Girl on girl action

Seriously, there is some very scary video of Sarah Palin out there, most of it from her interview with CBS' Katie Couric. The Republican VP annointee appears not to have much under that beehive hairdo. There is no there, there. That despite three weeks of what has been intense media coaching.

I mean, get a load of this exchange, which aired tonight.

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Um, is she kidding? Is she even making sense? How many GOP talking points can't she keep straight?

It's even worse when you actually hear her trying to string those incongruous words together, with Couric interviewing her like she's a child who needs to be spoken to like this, all whispery quiet-like.

Here's Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog on this, and believe me, it's just one of hundreds of progressive and liberal blogs on the subject. (The conservatives seem eerily silent, in comparison.)

Usually, candidates for national office get better as time goes on. Palin is clearly getting worse.

I mean, really, think about Palin's argument here. She has foreign policy experience because Putin flies over Alaskan air space. Seriously, that's what Palin told a national television audience.

First, it's probably not true. Moscow is in Western Russia, and if a Russian leader were flying to the U.S., he or she would probably fly over the Atlantic. But geography aside, what does this have to do with foreign policy experience? If a head of state flies over you, you necessarily gain a background in international affairs?

I'm afraid Sarah Palin is not only embarrassing herself, she's quickly become a national joke. That John McCain continues to allow her to serve on the Republican ticket suggests his judgment is comically lacking.

There's enough freaky Couric-Palin material out there to strike fear into the hearts of any rational voter. You know, the kind who won't mark his ballot for her just because she's ''hot,'' or she ''won't blink,'' or she likes to slaughter wolves from planes with automatic rifles.

But, just in case, you missed it, click here for a truly terrifying video blast from her past church attendance.

In it, the minister implores Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." Earlier, he states, "We need God taking over our education system. If we have God in our schools, we will not have our kids being taught how to worship Buddha, how to worship Muhammad. We will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery." He also preaches, "The other area is the media. We need believers in the media. We need God taking over the media in our lives."

I am just wondering if the Republicans are going to pull out that sexism thing, to stop the critics from attacking Palin for her vapid, vacuous, vacant cerebral void.

But here's the thing, as CNN's Campbell Brown pointed out the other night. It's sexist to keep Palin so protected.

This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.

It's women who are now coming out swinging hardest at Palin. Check out this line-up: Isabel Allende, Eve Ensler, Melissa Etheridge, Kathy Najimy,Gloria Steinem, Loung Ung, Alice Walker, Jody Williams, Marie Wilson ...

Here's Allende, one of my favourite authors:

Sarah Palin does not represent the interests of women in this place and time. Do we want to go back to the 19th century? Or maybe medieval times? I hope that no thinking woman, young or old, will fall in the gender trap. Palin may be a woman but she certainly acts like Rambo and thinks like Cheney. As a woman I demand the right to control my body, my income, and my beliefs. As a mother I want to protect my family from poverty, inequality, ignorance, racism, bigotry, fear, violence and patriotism (an excuse for war). As a citizen I support freedom of the mind, curiosity, knowledge, technology, information. As an American I embrace the world and want our country to recover the international respect and admiration that the Bush administration has squandered. McCain and Palin do not represent me and never will.

It's interesting how women are asking so many of the toughest questions during this American election campaign. Not just Campbell Brown, who nailed a Republican strategist so hard a few weeks ago that John McCain canceled his scheduled interview with Larry King that night. There's MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Couric, of course, and the ladies of The View who had the McCains complaining that their ''bones were picked clean.''

It's a dirty job -- and it takes real women to do it.

Comments

[Craig Hubley]

Pardon me but has anyone asked any substantive questions about women in politics amidst all this image-driven trash? Like how many Republican women are running for Congress, how many Conservatives here, versus their Democrat or Liberal opponents?

[Antonia]

Hi Craig, regarding your question. If you mean here in Canada, Liberal vs. Conservative vs. NDP, yes. Both the Star's Carol Goar and I have, plus we have had an editorial on the subject.
Follow some of the links here:
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/politics/page/2/

Also a note to all: A friend in Oregon sent me a column by neocon Kathleen Parker, whom I recently interview on an other matter. (Read it here:http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/460122)
Parker has changed her mind on Palin, calling for her to step away from the ticket.

Here's an excerpt:

''Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

"No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

"When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem

[dog lover]

You know what, Antonia, this has gone beyond comedy and into tragedy. Doesn't the Republican party know what a terrible mistake they've made, that this person just might ascend to the presidency? Can anyone not take this seriously? I'm simply befuddled at what's going on in the U.S. these days. It's nothing to do with her gender or that she's being demonized. She's just plain not up to it and the look on her face at times indicates that she's aware of it as well. In other words, putting her out there like this is cruel in my opinion but it is, I suppose, nicely taking the spotlight off John McCain who can't seem to put a foot right these days.

[Chimera]

McCain bails out on Larry King. He bails out on David Letterman. He's so good at bailing out, I got to wonder if he picked up the technique when he was trashing all those military jets (five of them, right? And only one of them because of enemy fire?). Truly a creature of habit.

So what's gonna prevent him from bailing out on the USA if the going gets to be too tough for him? 'Cause if he thinks campaigning is a blood sport, somebody better clue him in on what to expect if he ever gets into office...before it's too late and he's already there!

And Palin...good grief in a muumuu but where did they find this bimbo? I can definitely see why Couric and Brown and Maddow (not forgetting La Zerb) and all are so scornful of her: they do not see her as being one of them. And they're right. She's not.

[sooey]

She's got confidence, I'll give her that.

[sooey]

Now Conservatives are turning on Sarah Palin. You know, because she's a woman.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

“Check out this line-up: Isabel Allende, Eve Ensler [Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator, you’re not being serious when you include her, are you? - S&hSD], Melissa Etheridge, Kathy Najimy, Gloria Steinem [Eve Ensler without the South Park stuff], Loung Ung, Alice Walker, Jody Williams, Marie Wilson ...”

Some of us on doing so sighed: “The usual suspects”.

To quote Ann Coulter: “The feminists just figured out that Sarah Palin has debunked everything they’ve believed for the past 40 years.”

And, paraphrasing AC’s next comment, “Sarah Palin’s almost as hot as the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator”.

or the probably-never-very-hot-but-super-high-achieving Phyllis Schlafly “After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called “a comfortable concentration camp”), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.”

[sooey]

Ann Coulter's not a "usual suspect"? And who's she to tell married women with children anything anyway?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Ann Coulter's not a "usual suspect"?"

for some people she is, OK ......

"And who's she to tell married women with children anything anyway?"

And who's Gloria Steinem in that context?

Melissa Etheredge?

and as for the absurd Eve Ensler ....

incidentally

in Heather Mallick's recent "racist" rant against people like me ("us"?), she let slip the phrase "Republican men ... Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night?"

because of Eve Ensler, yes, that image does sound about right.

and as for "jungle", no further comment . . .

come to think of it, maybe that was Shub-Niggurath giving birth ...

H.P. Lovecraft should have written that one up himself. . .

[johnnykap]

That's right, Sooey. Because only married women with children can tell other married women with children things. Only women on tv panels can talk about women voters. And women can never talk about penises since they don't have them.

That's the logic you and Antonia apply.

[Antonia]

''And women can never talk about penises since they don't have them.''

Oh I could say something here but it wouldn't get past the Star's moderators.

[Dominique Millette]

ROFLMAO: "If a head of state flies over you, you necessarily gain a background in international affairs?"
And to think I coulda saved myself FIVE AND HALF YEARS of study, including my time at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, just by standing around under a head-of-state's flight path headed for Lester B. Pearson!!!
*sigh*

[johnnykap]

You're telling me there's two layers of left wing filtering that my posts needs to permeate? I have noticed only about half my posts get thru; I had been assuming it was all due to your tender sensibilities. Perhaps an apology is in order.

I anxiously await.

[Antonia]

I have not moderated any comments here since February. We now have a ''moderation'' department. That's why it takes a while for your stuff to get posted. They moderate comments on the entire Star website, including news stories and blogs. So don't blame me!

:-)

[sooey]

Gloria Steinem et al have spent their lives/careers fighting for equality for women, not telling women what to do. Ann Coulter et al have spent their careers saying what Conservative men want to hear. I don't expect you to appreciate the difference, but I thought I'd point it anyway.

[sooey]

It's funny how freedom for others terrifies those who could always afford it. Because that's really it, isn't it. Poor women having the same choices in life as rich men.

[dog lover]

Oh, come on, you guys, anyone who takes Ann Coulter's and Phyllis Schafly's words as gospel or even credible, needs their heads examined, really. As the poster above has said, if a head of state flying over you gives you bragging rights about international affairs, lawd help us all. Secondly, Mallick's comments may well have been harsh, even over the top, but I think she said what a lot of people are thinking--at least up here this side of the border. Doesn't anyone get that this woman, Palin, could well be President of the United States, and doesn't that worry anyone down there? Even the tiniest little bit? Puleeeze.

[johnnykap]

dog lover, why would there be this tremendous sense of consternation about Palin as veep? If indeed there is, shouldn't there be outright fear and pandemonium about the possibility of an Obie presidency? After all, he has less experience than she. His worldview is one of weakness. His economics are pure socialist.

You may find it hard to believe, but Obie worries a lot of people down here.

Let's just hope the Bradley Effect is real and significant.

[The Stygian and His Shemitish Dogs]

“Gloria Steinem et al have spent their lives/careers fighting for equality for women, not telling women what to do.”

Nonsense. Look at the way she made excuses for Bill Klinton over Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc.

Do actually read the passage in “Slander” where she is contrasted with Phyllis Schlafly. It really was worth the price of the book (and I did pay full price at Chapters).

[Antonia]

Didn't Ann Coulter write Slander?
Why, yes, yes she did.
And oh my, look at all the stuff she made up:
http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

''Before I go on, let me first say that I enjoyed Slander. Although the book is libelous, nasty, and self-contradictory to the point of being burlesque, I found it an enjoyable read. However, the book entertained me for reasons Coulter didn’t intend. Slander has an amusing blend of bile, conspiratorial thinking, and straight camp (e.g., Coulter’s hilariously gushing 3-page paean to Phyllis Schlafly). I found Slander fun to read for the same reasons I enjoy reading Jack Chick comic tracts (on that subject, I highly recommend Robert Fowler’s book The World of Chick?). The only concern I have is that there are people out there who will believe Coulter’s disinformation.''

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

“And women can never talk about penises since they don't have them.”
“Oh I could say something here but it wouldn't get past the Star's moderators.”

I wouldn’t mind hearing what the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator has to say about penises - the guys on this list can fantasise it’s directed at them (and yes, feel free to say “speak for yourself, Thutmekri”). But her comments above do point to rather a serious problem. Look under E&BM’s pinup photo on the left: “And, because she can take it as well as dish it out, she wants to hear what you have to say.” Bit of a shame if Toronto Star moderators decide that she can’t take it, after all.

[dog lover]

Johnny Knapp: What kind of evidence is there that Obama's world-view is one of weakness? Is it because he believes in first going through diplomatic channels rather than "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iraq"? Further, what evidence is there to put forward a view that his economics are "pure socialist" as you claim? Can you provide any specific examples of what his pure socialism is and why it's so scary. It surely couldn't be because there might be a concern that your fellow citizen might have access to health care without going bankrupt, could it? Evidently you haven't heard how well Sweden and Denmark are doing with socialist ideas in practice, or is it the fear of a slippery slope towards communism that has you up in arms. You wouldn't be the first who mixed the two up. You might want to inform yourself about the rest of the world, Johnny, and not by watching Fox news.

[sooey]

So? You're the one talking nonsense. The fact is still that Gloria Steinem has fought to increase opportunities for OTHER women and Phyllis Shafly has done the opposite. Feminists want women to have the rights of people (men), Conservatives don't. Conservatives have always been threatened by the extension of rights to others. It's a fact. A world-wide fact. Suck it up, though, because we're not going back - only forward.

[Antonia]

I'll bet $700 billion US that Johnny Kap believes in socialism for Wall Street right now.

[arthurdecco]

"I'll bet $700 billion US that Johnny Kap believes in socialism for Wall Street right now." Posted by Antonia Z.

Thank gawd the majority of REAL Americans don't.

[johnnykap]

Zerbs, you, as the possessor of an MBA, know very little about how the economy works.* Yes, I'm in favor of intervention; the capital is necessary to allow the credit markets to function.

It's amazing how you leftists are so able to successfully distort the actual cause of the problem: the demands of the Clinton administration and congress to have more people live in their own home, even if they couldn't afford it, resulting in loans being given to detritus that should never have received them. Once again, liberalism has the best of intentions, but the results are disastrous.

You have actually been successful in purporting that the problem is greed and lack of regulation.

You're lucky there's so many stupid people out there that make up your constituency.

*you actually believe that not eating meat is saving animals. Apply that type of thinking to the market, and you'll be forced to concede I'm correct

[Antonia]

Hey Johnny Kap, Don't go dumping your Republican talking points on my blog. I wonder how you can justify CEOs making $17K an hour for failing? Or how the financial sector was making obscene record-high profits by shuffling cash into trash? Why was it that Citigroup, making a mere 20% ROE in 2006, was widely criticized for being a a loser? How did Goldman Sachs make almost twice that in the same year? Brilliant management? Or ''brilliant management?'' How come Wall Street accounts for half of all corporate profits while producing nothing but paper, and big fat salaries that, even when you factor in the file clerks and coffee cart pushers in the sector, average out 10 times higher than the ordinary American? representing only a tiny fraction of total employment? Do you think bankers are a special breed of super human, or is there something else happening here?
Oh yeah. Poor people who want a piece of the American Dream. Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse them

[johnnykap]

"Thank gawd the majority of REAL Americans don't."

Hello, Art Deco. Why would you pay lip service to an invisible entity (gawd) when you do not believe that said entity exists?

It is funny, though, to see you take the side of the people that you hate most in the world, the Americans, of which I happen to be a REAL one of. (It was appropriate in that instance to end that sentence with a preposition.)

[johnnykap]

Typical left wing corp bashing, Zerbs. "Oh yeah, let's make them pay more tax and let's make them pay their CEO's less. It doesn't change my situation one iota, but boy, it's great to see them getting their comeuppance."

That's how you and your side thinks, if I may be allowed some latitude with my use of the word "thinks".

Wall St produces nothing but paper, eh? You couldn't possibly be that naive.

Blame the corps and duck the actual root cause that I previously mentioned. You guys are masters at it. I must admit that.

How come you haven't updated us on the raison d'etre * of this blog in months? I'm on day 8 of P90X and it's absolutely killer. I urge you in the strongest terms possible to start that program.

*french for something

[The Stygian and his Shemtish Dogs]

“(e.g., Coulter’s hilariously gushing 3-page paean to Phyllis Schlafly)”.

Where were the actual errors in that passage?

“The fact is still that Gloria Steinem has fought to increase opportunities” - name one. More like increase opportunities for Bill Klinton, and powerful men like him, to make fresh “konquests”.

“Suck it up, though, because we're not going back - only forward.”

Over a cliff.