Poll: Sexist Media Far Harsher On Palin Than Clinton

Are you serious????

...people like you scare me.

People like her make me feel better about myself.

That too...

C'mon you guys - she's being facetious - has to be.  The only things missing from her post are a "Ha ha" and smiley-face.

Good one - Lorraine, you sure suckered those guys in!  Ha!

You would think, but some of these people are SERIOUS.  that is the scary part...

Just what we need in 2012, another republican moron.

Well, it was easy to make fun of Bush on SNL and especially Palin, but not so much Obama because he is very smart and serious. I guarantee that SNL won't be as funny and neither will Lettermans "Great moments in Presidential speeches", because Obama really isn't that funny. It's hard to make fun of smart people. How long can you recycle the 57 states gaffe?

Well, it is well documented that Bush maintained a C average in school. Palin went to a community college, Obama went to Columbia and Harvard.

ok Shaun. you win ;)

One thinks stupid sexist Americans who would turn away from competent leaders like Sarah Palin just like our country being in the toilet right now - with no pretense that only liberal prostituted Barack Obama - Haravardard grad of little political expertise and/or experience that he "represents" is going to straighten it all out

I don't understand how this nonsensical comment got so many responses. I don't even understand it?!?

Not all college graduates are smart

Unfortunately, Shawn, that's usually what magna cum laude means...

"BTW: Not all college graduates are smart."

ShaunV-  Thank you for stating the obvious.  Palin is the perfect illustration of that point.

Barak's grades:

As far as Barak's grades go, you CANNOT be on Harvard Law Review unless you are in the top 5% of the class. (My husband graduated from Harvard law). AND you have to MAINTAIN that average to STAY on Law Review. It is the "best of the best" at one of the greatest universities in the world. (My husband wasn't eligible for law review--he graduated with honors, but wasn't eligible--that says something right there.) And to be PRESIDENT of the Law Review is the top of the cream of the crop. You don't need to have his grades released. The fact that he was on Harvard Law Review states that he maintained an extremely high grade point average in a school where EVERYONE was the best at their undergraduate school. It is an EXTREMELY intellictually challenging environment and the competition is fierce (not just on Law Review but in every single class.) You don't HAVE to see his records. And it doesn't matter your gender, religion, race or ethnicity. Law Review only takes the best of the best.

And, it's documented that Obama refuses to release his grades

Shaun, he doesn't need to release his grades.  If he graduated magna cum laude, his grades are implied. 

Lorraine, I can see where you have a broken heart over the loss of the White house to the Dems.

 However, there were an infinite amount of QUALIFIED women with much more talented, intelligence, education & far better speaking skills in the REPUBLICAN party than Palin.

THAT is the mistake that the Republicans made, they went with with a goodlooking RELIGIOUS woman to get THAT vote, thinking that all hillary supporters would just accept her as a "SWAP"

Thats a MAN'S thinking; that any woman can just step in for another.

SWDFFBS (?!)

I don't know about the rest - but you have to admit - she does have the best wink!  Come to think of it - I believe she has the only wink - but it's a good one.

We have to give credit where credit is due ... and if we can't say something nice about someone ...

True she does have the best wink, I think she probably perfected it when she was a beauty queen. Hey you have to catch the judges attention some way ;-D

SWDFFBS -

Gaack - you know what you just made me think of with your 'beauty queen' remark?  That scene from Sandra Bullock's "Miss Congeniality" movie - the one where the blonde beauty contestant is up on the stage and is asked to describe her idea of a perfect date - and she responds:

"That's a tough one. I would have to say April 25th. Because it's not too hot, not too cold, all you need is a light jacket."

That could have been Sarah!  Another one of those 'gotcha' questions!

Yeah you know the elitist media like to try to trip ya dontcha know.

Uggg here we go yet again. She DID NOT try and ban certain books. During a meeting she asked how situations were handled when a request was made to remove objectionable books from the library. I am not Republican and could care less but this constant use of mis-information on the vine is getting downright sickening.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

"Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled."

You completely miscategorized that quote, EJ. Shame on you. You forgot to add to the beginning of that quote:

"Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that..." [your quote here].

This snopes.com article is primarily about the email swirling around about WHICH books were banned. Does not dispell the rumor that Palin asked the question about what the procedure for removing books was--THREE times.

Completely off topic, anyway.

Dodge noted EJ.

Where is NOW when you need them???

Oh..haha...I just caught that on the Countdown repeat....what an odd piece of tv. I bet this will be a viral Youtube video.

Where do YOU think Thanksgiving turkeys come from?  The turkey fairy?

You know what Janice......go find a gun and clean it somewhere.

We aren't stupid you know and your comment is as assenine as the woman on the video.

;)

They saw the obvious too...she wasn't being mistreated, just being treated as anyone else would that opened their mouth like she did.

clueless. absolutely cluessless

Seriously. Ugh, it's almost as if she...didn't...write...that...crappy...speech...herself. Only because of how she was reading it, not because of the obvious fragmented sentences.

WTF, who seriously thinks this woman is intelligent? I can't put my finger on it.

i agree that the media is biased - but i'm sorry every time she opened her mouth she was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me - her and that fake smile & that hokey thumbs up - looking down at us like we were some inferior beings - she was patronizing - thats how i feel about her - and i feel she did bring alot of it on herself

Our House in the middle of the street........

had to do it. Sorry.

Sarah, Plain & Humble you suck.

the media didn't influence me, Palin did it all by herself.

maybe cuz to many of us she seemed to think herself superior before she opened her mouth - you don't have to believe everything you read & hear but when i hear moronic dribble coming out of her mouth i have to believe she is a moron

so tell me shaun - what did she ever say that was logical? - that women (if they did not hold a position of influence) should stay home and raise the children - i think she used 'keep home and hearth safe' or some such nonsense

but blogs don't equal the media, so I don't see how that is a logical argument.

lol, I bet not as much as bringing up Palin's errors annoys you.

Bringing up Obama's errors really seems to annoy you. :)

Since you admit they are errors, it doesn't bother me a bit.  It's when someone tries to make an error, like the 57 state thing sound like something more ominous, like stupidity.  There is no comparison between Obama's intellect and that of Palin's.  To see the 57 state comment twisted in a way that suggested Obama is so stupid that he actually thought we had 57 states is just plain ridiculous. 

:-)      ;-)

Good point Shaun,

Nearly every slip up from Obama has been either out of stupidity or a freudian slip revealing the true evil that lies beneath.

As for McCain and Palin's slips, those have been entirely innocent. No sign of evil there. Don't ask me to prove it though. I just feel it in my gut.

ShaunV:

It was stupidity. I know he tried his best to make it look like a slip of the tongue, but it was pure stupidity, IMO.

What is the reason you think it was stupidity? You stated you think it was, but I'm curious as to why you think so.

Also, what was (in your opinion of course) McCain's comment about the Iraq-Pakistan border? And what motivates your answer on that question?

I'm pretty sure Harvard wouldn't hire a constitutional lawyer who stated on his resume that he is well-versed in laws from all 57 states.

The logic here amazes me.

ShaunV, could you please answer #50.6?

I'm sure that you, as the moderator of this thread, are interested in a healthy discussion in which people have the decency to clarify their statements when asked to do so.

ShaunV,

by repeatedly ignoring people who ask you to clarify your statements you are basically not adhering to the code of honor, article 4:

As the host of your column, you are expected to foster healthy, open discussions by setting a good example. Be responsible for the content you submit and exercise impartiality when deleting comments and reporting abuse

Even apart from the code of honor, I'm sure many people would be happy if you would have the decency to acknowledge their posts directed at you.

w8in: Not sure how many articles you have seeded, but it's tough to keep up with all of them.

Foster in this instance (IMO) means that you should not focus on the negative comments, but try to focus on the constructive comments, if you have time. 

Being responsible for the content you submit doesn't mean you have to elucidate it, unless it is inflammatory or of no value.

w8in: Not sure how many articles you have seeded, but it's tough to keep up with all of them.

I have seen a pattern of him keeping up with his seeds by responding to people he agrees with, while ignoring questions for clarification. I'm pretty positive I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

Fair enough. And yes, I've noticed it, too.

"Only when you show me proof that they weren't."  (posted by ShaunV when someone challenged his statement that Obama voters were brainwashed)

ShaunV--How about you play by your own rules and prove greck wrong?

ShawnV:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003856855

Since she was picked for the Veep spot, the press has often noted that Sarah Palin has "80%" approval ratings in Alaska. Just yesterday, John McCain told the Des Moines Register editorial board that she is "the most popular governor in the United States." But that may be outdated.

McClatchy reports today that her approval rating in her home state has tumbled to 68% -- still high but surely not the country's best. The poll by a local firm that works for both parties was taken Sept. 20-22.

Not so much, any more.  Quoting old statistics, there.

All things being relative: If 80% of 70,000 like you that is 56,000...not bad.  If 65% of 65,000,000 think you are retarded...that is 42,250,000.---spin that.

In October, Gov Palin's Alaska approval rating was downgraded to 68%, and If the Alaskan vote in the November Presidential election was an indication of approval, I think Palin is now at 56.4%.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/back-home-sarah.html

New poll numbers show the Alaska governor's approval rating has taken its biggest hit since her election in 2006. "The Honeymoon Is Coming to an End," Ivan Moore Research of Anchorage said in its report.

Same numbers as Ivan Moore Research.  Dittman Research actually has her a bit lower:

A new statewide poll by Dittman Research and Communications found 67 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion of the governor, compared to 30 percent who said they have an unfavorable opinion.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/nov/02/alaska-poll-gives-palin-relatively-stable-rating/

You are aware, that Palin lost the election, right?.

Of course.  And who says I'm not?  He hasn't done anything to upset me, although I'll certainly allow for the possibility in the future.

He's carefully vetting candidates for high positions, a little TOO carefully for some:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.vetting/index.html

But some political observers say the president-elect's similar caution with respect to recruiting new administration officials and key high-level advisers may be turning away a string of qualified candidates wary of subjecting themselves and their families to the most rigid presidential vetting process on record.

Seems to me to be a good thing, we've seen what insufficient vetting of a potential candidate can do...  Even Hillary Clinton is being carefully examined, particularly her husband's financial connections.  I'm good with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.economy/index.html

President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday offered an outline of his economic recovery plan and jobs were the top priority.

American workers will rebuild the nation's roads and bridges, modernize its schools and create more sources of alternative energy, creating 2.5 million jobs by 2011, Obama said in the weekly Democratic address, posted on his Web site.

"These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis," he said. "These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long."

Still no problem with this...  We need jobs, you don't want to KNOW about the roads around where I live.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22assess.html?bl&ex=1227502800&en=fa4bc3774ee8c553&ei=5087%0A

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

The choices are as revealing of the new president as they are of his appointees — and suggest that, from its first days, an Obama White House will brim with big personalities and far more spirited debate than occurred among the largely like-minded advisers who populated President Bush’s first term.

But the names racing through the ether in Washington about the choices to follow also suggest that Mr. Obama continues to place a premium on deep experience. He is widely reported to be considering asking Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to stay on for a year; and he is thinking about Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine Corps commandant, for national security adviser, and placing Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary whom Mr. Obama considered putting back in his old post, inside the White House as a senior economic adviser.

Considering that the main complaint about Obama was his lack of experience, I have to say I approve of him choosing advisors who HAVE the experience he may lack, and that, while there will be changes, they won't be reckless changes.

Trust me, I'm watching...  but, right now, I'm more concerned about the damage Bush is doing on his way OUT.

You are aware, that Palin lost the election, right?.

Hence why are you avoiding scrutinizing your president elect?  He is the one who will influence your life, now?

You are aware that Obama is not the topic, since you posted the seed and all.

But by all means continue spinning people's comments to feed your superiority complex, and skirt actually having to address what people are saying. It just gives the rest of us more information on your character.

I always enjoy a ShaunV seed. I've never seen so many creative ways to polish a turd.

Omigod!!! Does Bush deserve the "credit?"

His deceptive manner was the major complaint.  I need to trust my president to be truthful.   Also, the huge sums he spent on a campaign.

Fair argument, but what we he deceptive about?  He downplayed Ayers, that's all I really can come up with.  And, the huge sums he spent on his campaign were donated by voters to be spent on his campaign...  What's wrong with that?

I don't want to argue, either, but I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

COULD he use campaign funds to help the homeless?  What happen to donated funds for campaigns when the campaign is over?  I don't know the answer to that one.