By saying "If she wasn't such a hypocrite..",you obviously are drinking the same Kool-Aid that the rest of the liberal media is spoon-feeding you.How is she a hypocrite? By standing up for what she believes in? By being honest and an "open book"? By being a REAL human being and being family-oriented? Would she be cooler or more acceptable if she followed the Washington sheep and lemmings?

So, how's all the warm and fuzzy "change" stuff working out for ya? Do you even have a "clue" as to just how much you, your children and grandchildren will be paying for all of this socialist/imperial experimentation? Do you realize just how much freedom we are giving away by feeding the sloth called "big government"?

I do, and I feel sorry for the rest of us, that do not...or suffer from the Ostrich Syndrome.

The rest of the Washington, DC crowd are the REAL hypocrites. Oh, puh-leeze.

What exactly do you mean by imperial experimentation.  In terms of imperialism, Obama's administration is trying to end the "West is sovereign" micromanagement of other countries, once so popular in the Bush administration.

Rather than staging militant coups in Iran, they're trying the revolutionary approach of talking.  Given the bloody and horrible tradition of imperialism, you could hardly call what is being tried today as an imperial experiment.

"She's a damned embarrassment to true good women everywhere"....like who? Her Imperial Magesty Clinton or crazy Pelosi?

Palin was honest and spoke from the heart. She was a normal human being and one of us.

Regardless of how whether you believe in the same issues as she does...the respect for her convictions and willingness to serve should be admired.

I'd like to see more people like her try to make positive change for America...regardless of whether I agree with their views, as long as they are really working for the betterment of all of us, and not just someone with an alternative agenda or power-grab in their pocket, which is more that I can say for about 90% of the elected officials these days.

I think that your views are a little extremist.  While it's fine to admire Palin's down to earth, "stick to your guns" approach of politics (no right-wing jab intended), claiming that 90% of elected officials don't give a rat's about making positive change is a reaching exhaggeration at best.

 Sorry, it took so long for me to respond, I was choking on the spoon full of Kool-aid. I hate our government, media, and anything else that is a tool for our government. I could care less, if she is a poor speaker; if her shoes match her coat, or if hair is, out of date. (This all pointed out by your, "liberal media.") Fact is, she ran on the conservative ticket. The one that you affiliate yourself with. I recall you saying in a prior post, "girls should keep their legs closed." (Sorry if it's not verbatim.) Well, if she can't get her daughter to do as you/your party, says...........how is she going to convey to the rest of the U.S. teen population, that they must practice abstinence?

 Would it have suited you better, had I said, "she needs to become a better liar, before she takes on the role of vice president?"

  Look, how I feel about her doesn't, reflect your opinion. It is my own. You can push your views in front of me all day long; not gonna change me. Another thing, please, don't suggest, in any way, that I support Obama. This president, that was, "going to change freedom"....sold mine to China; okay?

Thomas... you are making an attack on Palin specifically as a woman. 

It's not a good idea to say she is "an embarassment to all good women".  Who's a good woman, in your opinion?  Every woman and man is different.  By directly criticizing her as a woman, you are reinforcing the idea that she should be judged on the basis of gender.

Palin as a person has received a lot of criticism (a lot that may be well deserved), but has received the double wammy of being criticized for being a woman.  That is very unfortunate, because she should only be judged as a politician, not a woman.

Miss giandomenico...I voted for hillary clinton in the primaries and then for obama when he won the nomination.

Now...My problem with palin aint that she's a woman...Its my opinion that we need more women in office.

My problem with her is that she's anti-choice and anti-equality...Also that she's too fundementaly christian...That is...Too extreme.

I watched the first part of her interview with katie couric awhile back and at no time did she give a straight answer nor did she clarify what little she did say. 

Mr. portillo...Where the hell did you get that Im attacking her because she's a woman ?

To me a good woman is one of integrity and honesty with a nice personality and a strong will.

Palin exemplifies none of that.

OK sorry, I guess it did come out as a blatant accusation...

I probably interpreted your words wrongly at the time.  When you say she's a damn embarassment to all women, I thought you meant that because she's a woman, and because of the way she acts while being a woman, she's an embarassment...

Now, I think what you meant is that her actions and her points of view are embarassments, not her as a woman.

I personally try hard, when criticizing Palin, not to bring up at all the fact that she is a woman, at least in my choice of words.  But that doesn't mean that anyone who does attacks her as a woman.  Sorry Thomas... or Mr. McHugh.  I was imposing my personal point of view and way of expression.

First why would you call yourself a pig with lipstick? She doesn't even know how to talk!! Her views should only be her views not talking for all the people that she represents. As a Christian why would you go kill wildlife and destroy Alaska's environment. Just another pretty face.

Mary Ann, she called herself a pit bull with lipstick, not a pig, although that's not much better!

Some Christians believe that subduing the earth and having dominion over it means using the earth and all its resources pretty much any way they like.  They can believe whatever they like, but to me one's beliefs end at the point where one is imposing those beliefs on unwilling others. 

Palin's beliefs about energy and the environment are just that: beliefs.  She has neither the experience nor the empirical data to support her positions, and as long as certain wealthy people find her an attractive spokesperson for their greed she will continue to be in the public eye, unfortunately.

Frankly I like Biden.  He may put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but his heart is in the right place, and I have tremendous respect for his background and experience.

He's been given a bad rap by those who try to paint him as a plaigarist.  He failed to correctly cite a source in a college paper years ago, and he didn't give credit for a quote during a speech although he had given proper credit many times before.  It was at that time that his then-undiagnosed brain aneurysm was giving him terrible headaches and  depriving him of sleep.   

Of course he comes out with some zingers from time to time, but I can't help thinking everyone says stupid things now and then.  His get spotlighted because of his prominence and because it fits the pigeonhole into which the traditional media have placed him. 

It is to his credit that he doesn't complain and maintains a good sense of humor about himself.

Indeed!  I remember watching all of the debates and thinking that the VP debate was the only one worth watching because Biden was the only one who even attempted to give some sort of straight answer.

What I mean to say is this - I agree that Palin was too woefully unexperienced to be considered for VP, however, she is not the only politician who has trouble answering tough questions.

Well said and if you dont mind me adding...It kinda got me when she made the claim that obama's only leadership experiance was the youth organising he did in chicago as if it wasnt anything to be proud of...The funny thing is that when your dealing with youth...It takes leadership skills just to get them to listen to you.

When you respond to the opinions of others with accusations of "drinking the same Kool-Aid that the rest of the liberal media is spoon-feeding you," unsubstantiated accusations of "socialism," and random ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality, you shouldn't be surprised when others perceive you negatively.

The things you wrote are identical to what I hear from people proud to call themselves right-wing extremists.  I can only imagine they are proud since they assumed the recent warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about increased threats from right-wing extremists were about them.

The conservative-owned traditional media were very nice to Palin and gave her the benefit of the doubt even when her GOP handlers were issuing unprecedented restrictions to media access.  It wasn't until she began making herself look ridiculous that the media jumped on the bandwagon.

Don't get me wrong.  I can't stand the traditional media.  I haven't watched network news shows since 1984.  Between the fluff and the fear it's a wonder any real information gets disseminated.

But Palin's problems are self-made, and her champions tend to be right-wing extremists.  If I mistook you for one, perhaps you might re-read your own messages.  For someone who insists on a right to her opinion, you are awfully intolerant of the opinions of others.

People call other people names - that is not merely reserved for the Repuplican women.  McCain said nothing to a reporter who asked him "How do we beat the bitch?" (referencing Hilary) - actually, he laughed for a bit and then said, "That's a good question."

As far as focusing on minutia is concerned, the media hasn't only been throwing that kind of attention on Palin either.  I'd say that a majority of discussion surrounding Michelle Obama has been concerning her wardrobe.

Neither side needs to stoop to any level because slanted media will always act this way.

Yup, Jesse -- it's all about advertising rates. 

The higher the circulation/ratings, the higher the ad rates.  To get high circulation/ratings, people have to be buying/tuning in.  To get them to do that, the media must catch their eyes and hold them.  Fear and tabloid fluff are really good at that.

So, at the end of the day, fear-mongering and titillation of the lowest-common-denominator is where it's at, media-wise. 

Somehow I don't think that's what the framers of the First Amendment had in mind!

I certainly agree that women's rights groups should have been more vocal about condemning that kind of reporting - it is indeed misogynistic - however, they may have felt more inclined to rally to her support had she not been actively undermining the principles they were fighting for.

Let me be clear though, her politics were no excuse for their silence!  I agree.

Indeed...It doesnt matter what political party you belong to...Its flat out wrong to be targeting the family of any politician...female or male.

Personaly I tend to think that the media by and large needs to grow up and get serious about their job.

The latest nasty blog about Trig was taken down only yesterday or the day before. It had been on the HufPost. Most of the nastiest writing have been on The Daily Kos, as well.

Needless to say I have a completely different view of how things went down. I also don't mind that she was chosen for her gender as Biden was chosen for his points and Sotomayor was chosen not only because she is a woman but hispanic as well. (Don't send me a post about how much smarter the Judge is.That's not the point of this conversation.) But Palin was still a govenor of a state, with executive experience. She as not some tart from the local strip club. The point is that there are many reasons that a person is chosen as a running mate or to be a supreme court judge. I actually think there was alot of nasty bitchy women mentality going on about Palin including among Republican women.

I agree that the Rep. did her no good, and that they sabotaged her from the beginning. Which has alot to do with infighting about who will run on the republican ticket in 2012. They knew they were going to loose, andthey started the campaign immediately. Apart from the fat that the "frat boys" needed someone to blame for their own ineptitude than themselves.However the liberal media as Camille Paglia has said  acted like harpies.

As far a Chelsea is concerned. From my recollection noone attacked Chelsea as a child or a young woman inschool. Only when she made her debut on the public stage did she become fodder but by then she was a fully grown adult woman. I also admit that I found what they said unnecessary and uncalled for, besides the fact that they would not win any beauty contests themselves.

If you say that the national organizations did condemn the type of coverage surrounding Palin I would like to know where I can read it. I am not  being snide, but I never saw it and I would like to read it if for nothing but by own edfication.

I also truely don't think you have heard the last from her (I truely believe you underestimte what her personal program is) and all the dems need to do is tank the economy even more (the numbers are soaring down)and the reps will be back in control of both the Congress (they probably will control one of the houses at this rate after the next congressional elections in 2010)and the White House in no time.

Elise, the fact that "The latest nasty blog about Trig was taken down only yesterday or the day before" speaks volumes about the zero-tolerance policy liberal web sites have for that kind of thing.  (I said "thing" because the other word that came to mind was unprintable.) 

You say "Most of the nastiest writing have been on The Daily Kos."  I participate there nearly every day, and I saw posters banned for persisting in saying mean things about candidates' children, both before and after the election.

On the other hand, on November 6, 1992, three days after Bill Clinton won the presidential election, Rush Limbaugh said on his television show, "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and then pointed to a video monitor with an image of 13-year-old Chelsea.  Limbaugh never apologized, claiming it was a "technical error" which is interesting since the show was taped and there was ample opportunity to clean up glitches.

While Chelsea was still a teenager, John McCain told a "joke" at a Republican fundraiser in which he said the reason Chelsea was so ugly was that her father was Janet Reno.  Although I am unaware of any apology McCain may have issued for that, I assume he did. 

Other mockeries of Chelsea during her father's administration came from SNL, but producer Lorne Michaels apologized and the images were removed from future broadcasts of those shows.

If you want to look for condemnation of the personal attacks of Palin by the traditional media, you can start with the website for the National Organization for Women.  They even created a "Media Hall of Shame" to highlight the more outrageous remarks.

Here are a couple of things the frat boy media decided weren't newsworthy:

In 2008, when Sarah Palin accepted the VP nomination, NOW PAC chair Kim Grandy said, "I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights."

A month later she addressed the complaints about the treatment Palin was receiving by saying, "If only the commentators and Republican talking heads ... had had the same reaction when Hillary Clinton was on the receiving end of sexist pundit pronouncements.

"These struggles will continue for Palin and Clinton and all the women that follow them, if the media continue clinging to their outdated notions of gender stereotypes and rigid sex roles. We can get them to stop, but we have to do it together. The media are nothing without us -- their viewers, readers, listeners -- so we have to make sure they hear us loud and clear.

"Why? Because we should defeat anti-women's rights candidates like Sarah Palin based on their merits and their positions, not their gender."

Thanks for your quick reply and the info on NOW.

Ultimtely I think attacking the children is disgusting by any side of the equation. As a parent that is the issue that always angered me. Adults can defend themselves especially when they place themselves in that situation.

Well Said!!

I don't think anyone on the thread acussed any poster here of attacking Palin's children. We were discussing the recognized media and well-known blogosphere.

Also differences of opinions in politics is what American politics is all about. That's part of what makes threads like these interesting because I for one like to read how other people view the world. It's not a bad thing but a challening one I don't think anyone should be set so hard in their thoughts that they cannot listen and discuss with an opposing point of view. Everyone is not absolutely right or absolutely wrong (we are talking about normal people not crazy zealots from either side, ok) And I think ultimately what we all want is to find a way to solve this country's problems and ensure a bright future for our children and possibly for others. We just need to find a way to talk to each other and not at each other.