« Despite Threat, White House Urges Members To Carry On With Town Halls | Home | What Happened At The St. Louis Town Brawl? »
Palin: Obama's "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
And she pointed Americans' attention to a recent speech by none other than Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), warning of the dastardly involvement of Rahm Emanuel's brother, who is a doctor, in the health care debate:
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president's health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
Could this be an early trial balloon for a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012?
(Via Dave Weigel.)
Advertisement
The capacity of this bimbo to combine her smugly invincible ignorance with the vicious cunning a rabble rouser inciting a lynch mob and evade consequences for her actions by hiding behind her Princess Winky Sparkleburst National Review pornstar persona always amazes me. But, damn, even for her, this is so vile it really takes your breath away.
August 7, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer we not use sexually charged language such as "bimbo" when referring to Palin. If nothing else such language might serve as a distraction from your more important central point (i.e.: Palin is an idiot).
August 7, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right. It's much more properly AirHead Bimbo.
Ahem... With apologies to the dear, departed Frank Zappa...
August 7, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you feel about "evil lying bitch?"
August 7, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Evil lying" is good. The rest seems unnecessary
August 7, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If evil lying bastard is okay for Dick Cheney et al; evil lying bitch is fair.
August 7, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin is an evil lying bastard.
This insults 'bastards,' such as Shakespeare's Faulconbridge, but at least the term has no zoological connotations.
August 9, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
as a proud feminist, i'll allow it. sometimes it just fits.
August 7, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a faux feminist, maybe you should go back to class.
August 8, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you accuse that poster of being a faux feminist why exactly?
August 8, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, using sexist language and then thinking that being a woman means she can't be using sexist language or gets to "allow it". Sorry, her sexist attributions hurt others, not just Palin or herself.
August 8, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh pulease.
August 8, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clear up the record, she didn't use "sexist language." She just condoned it. I'm the one that used the term you find objectionable and I'm a he, not a she.
August 8, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So calling a jerk a dick is sexism right?
Sorry but your ridiculous assertion about the negative yet accurate term to use regarding Palin using her sexuality to gain political capital, which I and numerous others assert is the exact opposite of sexism.
Your non-thinking knee-jerk reaction about language only goes to underscore the point that you are 100% backwards on this point.
August 8, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please spare us the faux feminist outrage. Sarah Palin is hardly representative of modern American feminism. The only lesson she could teach young women is that panties can serve as pretty decent ankle-warmers when in the backseat of a car on a chilly evening.
August 8, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about you, it's not about her. You sound like a sexist jerk. Saying "I'm only a sexist jerk to women who deserve it" is hardly an appealing excuse. And there is nothing Palin has said that warrants the "ankle warmer" comment.
Palin is a professional, elected official. She got elected through her own hard work, whatever you think about her. She has typically whacky conservative Republican views on the issues. This should invite scorn and ridicule of her views. It shouldn't promote gynecological exploration of her physique or schoolboy rape/submission fantasies. She does seem to bring out the worst latent women hating sentiments in "progressives", but that doesn't mean those sentiments are her fault, nor that those sentiments are progressive values.
August 8, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO! Professional my rear...I bet you were one of the men she had her panties down around her ankles for.
August 10, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you stop for a second and contemplate how idiotic this statement would make you sound?
I know you can just change your avatar & name and we won't recognize you, but you do have anything remotely related to self-respect?
August 10, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used the terms advisedly and thus beg to disagree.
She simply would not be where she is if she didn't drive old Republican white guys like Barnes and Kristol and the delegates to the last Republican convention into a mortifyingly transparent state of sexual frenzy. She has unashamedly used her looks as a shield to protect herself from the kind of scrutiny she most certainly would have received if she were a man, or an older, less attractive woman, who went babbling vapid yet incindiary nonsense the way she does.
Even Bachmann can form complete sentences and even intelligible, if demented, concepts.
The steady stream of culpably incindiary mendacity that comes from Palins's mouth is nothing less than the political obscenity and the fact that it's being spouted by what passes for a sex symbol among old rich white guys is why she came so terrifyingly close to the White House. She is nothing more, and nothing less, than an authoritarian political porn star.
If we're not allowed to acknowledge, and frankly confront, the self-exploitive sexual dimension of Sarah Palin's rise to power (such as it is) for fear of transgressing some self-imposed feminist speech code, her prominence on the national stage is thoroughly incomprehensible. If we can't address that because it's not politically correct, it's impossible to accurately convey how she can simultaneously represent a grave danger to the nation and yet also be utterly and completely insignificant.
August 7, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said.
August 7, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
August 7, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Said much more in depth and better than me.
August 8, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not hard to do, since you have the vocabulary and delivery of a 7th-grade boy.
August 8, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What next, the neener, neener, neener gambit?
August 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you sound like an obnoxious 8th grader trying to assert rank and privilege over the underclassmen in middle school.
August 8, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
True dat!
August 8, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polluting your logic with more and more sexist speech doesn't make it more logical.
Why don't you just drop the sexist bit and try to make sense without it? It's not that hard.
August 8, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
What bullshit. Your blind dogmatic retort only underscores the point NCSteve made. And please, I'd love to hear you accuse me of being sexist.
August 8, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I just think you're some knee-jerk idiot spouting off.
August 8, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, that really hurt.
(scroll)
August 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what are you contributing to the discussion except tut-tutting about "feminism" as though you have any credibility there. When a woman uses her sexuality as Palin routinely does (wink, wink) she has opened the door to criticism within that plane. Do you have any substantive comments to make?
August 8, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, tell me what slutty clothes she was wearing and how she deserved it.
August 8, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any substantive comments to make?
Oh please, tell me what slutty clothes she was wearing and how she deserved it.
so... no. no, you don't.
August 8, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. In fact, Palin using her sexuality as she does (i.e. the bimbo factor), is directly anti-ethical to feminism and gender equality.
But pointing that out is sexist apparently according to some because using plain, accurate language is evil. Or somethin'
August 8, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Men telling women how they're allowed to use their sexuality?
"Accurate"? How is she accurately called a "bimbo"? Too fucked up.
August 8, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
if your high holy take on "feminism" can go and jump in a lake. we are talking about the people who have the ability to wage countless suffering on mankind through war, conventional and nuclear.
if palin got into the white house, i would literally fear for my life. that woman has no business being able to wage war upon anybody.
August 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so now we excuse sexism because one day Palin might have nukes. You people are seriously fucked up.
August 8, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, I'm usually with you on the sexism front, but here I think that NCSteve has a point. Sarah Palin trades on her sexuality. It doesn't make her fair game for remarks about her clothing (she can wear what she wants) or her sex life (she can sleep with whomever she wants. It also doesn't make her fair game for sexist slurs (including the original "bimbo" that got this conversation started). However, it does leave her and her tactics open to a discussion about female sexuality as a tool to get ahead. Just as we would not expect men in public life to come under the same sorts of criticism that women in public life often have to endure, we would not expect men to flirt and wink their way to success.
August 8, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, except that I sort of like "bimbo." She wouldn't be where she is today if she weren't trading on her looks. A less attractive woman using the same language would laughed out of the political arena. Sad, but true, white males give her credibility, and it is ONLY because they are using their "other" brain.
It isn't PC, but it's true...
August 8, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wouldn't be where he is without his looks - think people would buy his schtick looking like Flavor Flav? Bill Clinton wouldn't be where he is without his looks. Most public figures rely on their looks as part of their persona. Ronnie? John McCain? Tony Blair? Really, this is just ridiculous folks. You can attack Palin on her convoluted ideas - why exactly do people have to trade in overt sexism to get simple points across?
August 8, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have gone off the deep end! If Obama were covered with warts, sweated profusely and was 5'2" and obese, he probably wouldn't be president, because we don't elect people who do not fit our own ideas of "leaders." But he could look just like he does and if he had Sarah Palin's (?) intellect (?), to include a complete lack of curiosity, lack of academic and scholarly achievements, an inability to speak a coherent sentence, and an inability to inspire in a POSITIVE way, he wouldn't have gotten out of Chicago, nevermind into the White House.
You're saying Obama and Clinton both got into the White House by using their looks? No one here is saying that there is anything wrong with Sarah being attractive. It is the use of the winks, and flirty behavior that is a SUBSTITUTE for SUBSTANCE that is infuriating and insulting to feminists (of which you obviously know nothing).
Is THIS what you expect from a leader? This is when she thought she was talking to the President of France --- "Hellooooooo!...
John McCain and I love you!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcEiR01QK7o
August 8, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so let's take a trip down Rhetorical Lane.
Presumably from this discussion it only takes a bimbo with a nice rack to get elected - if she can utter a couple of coherent words about policy, so much the better, but not necessary. Memorize some lines about conservative values and she's in like Flynnette.
So we should see these political Amazons all over the landscape, women who succeed because of their looks, snap of their fingers.
So where are they?
Maybe it's that the "women who get ahead in politics because of their looks" are just as mythical as those Amazonian tribeswomen.
August 8, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've missed the whole point. It doesn't take a Bimbo with a nice rack to get elected. She WASN'T elected! I disagree with your statement that Obama and Clinton were elected BECAUSE of their good looks (although I believe it is unlikely that a hideously ugly person could get elected).
I will agree with you on this: Palin is a fairly unique unit. She is attractive, both physically and also in her smiling affect; she seems friendly, and down-to-earth. An everyman/woman; she stresses her ordinariness verbally, while wearing expensive clothing. She is a mystery because of her yin and yan//a devoted mother whose children have gotten into quite a bit of trouble (just the right kind of trouble to appeal to all the bubbas who love her), and who have been taken out of school and paraded on stage to show her unending devotion to their well-being. A player who declares that she rejects wasteful spending, but she gamed the system as governor getting paid to live at home, and even that home was built with questionable funding.
She is unconflicted about one thing: she is right and everyone else is wrong; even being asked what she read was interpreted as below the belt. But her folksy, smiling sweetness as she accuses those so much smarter than she (and innocent of her accusations, BTW) of being terrorist sympathizers and worse; her continued smiles and cuteness as the crowd yelled such things as, "Kill him," never fazed her.
I am not afraid of her being elected president; I don't believe it would ever happen, but I am afraid of her malevolent mouth doing even more harm in polarizing the country, which is her forte. She appeals to people who just want to be told who to hate and why; truth doesn't enter in to it.
Without her looks she would be nowhere, but it is her other characteristics that make her the negative force that she is. Rush doesn't have her looks, but he has rhetorical skills that grab onto people. But they are both on the same team, and it isn't doing anything for the common good.
But I am done with this subject. I will not waste anymore time on this woman for whom you have so much respect. Since you have been so willing to spend time on her, you might want to take the time to send her a note correcting her "misreading" of the bill and remind her that "Death Panel" is nowhere in it. Educating Sarah Palin really would be a better use of your time.
August 8, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
All politicians walk their kids out on stage. It's part of the process, like kissing babies.
She was elected, she failed for Lt. Governor and then won the election for Governor in 2006. As a VP candidate, she and her running mate got 45.7% of the vote, not too shabby in a year when people had Bush-fatigue, were tired of the war, the economy was in collapse, and the opposing candidate was much more interesting.
As far as I know, she doesn't dress very expensively. She has one child who got pregnant at 17. I don't know of any other trouble her children have had.
Again, I recommended steering clear of those children expenses because the deck is stacked against women - they get to be Governor and still watch the kids. Obama's Hospital VP wife still got to take care of the kids while he spent the week in Washington. Nancy Pelosi, our highest elected female official, held off entering public service until her children were grown. Are these hurdles the best we can do for female politicians? Isn't it sad that Pelosi couldn't have a support structure that would let her be a public servant during the prime of her life, even while raising kids?
Regarding the bill, Rahm would be better off helping get the details added to the bill rather than telling progressives to STFU. Until the bill is relatively complete it's hard to argue that Palin is crazy, even though the existing evidence would point that way.
August 8, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
'She has one child who got pregnant at 17'
Yes, and she introduced us to the man who impregnated her at the Republican National Convention.
What does that say about her?
August 10, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it say? If my child's pregnant, I assume I'm going to welcome the father in my household if possible, and if I'm thrust on national stage, I would assume including my child's fiancé in family would only be right. I seem to recall Nixon including David Eisenhower in public events before he'd married his daughter, but my memory's pretty foggy on that.
August 10, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"a complete lack of curiosity, lack of academic and scholarly achievements, an inability to speak a coherent sentence, and an inability to inspire in a POSITIVE way, he wouldn't have gotten out of Chicago"
No, but judging from the current occupant of the 5th floor at City Hall, he could be mayor for life.
August 9, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stating as fact, something not necessarily a fact. Obama's words caught my attention before I had any idea what he looked like...didn't even know he was black. Had I seen him 1st, I may have wondered what part his looks played, since he's obviously HAWT. Clinton....yuck. Definitely not my type. In fact, I would say he's kinda palin-ish in that regard...I get the impression he's pretty full of himself, sexually speaking. But at least he has some brains.
August 8, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I never in my life evaluated a politician as to sexiness. Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, who knows. I think of them as something like bank tellers but occasionally more interesting.
August 8, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you. How many Americans voted for Bush because they thought he would be someone they would want to have a beer with?
If the majority of the voting population voted based on sound logic, facts, and critical analysis and weighing of relevant and substantive factors, almost our entire system of government and society would be radically different (and better).
August 8, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know people who liked Carter because he "seemed like an uncle", and Clinton had that "feels my pain" thing down and Ronnie had that folksy charm whatever his policies. So we vote personalities and image and a number of factors over actual policy. So there's no good reason to presume that it's the anatomical part of a female candidate or her sexual libido that makes her specifically different than a male candidate. People do have a sexual presence that's part of their personality. Making that the highlight of a female politician vs. holding it in perspective as one of any aspects for a male politician is part of the rampant sexism. It's no better when it's done to Pelosi vs. doing it to Palin. Or another common attitude towards female politicians, "oh she's old, fat, ugly, we can take her seriously as a politician now because we can't sexually infantilize her". Women like men can't help how they look, whether good or bad, they can only do the best with it. If a woman reminds one of "Barbie", as I hear frequently, it's not her fault, she didn't make up Mattel marketing, and our cultural filter that then reduces everything that comes out of her mouth to dollhouse chatter is our problem, not hers.
August 8, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
And using the clear (albeit coarse) terms is apropos. That people get so hung up with non-thinking reaction to words in an almost pavlovian manner is to not only miss the forest for the trees, but to get it entirely backwards.
August 8, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check: do you use the word "bimbo" in any other way but to provoke a Pavlovian non-thinking reaction? Why else do you think you're using the word? Think about it.
August 9, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they did, I'd call 'em mimbos. And I doubt I'd get any attention from the Speech Police for doing so.
August 8, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how Sarah Palin is trading on her sexuality. Cause she's female and breathing? Oh, a wink? If that waitress in the diner says, "Want some more coffee, hon?" is that a come-on? What exactly is Palin doing that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton don't do? Really, I can't figure this one out. What are politicians are trading on their sexuality?
August 8, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
...What other politicians are trading on their sexuality...
August 8, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stormy Daniels
August 8, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so why should Palin and thereby other female politicians be reduced to that?
August 8, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be such a bitch Desidero.
August 8, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
???
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
August 8, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means that your panties are in such a twist that they've become buttfloss.
August 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off, asshole.
August 8, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Pretty funny!
August 8, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but if you want to argue with me about that, you're going to have to identify the "more and more sexist speech" in this statement for me. I don't want to waste my time arguing about any parts that you're willing to concede aren't sexist because otherwise the thread will get so skinny, it will only have a couple of letters per line before we get to the root of our disagreement.
August 8, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
All your crap psychofantasizing about whatever sexual energy ray she's supposedly beaming at old men and the bullshit "self-exploitive sexual dimension" theory. "Pornstar persona".
Here, you can go hang out on the "Do you think this Delta commercial is sexy?" thread:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12235
August 8, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than linking to an entirely different discussion somewhere in the past in a galaxy far far away (and with Ridgepole antagonising people there too, no less), which of these is closest to your problem:
A) Palin is not trading on her, let us say "non-mental" assets;
B) She is, but it is OK;
C) The word "bimbo" is inaccurate or should not be used (what would be a better term?);
D) Something else, what?
August 8, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let us state for the record that you are just the kind of sensitive guy who only ever looks women in the eyes. No need to go overboard proving that to everybody.
August 8, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't look my politicians in the snatch, if that's what you mean.
August 8, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha! I prefer kooch...snatch is kinda coarse, like the difference between rack, which isn't too offensive, and tits.
August 8, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin looks like a typical professional woman dressed up in skirt suits. For a 44-year-old woman who has birthed 5 children she is in rather good physical shape. "Bimbo" is completely inappropriate because she doesn't show her tits, sleep around, or in any other way earn the term. In fact there's really no reason to remark about her looks at all, except her winking is a bit eccentric, but about as sexy as her saying "you betcha". Is that a turn-on? Hard to imagine.
What you could do if you wanted to be effective is note that her invocation of the "troops who give us our freedom" line is overused and drops the Constitution on its head, making us foremost a military state rather than a civil democracy. You could note that her interpretation of the still very sketchy health plan is straight out of "Coma". You could note that her only experience running anything big is with the only state that's permanently blessed with huge oil tax subsidies per capita, making balancing the budget like shooting fish in an oil barrel. You could point to her poor performance in office, contradictory stances on the Bridge to Nowhere, but I'd stay away from say anything to do with raising kids (male politicians get to leave their kids at home with the wife) or hunting (male politicians whether Dick Cheney or Howard Dean are just accepted as hunting types, whether they shoot someone in the face or not).
August 8, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So...it is OK to call someone a bimbo, but only based on their sexual activity? Perhaps best to go easy on the judgmentalism next time around.
It sounds by your addendum that mostly everyone is in agreement that Palin's policies are completely loony and/or dangerous; the only difference is that many consider the only reason her opinions are getting airtime at all to be her looks (and there is ample evidence of "little starbursts" going off all over the place, even if you personally are capable of functioning at a higher level than the cavemen who do not look 'em in the eyes.)
Naturally, her ideology matches her constituency well, but there are tons of other politicians wearing the same thought uniform.
Perhaps you have insight into what else may have helped her? She is just outright stupid. I guess that could be an advantage in some circles?
August 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. One would have to be willfully blind to not see the hard-on so many white males in the trad-med and GOP had/have over Palin.
To ignore that is to truly miss the salient point in this entire kerfuffle.
August 8, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like you're the one doing the whacking off over this.
August 8, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a vampire. He doesn't get any.
August 9, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Andy Warhol's version he sure did.
August 9, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goddamn, Karl, don't be dense.
If you call Paris Hilton or Pamela Lee Anderson a bimbo, well, that seems to be part of the persona they've chosen. Yes, bimbo is based on sexual activity and attitudes. I don't think I use the term much if at all, and even there there's an inequality where men who like promiscuous sex are seen as "dogs" in a macho admirable way, whereas women who like promiscuous sex are seen as sleazy. But it's everyone's right to use their genitals as they want within legal/moral limits, and even for politicians, it's none of my business.
The myth that Sarah Palin got where she is based on her looks alone is bullshit. Otherwise, there are much better looking women who would be president by now. She came out to the Republican Convention and knocked her speech out of the park. Bobby Jindal had his big coming out moment following Obama's SOTU, and he turned into a mushy, boring bowl of jelly. Palin has presentation skills from her TV training, and she obviously knows how to connect with people pretty well. She didn't have family in politics - she earned her title of governor, and for someone who was a last minute entry into the Pres/VP race, she did rather well - compare her responses with Rudy "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" Giuliani for example. This is our political landscape as it exists. The head of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. Most of what these people say is pretty boiler-plate. It's presentation skills and perceived empathy to Republican "values" as to whether they sink or swim.
August 9, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just spelling out what you are saying. Put response to the bottom of the thread since the columns are getting sparse.
August 9, 2009 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What else could you POSSIBLY attribute it to? She hasn't got a functioning brain cell!
August 8, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that was an exaggeration...she probably has a few...
August 8, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go, it's starting to click. Obviously her skills at self-promotion and meteoric career advancement are pretty advanced, and people seemed to love her on the campaign trail unlikely due only to sex appeal. She seems to have figured out Republican code exceptionally well. This is not a stupid woman. She may not be a well-cultivated policy wonk or know how to drone on and on like Joe Biden, but that's only one area of what we refer to as intelligence. But in terms of governing, her ideas are a mix of superficial, misguided and jingoistic.
August 9, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, she has more craft than wit. It's not difficult to concede that there are "clever" people that are not "policy wonks". In fact, many psychopaths fit that rather low bar for qualifications for an top level administrative job.
I don't think anyone has said (that I can recall) she trades on her looks solely. I've seen literally thousands of "cute and folksy" women flirting their way through careers in journalism, marketing, public relations--the more clever ones, that is. Those lacking in even this intellectual capacity trade even more on their bodies and looks.
August 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Well if the disagreement's that fundemental, there's no point arguing about it. Bottom line is that each of us thinks the other is full of crap and neither is going to change the other's mind. Eventually, it'll just get pointlessly personal.
Pass.
August 8, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's that fundamental. You think calling female professionals "bimbos" and "porn stars" for no relevant reason is okay. I don't.
But I guess I should respect that the Cro Magnon faction of the faux Progressive wing of the party exists and probably won't be going away soon.
August 9, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, Desi. Thanks for keeping up the good fight. I just don't have the energy anymore to try to explain to freaking "progressives" that demeaning female politicians as porn stars or bimbos or bitches is wrong. That you can disagree with someone on issues and attack female politicians that you disagree with their policies, their their intelligence, their values without going to the lowest denominator and calling them whores. It is pathetic that apparently a sizable portion of the progressive community thinks these tactics are acceptable. The people who know it's wrong and do it anyway or don't speak up because they hate Palin are even worse.
August 9, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that's just the woman in you talking ;-)
August 9, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet again, without evidence, you generalise a matter about a single individual?
I might flippantly say that it seems that it is you grappling with prejudices since obviously in your opinion men are incapable of treating women as individuals instead of interchangeable. That, though, would be just as unfair as your accusations.
Lay off the strawmen generalisations...they completely destroy the validity of any point you are trying to make.
August 9, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that being arbitrarily sexist is still being sexist. Gandhi didn't preach being pacifist to 95% of his foes. He preached pacifism period. And being sexist to the one that you and many here seem to think justified still demeans all women.
August 9, 2009 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ergo, you calling Pamela Anderson a bimbo is sexist.
August 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, Pamela Anderson's profession is a pinup and her famous sex video is likely self-released or she at least had the good wisdom to sign on for royalties if it wasn't. Her profession is sex symbol, pure and symbol. That can be accurately described as pro bimbo, or you can use less tainted words to say the same thing. Whatever. Good for her, she has a good audience, people like her, she fills a need and seems to enjoy herself.
What this has to do with a professional female politician? Nothing.
August 9, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You have no moral high ground here.
And, *wink, wink*, Sarah Palin is probably the most unprofessional person to try their hand at national politics in quite some time.
August 10, 2009 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absurd, plain and simple.
"Bimbo" is a word. It has a definition. It can be used as a slur or a more neutral observation. Until you give me your bizarre definition of the word, from what I know of it it might be applied rationally to Pam Anderson or Paris Hilton, people who seem to flaunt their sexuality, but cannot rationally be applied to Sarah Palin unless your idea of sexuality is still stuck in American Graffiti times.
People started off talking about my "knee-jerk reaction to language". But it's actually a knee-jerk reaction to misplaced sexist language. Madonna fucked Warren Beatty, both seem to fit classic bimbo definition, though it's hard to tell how much these people do for real desire and how much for career advertising.
In any case, the justification for calling Sarah Palin a bimbo seems to rest solely on her winking too much. In the classic words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
August 10, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
August 9, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent observation on about a gillion different levels. Bravo!
August 9, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's impossible to accurately convey how she can simultaneously represent a grave danger to the nation and yet also be utterly and completely insignificant."
You know the whole sexism "trap" that may very intentionally be being set (I avoided "laid" because that might be interpreted as vaguely sexist) by Palin's "lipstick on a pitbull" use of sexist imagery is just a red-herring ruse to get us to avoid focusing on the real nature of what's going on with her and all the other religious-Right-based neocon cohorts.
None of it is insignificant; all of it poses a grave danger.
I believe Frank Schaeffer (author of Crazy For God) nailed it with his appearance Friday night on Rachel Maddow's TeeVee show. If you've not ready "Crazy" and are not familiar with who Schaeffer is, he is one of maybe three core individuals who started the whole religious Right movement at the start of the 80s. His father is another of those three and C. Everett Koop rounds out that triumvirate.
As he asserts in "Crazy," he has seen "the light," the error of his ways, and feels a great weight of responsibility for starting something he views as quite anti-American and frightening.
He asserted to Rachel that these people (Palin included) are very intentionally using coded language that is the Pavlovian bell to the Right-wing dogs -- the allusions to Nazis and euthanasia and all of that horsesh*t -- that is designed to provoke a violent response.
That simple. They are intentionally inciting to violence those who can hear their message.
I know I can't quote with 100% accuracy, but the extremely-close paraphrase of his comments went like this:
"They [the neocon nutbags -- is that sexist?] are placing a loaded gun on the table and are inviting the willing to pick it up and use it."
It was clear from his comments he has no doubt in his mind on this issue, and that he isn't being strictly allegorical about the gun. To emphasize the last point he reminded Rachel and the viewing audience that the intended target for these messages are the very ones who nearly cleaned out gun & ammo shops after Obama won the POTUS race, because they believed the earlier lies that Obama would take all their guns away.
This is loosely orchestrated and it's very intentional.
August 9, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Palin uses her feminine eye blinking and her stance in a very sexual way. In the end, her speech is full of fluff, her hips are swinging and her wink is obscene. If she wants to be taken seriously, she should work on these silly moves that are so disgusting. But most disgusting is the fact that she is so stupid she makes this insane comment about Obama proposing a plan that would REQUIRE the killing of her son. That statement. even without any of her antics, makes her look and sound totally stupid and grossly uninformed about Senior Care. As a sitting governor that makes her a menace. But alas, in Alaska where I lived for years, she is fading as a political star and has become a horrible embarrassment to folks.
August 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you prefer wink (not piece) of shit?
August 7, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit. What do you think that wink from this piece of shit BIMBO is all about?
August 8, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still remember the first time I saw her wink at the camera in her 'debate' with Biden. I nearly fell off my chair. I couldn't believe the McCain folks would put someone so clearly incompetent, ignorant and quite frankly coarse beyond the pale on the ticket with Sydney.
August 8, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's too ugly and old to be considered a bimbo.
August 8, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's only because you think "bimbo" is still gender-specific. Sanford and Stephanoupolis are bimbos too. Feel better?
August 8, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't say it any better.
So I wont.
But I will add that I saw all this coming based on the language her supporters were using toward the end of the campaign.
It was inevitable that escalation would be the only appeasement to those folks.
Sadly it will get much worse, as palin and her type seek to control the madness.
August 7, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give her credit for one thing - I didn't think she knew what "orwellian" meant.
August 7, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't. Someone wrote this statement for her.
August 7, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubt she does beyond the right-wing shorthand she's absorbed. Orwellian has something to do with tyranny like the First Amendment has something to do with speech.
August 7, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly. After all, she went to college for, like, seven years. Of course she knows what it means. And also.
August 7, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She went to school for 5 years. Being an irrational Palin hater is a rather limiting profession.
August 8, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong:
After attending five different colleges in a six year span of time, she received a B.S. in communications with an emphasis in journalism from the University of Idaho in May 1987.
August 8, 2009 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, unfortunately, is extremely good at the propaganda part of it.
I keep wondering what she would have been like if she a) understood truthfulness -- what panels for example and b) had gone to really, really good schools. She doesn't seem at all comfortable with assimilating facts nor with having her ideas challenged.
August 8, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she graduated high school in May 1982 and got her degree in May 1987, maybe the person who wrote the "5 schools in 6 years" part got confused. I count 5 years.
Attended Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu. Studied business administration in fall 1982.
Attended North Idaho College in Coeur d'Alene. General studies major in spring and fall 1983.
Attended University of Idaho. Studied journalism with an emphasis in broadcast news in fall 1984 and spring 1985.
Attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, Alaska. Fall 1985.
Attended University of Idaho. Spring 1986-spring 1987. B.S. in communications-journalism. Graduated spring 1987.
August 8, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mea culpa. That's what I get for copying from wikipedia.
August 8, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll only get worse as all our other sources of info dry up in awe of Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be good and sometimes pathetically bad.
August 9, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's been described as someone who knows the punchline but not the joke.
August 8, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone should point a camera at her and ask her what her favorite Orwell book is. 10-1 she won't have an answer.
August 8, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All of them"?
August 8, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
His first one.
August 8, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no other way to discuss Palin than discussing her use of sexuality to get what she wants. And her comments about Obama doing harm to her child is also the silliest thing she could say and she deserves ridicule for her racist comment. Nothing Obama has said indicates he plans nor even condones euthanasia of anyone. Her introduction of that issue into the discussion is purely silly politics and an outright affront to intelligent discussion. Amazing that such a dolt was ever considered as VP material. No doubt she is the reason my friend McCain lost the election.
August 8, 2009 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this climate, it isn't silly; it's dangerous. The nutcases out there who cling to her every ignorant and hateful word get into a greater frenzy when she uses terms like "Death Panel." She is part of the incitement crew that has as its task to get Obama out of office.
August 8, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly..."silly" connotes something light and funny...This is anything but.
August 8, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"…and my message to some in the media is 'stop makin' stuff up'"
August 8, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was Orwellian.
August 9, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
True!!! This silly woman seems to lack even enough intellectual capability to think herself through this totally uncomplicated issue. What is so silly is for her to totally misunderstand the proposed legislation and then make these totally inane, radical pronouncements about the legislation. Does nothing to hurt Obama but just makes her look even stupider than her previous interview statements. Just plain silly!!!!!
August 9, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is truly amazing that this woman who actually was chosen by John McCain could be so absolutely and abjectly stupid to not even know what the phrase, "end of life planning" really is. Imagine Alaskans electing someone so dull witted that she does not even know the normal medical lingo involved with end of life planning. In our agency in Texas, we had such planning meetings that not only included a patients ability to chose the amount of medical intervention they wished for themselves at end of life, but also classes about increased falls among elderly and safety tips about financial planning and not allowing anyone to get involved in their financial matters except those they trusted. Amazing at the abject stupidity of this woman. And this coming from me, a Republican RN who has been involved in Senior Care.
August 9, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, what a wackadoo.
August 7, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would think that one so interested in the Down syndrome would know about the Down support groups in the UK, Sweden and these other atrocious places and ask them for an opinion...although it is quite possible that they are just not returning her calls.
August 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stupid is so great in her.
It's more "Big Lie" technique.
Will the tradmed do it's job? Or will we get" some believe and other don't believe that Obama is Hitler"
August 7, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope so.
August 7, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the name of a bad sci-fi thriller.
DEATH PANEL
You know what? We've been spending all this time making fun of the birthers, making jokes about when Palin will come out as a birther herself. Maybe we've been misdirecting our effort. This is worse than the birthers. The Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory is at least twice as credible as this.
August 7, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sounds like the name of a bad sci-fi thriller."
I thought you meant, "Palin/Bachmann 2012"
August 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either one's good
August 7, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Palin/Bachmann ticket would be bad, it would produce lots of fiction, and it would certainly be a thriller, but I don't think any science would be allowed.
August 7, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it would be "Death Panel Race 2012"?
August 7, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just when I think I might get a respite from Palin nonsense. Like the Bushies she has the ability to stun me speechless. Nerve is not lacking, but simple critical thinking skills may be. Creepy.
August 7, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go to her post and report a terms of use violation to Facebook. I say she's inciting violence.
August 8, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Done. Reported for hate speech.
August 8, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who's read Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here"…
Is it me, or does Palin sound more and more like Buzz Windrip?
Incredibly frightening.
August 7, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wink Buzzdrip.
August 8, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wink Buzzkill.
August 9, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that death panels are a bad idea!
August 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the HAARP facility has warped your mind, honey.
August 7, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You called me honey cause I'm pretty! Yay! That's the same reason President McCain picked me to be Queen of New America!
August 7, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the HAARP facility has warped your mind, honey.
August 7, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This will make the liberals really really really angry!"
She's such a joke.
August 7, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you're winking or not.
This will make us liberals really, really happy. No one serves up the red meat better than Palin these days, and no one brings out the crazies better than her. Bachmann is seen personally as a loon. But Palin calls out the whole flock . . . and there's no better negative publicity for all things Republican than a whole flock of Rednecked Loons trying to peck out the eyes and hearts of everyone else.
If this is why she retired, so she can rant unfettered, I only hope she has the stamina to keep doing this for a few more years.
August 7, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink