The Next Time Liberals Tell You Conservatives Control the Media...

Just point them to the past week of coverage, when a lunatic kills six people and shoots a Congresswoman in the head, and Sarah Palin and talk radio are blamed immediately.

Words fail me to describe the unmittigated gaul of the leftwing fringe--hell, everyone to the left of Sean Hannity--to lecture the public on the ills of conservative opinion. WTF is wrong with these people?

Why the MSM Are Obsessed with Sarah Palin

Newsbusters notes that Charles Krauthammer castigated the host of PBS's Inside Washington for its regular Sarah Palin segment.

As Krauthammer points out, the media obsession with Palin's every move (and non-move, for that matter) exaggerates her importance within the Republican party. But why would that be?

I have a couple of theories. The first is that their obsession is equal to their hatred of her and their determination to highlight every misstep, every gaffe by Palin and show that as the face of the Republican Party. Palin isn't the GOP. She holds no elected post within the Republican Party and doesn't speak for anyone but herself.

The second reason for the Palin obsession is seedier: she sells. They mention her because it boosts ratings and that is more important than anything else.

Fan Base and Dancing With the Stars

I'm a fan of DWTS since Season 3. The show is trivial and meaningless and allows people to vote for people they like over people who can dance. Believe me, in all the seasons I've watched, the person who won wasn't necessarily the best dancer. As is often the case in these poll-based shows, fan base is more important than talent.

That brings us to Bristol Palin and her remarkable staying power. I've had this week's semifinal installment of DWTS spoiled by overanxious friends complaining that Brandy is out and Bristol is still there, but I've gotten used to that phenomenon (if you TiVO something, you can't have access to any media before you watch the show. Period.)

Now we hear that supporters are rigging the votes (or, rather, exploiting a flaw in ABC's system) in Bristol's favor. And that liberals are complaining about it and that conservatives, the little sneaks they are, are enjoying it.

My opinion is that after Jerry Rice came in third one season, it's hard to complain about someone else rigging the vote.

UPDATE: Thanks to Memeorandum for the link.

UPDATEx2: Apparently, some guy shot his TV because he didn't like Bristol's dancing. Must've been a teabagger. No, wait...

Who Knew the Nazis Used Facebook?

Author Joe McGinniss is writing a book about Sarah Palin and moved in right next door to her, presumably to have some eyewitness info to add.

But now, McGinniss is complaining that the Palins haven't been "friendly" to him. I guess being bashed relentlessly by liberals for a couple of years will do that to a person, especially if you read McGinniss's previous essay on Palin. Palin's no milkshake murderer, nor is she Jeffrey MacDonald (both books by McGinniss I read and shivered through), but you don't have to be a killer to be a bit apprehensive when this guy decides to write about you.

I guess Palin's Facebook diary on McGinniss's appearance riled him a bit, so now he's taken to the Today Show to compare a writeup on Facebook with..."Nazi tactics."
Really, Joe? That's the best you can come up with? You're a fantastic writer with incredible skills and you compare a tongue-in-cheek recitation of facts and questioning of motive with Nazis? Which part of Nazi behavior is this like? Kristelnacht? Concentration camps? If McGinniss really wanted people to think his landing next door to Palin was just a coincidence and that he wanted a friendly relationship, he could start with not calling the Palins Nazis for being suspicious.

Iowahawk puts this in a much more humorous way.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin responds.

Crib Notes vs. Teleprompter

Sometimes, the moonbats get bent about the weirdest things. The latest? Sarah Palin's crib notes on her hand.

Just to be clear: The notes most likely weren't for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which she glanced at the hand in question.

But in my opinion that's even worse.

There were no specifics on there, just general concepts and things she supports.

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Wait. She makes notes to herself to make sure she covers some essentials, and that, seemingly, makes her dumber than the president who needs a teleprompter to talk to sixth graders? Seems like stretching to me.

Andrew Sullivan is stretching to show that this makes her dumb, but Ann Althouse brings back a little sanity.

But what the hell? Make stuff up. Like the theory that she was told "the questions" in advance. And she had the answer to one question written on her hand? Of course, she had the words on her hand for some reason. I think the most obvious theory is that these were themes she could always find a way to, whatever the question. When in doubt, bring it around to your specialty, energy, go with the main theme tax cuts, or fall back on lifting America's spirits — some of that good old Morning-in-America/Hope-and-Change inspiration that people lap up so gratefully.

You know, I write stuff on my hand sometimes to remind myself of important stuff I want to make sure I don't forget. I have a hard time figuring out how the Left can embrace the president who can't memorize his speeches but come unglued because someone left five words on her hand.

Palin Says Birth Certificate a "Fair Question"

This is gonna drive the moonbats nuts, providing them new and additional information proving Sarah Palin is crazy and all Republicans are in the toilet with her. On a radio interview yesterday, Palin said Barack Obama's birth certificate is a "fair question."

Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of "the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son -- 'You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done."

Personally, I think it's just a cute dig at the batshit craziness of Andrew Sullivan, but that's not how the moonbatosphere is gonna play this.

I've said before that I don't doubt Obama was born where he says he was, but you do have to wonder what else is on the long form that he doesn't want to have to deal with. Otherwise, it would have made sense to just release the thing and get it over with.

The KOS kids salivate at a Palin presidential run. Here is a site almost as crazy as Andrew Sullivan.

More sanity here.

You Gotta Have Your Priorities

Andrew Sullivan is a vile, disgusting excuse for a human being, largely because of his bizarre obsession with Sarah Palin and her son Trig. Now Sullivan is taking time off, one can assume, to count typos in Palin's book as "lies" and fact check whether she chopped one cord of wood a day at her grandma's house. Cuz there's nothing more important going on in the world, dontcha know.

Cassandra pulls out just a few things Sullivan could actually write about if he was actually a serious person and not simply a clown piling out of the Left's clown car:

Let me see if I have this straight:

Double digit inflation.

Recession.

A President paralyzed by indecision: Should he fully resource the war of necessity that's vital, not just to the security of the United States but to the security of the world??? Decisions, decisions.

An historic reform of our entire health care system hanging by a thread...

But fear not, gentle readers! For in the midst of all these heavy matters, we can rely upon Andrew Sullivan to deeply delve into matters of transporting significance... like the highly suspicious 5th pregnancy of a married woman who isn't holding a political office at the moment and isn't expected to run for anything anytime soon.

The Left's obsession with Palin (and the idea that she heads the GOP) would be hilarious if it weren't so deadly serious.

I'm Gonna Faint...I Agree With Media Matters on Something!

Of course, it could just be that Media Matters finally noticed the blatant sexism with which the MSM treat former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Or maybe Newsweek just went so far over the top that even Media Matters could no longer ignore it.

Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.

I've frequently noted the sexism that was blatantly on display during the presidential campaign of '08, from the outrageous behavior towards Hillary Clinton to the nasty, hateful and sexist attacks on Sarah Palin. It's nice when Media Matters notices these things for a change. It would be nice if they did it a little more often.

"End of Life" Provisions Dropped from Obamacare Bill

It's a small concession, IMO, but expect more classy name-calling from the smart bunch over it.

Oh, and there's the hypocrisy claims that Sarah Palin was for death panels before she was against them. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. There's a big difference between favoring information being available and mandating that people be told things, as Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion notes. I don't mind a doctor asking me if I have a living will but I'm not sure I want him telling me approved sources for the information.

From Ann Althouse:

Why didn't the congressional Democrats defend their own bill? If it was so terribly wrong to say "death panels" — and what indignation was expressed! — then why wasn't it easy to crush stupid, crazy Sarah for what she so outrageously said? By backing down and removing the language she leveraged, they not only seem to admit she had a point, they sacrifice credibility that they need to promote what's left of the bill.

New Media, Making Sh*t Up and the Sarah Palin Divorce Story

I saw the story that Sarah and Todd Palin were getting divorced last night. It was the top story at midnight on Memeorandum, and had been significantly displayed on that site for about 18 hours before it finally was dumped once Mememorandum couldn't bury the denial any longer.

We should have been tipped off when the original story, which was oddly written as a straight news story, ended like the bitter, vengeful, wronged ex who can't keep it in any longer.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin says politicians need to have thick skin "just as I've got" Which of course is hilarious since she quit as Alaska's governor complaining about her hurt feelings from Alaska's bloggers reporting on her 21 ethics violations.

Maybe the "hurt feelings" were about bogus ethics violations reports from bloggers who gleefully make stuff up and their Democrat counterparts who like to harass popular Republicans. Sounds to me like the only hurt feelings are from the bloggers who make sh*t up.

Robert S. McCain laments that we conservative bloggers don't have sources that can help us make sh*t up like liberal bloggers do.

To me, the whole thing goes back to why the left hates Sarah Palin and how they'll say absolutely anything to gin up the troglodytes in their readership.

Free Republic Racism, Amanda Marcotte and a Flashback

The hysteria today on leftwing blogs about Free Republic commenters' nasty comments about Malia Obama are sad, amusing, but predictable.

Here's the story in a nutshell:

Chris Parry, a reporter for the Vancouver Sun, wrote a story about some nasty comments Freepers made over a picture of Malia Obama. The comments he highlighted are atrocious and deserve the ridicule and condemnation they've received.

But Parry is no innocent bystander, asn the Gawker story notes.

Chris Parry, it appears, has advocated on his Daily Kos blog any number of egregious offenses, among them: posting hate speech on sites like Free Republic and blaming it on conservatives. Parry posted under the name "hollywoodoz" on Daily Kos, where his signature was "Fool me once, I'll punch you in the fucking head." Parry outed himself as hollywoodoz here, where he discloses the company he helped start. In essence: Parry, the journalist, found his story right where he'd been circling it for a very long time, and reported it as news. Sigh.

This isn't the first time that people have been accused of planting stories or inflammtory comments on blogs, either lef to right. During the campaign last year, many bloggers voiced concern about "plants" in the comments sections, comments designed to make both the blogger and the followers of whichever candidate was supported look racist/sexist, etc.

What I found interesting about Parry's story was that it reminded me of my very first post about Amanda Marcotte and Pandagon, highlighting the outrageous remarks made by her commenters about abortion. The post got me significant traffic from Pandagonistas outraged that I would point out that their opinions were the faces of abortion support hidden by the likes of NOW and NARAL. And, more significantly, they excoriated me for pointing out the outrageous and disgusting nature of their remarks.

I see little difference between the nasty remarks about Malia Obama and the disgusting remarks made by the Pandagonistas. Both sets are about innocent victims used as pawns in a bigger gambit. What's worse, though, is that there's probably a sizable number of Malia Obama supporters who didn't mind at all the nastiness directed at Trig Palin.

"We Took Sides, Plain and Simple" Against Sarah Palin

So says White House reporter Carl Cannon.

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

Cannon catalogues the sins of the press in amazing detail, starting with the tabloid-style reporting that begain shortly after John McCain announced Palin was his veep pick. And, just as Violet Socks observed about feminists and their unaccountable hatred of Palin, female reporters were equally repulsed by the Alaskan governor and determined to portray her as unworthy of high office (unlike Hillary Clinton).

A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary...

The first thing reporters and commentators seemed to have noticed about Gov. Palin was her physical beauty. The second was that she had a bunch of kids, the last one born with Down's syndrome in spring 2008. For some reason, these two facts infuriated many Democratic activists and bloggers – and some liberal journalists.

Plenty of Palin critics have tried to argue that the problem with Sarah isn't her physical appeal, her kids, and her moose hunting, but rather, that she "lied" about a variety of issues (and lots of non-issues in there, as well) and that she knew so little about national and international affairs. There's certainly some legitimacy to this argument, as Cannon points out. Palin was obviously unprepared for the sorts of questions she was asked in interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, and while Gibson clearly asked Palin more difficult questions than he asked of Teh One, Palin should have made it a point to learn enough about different issues to perform better than she did.

Liberals like to tell us that there is no media bias, and certainly no liberal media bias, yet Cannon gives a detailed list of the mistakes Joe Biden made during the vice presidential debate that the press completely ignored.

The good senator from Delaware warmed up slowly, erroneously claiming that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution, and asserting wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. He also embarked on an appallingly wrongheaded monologue about the constitutional history of the vice presidency. But when the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden's purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid.

• "John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported," Biden stated. (Actually, in a 1999 vote in Congress, McCain sided with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty. Only four joined the Democrats.)

• "Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons," Biden said. "Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean." (Pakistan has no known intercontinental missiles. The range of its weapons is thought to be 1,000 miles – halfway to Israel.)

• "When we kicked--along with France--we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't...Hezbollah will control it.'" Biden recalled. "Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." (Except that the U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon or anywhere else. They've been entrenched in Lebanon since 1982. Actually, Hezbollah, insofar as it was responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing at the Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, kicked America out of Lebanon, not the other way around.)

• "The president...insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won," Biden said. (Only the last two words of Biden's strange soliloquy are true. The rest are false. For one thing, Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. Secondly, neither Biden nor Obama predicted the 2006 victory for Hamas in Gaza's legislative elections. Third, McCain and Obama – but not Biden -- signed a letter urging the president to pressure Palestinians to require that candidates adhere to democratic principles before being allowed to run for office. Fourth, Biden served as an election observer and later wrote an article expressing high praise for Bush's actions. To sum up: One factual error and three fibs in only 31 words. Pretty impressive, in its way.)

• "With Afghanistan, facts matter...we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan. Let me say that again..." (He did say it again, but that didn't make it true. It's wildly and weirdly off the mark. Yes, facts matter. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. Biden's math was off by 2,000 percent.)

• "Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say (he'd) sit down with Ahmadinejad." (He most certainly did. And among those who criticized him at the time for it was Joe Biden, who told Byron York of National Review that the idea of a president meeting with the likes of the Iranian president or Hugo Chavez was "naïve.")

Those were alarming mistakes. To me Biden's most discordant claims concerned his Animal House-like history lecture about the office of the vice president. It came while Biden was dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. "The idea (that) he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States – that's the executive branch – he works in the executive branch," Biden said. "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and, as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit....He has no authority relative to the Congress.

The idea he's part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us."
Lord, would Tina Fey have had fun with this jumble of misinformation – if only Palin had said it! Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch. The vice president is, indeed, mentioned there. What Biden finds "explicit," hasn't been so to previous vice presidents or to most constitutional scholars. Prior to the 20th century, vice presidents didn't even have offices at the White House compound – they were housed in the Capitol. The notion that a veep's constitutional authority is to provide advice to a president springs from Biden's brow; it certainly isn't mentioned, or even contemplated, in the Constitution, which doesn't even say whether the vice president should receive a salary.

Should Joe Biden have known this stuff? Since he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd hope so. But even if he didn't, you'd think it would be news when he unleashed a veritable fount of misinformation to impugn Palin's knowledge of the federal system while attacking a sitting vice president. It barely rated a mention in the collective mainstream media.

We heard endlessly about Palin winking for the camera, and how Joe Biden won the debate.

Joe Biden came ready, and without rudeness or condescension, drove home reality again and again. Palin was unable to respond to any of his rebuttals with anything other than repeating her initial charges. Well, guess what, Mrs. Palin? Children learn to say, “Nuh-uh” around the age of 2. Those in the White House need to do a little better than that.

Joe Biden had the facts, the judgment, and he had the middle class appeal.

Really? Apparently, at least some reporters disagree with that assessment. Of course, it's months too late to make a difference, and that's probably why Biden's numerous gaffes get little play, while a Palin gaffe gets far more play.

It's so hard to remember, but Joe Biden is a heartbeat away from the presidency. Which is ok, since the press will just keep focusing on those not in power.

Sarah Palin's Legal Bills: It's No Lie

Liberals have been crowing that Sarah Palin lied about one of the main reasons she's quitting politics: that defending herself against a variety of bogus ethics complaints is draining her personal and the state's coffers, when the money could better be spent elsewhere.

You won't see moonbat sites quoting this story, though, since it notes Palin's explanation is--or, at least, could be--correct.

Palin says her family has racked up more than $500,000 in legal fees and the state has poured about $2 million of taxpayer money into investigating the complaints...

But the Palins have other assets and financial prospects: Their home is valued at $500,000 to $1 million, she has a book deal that could easily be in the millions, and Palin can make millions more with speaking tours and media opportunities.

She can also tap her immense popularity among the Republican base and raise tens of thousands of dollars to pay off legal bills with very little effort. An Internet campaign raised $130,000 from supporters in just two weeks.

Yes, Palin could mortgage her home, finish her book and then go on the speaker's circuit (I'm sure she'd then be accused of "whoring" around), but I have to ask how much should an individual who is not the Vice President have to pay to defend against frivilous ethical violations? Because it's fairly obvious that Democrats wanting to ruin Palin would continue to file charges regardless of their baseless nature.

This reminds me a little of SLAPP suits, which are designed to silence criticism by making such speech too costly. As noted earlier, Sarah Palin is the designated Hate Receptacle, and as long as she is in the public light, she will be attacked, along with her family, friends, city, state, religion and affiliations.

Would That Andrew Sullivan...

Put this much effort into tracking the lies of Teh One.

Many of the things on this list are either merely Sullivan's definition of lie (such as "Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all." We all know that "began" can mean a lot of things other than breaking ground.) or simply unimportant (such as Trig Palin trutherism). Some are legitimate concerns (such as claims of abuse of power), while others are so insignificant as to be laughable (ZOMG1!!1!! Harry Potter!!!!).

The real chicken bone sticking in Sullivan's craw, and the reason for his Palin hatared, is this one:

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

How dare she not support gay marriage or belong to a church that offers an alternative to gay solidarity! In Sullivan's world, not embracing gay marriage means you are, in fact, "passing judgment" on gay people. Which is the real reason Sullivan doesn't spend his time tracing the many, many lies and flip-flops of Barack Obama, but, instead, worries about Trig Palin's parentage.

Laugh of the Day

It's a cynical, snide laugh, but a laugh none the less at Andrew Sullivan haughtily applying the double standard where Sarah Palin is concerned:

I find the notion that class snobbery is behind it to be silly. It's hard not to note the Judge Judy atmosphere that permeates Palinland, but some of us weren't born into privilege at all and simply expect minimal standards of effort, intelligence and integrity in public officials who come from nowhere.

Emphasis mine.

If only Sullivan had applied the same standard to Barack Obama. Now there's a public official born into privilege who needs to meet minimal standards of effot, intelligence and integrity.

Feminists and Sarah Palin

Violet at Reclusive Leftist has defended Sarah Palin's feminist chops before, but it's almost like she couldn't believe the piling on trash talk from the Left regarding Palin in this post.
I like Reclusive Leftist because, unlike other lockstep feminist sites, Violet takes women at their word when they claim feminism, even if those women don't embrace all the tenets of that cause. It's sadly amusing seeing Violet having her come-to-Jesus moment regarding leftwing feminists and conservative women.

Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

Violet's post is wonderful and should be read by all, but she doesn't really say anything that a lot of us haven't said before: What is it about Sarah Palin that drives the nutso left batshit crazy? What makes them lie about her positions on almost any and every subject? And knowingly lie?

This argument has been raging over at Common Sense Political Thought where the usual trolls are arguing that Palin is (a) a liar, (b) unethical, (c) a nut, and (d) a hypocrite. Oh, and she doesn't take the ridicule lying down, but rather, tries to defend herself.

I find those explanations to be only true if you want to believe all the lies about Palin. If you want to believe she charged for rape kits, wants Creationism taught in school, was controlling the sexual activities of her daughter (that's how a 17-year-old's pregnancy is your fault as a parent), and opposes sex education, then, of course, any information that doesn't confirm those ideas must make her a liar.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Palin walks on water. I think she saw an opportunity to leapfrog onto the national scene and she took the risk, even if she wasn't prepared for it. But the treatment of Sarah Palin is nothing if not a double standard, from the interview questions she was asked to the scandal about who is Trig's mom to how much money she spent on clothes. The "diva" talk is decidedly sexist, and Violet notes that, as well.

it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

Violet argues that Sarah Palin is the designated Hate Receptacle of the left, and that's about as close to the truth as we're likely to get. I've had this discussion with people I respect, people who are very intelligent about other things, yet have this blindspot where Sarah Palin is concerned. They were outraged at the way Hillary Clinton was treated during 2008, yet laugh with unmitigated glee at the viciousness and lies Sarah Palin has had to face. These people don't seem to get the fact that most of the nastiness about Palin had as much to do with her femaleness, her mother-ness, her abilities to do her job while being a woman as it did about any qualifications for higher office. They laughed off David Letterman's disgusting "slutty stewardess" joke as being a good shot at Palin, rathr than accept that such misogynistic characterizations smear all women who don't fit the preconceived stereotype. Don't feminists usually write screeds about all women being judged as sluts and whores on the basis of their appearance? Why is Palin any different?

IMO, feminism lost its credibility when it embraced sexual harasser in chief Bill Clinton. But no intelligent woman should accept the outrageous behavior of leftwingers towards Sarah Palin. As Violet says, it's like the NCAAP sponsoring a lynching. Who would agree with that?

UPDATE: Echidne of the Snakes, who is no Sarah Palin fan, notes the misogyny of the left, as well.

Palin Resigns

I was surprised to hear that Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska.

In a stunning announcement, Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday morning she will resign her office in a few weeks.

Speculation has swirled for weeks, perhaps months that Palin would not seek re-election in 2010 as she pursues a political career on the national stage. The former vice presidential candidate has long been rumored to be considering a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Palin did not address those rumors at the press conference at her Wasilla home, during which she did not take questions from reporters.

Perhaps Palin is planning to use the time to brush up on national and international affairs, to make herself a serious candidate. It would certainly be a wise move on her part. OTOH, I have to wonder if any amount of brushing up would make her a "serious candidate" after the trashing she's taken.

Oops. Spoke too soon. Other sources say Palin is out of politics for good, tired of the nastiness aimed at herself and her family. This would make sense to me. Palin has a multimillion dollar book deal, and if she isn't in politics, she's free to do whatever it is she chooses to do. We'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Rumors are swirling that an "iceberg," in the form of an embezzlement indictment are coming. This would certainly explain Palin's announcement that she was stepping down as governor.

UPDATE x2: Media Research Center has compiled 10 months of media hate for Sarah Palin.

UPDATE x3: Best quote of the day:

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, the left would have been okay with it. If she hid Trig offstage and out of sight, all would be good. But treat the child as you would any other child, and that cannot be tolerated.

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

Vanity Fair's Sarah Palin

I just finished reading Vanity Fair's hit piece on Sarah Palin which manages to excoriate Palin for being very popular with social conservatives and not saving the flailing McCain campaign. It allows former McCain staffers to snipe and carp about Palin, as though she was the reason John McCain didn't win last year's election.

I'm not defending the things Palin didn't know and should have. But, ultimately, the failures of the McCain campaign are the fault of John McCain and his staff. It wasn't Sarah Palin's fault that McCain decided early on he wasn't going to attack Barack Obama on his seedy Chicago connections and utter lack of experience doing anything. Nor was it Palin's fault that McCain is so despised by regular GOPers that Palin's persona outshone him from the getgo. McCain looked like, acted like and thought like an old man going up against a young one, with predictable results.

The reasons John McCain lost last year's election were (a) he was running against an attractive and, as Joe Biden would say, articulate black man at a time when the country was happy to pat itself on the back as being post racial; (b) his lack of conservative backing (he was the moderate candidate); and (c) his completely inept campaign. None of those things were Sarah Palin's fault. If the bitter staffers want to blame anyone for the failures of the McCain campaign, they should spend their time looking in the mirror as opposed to complaining that Palin was a "diva."

Several feminist sites have spoken about the double standard Palin dealt with and continues to deal with. The press originally tried attacking her for being a working mother, asking how she could raise her children and run the state of Alaska. Then, when she spent a considerable amount on clothes (because, unlike men, women cannot wear the same five suits over and over without comment), she was a "diva." Palin was asked far tougher questions as a vice presidential candidate than the Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama. And when Democrat Joe Biden repeatedly bungled the softball questions he was asked, there was little press attention given to it (remember when Biden praised the trimester system of Roe v. Wade, when that section has been specifically repudiated since 1989? Where was the press coverage for that?).

I'm not arguing that there is no legitimate criticism of Palin. She was clearly uninformed of McCain's positions on a variety of issues (and, in fact, held diametrically opposed positions on some), and she was completely unprepared for the viciousness of the press when it decided to go after her. It might have been good if she had been a bit harsher in her responses to some questions, but then, she would have been an even bigger "bitch" than the Left already has portrayed her as.

One truly has to wonder, though, why Vanity Fair and the leftwing media are so fixated on Palin seven months after the election of their guy. Can't find any dirt on Barack Obama, Teh One? That would probably be more timely and important, rather than Palin's Twitters.

Robert Stacy McCain likewise explains that the problems with the Palin rollout were not Sarah Palin, but the handlers on the McCain staff. Part II is here.

I Don't Want to Hear About Rush Limbaugh Joking about Chelsea Clinton Ever Again

Not after the nastiness the Left has shown towards Sarah Palin's son Trig.

As Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion notes, if Palin showing her baby on stage makes him "a prop" and fair game, then Sasha and Malia are, as well. Well, except that we know about the howls we'd hear if someone Photoshopped Stalin, an alien or even a halo over the faces of those children.

I've never quite understood the antipathy leftwingers have for kids of Republican politicians. It's already apparent that they don't want children of their own (you can read most any liberal blog and hear feminists, in particular, bitching about the nasty breeders), but why attack others who have them? I'm all for that freedom to choose. If you don't want 'em, don't have 'em--and I'm not talking about aborting 'em.

But Trig Palin seems to bring out the sort of visceral dislike in liberals that we usually see the usual suspects ascribe to Republicans regarding welfare queens. The only difference, of course, being that welfare queens have some control over their state, whereas children are just, well, children.

And in Trig's case, he's a Downs Syndrome child, which seems to drive those moonbats even crazier than normal. It truly is the only explanation for their constant outrage at his existence. Why bother showing a picture from a year ago? Democrats won the election, but they are still seething about a one year old boy who had the audacity to live, rather than die for the cause of a woman's right to choose, I guess. These tasteless acts are every bit as bad as any Obama Buckwheat comparisons, so be sure to note it the next time Amanda Marcotte or whoever writes a "The GOP is despicable because the racists have Obama Waffles for sale" screed.

The Truth About the Bristol Palin Flap

I'm really sick and tired of smug feminists declaring how they just knew Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston wouldn't get married and that it was those mean ol' Republicans using Bristol as a campaign tactic that forced the issue in the first place.

Um, let's go for a reality check.

The reason anyone knew that Bristol Palin was pregnant in the first place was because leftwingers went nuts trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin. The best they could come up with was the luny theory that Bristol was actually the mother of Palin's (then) five-month-old son. Foolishly, the Palins thought that if they admitted Bristol was currently pregnant, the idiotic rumors regarding Trig would go away. Now, whether that was the smartest strategy is debatable, but let's not kid ourselves about why Bristol Palin's pregnancy was a big deal.