CSNbbs

I took this from an article by Camile Paglia.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/

Obama surfs through

The Obamas are a warm vision for the White House -- but he should strive toward full transparency. Plus: Yes, I still like Sarah Palin!

By Camille Paglia
..."How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin's. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.

The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is." ...

Maybe Mrs. Palin could relocae to the northwest..........like maybe New hampshire.

She will be fine, who knows, she may find herself on a ticket again some day.

beck Wrote:Maybe Mrs. Palin could relocae to the northwest..........like maybe New hampshire.

She will be fine, who knows, she may find herself on a ticket again some day.

Or perhaps one of the other 57 states?

Paglia is usually a worthwhile read - including this one.

I still can't help but laugh when someone says "Palin was so unqualified".... And it is always someone who voted for Obama.

I still can't find the logic in that one... Being against a ticket because you feel that the VP candidate lacks experience for the position, while supporting a ticket where the candidate for the presidency has less experience than the VP candidate that you oppose due to a percieved lack of experience...

To borrow a phrase.. that dog don't hunt...

But in the end, I am not too broken up about McCain losing. I was never so much of a McCain supporter as I was an Obama opposer.

It was 1996 replayed all over again a'la Bob Dole.

I think a Mccain presidency would have done more to damage the conservative movement than what the Obama presidency will. Most likely the Obama presidency will help the conservative movement.

People thought Palin was unqualified because they listened to her try to talk about foreign policy without knowing things like what the Bush Doctrine is, or saying the vice president is in charge of the senate and can get in their and make policy. They saw her interview with Katie Couric where she dodged question after question with no kind of meaningful response. It wasn't just that she was 2 years removed from being mayor of a town smaller than my home town of Loveland, Ohio or that she had only been governor for two years. Americans will accept that kind of thing if you demonstrate an understanding of national issues. Palin gave no demonstration of that understanding.

The American people were satisfied with Obama and how his understanding of national issues. Americans probably knew little about the time he served as a state representative in a fairly diverse, populated state. They knew more about his 4 years as a United States senator, but they didn't vote on his experience because of that. They voted because he would answer questions and show a keen understanding of the world and the problems we faced. Americans will accept someone fresh and a Washington outsider, but they have to show competance.

bearcatmark Wrote:People thought Palin was unqualified because they listened to her try to talk about foreign policy without knowing things like what the Bush Doctrine is, or saying the vice president is in charge of the senate and can get in their and make policy. They saw her interview with Katie Couric where she dodged question after question with no kind of meaningful response. It wasn't just that she was 2 years removed from being mayor of a town smaller than my home town of Loveland, Ohio or that she had only been governor for two years. Americans will accept that kind of thing if you demonstrate an understanding of national issues. Palin gave no demonstration of that understanding.

The American people were satisfied with Obama and how his understanding of national issues. Americans probably knew little about the time he served as a state representative in a fairly diverse, populated state. They knew more about his 4 years as a United States senator, but they didn't vote on his experience because of that. They voted because he would answer questions and show a keen understanding of the world and the problems we faced. Americans will accept someone fresh and a Washington outsider, but they have to show competance.

The entire term "Bush Doctrine" is a creation of the media, and even it has had several different iterations of it. So that was a contrived question to begin with. To bring that up as a point shows either ignorance of the topic, or a bias that allows you to accept it as presented by Couric precisely because you wanted a 'gotcha' moment against a candiate that you were againts.

You bring up her 'interview' with Katie Couric, then mentin how Obama 'answered questions'. Palin was much more accessable to the media then either Obama or Biden, FACT. There was no 'answering of questions' by either Obama or Biden. Don't kid yourself. There were only instances of being given the opportunity to read from th script. Obama's scripted news conference last Friday was his first news conference in many many months.

His entire known experience as a Senator consisted of campaigning for the presidency.

Look, he is the president-elect now. So it is a moot point. But it is ridiculous for anyone to criticize Palin for a lack of experience while simultaneously supporting Obama. One can do it, but it points more to a partisan mindset than it does to a free-thinking rationalizing individual.

Obviously 4yrs from now Obama's experience will not be an issue, for better or for worse.

Good points namrag and well said. One correction is the Bush Doctrine question came from Gibson not Couric. Yes it was an attempted "gotcha" question and if one really understand all the variations known as the Bush Doctrine it is Gibson who is grossly misinformed.

Also, with regard to mark's other criticism of her understanding of the VP's role in the Senate, at most she is guilty of not using the best words in response to a question meant to be answered to grade schoolers. The V.P. is PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE who can preside over the floor debate on the Senate. So yeah she probably should have said that rather than "in charge" to make it absolutely clear to the 3rd graders.

mark further criticizes her for saying she "can get in there and make policy". Actually the full quote is this:

Quote:A vice president has a really great job because not only are they there to support the president's agenda, they're there like the team member, the teammate to the president," Palin continued. “But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job

Now you might think the idea of a V.P. working with Congress as she describes to enact legislation is nonsense. But if you do, surely you would say the same thing of Joe Biden's thoughts on the matter because he pretty much says the same thing:

Quote:And so I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama's policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it. And it's presumptuous to say, but I know it pretty well.

mark's theory sounds good, but his facts again need more work as the bias shows through.

Bearhawkeye Wrote:Good points namrag and well said. One correction is the Bush Doctrine question came from Gibson not Couric. Yes it was an attempted "gotcha" question and if one really understand all the variations known as the Bush Doctrine it is Gibson who is grossly misinformed.

Also, with regard to mark's other criticism of her understanding of the VP's role in the Senate, at most she is guilty of not using the best words in response to a question meant to be answered to grade schoolers. The V.P. is PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE who can preside over the floor debate on the Senate. So yeah she probably should have said that rather than "in charge" to make it absolutely clear to the 3rd graders.

mark further criticizes her for saying she "can get in there and make policy". Actually the full quote is this:

Quote:A vice president has a really great job because not only are they there to support the president's agenda, they're there like the team member, the teammate to the president," Palin continued. “But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job

Now you might think the idea of a V.P. working with Congress as she describes to enact legislation is nonsense. But if you do, surely you would say the same thing of Joe Biden's thoughts on the matter because he pretty much says the same thing:

Quote:And so I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama's policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it. And it's presumptuous to say, but I know it pretty well.

mark's theory sounds good, but his facts again need more work as the bias shows through.

I think Biden's pretty much an idiot, but to be fair, he and Palin don't seem to be saying the same thing in those quotes. Biden's not saying in that quotation that as the president of the Senate he will get Obama's agenda passed through. He's saying he's going to try to help get the agenda through the Senate because he's knows the ins and outs and the players of the Senate, having been there for 30 years and "knows it pretty well." Palin seems in that quote to think that her position as president of the senate would give her the opportunity to act as a legislator. Perhaps she was just inartful in expressing the same thing Biden was saying, I don't know. But Biden doesn't intimate that he'll be getting Obama's policies turned into law because he's the president of the senate.

levydl,

I don't understand which words you are using to make such a clear distinction between their intents. Palin never says she's a legislator (though that wouldn't be entirely false because the V.P. does vote to break ties) - she talks about "getting in there with the senators" which is what Biden implies he can help with. Neither intimates that they can get the President's policies turned into law because of being President of the senate (though Biden comes pretty close by saying he will be THE person actually implementing Obama's policies and then speaks of how he, rather uniquely, has the knowledge to get the Congress to go along. Maybe he was just trying to pat himself on the back - I don't know.). Instead a fair reading of intent is both think they can work with the senate to help the legislative process along, imo.

I think you are trying to split hairs that don't exist to say they are saying anything substantially different, but if you want to call her explanation to a 3rd grade class as being an inartful version of the same thing Biden says in an interview with Katie Couric I can let it go at that. But to claim, as mark seems to, that comment to 3rd graders shows her to be unqualified and lacking understanding of the job while ignoring Biden's very similar comment is nothing more than liberal propaganda, imo.

Bearhawkeye Wrote:levydl,

I don't understand which words you are using to make such a clear distinction between their intents. Palin never says she's a legislator (though that wouldn't be entirely false because the V.P. does vote to break ties) - she talks about "getting in there with the senators" which is what Biden implies he can help with. Neither intimates that they can get the President's policies turned into law because of being President of the senate (though Biden comes pretty close by saying he will be THE person actually implementing Obama's policies and then speaks of how he, rather uniquely, has the knowledge to get the Congress to go along. Maybe he was just trying to pat himself on the back - I don't know.). Instead a fair reading of intent is both think they can work with the senate to help the legislative process along, imo.

I think you are trying to split hairs that don't exist to say they are saying anything substantially different, but if you want to call her explanation to a 3rd grade class as being an inartful version of the same thing Biden says in an interview with Katie Couric I can let it go at that.

Well, she precedes her point about her making policy with the Senate by saying the VP is also the President of the Senate, which seems to me to imply that she thought because the VP is in charge of the Senate, the VP can get in there and make policy. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, and I didn't realize she was speaking to 3rd graders. But Biden didn't similarly talk about the VP being the President of the Senate. I think that's the difference in my mind.

But the VP IS President of the Senate....