July 3, 2009
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
July 3, 2009, 5:39 pm
Filed under: haiku, rachel's post | Tags: Alaska governor, haiku, Republican, resignation, Sarah Palin
Filed under: haiku, rachel's post | Tags: Alaska governor, haiku, Republican, resignation, Sarah Palin
Palin resigns – what?
Rambling explanation plays
up victim status.
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Or… here’s another way to look at Palin… http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/#comments
Comment by Alison July 6, 2009 @ 10:56 amI looked at that post, Alison, and I have to say I don’t agree. To me, Palin is that dangerous combination of someone who is willfully ignorant and arrogant. Gender gets all bolloxed up in this, which is too bad, because I think it takes away from the debate on what we should expect from our state and national leaders.
Comment by rachelbirds July 7, 2009 @ 7:10 amYou don’t mind that she has been slandered, over and over again? I doubt people no who the real Palin is.
Comment by Alison July 7, 2009 @ 2:20 pmI don’t advocate slander at all (ask Hillary Clinton how she’s felt all these years) but I do believe that when you put yourself in the public eye — willingly put yourself there like she did — then you’re going to get hammered. I listen to the horrible things that were said about Obama during the election and that stuff just makes me cringe. But Obama steeled himself for the crap and was very no-nonsense about saying what was what. Palin, because of her inflammatory and hatefulled rhetoric and willful ignorance actually brought a ton of scrutiny and innuendo crashing down on her head. When you are a public servant and particularly when you’re running for office, you’re inviting scrutiny and criticism — that’s just the way it works. That stuff is not gender-based.
Comment by rachelbirds July 7, 2009 @ 2:27 pmFunny, whenever I speak about Palin people automatically assume that I voted for her and that I’m a Republican. I voted for Hillary and 3rd party during the election.
At any rate I don’t want to get into a pissing war about who had it worse, Obama or Palin. I think Obama had some cruel tactics of his own that surpass anything that Palin did, but that is really irrelevant in this discussion.
But let me ask you this question – if it’s not gender-based than why did many news outlets and 3rd wave feminist blogs and organizations slander Palin by saying that she supports abstinence-only education? Is it because it was fun to make fun of the mother of a pregnant teen? That’s what I think. If it’s not gender-based it would have made more sense to go after McCain who IS actually abstinence-only in his position.
Comment by Alison July 7, 2009 @ 4:41 pmWell, as I recall, Palin wanted it both ways — sometimes it was abstinence only and other times it wasn’t. She is a good political creature. I don’t think it’s slander if someone is just catching her on her inconsistencies. Anyway, all I can really speak to is my reaction to her which is not gender-based. She puts herself out there and she gives it and then takes it up to a point and then she gets very defensive. That’s a problem in style. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to behave like a big dog.
Comment by rachelbirds July 7, 2009 @ 10:05 pmThat’s not true. Palin has never stated an abstinence-only position. During the interview that you are most likely referring to (which was before the election) she stated that she supported abstinence education and is against explicit education. In follow-up interviews (some before the election and some during the election) she states the same position over and over again: that she supports comprehensive sex education and finds condom education benign.
Comprehensive sex education is basically abstinence education + contraception education. Most Americans support this position. Explicit sex education is explicit and may consist of teaching middle school aged children how to put a condom on plaster penis or encourage students to talk about their sex lives. Most Americans are against this. Abstinence-only is just that – abstinence only.
When I read Palin’s interview I went ahead and researched the sex education terminology so that I could understand her position more clearly. Why was this so hard for journalists to do? And why did 3rd wave feminist organizations perpetuate this slander against Palin when they knew better? And again, why didn’t they go after McCain, who truly is abstinenc-only?
I think it’s obvious that they wanted to humilate her, particularly as the mother of a pregnant teen. And I find this tactic outrageous – classist, sexist and entirely shameful. It would be akin to the media slandering Obama over and over against something racially sensitive such as, oh, budget cuts for inner city African American children. And then NAACP and Al Sharpton jumping in to spread this lie to everyone in the African American community.
When I defend Palin I am not asking anyone to like her. There are plenty of real things to talk about such as her position on abortion or her refusal to support the Lilly Ledbetter act. But when the media and special interests groups attack her on such dishonest, sexist and classist terms – I cannot accept that this is just a part of “playing with the big dogs” as I know we would not be saying the same thing if a parallel scenario had happened to Obama. We would be speaking out against this.
Comment by Alison July 8, 2009 @ 12:43 pmWell, I’ll leave you with this — Palin’s own words from the Governor’s website: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
And if you think this is the stuff that presidents are made of then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Comment by rachelbirds July 8, 2009 @ 1:11 pmI don’t understand your point with the link. And I never said that Palin was “the stuff that presidents are made of.” Please reread what I wrote in regard to why I respond to slander and hysteria in regard to Palin.
Comment by Alison July 8, 2009 @ 4:23 pmThis brings me to an idea:…
Comment by Kostenlos Filme Downloaden July 18, 2009 @ 9:33 pm