kimmy

Let me be clear about this: I am *NOT* rah-rahing for Palin to be the next Vice President or a future President. What I *AM* doing is taking issue with many of the attacks being made against her, both by people on this message board and by the media at large. -she's been mocked for having been in the Miss Alaska pageant 24 years ago. -she's been called a lousy parent. -she's been accused of causing her baby to be Downs' Syndrome through negligence, either through working while pregnant, flying while pregnant, or flying home after her water broke. -she's been accused of adultery through the most circumstantial evidence imaginable. -she's been accused of lying about her baby's parentage. -it has been argued that if she really loved her special needs baby, she would quit her job and be a full time mother. That is the stuff I have taken issue with. It makes my blood boil. It particularly disgusts me that women are cheering along or even writing this kind of crap, for no other reason than they don't like the politics of the woman being smeared. And then the stuff making light of her background because Alaska is a small state, or Wasilla is a small town, or because she went to a small college, also strikes a raw nerve with me. (My parents' families are both from the remote north, too.) Too much of the coverage I've seen of Palin has a contemptuous tone when speaking about her small town and remote state. It has the same tone we often hear in Canada when central Canadian media talk about politics or politicians from Alberta. When the Reform Party of Canada first arrived on the federal stage nearly 20 years ago, it was regarded with mockery and ridicule by the national (read, Toronto) media. As the party rose from regional upstart, to regional force, to national factor, to national government, the Toronto media's reaction went from derision, to disbelief, to anxiety, to grudging acceptance. And maybe I am projecting, but the initial reaction to Palin strikes me as somewhat the same. The idea that a politician from Alaska was arriving in the national campaign was as funny to US media as the idea that these yokels from Alberta were entering the national dialogue in Canada was funny to Canadian media. Ultimately, in Canada, the central Canadian media (the "elites", I suppose, to borrow the current US terminology) learned something about the yokels. I think that maybe the people who've been ridiculing the Alaska angle on this could likewise learn a few things. I don't particularly want Palin to be the next Vice President, but I absolutely want her to do well, to have a campaign that shut a lot of mouths. Because there have been a lot of people who deserve to have their mouths shut when discussing Palin. Most people feel there is a distinction to be made between killing animals and humans. * animal * animal * human The claim that she's opposed to sex-education has been debunked. Moron? I don't think anybody, particularly a woman, who has accomplished as much by age 44 as Palin can be accused of being a moron. Her baby as a prop? That justifies the lurid accusations that have been made about her and her family? When the Obamas' little girl participated in that oh-so-cute moment at their convention, was that also an invitation for an all-out assault on the family? Contradiction? Carrying a rifle and being pro-life is a contradiction? Just for the record, Rue, can you tell us whether you believe killing animals and killing humans are equivalent? And if the answer is no, then can you explain where the contradiction is? Care to clarify the intellectual city-folk position on that point for us? Ok, one of us has got a serious misconception of what the phrase "Stepford wife" implies. I've looked it up, and I'm pretty sure it's not me. The wikipedia entry describes it thusly: Submissive? Meek? Old fashioned subservient role? Robotic? Conformist? Inoffensive? Sarah Palin? WTF? I can't think of any way a woman who's governor can be called any of those things. Judging from the anger directed at her from Obama-boosters and lefty-type women, she's certainly not inoffensive. Sarah Palin strikes me as the exact opposite of that definition, but perhaps you've got reasons of your own for feeling differently. Please share them. Is it because she's conservative? Is it because she's religious? Is it because she has 5 kids? Help me out here, Rue. thanks -k

The argument, again, is not that there's something contemptible about being a "community organizer", just that it's not necessarily the kind of background that gives somebody cause to be throwing stones at mayors, even small town ones. As for hiring a lobby to get funding for her town while she was mayor, I think the answer to that is obvious: she was trying to help her community using legal avenues that are available to every municipality. What I have read indicates that Wasilla is a satellite community of Anchorage, and has doubled in size in recent years, dating back to when Palin was mayor. Rapid growth puts a large strain on community resources, as large capital expenditures are necessary to provide infrastructure to keep up. I don't think it's sensible to criticize the mayor of a town in that sort of situation for seeking ways to fund capital projects that her constituents need. -k

"Community organizer" at best might have the connotation of people who do good things, like the Elizabeth Fry Society or John Howard Society. At worst, of course, they bring to mind professional demogogues like Al Sharpton. In Obama's case, as I understand it, his "community organizer" experience related to a group that lobbied for affordable housing projects. I suspect that "community organizer" is at least more flattering than "lobbyist"... There are few occupations that are reprehensible, but that doesn't mean that all are equally applicable leadership experience. I suspect the Obama team doesn't play up that aspect of his career because his team knows that the public hates lawyers even more than they hate journalists. -k

I have found I'm reading a lot more coverage from England than the US as well. It seems a lot more detached and rational, while much of the US coverage seems to be either vapid or hand-wringing or walking on eggshells or afraid to discuss elephants in the room. I particularly liked this bit from the article you linked to: -k

Writing an autobiography is an accomplishment that makes you worthy of having an autobiography! Much in the same sense that leading your campaign to be President proves that you're leader enough to be President! -k

Don't be obtuse. Obama has taken those votes through a combination of his charisma, his policies, his party affiliation, and offering the black community a chance to achieve an important milestone. For what it's worth, the Republicans say they are continuing to reach out to minority voters: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/ The article cites the 36 black delegates at the RNC as a 78% drop from the 2004 RNC. What this means in actual terms: 36 black delegates instead of 64. You're claiming that the 36 out of 2380 delegates looked like any more of a "sea of white" than the 64 out of 2509 at the 2004 convention? Talking as if they've enacted some kind of sinister strategy "this time around" is just silly. What it means is that 26 black Republicans who were involved last time decided "I'm not participating in the Republican primaries this time. I'm going to participate in that other party instead." Or, "I don't support the other party, but I'm not happy with my own party right now either, so I'm not participating." There are reasons why few blacks vote for the Republicans, let alone participate in the party: -tradition: "Clarence McKee, a black Republican delegate, said he believes the party's pro-family message is one that would resonate well with the African-American community, but he said, "Historically, blacks have voted based on a blind loyalty to Democrats." ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/ ) -peer pressure: "There's a lot of peer pressure for blacks to stay with the Democrats," he said, noting that African-Americans often face ridicule when they align with Republicans. ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/ ) -historic opportunity: "There's very little that I agree with Obama on. Since the founding of our country, there have only been white men who have occupied the White House. ... To have someone break through that barrier and say to some kids, you can be president. Whether you like it or not, symbolism is important." ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/oba...cans/index.html ) -k

I hate her views, but absolutely love the woman. edit: and I feel the same about Palin. -k

I think we're all agreed that the Republican party has historically (and particularly now) had less appeal to black voters, and especially aspiring black politicians. However, that doesn't do anything to support the claim that the absence of blacks at the convention was actually a plot to make the Republican party more appealing to white voters. Rather, it is an alternate explanation for the absence of blacks at the convention, and a much more credible one than WIP's speculation that they're banking on a "Southern Strategy" in which white voters are apparently overwhelmingly racists. -k

I think that's about as likely to happen as Obama giving a straight answer on NAFTA while he's addressing Michigan auto-workers. -k

How on earth do you visually identify Jews? Hook noses? Thick glasses? Recessed chins? Appalling. -k

No, that's not what WIP was saying when he started the thread. He was not merely suggesting that black voters have tuned the Republicans out, he was floating the suggestion that the Republicans forcibly kept them away from the convention in an effort to appeal to white voters: It's one thing to point out that the black vote has gone overwhelmingly to Obama. It's quite another to allege that blacks were kept out of the convention so that the party would be more appealing to white voters (who, according to this theory, would I guess have to be mostly a bunch of racists, it sounds like.) -k

More of the claims made against Palin are also coming unravelled: "Families with special needs children will have a friend and advocate in the White House? Yeah, right! She slashed funding for special needs education!" She substantially increased funding for special needs education: Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities. (...) A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/...recaps.h27.html "She says she supports her daughter, but she slashed funding to support pregnant teens in Alaska!" Covenant House, the organization she's accused of slashing funds to, received a threefold increase in funding from Palin: In Alaska, the governor is allowed to reduce spending allocations in the service of sound management and fiscal accountability. To prove his contention that Palin slashed funds for teen mothers, Kane produced the Alaska 2008 budget with Sarah Palin’s line by line adjustments. It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars. However, what is misleading about the Post headline is that the allocation of 3.9 million is three times more than Covenant House Alaska received from government grants in 2007. According to records on the Covenant House Alaska website, the organization received just over 1.3 million dollars from grants in 2007 and nearly 1.2 million in 2006. Even with the reductions, Governor Palin signed a budget which provided three times more funds than the organization received in 2007. http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-did-not-slash-funds-for-teen-mothers/ "Maybe her daughter wouldn't be pregnant if she didn't ban sex education from Alaska schools!" "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau. (...) Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception. (...) Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign." "Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,3119305.story -k

Freudian slip? Wishful thinking? People are skeptical of the National Inquirer because they're the National Inquirer. When they are the only source for a rumour, their credibility is directly an issue, and their track record speaks for itself. The fact that they got the Edwards story right is balanced by the stratospheric number of retractions they've been forced to make and the number of lawsuit settlements they've had to pay out over their lengthy history of slandering the biggest names of the moment. The "real" media, having already given John Edwards the benefit of the doubt regarding National Inquirer allegations, would only add further fuel to the charges of bias if they changed their standard for this particular story. And, it certainly looks like they were right to hold off from jumping on this. Seems like more business as usual for the Inquirer: Debbie Richter saves Inquiring Minds $1.25 Who, if not the woman supposedly cheated on, would be making the allegations of an affair? I've been trying to find people renewing the call for DNA testing to determine Trig's parentage, but so far have come up empty. Valuable Kimmy-Points are available to the first person who can find a link to renewed requests for DNA tests of Trig! -k

What do you mean "giving up the black vote to Obama"? The Republicans didn't *give* Obama the black vote, he *took* it. The Democrats have traditionally fared better with black voters than the Republicans, and this time around that effect is magnified for, uh, obvious reasons. I read an article yesterday that interviewed a life-long Republican who was black, and he said that this time he was probably going to vote for Obama even though he's a through-and-through Republican. He felt that a black person becoming president was a milestone that would be extremely important for the country, and especially for black people. So, uh, the less pale people have not been booted out of the Republican party... they have flocked to the other guy of their own accord. -k

Oh, they probably just bribed this person with dirty blood oil money to say that. -k

So ... this thread has gone from comparing Palin to Obama, to comparing Obama to Jesus? Save us, Jeebus. -k

BBC: Alaska... it's a little different. -k

I didn't renew my subscription to the National Inquirer, so please catch me up... Is any person with an actual connection to any of the parties claiming that this person's divorce was because of Sarah Palin? Or is it just out there to sell some papers in grocery-store check-out lines to people who are tired of reading about Bat Boy? I expect that the media will treat this like plutonium until they've got a smoking gun (or stained dress, or whatever the appropriate Clinton-era metaphor was). The media has been very defensive of their coverage this past week, and I suspect they'll be shy about jumping on another DailyKos or National Inquirer rumour until they're sure. Or maybe not. I dunno. Do you think they learned anything, or do you think people will once again be calling for DNA tests of Trig Palin, this time to prove paternity instead of maternity? I wonder. -k

Well, at least everybody knows where Layton stands on NAFTA. Is Obama still in favor of renegotiating it, or is that just when he's campaigning in Ohio and Michigan? -k

...so like I was saying, that MILF and her skank daughter and her retarded baby are running that party into the ground. -k

I suspect that when August speaks in such terms, he is expressing his confidence in his opinions and analysis, not sharing the fruits of time-travel. -k {would have way better things to do with a time machine.}

As you're always one for semantics, note that I didn't actually call you either of those things. -k

I'm sure you were well aware that August's point was not to wonder whether she wrote the speech herself, but to predict that the Democrats and Obama supporters would seize on that as a major talking point... ...as you've demonstrated, along with bloggers and party people and internet geeks by the thousands. It's a tack seized on by people who are too dumb to know that speechwriters aren't a big part of the conventions, or by people who hope others are too dumb to know that, or by people who are desperately trying to think of negative things to say about Palin's speech. My point was that I can't recall seeing an Obama speech or Hilary speech where the director took such a lingering look at the teleprompter. They stayed with a shot from behind Palin, looking either at her right shoulder, or at the teleprompter. Since there was nothing particularly unusual about her right shoulder, or anything else on the back of her jacket, I am assuming the point of interest was the teleprompter. I can't personally recall seeing coverage of another speech where the person directing the camerawork was so interested by a teleprompter. Perhaps I just haven't watched the right speeches, or perhaps the person directing the production felt it particularly notable that Palin was using a teleprompter, even though it's a standard practice at almost any major speech. Only a very naive person would doubt that the speeches they saw at the DNC were "performances" in the exact same sense, and I know you're not a naive person. Such "performances" matter. Obama's rise is proof of how much "performances" matter. -k

Of course you've heard he takes a hands-on approach. Who'd possibly say otherwise? Obama has something of a history of doing of about the same thing as Palin did last night. He's a known quantity for doing about the same thing as Palin did last night. Absolutely. I think it was the best speech I've heard this year that wasn't delivered by Obama himself. -k

You're cavalierly denigrating the decision that countless women have made, including both Sarah Palin and my cousin. You better believe you're talking about my cousin. -k