home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:20:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Kudos to Media Matters, Atrios and Digby for recognizing the putrid sexism displayed by the Media in its coverage of Sarah Palin.

Too often, "progressives" have excused the blatant sexism directed at Sarah Palin (as they did when it was directed at Hillary Clinton, their enemy during the 2008 primaries), I guess because she is a political opponent.

That is a bad approach. Sexism is wrong whomever it is directed at.

See also the stalwarts Shakes and echidne. Also see Brad Delong.

Speaking for me only of course.

This is an Open Thread.

< Reconciliation, Cont'd | A Not So Great Depression? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Seems so obvious (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:37:25 AM EST
    but apparently it is not. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Sec. Clinton said she'd love to have coffee with ex. Gov. Palin sometime. I would love to be a fly on the wall of that particular Starbucks. If I did not create a health issue in a food service establishment :-)

    I know I usually use first names casually here, but it seems good to remind people now and then that these women, whatever their faults, have some pretty impressive accomplishments. and even if they did not, gender-based criticism is wrong, and also just stupid politically.

    Having looked into it more... (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    it is even worse than I supposed. Newsweek could not spare a photographer to take their own cover photo?

    And the CNN stuff Digby writes about strikes me speechless. She said whatever there is to say about it.

    But even at that, I take issue with Digby painting Palin as an intellectual lightweight because of what she light-heartedly said about Todd in her book.  I think that passage of the book illustrates why people find Palin approachable and funny, and Digby is playing right into the intellectual elitist liberal stereotype. Not gonna make progress in our old metaphorical "Appalachia" like that.  

    Parent

    And remember (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by hookfan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:20:10 AM EST
     since this recession/depression many more are "appalachia" now. . .

    Parent
    Digby and Duncan (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:26:34 AM EST
    Are usually excellent. I agree very much, however, with your remark about stereo-types. I'm not personally convinced the most 'cerebral' make the best leaders. I've learned a lot (I like to think!) inside and outside academic institutions.

    I also disagree very much with BTD's too-quick dismissal of her potency on the right.

    Digby has not covered herself with glory dealing with Palin. Nor has our host, for that matter. The sexual violence heaped on Palin during the last election actually seemed to dwarf that the right heaped on HRC all those years.

    And as for gaining an education, nothing quite prepared me for the howls and cat-calls that emanated from Dem blogs during the last cycle.

    Edifying, to say the least.

    Parent

    Would Stupak be important (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hookfan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    if Republicans were irrelevant? What makes Stupak important (just like Lieberman, Conrad, Lincoln, Bayh, and co.) is the Republican block. Any small splinter group is enhanced by it. Seems relevant to me. . .

    Parent
    Stupak is one vote (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    You seem to forget that 62 other democrats voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

    Parent
    I get the sense (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    that entire mess is starting to slide down the hill. Too much rain. I agree with both points. But my overall sense is one of real frustration, bordering on despair, among rank and file Dems.

    There appears to be much more energy on the right. Palin rallies and energizes a major constituency of the right that will almost certainly rally around any solid, small government GOP candidate. The fact there have been so few viable Republicans has not gone un-noticed.

    For the moment, Dems still have a chance to make a real difference. But that moment appears, at least, to be slipping away. Pretty much everyone here knows that jobs are the number one issue on the minds of most folks.

    I read the Wapo piece on the Asian visit and was struck by the little talk of job creation there is during this trip. That's about the only news Americans want right now. Dems may ridicule Palin for the 'death panel' crack, but Palin transformed the HCR debate and may yet again.

    I agree that Palin won't be the candidate. But I'd bet just about anything she'll be on stage if the GOP win the WH back in 2012.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#79)
    by hookfan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    because those 62 democrats do not actually form a cohesive block. Many of them were part of the progressive caucus that now say they won't vote for the final bill if stupid pack is included. It was a tactical vote, not principled. And they would not have to make a tactical sacrifice of principle to get the bill moved along if the republicans were not voting in lock step.
       Those 40 conservative Dems (20 or so are progressive i believe) would be  irrelevant if the republicans were not voting in lock step. And progressives would not have been requested by the leadership to set principle aside because they needed the votes. And there would not be a Stupak/Pitts attached.
       

    Parent
    I was a happy idiot (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    3rd row at Jackson Browne acoustic show last night. He was looking a little tired after the big gig in NY for the rock and roll hall of fame over the weekend, but sounded good as ever. He's another artist like Springsteen that I check in with whenever possible. Amazing how well those songs have held up over all these years. I'm a 'Late for the Sky' album fanatic, and he did a lot from it.

    Also fun to judge the era of fans from what songs they request. You have the real oldsters like me with the 'Late for the Sky' and 'For Everyman' stuff, then the 'Pretender' crowd - a little more casual in their fandom, then the 'Running on Empty' "rockers", relatively speaking for Jackson....and then the younger ones...well, there weren't many of those....

    I can't tell anymore - I still think of "I'm Alive" as a new record, and it came out in '93!

    Slate Cover September/October 2008 MILF: Palin (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:55:22 AM EST
    Slate displayed a caricature of Sarah Palin with a bible clasped between her thighs for weeks during the run-up to the election to lead into an article about Christian women who are into fisting and masturbating for their husbands. Weeks of this revolting stuff with MILF jokes/and asides all over Dem blogs. Remember that wonderful Favreau snap of Obama's favorite speech-writer groping a poster of HRC. Wonderful stuff. Now, we get the moral posturing from the same hypocrites who let the mountains of sexist slime slide in the run-up to the election.

    The fact so few former HRC supporters stood up then, when it counted, against the MILF Palin 'jokes' was especially depressing.

    Link: 'progressive' politics on display (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:05:50 AM EST
    Back when it counted, exploring Palin's sex life and her various orifices was all the rage among all the good, moral, Dems. Remember. Here is the offensive/offending piece.

    The comments from 'progressives' are especially illuminating. Now comes the posturing over the Newsweek cover. Perfect.

    Parent

    let the right deal with her (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    methinks everyone on the left should put her on the pay no mind list.  I understand she sells ad space and they want her to run in the next election because they think she cannot win, but really she is the right's problem not ours.

    Every conversation about her is one less conversation about two wars, employment crisis and hcr.  

    If only the unemployed could figure out how to monetize sp like the progressives, we could drop ue a couple of points.....

    The next time you see my write on Palin (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    will be the first time I have done so in 2009.

    this post was about Newsweek's sexism.

    Parent

    it was not meant for you (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    rather the progressives.  when i was moaning about her you were quick to dismiss it as dumb and have been very consistent about the insignificance and stupidity of wasting time there....

    Parent
    Deliberately Demeaning Photo (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    Newsweek had access to millions of photos of Palin

    I think it's pretty simple. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    The headline on the Newsweek article, among other things, is comparable to using "He's got 99 problems but [X issue] ain't one" with a picture pulled completely out of context of President Obama on the cover.  Are you kidding me Newsweek?

    I don't like the way politically that Palin processes the sexism around her.  But I don't like the way lots of progressives are processing it either.

    And really, if progressives refuse to stand against sexism as a whole, it hurts their credibility when they want to stand against the racism Obama faces from the right wing.  You need to set one standard - no racist sexist BS allowed.     Nobody "deserves" it.

    What I read here: "SHE ASKED FOR IT." (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    There really is so little hope for women in the Democratic Party with such "progressives" in it.

    It's really sad to see how little progress (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    some of my male brethren have made w/regard to their views on women.

    As soon as I saw this post go up (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    I knew where the comments thread would go.

    Thanks for being constantly rational BTD.

    it is so (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    inconvenient when everyone does not agree with you isnt it.


    Parent
    no (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    it is more like it is disappointing when fauxgressives are so stupid.

    Parent
    Thanks BTD for (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    shaking this stuff out with this post.  It's certainly been illuminating about the attitudes of some of the commenters here.

    And honestly (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    it's not like Runner's World is a porno mag or something.  The shots (you can see them all here) are pretty standard in this case with any health magazine.  But I guess we want all our politicians to wear suits 100% of the time, to reinforce their authority over us?  Help me out here kdog ;)

    Newsweek jumped yet another shark.  Sad to see that a lot of people are water-skiing behind the mag, shouting "whee!!" as they clear it too.

    That doll is horrific (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:54:21 AM EST
    Some liberal/progressive types think that you can't attack sexism and still oppose the person and her ideas (or lack of ideas).  I disagree.   It's possible (in fact easy) to do both.   And it is important to do both.

    But I also think it is important not to attack every bit of sexism against a high profile woman politician while never bothering to evaluate anything else about her.  If she is a political opponent she should be treated as a political opponent.   I don't believe in kid gloves when a woman is the opponent.

    I do not think she is worthy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:02:57 AM EST
    of critique. She is not an important figure in terms of substance imo.

    It is not like she is moving the GOP away from its positions. She parrots them.

    To me, Sarah Palin is the least interesting figure in politics.

    I find the Palinpaloozas boring and irrelevant.

    She will not be the GOP nominee. She will not drive the GOP agenda.

    She is an asterisk. If people want to obsess on her, that is their call. I am not inclined to discuss her at all. Just as I choose not to discuss most any GOP figure these days. They are all irrelevant for now.

    It is the Democrats who matter now. I know it is no fun for some to have their team critiqued, especially Obama. But if you want to write about what matters, then you must.


    Parent

    My use of the words "political opponent" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:33:54 AM EST
    were not meant to equal "Sarah Palin".

    I was speaking to your general point.  

    Parent

    Newsweek looking up Palin's skirt (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:15:37 AM EST
    is another photo that is horrific.  But thanks for the tip to send me looking for the photo of the doll, too.  I have saved both to add to my photo file for classes, speeches, etc.  

    Of course, I speak mostly to liberal women, so it still is the photo of Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and another Obama staffer feeling up a cardboard cutout of the Secretary of State that remains the real shocker when I show it. . . .

    And all this after the election.  So it is not about elections.  It is about fear of female power -- and fear of what it could mean for e*ections.:-)
     

    Parent

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    Digby I think doesn't quite get there in her discussion.  It's not about "femininity," it's about female sexuality.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#50)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:26:41 AM EST
    So what's your take on Neubecker's Palin portrait that accompanied the Slate MILF piece.

    Is the Newsweek cover worse? If so, why?

    How would present each to your students?

    Parent

    Link? Point me to comment with it? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:32:20 AM EST
    Not familiar with this one, so please do me point me to it for my files, too.

    Parent
    I linked (none / 0) (#70)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:44:14 AM EST
    upthread, but here's the Slate piece. Neubecker offers a larger version on his site.

    The Neubecker portrait appeared in several different forms, as an illustration alongside the text, and as part of a banner across the top of Slate a week or so later.

    Parent

    Ah, that one -- (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:54:50 AM EST
    sorry, I had forgotten the artist's name.  Yes, that one already is on my PowerPoints.  I haven't taught the relevant class since, so I haven't fully worked out yet what I would do with it.  

    That said, I saw it as another opportunity to ask students how it is relevant to the political debate.  It is, of course, as Palin is of the party that first (note, I said first :-) in this era brought religion back into the political debate.

    That said, then the discussion would be whether this form of disparagement is appropriate or even useful to the debate.  I have conservative, religious students, so it could be a good discussion to allow them to edify others who might think that this is okay but would be mystified at art of, say, Mitt Romney with a Mormon tract wedged between his trousered knees.  Or of any pol pictured in similar mockery of the Koran.  Or. . . .  

    Of course, to be fair, it would be apropos to raise the question of whether For example, is it apropos to mock those who "cling" to the Bible with other parts of their anatomy, too.  

    Parent

    I didn't complete the thought. . . . (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    I realized.  So then, if students see that this sort of visual disparagement of a pol, and thus of the public she represents, is not useful to the political debate. . . .

    Then the next step in the discussion is to see which smart student sees (or else the prof has to prod, but I rarely do) that the question then becomes what this artwork really is about, what it really is saying about the subject. . . .

    Parent

    How about the deafening silence? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    From folks who really, really ought to know better, IMHO.

    I very nearly felt like gagging when the waves of HRC hate used to roll forth from the right.

    I don't frankly see how the image can be separated from the accompanying text, which borders on the salacious. It's invective masquerading as reporting, not 'God knows, an attempt to connect Palin to masturbating Christians'.

    There's rather a lot of good work, btw, as you may know, regarding sexuality and religious imagery, ranging from Perpetua to Marjory Kemp.

    Parent

    what I find amusing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    is how she rails against political correctness and then expects it to be applied to her.

    but I am happy that she now understands that Secretary Clinton was not whining.

    politics is a contact sport.

    Politics is a contact sport? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:59:18 AM EST
    So sexism is part of the sport for you?

    Sick.

    Parent

    to put it another way (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    and to use the subject of actual sexism, can you imagine Secretary Clinton posing for that picture?

    Parent
    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:19:17 AM EST


    Parent
    the question was (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    can you imagine Hillary doing it.

    Parent
    And my answer is (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    why not?

    Honestly, do you have a problem imagining Hillary Clinton in running garb? Why do you have that problem?

    Parent

    I do not have a problem (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    with Hillary in running clothes and Im sure if she went running she might wear them.  my point is that no one on earth can imagine Hillary posing for that picture in that getup.

    if she wants to be a spokesman for sports equipment fine.  if she want to be a national political figure that was a bad call. IMO

    Parent

    It was a bad call why? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    Because sexists would use it to denigrate her?

    Perhaps so, but that does not make the sexists any less despicable.  

    Parent

    oh, and the "bad call" (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    that is why newsweek chose the photo IMO.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    She did not realize that sexist "progressives" would be rallying round the Newsweek flag.

    Bad call on her part. Despicable call by Newsweek and people like you defending their actions.
     

    Parent

    to be honest (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    I kind of have a bigger problem with this kind of sentiment than I do with the fact that newsweek used that photo.

    So what if she's posed in running garb, and looks hot?  So what if she was a beauty queen?  I don't see why we can't celebrate someone's appearance and still take them seriously.  Good looking men (even "sexy" men) are taken seriously all the time.  I don't see why a female politician has to look/act like she isn't sexy to be taken seriously.  Sarah Palin is a good looking woman.  I don't see why that can't be an asset for her the way it was for Obama or Kennedy, or whoever.  I think we can all appreciate human beauty to a degree.  If anything, I think this sentiment is the reason that the photo on Newsweek is a problem, more than the photo itself.  Society just isn't at a place yet where we take beautiful women seriously - and so that's being exploited here.

    Granted, I think she's the female version of G.W. Bush, but that has nothing to do with how she looks.

    Parent

    even for a running magazine? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:18:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Why not? (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    What's the problem of posing in running garb for a running magazine?

    Parent
    See while I understand the objections to the pic (none / 0) (#138)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    I think I agree with Lindsay Beyerstein's piece on it: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2009/11/the-truth-hurts-newsweeks-palin-cover-.html

    Essentially, the picture is chosen because it embodies the problem with Palin- she intends to market herself this way (I'm sorry but if someone can give me an explanation for winking at the Presidential debate that doesn't involve Palin flirting with the audience I'd love to hear it), and then when she's called on it she claims its sexism.

    Parent

    washingtonian sexist too? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:46:46 AM EST

    so was this cover sexist too?  i guess since it's only distributed in DC, it's not a national issue like newsweek.

    but if a politician is popular, partially because of good looks, isn't this objectification a sure thing?

    i'm not trying to defend newsweek, but i'm not surprised.  

    missing link (none / 0) (#13)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    sorry -- for some reason, the MB didn't post my link

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    We objectify men all the time. Quite comparable.

    Ridiculous.

    Parent

    my point (none / 0) (#65)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    is that both politicians have been depicted as sex symbols.  Sure, our society objectifies women more than men, but until every depiction of a person, man or woman, as a sex symbol is considered "sexist," the media will continue to express their journalistic freedom by selling these depictions.  FWIW, I'm not sure depicting people as sex symbols is necessarily sexist.  

    Is Playgirl sexist?  No?  Playboy?  Yes?  Does a male-dominate society change this?  What about Newsweek?

    Parent

    Obama has been defined as a sex symbol? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    You now what?

    The contortions from "progressives" on this are sickening.

    I never thought much of Howard Zinn, but I would think he would be ashamed to see you carry his name on a comment thread.

    Parent

    accusing people of being sexist (none / 0) (#97)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    who don't agree with every word you say won't change minds.  I think that flailing that term around at every turn works against you -- don't cry wolf.

    Parent
    oy (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sj on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:56:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    I calls em as a I sees em.

    Parent
    and she (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:55:42 AM EST
    even posed for the one on the newsweek cover.


    Parent
    This is ridiculous (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    She posed in running garb for a running magazine.

    She did not pose for Newsweek like that.

    Honestly, some of you  . . .

    Parent

    when did we make (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    a rule that politicians get to pick the picture that used of them?


    Parent
    When did "progressives" decide (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:02:35 AM EST
    sexism was Ok?

    Sick.

    Parent

    Can you define sexism (none / 0) (#141)
    by Samuel on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    so that it's clear where this line is?  I still don't understand how you consider the newsweek cover different than the shirtless obama picture - haha unless you're being sexist in defining what sexism is...

    Oh and "heh". HA.  

    Parent

    No. Nor is there a rule (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:03:31 AM EST
    that a magazine ought to reveal its biases by its selection of photos.  But when it does so reveal its biases, there also is not a rule that says to leeeeaaave Newsweek alooooooooone.

    Parent
    Sexism is ok with (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    Capt. howdy apparently.

    After all, politics is a "contact sport" he tells us.

    Parent

    It has been for a long time (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    you just don't see enough of his comments, or follow his links to pornography...I doubt I'll get over that brazen link for a long, long time.

    Parent
    you (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    poor poor thing

    Parent
    See, that's exactly the point (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    You openly offend people with sexist remarks and links and your response is to dismiss it as their problem rather than genuinely apologize for your crude and inappropriate behavior.


    Parent
    you got me (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:54:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Picture is sexist, but (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    I'm appalled by the picture, personally.  Yet Sarah is the one who posed for it, no?  So...who is being sexist here?

    She posed in runners garb (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    for a running magazine.

    What is wrong with you people?

    Parent

    whats wrong is that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    I know sexism when I see it and IMO that newsweek cover is not sexist.


    Parent
    You don't know it (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:04:06 AM EST
    is what is obvious to most of us.

    Or worse, you condone it.

    Parent

    I am not quite clear on why (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    it is "sexist" to use a posed photo of a person in rather modest running clothes when that person became famous by fancy pagent walkin in a bikini.

    now whats sexist?


    Parent

    That's your failing (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    Not mine.

    Either you do not understand it or are being willfully obtuse.

    I am not interested in explaining it to you.

    BTW, your comment is incredibly sexist. "person became famous by fancy pageant walkin in a bikini??"

    Are you really this much of a cretin?

    Parent

    I suppose I am (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:12:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Obviously you are (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:18:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Palin now is an author (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    which was the timeliness factor for the article.

    How many times have you seen Newsweek use a cover photo of an author, oh, flyfishing?

    Parent

    you think (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    they wrote about her because she released a ghost written book with a headline like 'what do you do about a problem like Sara?'

    Parent
    She is not (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Benedick on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:13:57 AM EST
    in running 'garb' as you put it. One does not wear pantyhose under one's shorts to run. Neither does one adopt the beauty queen bevel - that is the method of arranging the legs to slim and soften the line, more usually done in high heels. Or wear quite so much make-up. No. She is the one being sexist by adopting all the stereotypes of our culture and flaunting them without, it would seem, one jot of awareness.

    Newsweek is making a point: they say this is how this woman presents herself to the world. Which she does. Let's not forget the tight, short skirts she wore to the convention. She did that. She presented herself as a sex-object. No one else. And it's appropriate for Newsweek to call her on it.

    Parent

    Sick (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    "the beauty queen bevel."

    My gawd, some of you need to look at yourselves.

    Parent

    that is (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    actually what its called.  Im sure Sara knows that.

    Parent
    I'm sure (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    that sexists around the world can not see it any other way.

    The phrase is sexist.

    Sexist of the world appear to be uniting in defense of Newsweek.

    Parent

    ftr (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:25:34 AM EST
    not defending newsweek.
    I hate newsweek

    Parent
    You are defending Newsweek (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    Nothing wrong with that in the abstract.

    Defending Newsweek's sexist choices is despicable imo.

    But you admit you are a cretin so it should not bother you much.

    Parent

    That is what it is called. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Benedick on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    By dancers too. They will hit a pose and, as they say, bevel. They do it better than her but then they've had training and have worked long and hard over the years to achieve discipline. Something of which this particular woman has no conception.

    So far as I'm concerned the real act of sexism is to hold her up as in any way advocating rights for women. She has co-opted the language - which she barely understands - so she can rant on Fox. To compare this woman with our Secretary of State is to insult the real achievements of Hilary Clinton; a brilliantly capable and accomplished woman whom Sarah Palin was among the first to smear.

    Parent

    Hold who up? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    I am criticizing sexism. you are calling women tarts.

    I hold you up as an example of a Neanderthal.

    Parent

    So she should (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by hookfan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    wear a burka or look like an Amish stereotype to avoid being sexist? And maybe Obama should break his nose to appear more manly and less a girlyman! Ahahahahaha. . . .

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    Maybe the line here is finer than I ever supposed, but I'll try to spell it out. Women, even professional women, like to look pretty. Mostly because no matter how smart or professional we are, the world values women more if we look pretty too. In fact, we can be completely ignored, or worse ridiculed, if we are not pretty, even in professional settings. I can tell you that for a fact, as I have seen it time and time again in my professional life.  

    That does not mean we are presenting themselves to the world as sex objects, for gawd's sake. I never thought I'd have to explain this, but the statement we are trying to make is 'hey, you think I am just smart and professional, but I'm a looker too. I will not be ignored.' Yes, it is pathetic to have to  make that statement, but we do. Palin's convention clothing was well within professional boundaries. I never saw what I considered a particularly short, unprofessional skirt'.

    Unless Palin's book, and the resulting Newsweek article, extensively covered her experience posing for a fun set of pictures in Runners World, I have no idea why it was chosen for the cover. Oh, I have one idea - to sell magazines based on her looks rather than the content of her book or the magazine article?  Nothing sexist about that, no not at all. Please.


    Parent

    I'll add..I see it in my professional life (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    and I'm a frickin' engineer. I can only imagine how it must be for women who are required to look their best to actually face the world every day instead of sit behind a computer and attend the occasional design review.

    Parent
    You don't even have to go that far (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    who doesn't like to look good?  Men do it too.  As you rightly point out, just because you want to look good doesn't mean you want to be a sex object.  The fact that you can use your looks, or your muscles or whatever external feature to your benefit is what makes them assets in the first place.  Maybe if people weren't so base in their assumptions they'd no longer be viewed that way.

    Parent
    I thought "pretty" (none / 0) (#92)
    by hookfan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    was an expression of healthy self esteem? Is looking "ratty" now the progressive "in thing"? If you don't look ratty, you're sexist? Maybe women should give up brushing their teeth so they can have foul breath and rotting molars, and give up peri care so they can stink. You certainly won't be accused of being sexist (or sexy) if you do. . .

    Parent
    The tights (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    are dance tights.  For dance and aerobics.  Something to be ashamed of wearing to pose in a running magazine? She DOES do aerobics. She also wore capri running shorts for another shot, but Newsweek apparently thought that picture wasn't as worthy because it wasn't as sexist.

    Tight skirts?  LOL, you should look at the picture. Nylons? She actually wore a dress/suit to the convention?  Get me the fainting couch. Was she supposed to wear pant suits like Hillary?  If you dress in traditional woman's garb that means you should expect to be treated like a sex object?  Something is seriously wrong with what you're saying.  Seriously wrong.  You should stop and listen to yourself.

    Parent

    O.M.G. (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    This is is a tight short skirt?

    Let me clue you in . . .  What she wore at the convention is NOT how a woman dresses who is trying to present herself as a "sex-object". How she posed for a fashion shoot is probably how they wanted her. The whole point of posing, is to look good. If she didn't strike that pose and stood there looking not so hot, people on set would have coached her into some better poses. I'm not convinced she does have panty hose on (looks freshly waxed and perhaps spray tan or makeup), but if she does, that again could have been a call by the stylist/photographer etc. There are certain expectations when you show up for a shoot. We have them for men also, btw.

    I can't believe some of the flippin' comments here.

    Parent

    No tights or pantyhose (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    She was noticeably bare-legged during the campaign, so I can't imagine why she'd put on tights for the Runner's World pic.

    Parent
    If I were running in Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    I'd wear aerobic tights, too.

    She was in the lower 48, as they say, and in summer for much of the campaign.  Not that I noticed that she was bare-legged.  But then, I'm not transfixed by women's body parts.

    Parent

    Well, there's "transfixed" (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    and there's happening to notice. I happened to notice, and I confess I was envious.  I have pretty darn good legs, but they wouldn't look like that without hose.

    Parent
    My thought also (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    you'd have a heck of a time getting me in a pair, even for a photo shoot, lol!~ If her legs were too uneven, they would have simply asked the makeup person to smooth them out. It's what we always did . . . but hey! don't let that get in the way of some folks sexist attitudes  ;)

    Parent
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:18:29 AM EST


    Parent
    I have observed many, many females (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    in full makeup, assembling in the early morning to run 10K races.

    Parent
    Many of the women I see running (none / 0) (#128)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    in NYC and working out at the gym usually have on full makeup and beautifully coordinated workout/runing outfits and matching shoes.
    I have to admit it amuses me (and sometimes makes me self-conscious) because I wear old t-shirts and shorts,absolutely no make-up and I get the "I wouldn't be caught dead in that" look!

    Parent
    What is wrong with "you" people is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    That you don't find it sexist in the runner's magazine.  If it's a sexist photo it's a sexist photo.

    And please, it was a political photo.  Posing next to the American flag.  Come on, she's "running..."  --- get it?

    Do you honestly think she's upset that her running picture is on the cover of Newsweek?

    She loves it, I bet.

    Parent

    If that is the degree (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    of your thinking skills, then there is nothing left to say.

    Context is a word you may want to look up.

    Parent

    That's a diferent question. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:57:16 AM EST


    Parent
    The people at Newsweek who make (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    these cover photo decisions know that for all the people who actually read the content of their magazine, there are millions more who will only ever see the cover on newsstands and magazine racks, and those people will draw an instant conclusion from that cover - that this woman could not possibly be serious about a career in politics if she is willing to pose like that for a major, oh-so-serious magazine like Newsweek.  

    It's a cheap way to make an editorial point even if it doesn't actually sell any more magazines.

    In a society where we still have "beauty" pageants, is it any wonder that attractive women are still treated as if their heads are empty?  Or that, when we come across someone who is attractive and isn't Phi Beta Kappa, our reaction is to say, "See?  It's true - the pretty ones aren't that smart?"  Why no pageants for men?  Why no Speedo competition, or Mr. Congeniality?  Why no men showing us their talents with a chain saw, or belting out show tunes?

    Well, we know why - it's still a man's world, and no man who wanted to be taken seriously would ever think strutting his stuff in Atlantic City makes sense.  

    I have no idea what is going on in Sarah Palin's head, who she wants to be or who she thinks she is.  This is America, where we're supposed to be able to be whatever we want, and anyone can grow up to be president.  Yeah, right - maybe in Ward and June Cleaver's world.

    For now, it's outlets like Newsweek that get to determine who we should take seriously, and they've made it clear that no one should give Sarah Palin the time of day; I'm just wondering when we can expect to see some man-who-shouldn't-be-taken-seriously on the cover of Newsweek, wearing a Speedo and waving the flag.

    Parent

    I assume Newsweek chose this photo (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    so the people walking past the stack of Newsweek mags would take a second look and possibly buy the mag.  But most people walking by have already seen the photo, as it was all over the newspapers and internet when it originally was published.  

    Parent
    Uh huh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    When you can't attack the argument....

    There is probably nothing left to say, BUT

    If Obama was on the cover of Newsweek looking fine in running shorts, there would be no problem.

    And YOU, BTD, are missing the political context of that picture.  I pointed it out to you, but you chose to ignore it.

    Sarah knows what she is doing.

    Parent

    Well, of course she does. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    The question is whether Newsweek knows what it is doing.

    Parent
    I'm betting the photographer/stylist/RW art person (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    knew what they were doing also. If she had been a football player, there would be a football in the shot instead of a flag.

    Parent
    Do you know what you are saying? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    Or is condemning sexism when it is directed at someone you dislike too hard for you?

    Parent
    My point is (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    That picture is sexist in any context.

    And it was a deliberately political shot as well.

    Parent

    So you're saying the photo (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    was sexist in it's original purpose? As a photo spread for a running magazine? And if you are going to use make-up as the basis of your argument, not gonna hold up. Make-up is generally required when you step in front of a camera professionally.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    So you object to running garb.

    Got it.

    Parent

    Ah, so you get it now! (none / 0) (#142)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    But yes, the photo IS sexist in any context.

    From her cute li'l pose with her hands on her hips and her knee up, goofy grin and bright heavily mascara'd and eyelined eyes -- she's not even standing straight or looking straight at the camera.  Just a sideways sorta flirty look.  And with that flag -- Jeez.  She certainly couldn't start to run like that -- maybe break into a cancan...

    Yes it is sexist any way you look at it.

    Or maybe not...maybe not any more than Sports Illustrated bathing suit issue is sexist.  Hey, bathing suits are appropriate when you swim....and the magazine is Sports Illustrated -- swimming -- bathing suits -- no problem!  

    Parent

    Obama posed for a photo (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:01:56 AM EST
    of him with what looked like a reefer.  Should Newsweek run that on its cover?

    Sure, he posed for it a while ago.  Palin posed for the photo a while ago, too.

    Do you have no problem with the deliberate act of deciding which photo to select?  Really?

    Parent

    Something is wrong (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:03:33 AM EST
    with these folks.

    They are ok with sexism seems to be their message.

    Parent

    thank you (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:01:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh Dear God (none / 0) (#53)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    This fashion critique of Sarah Palin is too, too cute--I really love it when people excuse sexism on the grounds that "she dressed that way, so she deserves it." Do you really want to go there?

    Which she does. Let's not forget the tight, short skirts she wore to the convention. She did that. She presented herself as a sex-object.

    Unreal. If she had shown up in sweatpants and no makeup, I have no doubt you'd have called her form of dress "inappropriate." Hillary Clinton also wore fitted pantsuits and makeup in her appearances, and presumably wasn't presenting herself as a sex object, and yet one newsmagazine chose to run a photo showing only her legs in high heels. Was that her fault? She should have worn flats, I take it?

    Violet Socks had the best, bar none, deconstruction of the bizarre "progressive" condoning of sexism when it came to Sarah Palin. You should read the whole thing:

    Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party's presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists -- at least the ones online -- are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post.

     And:

    And that's another thing: it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn't even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don't even get me started on Joe "The Talking Donkey" Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV back then.) I'm not saying Obama's a moron, but he's sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who's lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/

    Bringing Obama into your comment (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    completely discredits it.

    It reads as a Obama Hate.

    Parent

    She was dressed as a tart. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Benedick on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    Clinton wears well-cut suits. Palin was showing her ass to the world. And do you think it was any accident that when she was speaking there were quite so many low shots from behind? Didn't happen anywhere else in that convention.

    To compare this cheerleader's qualifications favorably with our president's is to willfully misrepresent history.

    I see that Team Sarah is alive and well here.

    Parent

    So she controlled the cameramen too? (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    Unbelievable.

    Parent
    A tart? (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    Holy effing Jeebus.

    Neanderthal on the prowl.

    Parent

    I remember the time (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:02:57 AM EST
    Clinton actually showed some cleavage.  Do you think she was a tart that time too?

    Parent
    Here's a link (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    Link.

    Do you think that if a woman actually has breasts and legs and wears less than nunly clothes, she's a tart?

    The beauty of all of this is it's helping Sarah Palin.  I want nothing to do with her politics, but I'll defend her to the end of the earth against people like you.

    Parent

    I remember that WaPo story well (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    as we forwarded it around the sistren and said . . . here it comes.

    Parent
    The utter terror (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    of female sexuality is really fascinating.

    Parent
    Uh, Clinton was always considered to be (none / 0) (#72)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    pretty ugly (pantsuites and cankles) by the media.

    Parent
    It's a no win situation (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    If you are pretty you are supposed to dress to hide it so a cameraman does not take photos of your legs and rear. And if the media does not like you, for whatever reason, they will bring up your college granny glasses photos and your cankles.

    We all go through these dilemmas in private, on a much smaller scale, every day. This is why it is so maddening to me.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    She was wearing enough eye make-up to make a streetwalker jealous.

    Perfectly appropriate for running though -- I'm sure all the serious runners wear it.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    Just wow.

    Parent
    Jeebus! Do you also think that Michelle (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:51:17 AM EST
    Obama is trying to act "white" because she straightens her hair?

    She was wearing enough eye make-up to make a streetwalker jealous.

    If SP or any other woman (or man for that matter) wants to run while wearing full eye make-up, loads of jewelry, a business suit or a burkha, it is their right. Whatever happened to live and let live?

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    You're (BTD) the one who cried "context."

    Parent
    Streetwalker (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    Proud of that are you?

    Parent
    Have you looked hard at the pic? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    There are elements in that photo -- NOT Sarah Palin at all, but the pose, accessories, make-up so heavy as to contrast utterly with the running theme -- as to be reminiscent of a shot deliberately designed to be provocative.

    Inappropriate and sexist.

    Parent

    excuse me, (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    while i mop up the great big crocodile tears on the floor.

    how sad, that someone who's spent most of her adult(?) life using her limited intellectual, and just above limited visual talents to get ahead, should be treated in a "sexist" manner. oh, the horror and the shame!

    spare me, all of you. the lady went out of her way to be the republican party's wet dream female candidate, she's estopped from claiming victimhood now.

    her book (if by book, you mean a barfed up packet of chewy chocolate goodness) reads (from the excerpts i've had the misfortune to hurt my eyes on) like a bad rendition of a danielle steele novel, and not in a good way. i predict her entire family will buy a copy. i doubt the mccain's will though.

    frankly, hillary has it all over sarah, in terms of the level of mysogonist sexism cast on her, and her far classier response.

    boo hoo sarah, go cry to your mom.

    Seriously?? (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    how sad, that someone who's spent most of her adult(?) life using her limited intellectual, and just above limited visual talents to get ahead, should be treated in a "sexist" manner.

    This statement makes my head hurt.

    Should we only be outraged if someone with "unlimited" visual talents and intellectual ability is treated in a sexist manner?

    Are we really looking down on people who use their "limited intellectual, and just above limited visual talents" to get ahead, now? Did you forget to send out the memo telling these people to not forget their place?

    Speaking for myself only, the fact that SP managed to become Governor without coming from a rich and powerful family or having an ivy league education and raising five kids in the meantime is indicative of a lot more than the "limited" abilities you give her credit for.

    Parent

    were you born an idiot, (none / 0) (#144)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:06:14 AM EST
    This statement makes my head hurt.

    or do you just play one on tv?

    ok, for those of you lacking in functional synapses, let me explain this again, s  l  o  w   l   y:

    note the "'s around the term "sexist" in my post, meant to denote (to anyone actually thinking), that i was being sarcastic. in fact, as my whole post stated rather bluntly, i in no way think ms. palin is/has been treated in a sexist manner, any more so than she herself has worked so diligently for.

    she's traded on her looks (certainly not her intellect) her entire adult life, pointing out the obvious can only be considered "sexist" in an alternate reality.

    frankly, i'm surprised BTD bought into this nonsense.

    Parent

    Just shoot me (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    Dems are doomed if this is really the representative attitude.

    Parent
    I don't know about the dems but it makes (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    me feel like women are doomed. One step forward two steps back.

    Parent
    What is Palin holding in her left hand in the pic? (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    A Blackberry?

    Where is kdog this morning? (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:48:38 PM EST


    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment