Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Crossposted fromMY LEFT WING

It is the entirely wrong tack to take.

First -- it's mudslinging, for chrissakes. On a nominee. Does that sound like anyone we know?

Second... she's a fucking GIRL. Did none of you take PSYCHOLOGY One-oh-fucking-ONE?

Stick to the basics. She's a supremely unqualified nominee. Let the record speak for itself. SHE SUUUUCKS.

Blechhhh. This leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth.

She has to show up for her debate. No matter how hard she studies, there's no way Sarah Palin can win that debate. No matter how bright and shiny and colourful, no matter how pretty the music, the advertisements they run cannot make up for her TOTAL LACK of EXPERIENCE and UTTER ABSENCE of READINESS for the office they're trying to sell the American people.

Dragging her through the mud will make US look bad. Not her.

THINK, people. BE SMART about this.


Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)



I could be wrong

But I'm not.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-08-30 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I could be wrong

You're not wrong. But it does seem that the Obama camp gets that and are acting accordingly. As much as we like to think that our little blog posts here get national exposure, the truth is that mostly what we write her only gets read by other people who write here. I doubt there will be a national impression of her being attacked because of diary posts on MYDD.

by Mystylplx 2008-08-30 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I could be wrong

Thank you for writing the thing I was just going to write.

by vcalzone 2008-08-31 12:09AM | 0 recs
go after mccain's judgement

on it.

not palin herself

by TarHeel 2008-08-30 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: go after mccain's judgement

How f..ing SEXIST. We shouldn't attack her because she's a girl! Good grief!

by venician 2008-08-30 04:18PM | 0 recs
go after her policies

like no choice for women who are victims of race or incest

or her belief that Married couples should not have access to birth control.

by TarHeel 2008-08-30 04:24PM | 0 recs
Tarheel, you had it right the first time.

Go after McCain for his crappy judgment.  Her political positions are almost irrelevant.  If McCain is slipping into dementia, or having temper tantrums with his staff and choosing loser veeps, that's a much bigger issue.  And reading about how he chose her on the spur of the moment is shocking.

We can't beat up Sarah Palin too much directly.  She's not just "a girl."  She's like Rachel Ray, all perky and smiley and huggable.  People would react defensively on her behalf to any frontal assault.  Questioning McCain's judgment process indirectly assaults Palin's qualifications.

by Dumbo 2008-08-31 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: go after mccain's judgement

Not Maryscott's point.  She points out the reason is "psychology" and it is. We end up looking mean and people come to her defense. Sure, we have the right to attack her but do we want to win or not? Perceptions.

by Becky G 2008-08-30 04:31PM | 0 recs

I am not the fucking sexist here.

The people who will see her as THE GIRL BEING ATTACKED are the sexists, and BELIEVE me, THEY WILL SEE us AS THE GODDAMNED BAD GUYS.

But go ahead, do it your way.

And sit there wondering why the fuck it doesn't work.


And again and again and again.


by Maryscott OConnor 2008-08-30 05:04PM | 0 recs

Yes, but it's okay if female Democrats attack her. It really only looks bad if the guys do it. Sexist, yes, but let's extrapolate: no one likes to see a guy hitting a "girl" but way too many people like to watch a girl-fight.

And in the pic posted, I swear, she looks like Judy Tenuta. Only it's a different kind of comedy. (Even sounds like her, IMO.)

by Its All So Goofy 2008-08-30 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: go after mccain's judgement

It would be sexist to question why he picked a girl, but not to question why he picked this girl.

Ask these two questions:

1. Since Palin has more executive experience than McSame, is she more qualified than him?

8. As compared to other Repug women like Elizabeth Dole and Kay Bailey Hutchison, what exactly makes her more qualified then these two to be POTUS?"

by IowaMike 2008-08-30 06:56PM | 0 recs
Deviously brilliant.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-08-31 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Absolutely.  You pick on the cute little hockey mom and you come off looking like an asshole.  

Go after John McCain's propensity for replacing the last woman with a newer cuter model.

McCain is such a tool of his advisers that it staggers the imagination.

by tired of dynasties 2008-08-30 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Don't be fooled by her looks. She's a rabid Repug and will behave accordingly.

by venician 2008-08-30 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin

Define dragging. Sarah Palin has verbally called anyone who is pro-choice a "baby killer". She dreides public schools as "government schools" (kind of ironic now that she runs the Alaska public school system). She wants to do what the Kansas State School Board stopped doing: Require that schools teach creationism. In other words, she's actually to the RIGHT of Bush and Cheney. Is it dragging her thorugh mud to make her public stands clear to the voters?

by RandyMI 2008-08-30 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin
She's a supremely unqualified nominee. Let the record speak for itself.

I think the quote above means going after her on issues is the right thing to do. I agree we need to make sure her views are very well known.

by Becky G 2008-08-30 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Second... she's a fucking GIRL. Did none of you take PSYCHOLOGY One-oh-fucking-ONE?

This sentence sums up the problems I had with Hillary Clinton (specifically the people running her campaign, her surrogates, and some of her more vehement supporters), the problems I have with PUMA, the problems I have with those quick to shout sexism but mum about racism, and the problems I have with people who see sex as a weapon.

She's not a fucking GIRL.  She's a woman.  And more importantly, she's the FUCKING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR VP.  We should drag her through the mud, dig up old nasty stories, find the skeletons in her closet, and make her look like the unqualified candidate that she is.

We should do that if it's a man, or if it's a woman, when it's a Republican candidate.  Think her and her surrogates are going to take it easy on Biden?  no.

by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-08-30 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

I agree completely...

by JenKinFLA 2008-08-30 04:49PM | 0 recs
Missing the point by a mile.




You are dealing with the American people, here.

Am I speaking another language?

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-08-30 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the point by a mile.

It's that subtle sexism of low expectations.

I'm not questioning your motives or your honesty.  It's just sad that there are people who would react as you say.  It's even sadder to empower it, even if so doing helps us win elections.  It's a good tactic, but shitty strategy.  It keeps us in this sad state.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-30 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

You're talking about the ideal world--Maryscott is talking about the real world. She IS a fucking girl. Remember how relatively mild attacks on Hillary were magnified way out of proportion? It will be even more that way with Palin because she's cute and quirky and new. She doesn't have Hillary's reputation for toughness.

by Mystylplx 2008-08-30 05:52PM | 0 recs
Oh yea

like the f**king left said one word about the media sexism.  Where was the racism on the media.  LINK please?

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:17PM | 0 recs
And don't tell me

FOX or Limbaugh or any of those KNOWN RIGHT WING RACIST SeXIST crap because most of us already boycott their crap; point out their racist/sexism and have been for years.

I'm talking about the left wing heroes....on MSNBC.
They were blatantly sexist...
the one guy on MSNBC who was blatantly racist, IMUS, was FIRED.  But Tweety, Shuster, and the others are still working and making money.

So please...at least be honest.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: And don't tell me

Oh give it a break.  Why don't we continue with the victim mentality that cost us the elections the past two cycles?  There was plenty of sexism.  And plenty of racism ("white blue collar voters won't vote for Obama").  And plenty of general anti-Democratism.  And that's the real problem here.

I'm sorry but it's like when people KEEP saying "John McCain is a good man, and a patriot" over and over before attacking him.  Maybe he is- we don't need to tell people.  Jon Stewart was right- you're not going to hear "Barack Obama is a good man and loves his country" within 200 miles of St. Paul next week.

So we can fall right into McCain's trap and leave Palin alone because she's a woman.  But to me, that's more sexist than anything tossed at Hillary.  The real world is we don't do it badly, but we do it.  We don't go after her because she's a woman, we go after her because she has zero experience at all, ethics problems, and is one melanoma away from the presidency if McSame gets it.

But make no mistake- we ignore it at our peril.

by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-08-30 08:21PM | 0 recs
You give it a break

Repeating facts is not racist nor sexist.

FACT: there are white people who will never vote for a black or hispanic or asian.
FACT: there are men who will never vote for a women

Those things are different than calling someone a derogatory name based on race or ethnicity.  The former are pointing out that that ignorant bigots exist in our world. The latter is being an ignorant bigot.

You obviously do not get the difference.  and you're
"stop playing the victim" speaks volumes about you.

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 07:48AM | 0 recs
They went UNchallenged by some

Many of us were challenging them long before the Rutgers incident.

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

But no one is allowed to do that to Obama, because it is racist.

by Marjoriest 2008-08-30 08:40PM | 0 recs
MSOC is right

And I'll say it again. MSOC is 100% right.

Okay, since you willfully don't understand about the votes you're losing by critiquing Palin's sex life, appearance, mommy life and children, perhaps you need to read Sarah Palin Sexism Watch #4.  I've left this link as the main blog page, so you can verify that this place also runs Obama Muslim Racism Watches and Obama Scary Black Guy Racism Watches and Michelle Obama Sexism Watches.

There are 165 replies to the Palin #4 watch.  It takes forever to load.  I swear they must be using a Vic20 as a server.


Most of the posters are completely sickened by the shallow, sexist treatment of Palin by bloggers who consider themselves 'progressive'.

Here's 2 posts on the subject.  The first poster quotes Germaine Greer and says that's why progressive bloggers are acting like misogynist aholes:

Women have very little idea of how much men hate them..."

-- Germaine Greer

I'm assuming the posters here want Democrats to win elections.  Writing stuff that causes reactions like the following do not help.

MPINSC Yesterday 06:35 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.


Well, it has certainly affected me.

When the Democrats clean the filth and rot of misogyny from the party, I will vote Dem again. Until then, no way. It is rampant, it is obvious, and the powers-that-be know damn well what is going on, because we've been screaming about it for months, and not just on blogs. Literally thousands of long-time party regulars have called, and called, and written, and begged the DNC to take a stand. Crickets. It is not a few headcases, it is pervasive and entrenched. Now it's just directed at a different woman.

This year is a true watershed for me, akin to the blatant racism that cause so many AA's to walk away from the Republican party and join the Dems way back when.

It was not because they agreed with the Democrats more on every issue. It was because NO group of people can stomach staying in a party where sheer virulent HATRED and BIGOTRY against them is allowed to flourish. Anyone who expects or demands them to, because they agree on this or that policy position, is a FUCKING MORON. I do not care that I agree with you on drilling, or the economy, or SCOTUS, if you are calling me a cunt and saying I need to be raped with jackhammers. That little gem, BTW, came to a friend of mine via Obama staffers WITH badges in Denver, screaming it at her on the street.

The Dems want my vote, ever again? Stand up as ONE and LOUDLY and FORCEFULLY slap this down, BUT GOOD. No little half-assed "I should have done more" whines from Dean on some obscure CSpan show will suffice. It had better be PUBLIC and it had better be REAL.

Until then, I will not vote for them. Period. I know all the arguments that "The Republicans are worse." You know what? I have been involved in contentious political campaigns all my life, on every level, with both men and women running. And yes, I've heard some sexism from the right, some of it bad.

But I have never, ever, heard the outright vilification of all things female coming in overwhelming waves from the conservatives that I have heard from Democrats and Liberals across the board in this election season. It is very evident to me that despite the choice issue, Democrats, and especially Progressives are by and large much worse misogynists than Republicans. On that one issue, they have the Dems beat, hands down. I never thought I'd say that, but it is the truth.

Palin is the tar baby in the old story:

McCain and Rove have set her up for Democrats to take punches at, but we're damaging ourselves and making McCain look good and not winning votes for Obama.We just end up with our fists stuck in the tar.

Go ahead, criticize that her husband is blue collar, she went to U Idaho, entered a pageant.  You're going to piss off fellow union members and earn yourself the label of elitist.

Go after her sexual history, her children, her Down's syndrome child, and such and you're going to piss off women and earn yourself the label of sexist and nasty about disabled people.

And the play by Obama for evangelical votes?  Best be very careful attacking her pro life stance.

My best advice is stick to attacking McCain and don't waste a lot of bytes on Palin, other than attacking her policies.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

If this means we aren't supposed to highlight the fact that she fired the head of Alaska's law enforcement because he refused to help her break the law, and then replaced him with a sexual harasser who resigned two weeks later and $10,000 richer, then I disagree completely.

by Jay R 2008-08-30 05:02PM | 0 recs
No, that's legitimate corruption

This bullshit about "Is that HER baby or is it her DAUGHTER'S" --

THAT'S the mudslinging I've been seeing, and it's making me fucking CRINGE.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-08-30 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

On a related mudslinging note:

Why does a 43-year old woman with three children decide to have another?  Was the child planned knowing the increased risk of down syndrome or was the child unplanned (and how irresponsible can you be to have an unplanned pregnancy at her age)?

by blueAZ 2008-08-30 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

I don't think that is a legitimate question to ask.  I think why would a woman, any woman, get on an 8 hour flight after her water broke is a legitimate question.  But there is no reason to really wade into this water when it can be guaranteed the National Enquirer will.  I wouldn't be surprised that by the time they're done the story becomes Chinatown Goes To Alaska.

by Piuma 2008-08-30 05:32PM | 0 recs
Yes, let the National Enquirer deal with that

They're professionals, after all--bloggers "investigating" this stuff sound like a bunch of crazed conspiracy freaks.

by Alice in Florida 2008-08-30 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

What kind of woman would do that? Perhaps the winningest college basketball coach ever? Perhaps a woman who is strong and determined.

http://patsummitt.blogspot.com/2005/03/a t-top-of-her-game.html

One of the best stories about Summitt's single-minded determination can be told in a true story that sounds more like a tale.

Consider the birth of sandy-haired, blue-eyed Ross Tyler Summitt.

Tyler, who can talk defense and rebounding with the best of them, was nearly born while his mother was recruiting UT point guard Michelle Marciniak.

The story goes like this:

Summitt was about two weeks away from her due date when she and DeMoss flew to Pennsylvania in September 1990 to recruit Marciniak. While there, Summitt went into labor.

But she wasn't going to have her son anywhere but in Knoxville. And it didn't matter she was states away. `You know, Pat can be pretty stubborn," DeMoss says.

DeMoss raced her boss to the UT plane. On the way, Summitt's pains increased. The pilot offered to land in Virginia.

That sounded like a great idea to DeMoss. Forget that archrival Virginia had defeated Tennessee in overtime in the NCAA East Regional that March.

"Pat told me, `Mickie, you let them land in Virginia, you're going to have a mad woman on your hands.' That was all I needed to know," DeMoss recalls.

The plane landed at McGhee Tyson Airport in a fast two hours, black exhaust fumes streaking its sides. Tyler was born a few hours later at St. Mary's Medical Center. The doctors said if the baby's head had been turned differently, DeMoss would have had an assist in his birth. "It was the longest two hours of my life," DeMoss says.

by 2maddogs 2008-08-30 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

Uh,you do realize that the birth of a down syndrome child is a bit more complicated. Do you know anyone who has given birth to such a child? I do. That story of her's smells to high heaven.

by IowaMike 2008-08-30 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

Down's Syndrome.

Can anyone tell me about the causes of Down Syndrome?

Genetic Disease maybe? Caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome? Probably. Having nothing to do with an 8 hour plane ride? Not unless theres so aliens aboard causing nearly instant genetic mutations.

Doesn't Rupert Murdock, besides owning Fox News, also own The National Enquirer?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

since the baby tends to have serious health problems, they are treated as high risk births, high infant mortality rates so it would be reckless and uncaring to pull the stunt the "winningest coach" pulled.

BTW, my mom had 14 kids, understands the birthing process quite well. Knows births like the coach one, but thinks that someone giving birth to a down syndrome child like that is trying for a "natural abortion."

by IowaMike 2008-09-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

So now it is up to you to pass judgement on a medical decision concerning the birth of her child. So I guess she, her husband and her Dr's decision in this matter are not as important as the choice you would have made for her. So what party do you belong to? After all you are advocating that you should make her reproductive decisions for her based on your deeply held beliefs not based on any medical advice she may have received? Gosh I just wish some of you could get a grip and stop burning down the house because you can't find the light switch.

by 2maddogs 2008-08-31 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

I'm just saying the birth is more complicated, so "jumping on a plane" after her water breaks" sounds suspect.

If you are looking for hidden insults, you will find them, real or imagined.

by IowaMike 2008-09-01 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No, that's legitimate corruption

Okay, on that we completely agree.  The risk that we create a "Dan Rather Fiasco," in that a single erroneous fact undermines a litany of legitimate ones, is too great to screw with patently unnecessary BS like that.

by Jay R 2008-08-30 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

To hell with the unilateral disarmament crowd. This is a contest for control of the most powerful government in the world, not a beauty pageant. And the outcome will decide if good things happen or more rotteness.

Whatever we've got on Palin needs to put forward for all to see. Don't think Bush/McSame isn't doing it to us.

by Obama44 2008-08-30 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

"What we got" is fair game.  "What we pull out of our ass" is taking it to unacceptable levels.  As I said above, even citing what we know to be true with improper backup evidence is likely to backfire, a la Dan Rather.  This bullshit about her faking the pregnancy or somehow behaving inappropriately by being a working mother is deplorable.

This ain't beanbag, but that doesn't mean it's an aimless shit-flinging contest, either.  We've got more than enough legitimate ammo to not have to include baseless, disgusting speculation in the mix.  When did being completely unqualified and corrupt as shit stop being enough?

by Jay R 2008-08-30 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Don't worry your turn-the-other-cheek head about it.  Obama's campaign will play it straight up and decent.

As for what being said here, I haven't seen anything wasn't fair and legit either. So far all the people I've seen taking exception are those who in the past have wished harm upon Obama, and still do (insincere protestations of support aside).

by Obama44 2008-08-30 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Stuff it--it's not about "turning the other cheek," but about "not exposing our flank." If people keep pushing the left-wing's version of the "Obama's a secret muslim" smear (that Palin's daughter and not Palin herself is the mother of Trig), then it's going to bite us in the ass, and anyone who does it is risking our chances in November a lot more than they're helping them.

Palin seems genuinely incompetent, anti-cop, corrupt, scientifically delusional, and unprepared to run the country.  If we can't build a case off of that much material, we deserve to lose.  But we don't need to incorporate unsubstantiated bullshit into the case against her, and we shouldn't if we actually want to win this thing.

by Jay R 2008-08-30 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

You're just making shit up to blame on Obama and his supporters. It's the oldest trick in the book of dirty politics.

Have a donut on me.

by Obama44 2008-08-30 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

First off, you're full of shit, and I've been pro-Obama for longer than most people here.

Second off, what the hell do you think prompted MSOC to write this diary in the first place?  It's shit like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/ 121350/137/486/580223

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/08/trig-is -not-sarah-palins-baby.html

http://stupidcelebrities.net/2008/08/30/ bristol-palin-pregnancy-is-vp-sarah-pali ns-5th-child-really-her-daughters-photos /

http://www.drudge.com/news/111694/baby-m ay-belong-daughter-bristol

If you'd bothered to run even a simple Google Blog search, you'd understand what's going on.

Learn to think before typing--it's a tactic that can save you from embarrassing yourself like this in the future.  And before you accuse someone of trying to play dirty, figure out what the fuck everyone else is talking about first.

by Jay R 2008-08-30 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Wow. Some blog entries and Drudge. Get out of here! You guys need to learn not to believe everything you read -- or least not think it necessarily represents who you think it does. Talk about gullible.

And your accusing me of being a GOPer just because I linked to Republicans for Obama just shows how easily you jump to wrong conclusions on scant evidence.

Quit doing the Reeps work for them if you're not one of them.

by Obama44 2008-08-31 12:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

THat's not Drudge, and the whole diary is about blog entries.  Nobody said anything about Obama doing it, but there are over 500 hits for this stuff on Google Blogs.

You obviously don't care if we hand the Republicans a nice, fat target and neutralize our own avenues of attack against Palin--wonder why that is?


by Jay R 2008-08-31 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Name one time I've ever wished harm upon Obama.

Interesting that a self-identified Republican is discussing "insincere protestations of support" while attacking Obama supporters who are trying to keep our compatriots from doing something stupid that, if you spent ten seconds actually looking, you'd know is really happening.

by Jay R 2008-08-30 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

GObama, are you a sockpuppet, or do you really think that comment was hide-worthy and why?

by Jay R 2008-08-31 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

The lame old sockpuppet charge. You just keep proving how out of it you are with your baseless charges.

Direct your venom at McSame and McPalin instead. Even if you're wrong you'll at least help keep them on their heels instead of wasting the time of people who are helping Obama.

by Obama44 2008-08-31 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Glad to see another Republican concerned with accountability.

I bet you're aware of all internet traditions, too.

by Jay R 2008-08-31 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

It is interesting that you responded when I directed that comment to GObama.  

Also interesting is that you both joined in the same month (your UID is 37610, GObama's is 37785), both have thematic usernames, and both are abusing the HRs.  

And GObama has a whopping 8 comments and zero diaries still visible, which isn't exactly indicative of an active participant.

Interesting stuff, indeed.

by Jay R 2008-08-31 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

From Al Giordano, a smart cookie and one of us:

But here's what this blog won't do, and asks its commenters to follow suit:

Attacks on a mother for working when she has kids at home are a misogynist attack on every working mother, and, yes, including when one of those kids has special needs. Attacks on her personal decisions of how many children to have, and at what age to have them, are as anti-choice in sentiment as are her policies. Such attacks are also politically stupid, because they can only generate deserved sympathy among single moms and their kids who are otherwise- if you don't screw it up - already voting for Obama in big numbers.

Oh, and although it might be meant in good fun, don't ask her if she knows how many igloos she owns... Or why she named her kids Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Sunoco and BP!

Al Giordano - Vetting Palin: An Easy Guide to What's Smart and What's Not The Field 30 Aug 08

by Shaun Appleby 2008-08-30 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Going after her on the issues is also going to bring the charge of dragging her through the mud.  Democrats will be accused of "sliming her" no matter how gentle the criticism is.

Just something to keep in mind.

I say mostly ignore her.  Although apparently there are lots of tapes of her all over right-wing radio - if there are any good ones, let 'er rip.

by Jess81 2008-08-30 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

I am a little amazed at what is happening here.

"She's a girl".  And your point is?  Normally, I would be on your bus blowing the horn, but do you not remember what we just went trough?

On our side, a 'girl' who was eminently more qualified than Mrs Palin is was dragged thru the mud and beaten.  We allowed that destruction of her political ambition because we didn't care what it took to destroy her chances, we just wanted Obama to win.  It worked.

No, given how my chosen candidate was treated (and note I now fully support Obama), I will NOT 'tiptoe' around Mrs Palin because she is 'a girl'. BFD.  No holds barred, IMHO.

by emsprater 2008-08-30 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

I uprated because I don't see how the post deserved a hide rate.

As for Gov Palin, I may be paranoid but the whole thing feels a bit like a trap to me.  Some of the "mud" diaries I've seen on a number of blogs where posted by newish posters (and were ultimately deleted by mods).  Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but what if the GOP is seeding it and really wants us to go there, so it originates from the left, and then after it breaks into the press they  debunk it / shut it down  and garner a massive outrage backlash...?

by moreperfectunion 2008-08-30 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Yes, that would be my theory.

Karl Rove's version of the Rope A Dope.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 06:28AM | 0 recs
Logical Filter Rules

It might be worth installing these sorts of filters in everyone's forebrain:

   Diary/comment seems divisive/outrageous
   GOTO Troll Filter

It is sleepingly easy to pretend to be one thing or another in the blogosphere.  Also, your Mental Troll filter should include the logic that you may just not be reading the intent the writer intended - intent does not always come through with crystal clarity in flat text (go figure) - so not jumping to conclusions is a good idea, too...


by chrisblask 2008-09-01 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think anyone should

Ah, but you don't get the same insults

No one is saying you should be home with those children, should have had fewer children, should have aborted a Down's syndrome child to spare the world the expense, should have bought cheaper shoes, should have bought more expensive shoes, should have worn contacts, should have taken the highlighter out of your hair, is a tool of your husband, are fit only to be a receptionist (see comment downthread)

There are misogynist insults, and then there are just insults.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Perhaps the 2 Obama partisans would like to step forth and explain why this deserved a hide rating.

It's truth, and it's honest, and it's not smearing any Democrat.  It's not sexist.  If females want to be on a level playing field, have equal pay, equal rights and equal opportunities (as I believe they all should) then they can't step up to the plate and use the 'but I'm a girl' defense.  Notably, 'we' as Democrats didn't allow that to play in our primary, and slung as much muck at 'the girl' as could be slung in order to defeat her. 'We' should treat the GOP no less.  The only thing off the table as far as I am concerned with Palin is her Downs child, and the person using that as political fodder so far happens to be a GOP douchebag named Rush.  

Do I really expect an explanation from the folks who HR my original comment?  Nope, they are perhaps too cowardly to provide their lame excuses in print.

by emsprater 2008-08-31 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Okay now I have a question. During the primaries I read comments that said that they didn't like the way Sen. Clinton ran her campaign. They said that she ran like a guy and that they'd rather have seen her run her campaign like a woman.

Now I have been wondering just what the heck that looks like?

Since we are talking about how to treat a woman running for the office of VP, could someone tell me please.

What does campaigning like  a woman look like?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

I would imagine you would have to ask the person who posed that ideology your question, it's not something I have ever espoused.  I've criticized folks who paid attention to her hair, her makeup, her pantsuits and her husband's activities far more than the attention they paid to her policies and her plans for America's future.

I suppose if she had ran the way they wanted her to, she would have been crushed that they didn't like her color choices in attire.  She didn't, and she wasn't.

Palin hunts moose.  The 'she's a girl' hue and cry to provide some sort of endometrial wall against all criticism of her is just a bag of hooey.

by emsprater 2008-08-31 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

Ultimately, attacks on her must be made indirectly - through the press, through the Clintons and other Democrats unaffiliated with the campaign, etc.  References can also be made that the ticket is "extreme" and other oblique comments.  The reason doesn't only have to do with psychology, but the fact that getting into direct fights with the VP nominee is not a winning strategy.

by rfahey22 2008-08-30 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Dragging Sarah Palin Through the Mud

This is true.  Attack McCain--he's the one really running.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 06:27AM | 0 recs
Just for the Record

On Governor Palin's response to shock-jock misogyny generally, have a listen of this.  "We'd be honoured to have you guys."  Crikey.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-08-30 08:17PM | 0 recs
Agree and disagree...

My agreement is based on two things: perception and expectations.

Perception: people don't like it when a bunch of people (metaphorically) beat up on a woman (unless that woman has been tarred with a number of slurs I won't repeat here; it's just fine to beat up on Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, etc, as far as popular culture is concerned). Sarah Palin has free reign to play the victim card for the time being, and will. If the media's doing the beating up it won't matter much. If Obama or the campaign is perceived as doing the beating up, though, it won't go well for our side.

Expectations: Republicans are good at playing the expectation game. George Bush "won" debates vs. Gore and Kerry because the expectations were defined so very low for him and so high for the Democrats that all he had to do was to show up and he'd pretty much get half the pundits saying he won. We're at a risk of creating that situation for the VP debate.

On the other hand: policy positions are clearly fair game for attacks. Experience issues need to be handled very deftly.

Let's be clear -- cynical, but clear. The media is going to drag her through the mud, probably several times and using hoses to make sure the mud stays good and wet and slimy. Personally, and with apologies to canadian gal (who made a great case for taking on some of the worst of it), I think we're best served keeping the hell out of it for the time being. I'm not saying that for political reasons, either; I'm afraid that saying anything at all will be spun into a chance to blame it on Democrats who had nothing to do with it in the first place.

Keep the attacks on policy and issues, and sparingly on qualifications when necessary, and just steer clear of the sea of mud that's coming.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-08-30 08:40PM | 0 recs
Is this Pick a Joke, or What?
One of the few people in America unfit to be V.P.
I think our addled Repug candidate thought he was picking a receptionist!
by hypopg 2008-08-31 04:53AM | 0 recs
No, it's a trap

and you just put your foot in it.


The governor of Alaska is fit only to be a receptionist?  Trust me, you just sounded like a misogynist, whether you are one or not.  For one thing, you picked a menial job held only by women as her foreordained employment.

So you just made MSOC's point.  Suppose you make that statement in your real life instead of in an article in a rather obscure blog.  If you do say it, you won't gain a vote or a part of a vote with that statement.  You may even help John McCain.

It's a bad habit to get into.  You should lose it.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

Yes, he said McCain thought he was picking a receptionist--which had the effect of calling Palin a receptionist look alike/wannabe/applicant/whatever.  This is why it's too damn easy to screw up while insulting people.

So often you hit the innocent bystanders where they really live.

You do realize how many professional women have been taken for secretaries and receptionists at one time and another?  And that they had to smile and take it.  And that even thinking obliquely about that ugly time in their lives makes them want to go kill someone.

Personally, I bring up the linked photograph and fantasize:

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/grueso me_scanners_431x300.jpg


There is more than one kind of PTSD.  This is one of them.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexist

No, that's not what was done.  McCain was ridiculed for being old (and presumably senile).  Palin was ridiculed for being suitable only as a receptionist.  

The sexist (and ageist, for that matter) was the person making the comment who so does not get what this is about even when it is explained thoroughly.

Some jokes ain't funny McGee.  There is an old saying, "Never make jokes about rope in the house of a hanged man".  A corollary would be that jokes about women being thought to be receptionists or fit only to be receptionists just angers people who actually had that experience, day after day, for many years.

If you can't understand that, let's try a Gedanken experiment.  Suppose I told a 'joke' about McCain calling Obama field N* because he was old and addled (and was old enough to remember the Civil War, possibly) and then trying to get away with saying you are calling McCain old and a racist.  It wouldn't be funny either, particularly to people who had ever been called the N* word for years on end.


But I despair of you ever understanding that whatever you think about this form of humor, and whatever you do with it amongst your friends, when you share it with the general public you lose votes for any cause you are associated with.

by LIsoundview 2008-09-02 05:54PM | 0 recs
WE may win the war

But this weekend's battle was won by their camp.

Trap set, bloggers feet stuck in firmly and snapped OFF.

Warnings ignored.

Somehow, I just do NOT feel all warm and fuzzy about having been right.

And Little Orange Footballs continues to run amok DESPITE Obama's plea.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-09-01 01:05PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads