Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 03, 2008

Privacy

"We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," their statement said.
Palin rebuts rumors, says daughter pregnant, Reuters, Sept 1

---

The teenager expecting a baby with the unmarried 17-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin is expected to be publicly unveiled at the Republican Party convention.
Sarah Palin to unveil teen dad Levi Johnston at convention, Agencies, Sept 3

Posted by b on September 3, 2008 at 18:31 UTC | Permalink

Comments

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Posted by: Dick Durata | Sep 3 2008 18:51 utc | 1

I wonder if he will be wearing his skates? It's awfully thin ice.

Posted by: Wolfgang Puck | Sep 3 2008 18:59 utc | 2

Did Mama vet wayward daughter's wardrobe for the tarmac this morning? Cause she looks awfully fetching in that belted pencil skirt. If they want to play up the 5 months-pregnant story, shouldn't they keep her in the empire-waisted dresses? Gosh the young lady's figure looks good, and God bless her. Check Yahoo/Reuters photos of McCain greeting Palins including new son-in-law-to-be Levi, Sept. 3.

I think I have to turn in my feminist card for writing the above.

Posted by: Leila A. | Sep 3 2008 19:05 utc | 3

Did someone say vetting ...

the GOP Vetting Emporium and Taco Stand


Posted by: Hamburger | Sep 3 2008 19:11 utc | 4

GOP Vetting? Priceless.

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 3 2008 19:27 utc | 5

Truly amazing, usually this kind of white trash cultural authoritarianism is kept from public view. Its obviously a last ditch effort to make it fly by bringing it into plain view. Saying in effect - see, we no longer need to hide our contradictions anymore, we will take away your abortions, contraceptives, sex education, and single mother relief programs. We will leave you no other alternative but to submit to our demands you return to our control. Suffer out there alone, or rejoin the family as I define it and tow the line. Because bottom line, thats what freaks them out the most, to have the government and its programs offer the youth an alternative and a way out of their authority. They all know it, but never been up to admitting it publicly, certainly not as part of a presidential campaign.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 3 2008 19:31 utc | 6

Evidently, in itself, the Palin family has a right to privacy. The issue is the light that the affair throws on Palin herself. For a child to get herself pregnant, or, more likely in the this case, to act unrestrainedly with the result of getting pregnant, would often be seen as a psychological response to neglect by the parents. I see that the father was not willing to abandon his job to take care of the children. I would not say, under any circumstances, that a mother should abandon her career for the children. Simply that this is a failure of a very difficult balancing act.

My former boss had this problem. Pursue her career she did. In her case, it was the son who had psychological problems. She was only home one day a week.

No easy solution.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 3 2008 20:00 utc | 7

Perhaps the most telling point of all is that the Bush/Cheney/Neoclown crowd has learned NOTHING from the Iraq failure, NOTHING from the failed 2006 midterm elections, and NOTHING about the American people. This is indicated by the RNC choice (not McSame's) of Palin as VP. Once again they put ideology ahead of competence, and their own interest ahead of those of 99% of Americans! Palin's only qualification for VP are eerily similar to the qualification listed here, from a Guardian piece entitled "Life in the Emerald City":

"O'Beirne's staff asked questions in job interviews that could have got an employer in the private sector hauled into court. (The Pentagon was exempted from most employment regulations because it hired people - using an obscure provision in federal law - as temporary political appointees.) Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two CPA staffers said that they were asked if they supported Roe v Wade (the ruling that effectively legalised abortion in the US). One former CPA employee, who had an office near the White House liaison staff, wrote an email to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched resumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the president's vision for Iraq' [a frequently heard phrase at CPA] was 'uncertain'."

Another CPA staffer told me that when he went to the Pentagon for his predeployment interview, one of O'Beirne's deputies launched into a 10-minute soliloquy about domestic politics that included statements opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment. The staffer didn't agree with what was said, but he nodded. "I felt pressure to agree if I wanted to go to Baghdad," he said...

A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance - but had applied for a White House job - was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13bn (£6.7bn) budget, even though they had little experience in accounting.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer said. "I'm here for George Bush."...

Are these the same assholes that vetted Palin The Unqualified? YOU BET!

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 3 2008 20:00 utc | 8

Following Diogenes@8, my own opinion is that Palin's candidacy is a sort of retreat into an imagined white past, as Billmon says. He got flak because he did not say that it was an imagined past that she represents. As an American, it is difficult for Billmon to see that Palin as candidate is a facet of the central world problem today: the relationship of the US to the rest of the world. Palin is a symbol of isolationism. She has only left the US once in her life of 44 years. What idea of the outside world do you have from viewing CNN, much less Fox? I, as a Brit, recently deliberately put myself into such a media experience by going to a conference in rural Colorado. I was shocked, no idea of what was going on in the outside world, unless I believed the wingnut or religious radio stations. Palin has had 44 years of that, nothing else.

Nevertheless it is US foreign policy which is failing. Without the trillion dollars on Iraq (plus Afghanistan), the US economy would not be in trouble.

Palin represents a psychological retreat into a comfortable imagined older world, where you don't have to confront the problems of globalisation. Yes, that is it, globalisation. Globalisation implies world economic integration, but difficult for the US to be on top.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 3 2008 21:03 utc | 9

diogenes

the book 'life in the emerald city' & the follow up 'iraq inc' - very solid - a good photograph of their utter madness & mendacity

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 3 2008 22:27 utc | 10

Come again, Alex? Palin, at least superficially, and let's face it that's all that counts with the American public, is quite a break from the past. In the past, she wouldn't be holding public office, she would be cleaning the house, cooking a pot roast and baking cookies. Her husband would tell her what to think when it came to politics and other such matters of men, and if she got out of hand, her husband would merely have to say "enough of that, now," or simply beat the shit out of her.

Posted by: June | Sep 4 2008 0:43 utc | 11

June: This is a fantasized past. At least as far as the woman constantly relying on the husband to decide stuff and being unable to have any opinion by herself. Many had, even in old patriarchies; they just knew better and acted as if the husband was the sole decider, and the only one with a brain and an opinion in the house.
Of course, there are some women who have been so brainwashed for so long that they can't form any cohesive thought, but they're not all like that.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 4 2008 1:06 utc | 12

why so much bitterness June?

there have been powerful women throughout the ages, history has many examples. many men are still in the same position you describe for hapless females, they do not hold public office, they clean houses and toilets and toxic waste dumps, they work in restaurants cooking food and sometimes "food products", they are told what to think when it comes to politics, and very often get the shit beat out of them if they get out of line.

Palin is there to appeal to old white men, she is attractive and obviously fertile. She doesn't look all bitchy and threatening and the glasses and beehive remind older folks of their teachers and librarians. In other words, she is an image that the republicans hoped to sell. well they did and the only ones who are not convinced are the ones who weren't buying anyway.

logic and reason has hardly anything to do with the selection process. Height has much more importance than knowledge and a winning smile will carry the debate. If you want to know who "won" the debate during the upcoming presidential ones, simply turn off the sound on your teevee and watch. the one that carries him or herself better and looks more presidential is the actual winner.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 4 2008 1:07 utc | 13

June, Palin represents no female values of the year 2008. She represents values of the dark ages. And she will make sure that woman will be depended on their Daddys/Husbands, if elected. Just look what this woman is doing to her daughter, the one pregnant while not married.
There are a lot of good woman out there in business and politics, Palin is not one of them.
the US if it wants to can do better, or else become the Handmaids Tale live now in every Household of the US.
You want a woman on top, do not vote MC Won't and Mrs. No Sexual Education, Mrs. Forced Pregnancy, Mrs. Cut Funds for Pregnant Teenaged Girls etc. etc.

She got to where she is because she is obedient - to GOB Talking Points, religious nuttery, and sexual hypocrisy.
Need I continue?

all errors mine, english second language :-}

sabine

Posted by: sabine | Sep 4 2008 2:38 utc | 14

June you can't make a right wing reactionary into a feminist. Especially when she goes to the Assembly of God church that teaches that women must always submit to their Husbands! Their gender roles hearken back to the Bronze age. I grew up in that kind of church. I know just what her coded language means. It's apparent almost every time she opens her mouth. She's R J Rushdooney's wet dream. Nothing more. Hillary supporters can smell that phony feminist a mile away!

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 4 2008 3:30 utc | 15

What about Senator Mike Gravel's comments on Sarah Palin, which appear as today's front-page story on CounterPunch?

Seems to me that the GOP chose Palin in order to heighten the tension between coastal, educated liberals, and the small-town working class people whose votes will likely decide this election and whom the Dems need so desperately to win back (the group Joe Bageant has so ably documented in his works on Winchester, VA). Isn't it just playing into the hands of Karl Rove to make fun of Palin as a "redneck", the track so many liberals are glibly falling into? How much more effective, by contrast, to follow Gravel in taking a skeptical but hopeful look at Palin as a possible future ally of the people within Washington, even while cautioning that the McCain/Palin ticket is too dangerous as a whole to consider supporting.

Posted by: heatkernel | Sep 4 2008 3:40 utc | 16

Again, I think you guys/gals are forgetting how visceral and emotionally immature the American voting public really is. Not only will she not drop out, she and grampus, with help of the GOP/Rethugs, stand a very good chance of winning.

Sorry to burst bubbles...

Anyway, so as to add a bit of sweetening to my party pooping post, lol

Just heard a great (new? new to me anyhow) song by Rickie Lee Jone Have you had enough!? the lyrics are great...yay about time Rickie, hate 'chucky e's in love'...lol

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 4 2008 4:09 utc | 17


doh!, much better version here...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 4 2008 4:31 utc | 18

16, skeptical but hopeful ?

shudder

sabine, yep.


cunning, vindictive, catty, ruthless. this is what i see. kkk mom

dos Palin is there to appeal to old white men

screen ready. stepford vp

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 4:38 utc | 19

McWarCriminal sure looks younger with Tina Fey on his arm! well played sir.

Posted by: ran | Sep 4 2008 4:52 utc | 20

anna, I think you could sum Palin up as a 'George Bush with legs'. She has that same 'What Me Worry, I'm So Proud of Myself' pentacostal exceptionalism that George Bush himself exhibits, especially when Cheney has him all deviousnessed up.

She'll fit right into Washington DC, like some 'poor white trash' version of Dan Quayle. Then when McCain croaks at 3 AM, she'll make all the pre-scripted focus-grouped satellite-sock-puppets-readied 'executive decisions'. Reverend Blue Jeans.
It is, after all, charade. She seems like a nicer person than say, Rudi Guiliani.

What would be the real tragedy though, after this whole 2000-to-2008 rollup, the 911
plotting, double-indemnity-insured-pull-it-now WTC erasure of all the SEC and IRS
records from the Great Dot.Con Neutron Bomb, the pull-back-media-feint at Tora Bora,
the mad-man deliberate-destruction-of-crude-oil-supplies in Iraq to keep prices from
dropping below production costs, refloating the crashing economy on war deficits, an uber-zero Great Credit.con Neutron Bomb "second tower" going down, and now this.

If they escape, if there are no consequences, if they're not hunted down like war criminals, then tried and summarily hung, if this is to be a NeoCon Fourth Reich,
then, enter the next Ice Age, the next Dark Ages, the Last Empire of the Pharoahs.

All bow....

Posted by: Tin Tin | Sep 4 2008 5:15 utc | 21

The entire Palin family was assembled on the tarmac to greet Mr. McCain. He hugged Governor Palin, shook hands with her husband, then hugged their pregnant 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, before turning to her boyfriend, Levi Johnston, 18, shaking his hand, patting his shoulder and rubbing his arm, then wrapping his arms around the two teenagers as if blessing their union.

All the touching was meant as a kindness — and to reassure voters that the unwed pregnancy doesn’t bother him one bit. But the scene was long and a little too pastorly, more like an absolution than a friendly photo op for the running mates’ families.

nyt

Posted by: b | Sep 4 2008 5:39 utc | 22

"and to reassure voters that the unwed pregnancy doesn’t bother him one bit."

Oh man, this just keeps getting better. Talk about keeping the children out of the politics. But there they were, up there paraded and spotlighted in front of the convention like petty criminals in a lineup. Which in a sense they were. And busted by the ma'm they were. No wonder the repugs were driven into a frenzy, it was like a posse riding back into town with the goods - and that would be one Levi Johnston and his gal, beamed up from some hormonal latchkey teen milieu (wasn't she suppose to have mono?) and on to the premier power brokers of the world stage. And the convention of course ate it up big time, because Palin comes not only with ready made accusations of improper political manipulation (a good thing for them), but just as importantly (identity politics), as an icon to cultural authoritarianism able to muscle a disfunctional family - the net effect of her policies - into some bizarro world portrait of the perfect family, where the adults have fantastic careers and NO ONE actually tends to the children, until they screw up.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 4 2008 7:07 utc | 23

Yeah, this thread was over when Palin brought those children onto the stage. You can't use children as a political prop and then insist on privacy for them.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 4 2008 7:53 utc | 24

Truly amazing, usually this kind of white trash cultural authoritarianism is kept from public view. Its obviously a last ditch effort to make it fly by bringing it into plain view. Saying in effect - see, we no longer need to hide our contradictions anymore... anna missed wrote at 6, see also 23 which i read after i wrote...

Yes, that is part of it I think, pretty unconscious. But there is another face, another side...the Palin’s family actions are 100% congruent with ‘total’ right to life (S.P. even disapproves of contraception in marriage) except for the fact that the white puffed daughter was not rushed to the altar pronto. I read that the young couple will marry just before Xmas; it is tempting to guess that the event takes place only when a live birth is a certainty..and that is in line as well, as any official ceremony has less weight than the coming infant, though its future with two ‘legal’ parents must be assured.

These ppl are sincere star posters for right-to-life. Their display of their family, plus the red-neck, kick-ass (or whatever) boyfriend is natural, prideful, self-advertisement.

Closer to your point - the fact that their family tableau, edges close to the uber-rich (with stay-at-home wife, multiple servants, private schools, and increasingly often, many children produced as breathing signs of wealth far superior to the humdrum SUV or lawned grounds) while not belonging to that class, and having, like Obama, fulfilled the American dream, of doing it on your own, with a semi-working mother, is hypnotically powerful.

As American politics is partly about family values, abortion, contraception, stem cells, sex-ed, etc., the personal positions on these issues, their application in family life thus highly relevant. Second, the right to privacy is a right one can give up in various ways, and that is what seems to be the case here.

Meanwhile, some large no. of children in America are hungry, 2 million able bodied men are in prison, 40 million plus don’t have access to proper health care, two wars are being fought, bankrupting the country, the economy is broken, infrastructure decrepit, lower education in the pits, etc. (see also alex at 9..)

June, I read that S.P. has her husband with her at many meetings where his presence was considered completely inappropriate. This is not directly a sign of the little woman needing her strong mate / his support, it is a symptom of local, personal power, Dynasty type stuff. Look to, say, Pakistan. As Sabine at 14 hints, this lady with a modern look is like a refugee from the 13th century.

Posted by: Tangerine | Sep 4 2008 14:43 utc | 25

@ heatkernel 16

counterpunch's cockburn & st clair themselves penned the lead article, "one cheer for sarah palin", in their latest print edition, taking, of course, a contrarian view & getting in a few jabs in pointing out the "lunacy" of some of the "liberal attacks on palin."

At its best, American populism is irreverent to power and never more bracing than when suggesting that one of the regular, ordinary folks could do it better. That’s the constituency in Alaska that responded to Palin and which put her in the governor’s mansion. Liberals who don’t follow Alaska politics probably don’t understand the extent of her achievement. She took down the great power in her own party, Gov. Murkowski. Only Lousiana, another oil rich state, outstrips Alaska in luxuriant corruption, and for years Alaska was run by Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski and Don Young. Palin outmaneuvered them all in four years, which took courage and cunning.

This trio was in the pockets of the oil companies, which were not happy to see them go. Palin, while an ardent supporter of drilling, has taken a more populist approach, for the first time levying a state tax on oil industry profits and returning this as rebates to Alaska residents. To put it mildly, this is unusual in American politics, and you have to go back to the Southern populists and, indeed, to Louisiana and Huey Long to find precedents.
...
We wish Obama had made the same sort of bold throw as McCain. He could have picked a populist like Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, or Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, or Clare McCaskill, the first-term senator from Missouri, or the Kansas governor, Kathleen Sebelius. Instead, he bowed to establishment pressure, nowhere more than from the Israel lobby, and picked that vizier of the permanent government, Joe Biden. “Change” and “hope” are not words one associates with Senator Joe Biden, a man so ripely symbolic of everything that is unchanging and hopeless about our political system that a computer simulation of the corporate-political paradigm senator in Congress would turn out “Biden” in a nanosecond.

Posted by: b real | Sep 4 2008 15:45 utc | 26

Cockburn & St. Clair make a good point especially regarding Obama, however a $200.00 rebate from her new tax on the oil Co's isn't necessarily a harbinger of some new kind of socialism. It does though, underline that a total reversion to 19th century agrarian family values (or as Lakoff would call it, inherited obligation social structure) in the 21st century is pure fantasy. Especially since it was unionization, in tandem with religion, that provided the security network necessary to support the transition to a mobile 20th century workforce. When Palin starts talking about re-unionization in addition to taxation on corporations, then we should take note, as I'm sure her party will.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 4 2008 16:30 utc | 27

@ anna missed,

She did, in fact, give a couple of slightly extraordinary - given the venue - shout-out to unions. You could almost feel the 'what the...?' rippling round the stadium.

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 16:49 utc | 28

But, what about Bridget?

Posted by: beq | Sep 4 2008 16:58 utc | 29

@ beq

Wonders will never cease. Apparently I DO have something in common with McCain...

In this, and this context only, Good for him.

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 17:04 utc | 30

Tantalus,

perhaps you did not know about this,

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 4 2008 17:46 utc | 31

20m Good for him

will he bring his family up on stage and introduce his family?

what's scarier for the gop? palin's daughter or mcCain's?

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 17:52 utc | 32

Dan, no I didn't. Echh, what a cess-pool. Like I said, I can't help liking McCain just a tiny bit now.

Just a tiny bit, mind.

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 17:56 utc | 33

I think you have misinterpreted June's intent. It was somewhat tongue in cheek. The operative word in June's statement was "superficially." Uncle $cam seems to comprehend. It's what "they" think, feel and react to, not what you think and feel. Sure, we all know she doesn't sincerely represent women's rights and the progress women have made, but that's us, not "them." "They" think she does. And let's face it, 60 years ago neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats would have ever conceived to put a woman on the ballot and have expected to win.

I will say this, her speech last night has really charged up the disenchanted, and they are now going to vote for McCain. I have several anecdotal examples already, and I expect many more. My mother-in-law wasn't going to vote because she thought the Republicans had nothing to offer and she would never vote for Obama because he's black and a muslim (her views). After watching the speech, she's now all pumped up and she's going to vote for McCain. She hasn't felt this pumped up since Ronald Reagan.

Any criticism of Palin from here on out will be seen as whining by the Washington Establishment. This was a Hail Mary pass by McCain and his handlers and it's been successfully caught at the 20 yard line and there's no one between the ball carrier and the end zone.

Posted by: Ward | Sep 4 2008 19:14 utc | 34

contrary to the image cockburn & st clair paint of palin's populism in their piece i cite in my #26 above, specifically where they write

Liberals who don’t follow Alaska politics probably don’t understand the extent of her achievement. She took down the great power in her own party, Gov. Murkowski. Only Lousiana, another oil rich state, outstrips Alaska in luxuriant corruption, and for years Alaska was run by Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski and Don Young. Palin outmaneuvered them all in four years, which took courage and cunning.

here's an exchange from an interview amy goodman did w/ a radio talk show host from anchorage this morning on the program democracy now

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about indictments and her relationship. It has been portrayed nationally here as one where she was critical of her own party, broke ranks with Ted Stevens, the senator, his congressman son, Don Young. Then it turned out she was head of a 527 committee for Ted Stevens. Shannyn, can you explain?

SHANNYN MOORE: I can, but I will tell you that I completely attribute her winning the election to two things. One was that Frank Murkowski was absolutely a miserable governor and went from being, you know, elected several times as a senator to being elected as governor and then losing in the primary to Sarah Palin. He only got 19 percent of the vote as an incumbent who had served Alaska for, you know, many decades. That was part of his sort of—his sort of charm, let’s just say, that wore off. He bought a jet that, you know, the legislature had told him not to. He went ahead and did it anyway. And that was mentioned last night in Sarah’s speech, that she put it on eBay. And I would say that the state lost $600,000, I believe was the amount by the time that was done. It didn’t sell on eBay, by the way. She did list it.

And the other thing was, Ted Stevens swooped in in the last several days of the election, like the very crucial time, and said, “I’m not going to be able to open ANWR if Sarah Palin isn’t governor,” and did all these ad campaigns, just this media blitz of Ted Stevens in the last couple days. Ted Stevens helped her secure her election, very much so, and said, “You know, I’ve worked with Sarah before, and I need her in Juneau to help me in Washington to open ANWR.” And that is the carrot for so many people here. But she did in 2003 work in a 527 group that raised, you know, huge funds from corporate donors for Ted Stevens, and it was called the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service Inc., which is remarkable now looking at his seven indictments. But she served as one of three directors under his—under this sort of flag of collecting money from corporate interests.

this 'maverick' image of both mcpain & mcpalin is manufactured for the gulllible, all part of the show

Posted by: b real | Sep 4 2008 20:33 utc | 35

ward. her speech last night has really charged up the disenchanted, and they are now going to vote for McCain.

do you have any statistics or links or anything or is this just your opinion?

Any criticism of Palin from here on out will be seen as whining by the Washington Establishment.

ha ha ha. because i have heard many in the washington establishment dishing her. the right wing loves using the word whine. what's your excuse. wthell is that supposed to mean anyway? any criticism of her??? what, we are supposed to be kowtowed into sheep. get a life.

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 21:26 utc | 36

what, we are supposed to be kowtowed into sheep.

You could try ignoring her. She's bait. Some have said she is red meat for the GOP faithful, I say she appears to be red meat for the Democratic Party faithful, as well. It's time to be a vegan, Annie, not a pitbull with lipstick.

Posted by: Beaver | Sep 5 2008 0:54 utc | 37

Ward is right about this much, that "Sure, we all know she doesn't sincerely represent women's rights and the progress women have made, but that's us, not "them." "They" think she does."
Aside from the fact that republicans are quite comfortable living a life of contradiction and hypocrisy, they manage to use it to their advantage in literally every policy by making it appear to benefit everyone. No matter that Sarah Palin's potential in this world was formed at the expense of a million liberal feminists. Because Sarah Palin would have us believe she did it all by herself inspired by the magic of republicanism and religion. Its the same trick she used parading her kids and shotgun boy in front of the convention as a confirmation of family values, in creating herself as a republican icon. She doesn't have to explain anything (as if she could or would) because the proof of her magnificence is in the simple fact that there she is up on that stage, like some innocent goddess of American goodness.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 5 2008 0:59 utc | 38

Of course nobody believes all that, especially the republicans. Anybody paying any attention to this knows full well what she represents; creating a dream state docility and ignorance out of raw authoritarian power.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 5 2008 1:09 utc | 39

annie, i have a bet on the elections (0.50$) with my inner angel and devil.

angel sabine: Obama wins, and i will get to enjoy the sight of his paternal grandma's in DC.

devil sabine: St. Paul happens everywhere (incitement to riot anyone??? latly??), martial law will be declared, Bush declares McWon't as successor and the Hand Maid Tale begins.(Palin as had of the Office of virtue)

At the moment my inner devil feels like she won.

s

Posted by: sabine | Sep 5 2008 1:16 utc | 40

anna missed She doesn't have to explain anything (as if she could or would)

lol, time magazine reports No Questions, Please. We'll Tell You What You Need To Know.

According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.

It's important to them to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn't controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. As far as Wallace is concerned, it's none of their -- or your -- business.


It's time to be a vegan, Annie, not a pitbull with lipstick.

i'm neither a dog, a beaver, or a party faithful so excuse me for ignoring your advise.

sabine, it would have to be a landslide to beat diebold, i think your instincts are intact.

(Palin as head of the Office of virtue)

or the office of cheney?


Posted by: annie | Sep 5 2008 7:13 utc | 41

The comments to this entry are closed.