1. Going to be so glad when she’s retired offstage and you (you, Bob Morris, and all of the rest of the amniotic-fluid-focused) won’t go on about Sarah Palin anymore. Who the hell cares if her waders were new? Maybe if she wore her *old* waders [1] people would have yammered on about how scuffed and fishy-smelling they were. (Why, she’s nothin’ but a low-class scuffy ol’ fish-slimed-boot danger to society!)

    [1] Hint: she lives on a body of water, she’s a mom, of *course* she fishes, did you think her new waders mean she is a fake fisherman?

    With this kind of commentary and attack she’s been under, I’d have abruptly resigned, too. You all need to stop it, now.

    • Starting in 1900, only three governors have resigned before their term, and Spitzer was one of them, obviously under fire. Palin is one of the others and many reports now say she did it for the money.

      As for attacks, it goes with being a politician. Bill and Hillary Clinton have withstood far worse than what Palin is getting. Obama took plenty over Bill Ayers (often from her). And George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney have taken withering, prolonged attacks.

      So, I don’t think this is a class-based “she’s just a dumb redneck” attack here, which I agree is utterly uncalled for. But many see Palin as unprincipled and a loose cannon to boot.

  2. That’s fine. Attack her views, if you disagree with them, and please state why. Try for a reasoned argument. But leave the antiquity of her waders and her amniotic fluid out of it.

    • He was using it as a way to say he thinks she’s phony and not to be trusted.

      Who mentioned amniotic fluid? He didn’t. Nor have I.

      Also, if bigclumsyheart isn’t a good old boy from Texas, I don’t know who is. He wasn’t talking down to her, he was talking at her.

  3. You may not have written about the amniotic fluid here, but I remember the discussion.

    How is she phony and not to be trusted? I think she’s plain spoken about her views. Whether or not I agree with her, I know where she stands and what she believes.

    Is she inconsistent in some ways? So am I. So are you. So is everyone.

    It is popular … even here on Polizeros … to attack in particular women politicians for personal habits and beliefs. Attack her beliefs, attack her views, attack her politics. But not her person. That is the way I see it. So stop it.

    • Wait: it’s okay to attack the character, habits, and person of a male politican or other public figure (something that happens often with little squawking), but not a female politician or public figure? I don’t agree with Bob’s characterization of Palin, but I do believe that equal opportunity means just that. If you want a job that makes you a target, your gender shouldn’t matter: you’re a target.

      I have attacked (and will continue to attack) the persons, characters, and habits of both Bill and Hillary, regardless of the individual presence of male genitalia or lack thereof.

  4. I buy new waders every year, as I tend to pop holes in them ‘afore the end of the season. And as I’ve only been out a couple of times this year, there’s not a scruff on ’em.

    And yes, I am dangerous.

    As an aside, it’s “twitter”, not “tweeter”; so shouldn’t it be twit of the day?

  5. Strong Societal Tendency: Men are judged primarily on their ideas, and then, perhaps, by their appearance. Women are judged first and foremost by their appearance, and then, should that not settle the argument, on their ideas.

    Example: Her waders are new … therefore she is a fake. She’s so “hot” … she should run for high public office.

    I just hope for better from you all.

    • For a point of reference, check out http://twitter.com/bigclumsyheart on Twitter, where I got the tweet from. He’s got lots of homespun homilies, this was just one. Context is important, I think..

    • Since I’ve been old enough to vote, we’ve never elected an ugly President of any gender. So much for the “men are judged on their ideas” theory.

      Personally, I’m more inclined to judge people on their speaking. Palin and Bush both fail miserably. Palin probably gets a bit of a pass, as I never heard anyone refer to W. as a “FILF.” Which suggests that Palin’s gender and appearance may have given her more mileage than she deserved. On her merits, she never would have left Alaska.

  6. Standards for men and women are quite different. Women must be “attractive” if not “hot.” Men are merely required to be “fit”, “presentable”, and “not repulsive.” George W is no GQ pinup, being rather ordinary. His running mate, Mr. Cheney, is on the ugly borderline, as is McCain, but I’m sure photoshop and stylists do what they can. And yes indeed, *both* men are judged on their *ideas*, not their looks. Sarah Palin, by her looks, alone.

    I don’t care, in this particular argument, how society judges men and women. I know that for some, perhaps many, looks are 99.99% of the vote. I really just care how *Bob* treats this issue, because I read *his* blog everyday. I hope to see ideas discussed here. If I was interested in appearance, I’d be on the marketing blogs, and I’d be saying “that’s nice, honey” whenever he asked for my comments about his political interests.

    • I understand your point and will blog about that.

      As for Palin and the waders, I don’t see that as being about her looks, but more like that moment when Mike Dukakis was running for president and poked his head out of the tank and was mercilessly slammed for being a phony. It was virtually the end of his campaign as an effective force too.

      Having said that, much of the coverage about Palin is sexist, both pro- and con-.

  7. I would still suggest that the men with real ideas never get near a nomination. We like our men presentable and ordinary.

    Since Bill Clinton, we really don’t care what their ideas are anyway– in fact, we favor those who won’t tell us. I’ve never forgotten that 1992 LA Times editorial: “Remember, Bill, when you’re in Los Angeles, you’re FOR the B-1 bomber. In San Francisco, you’re against it.”

    Women can play the politics game, too: Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein spring to mind. They’re not getting elected on looks! Does someone like Sarah Palin intentionally use their appearance to overcome mental vacancy? If so, perhaps she’s exploiting men as much as they’re exploiting her. Hey Bob, are you feeling exploited?

    As for waders in a photo op– or indeed, for a public figure, about anywhere away from the river– they’re a prop, a statement of who one wants to appear to be, like a cowboy hat and boots on the campaign trail, or a jogging suit in the office or studio. It’s marketing, and therefore fair game.

  8. It appears the argument got sidetracked on unspecified persons who may or may not eventually have the urge to say something sexist about Sarah Palin. Nobody did say anything sexist and I wouldn’t ever expect a sexist remark from anyone who posts or comments anywhere on Polizeros.

    Sue, where is this coming from? I’d consider myself EXTREMELY touchy about anything that comes close to racist, bigoted, or dismissive of any particular group, and have demonstrated so in the past, and I don’t see anything, ANYTHING, remotely sexist about the tweet or anyone’s follow up comments.

    Is everyone just having a bad day? Maybe Palin is just a shitty politician. I can tell you that you’d be hard pressed to explain to me how “hot” and attractive Hillary Clinton is, or Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, or Cynthia McKinney, or Maxine Waters, or Nancy Pelosi, Lisa Murkowski, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Claire Mcaskill….Do you want me to keep going?!?!

    • The attacks on Palin can also be a class thing, as in let’s ridicule the redneck from the sticks. Sue and I both agree that’s uncalled for. However, given that the tweet was from a Texas good ole boy, I don’t think that was happening this time.

Comments are closed.