LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Sarah Palin

Roxanne Appleby said:
from Camille Paglia's latest:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/10/08/palin/print.html. . . (
Click to expand...

...and answered:

"That viper, Katie Couric"

By Kathy G.

When last we left Camille Paglia, she was in full swoon mode with the latest female celebrity who's giving her a moistie, Sarah Palin.

I must confess to wondering if La Paglia's girlcrush could possibly survive the brutal revelations of the last couple of weeks. Look at some of the things we've learned about Palin since then:

  • while mayor of Wasilla, she forced rape victims to pay for their own rape kits (at a cost of up to $1200 per kit)
  • as governor, she's made it clear that she doesn't give a shit about Alaska's epidemic of sex crimes and domestic violence
  • she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is
  • she couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine she reads
  • she couldn't identify a single Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with other than Roe v. Wade
  • asked to name what she thought was the worst thing Dick Cheney has done as Vice President, she answered, "the duck-hunting accident"
  • she gave a disgraceful performance in the vice presidential debate, spewing out sheer gibberish and avoiding answering many of the moderator's questions
  • she has made vicious and scurrilous attacks on Barack Obama, openly questioning his patriotism and his commitment to the troops, and all but calling him a terrorist

Call me crazy, but I kinda thought any one of those things would give one serious pause. And that all those things in combination would most definitely be a dealbreaker. Particularly for anyone who identifies herself as a "feminist" and an Obama supporter.

Well, I thought wrong. Here's our Camille in her latest Salon column:

One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is "dumb." Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? . . . The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. . . People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism -- the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary.

Oooh, she's nailed us, but good. We don't share Camille's worshipful adoration of Palin because we're elitists -- how fresh! What a searing insight! I've never heard anyone express that particular opinion before.

But she's right, of course. What snobs we are to expect a candidate for vice president of the United States to know what the Bush doctrine is. Or to be able to name more than one Supreme Court case with which she disagrees. Or to pick up a newspaper once in a while. Us with our "standards" and our totally unfair prizing of "facts" and "knowledge"! Not to mention our complete sentences and properly conjugated verbs! Who do we think we are, anyway?

I particularly savored Camille's novel theory of why Palin came off so badly in the Couric interview:

As for Palin's brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don't we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor?

Yes, I'm positive in that in the parts that were edited out, Palin shows off a powerhouse intellect that would put the likes of Hannah Arendt to shame. Katie, you conniving bitch! How could you?

But Paglia is at her most brilliantly insightful when she explains Sarah's unique way with words:

As someone whose first seven years were spent among Italian-American immigrants (I never met an elderly person who spoke English until we moved from Endicott to rural Oxford, New York, when I was in first grade), I am very used to understanding meaning through what might seem to others to be outlandish or fractured variations on standard English. . . Finally, as a lover of poetry (my last book was about that), I savor every kind of experimentation with standard English -- beginning with Shakespeare, who was the greatest improviser of them all at a time when there were no grammar rules.

Many others listening to Sarah Palin at her debate went into conniptions about what they assailed as her incoherence or incompetence. But I was never in doubt about what she intended at any given moment. On the contrary, I was admiring not only her always shapely and syncopated syllables but the innate structures of her discourse -- which did seem to fly by in fragments at times but are plainly ready to be filled with deeper policy knowledge, as she gains it (hopefully over the next eight years of the Obama presidencies).

Isn't that special? How lovely for Paglia that her many years of struggling with difficult literary texts has enabled her to figure out what the fuck this woman is talking about. Because I confess, when Palin comes out with one of her Dadaist word salad utterances, such as this, said in response to a question about "how she would help keep any new domestic oil produced in the United States," I haven't the faintest clue:

"Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first," Palin said. "So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."

Last but not least -- we all know that no Paglia column would be complete without . . . wait for it! Hey, how did you ever guess it? Madonna!:

As I said in my last column, Palin has made the biggest step forward in reshaping the persona of female authority since Madonna danced her dominatrix way through the shattered puritan barricades of the feminist establishment. In 1990, in a highly controversial New York Times op-ed that attacked old-guard feminist ideology, I declared that "Madonna is the future of feminism" -- a prophecy that was ridiculed at the time but that turned out to be quite true. Madonna put pro-sex feminism on the international map.

Oh, and there's much, much more -- for instance, you can find out why Camille thinks the comparison of Barack Obama with Neville Chamberlain is "a bit alarmist" (but only a bit).

All in all, I rank this particular column as one of her most awesome. La Paglia has truly outdone herself here. Brava once again to Joan Walsh, who a while back brought Paglia back to start writing for Salon again. Why, Ms. Walsh, you must swell with pride whenever you read her latest sublime offering.

One final note: with this post, I'm going to start a new feature every time I blog about something Paglia writes. It will be called the Camille-Meter™. With it, I will tally the number of times Paglia mentions the following, and then add it all together for a final score (though mentions of these made by the readers whose letters Paglia quotes don't count):

Madonna
Hillary Clinton
Gloria Steinem
second wave feminist(s)/feminism
"pro-sex" feminist(s)/feminism
Ivy league
elite(s)/elitism/elitist
Eastern or Northeastern
the 60s
(baby) boom(er/s) or "my generation"
post-modernism, or post-structuralism, or deconstruction, or (literary) theory
mentions or citations of her own previous writings
allusions to "my Italian and/or working class and/or upstate New York childhood/youth" (or variation thereof)

Here's the tally for this month's column:

Madonna - 4
Hillary Clinton - 2
Gloria Steinem - 1
second wave feminist(s)/feminism - 1
"pro-sex" feminist(s)/feminism - 2
Ivy league - 1
elite(s)/elitism/elitist - 3
Eastern or Northeastern - 1
the 60s - 1
(baby) boom(er/s) or "my generation" - 1
post-modernism, or post-structuralism, or deconstruction, or (literary) theory - 1
mentions or citations of her own previous writings - 5
allusions to "my Italian and/or working class and/or upstate New York childhood/youth" (or variation thereof) - 3

Total score on the Camille-meter™: 26
 
Boxlicker101 said:
It figures that Newsweek would print the most unflattering photo they could. This is much like the cover photos of celebrities on The Enguirer and similar trashy mags.
Click to expand...

Whut, she doesn't look like a white trash beauty queen anymore? Could we actually care less? Honestly, this pic looks FUCKING FINE. I mean, Jesus H. Christ in a baggie, she looks like a reasonably attractive, almost MILF-y, woman in her early 40s!! What, EXACTLY, is the issue here? You want her to look more appealing, have her flash a boob or something.

You know, Fox News has been beatings its collective gums about how awful this picture is, but I seem to recall the same group talking about how awful Hillary Clinton looked whenever she appeared on the cover of Newsweek et al.

I'm not voting for politicians because they look good. Or they wear glasses. I'm voting for politicians who I think can actually lead and do the job I want them to do.

It's not what Sarah Palin looks like. She could fuck herself blue on a Sybian in my living room for all I care and I still wouldn't vote for her.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
It figures that Newsweek would print the most unflattering photo they could. This is much like the cover photos of celebrities on The Enguirer and similar trashy mags.


john-the-author said:
Whut, she doesn't look like a white trash beauty queen anymore? Could we actually care less? Honestly, this pic looks FUCKING FINE. I mean, Jesus H. Christ in a baggie, she looks like a reasonably attractive, almost MILF-y, woman in her early 40s!! What, EXACTLY, is the issue here? You want her to look more appealing, have her flash a boob or something.

You know, Fox News has been beatings its collective gums about how awful this picture is, but I seem to recall the same group talking about how awful Hillary Clinton looked whenever she appeared on the cover of Newsweek et al.

I'm not voting for politicians because they look good. Or they wear glasses. I'm voting for politicians who I think can actually lead and do the job I want them to do.

It's not what Sarah Palin looks like. She could fuck herself blue on a Sybian in my living room for all I care and I still wouldn't vote for her.
Click to expand...

I don't think it looks all that bad either, for a politician. That is why I referred to it as "most unflattering" instead of calling it the worst. :eek:
 
Um, isn't this the same woman who has fallen back on saying the Ayers thing is about a candidates record of honesty?

New York Times said:
As evidence, she has contended, among other things, that Mr. Monegan arranged two unauthorized lobbying trips to Washington. But according to interviews and records obtained by The New York Times, the governor’s office authorized both trips.
Click to expand...

That's not a questionable honesty there... that is flat out DISHONESTY.

This woman is far more like Bush/Cheney that McCain is. And his selection of her should have been the final nail in the coffin for his campaign. Let's hope that it turns out to be exactly that.
 
Belegon said:
Um, isn't this the same woman who has fallen back on saying the Ayers thing is about a candidates record of honesty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
As evidence, she has contended, among other things, that Mr. Monegan arranged two unauthorized lobbying trips to Washington. But according to interviews and records obtained by The New York Times, the governor’s office authorized both trips.


That's not a questionable honesty there... that is flat out DISHONESTY.

This woman is far more like Bush/Cheney that McCain is. And his selection of her should have been the final nail in the coffin for his campaign. Let's hope that it turns out to be exactly that.
Click to expand...

I think she questioned Ayers's patriotism and integrity. It is my understanding that The Weather Underground financed their activities by armed robberies. She also questioned Obama's honesty for fudging about his connection with Ayers, which is a lot more than he said it was. William Ayers is much more to the senator than "some guy in the neighborhood." He was quite influential in Obama's getting his political career started.

I doubt the integrity of the NY Times also. I'm not saying they are lying; I'm just saying I believe there is a good possibility of it. :eek: I would need to see the interviews and records before believing them. Even then, if the inteviews were with political enemies of Sarah Palin, I would doubt thei reliability.

I still believe McCain will win the election. He has a history of coming from behind, you know. Just a year ago, he was written off as being out of contention even for the nomination of his party.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
She also questioned Obama's honesty for fudging about his connection with Ayers,
Click to expand...
That's what I said, Box. They are trying to avoid the "you're lying" thing by questioning Obama's honesty.

Boxlicker101 said:
I doubt the integrity of the NY Times also. I'm not saying they are lying; I'm just saying I believe there is a good possibility of it. :eek: I would need to see the interviews and records before believing them. Even then, if the inteviews were with political enemies of Sarah Palin, I would doubt thei reliability. y.
Click to expand...

THIS may be about the silliest thing you have ever posted. Let me paraphrase here.

"I doubt the integrity of a paper that was only founded in 1851 and has 98 Pulitzer Prizes because they might be biased. Because after all, the last two months is way more important that the last 160 years of being so reputable that you're considered a national newspaper of record. John McCain and Sarah Palin are so much more credible than that. I mean, it's not like the New York Times has any reason they shouldn't lie. I mean, there aren't any laws about libel or anything.

Look how biased they were against the White Star Line! Reporting about that ship going down and the iceberg and the Captain going fast and there not being enough lifeboats. HEY! They followed all the existing rules. You want them to spend money on safety that they did not have to spend by law? Titanic, panic, whatever.

As a matter of fact, I'm so certain they are biased that even if they show me the concrete proof I'm not going to believe it because you know they had a motive to discover that these things weren't true and their motive of selling papers and winning an election for a guy that has been a national figure for less than 1/25th of the time they existed is totally transparent and completely overrides the truth. What if the interview is with a guy who is only telling the truth because the truth fits his political agenda?"
 
Boxlicker101 said:
[...]
I still believe McCain will win the election. He has a history of coming from behind, you know. Just a year ago, he was written off as being out of contention even for the nomination of his party.
Click to expand...
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I think she questioned Ayers's patriotism and integrity. It is my understanding that The Weather Underground financed their activities by armed robberies. She also questioned Obama's honesty for fudging about his connection with Ayers, which is a lot more than he said it was. William Ayers is much more to the senator than "some guy in the neighborhood." He was quite influential in Obama's getting his political career started.
Click to expand...

Ayer's was, as I understand it, also Chicago's Man of the Year last year, so someone else thinks he's pretty. Moreover, I find it hard for someone to actually question the patriotism of someone who thought so strongly of their own ideals and what was happening to the country at that point that they were willing to die for them. Of course, Ayers wasn't convicted of bombing, so it would be a complete smear to talk about how evil he is. I mean, Charles Keating WAS convicted of a bunch of stuff that John McCain was apparently involved in, even if inadvertently depending on who you believe. If we're going to trot out 'guilt by association' links, I think that McCain is on thin fucking ice.

It's always interesting how conversative Christians are willing to go on and on about redemption, forgiveness, and salvation until it's someone they don't like, and then the rules go out the window. Evangelicals in business & politics have a habit of eating their own young.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Just a year ago, he was written off as being out of contention even for the nomination of his party.
Click to expand...

I think Obama beat some serious naysayers in that respect, too. ;) In fact, I'd say when it comes to nailing his party's nomination, he's come from further behind (as in "there's no fucking way he'll ever win a single primary" behind).


Box -- what media sources DO you trust (if any)? There are (and I'm not saying you're one of them) certainly folks around who believe whatever news outlet is telling them what they want to hear.
 
impressive said:
I think Obama beat some serious naysayers in that respect, too. ;) In fact, I'd say when it comes to nailing his party's nomination, he's come from further behind (as in "there's no fucking way he'll ever win a single primary" behind).


Box -- what media sources DO you trust (if any)? There are (and I'm not saying you're one of them) certainly folks around who believe whatever news outlet is telling them what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

You got that right! I'm STILL amazed that he didn't end up running as Hillary's VP. (and damn glad of it too)
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I think she questioned Ayers's patriotism and integrity. It is my understanding that The Weather Underground financed their activities by armed robberies. She also questioned Obama's honesty for fudging about his connection with Ayers, which is a lot more than he said it was. William Ayers is much more to the senator than "some guy in the neighborhood." He was quite influential in Obama's getting his political career started.
Click to expand...

On Oct. 20, 1981 the group robbed a Brinks truck containing $1.6 million, but Ayers was not a member of the group then. He turned himself in on Dec. 3 1980 and after that all charges against him were dropped. As far as Ayers being "quite influential in Obama's getting his political career started" is concerned -- he donated $200 in April 1981 to Obama's campaign when he was running for re-election. That's hardly what I would consider influential and certainly does not qualify as getting his political career started.
 
This is just flat out ugly (excerpt...full story here):

Just Say It: The Race-Baiting Tactics Of John McCain And Sarah Palin Are Reprehensible

The new hallmark of McCain and Palin rallies is anger: anger stemming from the increasingly likelihood of an Obama win, as the more generous writers at Politico have put it; or from frustration at the media, according to Time; or at Democrats and the bailout more generally, as the New York Times sees it. Well, as I and plenty of other people, including Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo, see it, it's time to stop pretending that this is some grassroots anger movement. This is something that the McCain campaign was counting on, planning for, deliberately fomenting and is happy to see happening.

Don't believe me? Let's go to the video. When the worst of this began at McCain and Palin rallies on Monday, the talking point from the surrogates was that there was no evidence that the candidates heard their supporters shout "Terrorist!" or "Kill him!." Watch the videos — it's not only audible from where the television cameras are, it's plain as day that both candidates heard it. The candidates have had numerous, direct opportunities to interrupt their stump speeches and call for an end to the increasingly vitriolic and hate-filled speech of their supporters and have not only declined to do so, but continued to encourage it.

This is hate speech, this is, in some cases, a series of threats against people's lives and they should be stopped, immediately and directly by the candidates ,who should say without equivocation that such speech and such threats are not welcome. But they won't, because this is the new McCain strategy: portray Obama as the outsider, the threat to America, the guy cavorting with terrorists — who, in the minds' eyes of many of these people are not white college professors, let's add —, the one who doesn't understand the "real" America. This is code for "white" America.

We don't have to condone their behavior and their beliefs with our silence.

Even Republicans recognize this for what it is. Frank Schaeffer, a former McCain staffer from his 2000 run, thinks McCain knows exactly what he's doing with all his coded talk about race and says:

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs. John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

It's time for McCain and Palin and Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to pull their collective heads out of their asses, stop pretending that they don't hear what people are shouting and find a way to lose with some fucking grace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ThePenileAvenger
Any thoughts on Axel Braun's Super Hero Porn Parodies...
Replies
14
Views
417
ThePenileAvenger
ThePenileAvenger
X
"Mercy Sex" Can it be hot?
Replies
18
Views
623
HHHawkeye
H
E
female character motivations for taboo
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
milked_maid
milked_maid
EmilyMiller
Thursday writing prompt: Car (Jun 18, 2026)
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Cagivagurl
C
anthrodisiac
How Do We Feel About...? - A PBP Project
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
TheLobster
TheLobster
Back
Top