Ir appears that PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) knows no bounds. When such Leftist pundits like Bill Maher must resort to stating Sarah Palin is a "dumb t**t" in order to get a laugh, you know it's gone too far. On the other hand Palin takes it in stride, knowing the source of the remark, and knowing the feminist Left has no problem with her being disparaged. As she says, "I need NOW's defense like a fish needs a bicycle," borrowing a line from ardent feminist Gloria Steinem to illustrate her disdain for the organization.
It never ceases to amaze me the level of vitriol leveled towards Palin, or at her family. It shows how far manners and adherence to the unwritten rules of politics have fallen among the Left. This may end up coming back to bite them in the ass, as it should.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, both the Democrats and their bought-and-paid-for media went after Sarah's family, a long standing taboo. Candidates were always considered fair game. Their families were not. The Dems crossed that line and now they may never be able to step back across it. Even now they continue to hammer her and her family as if they are deathly afraid of her. Maybe it's because they are.
Apparently quite a few others feel the same way about how Sarah and her family are being treated. Others miss the point, like this person:
But for a lot of those slamming Palin, it comes down to this: The problem with our society in this media-soaked age is that we equate glibness with intelligence and cynicism with wisdom.* It certainly explains Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the usual suspects.
*This is a composite of two different comments from Ann Althouse's post on the subject.
Will the intensity of PDS continue to increase as we approach the start of the 2012 presidential campaign season? Without a doubt. Will the invective aimed at Sarah Palin by the Left reach a level of hysteria not seen since Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds? Absolutely. Will any of it stop Sarah from moving forward, regardless of her plans or political ambitions. Absolutely not.
It never ceases to amaze me the level of vitriol leveled towards Palin, or at her family. It shows how far manners and adherence to the unwritten rules of politics have fallen among the Left. This may end up coming back to bite them in the ass, as it should.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, both the Democrats and their bought-and-paid-for media went after Sarah's family, a long standing taboo. Candidates were always considered fair game. Their families were not. The Dems crossed that line and now they may never be able to step back across it. Even now they continue to hammer her and her family as if they are deathly afraid of her. Maybe it's because they are.
Apparently quite a few others feel the same way about how Sarah and her family are being treated. Others miss the point, like this person:
For example, when Bristol Palin said winning Dancing with the Stars, would be a middle finger to her and her mom's critics.If people had been criticizing just Sarah, that's one thing. But they went after Bristol, her baby, and her baby brother. No one did that to Chelsea Clinton when Bill was in office. It's an apple and oranges comparison.
Try as I might, I can't see Chelsea Clinton saying that about her parents' critics (in public).
But for a lot of those slamming Palin, it comes down to this: The problem with our society in this media-soaked age is that we equate glibness with intelligence and cynicism with wisdom.* It certainly explains Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the usual suspects.
*This is a composite of two different comments from Ann Althouse's post on the subject.
Will the intensity of PDS continue to increase as we approach the start of the 2012 presidential campaign season? Without a doubt. Will the invective aimed at Sarah Palin by the Left reach a level of hysteria not seen since Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds? Absolutely. Will any of it stop Sarah from moving forward, regardless of her plans or political ambitions. Absolutely not.
I have no objections to Palin being governor of Alaska. She may well satisfy the needs of Alaskans and that's great.
Now onto education. I attended a small low level college for my undergrad. I now work at an Ivy League university where I take the occasional class. From this comparison I can state that the Ivy League school is providing a much higher level of education to it's students - the quality and quantity of material and work is more than double what I experienced at my college. There is of course a difference between what is available to the student, and what the student comes away with. I agree with you that a motivated and talented student can learn a lot at a non Ivy league school. Additionally, different departments have different strengths. I am in the biological sciences, but my sister for example, studied geology at UNH, which I believe is rated as the best geology program in the nation. So while quality of the school/department matters, I do think it's up to the student, his/her effort and talent to receive the best possible education. Additionally, one can learn a lot both through avid reading and one's job/life experience.
What I want to see in my politicians is a good education/understanding when it comes to world history, politics and economics. It does not matter where they learned it, as long as they have a good and thorough grasp of these subjects. I feel that a person's knowledge base and/or intelligence is readily obvious when they speak in a format such as a question and answer session or an interview. When comparing Obama and Palin in this settings, it is my opinion that Obama sounds well informed, articulate and frankly intelligent, whereas Palin sounds uninformed, mysteriously unable to form coherent sentences, and frankly unintelligent.
The comparison is unfair because I agree with most of Obama's politics and almost none of Palin's. I will however state that there are conservative politicians who I disagree with strongly but would not label as unintelligent.
Finally, of course, I do not agree with your assessment that Obama is not up to the job.
Gee, she was certainly qualified to be governor of Alaska. And before you jump in, I believe her resignation from the governorship was the right thing to do for the people of Alaska. With the frivolous lawsuits putting her deep into debt to the tune of $500,000 (the state couldn't cover her legal fees under Alaskan law at the time, but it has since been changed to prevent it from happening again) and tying up 100% of her time answering those frivolous suits, there was no way she could govern effectively.
I'd say she was far more qualified to be vice president than Obama was to be president.
But we do agree about the about the attacks on her family. It went over the line.
Now I have to ask: What do you mean by "a person of low education"? Is it the fact that she didn't go to the "right schools", meaning Ivy League colleges? What has that got to do with anything? I hate to say this, but I've known plenty of people who went to the right schools that I wouldn't trust to run a bowling alley, let alone a state or country. It's not where you went to school that counts, but what you learned, what you know. Palin certainly learned a lot, particularly by actually running two thriving businesses (fishing boat and snowmobile shop), being a successful mayor, and a successful governor.
What has our present president done other than run for office, voted 'present' when in office, and pissed away $110 million of Annenberg Foundation funds with nothing to show for it when he was a community organizer? Nothing I can see that would prove to me he was qualified to be president. Oh, yes, he was a lecturer on constitutional law (not a professor, despite claims to the contrary). He was also held the title as editor of the Harvard Law Review, but there's not one paper, not one submission that anyone can find that he's ever written. That's pretty unusual for the editor of the HLR.
So you're afraid of Palin running for president? You should be afraid of the person presently filling that position. He's certainly shown he isn't up to the job.
I am indeed afraid of Sarah Palin because I feel that she is entirely unqualified to be in any position of power, especially the presidency. She seems to be an excellent mom, wife and I really admire her very varied and active lifestyle. On top of that, and not that it really matters, she is really beautiful. I don't think it is ok for anyone to attack family members of politicians unless said family members are specifically involved in the campaign or in politics on their own. Despite Palin's positive attributes however, I am very frightened that a person of such low education and understanding/knowledge was ever considered for the position of Vice President. I do not feel that she has anything constructive to contribute even now and I would like to see less of her opinions and statements in the news. She is, to be blunt, dumb, and my low opinion of her has nothing to do with her gender but everything to do with her statements and positions.