I have worked really to avoid writing a headline like that, but watch this video where she basically says, "If you don't support me, you're going to hell."
Incredible.Sarah Palin's message to undecided women is "Support me, or burn." Is she out of her mind? Has she mistaken Sean Hannity for America? Does she really think this is going to sway women who are on the fence? Does she think Madeline Albright is going to give her cover? Does she have any concern for her own career?
But that isn't even the half. McCain--equally stupid--has somehow gotten it in his head that Palin is an effective attack dog--but she has no credibility, why would anyone believe her? She basically represent a profane, thuggish populism--but nothing else. George Bush had "compassionate conservativism" and "the ownership society." What else do these guys have? They're just running on a kind of tribal neandrathalism--nothing else.
UPDATE: What manner of Christianity is this? I can't talk because I'm not exactly a believer, but seriously--is claiming to know who will burn for eternity Christ-like? If you're a serious Christian isn't this offensive? There's something almost Taliban-like about it. Imagine Barack Obama saying "there's a special place in hell for black people don't support other black people."
UPDATE #2: I never do this, but email this joint around, and post it if you're a blogger. This is beyond gaffery--this is just insane.
UPDATE #3: Lotta commenters saying I'm taking this too far. I don't completely agree with the argument, but a lot of folks making it are commenters I respect, so I take the point. We're all subject to an overreaction, here and there. Half the point of having comments is to get called on your bullshit. The other half is for them to tell you how great you are. You guys can feel free to go back to the latter at any moment now...Any moment...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Of course, this could backfire enormously, both with the media being 'hard on the poor girl' nonsense, but also with the Ayers attack Palin did.
Fine - Ayers is up for grabs? Then your husband being a separatist is now on the table. get the 527 out and slap this nasty family to bits.
So we're all going to hell? fine, let's look at your pastor and Jews of Jesus and End of Days.
And of course next week we get the Troopergate report.
It's going to get so damn nasty this month - I'm hoping there are some surrogates who are going to rip McCain and Palin to bits.
I can't wait to see just how Ms. Albright skewers Palin as payback. This "person" is out of her league there, in more ways than one.
Read this on Huffington post. She actually MISQUOTED Albright. What she really said was:
"There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't 'help' other women."
One word makes a big difference.
Wow. She basically says women who don't vote for her are going to Hell, then she dares the media to quote her. What does she think, that this comment will be viewed favorably by anyone else than right-wing nuts who were already supporting her?
She is just out of her mind. I think this will backfire big time.
Coates, don't you think you're taking that comment a bit too seriously? I pretty much agree with your assessment of Palin thus far, but (especially given that her nomination was more a spark to try to re-ignite the culture wars than anything else) isn't it likely that her comment at the end was more telling? That's the comment where she basically says "I didn't know how that was being received, let's see how the completely biased media will get it twisted and continue its bigotry against us so-called 'stupid' *real* Christians tomorrow". I mean it's just a combination of that and a political rally applause-getter, extending the glass-ceiling stuff.
Remember, with today's Republicans (I can't fairly call them "conservatives" anymore, even she used the term 'progressive' who can 'sometimes act conservative' or something, whatever that means) it's no longer about policy or political principles or even character in office - it's only about resentment at the exaggerated hypocrisy and growing political power of Democrats and "Liberals" and manufactured outrage at the "Affirmative Action Candidate" and his supposedly undeserving kind.
And by the way, I think this will especially backfire among moderate Christians. Who does Palin think she is?
It's sort of a twist on the old Rush Limbaugh routine, where the excuse for making outrageous comments is "I just wanted to bait the media into making a big deal out of it."
Did you read Jonathan Raban's article on Palin (that Andrew linked to)? It's incredible. Her brand of populism is absolutely vile. It reminds me of Vladimir Putin.
I didn't know Joe Six-Pack made a habit of drinking Starbucks Mochas.
In other words: Imagine she's winking when she says it.
I can't get outraged about it because I don't think she really has thought about this, or much else, enough to actually believe it literally, although it is at least a coherent statement. This is actually all she does - just unthoughtfully throws stuff out there. Whatever works in getting people riled up and allowing them to continue *not* thinking, pure ambition. If people fall for it, after G.W. Bush, then God help us. I may have to take back my feeling a bit sorry for her almost sacrificial presence on this ticket.
PS - Honestly it is uncanny how accurate Tina Fey's imitation is. Its caricature-ness is very subtle.
You're a bit hard on Vladimir Vladimirovich there, Joel. Say what you like, the man is competent and intelligent. Palin is simply a bobble-head for the nastiest fantasies of the far-right.
I do believe you just made this post by your colleague incredibly prescient.
Okay, first off, dipshit (in reference to Palin), Geraldine Ferraro broke that glass ceiling. And she's gone on to embarrass herself time after time this year, but that's beside the point.
Second, we all know how this is going to play out: Hannity and K-Lo and whoever else will say that because she's using a quote, we're taking it out of context. Because calling special attention to a quote that serves as the very definition of identity politics is actually just relating something interesting a liberal foreign policy expert once said, no comment on what it means.
So between this, the terrorist palling around comment, and her bullshit fake upper-midwest accent that is actually an insult to every resident of Minnesota and Wisconsin, she deserves every embarrassment visited upon her. I just hope that when she and Todd are watching Roadhouse on DVD for the hundredth time tonight, she feels just a slight pang of regret that she'll ultimately attribute to either indigestion or the devil trying to get out.
Sarah Palin = Lonesome Rhodes
for you younguns:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/
If there's a place in hell for women who don't support other women, then the hottest, fieriest, brimstone-iest place in it is reserved for Palin.
Ohh, the stupid, it burns!
I'm afraid I, too, suspect that you're misdirecting your ire. It's a stupid comment, and a cheap throw-away line. But it's fairly clear that Sarah Palin doesn't have a theology, as religious scholars might use that term - no systematic understanding of the world or God's role in it, that seeks to grapple with the paradoxes and profundities of faith. She isn't speaking a religious truth - support her or burn - so much as giving voice to her twisted brand of feminism, in which opposing an unqualified woman running for office is an act of sexism.
But the comment is well worth getting angry about for its underlying logic. Palin lifted the quote off of a Starbucks cup, deliberately selected a quote from a prominent liberal, and then delivered it with her own partisan spin - and dared the media to call her on it. What she's actually saying in this clip is something like: "Those liberal-feminist-elites have been accusing us for years of being sexist, of being bigoted, for not embracing the feminist revolution. Well, here I am, a woman running for the second highest office in the land, and all of a sudden, they hate me. So I'm going to say precisely what they say, and just watch - I'll be condemned for it."
So there are two objectionable aspects to what's going on here. The first is Palin's attempt to claim for herself the mantle of feminism, to invoke the solidarity of sisterhood. There's some irony here - she owes her candidacy to the fetishization of diversity that marked the excesses of the rights revolutions. The white/male backlash has always contended that unqualified people were winning opportunities at their expense; liberals did their best to rebut those charges. Palin, chosen over more qualified candidates on account of her gender, is a sort of perverse conservative fantasy, a living embodiment of their caricature of affirmative action. (That these programs were designed to compensate for inequality of opportunity, and were never about advancing the unqualified or the unsuited is almost beside the point - conservatives never believed that, anyway.)
But the more pernicious aspect is the embrace of the myth of victimization. Palin is arguing that conservatives are persecuted by the media - held to a double standard - criticized for voicing the identical things that liberals can freely say. Nevermind that Albright was talking about coming to the aid of the weak and persecuted, and Palin about voting in an election. Her argument is that just as many Americans feel that they've never had a fair shake in life, she too is being denied her fair chance - by the same shadowy, manipulative forces. It borders on the bizarre - Conservatives controlled the White House for the past eight years, and the Congress until just two years ago, and still control the Supreme Court - but that doesn't diminish from the zeal with which these beliefs are embraced. And, unsurprisingly, even as the number of Americans to whom this persecution complex appeals has diminished, it has been embraced with ever-greater-fervor by the remaining hardcore dittoheads.
There's danger in her words, but it's not religious fanaticism. It's the misbegotten sense that the world is unfairly conspiring against her, and against her audience.
Has she mistaken Sean Hannity for America?
Yes. This came up in an answer a bit before the debate, that all the people she was meeting thought McCain was wonderful and couldn't say enough good things about the ticket; she didn't know where they could be finding these poll respondents that were in favor of the Dems. She only does friendly rallies and, after Couric, friendly infomercial interviews on Fox, which obviously would skew her perception of the sense of the electorate, did not occur to her. (This is very common amongst the electorate--"When I rant at the water cooler everyone says "Mmm. Uh huh. Mmm." Where are these opposing voters hiding??!!"--but it's worrisome in a candidate, to believe that your most passionate base members represent the country as a whole.
I hated Albright for that line, incidentally. Clearly showed the break between younger and older feminists.
Im sorry Ta-nehisi.....but Palin doesn't speak a word that Team Mccain doesnt put in her mouth.
She is quite simply, intellectually "without."
If she is serious about salvaging her political future, she should go media-dark for the next four weeks.
SNL is going primetime with their political commentary
As long as Palin continues to furnish the raw material, Fey will continue to indelibly brand her as a moron, to a wider and wider audience.
I don't despise Palin for a demagogue, although she is one.
She doesn't know what demagogue means.
I despise the faux intellectual partisan hacks like Douthat and Brooks that won't publically denounce her for what she is.
/sneer
"...but how can it not know what it is?"
-- Deckard in Blade Runner
This line isn't much of a big deal, and it's not really even supposed to be Christian. "There's a place in hell" is a garden variety English idiom; if she'd said "the road to hell is paved with" you wouldn't have taken that to have any literal religious content.
I have no idea how she twisted Albright's line out of context. But the basic point is similar to the way conservatives run a candidate like Alan Keyes and try to co-opt the rhetoric of civil rights to support his candidacy.
Hold on. I heard almost the opposite of what you heard.
Sarah Palin drinks mochas, likes Starbucks, admires Madeleine Albright, expects female solidarity, and speaks of hell as a witty metaphor?
That's not a culture warrior clip. It's acting like the war never happened. The natural follow-on would be showing us her Birkenstocks and telling us how she loves her new Prius.
It's not the Rove playbook. It's like she threw that in the trash and is trying to ad lib her way into common ground with Gloria Steinem.
It's also clumsy and vulnerable. What was that about being both progressive and conservative? Since when is she on a first-name basis with Madame Secretary Albright? Why wasn't she sure the crowd would like the quote--and why on earth did she say so? And what is it she's expecting from "California"?
That looked to me like an experiment on stage, trying to find a centrist voice that she isn't going to be able to pull off, and risking the base she's supposed to attract. (The conservative voters of the Pennsylvania T are, I suspect, serious about hellfire and seriously uneasy about mocha lattes and people who can afford to sip them.)
It didn't look to me at all like a serious, pulpit-pounding threat of damnation. It looked like a wobbly calf trying to get to her feet, and not quite making it.
The key dogwhistle word here is when she says finding the (mis)quote on the cup was "providential."
This is a little hypocritical sermonette. Not quite as bad as I was expecting from the blog post (I was more bothered by the claim on the word "progressive") but bad enough.
Far better question: what is she doing in California? There's not a chance in hell McCain wins that state. What kind of use of their resources is that?
Ta-Nehisi, did you make it to the end? She's trying to drum up another Republican hissy fit. She's dialing 911 for the waaaambulance. Don't take the bait.
I agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and a blowhard, but I don't think this charge will stick. We aren't witnessing an actual theological argument. The construction "special place in Hell for..." is often used as a metaphor, even by atheists. "Women must support women" has no history as a fundamentalist Christian belief. We aren't meant to believe that it would have been righteous to support Hillary Clinton over McCain, or that female Democratic candidates in downballot races should be supported. It is, in short, a joke.
I think Palin's point is twofold (not that I necessarily agree with either point). #1: women have some level of gender-based obligation to support other women. #2: that silly media can just take anything you say and go to town. #2 is of course playing a long-running GOP riff, and #1 is of a piece with Palin's entire candidacy.
There may be a covert #3: lay a trap, and when lefties fall for it, feign befuddlement that the joke got people so stirred up - and imply, therefore, that Sarah Palin's actual crazy fundamentalist right-wing beliefs are no big deal, either.
Anyway, from what I've heard of Palin's public statements, I would wager that this clip wasn't even close to the most idiotic or obnoxious part of that speech.
Was this the same rally where Palin accused Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists?" And cited the New York times, "which is never wrong"? Pretty obvious bait, in my opinion. Doesn't make it any less vile. I sincerely hope that this run ends her career.
The funny thing is that I know people, inner city thugs, who bask in similar ignorance. I take issue not with what she said, but how as a leader, or potential leader of America, Mrs. Palin's use of such an important forum to spew such divisive rehtoric. Call me a romantic, but I've seen high school elections more faithful to maintaining a smart discourse.
This harkens back to what I thought was a very important point of the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision; its the national discourse, the national discourse...
maybe i'm getting soft, or maybe i'm just so hardened to the inane things she says, but that ridiculous BS didn't really bother me that much.
i guess i just look at it as more of the same.
what i thought was funny, however, was the fact that this supposed down to earth populist is, without any consciousness about it, quoting script off of her "mocha starbucks" cup.
rumor has it that she lives off that stuff.
a moose-hunting, joe sixpack, hockey mom from the alaska wilderness who is a starbucks junkie?
they want to play the culture wars game?
okay, i'd say, let's play it.
i'd skewer her about her affinity for starbucks and use the video of her quoting from a starbucks cup.
two can play that game.
Levi Stahl makes a great point, that they are wasting their scarce resources in Cali just days after they had to concede Michigan. They are having to defend Omaha, NE (which apportions electoral votes by district) for pete's sake. They are spitting venom because they know they are in the death throes, and its all they have left.
TNC, you're losing your sense of humor. I think Palin is a moron, and a scary moron, but she was quoting someone else from a Starbucks cup, and joking about it. Of all the things to find outrageous about Palin, this is definitely not one of them.
But as a Californian, I share others' bewilderment: what the hell is she doing wasting time and money in CA???
TNC, I've gotta agree with the people saying this isn't really that big of a deal.
I was prepared to be horrified when I clicked on the youtube link half expecting some fundamentalist screed but honestly, she seemed folksy to me. It didn't seem serious. And it seemed like the hell abortion advocates get sent to in her universe is a very different kind of "hell" from the rhetorical hell she was using above.
Will it work? I don't think so. I don't see how it convinces women who aren't already voting for her.
But I don't think it's appalling in the least. In fact, I found myself seeing a little of the charm conservatives were going on and on about that I'd reacted to with "ugggggh."
I agree with Allan; this isn't a theological argument but a pre-emptive "If I say anything the meanies in the media will spin it into an attack! But you people won't fall for that media stuff!"
That line from Albright turned off a lot of women who consider themselves feminists; it won't work any better for Palin. It only works on the choir.
Prepare for the full-on negative campaign. It traditionally emanates from the veep, and Palin will claim media bias for every single criticism she receives.
Side note: Since McCain motorcades to Starbucks and Palin reads the message on her cup, we appear to have moved beyond the Starbucks/Dunkin Donuts divide, for which I can only be greatful.
TNC,
Since when did you go into Andrew Sullivan territory? By which I mean, since when did you adopt this obsessive hysteria to spin your ideological opponent's words into the most ungenerous meanings, and think of your blog as the center of a movement to stop that ideological opponent.
You set me up to think that Sarah Palin had used some religious intonations to personally glorify her candidacy, but when I clicked on the video, it became pretty clear that she was probably just being playful-feisty.
I want the more even-handed contemplative TNC back. And no, I don't support Sarah Palin one bit.
simple
gotv for proposition whatever to ban gay marriage. They've conceded the election
TNC,
I've got to side with the people here saying that this isn't a big deal and the fact you are makin a mountain of it makes me worry that you are becoming too caught up in the partisan nonsense aspect of being a pundit. This was a silly joke, nothing more, and it is completely unfair and ridiculous to claim that Sarah Palin is making a serious claim that not supporting her will condemn women to hell.
Effective troll is effective.
If you mean me because I posted twice, it was an accident (I hit refresh too quickly).
Why else would she be in CA?
I agree this aint even the half of it. I'm glad people are coming around to seeing who Palin is and the closer to the election the better. She is so much more dangerous than that quote. There are so many egregious violations of American values, if not outright crimes, and professional ethics that she is responsible for while Governor:
Right To Privacy
Her husband stalks her ex-brother in-law
Freedom of the Press
Her aides call a blogger and tells her to stop blogging because Palin does not like what she is writing
Separation of Church And State
She sees no reason why we can't teach creationism and evolution in schools
Habeaus Corpus
"Obama wants us to read terrorists their rights"
Cronyism and incompetence
She fired the only professional she had in her cabinet Walt Monegan for not carrying out her vendetta, but hired all of her highschool buddies. None of them had any experience.
Criminal Negligence
She uses Yahoo to conduct government business to get around disclosure laws. That's bad enough. But, there are all kinds of government information that should be and probably must legally (HR records) be classified.
Not sure how to classify
She allows the McCain Campaign to come into Alaska and effectively take over the powers of her elected office.
Transparency and Accountability
She lies even when confronted with the facts. She attacks anyone who dares tell the truth. She punishes and demonizes anyone who tries to find out the truth.
Obviously Palin wasn't making a religious statement when she quoted Albright. Nor was Albright doing so when she made the statement originally. Albright was indulging in what is called "hyperbole" -- to emphasize how seriously she took the matter of women supporting other women in public life -- and Palin, in using a quote from Albright, was both appropriating that hyperbole and further indulging in "irony."
These kind of hyper-ventilating attacks on Palin don't serve the Left and the Democrats well. In fact, Democrats and Obama supporters do themselves, and the political and mainstream media does the Democrats, a disservice when they attack Palin so consistently and personally, rather than making a full-throated attack on the ideology that she has simply been asked to represent. (And does as good a job of representing as anyone else in her party. Better, in fact, than many.)
Bill Kristol, for instance, who believes and spouts EXACTLY the same kind of nonsense as Palin -- and has been doing so in a variety of influential ways for years -- is rewarded with a column in the NY Times while Palin is mocked in column after column by his colleagues. Why, given this kind of behavior, would anyone believe that the elite media are really distressed by the incoherence of her ideas and the quality of her intellect rather than simply dismissive of her less elite credentials and class (and, of course, her gender)?
TNR, for instance, indulges in non-stop Palin bashing. But on economic issues, Palin has never expressed opinions much different from those of Andrew Sullivan -- who once edited that rag and is now firmly entrenched at the Atlantic. Many of her ideas, in fact, are very much in line with another neo-conservative editor, Michael Kelly, who worked both at TNR and The Atlantic. Plus, her aptitude for insults aimed at those on the left is almost in the same league as Kelly's.
For most of us, although not apparently for the political media, Palin isn't a problem because she went to the University of Idaho, speaks in a too folksy manner, governs a distant Western state and practices a less than mainstream religion. For us, the problem isn't that she isn't "elite enough" but that she is a mouth-piece for too many very elite, but also very dumb and destructive, ideas. Ideas promoted for decades by Harvard and other Ivy educated ideologues like Kristol, Norquist, etc., and supported by media meritocrats like Sullivan, Kelly and their ilk . These elite dumbasses (some of whom you work with) and their ideas have been treated quite respectfully by the media over the last quarter of a century. They are destructive ideas (for the nation at large, although self-serving for the nation's elite) that the same media which now mocks Palin have consistently provided with a respectful platform and helped entrench, in terms of economics especially, as part of the nation's disasterous "common wisdom."
I second that excellent film recommendation, mars. I've been seeing Palin lately as a cross between Lonesome Rhodes, Judy Holliday in "Born Yesterday"(pre-education), and Frederick March in "Inherit the Wind." Although, that last film, I think, made William Jennings Bryant into too much of a buffoon. By taking away, or ignoring, the real power and wit of some his arguments, belittling his sway with people, to make him an almost straw man, does real disservice to many Christians who backed him, and to the opposition.
Sarah Palin, of course, gets no respect of that kind from me. She has demonstrated no depth of understanding, and even minimal competency, in addressing vast swathes of Christian teachings, except in terms of getting herself elected. I find that offensive beyond belief, and not just a little, as she might call it, sinful.
You aren't taking it too far. What she said was both stupid and insulting, especially considering the things she's done for women in Alaska.
She seems to be going after the press more than anything, and as both a woman *and* a member of the press I take great offense ;-)
Seriously, what bothers me about this and most things Palin says is her snide, condescending, divisive tone. For someone who is so clearly over her head she sure is one cocky SOB.
I loved watching CNN during the debate and watching the undecideds dial down on her as soon as she pulled this stuff. It's great to have visible evidence of it *not* working.
I can't wait for her to be a political footnote.
And I think it's clear I watch far too much TCM, so please take my comment with a grain of salt :P
TNC,
Your right about Palin, you just picked the wrong thing to be outraged by. What's obscene is her culture war, only me and people just like me are real americans schtick.
Here is my comment on Baloon Juice to his post about her "pals with terrorists" bit:
As an educated urban liberal whose views are costantaly attacked and called unamerican by assholes like Sarah Palin and John McCain and I have to say is fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
I’m damn sick and tired of being attacked by right wing selfish assholes like Sarah Palin who constantly rip off the government (see her per diem scam for starters) and then don’t even pay the low tax rates they already have while trying to cut them even more.
I’m damn sick of them touting their "small town values" as some sort of badge of honor. The only way the phrase even means anything is by the implication that people from cities have inferior values. Fuck you Sarah, this big city pro choice liberal will put my values over yours any day. For starters I don’t cheat my state out of $17,000 by making them pay me for living in my house. I don’t cheat on my taxes. I don’t think gay people are second class citizens who deserve less rights than me. And I give a hell of lot more of my income to charity than you do. And I give it real charities not a bunch of whack job preachers.
now it all makes sense... palin was supporting clinton until obama beat her and she had to redraw from the race. now palin is hoping for a h clinton endorsement in turn? why - she lost?
in any case - i suppose the whole thing works the opposite way too? men who do support men and not women go to heaven...? you just lost my vote mrs palin and it had nothing to do with religion...
but wait - it was not mrs palin's argument - it was that democrat-jewish woman who protected muslims from christian genocide in europe, right, who mrs palin was merely quoting? in any case - there are even better quotes in the bible regarding these "women"...
i preferred mrs reagan's tarot-card readings as i cannot recall an outcome, not even with the russkies, that was more polarizing (i wished that polarization would at least stop the melting somehow but it doesn't seem to work...)
I don't think you are overreacting one bit, but the scary part is at the end, where she tells them to watch how she's going to be martyred.
Here's where I get disqualified as an overreacter: I don't know much about German history between the wars, but I bet there were all sorts of people just like us back then saying, don't worry about that Hitler guy, he's so ridiculous no-one could ever take him seriously.
The only thing that reassures me is the evidence that it's not just us liberal elites that are seeing through her.
I have to agree with TNC to the extent that the clear implication of Governor Palin's remark is that any woman voting against her is going to hell. I can also agree that it is doubtful that Palin thought it through enough to realize that that was the implication, and it's dubious, though possible, that she deliberately meant the threat in a theological sense. She IS after all a Blblical literalist.
I do not think it is outrageuos to hold the woman responsible for the clear implications of her words. Even if she only meant it as some sort of joke, the joke rests on the implication that all women opposed to her Vice-Presidency (and potential Presidency) have a special place in hell awaiting them. This is a joke in extremely poor taste.
As this is at least the third time that Governor Palin has quoted people significantly out of context (you can read the original context of the Albright comment here: http://www.iknowpolitics.org/en/node/614), I think it is also fair to criticize her for thoughtless, cheap use of other people's words as some sort of authority for a position she wants to sell.
As a gimmick to get a laugh it's mean spirited; as a genuine attempt to convince women on the fence to come to her side it's a train wreck. In short, I can't think of any way to excuse such a comment. At worst it's an exceptionally ugly threat; at best it's an extremely tasteless wisecrack. Either way, the insult to women who oppose her is right in line with the Sarah Palin that Jonathan Raban profiled a couple of weeks ago (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n19/raba01_.html).
Maybe this is WHY she's in California? Sending her to stump for a lost cause is one way to get her on the back burner because she's such a loose cannon while still feigning her value to the ticket....
Palin is a piece of garbage, but I wouldn't get your BVDs in a twist over this one. Albright (whom Palin was quoting) probably didn't mean the condemnation to hell literally, so there's no reason to impute literalism to a citation of the quote, even if by a young-earth creationist.
The obvious riposte is that you don't support women by voting for a candidate who is so resolutely opposed to reproductive freedom.
Keep telling it like it is, Ta-Nehisi!!! Don't even sweat the BS, because I had the same reaction when I saw this clip. This is voter intimidation and thuggery, exactly as you describe it. Just like immoral preachers who say anyone who votes Democrat is going to hell or voting for death, Palin is trying to bully and scare women into supporting her ridiculous run for office by insinuating that we owe her our backing merely because we have similar genital organs.
But I say use her quote to tell the truth about her scary politics. If she says women who don't support other women are going to hell, well, pregnant female victims of rape and incest should recommend that she be first in line to eternal damnation!
I had not considered that she is in Cali not to advance the presidential bid but rather for the anti-gay marriage proposition. Gross, gross, gross. But on the positive side the fact that she is not in a battleground state means they realize they have lost. I wish we could just fast forward to 4 November and be done with all this garbage.
A lot of people are asking why Palin was in California. Same reason Obama has swung through a couple times.
They are not after California votes, but the real California crop: money. We've got plenty for both parties. The pols just need to come stop by the ATM once in a while.
While she clearly uses her power in office to oppress others, I'm not really feeling like she's stating a personal philosophy. In fact, I don't think she's a "feminist" of any stripe at all. She's just being her winky, snarky, hey-the-liberals-say=stupid-shit, self.
I DO think she believes we're all going to hell for the following: being pro-choice, not being her kind of christian, being gay, being liberal, etc. I'm just don't think she rates voting against a woman as one of those reasons. Seeing that she participated in some repulsive talk against a female Republican during a radio show, she clearly doesn't hold that view.
The same incident, however, reveals how far she will go in using nasty humor to advance her own cause.
This is disgusting. But it confirms what folks have been saying about old Johny's new strategy. It's basically the same Rove bullshit. Work the base. Get out the vote. What she's doing isn't designed to change any one's mind. It's only designed to make sure that their people give money, knock on doors and show up on election day. She's in California because of money by the way. I seen someone ask. We aren't a swing state but we got that fetti...even if our government's broke.
But this is all probably too little, too late though. If what Sean over at 538 is saying is correct then McCain's getting killed on the ground. And I'm pretty sure he still hasn't released his fundraising numbers from last month so...what's that tell you?
And I know they're going to try to paint Obama as this guy that "pals around with terrorists" and "doesn't look at America" the way "real" Americans do. But that shit won't work neither. It's just too late. It's debate time and there seems to be a consensus among a lot of folks that people are going to see Obama on stage talking about health care and middle class tax cuts and just not see him as a radical. They've had too much time to get a sense of him and a McCain attack ad isn't going to change it. And they're going to see Obama's new ad and agree that McCain is just trying to change the subject because he has no ideas about the economy.
As Charles Krautheimer said, this shit is done.
palin as a movie character?
without a doubt...
palin is tracey flick out of "election".
"election" transposed from high school to the national stage.
a mischievous cable news network should run the movie in prime time.
Let me understand this: she's drinking Starbucks' mochas and quoting Madeline Albright?
Who's the latte-sipping elitist now, motherfucker?
Sorry, but I find this whole thing more funny than anything else. Palin choosing to (mis) quote conservative hero Madeline Albright? Proudly stating that she got her words of wisdom off of a Starbucks cup?
I think the reason that I'm finding the SNL skits less funny is that Palin in person is more ridiculous than anything Fey could dream up.
People would be wise to remember that figurative language works because it evokes the imagery of the literal language in order to create a point of comparison. Also, figurative language can sometimes be interpreted on a literal level, giving multiple shades of meaning.
Taking Palin's comment in this light, one can easily argue that her comment was meant to be taken both figuratively AND literally. Having observed this woman's press coverage since she became the VP nominee for her party, she has struck me as a person who would view "not voting for her" as a sin worthy of being punishable by condemnation to hell. There is a quality of egotism about her that IMO seems supported by some of the information coming from her Alaskan political career (e. g. not caring about making women pay for rape kits because it wouldn't bother HER to do it, doing down people who didn't "agree with / support" her). Additionally, most Christians take the concept of hell literally (some more so than others :o), and many of those considered part of the "base" take it very literally indeed. So while Palin may have been making a bit of a jab at the "lefties" with her comment, she was also, even if only minimally, playing to that part of her audience that would take her seriously and think women who don't support Palin should burn in the pit.
You see, I don't agree with the cadre of commenters who think this woman is dumb. I think she is very sly, very good at the subtle mean comment designed to stab you to the quick, all the while pretending to be offended that you thought she was doing more than make a joke. Don't forget the "go to hell" metaphor means "we don't need to check for you". Her point was that women who don't support Palin don't matter, don't deserve to matter, are liars, are traitors, are all around bad people. I think she was all about trying to make Democrats look bad by implying that they are not people of their word (i.e. liers), as she has been doing so consistently this week, even while repeating her own set of lies over and over again. This is just another play in the "aren't they stupid and they think they're so smart" book she's been working from.
I agree this comment is far outweighed by the character assassination attempt on Obama later in the speech. However, it does provide evidence that even in the littlest things, like making a joke, she is no "sweet, smiling Sarah", but instead a sly, spiteful Sarah.
ooh - I am so scared I am going to hell now that I don't support Palin. Fact is, Palin herself doesn't support women. If she did why would her policies be so anti-women.
Albright seems to have taken some offense too, she has issued a statement quoted below.
It's kind of poetic justice -- if you read the quote as Albright meant it, mean girl and anit-feminst policy Palin may herself be the one headed for a special place in hell.
***Albright responded to Palin's remarks in a statement to the Huffington Post on Sunday. "Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."***
Madeline Albright came on the air an hour or so ago indicating that her statement was taken out of context since it was not made as a political statement. Furthermore, she openly endorsed Obama/Biden. So there!
To the bonehead who said this: "fake upper-midwest accent that is actually an insult to every resident of Minnesota and Wisconsin"
Perhaps you should do a little reading. The area of Alaska where Palin grew up was settled in the '30s by farmers from Minnesota. So her "fake" accent isn't fake at all.
Plus, when I go as her for Halloween (which will be fun, because I loathe her and her stupidity), I'll easily be able to sound like her, being a Minnesotan myself.
I am a Christian. It is offensive. As Christians we believe that only one thing can separate us from God and that one thing is NOT Sarah Palin.
*The one thing is not believing Jesus Christ was the son of God.
See the thing is the quote is wrong so get Albright or a Clinton to correct it then point out that there is also a special place in hell for women who make rape victims pay for there own test kits. Then say but i want to talk about the real issues like the McCain-Palin Health Care Plan. Then casually mention some of Republican team difficulty in figuring out what they need to pay taxes on as you point out how much more complicated and expensive they want to make your taxes.
This is fascinating. It's as if she purposely made this bizarre comment so it could get pilloried in the media - so that she can then say the media's beating up on her. I mean, she knows it's stupid, she says I don't know how that would go over. And then she says, let's see what the newspapers "turn it into." It's like this Jedi Mind Tricks populism. Like something George Wallace would do, make inflammatory remarks so he could get attacked by reasonable people, thereby proving how anti-establishment and volkische he was.
Re: It reminds me of Vladimir Putin.
This is an insulting comparison for Mr Putin, who may be sinister and power-hungry, but is neither stupid nor incapable.
something better to get mad about: the combination of racism and gay-bashing seen in the 'commentary' on the financial crisis here.
(Pointed out by Sullivan)
But yeah, you are overreacting.
Rovian theory dictates that, in an effort to keep the electorate from focusing on issues, it would be better to distract the voters by employing fear tactics (Obama is the "Other"),or racist distractions (Wright poisoned Barack's mind) or by smearing your opponent (he pals around with terrorists). This is what Rove, McCain, and Palin do. There are bright people on this blog. We are all wasting time and energy refuting and discussing a lie put out there by a nonentity who reads her Rovian script as she is expected to do. However, the main purppose is to distract and cause some of us to make offensive remarks in retaliation and further distract everyone from the fact that Obama is the only candidate with a coherent plan for getting us out of the mess that McCain and his Rovian Republicans got us into.
Can anyone imagine if Barack would have said at a rally that Blacks should vote for him if not they would go to hell. The MSM would be all over it, they would be accusing him of playing the race card.
thank you davie
Yeah, but she said it with folksy charm that just... just sent shivers down my spine. Or starbursts into my perineum.
In all seriousness, I think the worst aspect of it is the attempt at emotional blackmail followed by the coy "who, me?" giggle and postscript at the end, which essentially preempts your reaction.
You're right about the thuggish populism though - the "we'll see how the liberal meeja twist this one tomorrow [giggle]" shtick is the pathetic province of the McCain-Palin campaign right now and it's only going to get worse.
In any other world you wouldn't be overreacting. However the campaign we've seen these past few months makes the invocation of not supporting the Republican ticket as a cardinal sin seem par for the course.
The fact of that is the real outrage here.
ta-nehisi
you are my hero.
don't ever change.
Palin is indulging in IQ-baiting.
That is a big part of this campaign.
It is just like race-baiting or gender-baiting.
It is not a culture war, but a bellcurve war.
"Republicans need to craft a message of conservatism that appeals to smart white people."
because somehow.....i don't think the smart black people are interested.
;)
I'm fairly disappointed in the so-called intelligentsia of the right...Douthat, Brooks, even Allahpundit.
they can't bring themselves to come right out and name her.
Kathleen Parker had to back down after 11,000 hostile emails.
But its good that she's staying in.
McCain will still lose, and Palin will never be able to dig herself out of the hole that public appearances are going to put her in.
SNL has 4 weeks now to indelibly brand Palin as a moron.
On primetime television.
We are a television nation.
go sarah.
;)
Can I call you Sarah?
Good, Sarah, I take this very personally....
First of all the correct wording is help and it is, as Ms. Albright said, not political.
For the record Sarah Palin, you were helped...think Title IX which you mentioned, Susan B. Anthony and the ability to vote, if not hold office, the ability to own property...when my parents married, my mother could not do this, the ability to get educated, have a career ...You have rights/choices/options...
And this gal does not support you and the person you are in your choice to run for VP...And that is my choice, my option and my right..
Wow...so Palin is basically saying she deserves a spot in hell - she didn't support H. Clinton. Most would have too much decency to say this as part of an official campaign speech (and be a little smarter since it condemns herself), but Palin didn't. The McCain/Palin campaign would give up (or I guess, now, has given up) all sense of dignity, graciousness, and respect to advance their ambitions.
Ah, what is she doing in California...raising money...over $2M last night in OC...and singing to the choir
She's up in norcal today....
Caching, trying to prime the pumps...
She can be in Cali doing one of three things: to fundraise, to GOTV for the gay thingy, or filming an adult movie.
Alas: the third one would be the least harmful for her career.
Now seriously. The fact that she's being deployed there is either poor judgment by the campaign's principals, or a consequence of having conceded that she's not a help in battleground states (as in, there are no independents left that she can sway for the GOP).
A third option: Yet another Hail Mary pass... & we'll keep seeing them until the day every last staffer on the campaign understands that it's over, and said staffer prefers to hang on to whatever dignity he/she has left in order to live to fight another day.
I'm a woman and a Christian and I'm with you 100%. This clip reminds me of something that happened when I was in college. I signed up for a "Great Books" program, which turned out to be a very conservative enclave at my Catholic university (in San Francisco, by the way, which is relevant in a minute). In an ethics (yes, ETHICS) class one day the professor launched into a couple of very offensive gay jokes (and at the beginning of the AIDS crisis, by the way). Then, the man had the nerve to say, "I couldn't get away with that in another class," because we were all assumed to be of his political (and amoral, I guess) stripe. I seethed, wanting to walk out, but not wanting him to get the last word. In any event, listening to Gov. Palin say, "I wasn't sure how that would go over," made me feel just exactly the same way -- we're all on the same obscene page, right?
Lends a new and more literal meaning to the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Starbucks must be freaking out with this "Joe Six-Pack" ditz glomming on to their brand. As "Main Street" as they actually are, I'm not sure she's the consumer image they want to promote. Now every time I see a Starbucks I'll think "Palin" and walk an extra block or two to get to Peets or some other Indy coffee shop.
Anyone who has been to Starbucks, knows the quote first appeared on it's paper cups during Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency, about a year ago. It's old news. I thought the message was rather clear-cut: vote for Hillary, or suffer eternal damnation. And, if Starbuck's makes it public, as was its obvious intent, I think you'd agree the quote is fair game. But speaking of old news, did you know Madeline Albright doesn't even believe in hell. According to my own sketchy knowledge of theology, hell is a tenet the Christian religion. So, according to Ms. Albright only Christian women who failed to vote for Hillary will be thrown into the pit. Mr. Albright is Jewish, as are most of Hillary’s friends and associates, thereby escaping that place where the wicked are punished after death: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Many commenters have asked, "why California?"
Simple. It's because they want our money. The Republicans need money, and we have lots of money and are willing to donate. You know, I live in the SF Bay Area. John McCain has done several fundraisers in the Bay Area (well, SF and Silicon Valley). You can say, "he's the type of person who will say one thing in San Francisco and another thing elsewhere."
Angela,
Her accent is fake. If you listen to the 2006 Alaskan gubernatorial debates, she sounds different, and doesn't include a lot of "doggone its" and "you betchas." Also, I know people from Alaska, who grew up in the Mat-Su Valley, who have never heard anyone talk like she did.
I do not think you've gone too far in your assessment. Palin said what she said. She misquoted Madeline Allbright. Perhaps she read into that quote what she wanted to (Palin seems to do that a lot because she doesn't seem to be able to actually think). Given her fundamentalist views, her feeble mind substituted "support," for "help," and so, yes, I do think that's what she meant.
As a 53-year-old secretary from NJ, who has managed to make a good living without a college education but a great deal of hard work over 35 years, I am ashamed that Sarah Palin is suddenly at the forefront of American politics, an aspirant to the second highest office -- and a heartbeat from the highest office -- in the land.
Sarah Palin does not speak for me. I don't think she speaks for the vast majority of women, or, indeed, men. But yes, I agree that that's what she meant. And brava to Allbright for calling her out on it!
I think she's enjoying the spotlight. Everytime she opens her mouth, I cringe, at what may fall out of it. She really casts women Democrat or Republican in a very negative, catty light. She adds to the stereotype that women cannot lead or govern. She should be ashamed to let herself be used by the McCain camp in this way.
Shame on you Sarah
You all miss the point...she is calling Albright hypocritical. The assumption is that Albright is not supporting Palin, that Albright says this about women supporting women shen it is a female Democrat running but when it is a female Republican the whole female-unity thing goes out the window...
It still is stupid and twisting Albright's words, but she is not saying Palin opponents will go to hell.
Correction(s): Quote #287, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women,” first appeared on Starbuck's coffee cups during Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency, about a year ago. I thought the message was rather clear: vote for Hillary, or suffer eternal damnation. And, if Starbuck's makes it public, as was its obvious intent, it’s fair game. But speaking of old news, did you know Madeleine K. Albright, the originator of the quote, probably doesn't believe in hell? According to my own sketchy knowledge of theology, hell is a tenet of the Christian religion. So, according to Ms. Albright only Christian women who failed to vote for Hillary will be thrown into the pit. Correction: Ms. Albright is a converted Episcopalian. But believe you me, even though the Episcopal Church is a Christian denomination, no Episcopalian believes he or she will be consigned to that place where the wicked are punished after death for exercising the right to vote: http://theseedsof9-11.com
1. You should note that the original Albright quote uses the verb "help" not "support." In a political election, those two words mean very different things.
2. Albright has responded by critiquing McCain/Palin.
3. This article IS NOT going to far. Sarah Palin is saying that women who do not vote for her are going to hell. That's the point of her using that quote.
Peggy, your comment would be stupid enough on its own, but props for posting it after dozens of comments explaining the actual quote and context.
Could we remember one thing about Palin - she was born in Idaho, not Alaska, and so probably came by her flat Northerner accent as part of a childhood inheritance. It doesn't make her less repulsive to me and to, I hope, the decent, honest Americans I grew up with, but I don't think the accent is fake. It may be one of the few things about Sarah 3.0 that isn't.
Okay, so I'm really confused now. There's a special place in heaven for Jill Biden because she's an educator, but women who do not support other women (such as an airhead politico) are destined for hell. So connect the dots because I'm missing something -- where is it that Jill can expect to spend eternity? 'Cuz I don't think she supports Palin.
Just think, three years from now, Palin will be an absolutely lethal Presidential candidate after having done the GOP chicken dinner circuit and having gone through all the material that Kissinger and Rice dumped in her lap.
What Coates and most of the commenters on this board don't understand is that Palin knows that McCain is going to lose this race. This is all about rolling Palin out to the Base and setting her up for future greatness. You people don't matter; you'd vote against any Republican. In the larger electoral sense, it doesn't matter what Ta-Nahesi Coates and Andrew Sullivan think. We in the GOP know how they'll vote. What matters is that she survives this Campaign to fight another day. The debate with Biden was the turning point for her.
Palin remains largely popular in the country and she'll go back to Alaska and serve two terms as a largely popular governor. Two years from now, people like Coates and Sullivan will be busying themselves rationalizing the deceptions and half-truths that will be coming out of the Obama Administration the same way that the right-wing bloggers stood up for Bush for so long. Watching someone like Josh Marshall rationalize the bucket of lies that will come out of an Obama White House will be huge fun.
But Palin will become the vanguard of a new, more nationalist Republican Party. You can take that to the bank, if only because the Obama Democrats are going to work off the theory that Interventionism is Good when A Democrat is in the White House.
Obama will have to become one of those trademark New York Times "Tough Democrats" to stave off attacks from the Right, and it will fool nobody.
Marx was a Communist, especially when he was alive. However, as a broken clock is right at least twice a day, old Karl was right when he wrote this: "History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second, as farce."
Obama's greatest success was being able to sell his rather inexperienced self as a possible President to a people exhausted by Bush and the Republicans. Here's a prediction I feel safe in making: he will find, to his great sorrow, that his greatest failure was the inability of his campaign and that of his lackeys in the media to kill off Palin as a candidate. She will return to haunt him.
section9, it's more likely that Palin's numerous enemies in Alaska will pull her down and tear her slowly to shreds. As for her future in politics, first she'd have to win over the GOP men in charge, second, she'd have to have a pretty convincing rationale to beat an incumbent - and being ridiculed nationally won't cut it. Third, independents decide national elections - and they by and large really don't seem to like her. Other than that, your scenario is convincing.
Among all the commenters, only nmc noticed -- the key word Palin used was "Providential". Note the capitalization -- that's important.
Palin doesn't mean "lucky coincidence" or "fortunate happenstance", she means that God's providence supplied her with the message -- to her, this was a word from God.
Now some will argue that's just the way she talks and we should not read much into it, but her brand of Christianity--the kind taught by the churches she has attended all her adult life--absolutely believes that God is in control of every smallest aspect of their lives (unless they give in to the Devil's temptations, of course).
All down the line, Palin has used the fundamentalist key words -- she's a "Bible believer", she want to "teach the controversy". "Providential" is right out of the same fundamentalist dictionary and means that she believes that God gave her that "timely word" to share with others in her campaign.
And the fact that she twisted the wording and the context does not change that. (Happens all the time, in fact).
As Ta-Nehisi says, the Republicans would be falling out of their tree if Obama had quoted something similar. Palin will get a pass because even after all these years of right-wing fundamentalist involvement in politics, the pundits still don't get it.
You have been baited Ta Nehsi! She says at the end of the clip that the media can cover and spin this any way they want. You are not doing that but covering it none the same.
Sara Palin and the McCain GOP machine are trying to attack the character and judgment of Barak Obama. In speeches given by Palin in Colorado and California Palin seeks to tie Bill Ayers to the Obama campaign. Mr. Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground Organization as well as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Mr. Ayers was never convicted of any crime. The argument has been did he carry out or assist in acts of disobedience or terrorism during the Vietnam era. He may have, but the case was dismissed because of misconduct by the FBI. Fast forward forty years. Mr. Ayers and his wife also a member of WUO are now well known and respected members of the academia and law-abiding citizens. The McCain claim is that Obama has had contacts with Mr. Ayers. Oops, I forgot for a moment that this is the United States of America with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Citizens of our great nation sometimes perform illegal acts. They are innocent until proven guilty; and if found guilty, once they pay their debt to society (jail, fine or both) they may resume there life, hopefully without prejudice or intolerance. As a nation we must be tolerant and not assign guilt by association. Sarah Palin said during the Vice-Presidential debate she is a tolerant person. Tolerance is one of the principles in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Her recent speeches leave me confused. If guilt by association leads to intolerant attacks on character or judgment, then we must consider John McCain’s relationship with Charles H Keating Jr. (Google the Keating Five) In 1993 Keating was convicted by a federal jury of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud in the collapse of American Continental and Lincoln Savings. Keating a financial terrorist was sentenced to twelve years in part for bilking scores of seniors out of their life savings. In addition, Palin’s close association to Senator Ted Stevens. Senator Stevens praised Palin and endorsed her for Governor of Alaska. Senator Stevens, if you have not been keeping up to date, is on trial for corruption. Senator Stevens did not report personal gifts according to a Federal Grand Jury. Sarah Palin is hangin’ ‘round someone who violated the public’s trust. The question is can we TRUST McCain/Palin on character and judgment.
TNC,
I think it was a stupid thing to say, but I do think you're blowing it out of proportion. The issue here is that Palin is that cute chick in school who has always gotten away with saying whatever the fuck she damn pleases because she's cute. That's a pretty dangerous trait for a politician to have.
If you are curious about what Sarah Palin's type of Christianity might be check this out:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10167
Don't brush Palin's comment off too lightly. Read below and do a Google Search.
Has anyone read about her "former" WASILLA Assembly of God Church's, "Third Movement?" (The Assembly of God Church is very upset at the Wasilla Church & has no part of this wacko & dangerous, Third Movement.")
Palin is also very active in and was a member of the Wasilla Church's Youth Ministry. Their mission: that only Alaska (Wasilla Assembly of God) can save America. Palin states: "Go forth."
This is serious business, folks. Not much about it in the media as much has been banned, esp. videos, by the McCain camp.
Palin attends this church very frequently, and gives talks. She was anointed by a witch doctor so she would be elected Governor of Alaska...and be saved from witchcraft.
Most importantly, Palin has said the Iraq War is a task from God. Meaning, she cannot separate "Church from State."
This woman is more than frightening. As can be seen, as the weeks go by, it is obvious she has mission...w/a vengeance... to save America and it is her right to "rule." And I do not mean as VP. Listen to her. It is as if she is running for President...or Dictator.
I truly believe she feels..knows...she was sent from God to save America. God's will or burn baby burn.
Well, that was underwhelming. I can't stand Palin, but come on - she was telling a (pointless but) harmless anecdote, not making a serious theological statement.
Mike, she was telling us that God ("Providence") gave her that statement. I'm not expecting the press to recoil in horror at the comment, but it's not harmless.
Rush Limbaugh has been getting away with all his crap by claiming he wasn't being serious about the stuff he says. He and now Palin know exactly what they are doing.
I think it's just an expression, not a literal damning. Although this makes it similar to saying "Women who won't support me can go to Hell" and I see why that'd be offensive or outrageous even if you are not literally intending to damn anyone.
Only suckers can vote for Sarah Palin. She is not sure about the religion, how can one trust her with the nation?
I agree that the use of 'a special place in hell' is just an idiom, not to be taken literally.
I disagree, though, that this is just a throwaway line and not worthy of attention. It's incredibly offensive that she's saying that you're some sort of traitor to womankind (Aunt Tom?) if you don't vote for her. This appeal to 'my shared minority status should be more important to you than my actual behaviour' is a special kind of offensive, and no member of a minority group who takes themselves seriously lets it slide.
I support other gay people in a million quotidian ways, but if a bad mechanic, for example, tried to pull the 'I know I didn't change your oil properly, but c'mon man, we're *gay*' I'd walk out the door.
There's something sneering about this kind of minority solidarity -- something opportunistic. You're literally asking someone to judge you based on your demographics and not, as the saying goes, 'the content of your character'. Hillary used to pull this garbage too, but at least she had the political savvy to imply it without just coming out and saying it.
What I want to know is if anyone has fact checked the quote with Starbucks. Is there a cup with this quote, as stated by Palin? If she can't read a coffee cup, I think this can be the end of her career, at least outside of eating per deim at home.
Come on, it's a coffee cup! We seemingly know that she can't/won't/doesn't read any newspapers (outside of God's own sent directly to her via revelation).
JJ
No TNC. You are not overreacting.
I feel sick watching her. What a nasty comment. It isn't funny or cute, it's nasty "mean girl" stuff.
What pisses me off the most is her trying to duck responsibility for people's reactions to her with some preemptive "Gee gosh don't know how my statement will be taken out of context by people or overreacted to by people" bullshit.
If you're going to say something YOU KNOW is offensive, don't be a child and then tell people they're the ones who are wrong if they are offended by your comment.
She's really a piece of work.
If you want to go for thuggish, this morning JMart has Palin randomly lying about why she's in Nebraska, then moving to Florida and claiming that she read in Saturday's NYTimes a piece that appeared in February in Politico, and whining about how mean ol Katie Couric wouldn't let her talk about the issues.
And, I mean, the rally just started. Palin unleashed is going to bury poor Andrew in his list-making.
TNC, I don't want to pile on, but yes, this is just a figure of speech. I'm a Christian, and generally politically conservative too, and I would in no way interpret this to be a serious statement about the conditional moral status of the souls of women voters. You heard the crowd's reaction to Madeleine Albright's name -- I'm pretty sure no one in the audience thinks of either her, or Starbucks, as dogmatic authorities.
Just because you don't like the woman -- and I'm not sure I blame you -- doesn't mean you should interpret everything she says in the least favorable way imaginable. Your reaction to this is akin to McCain's in trying to imagine sexism in the "lipstick on a pig" remark.
BAIT!!!!!
Palin is trolling big time. Astonishing really. It's an admission that they've got nothing. They want to change the subject.
Well TNC, if you're overraction now, you wont be a week from now and three weeks from now anyone who hasn't reacted the way you have can be marked as 'in the tank' for John and Sarah. It will be a note taking moment. David Broder and Peggy Noonan are already on the list.
It will be a big test of the American character and American journalism. Who will excuse the republican tickets decent into neo racial baiting and tribalism? Seriouly, take notes, remember who goes down because 6 months from now when Obama is in office and they suddenly go from honeymoon to critic, well, you'll know who they really are ahead of time and see them comming.
As for Palin, she will never be an American leader. Her behavior, much like Spirow Agnew's before her, will make her a Conservative leader for the rest of her life, stuck on the right wing talking circuit. Don't knock it, you can make good coin doin it, but true American leaders are not born here.
SPECIAL COMMENT FOR FALLOWS:
Deleted. No disrespect, but e-mail him.
@section9: Dan Quayle paging on line you-don't-know-what-the-fuck-you're-talking-about.
Perspective, kthnxbai.
What manner of Christianity is this? I can't talk because I'm not exactly a believer, but seriously--is claiming to know who will burn for eternity Christ-like? If you're a serious Christian isn't this offensive? There's something almost Taliban-like about it. Imagine Barack Obama saying "there's a special place in hell for black people don't support other black people." – from Oct 5. Are McCain/Palin the karma of the white racist/ Stonewall Jackson Christianity wing of the corporate beast? Are Obama/Biden the karma of the socialist reformer/MLK wing of the corporate beast? Does the corporate beast corrupt everything with money? Is money truly the root of all evil? Is religion more a matter of spirituality and emotion than of belief in miracles, immortal souls, and supernatural entities? Have any of us found the truth? Does truth always possess the slippery wings of half-truths from creatures half angel and half demon? Are Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin more interested in getting elected or revealing the truth, in sound-bite combats or important questions, and in maintaining images or shattering illusions? What is really happening in terms of economics, politics, religion, and science? Is Francis Crick's book “What Mad Pursuit” one of the greatest books ever written? Can great scientists such as Francis Crick and Albert Einstein reveal the truth to people? According to Albert Einstein, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” In order to find the truth, do we need imagination, religion, and science? According to Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Do we need a genius with the street smarts of Coleman Young, the scientific understanding of Albert Einstein, and the artistic vision of Yo-Yo Ma to put together a vision of the future with politics, religion, science, and economics? What are the ingredients that we need? Should the ingredients be 20% from Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, 20% from MLK and Louis Farrakhan, 20% from Francis Crick and Albert Einstein, 20% from Ron Paul and David A. Walker, and 20% from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? Can Barack Obama defeat the corporate beast?
ummm...at a loss for words. I respect you and think you're a smart guy. But what I expected after reading your words and what I saw prompt me to offer this suggestion.
Please repeat the phrase "thuggish stupidity" while staring at yourself in the mirror.
Your tone was very thuggish. Your interpretation was very stupid.
I'm really surprised...why has she gotten to you so much?
Does she really believe it? Does she even half heartedly believe it? Is she making jest of a comment made by someone else?
Or is she being a dumb Christianist with fire and brimestone thuggishly telling all women to get in line and vote for her.
Hmmmm...you decide.
I'm a pretty hardcore Christian, and yes, you're exactly right; that means I can't go around presuming to know who is going to hell. It also means that I don't lie, cheat, or steal. That's why I'm voting for Obama, and his values.
This is straight out of the Ann Coulter / David Horowitz playbook. Deliberately troll for outrage and ridicule. Then weave your catch into a "liberal media out to get me" narrative.
I don't think Coulter needs to fear for her job though. Palin's too clueless to be subtle about it; she telegraphs her intentions right to the audience, like she's unfamiliar with video recorders.
and this is the very ugliest part of attack-dog Palin.
she knows none of the boys can hit back.
that part makes me queasy.
Her comments disgusted me. Especially since Sarah Palin in no way supports women herself. She is anti-choice, she believes rape victims should pay for their rape-kits and she is against equal pay for women. I can't see any daylight in her comments, they are dark as pitch.
RE Update 3: I had much more your reaction. I could not believe she would be so callous as to say that women who vote against her would be condemned.
Albright's comment was directed in a non-political way and meant to condemn the lack of solidarity of women working for a cause.
A vote is close to a sacred thing...and Sarah Palin is not my spiritual guide (I'm also not a woman, but that notwithstanding) I say she has no grounds to make her claim.
And her quick "I'm just reading this, isn't it interesting" dodge for cover does not solve her problem with that statement.
I don't think you're taking this too far. I think you're refusing to allow her what she's trying for---to say this, claim she's baiting the media and laughing at them, and then backing off it even after saying it.
She's a thug and a bully. She's dumb about foreign policy but she's full of low cunning.
I think you're missing the point. Women's groups who were all behind Hillary because this country was ready for a female president, are not behind Palin. Republicans have been saying that feminists are only for women if they share the same political views. Thus the irony of the Albright quote.
Of course she wasn't saying people who don't vote for her are going to hell. What a stupid interpretation! How about Democrats who were overheard saying "God is on our side," when the hurricane interrupted the RNC? I suppose that was was taken out of context?
Just for F.Y.I., she thinks that she is such a "great" VP candidate then why is Alaska #1 in unemployment numbers, in the entire United States. Think about that...
Just a test
Why was this not a big deal when Madaline Albright...the person Palin was QUOTING tounge-in-cheek, said it in the first place? A bunch of to do over nothing by a bunch of cryinfg democrats.