What Women Know About Sarah Palin - and why they don't buy her
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin. The one I'm about to describe has nothing to do with policy. It does have to do with the non-verbal communication (also called body language) that goes on all the time. And we know that voters largely base their decisions on these emotional cues. Voters learned more from McCain's reaction shots than from what he said in the debates.
Sarah's good looking, spunky, folksy and knows how to deliver a line. So why isnt she getting the women's vote?
I was sitting on my couch with my boyfriend Bob watching the Palin-Biden debate. Sarah has such self confidence. She came out and blew a kiss to the audience like it was second nature. I could tell Bob liked that. The Vice-Maverick went right up to Senator Biden and asked if she could call him 'Joe.' You could see she felt really comfortable around men.
When she proceeded to wink at the audience as she spoke, Bob really appreciated those winks. And I knew why - I've used them myself to get my way with men.
Sarah reminds me of someone... someone we women know all too well. She's that girlfriend you can't trust with your man - not even for a second. She's ruthless and heartless and will do and say anything to get what she wants. Sarah's not your true girlfriend; she's all about her. We women are an intuitive bunch. We love our girlfriends - and we can smell a phony a mile away. You've seen the type in "All About Eve."
So Sarah, we don't like you and we don't trust you. We look at you and see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with. Get away from our men. And guys - she's all smiles, kisses and winks until it turns to 'Fatal Attraction'. The women are voting for Obama because we understand Sarah all too well. And we don't want her around.
Sarah's good looking, spunky, folksy and knows how to deliver a line. So why isnt she getting the women's vote?
I was sitting on my couch with my boyfriend Bob watching the Palin-Biden debate. Sarah has such self confidence. She came out and blew a kiss to the audience like it was second nature. I could tell Bob liked that. The Vice-Maverick went right up to Senator Biden and asked if she could call him 'Joe.' You could see she felt really comfortable around men.
When she proceeded to wink at the audience as she spoke, Bob really appreciated those winks. And I knew why - I've used them myself to get my way with men.
Sarah reminds me of someone... someone we women know all too well. She's that girlfriend you can't trust with your man - not even for a second. She's ruthless and heartless and will do and say anything to get what she wants. Sarah's not your true girlfriend; she's all about her. We women are an intuitive bunch. We love our girlfriends - and we can smell a phony a mile away. You've seen the type in "All About Eve."
So Sarah, we don't like you and we don't trust you. We look at you and see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with. Get away from our men. And guys - she's all smiles, kisses and winks until it turns to 'Fatal Attraction'. The women are voting for Obama because we understand Sarah all too well. And we don't want her around.
Advertisement
Girlfriend, if you can't trust your boyfriend with Sarah Palin, your problem isn't with her, it's with your taste in men.
And let's just say this isn't exactly a progressive approach to evaluating candidates.
October 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Desidero is male, and, as such, clueless.
AMEN to Maxine's comments. Her High School associates knew enough to call her Sarah Barracuda. Watch out, she's a nut cracker.
October 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm gonna disagree with you oldbag and that doesn't make male nor clueless.
I do see how it is that Palin tries to get her way. And that is about her.
But to all those Bobs who are enticed by her ways: That's all about you!
October 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doncha just love FEMALE sexism, and the supremacist contempt for men? --
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin. The one I'm about to describe has nothing to do with policy. It does have to do with the non-verbal communication (also called body language) that goes on all the time. And we know that voters largely base their decisions on these emotional cues.
_____
ALL voters? Or only SOME voters that YOU know?
_____
Voters learned more from McCain's reaction shots than from what he said in the debates.
_____
SOME voters learned from BOTH.
_____
Sarah's good looking, . . . .
_____
To whom? You don't speak for ME.
_____
spunky, folksy and knows how to deliver a line.
_____
You left out the summative: PHONY.
_____
So why isnt she getting the women's vote?
_____
Why is she not getting ALL women's vote? She IS getting SOME womens' votes.
_____
I was sitting on my couch with my boyfriend Bob watching the Palin-Biden debate. Sarah has such self confidence. She came out and blew a kiss to the audience like it was second nature. I could tell Bob liked that.
_____
"Bob" like it. I didn't: it was overly-familiar, pushy -- manipulative.
_____
The Vice-Maverick went right up to Senator Biden and asked if she could call him 'Joe.' You could see she felt really comfortable around men.
_____
She feels "comfortable" around men because she expects them to "think" with their crotches, and thus that she can successfully manipulate them by playing "cutesy".
Clue: Not all men "think" with their crothes (exactly as not all women think with OTHER THAN THEIR crotches).
_____
When she proceeded to wink at the audience as she spoke, Bob really appreciated those winks.
_____
"Bob" may have; I didn't.
_____
And I knew why - I've used them myself to get my way with men.
_____
And, obviously, with "Bob". So you're admitting being manipulative -- underhanded -- in exactly the same way as you are accusing Palin of being.
Smug and arrogant, anyone?
_____
Sarah reminds me of someone... someone we women know all too well. She's that girlfriend you can't trust with your man - not even for a second.
_____
"your man" being possessive, of course -- which female "feminists" will absolutely NOT tolerate in reverse, because then it is "sexist".
_____
She's ruthless and heartless and will do and say anything to get what she wants. Sarah's not your true girlfriend; she's all about her. We women are an intuitive bunch.
_____
Some of us men are an intuitive "bunch"; but one wouldn't know that to hear smugly superior female sexists talk.
_____
We love our girlfriends - and we can smell a phony a mile away. You've seen the type in "All About Eve."
_____
And men can't? You don't know men well. Or you prefer those who are suckers for the same manipulative tricks you criticize in Palin.
_____
So Sarah, we don't like you and we don't trust you.
_____
Right: because she gives the game away, because to mature men she is SO obvious.
_____
We look at you and see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with.
_____
SOME guys, perhaps. But certainly not ALL guys. Which you'd know if you actually knew as much as you kid yourself you know about men.
_____
Get away from our men.
_____
Get away from our PROPERTY.
_____
And guys - she's all smiles, kisses and winks until it turns to 'Fatal Attraction'. The women are voting for Obama because we understand Sarah all too well. And we don't want her around.
_____
You don't want her around because YOUR men are suckers for the tricks you criticize Palin for using -- and givng away. And you don't want her around because you don't want the competition.
Threatened, anyone?
October 20, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Nagarya! Good to see you! Long-time! Hey... Nice LONG comment, there! Mmmhmm, yeah, I doubly liked it when you posted it again downthread!... Here ole pal, walk with me a while... Yup, mmmhmmm... Where're we going? Oh, nowhere special... A nice place, though. You'll like it... Yup, I see the barn..... Pretty, pretty barn, eh?... We're just gonna take a little walk out behind it... That'll be nice, eh?... Sure it will... Why do I have this shovel?... Oh. No reason really... Hrrrm? Well, you know, something that just needs to be done. Cleaned up... There we are! Now, you just stand riiiiight there Nagarya... Don't you move, ok?... Good boy... Nothing to be afraid of.... Don't mind me and this shovel.... That's right, look at the pretty bird on top of the pretty barn......
BLANGGGGGG!
Dirty job. etc.
October 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We gay guys are the only ones completely immune to her, except for her camp value, which is distinctly anti-erotic and the last thing that would ever get an intelligent vote cast on her behalf.
October 20, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're not talking about an intelligent vote, this is an American general election.
October 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero:
1) About heads -- talking and otherwise -- please accept my congratulations that yours seems to have the upper hand re: evaluation of Palin.
2) About candidate evaluation criteria by others -- may I point out what a comfort it is to a new poster on TPM to learn that, in you, he or she has a reliable resource, someone willing to suggest corrections to his or her conversational course when you suspect that he, or she, has gone astray. I'm sure Maxine, as a new poster, appreciates your efforts on her behalf, and feels much more confident about weighing in than she did, just moments ago.
October 19, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might I suggest that I was fairly gentle with Maxine (note the "let's just say" construct?), whereas with stillidealistic and Elizabeth2 I'd say it was a double-barreled trip-trigger.
Should Maxine be interested, I'd suggest a trip over to http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ to observer for a while (posting is much more dangerous there for a newbie), which will be quite educational as to the continual onslaughts against women in our media and political arenas.
However, I appreciate your warning about coming on too strong. There are many women who are hesitant about blogging or expressing opinions in the aggressive manner that is frequently found on blogs, and I certainly don't want to chase Maxine away - I would much prefer to encourage a pro-woman support viewpoint. Maxine, please stay, we'll warm up some coffee.
October 19, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap bastard. After that, it better be coffee AND cake.
Or pie. Yeah, pie. Pecan, please.
And after what you said to me the other day/week/month, I'm coming over too.
October 19, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yours will be decaf, and you can park the hockey stick outside, buddy.
October 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What (as a male, perhaps?) you don't understand is this:
It is not that a particular woman doesn't trust her man, and your comment shows enormous ignorance about that. It is that women see women like Sarah as predators. The Sarahs prey on the weak-minded men who just love the lipstick and imagine that Sarah is as turned on by them as they are by her.
My only point, and I think the point of the original post is this: Sarah Palin is someone every woman has run across in her life; someone who sidles up to our partner, bats her eyes, and puts us all down for not having a welcoming reaction to her --> we must not be confident in this relationship.
She relishes in making other women uncomfortable. She is a shallow, proud-to-be-ignorant, steal whatever she can steal and get away with, pajama party attendee. Nothing MORE!
We left all this behind in high school, and Sarah is still appointing highschool pals in alaska. The fact that she is still acting like a flirt at the UN says it all.
She needs to go back and take care of her dysfunctional family and leave all of our's alone.
October 19, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero:
No snark to follow, not least because I admit that I am bad at it (although if an attempt at snark earns a piece of southern pecan, or maybe key lime pie, that would be lovely.)
But I digress.
When Geraldine Ferraro was picked as Mondale's running mate, many people I knew -- not just women -- were profoundly moved, some to tears of joy. Perhaps that was because I was living in Belvedere, in Marin County, just north of San Francisco. Which meant that everyone I knew (whether male/female, married/single, young/old, gay/straight, rich/poor) was absolutely elated at he prospect of seismic change -- then, as now, we were "charged up, ready to go."
In hindsight, of course, our elation was for for all the wrong, newbie feminist reasons: we supported her even though we knew nothing about her; we were delighted by her nomination simply because we wanted a woman (any woman) to run and win.
We're wiser, now, then we were, then. Yes, we still want a woman president in our lifetime -- in fact, you have no idea how much. So much that one of the of the bittersweet ironies of being a confirmed Obama supporter is that, for many of us, the primary choice between Obama and Hillary was excruciating. I promise you that your pain at Hillary's loss was experienced, in a separate but equal way, by those among us who felt compelled to choose this man over that woman for reasons about which you and I would disagree.
That's another discussion. The point here is that in choosing Obama, we did so without blinders; we realize, in an eyes-wide-open way, that there is no point in supporting him unless we hope that he has two terms. And, if he does, then there is a distinct possibility that his election will preclude seeing a woman as president of the US for some of us. In fact, if the voting pattern holds true, after Obama there will be a switch back to the Republicans; and, right now at least, there is no Republican woman on the horizon we can see as a viable alternative. So --if a male Republican follows two terms of Obama, we are looking at 16 years before we have another opportunity to elect a woman. And, for those of us who lived well but more recklessly than we should have done, the actuarial odds are not at all certain that we will live to see that day.
A decision of conscience versus contemplating one's own mortality. This is, as it was, sobering stuff. But the bottom line is this: this time, we want the right woman -- the woman who is not only irrefutably intelligent, educated, intellectually curious, qualified not only by virtue of experience and an ability to focus .... but also capable of making the hard political choice to eschew campaign shenanigans.
If Hillary can learn that lesson, and is willing to run after Obama's tenure, I will vote for her in a heartbeat, if I still have a heartbeat. But, this time, I had to choose, and I chose the person -- not the man, not the woman -- who can lead us out of our ethical quagmire.
Naive? Maybe. But Obama's integrity, as well as his intelligence, intellectual curiosity, steadfast refusal to engage in melodramatics, etc. is the choice I have to make, now, in this moment, because sifting ethics back into the mix is something I think imperative.
Now, about that pie....
October 19, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said. Gentle, but firm...Pecan pie...hmmmmm sounds good.
October 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read many of your thoughts and appreciated every one. I feel compelled to tell you that what you have written here is the best I've seen. So far.
October 20, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is history, except as a Senator, perhaps as an organizer, never as a President.
I'm not sad for her - this campaign gave her a chance to find a beauty and strength in herself that would have never come out had she not run, and had she not been losing. And it allowed her to bring a lot of people together to support that change, to figure out what parts a woman is allowed to reveal when, to carefully cultivate the conditions when she's allowed to be "authentic", so that now she can just be herself. But it's not a repeat performance. She's graduated to elder stateswoman. No turning back.
October 20, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you totally missed the point of the post. Comprehend reading much?
I will echo what CVille Dem says below. The post was about Sarah, not about men.
And yes, there is not a woman alive who doesn't know this type of woman or have one in her life right now. Have you ever been to a bar, for God's sake? You'll find lots of Palins there.
Go watch "To Die For" with Nicole Kidman. Then you'll know what we're talking about.
October 20, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Reading comprehension test. Take one. See if this post has anything to do with men. Ummmm... I count "men, men, man, guys, men" (that's 5) plus my fave, "We look at you & see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with." ALL. Sure you wanna ask about reading comprehension?
And yes, there's lots of Palins in bars. Ever seen a male-Palin in a bar? A couple, I suspect. And turning back to politics, ever seen a male politician turn on the charm? Which leaves us with... what again?
October 20, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
See" Over the Hedge":http://members.comics.com/members/common/affiliateArchive.do?site=miami&comic=hedge
October 20, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most women can spot a predatory female a mile away...its in our DNA. Are there many other reasons to fear a Plain Presidency? Yes. But this is the one that gets men thinking with their more powerful brain, and that brain will do things the other one wouldn't even consider...Doesn't look real good on paper, but it is an important reality.
October 19, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get this straight, you think that men will be simply voting with their dicks? (If it were so easy, how come Angelina Jolie isn't running to replace Jennifer Lopez as president?)
And do you think that the male penchant for voting based on looks/penile yearnings is stronger than current female penchant for voting based on looks/vaginal yearnings (or hysterical hormones, depending on the specifics of your legislation-for-sex equation)?
And when men vote for an attractive male candidate, is it a latent homoerotic drive that's spurring them to the ballot box? Is there something akin to the Bradley Effect for sublimated homosexuality that comes out only when confronted by our ids in the quiet confines of the voting booth?
October 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't get it, Des. Tell you the truth, if I wake up with a woody on Nov 4, there's no telling what lever I might pull.
American and proud of it.
October 19, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do get it - we're on a hair-trigger alert. This baby's gonna blow sky high. I'm leaving the planet. I hear Krypton's nice this time of year.
October 19, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok... that may not be "latent" enough for this audience.
God, the follow-up lines to this just write themselves, don't they?
October 19, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only in a bad sit-com kind of way. Where's John Ritter when you need him?
October 19, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Des is one of the men who does get it. He's consistently demonstrating feminism in his comments.
I see that Sarah Palin is someone who has traded on her looks her whole life, but I don't think that's why women aren't responding to her. I think women are smarter than that. They see that she is utterly unqualified to be the president. And they don't appreciate McCain's attitude that we will vote for him because he picked a chick.
October 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now how come you women get to go all noble on me, and say stuff like "Women are smarter than that," in the midst of a discussion of how so many men vote with their dicks? Hmmmm, lemme go check the polling support for Palin..... now Obama.... hmmmmm.... seems the gender gap is GREATER for women over men being pro-Obama than men over women being pro-Palin.
Evidence that women are overly swayed by their lady bits?
Conclusion: I'm happy to have a woman President. As long as these overly-sexed creatures are never given the vote.
October 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The gender gap does have a lot to do with our lady bits, but not in the way that your suggesting. More in a kind of "keep your Supreme Court decisions away from my lady bits" sort of way.
October 19, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that clinches it - I guess every woman in America is uber-rational. I coulda sworn there were some at least SOME episodes of Girls Gone Wild filmed in America, but I guess I was mistaken.
Next question - Why are y'all doing such a bad job on your husbands & sons? Since they're the only ones left voting for McCain-Palin, and seem to be so susceptible to so-called "female charms." Damn, up here a woman can't get a drink with a wink. Down there, you can win the presidency with one. Who knew?
October 19, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, I think we can probably agree that irrationality is not gender based.
October 20, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hum. I think the point was that women never bought Sarah Palin due to their gender -specific intuition. Men have it, too. It's not sexist, more biological.
Of course that this impression of Palin that women widely feel has turned out to have merit, (the reasons not to vote for Palin are formidable). I fail to see the problem here.
I think it's unfair for Des and Quinn to make more of Maxine's comment than what was actually there, (as amusing as they may be). I agree with Maxine, that most women had an instinctive negative reaction to Palin. For me, it was that she reminded me of a conniving , incompetent, nasty boss--but whatever it is she reminded us of isn't really the point, the feeling of unease is, and that's not reverse sexism, that's common sense.
October 20, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, it's gender-specific intuition but men have it too. It's common sense but it's intuition. It's not reverse sexism but it's based on sensing a sexual opponent in a non-sexual setting.
Could you make this any more irrational for me, or do I have to do it myself?
The garbage man this morning reminded me of a priest that molested me at 7 years old, so I tasered the bastard. That's just common sense, right?
October 20, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Decaf Des. You're trying too hard to be obtuse.
Yes, it's common sense to listen to intuition. That's why people of both genders tend to do it.
October 20, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want more about the Tasering.
October 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you more tasering - into the penalty box, and don't touch the drinks till I get there.
October 20, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just don't leave Quinn alone with your garbage man.
(Common sense)
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the picture and article TheraP links to in this post...Pretty much sums it up:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/10/mcshame-campaign-in-a-nutshell.php
Yeah, I think there is a segment of the male population that will vote with their dicks...They do a lot of dumb things with them...John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer...If you would give up your whole career to satisfy the little guy, why wouldn't you use your vote to live vicariously for him...I doubt it was a woman who initially came up w/ VPILF...
October 19, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera didn't bother to read the whole article - I posted the non-supporting part here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/10/mcshame-campaign-in-a-nutshell.php#comment-3238212
John Edwards' little guy didn't end his career - his lack of a believable policy position did - his affair came out later. Eliot Spitzer's little guy didn't end his career - his mind-numbing stupidity in servicing himself through a crime syndicated call-girl service after busting call-girl services did.
Ted Kennedy had plenty of affairs over the years. He just has a more forgiving wife and a more forgiving constituency.
October 19, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And herewith I quote the appropriate part of my response to Desidero's comment on my blog (referenced above):
"What I find interesting about "it's time we let a woman lead us," is the generic nature of that comment. As if any woman would do....
I wonder if indeed any woman would do.... Intriguing."
Which, apparently, is one of the issues being discussed right here.
You can dispute my points. But I still think the NYTimes article and photo support them. And this blog here.
October 20, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Thera. Here's the thing. You don't like - nor do many women here - the idea that "any woman would do," because it's "generic", i.e. covers all women. But then read this as a MAN, and what do you see? Not just references to Bob, but to "men." This line in particular, "We look at you and see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with." All. This is generic, isn't it?
In the same way, do you think the fact that Palin might wink & flirt with men makes her unfit for office? If so, did you count out Clinton, Edwards, Biden et al for this? This is not a question of actual having sex with voters, but of using their sexual charm. Again, I don't like Palin, and I DO think she uses this. In a bar I'd steer well clear of her. But it's not ALL men that respond to this, nor is she the ONLY politician to use this device.
I'm not deeply offended or anything, it's just that we've got 101 other perfectly good reasons to not support Palin/McCain, 1001 more important women/men issues to deal with, and - truth be told - I've seen many comments from women on TPM expressing how they found Obama or Biden attractive. Should I therefore reject him? Or suggest that they think only with their genitalia?
October 20, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're much too indirect, thus let such women off the hoof.
What you are addressing is SEXISM -- except that it isn't MALE sexism, therefore is acceptable.
Female feminists are absolutely opposed to discrimination based upon genital configuration -- but only when done by males.
So they nastily assert that men, as example, vote with their "dicks," but remain silent about the fact that MANY -- not ALL -- women vote with their c**ts.
(Feminists object to men objectifying women, and seeing them as "body parts," but have no problem with themselves doing exactly the same to men. Fattest wallet being the most important "lump" in a man's pants, anyone?)
October 20, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nagarya, your case would've been a LOT stronger if you hadn't switched out "hook" for "hoof." That kinda slip can get you in a HEAP a trouble. ;-)
October 20, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Thera, you made it through paragraph 2. A gold star.
Now how about we continue to paragraph 3 before we take a break? “They think it’s time for a woman, too,” he said. “This one. Palin is our kind of woman.” There, now go get some apple juice in your sippy cup, good girl.
October 20, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Still. Here's my problem:
1) I'm a man, no way would I vote for Palin - can't stand her, ok? And there are millions of men just like me. So the references to guys being driven by their dicks strikes me kinda odd.
2) This site's had lots of comments where women talk about how attractive Obama & Biden are. And make no mistake, any guy in public life understands EXACTLY the power this gives, how to increase their charm, etc. Bill Clinton for example, Trudeau up here, etc. Make no mistake, Obama has had to learn to see this, respond to it, cultivate it, but not let it wreck things. So the way I see it, sexual attraction enters into the equation with pretty much any candidate, pro or con.
3) There are lots of men who like Palin, but who - as in the NYT article - are driven by a larger sense of what they want from a woman leader, not just sexual desire. I agree that she plays with this vibe a bit, but so far, not overly, from what I've seen. I'd also say, yes, I pick up some of that "predator" vibe too, but again, I have no evidence that's played any role in her career, whereas it definitely has in a lot of men. Plus, other women politicians appeal to men for other reasons - see: Margaret Thatcher.
In sum, Men vote with things other than their dick... Male politicians also consciously use their charm/attractiveness.... Some men like other aspects of Palin.... So what are we left with?
Which leads to... Would you consider it reasonable if a Republican writer did a piece arguing that Obama's appeal to women was based largely on their sexual desires?
October 19, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one said ALL men do that...just that some do. If you aren't one of them, you have nothing to feel defensive about, just like I don't feel defensive that some women are like Sarah.
As far as the "thinking with your dick" comment, that came from Des...I was merely responding to it.
And as for the suggestion about the Republican writing about women voting for Obama because he's a hottie? Woman are RARELY moved to do anything because their girl parts tell them to, so no, I would put that in the he's a muslim category...laughable...
So, back to my fantasies...
P.S. Hope you guys aren't seriously offended! Just havin' a little fun w/ the subject!
October 19, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dont fuck with me. You said quote, "But this is the one that gets men thinking with their more powerful brain, and that brain will do things the other one wouldn't even consider.."
Now tell me what you were implying with "their more powerful brain" than the common expression of men thinking with their dicks?
Quick, 3 seconds for a witty retort, or you're off to the penalty box for slashing. And disturbing the peace.
October 20, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Des...I'm just not that witty! Will you sit in the box w/ me? How long do I have to stay? Wink! Wink!
BTW, this has been an amusing diversion...I haven't thought about how despicable McCain is in about an hour!
October 20, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Quinn pointed out they redid the penalty boxes, but haven't figured out yet whether they now have coolers - either White Jeesus or plain Labatts, all the same to me about now. (But don't try that winky winky stuff with me - I've got about 30 pounds worth of hockey gear on, worse than doing it in a VW bug. Just sit back and enjoy the beer, that's as good as it gets).
October 20, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
uggghhh...not much of a beer girl...got any pinot grigio hiding in there?
October 20, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 2 tumblers full of White Jeesus. It's gonna get hot in here, that stuff is ruthless.
October 20, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still? What does VPILF mean? What's that you say? Never mind. I'll look it up on Urban dictionary.
October 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a take off on MILF from American Pie (vice president I'd like to F***)
October 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to be a DILF. Where do I set up my stand?
October 20, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then you could go F yourself, D.
October 20, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
FILF?
October 20, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm versatile, Root, but not that versatile. Opposable thumbs, that was our trade, remember?
October 20, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didja not read that Rick Lowery sparkleburst thing? The guy was clearly whackin off while he wrote it.
October 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...my fingers just want to type plain, instead of Palin!
October 19, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mine want to type "pain."
October 20, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that better, Miss Chicken!
October 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other characteristic of those predatory women (who, as several have said, we know and recognize all too well), and one more troubling when you think of her a leader, is that the adrenaline rush of the chase and the thrill of winning ..... then it's on to the next chase and win, with the former trophy tossed to the side whereever he happens to land, and in whatever shape he happens to be. This is what she has done, consistently, in her public life: winning the endorsement and support of someone more powerful than she and, once she makes it up the next rung, that former mentor is tossed aside (or attacked) and she's looking for a mentor higher up the ladder. Her 'competition' with McCain is already evident, which would be pretty damaging if she were VP .... and if she should step into that spot, what the &^%$# would she look to for that adrenaline rush and sense of victory? I shudder to think.
October 19, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right, it's so terrible to have predatory women in politics rather than predatory men like Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Reid, Kennedy, .....
Glad you saved us, that was a close call. Fortunately when the adrenaline rush and sense of victory comes in November it will be 100% male, and our destiny will be secure.
October 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never indicated (nor do I believe) that there aren't men who have the same shallow drive for conquest for no purpose other than to conquer. I merely pointed out that that drive IS a characteristic of the predatory women that we were discussing. (I would, of course, disagree with some of the examples you suggest -- Ted Kennedy, for example, has plenty of ambition but it's ambition to DO something, not just reach the next height, and then onto the next.)
"double-barreled trip-trigger"? Nah - I've seen you do much 'better.' As with Palin, it's always interesting to see what people aspire to.
October 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shallow drive? Shallow drive? That hurts.
I've said before that there are hundreds of valid reasons for voting for a candidate. I remember someone voting for Jimmy Carter because he reminded them of their uncle. Whatever. Identity politics? Great, if you're going to vote for someone, that's as good as most any - and "identity" can cover everything from skin color, education level or personal fetish about park pigeons. Babe magnet? Sure, why not, thought the chances of that romantic fantasy being consummated are decidedly slim and getting slimmer.
Ted Kennedy? "Ambition to DO something"? Fearsome Ted had JFK's Senate seat reserved for him for 2 years until he was legally old enough to occupy it, and there he's sat ever since. While he's sometimes done some good work, he was also part of the Senate party circuit for quite some time as well. Sorry, I'll leave him on the predator list.
Okay, shotgun's been downgraded to single-barrel manual with an occasional misfire, say perhaps Elmer Fudd out hunting wabbits.
October 19, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2000, Cindy weighed more than she does now. Palin looked thinner on snl than she did a few weeks ago. Both are thinner than Hillary and Michelle.
I wonder sometimes, if McCain has some weight issues with women. Please tell me I am fos.
October 19, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
People around him lose their appetites.
October 19, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what it is, if it works on men too, I'm gonna start hanging around McCain rallies. I'll stop once I'm down 20 lbs.
October 19, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They gorge on Caribou until they sink into a near catatonic ketosis state, something akin to short-term hibernation. Fat is good for you, it's the sugar highs that make you mouth off and get you in trouble.
October 19, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's baby is one a few months old. It's not unusual that she'd be losing weight. Let's not get carried away.
October 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me she's the co-worker you can't trust with your boss. She's the kind of woman guys use to excuse sexual harassment and sexual quid pro quos. In other words, she's the kind of woman who stirs up trouble and distracts from getting the real job done.
October 19, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Did she fuck her boss and I didn't hear about it?
Or did she pick one of well-known paths to getting ahead in the world, come across as vivacious, engaging, flattering and entertaining?
Really, I like a slept-her-way-to-the-top story just as much as the next person. Let me in on the details - enquiring minds want to know.
October 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"vivacious, engaging, flattering and entertaining"
Great position description for co-hosting with Regis.
October 19, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could also describe Oprah and Martha Stewar, perhaps the most successful businesswomen of our time, and could describe Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs if they knew how to flatter, and might describe Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump, or Arianna Huffington, or Bill Clinton, or Richard Simmons.
October 19, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
allow me to retort...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDnKh1PgjU
pure comedy hahahaha
October 20, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Maxine-
What a pitiful post.
You must be one of those N.A.G.S - formerly NOW- also known as "Feminazis."
Devotees of Gloria Steinem and all those other ugly lesbians who are too unattractive to get a man- so you either choose your own gender or write silly stories about how a lady "winks" is flirting to get her man.
Sarah Palin and I BOTH wink- it's a part (and a positive one) of body language.
It's like a "thumbs up."
It's indicative of her positive, upbeat persona that drives you liberal left-wingers CRAZY.
Did you do a scientific poll to find out that American women don't like Sarah Palin?
Or did you just poll the jealous, bloated, botox-injected harpies and shrews that you hang with?
God bless Governor Palin.
God Bless AMERICA
And deliver us from this evil which is Obama-Biden
and these b**ches who can't see straight because Sarah Palin is an accomplished, intelligent, positive, GOD FEARING American.
And like it or NOT, Maxine.
There are a LOT of us out there and we will vote McCain-Palin November 4th.
October 19, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... stings, huh?
October 19, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome CoolPillow! You've come at JUST the right time! Really, thanks! Things were getting a bit intense, and along comes the entertainment! You clown you! Gawd, brought tears to my eyes!
Wha? You weren't joking?
Oh. In that case, kick back son, cause you're gonna enjoy the hell out of the next 8 years, as President Obama appoints HUNDREDS OF GODLESS, HARPO-LOVING, BLACK LESBIANS to top positions.
I can't wait. (Wink wink.)
October 19, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You DO make me laugh, Quinn!
October 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool Pillow:
Welcome. I'm sure you especially abhor black tea, so what may I get you? A little white lightnin' ?
Have a seat. No, no feminazi, nigra, Jew or queer has ever been in that chair. You'll be just fine. Put those jack boots right up there on the coffee table. We want you to be comfortable while we pray, our way (even though we may be a bit rusty in the prayer department):
Sweet baby Jesus:
Bless our brother, Cool Pillow, who fails to see that Obama demonstrates the principles of New Testament Christianity every day. Treating others as he would wish to be treated himself, according to the golden rule. Turning the other cheek, etc.
Amen.
Cool Pillow: I assume that you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
Then get with his program, O.K.? And when we pass the plate, contribute, O.K.?
In the meantime,
The Lord be with you, and with thy spirit.
October 19, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
White Lightning? You've been holding that back? Shame shame, I'll take a big cup. Even better, White Jeesus if you have it. Hallelujah, blogging will be fun again.
October 20, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
CP,
You must be like double extra pure of heart. Everyone knows that the fear of g*d is so much more cleansing when it's in all capital letters. Of course, if you want to be totally pure of heart, I suggest you try adding italics and bold face to your g*d fearing.
With that, your strength, like Galahad's, would be "as the strength of ten."
You'd have shattering trumpets shrilling high, hard brands shivering on steel, pretty much everywhere you went. You could drag bulldozers around the parking lot, crush cars with your four wheeler, all kinds of cool stuff. That would really impress us. Uh huh.
Think about it. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
Maxine,
I enjoyed your post. I'm a guy and even I've noticed the same behavior on the part of the Vice Maverick. It's inappropriate behavior for a would-be head of state in a political debate, and this, alone, should have disqualified her from consideration, IMHO.
But given her misguided positions on so many key issues, her lack of positions on so many other key issues, her lack of informed positions on any issues, her close association with unrepentant would-be anti-American terrorists (in the Alaska Independence Party), her abuse of public office, her mis-use of public funds, her dishonesty, her anti-intellectualism, her crony-ism, her pettiness, her mean-spirited-ness; flirtatiousness is probably not in the Top Ten List of Sarah Palin's Most Serious Disqualifications, though I'm sure it would make the top 100.
And, like I said, and as others have said, I enjoyed your post. It's always nice to feel vindicated. (Did I really just see that? Yup! She saw it, too.)
Thanks for the post. Keep comin' back.
Desidero,
You're right, of course, in much of what you say. I can think of all kinds of thoughtful, even insightful reasons why she was a Bad Choice for Vice President, and if she were Barack Obama's running mate, I'd have to vote for Nader.
And I love my wife. I really, really do. And I'd never, ever ...
But left alone with Sarah Palin, the best protection of my chastity would be not my intellect or commitment but me being just too damn ugly.
Flirting persists in social interaction because it works, especially for the people who persist in doing it. But now I'm wandering into anthropology. Way over my depth.
My $.03
October 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Flirting is just one part of human behavior. It can be charming, it can be gross, it can be male, it can be female. But I've seen nothing that says that Sarah used her flirtatiousness to bed down a bevy of males and steal all the girls' boyfriends, so perhaps that metaphor shouldn't be employed so much in evaluating the 2nd female VP candidate.
(And considering the curmudgeon we've had as VP the last 8 years, I'd take a flirtatious type in a heartbeat - oops, bad expression to use - with absolutely no sexual implications/expectations involved.)
October 20, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So can intuition. No?
October 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Yes. Maybe. Now go away or I will taunt you a second time and stop scratching around the courtyard.
October 20, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed the first taunt sorry. I'll go scratch around somewhere else, sure.
Sorry about the mess on your taser, it looked like a likely perch, at the time.
October 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the burn marks on your tail feathers, I swear I left it in the off position.
October 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maxine:
I don't particularly agree with your post BUT I am glad you posted your comments. There are plenty of people here whom I don't agree with. Many of whom post in a similar vein to yours. The reason that they don't have people come out with searingly nasty remarks is that they are part of an accepted community here.
How did that get that way? Mostly longevity.
Please ignore the nasty comments here... many were made by commentators who recommend blogs similar to yours. You just aren't part of their clique. Yet.
I look forward to your next blog.
October 19, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? It's all about clique? You've never seen me disagree with Billy, with Dij, with Quinn?
Nope, I specialize in overt sexism, though I minor in a few other subjects.
October 20, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think your comments were nasty, Desidero. Sarcastic, maybe.
The only overtly "nasty" comment on this blog was the one above your response.
Ironic, isn't it.
October 20, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's say I made a few suggestive double-entendre's, but when offered overt in flagrante delicto declined graciously.
October 20, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maxine:
Your blog made me laugh out loud, and call my wife in to read it. She said EXACTLY the same thing while watching the Biden/Palin debate.
I agree that she is exactly as you say. She reminds me of a flirtatious waitress at a cheap truckstop - the kind who flirt with every man in the place, especially if they are accompanied by a wife or girlfriend.
Those who criticize your observation of the obvious truth that women despise being treated this way, and will vote accordingly are being too smart by half.
Thanks for the laugh. Loved your post.
October 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and one other thing. You picked a most excellent title for your post. I couldn't resist.
October 19, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, so the waitress in the diner who's working her ass off and saying "honey" to kind of perk up the meal especially if the wife is along - she's somehow a threat to their marriage or a vamp trying to pick up every customer? I've had about a few thousand too many grumpy waiters/waitresses, and will gladly tip the smiley/winky type (presuming not *too* chatty) just for making my sausage and biscuits not feel like last meal at an execution.
October 20, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
God save waitresses everywhere. lol. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my description.
My wife doesn't care if the waitress calls me 'hon' - that's how they say it out here in IL.
No, the kind of waitress I'm talking about goes way past friendly, and usally does so while ignoring my wife the entire time. I'll spare everyone the unctuous details wince I know for a fact that neither you or they are too stupid to know what I'm talking about.
October 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only know them from the late night channel, never realized that kind of stuff happened in real life. If it weren't for the cook saving the day, you and your wife would probably be divorced right now, eh?
[Note: this gratuitous "eh?" has been brought to you by Quinn Exclamations Ltd. All licenses and specified royalties remain with the author, and no statements within said licensing agreement is intended to confer ownership upon the receiving party. Should differences arise as to interpretation of said agreement, arbitration will take place on an isolated ice shelf somewhere in upper Saskatchewan with said Quinn allowed to bring a shovel and a few of his buddies and nothing else. Well, maybe a few beers too.]
October 20, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it when my posts get your attention!
Thanks for the responses.
And all you lefties and lesbians are God's people.
Too bad Barry is a Muslim in "sheeple's clothing."
Keep grazing -you mindless Kool Aid drinkers.
This election- The Silent Majority will speak.
And it's not about racism.
It's about experience.
We will not put this country in the hands of a socialist-
Who will hand us over to terrorists.
October 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean Maxine is cool pillow and we've been had by a transvestite?
October 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're still the joker, CoolPillow. How about this. My family have been Baptist preachers for 150 years. Farmers. 9 kids in my family. 100% Conservative roots. I'm a Hockey player, not just a hockey Mum. I've spent significant periods of my life around Muslims, and been personally threatened in the process, by a hotheaded Mullah.
And am completely pro-Obama. So how do I fit that Godless label of yours?
As for experience, come on. Did W Bush have more experience than Gore? Reagan more than Carter?
Not trying to persuade you to change your vote - I'm sure you have your reasons. I'm just saying you need to recognize that the Godless-Terrorist-Muslim-Lesbian label for anyone who backs Obama kinda doesn't stick, ok?
Hope you had a great Sunday.
October 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doncha just love FEMALE sexism, and the supremacist contempt for men? --
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin. The one I'm about to describe has nothing to do with policy. It does have to do with the non-verbal communication (also called body language) that goes on all the time. And we know that voters largely base their decisions on these emotional cues.
_____
ALL voters? Or only SOME voters that YOU know?
_____
Voters learned more from McCain's reaction shots than from what he said in the debates.
_____
SOME voters learned from BOTH.
_____
Sarah's good looking, . . . .
_____
To whom? You don't speak for ME.
_____
spunky, folksy and knows how to deliver a line.
_____
You left out the summative: PHONY.
_____
So why isnt she getting the women's vote?
_____
Why is she not getting ALL women's vote? She IS getting SOME womens' votes.
_____
I was sitting on my couch with my boyfriend Bob watching the Palin-Biden debate. Sarah has such self confidence. She came out and blew a kiss to the audience like it was second nature. I could tell Bob liked that.
_____
"Bob" like it. I didn't: it was overly-familiar, pushy -- manipulative.
_____
The Vice-Maverick went right up to Senator Biden and asked if she could call him 'Joe.' You could see she felt really comfortable around men.
_____
She feels "comfortable" around men because she expects them to "think" with their crotches, and thus that she can successfully manipulate them by playing "cutesy".
Clue: Not all men "think" with their crothes (exactly as not all women think with OTHER THAN THEIR crotches).
_____
When she proceeded to wink at the audience as she spoke, Bob really appreciated those winks.
_____
"Bob" may have; I didn't.
_____
And I knew why - I've used them myself to get my way with men.
_____
And, obviously, with "Bob". So you're admitting being manipulative -- underhanded -- in exactly the same way as you are accusing Palin of being.
Smug and arrogant, anyone?
_____
Sarah reminds me of someone... someone we women know all too well. She's that girlfriend you can't trust with your man - not even for a second.
_____
"your man" being possessive, of course -- which female "feminists" will absolutely NOT tolerate in reverse, because then it is "sexist".
_____
She's ruthless and heartless and will do and say anything to get what she wants. Sarah's not your true girlfriend; she's all about her. We women are an intuitive bunch.
_____
Some of us men are an intuitive "bunch"; but one wouldn't know that to hear smugly superior female sexists talk.
_____
We love our girlfriends - and we can smell a phony a mile away. You've seen the type in "All About Eve."
_____
And men can't? You don't know men well. Or you prefer those who are suckers for the same manipulative tricks you criticize in Palin.
_____
So Sarah, we don't like you and we don't trust you.
_____
Right: because she gives the game away, because to mature men she is SO obvious.
_____
We look at you and see that bad girl all the guys would cheat with.
_____
SOME guys, perhaps. But certainly not ALL guys. Which you'd know if you actually knew as much as you kid yourself you know about men.
_____
Get away from our men.
_____
Get away from our PROPERTY.
_____
And guys - she's all smiles, kisses and winks until it turns to 'Fatal Attraction'. The women are voting for Obama because we understand Sarah all too well. And we don't want her around.
_____
You don't want her around because YOUR men are suckers for the tricks you criticize Palin for using -- and givng away. And you don't want her around because you don't want the competition.
Threatened, anyone?
October 20, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I woulda SWORN I took you out with that shovel the first time.
Oh well.
BLANNNNNNNG!!!
My work here is done. Time for drinks. White Jeeeeeeeeesus!
October 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the "Silent Majority" speaking the other day - headline ran "Obama Effigy Hung" - I couldn't figure out whether it was crude attempt at stereotypical racial profiling or objective reporting, and then when I clicked on the link instead of seeing an effigy I saw something resembling Casper the Friendly Ghost more than an effigy (and missing its lower torso, just 1 sheet to the wind so to speak, so that answered my first question) and an interview with someone a few plies less than cerebral. So I guess I'm left thinking that if we're going to continue this movement, we need some rebranding, such as the "Silent but Still Stupid Majority", which would hopefully mean "Challenged to find a voting booth or figure out how to pull a lever". In the wise words of Animal House, "fat and stupid is no way to go through life", or at least used not to be.
October 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Quinn,
I had a lovely Sunday- hope you had the same.
Your family has roots in the Baptist faith, large family- Farmers.
Do you realize what what O is going to try to do with the tax code?
Have you heard of "unearned tax credits?"
There goes your farm.
We have digressed a far way from the shallow post of Maxine- for which I am thankful.
WINK
October 19, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coolpill, you lost me upthread when you said Gloria Steinem is ugly.
October 19, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude DEFINITELY has a point there, Coolpillow. Not that I'd vote for her, just for that. But there's no arguing the facts. Your judgment has been called into serious question here.
October 19, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coolpillow was just referencing that Gloria Steinem got thrown off the progressive bus, so anything goes. Perhaps I'll switch back to my Chimpanzee avatar after all...
October 20, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post, Maxine, is insulting to female voters. Certainly there are more legitimate reasons to discount Ms. Palin as a potential VP than the threat of her "stealing" your boyfriend?
October 19, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus fucking Christ (had to throw that in for coolpillow), lighten up Palinsnotforme. Maxine was not suggesting that's the only reason not to vote for Palin. It was just an observation. This is the internet, not the NY Times. Chill.
October 20, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way Maxine, you're allowed to come down here and fight with people. Personally, I'd suggest you pick fights with Orlando or Stillidealistic. They're a vicious twosome. You can see the way they unfairly picked on me, smeared me, used a chair, hidden objects, ignored the bell.... WWF's got nothin' on those two. Whereas Rootman is usually the voice of reason, and Des the designated driver. (I'm usually gagged in the trunk.)
October 19, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why thank you, sir...I do believe that's the nicest thing you've said to me! :-) Knuckle bump, Orlando!
October 20, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whiner.
October 20, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Winger, not a whiner, 1st line even. Perhaps a bit of a whinger when called to the penalty box, but that's just looking for ref sympathy.
October 20, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I not enough for you? Why are you trying to get someone else in here, too? Oh, I get it...you're THAT kinda guy...
October 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I told you, I've got the hockey pads on - I'm just here as the audience, and besides, I'm back on the ice in 2:37.
October 20, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palinsnotforme:
Do you really care whether or not Maxine's antipathy to Sarah is boyfriend-based? A refusal to vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for Obama, yes?
Put yourself in Maxine's shoes: I'm speculating here, but surely you can understand, as Bertie Wooster was fond of saying, that it is "tarsome" when a woman observes an urbane man of whom she is fond either: a) neck-swiveling at Sarah's TV wink; or b) drooling over the photo of Sarah in the mini-skirt and boots. And one can readily imagine that it really is a bit much when he-who-probably-does-not-hunt comments admiringly that "you've got to love a girl with a gun." That admiration would change to apprehension, of course, should Sarah decide to switch to a knife. But in the meantime, it is Sarah, not Maxine's post, that is the insult to female voters.
October 20, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are in great form today, girlfriend!
October 20, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Maxine's post is more an insult and an additional hurdle to female candidates.
October 20, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
However Maxine chose to visualize her visceral mistrust of Sarah Palin, it echoes my own. Sarah Palin is a phony. She says what works at the moment. She refuses to be answerable for her actions or words. Whether it's flirting with a boyfriend just long enough to get a free drink or lying to an electorate long enough to get a few votes, it's the same thing. She's a user and untrustworthy.
I thought on SNL they "said it to her face" and she didn't have enough gumption to realize they weren't joking. Her "humor" was defensive, not self-deprecating. I don't trust people who don't have a sense of humor about themselves; it means they don't have an objective sense of who they are, and they are capable of lying to themselves and others. So that's another reason I don't trust her. I hope that's not too lightweight for y'all. Bu we're not just logical beings, we're intuitive as well.
October 20, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
However Maxine chose to visualize her visceral mistrust of Sarah Palin, it echoes my own. Sarah Palin is a phony. She says what works at the moment. She refuses to be answerable for her actions or words. Whether it's flirting with a boyfriend just long enough to get a free drink or lying to an electorate long enough to get a few votes, it's the same thing. She's a user and untrustworthy.
I thought on SNL they "said it to her face" and she didn't have enough gumption to realize they weren't joking. Her "humor" was defensive, not self-deprecating. I don't trust people who don't have a sense of humor about themselves; it means they don't have an objective sense of who they are, and they are capable of lying to themselves and others. So that's another reason I don't trust her. I hope that's not too lightweight for y'all. Bu we're not just logical beings, we're intuitive as well.
October 20, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well excellent, how about you intuitive beings stop voting for male phonies as well, then maybe we'll be gender neutral and better off to boot. (How did Ted Stevens get in office? Tom DeLay? George Freaking W Bush?)
Until then, I'll match my female phony to your male phony any day. We've been ruled my male phonies for so long, it's about time we were ruled by a female phony. This one. Sarah is my phony.
As the little girl looked out on the front lawn Christmas Day, and all he saw was a pile of "manure, he started jumping up and down with joy. "Why are you so happy?" "With all that horseshit, there must be a phony in there somewhere". "Pony, me lassie, pony."
October 20, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des...serious question...Do you know coolpillow? Up thread it looked like he was saying he was maxine and that he was messin' w/ us?
October 20, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I'm horrid with tracking the personalities around here. All I know is I'm the same person as Billy Glad, Quinn l'Esquimeau, Blow the Gasket and countless others. I am large, I contain multitudes - hear me blow.
October 20, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're funny...see ya tomorrow! G'night!
October 20, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I see that your argument is that we should have a government of the lowest common denominator. We should aspire to nothing more? What about the idea that our leaders should be exceptional people?
That other people have happily voted for phonies like George W. Bush in the past is why we are where we are. Your argument is that we should therefore continue doing that because at least it's a woman is one I just don't understand. My vote is an exceptional and rare right in this world, and I use it for exceptional and rare leaders and ideas that I agree with. Why do you argue for throwing yours away on mediocrity?
October 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a big part of what Maxine is saying, in colloquial language, is that Sarah Palin's appeal comes, in large part, from her sexual appeal, a fact borne out by her favorability ratings among men and women(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19palin.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=palin%20men&st=cse&oref=slogin). Imagine if she were some rootin', tootin', Moose-shootin' guy from Alaska, instead of the beauty queen that she is. You think all those guys would be giving him a pass? In so many ways Palin is a woman taking advantage of her "assets", so to speak. She knows that (some) men will warm to her with a wink and a smile, and Maxine's 100% right about that.
October 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Video of Sarah!
I wonder how Bob will like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_DRRoOtzM8
October 20, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Sarah Palin, and I'm voting for McCain for president.
October 21, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Maxine, I have to say your comparison of Palin's behavior has another element that cheeses many women to add to it: she gets someone else to pay for her ridiculously expensive clothes. In this case, since her running mate is the head of the campaign and he's a man, she is getting a man to pay for her clothes.
For most of us, we're left wondering why the last season markdowns from Nordstrom Outlet just don't look as great on us. We feel inadequate that no matter how hard we work, we can't match up to this purported "everyday hockey mom." That's because we're living within our means. I could look that great if I had a sugar daddy spending $150,000 on my clothes.
If Hilary Clinton had spent that kind of money on her pantsuits, it would be a headline on every MSM outlet in minutes.
October 22, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink