Hillarysworld

Sanders · Diamond

"ABC Poll Shows Karl Rove Correct: Most Think Palin Not Qualified to Be President" (Joe Gandelman, TMV, 10/29/10)

Eminence · Platinum

As someone who was never a Palin supporter -- even when other Hillary supporters tried to convince me that she's worth a look -- it's amusing as a bystander to watch now folks who were previously advocating on Palin's behalf join the somewhat obsessive ranks of her detractors. Of course, I'm talking about the Moderate Voice lol.

I seem to recall the Moderate Voice publishing articles in 2008 saying Palin was great. They may have done an aboutface, but if you look at their archives, the record is there.

What's telling to me is, if the folks at the Moderate Voice aren't that interested in Palin, why do they keep talking about her even now? Doesn't it make more sense to just shrug it off and say "not really someone I support", then to keep obsessing over her? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that at one time they were into her, so perhaps some of their motivation is from the feeling of having been 'fooled.' I can't say that I relate there, in terms of being fooled by Palin because I never stepped even one foot on the Palin bandwag, but I'd venture.....it'd probably be much more sanity inducing for these folks to just cut their losses. RD Laing had a good expression for it -- the propensity to re-enact traumas of the past with self as victor; something which takes hold in a psyche when they can't come to terms with their past actions. But the fact of the matter is, no amount of bashing Palin in the present will change that in the past -- more than even just an anti-Obama vote -- you were actually supportive of Palin. In such instances then, it's better to just cut your losses and move on.

Also, another thing to remember about the Moderate Voice is that they had some pretty nasty articles about Hillary in 2008. "Hillary Cries Again", "Hillary Clinton's Hissy Problem", etc. They lose a lot of credibility with me such articles. So while they may claim to be moderate, even make it part of their name, seems like their actions show they are just another mouthpiece regurgitating the same stuff we see elsewhere.

reddirtgirl · Platinum

During the 08 election, I believed Palin to be qualified mainly due to her position as a governor and her dealings with Russia. Her big mistake, IMO, was resigning the governorship. She has since moved on to make other bad decisions, such as the reality TV show. She now seems quite immature. She won't have a chance if she runs for President. If she had stayed on as governor, and continued to do the job well, she would have had the qualification to run for Prez.

Sanders · Diamond

reddirtgirl wrote:
During the 08 election, I believed Palin to be qualified mainly due to her position as a governor and her dealings with Russia. Her big mistake, IMO, was resigning the governorship. She has since moved on to make other bad decisions, such as the reality TV show. She now seems quite immature. She won't have a chance if she runs for President. If she had stayed on as governor, and continued to do the job well, she would have had the qualification to run for Prez.

Yes, likewise!

On Joe's statement:
The partisan divide is not unusual: to many Democrats and independents watching Palin for any extended time on television is an acquired taste or tolerance.

I think I've moved in the opposite direction. The more I have 'discovered' her, the more immature she seems, more cynical and negative. I truly thought she had more real experience. Lately, I looked at a site in Alaska and found that she was mostly absent from the job in Juneau, holding a local office in Anchorage and not even going to that office most of the time -- that part had not come through during 2008. Tells us how important it is to get more facts. Anyways, yes, I think it as a mistake and a telling fact that she could not complete her term as Governor. I am also convinced that she is more socially conservative than we had ever realized.

Again, looks like Rove had the pulse on the poll quite early. Very impressive how he has good read on the nation before the polls come out. Regardless of how we feel about his politic, got to give him credit for that.

Eminence · Platinum

reddirtgirl wrote:

During the 08 election, I believed Palin to be qualified mainly due to her position as a governor and her dealings with Russia. Her big mistake, IMO, was resigning the governorship. She has since moved on to make other bad decisions, such as the reality TV show. She now seems quite immature. She won't have a chance if she runs for President. If she had stayed on as governor, and continued to do the job well, she would have had the qualification to run for Prez.

I never got on the Palin bandwagon, even during the election, so it's interesting to hear those that were originally into her explain why they were taken in at first.

I think you raise a good point about her resigning from the governship. Even then though, some Hillary supporters still advocating on her behalf.

For instance, as recently as Feb 2010 on this site, people were posting videos of Sarah Palin, trying to show how she was qualified etc.

The resignation should have been a sign, but it seems it wasn't for some even at that point.

SugnSpicesMom · Platinum

During the '08 election, I too was pro-Palin. I really thought she had what it took to be VP and I was behind her all the way. Now? I am aghast at the serious errors in judgment she has exhibited (i.e., resigning as governor, commentator for Fox, her reality TV show, etc.) I am almost embarassed to say I was definitely in her camp. I have to give serious consideration to many of the things we heard coming out of the McCain camp about temper tamtrums, lack of knowledge, attitude, etc. At the time I thought it was a bunch of whiner unhappy that Romney wasn't on the ticket. Now? I really wonder. If I had it to do over again, I would still back McCain over Omoron (and yes, I still call him that - POTUS or not) and pray every day for nothing to happen to McCain!!

I still cherish my autographed campaign sign though, simply because it has Hillary's picture on it.

Eminence · Platinum

Excellent, honest post, SugnSpicesMom.

Sanders · Diamond

SugnSpicesMom wrote:
During the '08 election, I too was pro-Palin. I really thought she had what it took to be VP and I was behind her all the way. Now? I am aghast at the serious errors in judgment she has exhibited (i.e., resigning as governor, commentator for Fox, her reality TV show, etc.) I am almost embarassed to say I was definitely in her camp. I have to give serious consideration to many of the things we heard coming out of the McCain camp about temper tamtrums, lack of knowledge, attitude, etc. At the time I thought it was a bunch of whiner unhappy that Romney wasn't on the ticket. Now? I really wonder. If I had it to do over again, I would still back McCain over Omoron (and yes, I still call him that - POTUS or not) and pray every day for nothing to happen to McCain!!

I still cherish my autographed campaign sign though, simply because it has Hillary's picture on it.

Hi SugnSpicesMom, Good to see you.

Indeed yes.

Here is a fantastic blog post that calls out Sarah Palin on her rhetoric, slices and dices it nicely.

Mrs. Palin Please Explain Business-Minded, Principles and Bipartisanship (DayToDayDemocracy.com 10/17/10)

That blogpost by an Alaskan who is serving/has served in the military is worth reading in full.

My question is the following: Palin says Nov. 2 elections are about 'the little guy'. , wants the government to shrink, wants the deficit to come down, but will not let the Bush Tax cuts expire to restore to Clinton tax levels (which is the actual taxation level for U.S.). How can that be about the little guy?

=

And Look at what Sarah Palin has did today...

She has gone onto use Breitbart's dishing on KTVA/CBS Affiliate. She has aligned herself with Breitbart.

She alleges conspiracy. That clip was posted in the morning today (First comment is about 12 hours ago).

But, the media people whose voice was recorded were not conspiring. They had just called Miller and had not hung up and were continuing to plan their coverage of the event. They were planning which types of stories might be of interest to viewership. This is normal conversation before reporters go out to any event - it is viewership segmentation and planning on team focus areas. It was only a discussion. Breitbart chopped pieces and presented sentences out of context.

Note: RCP has NOT posted any article on Breitbart's highly edited expose.

Following story was posted in Rawstory in the afternoon.

Fox News cuts down Palin’s claim about ‘corrupt bastards’ at CBS (Rawstory, 10/31/10)

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Sunday, October 31st, 2010 -- 2:26 pm

This topic is expected to become a big topic tomorrow, with SP's credibility coming into question.

Meanwhile TONIGHT, Michael Steele has given a significantly more cautious estimate of wins for the House.

As time has gone by, not only have I lost faith, I have gradually lost respect for Sarah Palin. It is so inspite of wanting to repeatedly give her yet another chance, which we as supporters of women tend to do. Except, in this case, she has not much if any interest in supporting women's causes. So, why do we keep giving her so many chances?

SP and the TEa Party do not have the corner on Interpretation of the Constitution, What the Founding Fathers wanted, or even the Flag of the United States. Yes, we are all We the People... and as long as We the People do not let ourselves to be bought and sold like cattle by the special interests, we just might be able to save democracy in the U.S.

That brings me to my next post, which is also from daytodaydemocracy.com... I will post next.

Sanders · Diamond

Also read these at PoliticalWire.com that are germane here.

10/19 Palin Threatens Third Party
10/19 Miller Admits to Ethics Violations
10/20 Palin's Disclosure -- this really surprised me! She should have known better.
10/28 Miller Plummets in Alaska
10/27 Records Show Miller Admitted Lying
10/29 Murkowski Leads in Alaska
10/31 Palin Alleges Media Conspiracy [see prior post - Breitbart and CBS/KTVA and dishing at "Corrupt Bastards" in media] Fox News says record does not support SP]
10/31 Republicans Give Up on Miller
10/31 GOP Establishment Seeks to Stop Palin

In all of the above, consider this.

When Sarah Palin WAS the sitting Governor in Alaska, Sen.Lisa Murkowski was the Senator (Murkowski assumed office Dec 20, 2002). The other senator was Sen.Ted Stevens, and it was famously known during 2008 McCain-Palin run that Palin didnt get along with Stevens. So, she was Governor and didnt get along with BOTH the Senators from the State?!!

The persona we are getting is "my-way, or highway". [And, yes, was it not the summary of what we heard of their experience of her from the McCain campaign managers?]    Uh-Oh! Not another one like the one in the WH!

10/20 Palin's Disclosure -- why would she do THAT? Michale Steele got egg on his face for that gem of a deal. She would have known it would come out. What was she thinking? She wants to keep dishing at Michael Steele?   That's a bit stinky on teamwork once again!

SugnSpicesMom, The more we see, the more we know about the temper tantrums. Also been reading about her holding out on endorsement until it is almost a cynch that someone wins, then wanting to ride the wave when it is looking like they have a lot of visibility and following... she goes with late or poor planning to events and the campaigns are hit like hurricane, [some of that is true for any celebrity but a lot of it appears to be avoidable and a bit calculated - that latter part is very unpalatable] and sometimes very unpleasant. So, I would not be surprised if GOP thought she would do more harm than good.   SOOOO glad we are not in campaign mode, SSM... :)

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 1st of November 2010 06:05:36 AM

reddirtgirl · Platinum

Thanks for the links, Sanders. Palin really seems to be becoming a pariah in her own party. Maybe she'll run in 12 under the Tea Party. She still hasn't got a chance in hell at winning.

reddirtgirl · Platinum

Eminence,
I sent you a PM but not sure it went through. Let me know if you didn't get it.

Eminence · Platinum

No PM, RDG. Try again? confuse

Sanders · Diamond

reddirtgirl wrote:
Thanks for the links, Sanders. Palin really seems to be becoming a pariah in her own party. Maybe she'll run in 12 under the Tea Party. She still hasn't got a chance in hell at winning.

You're welcome! I was wondering whether to post.. and that set seemed to show a couple of trends, inter-mingled, kind of contributing to each other so to speak.

Yes reddirtgirl, she might try.. I dont know what all goes into formation of an actual party as such... I know from researching (for Hill) that indep registration is non-trivial - I've got a whole spreadsheet on that, state by state, all the deadlines, etc... It is really complicated, and takes a lot of money. There is probably similar registration at the party level as well, and it is handled by the party organizers.

Who knows what her plans are... Lately sure has been sounding like she is moving towards a run. Then again, her currency and marketability are high as long as she is a potential/likely candidate. So, could go either way on the run... Her statement "IF nobody runs" is mega posturing...

Winning from the extreme end is very difficult and takes a moderate partner to get more vote to win. With her level of unpopularity and image, that's going to be even harder. Her way of making friends with people doesnt help her much; look what she did to herself with media! Not that they play fair but to accuse them of conspiracy she needed to be absolutely sure on it first.

BTW - Talking of reality TV - she was promoting her 8-piece episode in front of a RNC meet with Michael Steele to her right... totally out of place an inappropriate self-promotion. Called that her stake in the game along with 2012 - so ... [if I find that clip, I'll post.]

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 1st of November 2010 07:35:57 AM

sorry that took a while.. had to search a bit and also step out for school bus. Not easy to find a YouTube you saw a few days ago!

Not RNC.. this is at the Florida GOP. Couldnt recall earlier.... but Michael Steele was sitting there to her right. Cant see him clearly in this. I saw a different clip that had more than this.

Sarah Palin plugs her reality show Sarah Palin's Alaska at a GOP rally in Orlando, Florida on Sat. October 23, 2010.

That was a clear plug for her show couched in a joke about Obama retirement in 2012.. She then followed that comment with another comment about 2012 "Talking of 2012" and how all of these people will make sure of win in that.... (and pointed to Michael Steele) - That so surprised me. It was almost as if she is saying they have talked about it. It is so not protocol for even a candidate to do that. [While her joke about Obama's golf courses was fine, it was not a compliment to Discovery channel - they got made into a political coverage by comparison to that. Ok, she joking! But really! The host Discovery channel may not like the joke either. ] There was something in that follow up about Dancing with the stars... Dancing without the stars or something like that, and that Bristol would get more rating than her as the results are on the same day as election outcomes.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 1st of November 2010 10:58:33 AM

Sanders · Diamond

I recall the continuation of what she said at the Florida Republican address. I cant quote this, but am paraphrasing....

First part is in the clip there... about 6-part docu series. Then, she said something like this (this is close but not verbatim).

Michael Steele and all of you Tea Partiers will get us to 2012 and then we can leave the dancing TO the stars.... (not all got it and she pointed to a couple of people and said) ah some of you got that.

I took from that that she views DWTS thing as part of her larger marketing strategy ... hm..

Eminence · Platinum

Sanders wrote:
This is normal conversation before reporters go out to any event - it is viewership segmentation and planning on team focus areas. It was only a discussion. Breitbart chopped pieces and presented sentences out of context.

Note: RCP has NOT posted any article on Breitbart's highly edited expose.

Hmm, sounds like the narrative MediaMatters has been putting out there. But, there doesn't seem to be any proof that Breitbart chopped pieces and presented sentences out of context.

This was discussed at another board and seems like there was no actual proof of this. I'll just quote the response:

Oh my frickin' god, how many times do I have to say this??? Breitbart isn't "peddling" anything, he's not involved in this in any way, shape, or form!!! His website reported on it after the Miller campaign and DeSoto went public with it! What do you not understand about that? Breitbart did not handle the tape, never touched it, it came from DeSoto, and the CBS executive confirmed that it was genuine! I don't know how many more ways I can say that...

Ok, let me point out where you may be getting hung up: The Media Matters lie. Like many things on Media Matters, you need to read it very carefully and parse what they are saying because they try to mislead you.

No where does that say the tape came from Breitbart, or that FOX got it from Breitbart, but a casual reading gives that impression. What it actually says is "FOX reported on a story that Breitbart has also reported on". There is no actual connection between Breitbart and FOX, and Breitbart was not the original source of the story, DeSoto was. But by phrasing it deceptively as they did, it leads you to assume that Breitbart was the source and he's the one making the claim, even though it never really says that (because they'd get sued it they did openly state such a lie). They are trying to smear the story by saying "Oh, Breitbart reported on it so it must be a bad story, ignore it, nothing to see here, move along..." You were fooled by Media Matters carefully deceptive phrasing.

I'm not seeing where it was Breitbart specifically who chopped pieces and presented sentences out of context. While it goes without saying that Breitbart himself should be more careful in what he posts.....if he hasn't done anything wrong here other than post the clip on his website, then statements implying some sort of extra subterfuge are themselves what's sloppy and deceptive.