Vanity Fair: Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury

[BDBoop]

After reading both the VF article and the "impotent and limp" comments from Palin in the "below the belt" paragrpah, it seems obvious to me that she is really angry about the comments attributed to her husband about their lousy love life. Palin has always struck me as a woman who knows how to use surface sexuality to enhance her image and power. The idea that her own husband would complain about their love life seems to blow that sexy librarian image right out of the water. Sarah seems to be the librarian in a library where the books are simply not checked out that often.

Welcome aboard, I like your way with words.

 

[RightinNYC]

Fair point, I think they've filed that under second term to-do.

It's fun to play make believe, isn't it.

I wouldn't say it's exactly the same as a 1960's black person siding with the southern Dems...

...but there are parallels with Jall and Palin.

And I wouldn't say you're acting like a hysterical person with no sense of historical context....but there are parallels.

 

[jallman]

I wouldn't say it's exactly the same as a 1960's black person siding with the southern Dems...

...but there are parallels with Jall and Palin.

Sso why don't you do me a favor here, nut? Why don't you show me Palin's record on gay rights while she was governor of Alaska? Then I will refrain from doing the "told you so dance" until you've had a chance to wipe the egg of your face, agreed?

 

[Renae]

Sso why don't you do me a favor here, nut? Why don't you show me Palin's record on gay rights while she was governor of Alaska? Then I will refrain from doing the "told you so dance" until you've had a chance to wipe the egg of your face, agreed?

Do you honestly think that 'nut would be honest? He'll go find a MediaMatters article about a time Palin said something that hurt a gay mans feeling San Fran.

 

[hazlnut]

After reading both the VF article and the "impotent and limp" comments from Palin in the "below the belt" paragrpah, it seems obvious to me that she is really angry about the comments attributed to her husband about their lousy love life. Palin has always struck me as a woman who knows how to use surface sexuality to enhance her image and power. The idea that her own husband would complain about their love life seems to blow that sexy librarian image right out of the water. Sarah seems to be the librarian in a library where the books are simply not checked out that often.

Yeah, she likes to talk about penis and testicles quite a bit. She's always saying so-and-so has the "cojones" to do something... or some other slang word for gonads.

 

[hazlnut]

Also, to all those obsessing over anonymous sources.... Um...'Deep Throat' was an anonymous source.

Take a journalism class before commenting on journalistic integrity.

 

[jallman]

Also, to all those obsessing over anonymous sources.... Um...'Deep Throat' was an anonymous source.

Take a journalism class before commenting on journalistic integrity.

Hey, nut...I never said anything about anonymous sources. Now would you care to answer my question about her actual record or not?

Of course you wouldn't. That might mean taking a deep breath, calming down for a moment, and actually being honest. We all know already that your fingers find it impossible to form the truth when they type.

 

[hazlnut]

Hey, nut...I never said anything about anonymous sources.

Did I say you did?

Now would you care to answer my question about her actual record or not?

I could post a dozen articles that you would reject because of their sources.

The bottom line for me, Jall, it's not the articles. It's not what other people say about her. It's never been. I don't need that to form my opinion.

EVERY interview she did in 2008 and since -- on Fox or any network, she came off like an idiot, only able to answer questions with meaningless vague talking points.

IMO, she revealed through all public speaking appearances, and all interviews, even the softball Interviews with Hannity, that she is a totally incompetent person who couldn't run a town, much less a state -- even one with a smaller population than Riverside county.

The articles serve to give us a behind the scenes look at woman who will fall as fast as she rose. For someone who is a fan, the articles must be hard to take.

But maybe it's time to let go and be true to yourself.

 

[jallman]

Did I say you did?




I could post a dozen articles that you would reject because of their sources.

The bottom line for me, Jall, it's not the articles. It's not what other people say about her. It's never been. I don't need that to form my opinion.

EVERY interview she did in 2008 and since -- on Fox or any network, she came off like an idiot, only able to answer questions with meaningless vague talking points.

IMO, she revealed through all public speaking appearances, and all interviews, even the softball Interviews with Hannity, that she is a totally incompetent person who couldn't run a town, much less a state -- even one with a smaller population than Riverside county.

The articles serve to give us a behind the scenes look at woman who will fall as fast as she rose. For someone who is a fan, the articles must be hard to take.

But maybe it's time to let go and be true to yourself.

So I will just take that as a "no", you can't substantiate your rabid mouthfoaming.

And you don't know the first goddamned thing about me and I suggest you stop pretending you do. In fact, you know less about me than the person of interest you can't seem to let go of.

We're done here. I've had about all of your bull**** peddling I can take. If you ever decide to try your hand at anything other than bipolar rants and meaningless diatribes about **** you don't know the first thing about, look me up, pal.

 

[jallman]

Do you honestly think that 'nut would be honest? He'll go find a MediaMatters article about a time Palin said something that hurt a gay mans feeling San Fran.

No, what he'll do is invoke something irrelevant like my sexuality and then strut and preen before the forum, proud of his meltdown as if he's accomplished something. In truth, all he's done is expose his agenda as the meaningless waste of bandwidth that it is. And other posters, just as rabid and full of FAIL as he is will swing from his testicles with the thanks button...cheerleading rather than having the spine to join the discussion. :shrug:

 

[BDBoop]

No, what he'll do is invoke something irrelevant like my sexuality and then strut and preen before the forum, proud of his meltdown as if he's accomplished something. In truth, all he's done is expose his agenda as the meaningless waste of bandwidth that he is. And other posters, just as rabid and full of FAIL as he is will swing from his testicles with the thanks button...cheerleading rather than having the spine to join the discussion. :shrug:

Join what discussion? And who is having a meltdown here? Looks like you to me. Hazlnut's been comporting himself above boards the whole way through.

No thanks. I'm not joining in the feeding frenzy this lot refers to as 'debate'.

I'm still waiting for a mod to tell me their definition of civility because this place is getting crazier by the day.

 

[RightinNYC]

Also, to all those obsessing over anonymous sources.... Um...'Deep Throat' was an anonymous source.

Take a journalism class before commenting on journalistic integrity.

Deep Throat: A high-ranking government official provided a world-renowned reporter with factual information about a crime committed by the president. The reporter then conducted his own in depth research to verify the information over the course of two years.

This case: Some random small town people and a disgruntled campaign aide or two provided some no-name reporter with thinly-sourced gossip about the temper and personal habits of a former VP candidate. The reporter then runs with it despite not verifying much of the information.

But yea, the two are definitely analogous.

I don't think I'm the one who needs to take a journalism class.

 

[RightinNYC]

Oh, and hazlnut/justabubba - remember that error I pointed out earlier about how the reporter misidentified the child? The one where you said there was no proof that there was actually an error?

Vanity Fair reporter admits error in Palin article - wtop.com

Vanity Fair reporter admits error in Palin article

A writer for Vanity Fair has acknowledged a case of mistaken identity in an unflattering article about Sarah Palin in the magazine's October issue. Reporter Michael Joseph Gross describes Palin's youngest son, Trig, being pushed in a stroller by his older sister, Piper, before a rally in May in the Kansas City suburb of Independence.

...

The problem, which was first reported by the website Politico, was that the boy the reporter described was another child with Down syndrome. The mother of that child, conservative activist Gina Loudon, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she told Gross during the rally that the child in the stroller was her son, not Palin's. She said she tried to make it clear because the two children look a lot alike. "I told him that. And he ignored it," Loudon said. "It's not even like he didn't fact check _ he just ignored facts."

Gross said in a written statement sent to The Associated Press that he was mistaken. "Trig was with his mother the next day in Wichita (Kan.), but the child in Independence was someone else, and I regret the error," he said.

But hey, tell me more about how Vanity Fair is known for its "rigorous fact checking and vetting."

 

[jallman]

Join what discussion? And who is having a meltdown here? Looks like you to me. Hazlnut's been comporting himself above boards the whole way through.

No thanks. I'm not joining in the feeding frenzy this lot refers to as 'debate'.

I'm still waiting for a mod to tell me their definition of civility because this place is getting crazier by the day.

Am I supposed to be moved by this?

 

[Renae]

No, what he'll do is invoke something irrelevant like my sexuality and then strut and preen before the forum, proud of his meltdown as if he's accomplished something. In truth, all he's done is expose his agenda as the meaningless waste of bandwidth that it is. And other posters, just as rabid and full of FAIL as he is will swing from his testicles with the thanks button...cheerleading rather than having the spine to join the discussion. :shrug:

Imagine if you were gay AND black Jall... you'd really set Hazlnut off. If I tried to claim someone should think or feel a certain way based on their "identity" like he's doing, I'd get called a bigot. Amazing no?

 

[Renae]

Am I supposed to be moved by this?

Let's Break it Down:

Join what discussion?

I cannot trump the evidence this VF article is worthless.

And who is having a meltdown here? Looks like you to me.

Gotta defend my BOY.

Hazlnut's been comporting himself above boards the whole way through.

What, he's totally right. You as a Gay Man should be attacking Palin at every turn, OBVIOUSLY you aren't really gay, or you don't know what's good for you.

No thanks. I'm not joining in the feeding frenzy this lot refers to as 'debate'.

This place actually let's opinions other then rabid leftism post? Intolerable!

I'm still waiting for a mod to tell me their definition of civility because this place is getting crazier by the day.

How dare the mods not ban all conservative posters, and ding all who post conservative ideas in counter to my Liberal Ideology!

 

[hazlnut]

Deep Throat: A high-ranking government official provided a world-renowned reporter with factual information about a crime committed by the president. The reporter then conducted his own in depth research to verify the information over the course of two years.

This case: Some random small town people and a disgruntled campaign aide or two provided some no-name reporter with thinly-sourced gossip about the temper and personal habits of a former VP candidate. The reporter then runs with it despite not verifying much of the information.

You're mischaracterizing the sources for the Vanity Fair article, and reavealing somewhat that you don't really understand how journalism works. No one writing for Vanity Fair is going to use the sources you described without a ton of backup sources and background material. No body writing for Vanity Fair is going to get away with gossip and rumors.

I don't think I'm the one who needs to take a journalism class.

Apparently you do. Perhaps you should also read up on the history of Vanity Fair and get better informed about the fact-checking and vetting process.

 

[hazlnut]

Oh, and hazlnut/justabubba - remember that error I pointed out earlier about how the reporter misidentified the child? The one where you said there was no proof that there was actually an error?

Vanity Fair reporter admits error in Palin article - wtop.com

And what the heck does this one minor error have to do with the rest of the article that paints a very ugly picture of the behind-the-scene Palin. Desperation time for the Palin fans, I guess.

It's like obsessing over Letterman misnaming one of the daughters in a joke.

All for what?? To protect someone who is not worth your time.

She is a horrible, wretched person, by all accounts. One who compulsively lies about the littlest things. Maybe she should run for Prez with Beck.

Let's add up what you've got:

1) Two anecdotes that Ben Smith says he heard differently.

2) One minor error which the writer has corrected.

Anything else??? No??

You got nothing!

What about the rest of the story. 8 pages.

What about the spending.... This woman spends like trailer trash that just won the lottery. (which is half-true, because of John McCain plucking her out of obscurity, she has now fallen ass-backwards into a ton of money, but she wasn't living in a tailer park) Anyway, for someone trying to connect with her people, "Normal Americans" she spend like Paris Hilton.

And, ask yourself, why the limted access? What is she so affraid of with MSM. Katie Couric? Come on, any real politician could handle Katie in their sleep. This woman is affraid that they will ask her a question she can't answer. She can study and have Bill Kristol tutor her all she wants., but she will never have the intellect or critical thinking skills needed to be taken seriously on the national scene. She's a joke. The most naked emperor in the history of American Politics.

What's most disturbing are the lengths some will go to protect her secret. (which isn't so secret after the Vanity Fair article -- the curtain has been pulled back)

 

[BDBoop]

Am I supposed to be moved by this?

Can you EVER talk without taking a shot, or a slam, or expecting somebody else to take a shot or a slam? This place should change it's name to dramallamacentral.com.

 

[RedAkston]

Apparently you do. Perhaps you should also read up on the history of Vanity Fair and get better informed about the fact-checking and vetting process.

I am guessing you would say the same thing about mediamatters, huffingtonpost and other left wing smear sites too huh? :roll:

 

[BDBoop]

I am guessing you would say the same thing about mediamatters, huffingtonpost and other left wing smear sites too huh? :roll:

How do mods get picked around here? They just draw their names out of a hat? Whoever is the most rude, arrogant, self-centered prick gets "Moderator" under their name?

 

[justabubba]

How do mods get picked around here? They just draw their names out of a hat? Whoever is the most rude, arrogant, self-centered prick gets "Moderator" under their name?

just because one is a mod should not mean they must refrain from being snarky when they are posting as a forum member

 

[BDBoop]

just because one is a mod should not mean they must refrain from being snarky when they are posting as a forum member

Obviously not.

 

[hazlnut]

Deep Throat: A high-ranking government official provided a world-renowned reporter with factual information about a crime committed by the president. The reporter then conducted his own in depth research to verify the information over the course of two years.

This case: Some random small town people and a disgruntled campaign aide or two provided some no-name reporter with thinly-sourced gossip about the temper and personal habits of a former VP candidate. The reporter then runs with it despite not verifying much of the information.

But yea, the two are definitely analogous.

And just to clarify my point:

I wasn't making an analogy-- I was pointing out to Sarah Palin and anyone who thinks at her level, that 'anonymous sources' are nothing new to journalism.

If she does believe that she has been libeled by shoddy journalism, she does have legal recourse. And certainly now has the financial means to seek legal remedy.

Many public figures have successfully sued magazines. Instead of showing her ignorance about journalism with her 'ananymous sources' comment, why doesn't she step up to the plate and take Vanity Fair to court? Why not? Because there's enough truth in that article that any legal action on her part would just embarrass the hell out of her.

It was not an editorial or opinion piece. It was not satire. Come on Sarah, but your money where your big mouth is and prove Vanity Fair wrong.

 

[justabubba]

And just to clarify my point:

I wasn't making an analogy-- I was pointing out to Sarah Palin and anyone who thinks at her level, that 'anonymous sources' are nothing new to journalism.

If she does believe that she has been libeled by shoddy journalism, she does have legal recourse. And certainly now has the financial means to seek legal remedy.

Many public figures have successfully sued magazines. Instead of showing her ignorance about journalism with her 'ananymous sources' comment, why doesn't she step up to the plate and take Vanity Fair to court? Why not? Because there's enough truth in that article that any legal action on her part would just embarrass the hell out of her.

It was not an editorial or opinion piece. It was not satire. Come on Sarah, but your money where your big mouth is and prove Vanity Fair wrong.

excellent points. all of them
and as a journalism major, wouldn't we expect sarah to already know her rights to pursue litigation where she has been unfairly harmed