Why Do Women Hate Sarah Palin?

Is it because she is attractive?

From the left and right, particularly from female pundits and reporters, Palin has really been getting hammered.

I believe that Palin's looks is one of the basic reasons. It is a subconscious thing with women.

I have come to believe also the women who currently run the feminist organizations that the media takes note of, think that the feminist movement must be a one-track, one-organization movement and that their leadership and policies have to be recognized as omnipotent.

To their way of thinking, the first female President or VP must be a Democrat and liberal.

I don't like her but I don't care what she looks like.

I'm just not overly keen on a woman who seems to be encouraging her teenage daughter to get married, pregnant or not, just to give her more credibility in her family values election campaign.

And the words "hockey mom" are getting on my nerves too.

But I do think her glasses are quite snazzy.

Women don't hate Sarah Palin, just a few vocal harpies who don't like a great many people, and believe themselves to beyond reproach.

We don't need to like our representative leaders, only to trust them.

...which gives us enough to worry about without considering the optional add-ons.

I do not hate Sarah Palin but I do hate her politcal stand. I do not want her ( or anyone else's) religious beliefs to impact our government or my life.

I'm not a vocal harpie, thank you very much, but do not believe in the things she stands for politically.

I do not trust Palin to not foist her religious beliefs on the rest of us.

I do not trust her to not label those who do not fit her definition of patriotic as terrorists or criminals or anti-American and then take advantage of a position of power and authority and try to do something about it (abuse of power in Alaska, hello?)

Plus the idea of her as President makes me ill.

I don't know any women who hate Sarah Palin. I do know a lot of women who think she is wrong on policy issues, is completely unqualified for the Vice-Presidency (much less the Presidency), and are appalled at her vile attacks on decent people who happen to disagree with her.

On the other hand, as a fellow red patent leather peep-toed stiletto wearer, I admire her taste in shoes. On the third hand, I paid for mine myself.

Oh, deniro, did we really need to provide one more opportunity for people to feel superior to Sarah Palin?

Really, it isn't hate as much as it is self-love.

Can I defect to male? Or is it too late?

-8 So with you on the shoes. Cute! Too bad shoe selecting abilities doesn't seem likely to translate into other areas of decision making.

People dislike Palin for many reasons, I would say most of all because she willingly stokes racial hatred and general fear while denigrating large segments of the American population. Nobody likes being told they are un-Americans, especially when the judgment is being made by a woman who has so obviously abused her limited positions of power and shows a dim grasp of complex national issues.

Feminists (meaning people who aspire to end social discrimination between men and women) dislike her because she was obviously selected because she was a woman, and this decision goes against everything that feminism stands for. She also comports herself in a way that no feminist would be proud to see in a person who is supposed to be competent political leader (the winking and ditzy answers to simple questions, etc).

My mom dislikes Palin because she insists that being the mother of a special-needs child immediately makes her an advocate for such children, despite her history of cutting funding for special needs groups, and her totally lack of state-wide or national leadership (or even ideas) on that issue.

Many people dislike her because they hate the idea of the country falling into the hands of a person who is so obviously not qualified to run it.

I personally have never heard her looks mentioned in a non-positive light, so I would say that idea that women hate her because she is attractive is completely specious (not to mention extremely patronizing to women generally).

People dislike Palin for many reasons, I would say most of all because she willingly stokes racial hatred...

?

I must say that I find it a curious fact that so many people translate "I disagree with that person" and "I do not like that person's work" as "I hate that person". It is a trend I see not only in political discussions, but in discussions of writers, artists, clothing designers, etc. It seems impossible for some to accept that people can disagree with a person's opinions or dislike her work without having a personal dislike for the individual.

It's very odd.

lilithcat-

At least somebody paid for Palin's wardrobe...unlike those who get it for free.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/cbsnews_investigates/main4539410.shtml

But one of the most famous political fashion designers of the year, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits says it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes.

“Why do you need to pay for it?” Forest told CBS News from her boutique Susanna Beverly Hills saying that most designers would offer to clothe a candidate for free. “It’s an honor, you are going to design for someone who could be the president of the United States,” noting that the exposure any designer would get from dressing someone as famous as Clinton or Palin would be worth much more.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this year that Senator Clinton’s custom made pantsuits from Forest were worth about $6,350 a piece retail. Clinton’s spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.

#10 "Many people dislike her because they hate the idea of the country falling into the hands of a person who is so obviously not qualified to run it."

And Obama, the primary candidate, is?!!!!

>11

Yes, but that’s only one example.

It’s weird. Here are otherwise reasonable (presumably) people who appear to be trying to sound reasonable:

(Palin) seems to be encouraging her teenage daughter to get married, pregnant or not, just to give her more credibility in her family values election campaign. (!)

I do not trust Palin to not foist her religious beliefs on the rest of us.

I do not trust her to not label those who do not fit her definition of patriotic as terrorists or criminals

. . . her vile attacks on decent people who happen to disagree with her.

. . . she willingly stokes racial hatred and general fear while denigrating large segments of the American population . . .

. . . a woman who has so obviously abused her limited positions of power . . .

And yet, each one of the above statements is either absurd, insane, or, in its own way, hateful. (Sorry, posters.) My own theory is that it has a lot to do with the fact that she is a mainstream Christian who doesn’t apologize for her faith and (unlike McCain) has never, as far as I know, genuflected to the anti-Christian prejudice of the intellectual establishment. The same would apply to Bush hatred, of course.

It’s just a theory. One might question whether the Reagan hatred phenomenon--which has now been largely forgotten--fits it. Did Reagan hatred—which was certainly quite strong—get as personal as Bush or Palin hatred? I’m not sure.

Can I defect to male?

Please, no, E. Then the regular non-left crowd would be all dudes. Then the liberals would call us "sexist," we'd have to bitch-slap them, it would get ugly...

Well, I guess what got me to thinking about it wasn't just the attempt to turn Palin into Dan Quayle. We all know he was stupid right? Just another stupid conservative.

It was Peggy Noonan who got me wondering if there was something here other than the usual partisan smear. Her article described Palin's candidacy as "symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics." Pretty harsh. And I like Peg. To me, Palin just seems closer to being a regular person, more like the people I grew up with in the Midwest who, yes, occasionally drop their g's.

I think women, more often than men, are more cruel to each other. They don't want to hit. They want to destroy. To get inside the mind and annihilate the enemy personality and ego. Attractive women, like attractive men, get the breaks because they are attractive. I know that and I accept it. But I think some of the venom (read some of the things written about her, that's why I chose the word "hate") directed toward Palin is because of her looks, but I don't know if anyone would admit that.

Tina Fey loves to call Palin a "pageant queen." Certainly, Tina Fey would never use her appearance to advance her career.

Then the regular non-left crowd would be all dudes. .

Hey! Hey!! Although I want to defect to male myself.

But does not liking Palin get me stuck with the left for this one?

Yeah, but then, Tina Fey's a comedian and actress, Palin wants to be second in command of the free world. Little bit of difference there.

So politicians, by their very nature, must be ugly, drab individuals?

No, but let's not compare Tina Fey's job to what Sarah Palin aspires to. Although come to think of it, there are some similarities...

Oakes. Outstanding analysis. You get a standing ovation.

Disdain for Palin is so off the charts it's not even rational.

>17 Whoops; sorry nperrin!

And please don't defect; we need the civilizing influence of the (non-leftoid) female.

Not to mention how your husband might take the change.

Being hot is not a deficit, but you better have more assets than that. The lunchroom talk up here about Palin (and ALL my cohorts are female, some supporters, some not) is that she is embarrassing Alaska. We want her to come home. She was a decent governor, and it would be nice for her to finish that job.

#1: Daniel Henninger may have an answer, although it isn't limited to women:

If American politics is at low ebb, it is because so many of its observers enjoy working in its fetid backwash...

...The stoning of Sarah Palin has exposed enough cultural fissures in American politics to occupy strategists full-time until 2012. We now see there is a left-to-right elite centered in New York, Washington, Hollywood and Silicon Valley who hand down judgments of the nation's mortals from their perch atop the Bell Curve.

link to article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471822552260585.html

#14 - No, you are wrong.

I see a mother who doesn't seem to be doing what I feel is the right thing for her daughter and protecting her the way I would hope to protect mine.

I wouldn't respect that in any woman but I respect it even less when it seems to be for the purposes of furthering the mothers career.

Maureen Dowd began a recent column this way:

"I don’t agree with those muttering darkly that the picture of Gov. Sarah Palin with a perky smile and shapely gams posing with a pleased Henry Kissinger, famous for calling power the ultimate aphrodisiac, is a sign of the apocalypse."

I admit, I don't know the etiquette about when a skirt should be longer than the knee. Don't the length of skirts change every year?

But the loathing that comes through in "perky smile" reminds me of the old axiom (created when? by whom?) that beauty, happiness and kindness are associated with shallowness, stupidity, and even deception; while to be ugly, unhappy, and brooding are signs of intelligence, depth, and profundity.

Judging by this picture, I would say that Maureen Dowd cares a least a little bit about her appearance. But note: no perky smile. More of a poker face, really. She looks mean. Nice hair, though.

The main problem with Dowd is that she's so stupid that one sentence by her can suck all the oxygen out of a room.

She's just mad because men run away from her after the first date.

>25

I think we all can agree that Sarah Palin is a mainstream, orthodox, conservative, or whatever you want to call it, Christian. As such, she is against abortion, and it is reasonable to think that she believes that, all things being equal, a couple that conceives a child should get married. We also know that Sarah Palin was aware that her daughter was pregnant before she had any idea that she might become the vice presidential nominee.

Now, given the above, it is plausible to assume that before she was picked to be the VP nominee Sarah Palin felt that it would be a good thing for her daughter to get married to the person with whom she conceived her child. You appear to be saying that 1. She did not think it would be a good thing, and 2. she changed her view after being selected as a nominee. This strikes me as unlikely for the reasons already given. If true, it obviously would reflect badly on her. I would say that if you are to make such a claim, you should provide some evidence for it. If you cannot provide any such evidence, then I would suggest that if you honestly believe your claim, then your dislike has muddled your brain a bit, at least such that you cannot think completely logically about the subject at hand.

I know this won't be well received here, but I remembered reading these observations by a blogger who attended the pro- and anti-Palin rallies in Anchorage in mid-September. His comments on the daughter and her boyfriend are saddening and probably too cynical, but I wonder to what extent those kids really want to get married. Even granting that Palin is "pro-life" (and presumably her family is in total agreement), I wonder if adoption might not be a better option all around.

...sitting three-quarters of the way up the bleacher was Bristol Palin and her eighteen-year-old impregnator, Levi Johnston. Once I noticed them, I kept my eye on Bristol and Levi. What I learned provoked an odd empathy for the awful pickle Wasilla High School’s hockey stick wielding homeboy now finds himself in.

Bristol and Levi sat shoulder-to-shoulder. But not once did they look at each other, speak to each other, or in any way acknowledge each other’s physical presence. Not once. For an entire hour. Instead, Bristol stared straight ahead and Levi had the glazed look of a trapped feral animal.

Then when Sarah wound up her autograph signing and the people sitting in front of him on the bleacher began climbing down, Levi stood up and, without looking at or speaking to his betrothed, turned in the opposite direction and walked away.

What I took away from that is that the People Magazine spin about how excited the happy couple is about their upcoming nuptials and Levi’s “Bristol” finger tattoo is the Karl Rovian nonsense that anyone who thinks about it for a scintilla of a second intuitively knows that it is. If McCain-Palin lose, my easy bet is that there will be no nuptials. But if they win, the hand Levi dealt himself by having had the poor luck to knock up the daughter of the Vice President of the United States (at the time who could have known?) will have to be played out....

And here is a former Alaskan explaining, mostly sympathetically, Why Sarah Didn't Blink. As stupid as that comment sounded at the time, I can relate to what he is saying here.

I have never lived in Alaska, but the go-for-it and do-it-yourself mentality is not lacking in the rust belt. I too grew up with a father who expected his daughters to participate in everything from hunting to cutting firewood to pouring concrete. As an adult, I have lived in a house with a blue tarp on the roof for over two years, because we were doing a major remodel ourselves, and the roof had to wait until we completed other projects.

The willingness to get out there and give it your best effort is the appealing part of Palin's story. But her unrelenting, vicious, us-vs-them, "real America" vs not real, and her apparent lack of interest in learning anything about the responsibilities she would be assuming, do not inspire confidence. In her speech at the convention, Palin came out slashing and characterized herself as a pit bull. So far I have seen no reason why we should not take her at her word.

I'm not sure that I should be posting here, as I do not identify myself as a political conservative, but I think that the implication that women are so stupid and catty as to allow her attractive appearance to make a significant impact on such an important decision is incredibly, incredibly insulting.

#32

Yes, it is insulting. Don't let them convince you that it's your crazy woman hormones talking. It was an idiotic thing to imply that Sarah Palin's AVERAGE beauty is something that causes women to go mad with green-eyed hatred. She's no Vanna White.

(I had to throw Vanna White in there. I just had to, dammit.)

As far as I can tell, there has never been a major candidate who has been so universally despised by the movers and shakers in this country. Since this is inexplicable, I think it's only natural that some of us fall back to her appearence as an explanation.

It can't JUST be that she is "stupid" or "unqualified" or "wrong on abortion". The current president Bush caught some slack on the campaign trail for being inexperienced and un-scholarly during his time at Yale. Nonetheless, compare his treatment to Palin's and you'll see a huge difference in the degree of nastiness. Yet, for whatever it's worth, I can't see how Palin is really any LESS qualified than GWB was during his run. So why is she taking so much more heat?

I think it's UNDENIABLE that something about Palin just sets people off.

Oakes might be right to point to her seriousness about religion, but I think it's more than that. One possibility is that she really is a living breathing counterexample to decades worth of feminist dogma. Here is a woman who managed to have a wildly successful career without, seemingly, sacrificing any of the feminine virtues. Insofar as feminist dogma tells us that this is impossible, we have to assume that she's actually a terrible mother and an awful wife (or, conversely, an awful governor). The distinction between successful career woman and hapless homemaker is stark and it's an article of faith that few in the women's studies department want to give up on.

Now, don't get me wrong, you can, according to these folks, be a parent and a successful career women. It's just that you can't be a certain KIND of parent. For example, if you breed naturally, before age 40, without the use of chemicals they'll look at you askance. If you have more than one child and one of them isn't adopted from Africa, forget about it. If you actually spend TIME with your kinds instead of enrolling them in Montessori preschools, you must be some religious nut job.

I'm not sure this is the whole story but I think it's a plausible explanation for the sad fate of Sarah Palin.

I'm no expert on feminist dogma, but what are these feminine virtues that one cannot maintain while having a successful career? I cannot imagine that any feminist would imply that having a career conflicts with some inherent feminine identity. That seems to be what you're saying- and THAT is gross. Feminism would CELEBRATE someone for being able to successfully balance career and family. Isn't that the whole idea? That we have that option?

I study linguistics a bit, and honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with prejudice against a regional dialect. I applaud her for not getting rid of hers. That being said, I would never, ever vote for her based on, for one, her stance on abortion. A woman against women's rights just scares the bejesus out of me.

I asked my very democratic wife why she hates Palin. (This is a woman who was a delegate for Hillary at the Alaska state Democratic convention.)

She thought it was a silly question. "I don't hate Palin," she said, and asked why I asked her that. I told her about the thread, and she said she didn't vote for her because she thought Palin was not qualified to be vice president. Specifically she said, "Being a Hockey mom does not qualify one to be VP."

I'm a liberal Canadian female - maybe I shouldn't be posting here, but....as someone who lives in a different country with a different political system (hey, we only allow 5 weeks for campaigning!) but with some similar cultural stuff, I can only say "Why is appearance so important in the USA?"
Yes, she's pretty. Some think Hillary is only so-so.
What the heck difference does it make? Hillary is very bright, experienced, etc. and has worked hard, right? Sarah, no so. But prettier, I guess.
I think it sticks in the craw of some of us women that you can work hard, be smart, be even a good person, but that pretty one comes along and all the heads turn... lots of coverage, lots of money spent on her appearance, lots of talk....
It boggles the mind. As you guys go, so goes the rest of the free world. You really need to pick a well-qualified, intelligent, sensible people for your top jobs, cute or not.
The rest of the world is a bit worried about US politics, and have been for a while. Please, keep Hollywood in Hollywood and put forward good qualified folk to keep the world in balance. Whoever you pick, conservative or liberal, just pick the best ones! And stop harping on things that don't matter (including appearance).
By the way, why haven't the two young 'uns gotten married yet? Is there a long waiting period in Alaska? Or are they waiting for November 5th?

#34 It can't JUST be that she is "stupid" or "unqualified" or "wrong on abortion".

I think some people (including me, to an extent) believe that she's destined to fail and that failure will reflect on women as a whole. Sexist people will point at her and say, "Look, she PROVES women don't belong in the White House." It could prevent a viable female Presidential candidate for decades. I think that's why there's quite a bit of vitriol being flung her way. If you're going to be the first of anything, you'd better be a damn good first or you may do more damage to the cause than not being there at all.

Maybe it's the Pantene, or maybe women, by and large, are simply averse to idiocy (a recent example can be found here).

#38

That's a very good point, and perhaps that does help explain some of what's going on.

I mean, I happen to disagree that she's destined to fail, however, I understand how the counterfactual scenario wherein she DOES fail could end up hurting women qua politicians.

Two thoughts though:

1. If this is what many people are thinking, why aren't they laying it out clearly instead of hiding behind a lot vitriol about her wardrobe and her Ivy-less education.

2. Can this really explain how personal and nasty things have become? I mean maybe it does, because it hits so close to home for many people, but I'm still a little skeptical.

I mean, speaking for myself, the only person involved in this whole debacle of an election that I harbor any actual ill-will towards is Bill Ayers (and, of course, he's not even a candidate).

>40 "I mean, I happen to disagree that she's destined to fail" -NLAE

She's not even the front-runner for 2012 amongst registered Republican voters.

>31

It's perfectly possible that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are not currently very close, and I think it's probable that they would not be getting married absent the pregnancy. It's also possible that they are still unsure about the marriage and that they might even feel pressured by the spotlight, so to speak. I do not think there is anything wrong with asking these questions, nor do I think that conservatives or Palin supporters must assume that everything is going swimmingly in their relationship, or whatever, etc. It is arguably a bit fishy that they haven't already gotten married, and that they apparently have no intention to do so until next summer--well after the baby is born. So, that blogger may well be right. Or not--for a different perspective, see the October 13th Interview with Levi Johnston. I really have no idea what the truth is here.

But it is quite another thing to claim that Sarah Palin is pushing them into marriage--against their interests and those of their child--solely for political purposes. If true, such a claim would make Sarah Palin out to be a sort of monster, I think. And thus, for someone to make such a claim without any evidence, or for someone to simply assume it to be true, shows that one is already starting out from a position of strong dislike or bias.

The National Enquirer--from its position as equal-opportunity scandal monger--made the claim a month or so ago, and hinted that backup for the claim as well as more sordid revelations would follow. That paper has actually been correct on many things. (Though it has obviously also been incorrect on many things.) So if they had come out with good evidence for the assertion, I would be in favor of taking it seriously. But as far as I know, they have since been unable to substantiate the original claim.

At an event at the public radio station here, Palin invited herself, then showed up with three of her kids. She left Piper alone in a large room while she went to make a speech. One of the employees of the station found her, very upset, and had to bring her to her mother.

>34

Seems like someone may have been reading too many tabloids on Hollywood celebrities. How many people do you actually know who might fit your description?

Karen Tumult of Time just said that the Obama camp is keeping Biden under wraps and not letting him do interviews.

So why is all the bad attention on Palin? lol

Liberals go way out there then always end up with egg on their face.

Deniro wrote: " Is it because she is attractive? "

Ummm ... she really isn't.

Now McCain's wife is very attractive and no one is dumping on her (to my knowledge).

Could it be that, despite what Palin apologists are saying, it isn't about her glowing internal beauty.

Enevada: " We don't need to like our representative leaders, only to trust them."

That is one of the reasons that conservatives don't seem to like her, but there are more.

countrylife: " But, Hillary is, so she did not get hammered in that way. "

Palin didn't get 1/10 the abuse that Cheslea did when Bill announced in 1990. And the abuse Hilary got was two orders of magnitude above what Chelsea got.

countrylife continued: " In the same way that the Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, & obama type of ideology seems to reject Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, etc. as not being "one of them", so they get hammered, too. "

LOL

Clarence Thomas even gets abuse from Scalia. (See Stephen Presser in "Legal Affairs" Jan/Feb 2005)

There were and are legitimate criticisms, or at least questions, to be raised about Sarah Palin, both as to her character and her intellectual depth.

But the Leftist reaction to her -- hysteria and hatred -- went far beyond that.

Perhaps part of it was an initial, but short-lived, fear that she would give the McCain campaign enough of a boost to defeat Obama. But it went well beyond that.

The explanation is simple: the Left want to portray conservatives as old white males, whose politics are a simple reflection of their selfish material interests. Any young people, Black people, women, who are in the conservative movement are simple-minded dupes, obeying their masters.

Since Sarah Palin is not that, she is threatening. A strong woman, but a conservative. And someone who is -- imagine that -- not impressed by Noam Chomsky (and not just because she has never heard of him, but because if she did hear his views, she would laugh out loud at such idiocy).

Can't have that.

I think the way McCain staffers went after her shows that it was not just the left that hated Sarah Palin.

#34 I think it's UNDENIABLE that something about Palin just sets people off.

Well, I'm a politically conservative female...but to me, sorry if that's not advanced enough for everyone else, it mainly mattered, only mattered, that she was so completely pro-life. And I mean against abortion. Abortion is killing this country in more ways than one.

Lack of experience in statesmanship doesn't seem to have stopped Senator Obama from winning the presidency - why should it have been held against Sarah Palin, who after all, has been a governor, albeit for only two years?

#35 That being said, I would never, ever vote for her based on, for one, her stance on abortion.

And I would vote for her (and did) because of her stance on abortion.

#35 That being said, I would never, ever vote for her based on, for one, her stance on abortion.

And I would vote for her (and did) because of her stance on abortion

Mayhap, all ideas to the contrary, it's as simple as that. It's not about "hate," "hysteria," or "hype"... It's about stances.

#51-
Exactly. Two women can and do disagree about whether or not to vote for someone based on policies without regard for measurements.

edit for clarity

No, there was real hatred in some quarters. Perhaps it was fueled by fear that she would be politically effective. (I never could understand the conservative hatred of Bill Clinton, and I put it down to the fact that he was popular, and spoiled the hoped-for conservative victory march. He was a rogue, for sure, but not evil.)

It was not Sarah Palin's lack of experience, but her evident lack of ever having given thought to the questions that face a President from day one, that was the problem.

This is possibly something that can be overcome, but it's going to take years of reading and talking and arguing with people. McCain has done it, Obama has done it, Biden has done it -- if you are Chief of Staff and talk to any of them about your concerns that we may soon lack a second-strike capability, you can be sure they will know what you are talking about. You can't -- at the moment -- be sure of that with Sarah Palin.

As for the McCain staffer's dislike of her -- we need to know more details, but this sort of thing is par for the course, among the sort of ambitious egomaniacs who go into politics, I think. I recall something similar about Hilary. We don't want saints for leaders (and I hope we don't really have one in Obama).

*sigh*
If we want to talk about hatred from the other side, we can rehash this "Socialist!" rhetoric that the right is pleasuring themselves with these days, or the hand made OBAMINATION! bumper sticker I saw the other day.

Yeah, there was some hatred of Palin to be sure, and I had my share of fun at her expense, but what bothered me most about her was the fear of having yet another intellectually incurious and dangerously self-assured, self-proclaimed God-guided person hoisted on the shoulders of the nervous Republican masses and proclaimed as "saviour". (Hey, the rhetoric cuts both ways!)

Every interview I saw with Palin reinforced my view of her as someone who was incapable of thinking on her feet. Her subsequent dismissal of this as due to her fear of the "gotcha!" media doesn't speak well for her potential interactions on the global stage.

(BTW, Doug, on her most recent return from the UK, my wife carried a slew of Sunday supplements which were perhaps more critical of Palin than anything I saw in the media over here. I don't know how much that colors your view.)

Anyone else horribly offended by the notion that the only reason women could possibly hate Sarah Palin is because she is pretty? Are you serious? So women are just petty and judgemental and not at all concerned with politics and the world around us? We're just jealous because she's so pretty? Come on!

I can't stand her because of her politics, pure and simple. And like the above poster, I could never vote for someone who would take away the same choices and privacy she demands for her family. And yes, she's very pretty.

And I'm sorry, but who said McCain's wife was attractive? That woman looks like a face lift gone way wrong. Her permasmile just creeps me out. Ick.

Makifat: I don't read the papers here, or pay any attention to the political discussions on TV or radio. There are some good minds over here, but I just don't have the time.

For what it's worth, I can report that a couple of weeks ago I went to a 60th birthday party for a wealthy friend of my wife's, where a lot of the new Surrey bourgeoisie were -- the kind of "hard-faced men who looked as if they had done well out of the war" as Baldwin described Parliament in 1918-- and the visceral anti-Americanism that came out after a bit of alcohol loosened tongues, if the people sitting at my table were a representative sample, was dismaying. And these people weren't liberals -- they had opinions on other issues that would curl your hair. We'll see how they like President Obama.

#56 I don't why she would bother to have any "work" done. She's the money. McCain is supposed to be the honey.

To address the original questions. From my perspective most of the venom pointed her way is coming from men, and I have wondered why men do that. Why do men viciously berate women that they obviously find attractive?

You never hear women refer to Brad Pitt, with a smiling snear, as a slut.

57
I don't read the papers here...

You should. The Sunday papers in particular have lots of discussion of sex stuff, and pictures of women in scanty clothes. I'm not necessarily endorsing this, but it beats the hell out of PARADE magazine.

58
McCain is supposed to be the honey.

Somebody got snookered in that deal.

Makifat had it right at #54:
...what bothered me most about her was the fear of having yet another intellectually incurious and dangerously self-assured, self-proclaimed God-guided person hoisted on the shoulders of the nervous Republican masses and proclaimed as "saviour"....

From Palin's presumptuous claim to be carrying on where Hillary Clinton left off, to her vapid responses during interviews, to her encouragement of angry racist people at her rallies, she showed herself to be eerily close to GWB in temperament and capabilities. Some conservatives may regard that as a positive, but 2/3 of American voters do not.

I know that Ellen Goodman is a bête noire for conservatives, but she makes some good points in her recent article: For women, it's not the gender, it's the agenda.

... While all eyes were focused on Palin and the "Sarah-centric" (her words) crowds that turned out for her rallies, there was a quieter "women's story" in this race that may make the doorway a little narrow.

Nationally, Obama won the election with a bare majority of men: 49 percent to 48 percent. But he won with a landslide of votes from women: 56 percent to 43 percent. Eight million more women than men voted for him.

In some of the battleground states, women made all or nearly all the difference. In New Hampshire, men split their votes pretty evenly, but women chose Obama nearly 2-to-1. In North Carolina, men picked McCain 56 percent to 43 percent and women picked Obama 55 percent to 44 percent.

One step further down the ballot, the story was repeated. New Hampshire women also chose Democrat Jeanne Shaheen over Republican John Sununu for the Senate by 23 points. And North Carolina women, even when faced with a choice between two female candidates for the Senate, voted for Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole by 14 points....

...What a year. For the first time, a woman - Clinton - became the "establishment candidate." And voters wanted change. For the first time, the Republicans picked a woman - Palin - to energize the base. And the base kept shrinking.

Diva or not, Palin did change her corner of the landscape. Because of Palin, conservatives now speak of "sexism," the religious right describes teen pregnancy as a "challenge," and the culture warriors officially approve of working moms. For all that, what the heck, let her keep the clothes.

That last paragraph, if meant seriously and honestly, shows that Goodman had no understanding to begin with of the sorts of people she would call "conservatives" or "right-wingers" or whatever, no understanding whatsoever, which of course means she doesn't really understand how people in general think about these kinds of issues. She's living in her own little bigoted world--sort of like some of the contributors to this group, I should add.

Oh well, at least she didn't plagiarize that particular column.

She's living in her own little bigoted world--sort of like some of the contributors to this group, I should add.

Now, Oakes, that's not a very nice way of describing your ideological brothers and sisters...

Can we shut this thread down already?

It's manifestly obvious that the opinion makers (on both sides of the political divide) don't like Palin because she won't play by their rules and, refreshingly, just DOES NOT CARE what they think. Her slight to the egos of the undereducated journalists that make up the bulk of the media-elite can't be forgiven. Hence, they hate her. It's not JUST that she doesn't know that tin is the major export of Bolivia, she also doesn't know (or care) about the Atlantic, The New Republic and so on.

Frankly, I find it refreshing and evidently so do millions of Americans.

We're tired of being talked down to so it's nice to see a candidate who won't play their game.

I mean, I'm happy to submit to my intellectual betters, it's just that there aren't many of them and certainly none of them are journalists, columnists, or media hacks.

#63- Oh yeah, you reminded me of the other reason I don't like her- she's a complete and total idiot. Bush level, perhaps.

#64, are you asserting that not knowing or caring about The Atlantic or The New Republic is a sign of idiocy? I have a Ph.D. and I don't bother with either. Or is it the tin from Bolivia? Can you tell me, without looking it up, which country is the major producer of tungsten or boron?

No, I'm not asserting that at all. And I'm very impressed by your PhD. She would still be a complete and total idiot even if she did read The New Republic and knew all about Bolivia.

I love this high school logic of "well you're just jealous" and "she's a rebel who plays by her own rules". Really? Those are the only humanly possible reasons why MILLIONS of us dislike her? Because we're silly women jealous of her shoe collection?

I'm curious about where the whole thing about The Atlantic and The New Republic came from. Did someone specifically denigrate Palin because she actually said she didn't read them? Who ever said that she was an idiot because she didn't read them?

My understanding, from the Couric interview, was that she read "all" the magazines. There was a certain ineptitude to the answer that gave creedence to the idea that she couldn't think on her feet. It was as if, in her mind, she was trying to triangulate what the "right" answer was, then panicked and said "all of them!"

Kind of like some of my bad first dates:
"What kind of music do you like?"
"All kinds!"
"Do you like Hawaiian guitar music?"
"Uh....sure!"
"Medieval folk tunes from Epirus?"
"I don't really like folk music..."
"Not even Bob Dylan?"
"Oh, he sings really bad!"
"How 'bout Manilow?"
"Oh, yeah! Manilow!"
"Would you like me to take you home now?"

In the dim and distant days when I was an ardent Leninist, and therefore a "fisher of men", to build not the Church but the Party, our supreme goal was to find an "advanced worker".

This semi-mythical being would probably be a militant trade-unionist, and probably a shop steward ... but not yet corrupted by higher union office. He (or, increasingly, she) would almost certainly have skills, because he/she would be intelligent. But, coming from a proletarian background, would not have much formal education.

If this person could be won to Marxism -- you had hit the jackpot. They would then become the focus of intense educational activity by Party mentors. And within a very few years, a former telephone lineman or longshoreman could explain to you why Kamenev and Zinoviev were wrong in October 1917 with regard to the seizure of power, why the United Front from below was an inadequate tactic in the face of growing Nazi power in Germany before 1933, where surplus value came from, what it meant to say that Marx had stood Hegel on his head, the proper line to take with respect to the call for an independent Ukraine, and all manner of other esoteric things.

This happened for decades, all over the world. It helped confirm to middle class Marxists that the workers really could rule, and that under a system which would value education for all, every cook could govern.

The implications we drew may have been wrong, but the phenomenon was real. (In the 1930s, the Communist Party and Young Communist League served as a kind of university for people, especially American Blacks, who were shut out of the official educational system.)

So, Comrade Sarah ... let us begin. We shall start with some extracts from John Locke, and then see how the rebellious colonists interpreted his ideas, and how they grappled with the problems of centralized power in The Federalist Papers ...

Makifat: You took her home because she failed the music quiz? I'll never understand liberals.

I'm curious about where the whole thing about The Atlantic and The New Republic came from. Did someone specifically denigrate Palin because she actually said she didn't read them? Who ever said that she was an idiot because she didn't read them?

I'm guessing that it came from the television interview where Palin ducked the question of which specific publications she's read.

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

68
I'm not a conservative, so I don't have to settle for anything that moves. :0

Also, I took one nice girl home and, as she admired the little knick-knacks scattered around, I admited that I was "a bit of an antiquarian". She told me that we should get along fine, since she was a Pisces.

69
Yes, that was the interview I saw. I like that "Alaska is a microcosm of America" line. Alaska may be a lot of wonderful things, but it isn't that.

And now - we're goin' to the zoo! How
'bout you?

#70 Thanks for taking this to a new level.

"goin to the zoo," I mean.

My son, home on leave for a week, is taking his little sister to Wall-E...because he'd wanted to see it when it first came out but he was shipped out that very day.

Yeah, I'm proud of him.
Proud he's doin' the Serve Your Country thing...and being kind to his little sister who adores him, too.

#66, don't be.

I have known only a small number of business owners, but none of them were complete and total idiots. Fit to succeed to the Presidency? That's a more reasonable question. Unfortunately, just as all politics was once local, nowadays all politics is hyperbolic.

The last twenty-five or so posts (with a few exceptions, among them, the two above) can fairly be translated as nyaa-nyaa, nyaa, nyaa-nyaa (when they can be translated at all--they often can be reduced only to a series of grunts). It's a sort of overlap, I guess, from some of the posters over at Pro and Con, among other places. They can't think, but they also can't shut up. And talking to themselves gets boring after a while. So they . . . spread.

My own feeling is that the effect of the Palin pick was close to negligible in this election. This has nothing to do with Palin herself. It’s only to say that the vice presidential candidate pick is always pretty much negligible. McCain lost it, or his campaign managers lost it, or Obama won it, or his campaign won it, or the anti-Bush tide did it, or the economy did it, etc. Probably it was a combination of all of those factors.

But I think Palin was a net plus, however small. And it might have made the difference if the election had been as close as the last two. The only time McCain was ever ahead was after the Palin pick. And McCain voters told exit pollsters that they liked Palin better than McCain. So, I would say the pick strengthened the “base” in at least a small way. The base was smaller than in 2008, of course, but I suspect it would have been smaller still without Palin. Now, of course, there could have been independents who might have voted for McCain but who were scared away by Palin, etc., but I have seen no firm evidence of that. Which is not to say that it isn’t possible. Such are the vagaries of exit polling and voter preferences.

But assume that Palin did lose McCain some votes. What did she cost him—1%, 2%, 3%, more? Considering that Obama only won by 6%, that would seem to say a lot in and of itself--that with an anti-Bush and anti-Republican mood, with the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,” running against a boring old-guy who managed to absurdly upstage himself by “Joe the Plummer”, and so on, the Obama-led Democratic ticket could win by (if we assume that Palin was a non-negligible drag on the McCain ticket) the equivalent of only a few points? Not exactly a mandate of either Reaganesque or even Clintonesque proportions, I don't think.

As I understand it, Obama received fewer votes in Ohio than Kerry did in 2004. This, of course means that McCain’s totals were lower still than Bush received that same year. The Republican base didn’t turn out, or if it did, the independents didn’t join it. On the other hand (in Ohio at least), there wasn’t the huge upsurge in enthusiastic new Obama voters that the Obama campaign had predicted (or, they were counteracted by a larger group of people who just didn’t like McCain or Obama, or at least were too apathetic to vote, etc.). Or maybe it was something else—could the voting population there have declined? Again, the evidence is unclear.

But at least two things are clear:

1. Obama won, fair and square, not by a lot, but not by a tiny amount either. But in a certain sense, the margin is unimportant. If you win by even a few votes—as Bush came closer to doing in 2000 and 2004--then you win, period. It’s how it works. And Obama is entitled to a reasonable, though not uncritical, level of good-will going into his new job--as other Political Conservatives in this group have suggested. (At least until he appoints Hillary Clinton as Ethics Czar, or whatever.)

2. Once again, the Libertarian Party turned in a performance that, for lack of a better word, sucked, and this with the most prominent and nationally known politician that it has ever had at the head of its ticket. Or, as the LP itself put it on its website:

Hoping to build on a solid performance in 2008, the Libertarian Party looks ahead to 2010. "This is just the beginning of the new Libertarian Party," says Bob Barr.

Pathetic. My preference, as a sometime big-L Libertarian, is if the Party isn’t going to get more than 1% of the vote anyway, you might as well just go with your principles and run John Hospers again.

Even if he is dead.

73
That's a pretty funny observation, considering the thread started with a question about women not liking Palin just because she's pretty. (A debateable point to begin with - the question of her "attractiveness", I mean.)

But with # 74, we go from "nyaa nyaa nyaa" to "blah blah blah". Not exactly a quantum leap forward.

Re. #74 ...

Oakes, all I know is that before Palin there was almost no way I could have voted for McCain ... after Palin, I could hold my nose and fill in that arrow (to the non-Chicagoans, our ballots involve connecting the head and tail of an arrow pointing at the candidate names).

As it turned out (since the Obamination was so far ahead in this our once-proud state), voting McCain was pointless, so I was able to vote Libertarian (ROOT-2012!) without having a some shadow of nagging guilt hang over me that I might have somehow advanced the cause of the Marxist take-over of America.

Needless to say, I suspect that Palin did what Palin was calculated to do ... help "close the ranks" in the G.O.P. in a way that Romney or Jindal wouldn't have managed.

 

Oakes,
But I think Palin was a net plus...

Me, too.

For me personally, the VP pick was mostly inconsequential. It would only have made a difference if McCain had picked Huckabee, in which case I would have written in the name of my pet dachshund. She's not only female; she's black, and we've never had a canine-American as president in spite of the reputation of such for loyalty and devotion. Seems like about time.

My own take is that Palin is smarter than the average American, including most of those who sneered at her intelligence; and more ethical than the average politician, including most of those who tried to pin Troopergate on her. Is smarter than the average American and more ethical than the average politician good enough for President?

It's about the best we've been offered for some time. Bill Clinton was pretty smart but ethically challenged. Romney was both smart and squeaky clean, but too flexible in his political views for many and likely unelectable in any case, considering that 30% of Americans polled by Pew said that they would never vote for a Mormon.

Thanks, SaintSunniva and kgbudge.

BTRIPP:

Similar reasoning, but I tipped to McCain. I voted for the LP Senate candidate, however. Though, I now can't remember his name :). Do you know if Barr even came in third nationally? The LP's website isn't very helpful (strangely, for a party of nerds), and I'm too lazy to dig further.

Sorry to make you work. I just spent five minutes trying to answer my own question:

Nader beat Barr. There's some disingenuous self-congratulation among some of the Barr people about how it was the Party’s “second best” showing ever. That’s true if you look at the absolute vote total—the LP topped 500,000 for the first time since Clark in 1980. But in terms of the percentage of the vote, it was only the fourth or fifth best—not so great out of a total of ten elections. No “progress” there, I don’t think. And as you know, the Party seems to have stopped being able to win even the odd seat in a state legislature.