33.  No way did he wait 6 months to act.

    Parent

    That Obama spouted that right-wing FDR myth... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:48:10 PM EST
    ...told me a lot about him.  

    Parent
    That quote (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 12:14:27 AM EST
    from Obama is him buying into some remarkable crap.

    The reference about waiting 6 months (an error, the original was 4 months) was about Roosevelt refusing to be trapped by Hoover and the finance industry into continuing Hoover's policies.  FDR and staff realized that 'cooperating' would have meant he had no freedom to act on the crisis.

    It, the London Economic Conference, that FDR refused to attend was an insidious trap that would have prevented needed reform of the finance system.

    There is a first rate explanation the period of the period between the election in 11/32 and inauguration in 3/33.

    There was a really awful propaganda conference after the 2008 election and before the inauguration aimed at Obama.  Obama bought it hook line and sinker as evidenced by his remarks to bloggers about FDR's lack of 'cooperation.'

    Despicable.

    Parent

    Obama seems (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 12:25:08 AM EST
    to buy into right-wing perversions of events rather easily.  This latest Obama perversion of history is just another example.  This latest remark also tells me he doesn't have an adequate fundamental knowledge of US history.  I believe fundamental knowledge of US history should be a prerequisite for a President.

    Does anyone know what his grandparent's politics were?

    Parent

    His grandfather was (none / 0) (#34)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 01:28:22 AM EST
    a Mau Mau rebel.

    Parent
    I walked (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    right into that one.

    Parent
    Yeh. And I, for my part (none / 0) (#46)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    couldn't resist.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    well i've heard that life in Hawai'i is ruled by the aloha spirit

    clearly a good move for a Mau Mau rebel to relocate there from Kansas

    Parent

    Cal, at least Obama knows who (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    FDR was, and that there was a transition period of 5 months or so and that an important decision on the economy was made at the time -- even if in the end he seems to badly misread the thinking of FDR.

    I don't think I could credit someone like Palin for having any idea whatsoever about what Obama was referring to and commenting on.  She's almost certainly still at the very elementary level of trying to figger out the difference between the two Roosevelts, and which one decided to attack Pearl Harbor, the popular jewelry store in Hawaii that the Japanese were trying to take over because they were running out of pearls in their own country.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    and in the spirit of the matter.

    It would be great fun to hear Palin's take on other historic events.

    Parent

    That's exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    The argument is "it's not that she's a woman, she says stupid things and she's so right wing!"

    Lord, what right wing Republican doesn't/isn't.  I gave two examples:
    Bush
    Reagan

    How about Gingrich.  How about Vitter.  Nobody follows them around looking for them to blow.

    People are so immersed in their misogyny that they don't even realize it.


    Parent

    i don't think (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    you'll find too many people here with nice things to say about Bush Reagan or Gingrich either.  In fact, they get bashed here on a regular basis.   But somehow holding Sarah Palin to that standard is "wrong"?  What's your point?

    They aren't currently in the limelight because more or less their time has passed.  Sarah Palin is the new(er) right wing hack on the block.

    You bring up W. and Reagan, but Gingrich and Vitter never won a presidential election.  And W. and Reagan ran as moderates.  Being a right-wing idiot does not make you a shoe-in as president.  Just because a few dudes got lucky doesn't mean that's something we should support.

    Parent

    Pity the poor attorney who had to (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    all Palin's e-mails for executive privilege and/or attorney client privilege.  

    Heh, you are funny (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    I bet it was hell though.  Can you send her a bill for it?  Probably not huh?

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    would you have charged?

    Parent
    Curious. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    Are you also with Melissa on what she said about Weiner - i.e., framing the issue as one of consent? It's an interesting topic over there, with a very different perspective as usual...

    I don't think (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    the matter has been established as conclusively as you or Melissa suggest.

    For example, Weiner, we are told meant to sent it privately. Was it meant to be sent privately to Ms. Cordova? How de we know this?

    Yes, consent is the issue. I agree. The whose consent was needed and whether it was given is something different.

    Did it happen then? And if so, is doing it on a single occasion (unless you have evidence of other times he did it) a resigning offense?

    I think Melissa's focus is correct. I think her certainty of what happened is unmerited.  

    Parent

    I agree with you completely. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    I think her conceptual framing is correct. I've said from the beginning that I don't have the facts yet about what really happened within that context.

    Parent
    Agree with BTD and Dr Molly ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    though the whole Weiner story is largely just another distraction in a long list of distractions they've been feeding us of late.

    As more wars get waged, more illegal actions on Wall Street go unchallenged (let alone unpunished), the housing crisis isn't addressed, and so on.

    All these stories are not only more important but frankly more interesting than Rep. Weiner's entirely mundane "sex" life.  

    Parent

    This Palin Email Release (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    I want people to point out the sexism inherent in reporting what the emails say.

    I just don't think there will be much.  The record is what it is.  If she screwed up, she screwed up.

    In terms of Melissa's post (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    You are creating a straw man.

    Try reading it again and understanding it this time.

    Parent

    I agree with Melissa's key point: (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    Palin's just wrong on the issues. Though she lays it on a bit too thickly for my taste and the clumsy nature of that undermines her argument.

    In a way, she's really using the very demagoguery she's complaining about.  

    Also this point below is way beyond shaky.  And shows a lack of knowledge about the history of American politics.  Not to mention politics in general:

    [the] aw-shucks, insufferably affected demeanor that's been a central part of conservative identity politics since Ronald Reagan's carefully blushed cheeks ...

    This is a political concept that's been used long before Reagan by politicians of all ideologies.  Frankly, long before Abraham "the rail splitter" Lincoln too.

    Versions of it date back to ancient Greece.  

    Often bloggers don't deserve their reputation of offering ill thought out, poor researched writing, with clumsy prose.  But too often they do.

    Her key point remains valid.  But others have said it better.  BTD among them.

    Parent

    BTD (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    She said:

    "I am not looking forward to the enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism which will indubitably accompany that information and the subsequent discussion."

    I am saying that there will not be "enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism".

    That's not a strawman.  That's what the woman predicted.

    I can read. Thanks.

    Parent

    You did not write very clearly imo (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    You wrote "I want people to point out the sexism inherent in reporting what the emails say."

    There is no sexism inherent in reporting what the e-mails say. Melissa never said there was. As your subsequent quote of her makes clear:

    "She said:

    "I am not looking forward to the enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism which will indubitably accompany that information and the subsequent discussion."

    [. . .] That's what the woman predicted."

    Indeed it is what she predicted. And if the past is a good indicator of the future, her prediction seems sound to me. I understand you disagree.

    But your rhetoric stated that Melissa argued there is "sexism inherent in reporting what the emails say." She never wrote that.

    I think you did not mean to write you wrote. Try to do better next time.
     

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    You eyes are awesome because that hair is split mighty finely. Silly argument though. You can win.

    All that matters is that the emails expose Palin for the weak mind that she is. If that happens all is right with the world.

    Parent

    What part of "accompany" (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:10:06 PM EST
    and "subsequent" is unclear to you?
    "I am not looking forward to the enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism which will indubitably  accompany that information and the subsequent discussion.

    To give you a little help, I provide you with your pick of online definitions.

    Parent

    Honestly . . . (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:24:21 PM EST
    he does his own promotion of misogyny, so I wouldn't expect any 'clear' defense/definition of his comments.

    It's a freakin' joke he's even commenting on it, imo.

    Parent

    ABG is a perfect representative for (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:34:28 AM EST
    Obama.

    Parent
    Pat Caddell says ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:53:48 PM EST
    ... they're trying to kill Palin by publicly releasing the emails rather than limiting the release to journalists ... says it's a "killfest" and "huntfest", whatever that is.

    At least now Fox labels him a "former Democratic pollster".

    What a clown.

    Clown (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    is an understatement. Puleeze, how would it be so much better if they just released them to the press?

    Parent
    On Sarah Palin, I'm with (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    Margaret Thatcher.

    By the way, can someone give me a  comment link with the news about JeffinAl.?

    See comment #30 n/t (none / 0) (#35)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:33:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Plain and simple liberals hate Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    and will excuse any pathetic behavior as long as that behaviors goal is making SP look bad.

    Sorry she doesn't hold your political views but their is no rational explanation to why she should garner anymore attention then any other conservative.

    I guess it's her seeming so happy that bothers you so.

    She is now a rich women because the left has spent so much time making themselves look foolish going after her.   She wouldn't be the celebrity she is now if the left and the media had treated her like any other politician.

    Your screed is almost as pathetic as this (none / 0) (#57)
    by Raymond Bell on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:52:20 PM EST

    The Twitter feed of the company that put online 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin's emails for msnbc.com was hacked over the weekend, with vandals posting  a series of pro-Palin and anti-Obama messages.

    Among the tweets:

        Emails: Gov. Palin a Hard-Working Public Servant
        Email Witch-hunt Backfires
        Weiner's America Or Palin's America - That Is The 2012 Choice

    "It appears that there is a 'hole' in one of the applications (we think Facebook) that links to Twitter," Art Crivella, founder and CEO of the company, Crivella West, told msnbc.com Sunday evening. "We've disabled them and mopped up the bile and changed all the passwords."

    The searchable online archive of emails was not affected.

    Sarah Palin supporters hack Twitter feed of company that posted her emails for msnbc.com

    Parent

    What She Said | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment