[Editor's Note: Pointless rambling and foul language ahead. You've been forewarned.]
Seriously, could you imagine anyone, and I do mean anyone else getting away with this sorta bullsh*t?!?
Man, I tell ya'. The levels of rank incompetence never cease to amaze me with this woman. I hate saying this kinda stuff, but Sarah Palin just officially made my list of People I Strongly Dislike.
Enough with the victim narrative already. There's no freakin' way a person of color, or for that matter, even a white guy could get away with being so unprepared, unqualified, and so damn hokey. Not even George Bush was given this much rope. Seriously. At least he was the Governor of a Texas. There's more people in Austin than Palin's entire state.
Can we just call a spade a spade? Sarah Palin is the greatest recipient of affirmative action to ever walk the Earth. Evar.[1]
The other night, I was doing neighborhood watch with a neighbor of mine, and the topic of Palin somehow came up. My neighbor (who was a Clinton supporter that's on board with Obama) said that everytime she sees Palin on TeeVee, she sorta feels embarrassed to be a white woman. I guess this makes Palin the white female equivalent of Flavor Flav.
Tell em' Diddy!
I know those who support the GOP (at least those who comment here) are Ryde Or Die, and can never admit that McCain may have made a mistake, but I wonder, deep down inside if these folks seriously think this woman is qualified to run the country. Seriously.
I understand the quips on Obama's lack of experience. They are legitimate, especially in comparison to McCain's time in office. Still, even if they disagreed with his views, nobody would even remotely consider Obama dumb. Smart people can learn on the job. Dumb people never should have the job in the first place.
I'll let you guess which one Palin is.
Question: Would a Black or Latino woman with Palin's "qualifications" be allowed to even run a Dairy Queen, let alone a country?
[1] I apologize in advance for any white female reader who takes this the wrong way. I hope you understand the intent.
Friday, October 3, 2008
People I Strongly Dislike: Sarah Palin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
35 AverageComments™:
Really, that among other interviews along with the debate just sealed it.
EPIC FAIL!
She's a fool, end of discussion!
Hell -ta-da -naw a Black or Latino would have been laughed out of town and not even given the time of day.
AB: "[1] I apologize in advance for any white female reader who takes this the wrong way. I hope you understand the intent."
No offense taken, here. Now that I'm done falling over laughing at the Flavor Flav analogy, all I have time to say is: AMEN.
They couldn't even run the local toll booth.
She sucks. I really tried to hear her, but every time I did, I could feel my IQ dropping. No thanks to that!
Now, you KNOW an African American or a Latino female wouldn't have even been considered. One "Goshdarnitnow" and she wouldn't been OUT!
She's a buffoon. Pretty to look at, but yeah. That's it. She should stick to being a hockey mom from Alaska. :-) Everyone has something that they are good at (even if it's undiscovered). Sarah Failin being a politician is scary. I don't even want to entertain the thought of her actually having any kind of real power. *shivering*
Tell me when did being folksy/hokey become criteria for VP? "Gosh, darn it!"
And the slam against 'easy coast politicians'-WTF?
Biden did better than I could have I wanted to scream @ her this is a debate for an important office, not PTA VP!
And one more mention of her God damned 'diverse' family...you mean the white people? Doesn't look like her 'dude' is eager to showcase his diverse Eskimo heritage.
If McCain/Palin win, not only will we lose world credibility-and the nation will be in deeper shit! The possibility of her running our country is scary!
Oops! I meant east coast...
I guess you guys are the demographic that prefers a slick sounding liar to a plainspoken honest person.
Maybe I'm being too harsh... it's probably that you're all just as partisan as you accuse me of being.
The person to which you refer speaks neither plainly nor honestly. If a white woman stands up there and drops the -g off a word and says "yer," why, that's appealing and "folksy." Is that the way you describe the black and brown people you overhear during your morning subway commute or on the evening news? (Clearly, this is rhetorical. Don't both answering.)
As for honesty, if Palin were intellectually honest enough with *herself* she would know when she's out of her league. I can't expect her to be honest with me until she clears her first hurdle.
Fact is, I don't need a leader who:
(a) can't name a major newspaper that she reads to stay informed on the world,
(b) can't name a Supreme Court case with which she disagrees,
(c) misreads the Constitution to give expansive powers to the vice president,
(d) apparently still doesn't know what the vice president does (see c)
(e) lies to her Alaskan constituents and the entire nation about the fact that her "son" is really her grandson,
(f) goes to her one and only debate and flatly tells the moderator and her challenger that she won't be answering any questions not on her script,
(g)tries to convince the citizenry that it's okay to be uninformed and to lack a basic curiosity about foreign and domestic affairs,
and yet
(h) will put her life on hold for three days at a secluded spot so she can cram enough facts to dupe the American public into believing that this woman actually has a clue.
We've all been students before. You know what's it's like to not have done your homework allll semester long, but then to burn the midnight oil trying to prepare for a tough final. You cram a bunch of facts and figures, go take the test and spit out everything you know, and you hope and pray that you've done well enough to pass. Even if you do pass, we've all had the feeling of looking at that same exam a week, a month, or a year later and thinking -- I don't even remember writing that. You know how you could be asked that same question down the road and not have the foggiest idea where to begin? I think Palin's performance last night is a bit like that. Put her in a real crisis and she doesn't know the first thing about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, health care reform, education policy, etc. She would need another three-day session to move beyond platitudes and "betcha-by-golly"-type schtick just to be competent enough to talk to the media.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say -- Palin is a sham. She can't plainly level with us because she's just hoping we don't find out that the emperor has no clothes. She can't be honest with us because she's too busy trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Well, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.
Politics...
They all lie @ one point or another. Some lies of course create a bigger web of deceit.
Perhaps Palin is a great person/wife/mom/governor- but she has shown little to indicate that she is capable of being VP or that she takes her nomination seriously.
If anything, she may be setting some of us women back a few years-(screw prior attempts of women to be taken seriously for their knowledge, skills and intelligence. Let's just listen to a pretty folksy face!)
This may be like a game to some, but win or lose the stakes are very high, and just because you give your all for the sake of hockey and you consider yourself a pit bull with lipstick, doesn't mean anything @ all in the end.
Definitely no measure of your abilities to lead the nation if necessary.
I wonder why is it that Repubs refuse to see that this woman was not the right choice? Now I admite that I did not watch the entire debate all the way through. I was turning back and forth between another channel. But I did catch the part where she told everyone she was not going to answer the question that was asked of her, she was going to use plainspeak or whatever the hell she said last night. WTF? Even though I hated the class(I have stage fright) I paid attention in public speaking and the part about debates. In a debate you answer questions on a specific subject and you expand on those answers with facts and/or opinions. Why on God's green earth would you say that you are NOT going to answer a question that was directed to you? Especially after you didn't answer it in the first damn place?!?! I guess I'll never understand. I'm the first one to tell the world I don't like polotics nor do I claim to understand it like others do. But I know that there had to have been another Senator who was a better choice than she.
again I say... where is the outrage at obvious falsehood from the Democrat? Apparently, as long as someone is articulate and answers the question, the fact that he answered with made-up nonsense isn't relevant.
@anonymous:
with your point (e) you invalidated your whole post. Thanks for saving me the effort.
Falsehoods and stretchy-truth suspenders held up some of the claims on both sides. At least I'm "fair" enough to say that.
To claim that Dems were the only ones to distort the truth in the debate is not only partisan, but does not square with the facts.
Blacks, Latinos, and others are held to a higher standard.
If standards are lowered for blacks, they blame it on affirmative action; if they're lowered for whites, it's because they have a certain feminine or masculine attraction.
AB, you know full well the answer to that question. If it were a black woman she'd be ridiculed for speaking ebonics, and if it were a hispanic woman she'd be taunted for not having mastered english.
See, here's the thing...She's ignorant. No way to spin it. It's not "folksy, plain speak"--it's ignorance. The worst thing is she's so ignorant, she doesn't realize she's ignorant. Hence, her going on FOX and saying Katie Couric "annoyed" her. Ya, by golly, you betcha--it's Katie's fault she couldn't intelligently respond to questions she should have had answers for.
---------------------------
In a portion of her sit-down with Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron, Palin claimed that Couric's questions -- which produced a series of staggeringly embarrassing responses -- put her in a lose-lose position.
"The Sarah Palin in those interviews was a little bit annoyed," she said. "It's like, man, no matter what you say, you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question, you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."
For the record, Couric asked her, among other things, what type of news sources she turns to for information, which Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with, why Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience, her opinion of the bailout package for Wall Street, and where she thought Vice President Dick Cheney erred. Which one of those questions was designed to trip her up (as opposed to, say, give viewers a better sense of her character and views) is tough to ascertain.
"In those Katie Couric interviews, I did feel that there were lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars. Some of his comments that he's made about the war, that I think may, in my world, disqualify someone from consideration as the next commander in chief. ... I want to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that's also an indication of being outside the Washington elite, outside of the media elite also. I just wanted to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."
--------------------------------
IS SHE F'IN SERIOUS? Is she seriously trying to say Katie didn't give her an opportunity to talk about those things? She was given exactly what she wanted, and she blew it! Did she actually say she wanted to talk to Americans without the filter? Those interviews with Couric were as unfiltered as you can get. What was filtered were her memorized responses during the VP debate! She really wanted to speak on what disqualifies someone from being a candidate for Commander-in-Chief? That is laughable at best! Now, I'm no big Katie Couric fan, but I'm flabbergasted @ Palin (6 years to get a journalism degree only to become a sub-par at best local sports reporter) inferring Couric (proven, seasoned journalist, nightly national news anchor)missed an "opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are represented in our ticket". WTF? Isn't that just what Katie did? What does it say about Palin that she wasn't able to effectively use the platform she was given in those interviews to do just that? (In her folksy, plain-speak manner, of course.) I mean, she was interviewed more than once--she had "opportunities" to correct course, and she didn't! In the end, She had to have McCain there holding her hand, and correcting her mistakes. Thanks, but no thanks Sarah, I'd like a VP who can hold their own.
--------------------------
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
------------------------------
She wasn't adroit enough to think on her feet and actually give examples of McCain's "foresight, pragmatism, and leadership abilities". And yet, many GOP pundits are still trying to spin this chick as a Mensa member.(A down-home, folksy, plain-speak, PTA/hockey mom Mensa member. LOL!) As Don King would say, "only in America". (And yes, Spool, I know Don King is a republican. As an ex-con, current con, shifty, shady, crooked opportunistic hustler-what else could he be?)
@ebw:
Other job openings recently filled by people with that description: Obama economic advisor, Senate Finance Committee Chair
@spool32
You're right we're partisan. Both of our partisan strongholds don't always allow us to see the truth.
There's our side, your side and the truth is out there somewhere.
What would you do if Obama wins--seriously?
@ Spool, point taken. Even the Nation (which is as left as it gets) has called Baucus K Street's favorite Dem. But we aren't talking about those positions, are we? and my post wasn't really about Don King, was it?
But since you mention Dems and the economy, here's an article for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1223143770-7z04jh3hxVUgxXjumWI9rw
To quote the article: "Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans".
How bout' that?
Here's another article:http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m9d18-Democrats-manage-the-economy-better-than-Republicans
And another:http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/
Have a good day!
Love, ebw :)
Spool (& black dispora):
While you address the very point that makes me want to shoot myself repeatedly with an elephant gun---that is, the fact that people's partisan loyalties often blind them to things they don't want to hear---the gaffes or misstatements of the Democratic schlubs are just not in the same league as those of their rightie counterparts, because the Republican candidates are molded from, and supported by, political machinery that thrives on ignorance disguised as "authenticity." This is not my opinion, it is fact.
Just ask many heartland conservatives who voted for Bush both times. As we know, many will speak bitterly about those "coastal elites", cozying up in an anti-intellectual safe place where they don't have to venture out and be threatened by what they don't understand.
Even when Bush was running the first time, people actually admitted that their expectations for him were lower, and celebrated his "getting through" the debates. Just like Palin today.
It is not my OPINION that many culture war conservatives care more about their leaders representing their embittered backlash mentality against phantom enemies, than they do about their leaders being in command of facts and policy. It is a FACT that has been demonstrated time and time again, and is playing out right now as we speak.
You can't PRETEND that Palin has the same command of things as Biden. You can't PRETEND that Obama, thin as his resume is, is on her same level (or below!!) To do so isn't a "point of view", it's being fundamentally dishonest with oneself.
You can debate policy. You can debate interpretations of the law. You can debate military strategy, the implications of intelligence, economic policy, budget planning, etc. etc. while remaining honest with yourself and others, but you can't equate someone whose only fuel is faux-folksy charm and a good cramming ability with someone who can think and interpret policy for him/herself, or who can think quickly on his/her feet and devise solutions based on their own understanding of things.
The meter is this: if you wouldn't in your LIFE or your JOB, but you're doing it in politics, you're being dishonest. That's the barometer.
both sides make good points,
however i have to dispute the articles ebw sent regarding the economy.
regarding the past 28+ years, many economist understand the fact that even in an eight year tenure, it is too short of a time for any president (if serving 2 terms) to effectively make a huge difference in the economy. it is usually after they leave that the results (positive or negative) are seen. so in the case of the Clinton years, Clinton actually kept a LOT of the Reagan economic policies which accounted for a good portion of the "surplus" and "good economic times" seen under the Clinton administration.
so while that article may be factually correct, it doesn't address what policies were intact when those democrat and republican presidents were in office. it is also unfair the just look at the time when each party was in office for the reason i mention earlier regarding the time it takes for economic policies to show if they actually work or not. Reagan came in with a shoddy economy from the Carter years and had to turn it around. Clinton, (not trying to take credit away) came in riding some of the coat-tails of the Reagan policies.
besides dang near all of those article you pointed out were written by either Democrat supporters or Obama supporters, so they are going to make it look good for Democrats without telling the entire story.
@marbles: I cosign:
"You can't PRETEND that Palin has the same command of things as Biden."
No, you can't!
Dok said... "Reagan came in with a shoddy economy from the Carter years and had to turn it around. Clinton, (not trying to take credit away) came in riding some of the coat-tails of the Reagan policies."
I'm not an economic historian, but one thing I can be fairly sure of: Bush's economic legacy will not speak too kindly of him.
If what you say is true--Reagan repaired the Carter years, and passed the results of his sound economic policies to Clinton, and Clinton continued Reagan's policies, and left a balanced budget, and a surplus for W.--then W. got a whole lot of explaining to do.
The national debt I'm told now stands at $10 trillion. What was it when W. took over the reins?
What Marbles said!
@black,
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.
You are right, W does have some 'splainin to do. Unfortunately, he won't do it, b/c we all know the answers. Despite how anyone tries to spin it, the numbers don't lie.
Black Disporia,
i don't know the specifics of the debt when Bush took over and I actually agree that his economic legacy may not look too well seeing what is going on right now. although a plus side is how the stock market was at one point over 14,000 which didn't get that much recognition in the media.
I was speaking more in generalities regarding those articles ebw sent that didn't quite tell the whole story.
@ebw,
That is why the best advice i ever heard was to always hope for a president of Party 'A' and a congress of Party 'B'. that way they can keep each other in check, because if one party is controlling everything that deficit will skyrocket.
As a conservative who is not enamored or Palin: You overstate your case, and therefore weaken it. A Dairy Queen? C'mon. She did a perfectly adequate job as the mayor of a mid-sized town. She's been Governor of Alaska for two years, and hasn't managed to bankrupt it yet.
I hope you believe that people can grrow in office, because if the polls are right, we're about to get a President who never ran anything larger than the Harvard Law Review.
okay - I'm going there - let's talk about white privilege: Sarah Palin. How in the world would a black or Latina or Asian be allowed to become nominated as VP w/ SP credentials. Wouldn't happen. All you white posters just own up to that FACT and move on . Let's consider Mr. Obama - 1/2 black and that part is from Kenya. 1/2 white - raised with and by white folks - so he understand your "culture." Mr. Obama has degree(S) from IVY LEAGUE universities (by white folks standards - Ivy League is the best.)And he is somehow unqualified, whereas a white person with 1 degree which took 6 years - is given a pass to 'learn on the job.' Lets review: 2 degrees from Ivy League institutions; law professor, v. 1 degree (6 yr plan) state university; mayor of a town w/ less people than a Big 10 university. I see the hypocrisy of allowing her the opportunity to 'learn on the job' and he 'not being ready to lead.'
Question for all the Palin-haters (disclaimer, I am not a fan of hers either):
what is with all the attacks on her regarding her being a mayor of a small town, being the governor of the 47th largest state, and the fact that she went to multiple colleges? of all the problems that one could point out, are these things really something to get upset about?
to me this is no better than republicans "criticizing" Obama about being "just a community organizer". do we suddenly disqualify anyone that is the governor of a state that has a lower population than a million? if you go to more than one college you are no longer qualified.
i'm sorry, out of all the arguments that could be made as to why she shouldn't be VP, those two arguments seem petty. i would expect anyone who got upset at the republican's "just a community organizer" critique of Obama, not to stoop to the level of not liking somebody just because they weren't the governor of a state with 3 million+ people.
just a thought.
@ jim-O
What exactly is your definition of "running something"? If you mean being an executive, then Palin is the most qualified of all candidates. Let's not forget, McCain's been a career Congressman and senator. Please don't try and use his time as a PoW to justify the fact that he "ran something". We know better.
Then again, I'm pretty sure this isn't what you meant. Is it?
@ dok
The "attacks" are quite simply indicative of my overall feeling that Palin isn't qualified. Many make light of Obama's education, saying this makes him "elitist". So somehow Palin's comparative lack of education makes her "down to Earth" and thus more relatable? That doesn't add up.
I'm not saying it takes a genius to be Prez. Bush is proof of this. But at this juncture in time, do we want someone who failed out of 5 colleges and a guy who finished 5th from the bottom of his graduating class? I think not.
Presidents should be "better" than us, not like us. They should be smarter, they should be better travelled, they should be more knowledgable.
If I want to grab a beer, I'll call a friend. If I want someone to run the country, beers are nowhere in the equation.
@AB,
i somewhat feel your argument, but i still feel the "small town/state mayor/governor" argument is a bit petty and is no better than some of the republican attacks on Obama.
and as far as McCain goes, some of the best businessmen have "failed" out of college or graduated at the bottom of their class only to become some of the best "leaders" (that is what we are looking for right). although the general public hasn't adopted this ideal, graduating from an Ivy League school doesn't automatically mean you are the best person to run the country.
i am more worried about your ideas and execution than I am about where you graduated from. if we continue to think that only Ivy League people that graduated with a 3.0 are worthy of being president we are in a mess of trouble.
if she did fail out of those schools (as opposed to transferring) that does speak to her character. BUT the people of Alaska seem to think she is smart enough to lead them and she has done some good.
like i said though, there is PLENTY of things to attack her for. the number of her constituents and her IQ i don't feel is one of them. let's not forget that Kerry was a "C" student as well.
I can take being petty to a new low- her damn voice is so annoying that I don't think I could vote for her.I don't want to have to listen to her over and over again. She reminds me of the 'Target' lady on SNL. And for many people still in limbo- it may come down to preferences not policies.
Something as basic as an annoying pitch.
Dok: I agree with you that those two talking points are rather petty and don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. (It may have been a small town and it may be a small state population-wise, but still being a mayor and governor is nothing to sneeze at. Then again, Bush was governor of the much-larger Texas, and look what kind of executive HE made...)
For me, it's the plain-as-pie, in your face obviousness that she is in over her head here, that nothing in her education, aspirational history or career has prepared her for the vice presidency. But even more, it's her undeniable shallowness. She's no Bush (thank the gods), but she seems to still be cut from that same cloth of incuriosity and simplistic thinking.
We cannot afford that anymore (as if we ever could in the first place). ESPECIALLY at such an urgently critical time.
Cinco:
Re: Palin's voice---
I am not the first person to say this, but did anybody here ever watch "Bobby's World" as a kid? ;)
@marbles
I definitely understand that point of view.
Question: Would a Black or Latino woman with Palin's "qualifications" be allowed to even run a Dairy Queen, let alone a country?
Absolutely. And if you criticized them in the slightest way (especially if it was valid criticism) you are a woman hating racist. A few days later Al Sharpton will march from point A to point B and see what happens. You know how this works.
Post a Comment