Game Changer
 

So, just caught a bit of the Sarah Palin biopic. I intend to watch it fully tomorrow. This thread could go into Entertainment, but since it's mostly going to be a discussion of Palin's candidacy, I thought I'd put it here.

Certainly the Dems have floated lightweight VP candidates in the past, so there was no reason for the Republicans not to bow to expediency, but was Palin different?

What, you mean she's Jewish? :bolt: :hide:

I'd have to think about it, but to me Palin is more dangerous than lightweight. We may get another dangerous lightweight in Santorum. If I was Mitt, I'd avoid that guy due to the armed-crackpot Santorum supporter angle.

That's not true about Democratic VP candidates... Dan Quail only misspelled one word.






Oh wait. Nevermind :rolleyes:

Mr. Quayle is doing very well for himself. What's funny is that he ran against GWB in the Republican presidential primaries and criticized him for his 'lack of experience'.:D

He's endorsing Romney this time around.

As far as Democratic VP's went, Edwards appeared smarter than Quayle, at least when he was thinking with his 'big head'.

Back to OP

My wife and I are still arguing about Sarah Palin. My wife just despises her. I don't.

I see Palin as a perfect example of the US Miss America Beauty contests.
A woman who is good looking and learns how to please others when in public,
and say exactly what is needed in order to be likable at the moment.
Palin quickly learned she could do that very well with the far right.
But beyond that, there's no there there.

Sort of the opposite of Mitt Romney, who can't ever seem to say the right thing in public.
But maybe, there's no there there, either.

Back to Palin, I see her nomination as the epitomy of McCain's personality.
As I remember it, McCain was essentially told by the Republican hierarchy
that he could not select either of the two Senators he wanted (Liberman or Graham),
and, in something of a fit of pique to have his own way, he announced Palin,
without ever having even met her beyond that one-day visit in Arizona.
I imagine one of his thoughts the next day was "O God, what have I done"

Palin then went on to upstage McCain at public rallies... until she imploded.


ETA: I just read somewhere that McCain wanted others for VP,
than Lieberman and Graham. Sorry if my memory is faulty.

I think Sarah Palin was a willing participant in a campaign to make women in politics look unstable and stupid. Too many women were going too far, shaking up the status quo. Hillary scared the hell out of them, so let's just remind everyone how cocoa puffs women are.

She's a big giant shame.

Yes, I have tinfoil hat on. That is my own personal conspiracy theory.

Take off that hat, IM. The numbers actually prove your theory out. The United States ranks 74th for number of women in government.

Exactly the same description of any politically successful man, except the woman part.

I'm with IM here, except that it has been ultimately a money play for her. And a deal we would all make, with the big needy family in tow. You have the choice: continue being Governor for $125K a year; or make $12M in 2 years being adored by big crowds on the book tours and getting big TV deals for you and your kids. Either way you get the shit beaten out of you by all major media... pick one.

This is what has become of the beacon of hope, the shining light on the hill...

[shakes head sadly]

and the part about being good looking,
and the part about there being no there, there. :rolleyes:

Dude, that light, its a freight train.

No, no, that's the light at the end of the tunnel.

If you don't think that applies to the men, we have a different view of politics.

I don't think there's a conspiracy. That said, I do think we see in Palin's role, a continuation of a much older pattern.

There is (and has always been) in American, and in British, culture a sense of disquiet over politically successful women. It's a pervading disquiet and applies almost equally to female voters/audience as male. Politicians like Hilary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi come in for all the usual political attacks in the media, but there is the addition of a kind of meta criticism of them as women standing in men's shoes.

Many of the attacks on them in the media are centred around their femininity or lack thereof. Their suitability as mothers, wives and sexual beings are at the centre of their political identity, whether they choose that or not.

Meanwhile, without doubt the most damaging attack that can be made on a male politician is any hint of femininity (either in terms of sexual orientation, or in the sense of being 'soft').

In many ways this just mirrors society in general. But in the political sphere it takes on an added urgency.

In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, the criticism most commonly levelled against women who participated (or attempted to do so) in political life was that they were 'unsexed' by that activity. That in taking part in political culture they were setting aside their womanly identity and adopting a male one. We no longer use the word 'unsexed', but the core of that critique remains in force.

Throughout this period, from time to time, a figure like Palin emerges. Sometimes that woman is a nutter. Sometimes she's cleverer than her male patrons. But she is usually very conservative, pro 'proper' female roles and yet, is waltzing comfortably through the male political sphere as she advocates a return to true femininity.

Margeret Thatcher is a classic example of this. She carried her traditional femininity like a badge of honour, and rose to the top as a stronger figure than any of her male colleagues. Politically, she did much to damage the quest for gender equality in the UK, even as her very presence at No.10 broke down walls.

Hannah More, writing in the late 18th/early 19th century is the person that usually springs to mnind for me on this. Uber conservative, strong advocate of proper gender roles for men and women and yet even as she was advocating it she was herself employing a political voice, and acting in the public sphere. She was the cultural and political antidote to writers like Wollstonecraft, whose ventures onto the public stage earned her the soubriquet of 'Female Politician' and 'Unsex'd creature'.

Women participating in the political sphere were lumped together as a 'monstrous regiment', echoing the 16th century treatise by Knox, who wrote specifically against the two female monarchs who reigned in Britain (Scotland and England).

Palin is/was the acceptably feminine antidote to the unsex'd, monstrous regiment of Clinton and Pelosi.

Every President in my life-time a pretty boy, save Tricky Dick. Anyone who thinks they would be a good President lacks there.

Ronald Reagan? Hardly pretty. Bush? Either of them?

Well, Reagan was a moobie star. Hey, I didn't invent Bonzo.

See, there are different ways that men are 'attractive' too. Nobody would give either bushie the time of day if they weren't 'who they are.'

Sort of like Steven Tyler or Mick Jagger. Or not.

The Palins of the planet take women backwards. I don't care what her reasons are: she's like the supposed patriotic fools who parade around denouncing anything that is actually good for our country in favor of what is actually good only for them.

I'd call it treason, but that might be slightly hyperbolic. ;)

BACON of hope.... BACON

I know an intelligent woman who though Bush II was hot. She hated his politics, but really found him attractive. Go figure.

*snickers*

Did she also have the hots for Alfred E Neuman and Cheetah?

I worked with a R political consultant once, who said that in order to be successful, women must be good looking enough for the man to think she could be in his wheelhouse, but not so good looking that another woman believes she would be a threat.

You can complain about this, but you can't fight it; that there is retail politics at its core.

And Sarah Palin was successful in man-centric Alaska but not in the lower 49 states.

Similarly a man must have a certain look but not be TOO good looking. He should be in the 6-7 range. Even if he was the most brilliant policy thinker, George Costanza cannot be President and George Clooney is also ineligible.

I'm not in politics for that very reason: I'm just too damn good-looking. Oh, and the cocoa puffs thing. :lol:


Or the fact that dishonesty makes me sick to my stomach.

Yeah...yeah it might be any of those things, but really, I think we all know the real reason you're not in polyticks. two words: Dead hobos.

(background music: duh duh DUHHHHHHHHHH)

Damn. Now I'm found out. I'll never be president. Guess I'll cross that off my bucket list. Tanks for nuttin'. ;)

I guess the old axiom would then change to "The only way she can lose is if they find a dead man or a live woman in her bed.".

Some of the other people portayed in the movie were saying it was fairly accurate, Palin really was that stupid.

Joe Biden once said that when the stock market crashed in 1929 President Franklin Roosevelt went on TV to address the American people, too bad Herbert Hoover was President at the time and there was no TV in FDR's day.

Woody Harrelson's character - Steve Schmidt - says the movie is spot-on... but he works for MSNBC now, so anyone who likes palin can pretend like that discounts him if you like.