PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin's long hair being slammed



turtlelover
September 4th, 2008, 11:01 AM
I'm not especially political, but I found it interesting that the media feels the need to slam Sarah Palin for her long hair.:mad:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116858

Kuchen
September 4th, 2008, 11:02 AM
They can't even spell "passé".

spidermom
September 4th, 2008, 11:05 AM
Oh please! Long hair over age 40 borders on desperation ... say what? I don't even know what that means. Not that I care.

florenonite
September 4th, 2008, 11:10 AM
They can't even spell "passé".

Lol, definitely a pet peeve of mine is when people miss out accents.

Also, it's kind of sad that they slam her hair of all things. Hairstyle doesn't necessarily relate to politics, although somehow people seem convinced that it does :S

wintersun99
September 4th, 2008, 11:10 AM
I swear there are better things for journalists to report on... :rolleyes:

Having said that, I think I do kinda feel like her updo (at least, the one in the picture) is old-fashioned and not my favorite. However, I really liked the half-updo she sported last night, during her speech. Very chic!

lora410
September 4th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I just love how they say since her hair is
“It’s about 20 years out of date,” said Boston stylist Mario Russo of the Alaska governor’s ’do. “Which goes to show how off she might be on current events.” This really makes me angry. I hate society's view on hair, I really do.

turtlelover
September 4th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I totally LOVED her hair last night. Very elegant and chic! I have no idea what these idiots are complaining about. *sigh*

ReadingRenee
September 4th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I wish that the media would stop critcizing her appearance. Focus on the issues at hand!

oh but um wrong thread. :D

charlyee
September 4th, 2008, 11:16 AM
“It’s about 20 years out of date,” said Boston stylist Mario Russo of the Alaska governor’s ’do. “Which goes to show how off she might be on current events.”


What a ridiculous and stupid comment.

karenpetal
September 4th, 2008, 11:17 AM
I am not political but what are these guys talking abt Sarah Palin looked and spoked elegantly last night ... and long hair rocks

eadwine
September 4th, 2008, 11:18 AM
Ah well.. that is the way non long hair people think. Long hair and older is old fashioned. Sigh and move on is my advice.

Jemoiselle
September 4th, 2008, 11:20 AM
Oh my gosh how pathetic! You know, it's empty people like this that make me feel sickened to the core. The fact that they speculate her political prowess could be out dated because of her hair shows me they wouldn't know prowess if it hit them in the face. Rather than research her positions, history and psyche to make such determination, they researched her history in some pageant instead. Hmm. These guys sound like real winners to me! So sad.

To label any woman "desperately flirting" if she has long hair after age 40 is such a deep ignorant insult! What if a woman is married? Is he THAT vain? Long hair is classic. And if you accept your age, and wear it proudly, smile lines and all (he probably has frown lines and advocates botox), you will glow after 40. It's funny that someone who advocates short easy hair that barely needs washing would suggest growing long beautiful locks is simply lazy. Ha! If he only knew.

Madness I tell you. The world has gone ignorantly mad. This is the older version of the greasy High School Jock that comes on to girls who don't like him, he gets slapped, and he walks away smiling "She WANTS me" LOL. This is what happened to that guy everyone!

Sorry for the rant, but THAT got me seeing red! Thanks for bringing this to our attention...

Jemoiselle

Rapunzelwannabe
September 4th, 2008, 11:26 AM
The idea that every female politcal figure has to have the same haircut seems awfully silly to me, and strangely reminds me of a line from Deception point by Dan Brown. "The woman's hair was light brown and fashioned in Washington's most popular style-the anchorwoman-a lush feathering, curled under at the shoulders…long enough to be sexy, but short enough to remind you she was probably smarter than you." Some days I think we'd be better off as grey blobs, that way we wouldn't have to be picked apart by others on the way we looked.

mugglemomof3
September 4th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Wouldn't they freak if one of our especially-long-haired members ran for political office somewhere? Democrat or Republican - I bet somewhere, someone would freak out over the hair and really bash us.

Periwinkle
September 4th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Oh yeah. Because of course, long hair after 40 is totally wrong, and people who don't spend 20 hours a day fussing over their hair are clearly not fit to be politicians...

k_hepburn
September 4th, 2008, 12:14 PM
The author of that article actually is female. Somehow this smacks a lot of "I don't want that woman to look more attractive than me, how dare she AT HER AGE!". Only for it to masquerade as political commentary is rather pathetic.

katharine

anna1850
September 4th, 2008, 12:17 PM
At least all the comments the users left seem to agree that it's a completely stupid criticism. I thought more people would think she should cut her hair. I think the article is terribly sexist.

harpgal
September 4th, 2008, 12:20 PM
I do believe that our "lame" stream media will attack Sarah at every opportunity. It's going to happen, whether we like it or not.

greekprincess
September 4th, 2008, 12:22 PM
In the comments section of the article...everyone is slamming who wrote it. Everyone thought she looks great...and so do I. Poorly written article...no class what so ever.

Robbi Dehlinger
September 4th, 2008, 12:24 PM
Alas!

The media is still in love with Hilary, they want us all to have mullets??

GAG!

dagonlilly
September 4th, 2008, 12:24 PM
I like how they say her hair is 20 years out of date but I bet if she had a stylish hair style they would say she needed a more mature hair style

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 12:25 PM
I think she cut it before last night. It was at least BSL before, and as you can see from the shots from the back it's not even APL now.

Robbi Dehlinger
September 4th, 2008, 12:27 PM
Hmmm? It was long enough to be considered long by the "fashion wonks?"

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 12:35 PM
I find it sad that the commenters are turning this into a, "See, look at all the petty things that liberals will attack." It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue! It's a longhair/shorthair squabble! :rolleyes:

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Alas!

The media is still in love with Hilary, they want us all to have mullets??

GAG!

What? Seriously, huh?

Robbi Dehlinger
September 4th, 2008, 12:37 PM
What? Seriously, huh?

Sorry to put a political spin on this, but ALL media is trying to brainwash us in one way or another?? Look at those dorky hair cutting shows???

Kimberly
September 4th, 2008, 12:40 PM
My hair's a HUNDRED and twenty years out of date! Good thing I'm not running for office. :)

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Sorry to put a political spin on this, but ALL media is trying to brainwash us in one way or another?? Look at those dorky hair cutting shows???

I'm just trying to make sense of what you said. Hilary doesn't have a mullet, nor would I say does the average supporter. :shrug: It's thisclose to nastystereotypeland.

In any case, I'm a very liberal voter who thinks Ms. Palin's hair is gorgeous. The woman who wrote the article was clearly hurting for ideas.

Islandgrrl
September 4th, 2008, 12:43 PM
So, what, all those media people were so distracted by her hair they didn't hear a word that came out of her mouth????

kunibob
September 4th, 2008, 12:45 PM
I wish that the media would stop critcizing her appearance. Focus on the issues at hand!

I agree -- the second that there's a female politician in media focus, everyone always goes nuts about her appearance, as if that's the most important thing that a woman has to offer society. That's a rant for another day, however.

In the meantime, I think that a person's hair is their own, and they should be at liberty to do whatever they want with it. A shame that "long locks" aren't considered fashionable in some circles. I feel that shiny, healthy locks are always in style!

rhosyn_du
September 4th, 2008, 12:49 PM
I find it sad that the commenters are turning this into a, "See, look at all the petty things that liberals will attack." It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue! It's a longhair/shorthair squabble! :rolleyes:

YES. I suspect there are some gender issues in there, too, since women in politics seem to get a lot more flack from the media about their appearance than men do, but it's definitely not a liberal/conservative thing. I mean, seriously, it's not like we haven't heard everyone's opinions on Hillary Clinton's and Condoleezza Rice's hair a hundred and fifty times over. Are people's memories that short that they've all forgotten?

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 12:50 PM
Okay, I'm a rabid left-wing crazy liberal hot-head feminist type, but I want to contend (perhaps uncharacteristically) that the focus on her appearance has not been that much sharper than it had been on, say, Dan Quayle (pretty boy), W. (all those monkey comparison websites), etc.

They're politicians in a video age. :shrug:

Fencai
September 4th, 2008, 12:53 PM
no offense, but what do we care about how her hair is?
and why are we paying any mind to what "stylists" have to say about politics?
And by "we" I mean the voters in general...

I dont care if she shaves her head or puts it in dreads and spikes and dyes it pink, green and blue....

can she get the job done or not?

people need to find better things to worry about than her hair! LOL!

Manako
September 4th, 2008, 12:54 PM
The best part is looking at the bloggers profile picture, I tried to find a better image, but they appear to be a nobody. She has long hair, and to me looks older than Sarah Palin.

I thought I remember reading somewhere that long hair was coming back into fashion? I think her hair is great, not what I would call straight and I think her overall style is very with it. She's not dressing the way she is because she is old fashioned and stuck in a fashion rut, she definetly made a concious decision to dress the way she does, and I think she looks well put together, and feminine.

kunibob
September 4th, 2008, 12:58 PM
Okay, I'm a rabid left-wing crazy liberal hot-head feminist type, but I want to contend (perhaps uncharacteristically) that the focus on her appearance has not been that much sharper than it had been on, say, Dan Quayle (pretty boy), W. (all those monkey comparison websites), etc.

They're politicians in a video age. :shrug:

That's actually a really good point. I was so ready to get riled up about people judging women on their appearance that I forgot that we judge male appearances just as much.

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 12:59 PM
no offense, but what do we care about how her hair is?
and why are we paying any mind to what "stylists" have to say about politics?
And by "we" I mean the voters in general...

I dont care if she shaves her head or puts it in dreads and spikes and dyes it pink, green and blue....

can she get the job done or not?

people need to find better things to worry about than her hair! LOL!

Wellll.... I, personally, am spending enormous amounts of time reading about the candidates' records, opinions, and positions; doing voter registration drives; obsessing with my IRL friends 24/7 about politics; losing sleep over the upcoming election, etc.

BUT, here I'm only allowed to talk about her hair! :D So I think that just because we (or they, the media, or they, the voters) are occasionally saying a lighthearted/frivolous thing here and there about hair does not necessarily mean that they (we) are not also taking the election deadly seriously.

:flower:

LeaM07
September 4th, 2008, 01:07 PM
BUT, here I'm only allowed to talk about her hair! :D So I think that just because we (or they, the media, or they, the voters) are occasionally saying a lighthearted/frivolous thing here and there about hair does not necessarily mean that they (we) are not also taking the election deadly seriously.

:flower:Heh, and here at LHC we don't just care about her hair, we care about each others' hair, each others' family members' hair, Hollywood hair, hair of random strangers on the street, dog hair... it was bound to come up. :silly:

MissHair
September 4th, 2008, 01:16 PM
So far I have not seen a single female polititian with long hair. There needs to be a change in that area. I think its because its a male dominant area and female polititians feel the need to fit in. Palins hair rocks.

jivete
September 4th, 2008, 01:19 PM
The comments are defnitely worth reading. I'm liberal and even though the comments are pretty anti-liberal they're absolutely hilarious. Pretty much every comment I've read echos the sentiment that her hair looks great and the journalist is an idiot for writing about it.

Unzadi
September 4th, 2008, 01:26 PM
I think Governor Palin's hair is lovely, and she presents a professional, competent and feminine image. That said, I'd rather journalists pay attention to what's coming out of a candidate's mouth rather than what is or isn't on top of their head.

My mother would say that anyone in the public eye is going to get picked on for something.

birthmarkie
September 4th, 2008, 01:31 PM
If you look at the poll then you'll see how out of touch this journalist is with her readers. She should not be allowed online with this garbage and it hurts the cause of people who are against Palin for substantial matters.

ladyshannonanne
September 4th, 2008, 01:38 PM
I find the whole thing really disheartening. She's running for VP, not for Beauty Queen. I mean, can you imagine if they started doing this with Obama? "We think his hair style is out of date and he should grow dreads." Seriously. Who cares how she wants to wear her hair? The question is: is she the best choice to assist in running the country?

I think there are a lot more important choice issues than how a woman chooses to wear her hair. And I think her hair looks fine. (I also think Hillary Clinton hair looks fine.) It's her hair and it's not hurting anyone. Sheesh! I rant.

Tangles
September 4th, 2008, 01:46 PM
I actually think they're attacking the fact that she wears updos more than anything else. The thinking is that if it's long enough to go into an updo it must be too long. How silly.

Tangles
September 4th, 2008, 01:50 PM
So far I have not seen a single female polititian with long hair. There needs to be a change in that area. I think its because its a male dominant area and female polititians feel the need to fit in. Palins hair rocks.

Sarah Palin is not the first attractive female politician with relatively long hair. There's also Ségolène Royal (France), Yulia Tymoshenko (Ukraine), and various South Asian female politicians. But Palin is probably the first I've seen in America.

sipnsun
September 4th, 2008, 01:53 PM
I think that this is just another example of the media trying to make women feel they need to cut their hair after a certain age. It makes me so mad!!

Btw, when did the age of 40 become "long in the tooth"? That is so insulting it hardly merits commenting on.

kwaniesiam
September 4th, 2008, 01:56 PM
Personally I don't like her, but this is about her hair not politics. Honestly, they really must be out of things to talk about when they're going to comment on a woman's hair of all things. I think it would be awesome to see her sporting a ficcare sometime, those are very chic and no one could say a darn thing about her wearing a bun when its clamped down by a designer clip.

Cichelle
September 4th, 2008, 02:24 PM
I can't stand the woman and don't even like to look at her. However, to make an issue of her hair is plain ridiculous. Who cares. There are so many meaningful issues to talk about when it comes to Palin's views. But her hair? Who cares. Though some people may enjoy saying these things for laughs.

Xanthippe
September 4th, 2008, 02:26 PM
Of all things, how can anyone call her hair disheveled? :confused: It looks very styled to me. They obviously haven't seen bed head or helmet hair!

Peggy E.
September 4th, 2008, 02:30 PM
The media slammed Hillary's hair hard during Bill's first campaign. She had longer hair and she wore a fringe and headbands. Because I like long hair, I thought she looked quite pretty and in no way "unprofessional."

They got to her, though. The helmet cut, sprayed and plasticized, replaced the soft locks and the rest is history....

TheSpottedCow
September 4th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Well, Cindy isn't a politician but if over 40's shouldn't have long hair I'm really surprised they didn't mention Cindy McCain, who is definately older but wears her hair long (relatively) and blonde.

I am a democrat so uh. I don't really care for either of them? But I don't think it's appropriate for news media to talk about haircuts or physical appearance, especially in this case, where she's obviously not doing anything "unprofessional". They make it sound like she walked out with a pink afro. But even if she did... I care about the issues, not the hair/clothes/makeup/weight/height (I read some article complaining about McCain's height the other day. As if he can DO anything about it or SHOULD for that matter)

As much as I don't like her, I was at least happy about her hair and style, because finally a politician wasn't afraid to step just a TINY itty bitty bit out of the box and have hair a few inches longer than they "should".

Nightshade
September 4th, 2008, 02:51 PM
Someone should send this to the author:

http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/picture.php?albumid=1142&pictureid=14112

ETA: And seriously, WTF? I've got my own criticisms of Palin, as I do with any politician, but none of those stem from their HAIR. Good lord, people, go watch a soap opera and let the adults talk about important things, like, oh, idunno, the future of the country.

ladystar
September 4th, 2008, 02:52 PM
They have noting better to do!

wintersun99
September 4th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Ok - to be fair...

Cindy McCain's hair in 2004

http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=2912

And now - soooo much nicer, in my opinion

http://offtherack.peoplestylewatch.com/2008/07/14/whats-cindy-mccains-best-hair/

ETA: sorry about the nasty comments on those pages, I was just going for hair pictures, nothing else

manderly
September 4th, 2008, 03:09 PM
All I can say is that I'm thoroughly disgusted with the media. I'll keep it to that.

LisaJaney
September 4th, 2008, 03:11 PM
If it wasn't her hair, it'd be her clothes or her makeup or that she's knock-kneed or bow-legged and how those silly and superficial things are what influence her ability to think and understand. When they resort to things like that, it shows they haven't anything of SUBSTANCE to back their accusations; they're reaching for stuff and sadly those lame and baseless accusations will find their mark in some of the easier-to-persuade types. I don't think it has anything to do with hair myself, and frankly see a LOT of long hair nowadays. It's like the 60s all over again where *I* am from, men and women alike. I don't think society's nearly as "anti longhair" as is being intimated. Sure, lots of older women cut their hair, but I remain unconvinced that anyone's got a gun to grandma's head forcing her to get that perm. She does it because it's easier for her or because she thinks that's what a grandma should look like. As we 30's and 40's become "the grandma generation", the trend will shift again. Change doesn't happen overnight, and it's not fair to assume it will and condemn those who don't manage to change their course in anticipation. As much as we prefer longhair and expect people to allow us that luxury, I wonder where's the other side of the coin, where we allow that others prefer short hair and we allow them that luxury?

Myself, I hope she keeps the long hair because I think it's lovely and MY opinion is that it lends her a certain femininity. My mom wrote today to say that she called herself (Sarah called herself) a Hockey Mom. And the difference between a Hockey Mom and a pitbull is....lipstick! She's tough as nails, this one, and I think the soft hairdo lends a gentleness that belies the brass balls she's got.

(all of this was spoken as a member, not a mod. Just wanted to clarify that)

*BelievingAgain
September 4th, 2008, 04:03 PM
They can't even spell "passé".

Rofl :rollin:

That whole article just made me incensed. As a person, I think she looks great. I may not agree with her political stance (not that I should really comment or care, but all other non-Americans I know are, so hey!) but wouldn't people prefer someone to help lead them who can put their hair up in 5 mins., rather than someone who has to spend 30 mins. blow drying a short style every morning? I know for a fact that in terms of 'officially presentable', long hair is much easier and quicker to style than short. Short hair on a woman can look gorgeous, but for goodness' sake, let a person be who they are.

Phewf, sorry. Just had to get that off my chest. Gosh I hope it came out the right way, I in no way mean to offend, just wish reporters would stick to the politics. :flower:

*BelievingAgain
September 4th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Nightsahde, thanks for that article, it was a great read. I can't wait to be 'too old' for long hair, I can just see the looks on their (the style establishment) faces now :eyebrows:
:flower:

Laululintu
September 4th, 2008, 04:17 PM
I'd have a great deal more respect for that journalist if they had actually talked about something that actually matters. Besides, surely using a few minutes to put up one's hair is more efficient than fussing with a blow dryer every morning?

saracuda
September 4th, 2008, 04:35 PM
I think Sarah is very pretty, and I love her hair, but I can't help but think that if she had physical imperfections such as overweight or facial scarring, that she'd be seriously slammed by the media, and we wouldn't be as outraged as we are now. I could be wrong, though. I hope I am.

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 04:38 PM
I think Sarah is very pretty, and I love her hair, but I can't help but think that if she had physical imperfections such as overweight or facial scarring, that she'd be seriously slammed by the media, and we wouldn't be as outraged as we are now. I could be wrong, though. I hope I am.

No, I think if she were being slammed for being overweight (for example), a number of us would still be very displeased and writing about it--just on the friendship board.

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 04:41 PM
<snip>
When they resort to things like that, it shows they haven't anything of SUBSTANCE to back their accusations; they're reaching for stuff and sadly those lame and baseless accusations will find their mark in some of the easier-to-persuade types.
<snip>

But the journalists/politicians accusing Palin of various wrongdoings are not the same ones writing articles about her hair. There is no monolithic "they" of the media here. Some journalists (and politicians) have attacked her for very specific "non-frivolous" reasons and one or two have written ditzy articles about her hair.

I think it would be just as short-sighted to dismiss the writings of reasonable investigative reporters and politicians who have serious concerns about Palin's experience and/or record in office simply because some other journalists have written silly articles about her personal appearance.

The accusations should stand or fall on their own merits.

saracuda
September 4th, 2008, 04:41 PM
No, I think if she were being slammed for being overweight (for example), a number of us would still be very displeased and writing about it--just on the friendship board.

Good to hear. My mom is an overweight politician (our local mayor) so maybe I'm just feeling defensive for her. :)

Lamb
September 4th, 2008, 04:42 PM
No, I think if she were being slammed for being overweight (for example), a number of us would still be very displeased and writing about it--just on the friendship board.

Given the number of overweight people all over the world, I doubt the media would dare write such a thing. Or if they did, readers' comments would be far angrier and less concurring than they are in this case.

As for the article in question... :puke:

ETA: Anyone who want to support their opinion on a politician with issues such as the politicians weight or hairstyle is a moron, and a blemish on the face of journalism.

yogachic
September 4th, 2008, 05:01 PM
How long is her hair? I've seen it appear to be just past Shoulder. I think her hair is pretty.

Kimberly
September 4th, 2008, 05:05 PM
So the columnist who wrote this about the candidate's hair is a woman. I wonder if her editor assigned her the piece. Women reporters and columnists still are made to write a disproportionate number of "fluff" pieces.

Lady Godiva
September 4th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Of course her hair is being slammed. No matter what a female politician does with her appearance, someone is going to write an article about it. Because what she looks like is so important. :rolleyes: I dislike it when they do this to any political office-holder, and I don't care what her political leanings are. I didn't like it when they did it to Hillary, and I like it no more for Sarah.

The accusations should stand or fall on their own merits.
Accusations mean nothing. The same goes for allegations. Both require proof one way or another, meaning they require investigations and final judgments. Otherwise, they are just accusations and allegations.

/pet peeve regarding these two words :bow:

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Accusations mean nothing. The same goes for allegations. Both require proof one way or another, meaning they require investigations and final judgments.


Well ... of course! :) That's what I meant by "their own merits" -- i.e., whether they are ultimately borne out by evidence.

Sorry, I thought that was fairly clear... :hmm:

Lamb
September 4th, 2008, 05:11 PM
I didn't like it when they did it to Hillary, and I like it no more for Sarah.
*I only do it to annoy, because I know it teases* :lol:
Why does everybody keep referring to female politicians by their first names? I have yet to see McCain or Obama called "John" or "Barack", either here or in the media. Also, I get so annoyed when students refer to, say, Mary Shelley as "Mary," while they wouldn't dream about calling, say, Walter Scott "Walter."

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 05:13 PM
*I only do it to annoy, because I know it teases* :lol:
Why does everybody keep referring to female politicians by their first names? I have yet to see McCain or Obama called "John" or "Barack", either here or in the media. Also, I get so annoyed when students refer to, say, Mary Shelley as "Mary," while they wouldn't dream about calling, say, Walter Scott "Walter."

I call him Barack...! :D

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 05:17 PM
*I only do it to annoy, because I know it teases* :lol:
Why does everybody keep referring to female politicians by their first names? I have yet to see McCain or Obama called "John" or "Barack", either here or in the media. Also, I get so annoyed when students refer to, say, Mary Shelley as "Mary," while they wouldn't dream about calling, say, Walter Scott "Walter."

I noticed this too during Hillary's (yeah, yeah) campaign and made a point of always referring to her by her last name, but she kept undermining my efforts by campaigning under her first name. :lol: Still, it's a good point. It does come across as trivializing the female candidate, even if the person using it is merely expressing a sense of intimate connection. :shrug:

Angelica
September 4th, 2008, 05:19 PM
I think she looks very beautiful and I love the way she is wearing her hair. Those stylists are pathetic with their comments. Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if peer pressure made her cut her hair. It would be a shame though.

Lady Godiva
September 4th, 2008, 05:23 PM
*I only do it to annoy, because I know it teases* :lol:
Why does everybody keep referring to female politicians by their first names? I have yet to see McCain or Obama called "John" or "Barack", either here or in the media. Also, I get so annoyed when students refer to, say, Mary Shelley as "Mary," while they wouldn't dream about calling, say, Walter Scott "Walter."
I'm well aware of it, but if I called Hillary "Clinton," my guess is readers might get confused and think of her husband. I'm interested in clarity of meaning first. Then because I used Clinton's first name, I used Palin's first name, to be fair. :wink:

Yes! I actually thought about this! :laugh:

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 05:27 PM
I'm well aware of it, but if I called Hillary "Clinton," my guess is readers might get confused and think of her husband. I'm interested in clarity of meaning first. Then because I used Clinton's first name, I used Palin's first name, to be fair. :wink:

Yes! I actually thought about this! :laugh:

Same with Mary Shelley.... :)

Lamb
September 4th, 2008, 05:31 PM
Same with Mary Shelley.... :)
Okay, but then, what about "Charlotte", or "Fanny" etc.? (And no, I ain't giving you the last names!:p)

Okay, sorry about derailing the thread. :o

Lady Godiva
September 4th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Same with Mary Shelley.... :)
Exactly.

Then there's the thought that their surnames are just their husbands' at this point and were their fathers' to begin with (well, for most of us), so at least their first names really are their own names...

I toss this matter back-and-forth a lot. :agree:

Stagecoach
September 4th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Pathetic isn't it? And the media is supposed to be digging up the issues and dealing with them.

I like her hair... its one of the few things I like about her! haha

dorothea-brooke
September 4th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Okay, but then, what about "Charlotte", or "Fanny" etc.? (And no, I ain't giving you the last names!:p)

Okay, sorry about derailing the thread. :o

Branwell?

Uh, sorry, got no famous male Burneys up my sleeve!

:D

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Okay, but then, what about "Charlotte", or "Fanny" etc.? (And no, I ain't giving you the last names!:p)

Charlotte Bronte?

Fan Tan Fanny? (It's a last name, see? :lol:)

purplebubba
September 4th, 2008, 05:42 PM
Was anyone actually surprised that this article was done?
There's already a history of this.

Hillary Clinton and her headbands
Marcia Clark

Did anyone really think Sarah would be left alone?

It just means that we have a long way to go. It's a long way to go until we all can wear our hair the way we want without the hounds being turned loose.

We live in a time when people send letters to the people on the news and complain about the way they wear their hair.

If Sarah Palin were to come out on stage wearing ribbons or pigtails there are people on this board that would have opinions about that. What if she came out looking like Rogue from the X-Men movies with a white streak?

What if she stood on the stage and let her daughter (I assume it was her daughter) lick her hand and smear it on her head like she was doing to the baby?

Does any of this change who Sarah Palin is? If she is the person she talked about in her speech then she will not be listening to such articles or opinions.

az_sweetie01
September 4th, 2008, 05:43 PM
*snorts* These people have too much time on their hands.

Kleis
September 4th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Was anyone actually surprised that this article was done?
What if she stood on the stage and let her daughter (I assume it was her daughter) lick her hand and smear it on her head like she was doing to the baby?

Does any of this change who Sarah Palin is? If she is the person she talked about in her speech then she will not be listening to such articles or opinions.

Um, that would definitely leave an impression. :bigeyes:

tsf
September 4th, 2008, 06:09 PM
She's not here to decorate their world - She's here to RUN their world!

Love the hair. Win or lose, if she doesn't buckle to the pressure to cut it - it will go a long way toward changing the "no long hair for past 40" viewpoint. and in that article - 65% of the respondents on the survey said to leave the hair alone. (Maybe the other 35% were hairdressers.)

I hope hope hope some moronic reporter says something to her about it and she tells him/her off. Hair shouldn't be an issue in an election.

getoffmyskittle
September 4th, 2008, 06:14 PM
I sent this story in to Shakesville and they posted it. I'm not sure I can link to it here due to language but you should be able to find it if you Google "Shakesville Sarah Palin Sexism Watch #8."

Thanks for the link. :silly:

morningstar
September 4th, 2008, 06:22 PM
I was reading the comments made about this article. Seems everyone slammed the Boston Herald for this. I mean after all it was pretty childish really. I am not for Sarah Palin politically but think she is lovely with her hair up or down. I think she should wear it down more but I think people are not ready for an attractive VP.
Oh and this, could this be a way to get people to come to this party by being angry? I was just thinking this could be a way to make people angry and switch directions. I don't trust journalism.

edited again for clarity. When I said I read the comments I meant at the site with the story. I haven't read the comments here yet but this was my gut and first reaction.
I think they are just trying to stir up something. I really don't think this article was meant to slam her hair but just to stir up some trouble. Perhaps the people at the Boston Globe want people to vote for her and this is a way of getting people to pay closer attention. I guess I am thinking there is no bad publicity.

girlcat36
September 4th, 2008, 06:37 PM
I think her hair is great and I hope she doesn't cut it, but you know how that goes!:rolleyes:

Nat242
September 4th, 2008, 06:51 PM
Perhaps this is a little un-LHC of me, but when I first saw her, I didn't even notice her hair. I was distracted by her advocacy of oil exploration in sensitive ecological areas.

It's this sort of media that is "dumbing down" our countries. Too many people (speaking from my own experiences and encounters in Australia) never dive any deeper into the issues than reading columns like this. They are mislead into thinking that the things the talking heads say is what the news actually is. Of course, the media responds by saying that these are the sort of stories that people want.

So tell me...what comes first? The dumbed down media or an uninformed populace?

wintersun99
September 4th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Slight hijack, but I was watching the news earlier today and they were discussing hair, jewelry, and clothing worn (at the convention) by S. Palin, C. McCain and Mrs. Bush during their speeches. Positives is that McCain and Bush both wore Dior (I think) oh and I learned that McCain had about $300,000 worth of clothing and jewelry on (earrings along were $200,000'ish) and I learned that Mrs. Bush was wearing about $5000 in jewelry (she did have far fewer pieces on) oh, and the fashion people thought Palin made a great choice in her pencil skirt and high heels. All positive (albeit superficial) feedback. So typical to pick apart women's fashion choices!

Dianyla
September 4th, 2008, 07:14 PM
They can't even spell "passé".
Great! Now I've got the Dandy Warhols stuck in my head! :rollin:

morningstar
September 4th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Perhaps this is a little un-LHC of me, but when I first saw her, I didn't even notice her hair. I was distracted by her advocacy of oil exploration in sensitive ecological areas.

It's this sort of media that is "dumbing down" our countries. Too many people (speaking from my own experiences and encounters in Australia) never dive any deeper into the issues than reading columns like this. They are mislead into thinking that the things the talking heads say is what the news actually is. Of course, the media responds by saying that these are the sort of stories that people want.

So tell me...what comes first? The dumbed down media or an uninformed populace?

I liked every thing you said here and I agree with you every word.
Dumbing down has been going on for a while but it seems to get worse. There is a distraction from the real events we should be angry about and talking about as a country as a world. When I open the paper or watch the news I see crap. Sometimes issues that should be front and center are small and pushed in back of the paper. The story about her hair to me was an insult of my intelligence. Why would a thinking person care about how she styles her hair when there are issues and policies. Do these newspapers think we are all idiots? Yep!

Checkers
September 4th, 2008, 07:55 PM
I have no party preference since I really can't agree with a fair amount of the views of each, so I just vote for the one that I find the lesser of two evils. And I'm terribly turned off by politicians that take the low road. Still open at this point, but after catching part of her speach I just turned the channel in dissappointment thinking that a woman making history was taking the low, low, low road being snarky, b@&&#37;$y and obnoxious. I expect a woman to take the high road and have some class. I think you can be a very strong woman and take the high road. I will still give the Republicans a chance, but I really want our president (and the person one step away) to be the consumate diplomat and repair the horrid relations we have with the rest of the world. I think John McCain has some class, but this gal, eeek!

Deborah
September 4th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Aside from the obvious absurdity of ripping any politician apart for her hair, of all things, how could this particular author be so stupid as to criticize this particular woman on the basis of her appearance? Sarah Palin is a physically BEAUTIFUL woman. Why attack a person for one of their STRONG points? :shake:

Article's point of view - stupid
Article's strength - none
Article's validity - none

Akiko
September 4th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Eh?
I thought the writer's hairstyle looks passé. (Check the avatar.:mad:)

Emichiee
September 4th, 2008, 09:32 PM
I think her hair looks great..and sorry but I don't want a politician to be a mannequin. They should focus on other things right?



For readers who are rolling their eyes about this nonissue - get real. People talk about hair.

Oh excuse me! How could I think this was about politics..

Who wrote that crap?

allege
September 4th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I watched her and the first thing I said was "WOW I am so glad she is rocking the long hair" I thought she did a bang up job in her speech and looked beautiful.

arylkin
September 4th, 2008, 10:01 PM
I agree -- the second that there's a female politician in media focus, everyone always goes nuts about her appearance, as if that's the most important thing that a woman has to offer society. That's a rant for another day, however.



Ugh. Seriously. :mad:

GlennaGirl
September 4th, 2008, 10:47 PM
So far I have not seen a single female polititian with long hair. There needs to be a change in that area. I think its because its a male dominant area and female polititians feel the need to fit in. Palins hair rocks.

We need male politicians with long hair!

Now THAT would be a change. :p

I'd so love that...unfortunately, I don't think we're collectively that evolved yet......

bte
September 5th, 2008, 02:39 AM
I've not read all the replies, but has anyone pointed out that Hillary Clinton once had hair about the same length as Sarah Palin's or even a bit longer? Having it shorter hasn't propelled Hillary into the White House.

mellie
September 5th, 2008, 05:53 AM
I agree with everyone else...her hair looks great, professional, and it really shouldn't matter anyway. Here's some really great comments that I liked:

Unzadi said:
I think Governor Palin's hair is lovely, and she presents a professional, competent and feminine image.
I agree!

lisajaney:

She's tough as nails, this one, and I think the soft hairdo lends a gentleness that belies the brass balls she's got.
I agree! She's seems tough and cool as a cucumber.

glennagirl:

We need male politicians with long hair! Now THAT would be a change.
Haha, yes really! And a change for the better! :-)

biggeorge
September 5th, 2008, 06:04 AM
I agree that this article is an extremely superficial piece. Sad thing is that there are people out there that relate to this type of drivel.

Personally I think it is wonderful to have Sarah Palin in this position. She is effective in office, and by most accounts her speech was given accolades by those from both sides.

I support Palin and the platform she represents; and will not go beyond that here. I would ask that others do the same so this thread does not delve into a political issue discussion.

wolf girl
September 5th, 2008, 06:42 AM
I sent this story in to Shakesville and they posted it. I'm not sure I can link to it here due to language but you should be able to find it if you Google "Shakesville Sarah Palin Sexism Watch #8."

Thanks for the link. :silly:


:evil: I sent the link to this website to the author of that article. I thought she might be interested in what people think of her journalistic skills...... :gabigrin:

getoffmyskittle
September 5th, 2008, 07:02 AM
:evil: I sent the link to this website to the author of that article. I thought she might be interested in what people think of her journalistic skills...... :gabigrin:

Hahahaha, awesome!! It has a good number of comments on it too, all of the WTFsauce variety... :rollin:

Masara
September 5th, 2008, 07:42 AM
I was pleased to finally see the back of Sarah Palin's head with her hair down, because I had read so much here about her having long hair. I was surprised to see that her hair was barely past shoulder length. I'm not sure I would call that long and certainly not "way too long" as someone said in that article. A good thing those journalists don't look at French polititians like Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (http://www.elle.fr/elle/people/la-vie-des-people/une-journee-avec/une-journee-avec-nathalie-kosciusko-morizet/(gid)/154016) or Simone Veil (OK, so she's a different generation)

Lamb
September 5th, 2008, 07:43 AM
:evil: I sent the link to this website to the author of that article. I thought she might be interested in what people think of her journalistic skills...... :gabigrin:

Gosh, I'd like to see her face. Good job! :D

Chromis
September 5th, 2008, 07:51 AM
Gosh, I'd like to see her face. Good job! :D

Given her stated opinions, she'll likely just think we are all a bunch of nutters.

Lamb
September 5th, 2008, 07:52 AM
Given her stated opinions, she'll likely just think we are all a bunch of nutters.

I think wolf girl sent the link to the shakesville article, not the link to TLHC - but alas, you may be right in either case. :rolleyes:

rhubarbarin
September 5th, 2008, 07:55 AM
That might have been the dumbest article ever.

In fact, every article I have read so far about her has been infuriating. I'm not going to make through elections without choking some person who says awful things about her daughter or how 'she can't take care of her own family, how can she run a country?'. Shut UP shut UP SHUT UP!

All politics aside- she's so pretty! And I love her hairstyles, very classic, and very flattering to her face..

Nightshade
September 5th, 2008, 07:56 AM
Nightsahde, thanks for that article, it was a great read. I can't wait to be 'too old' for long hair, I can just see the looks on their (the style establishment) faces now :eyebrows:
:flower:

You're welcome :) LadyGodiva had posted it a long time ago, and I saved it, knowing I'd want it on a few occasions. Alas, it's smaller than the normal version, as I have it hosted on LHC and not on a normal hosting site.

Chromis
September 5th, 2008, 08:12 AM
I think wolf girl sent the link to the shakesville article, not the link to TLHC - but alas, you may be right in either case. :rolleyes:

Egg, meet face! Durp!

Speedbump
September 5th, 2008, 08:20 AM
As a person in the industry (in a much smaller-town way), I can tell you that especially the TV media attacks everyone for everything. It's like school. You can't win. The game is rigged so you can't. And women, who are fair game for their looks as well as their views, can't win even more. :lol: Until Hillary made herself a cookie-cutter image of what the media kept harping about, they bashed her, too. It's not politics so much as it is the media obsession with controlling reality down to this weird little corner of possibility.

PS: I like her hair. ;)

wolf girl
September 5th, 2008, 08:24 AM
I think wolf girl sent the link to the shakesville article, not the link to TLHC - but alas, you may be right in either case. :rolleyes:


:agree: Yes, you are correct. The devil made me do it, I swear...:tongue:

Hairytale
September 5th, 2008, 08:37 AM
What I liked was how it said "girls just wanna have bun" under the picture of her hair (to say something positive about the link, lol)...of course it should have said "guys just wanna have bun", too! But nonetheless I liked that wordplay. :cheese:

wintersun99
September 5th, 2008, 08:43 AM
continuing the superficial... oh no, I think I might be getting into this now :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26558834/

"As Palin has said to Vogue magazine: “A reporter once asked me about it (her appearance) during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.”"

Oh and fill me in - who's Tina Fey anyway? Off to google...

wolf girl
September 5th, 2008, 08:55 AM
Oh and fill me in - who's Tina Fey anyway? Off to google...


She's a comedian on Saturday Night Live.

Hypnotica
September 5th, 2008, 01:22 PM
We need male politicians with long hair!

Now THAT would be a change. :p

I'd so love that...unfortunately, I don't think we're collectively that evolved yet......


TADA! :D

I present to you

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Anders_Borg.jpg/379px-Anders_Borg.jpg

Anders Borg, Minister of Finanace in the Kingdom of Sweden.
(Usually sporting a low ponytail, btw. And I think it is longer now then in the pic.)

dorothea-brooke
September 5th, 2008, 01:23 PM
Oh, you Swedes!

:flower:

Hypnotica
September 5th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Oh, you Swedes!

:flower:

Yep. And he was born 1968, which almost makes him a baby minster.

rhosyn_du
September 5th, 2008, 01:45 PM
It really makes me angry that so much attention is being given to Palin's looks. Either it's stuff like this article or it's people dismissing her as dumb because she's pretty. Whatever one might think of her politics, sniping at her because of how she looks (either too good or not good enough) is not okay. Argh. :steam


by most accounts her speech was given accolades by those from both sides

Really? I haven't heard or read a single Obama supporter who wasn't furious that she falsely claimed he's never written any legislation. If you're willing to share links, I'd be really interested in reading a positive take on her speech from someone on the Democrat side of things.

Nightshade
September 5th, 2008, 02:42 PM
As a left-leaning voter (I'm registered Independent) I will give her that she had a *well-delivered* speech (even if it was written for a male VP and they had to retool it for her after they found out Palin was the VP nominee, as the previous speech sounded "too masculine." She came across as a very strong, very passionate woman, and I'll tip my hat that she owned that stage at the RNC.

That said, there were some terrible factual errors in her speech (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php), such as the Bridge to Nowhere issue and the fact that she cut funding to renewable energy programs while touting her support for them in her speech.

Do I think the speech was good? No, not from a factual standpoint, nor from a respect standpoint. I think one can convey their view without belittling and digging at the other side. (ETA: This is a criticism directed at all politicians, not just Palin)

Do I think she rocked her speech and got people interested? Absolutely.

Tai Shan Fan
September 5th, 2008, 03:16 PM
This is from a British newspaper. The UK media don't seem to have anything else to talk about other than Sarah Palin's hair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/republicans/2689578/Celia-Waldens-verdict-on-the-Sarah-Palin-look.html

dorothea-brooke
September 5th, 2008, 03:28 PM
That said, there were some terrible factual errors in her speech (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php), such as the Bridge to Nowhere issue and the fact that she cut funding to renewable energy programs while touting her support for them in her speech.

And don't forget the utterly bizarre assertion that Obama has not authored "a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate" when in fact he sponsored 820 pieces of legislation (http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal) in the Illinois state senate, 427 bills (to date) in the U.S. Senate, and has authored 152 pieces of legislation so far. This legislation included the 2007 Ethics Reform Bill.

Please note: these are not "unfounded accusations" against Sarah Palin or attacks on anyone here at LHC. They're plain facts about her speech.

*deep breath*

[/hijack]

WritingPrincess
September 5th, 2008, 03:45 PM
If it wasn't her hair, it'd be her clothes or her makeup or that she's knock-kneed or bow-legged and how those silly and superficial things are what influence her ability to think and understand. When they resort to things like that, it shows they haven't anything of SUBSTANCE to back their accusations; they're reaching for stuff and sadly those lame and baseless accusations will find their mark in some of the easier-to-persuade types. I don't think it has anything to do with hair myself, and frankly see a LOT of long hair nowadays. It's like the 60s all over again where *I* am from, men and women alike. I don't think society's nearly as "anti longhair" as is being intimated. Sure, lots of older women cut their hair, but I remain unconvinced that anyone's got a gun to grandma's head forcing her to get that perm. She does it because it's easier for her or because she thinks that's what a grandma should look like. As we 30's and 40's become "the grandma generation", the trend will shift again. Change doesn't happen overnight, and it's not fair to assume it will and condemn those who don't manage to change their course in anticipation. As much as we prefer longhair and expect people to allow us that luxury, I wonder where's the other side of the coin, where we allow that others prefer short hair and we allow them that luxury?

Myself, I hope she keeps the long hair because I think it's lovely and MY opinion is that it lends her a certain femininity. My mom wrote today to say that she called herself (Sarah called herself) a Hockey Mom. And the difference between a Hockey Mom and a pitbull is....lipstick! She's tough as nails, this one, and I think the soft hairdo lends a gentleness that belies the brass balls she's got.

(all of this was spoken as a member, not a mod. Just wanted to clarify that)
Lisa, my mom said exactly the same thing when I mentioned the article to her.

Isn't it sad that people spend their time bashing someone's looks rather than spending time investigating more worthwhile things, such as finding out a person's political history and giving some serious thought to whether or not they want tha person in office?

Sorry that I let that turn in to a major run-on sentance. But, speaking of women in politics, it's not as bad as Mrs. Lincoln's sentances. She hated (judging from the way she wrote) periods.

dorothea-brooke
September 5th, 2008, 03:52 PM
Isn't it sad that people spend their time bashing someone's looks rather than spending time investigating more worthwhile things, such as finding out a person's political history and giving some serious thought to whether or not they want tha person in office?

Please see above post. :)

IMO, there's been an enormous amount of attention paid to this candidate's political record, qualifications, and experience. It's kind of overwhelming, actually.

I'm happy to forward info (through PM) if you're interested.

On the other hand, perhaps your post was ironic...? Oh, heck, it's hard to tell on the darn interweb. :D

Beatnik Guy
September 5th, 2008, 04:09 PM
And don't forget the utterly bizarre assertion that Obama has not authored "a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate" when in fact he sponsored 820 pieces of legislation (http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal) in the Illinois state senate, 427 bills (to date) in the U.S. Senate, and has authored 152 pieces of legislation so far. This legislation included the 2007 Ethics Reform Bill.


Hmm, I'm suddenly reminded of how a Vietnam Vet who'd won Purple Hearts had his war record attacked 4 years ago. Of course, the opposing candidate at the time had nothing to do with that hatchet job.

Kimberly
September 5th, 2008, 04:09 PM
TADA! :D

I present to you

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Anders_Borg.jpg/379px-Anders_Borg.jpg

Anders Borg, Minister of Finanace in the Kingdom of Sweden.
(Usually sporting a low ponytail, btw. And I think it is longer now then in the pic.)

Where do I line up to be assimilated by the Borg Collective? Ohhh he's yummy.

florenonite
September 5th, 2008, 04:12 PM
Hypnotica: He's got an earring, too!

Robbi Dehlinger
September 5th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Hmm, I'm suddenly reminded of how a Vietnam Vet who'd won Purple Hearts had his war record attacked 4 years ago. Of course, the opposing candidate at the time had nothing to do with that hatchet job.

hi Beatnik!! Maybe authorized is not the same as sponsored in some folks eyes???

Face it, politcis is a dirty biz:(

Beatnik Guy
September 5th, 2008, 04:23 PM
hi Beatnik!! Maybe authorized is not the same as sponsored in some folks eyes???

Face it, politcis is a dirty biz:(

Indeed it is, Robbi. And unfortunately that means that a lot of good people don't want to put themselves under that scrutiny and stress (which is maybe why a lot of politicians seem kinda weird?). :rolleyes:

LeaM07
September 5th, 2008, 05:15 PM
One of my favorite political quotes:

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." -- Douglas Adams

dorothea-brooke
September 5th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Hmm, I'm suddenly reminded of how a Vietnam Vet who'd won Purple Hearts had his war record attacked 4 years ago. Of course, the opposing candidate at the time had nothing to do with that hatchet job.

Oh, boy, if you're going to make me think about the last election I may just have a heart attack! I've got my hands full agonizing over this one.... :D

Emichiee
September 5th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Vogue loves her :p

http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html

CurlyOne
September 5th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Pppbbth! What do they know. All they have to do is pick something and belittle them about it and volia you have a story. I love her hair!

The Vogue picture is totally faked IMHO.

GlennaGirl
September 5th, 2008, 11:24 PM
TADA! :D

I present to you

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Anders_Borg.jpg/379px-Anders_Borg.jpg

Anders Borg, Minister of Finanace in the Kingdom of Sweden.
(Usually sporting a low ponytail, btw. And I think it is longer now then in the pic.)


That's it.

I'm moving to Sweden.

I like your, um...political views. Yeah, that's it! :D

Xanthippe
September 5th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Where do I line up to be assimilated by the Borg Collective?

:rollin: Resistance is futile.

biggeorge
September 7th, 2008, 06:22 AM
II'd be really interested in reading a positive take on her speech from someone on the Democrat side of things.

Wall Street Journal, Sept 4, 2008 article:
On Thursday morning, her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden, put only one foot in the ring. Instead, in a round of television interviews, Biden praised John McCain’s vice presidential pick for delivering an “amazing speech.” Biden, regarded as a seasoned and effective debater, went to lengths in bowing to her performance and doubted, perhaps facetiously, that he’ll hold his own against Palin in the debates.

TheDenverChannel.com Channel 7 ABC News, Sept 4, 2008
Democrats hailed Palin as a charismatic speaker but said the GOP campaign . . .


I haven't heard or read a single Obama supporter who wasn't furious that she falsely claimed he's never written any legislation.

That's because that claim was never made. The claim was MAJOR legislation. And that claim is true.


And don't forget the utterly bizarre assertion that Obama has not authored "a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate" when in fact he sponsored 820 pieces of legislation in the Illinois state senate, 427 bills (to date) in the U.S. Senate

Here is a comment from a “neutral” website about bills:

Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 122 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 653 bills during the same time period. www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629)

Of the bills that he sponsored and were passed all were resolutions either condemning or complimenting something or someone (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills)

There is not one piece of legislation that he has taken the lead on that has been put forth under his name. Yes, he has co-sponsored 653 bills, but what does that entail? Here is one definition:

When a Senator or Representative introduces a bill, a "Dear Colleague" letter may be sent to other members. The letter explains the bill, what it would do, and why it is important, and asks other members to cosponsor it. An effort to gain cosponsors by calling attention to a bill can help build pressure to move it through the legislative process. A bill has a much better chance of passage if it is introduced by the chair or members of the committee to which it will be referred.

And another:

In contrast to a sponsor, a "cosponsor" is a senator or representative who adds his or her name as a supporter to the sponsor's bill. An "initial cosponsor" or "original cosponsor" is a senator or representative who was listed as a cosponsor at the time of a bill's introduction, rather than added as a cosponsor later on. A cosponsor added later is known as an "additional cosponsor". Some bills have hundreds of cosponsors.

The bill you speak of had four initial co-sponsors, of which Obama was one. The bill was non controversial, passing the Senate with a vote of 83-14 and the House 411-18. The major points are that “it requires greater disclosure of gifts from lobbyists, including "bundling" (where a lobbyist collects donations totaling $15,000 in support of an officeholder), requires that Senators wait two years (and House members wait one year) before lobbying Congress in person, and requires that Senators disclose "earmarks" two days before a vote takes place”. (Source, AP)

A good bill yes, but the shining star and best moment of a Presidential candidate? I don’t think so.


Obama is using Afghanistan as his example of how aggressive he will be against terrorism What is his previous record here in the Senate? Since 2005 his major "chair" has been the committee on NATO addressing this exact thing. He has held ZERO committee meetings on the issue.

I am deeply troubled by his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act. What this act does is require that Doctor’s give medical assistance to any baby born alive from an abortion. Prior to the passage of this act these babies born alive could be left to die without medical attention, sometimes taking several hours to do so, and no action could be taken against the Doctor. He prevented passage of this act on multiple occasions while in the State Senate and, as mentioned above, it passed only and immediately after he left.

LisaButz2001
September 7th, 2008, 07:42 AM
Actually, I noticed that Palin has started wearing her hair down and I actually liked the updo she had when McCain first announced her as a running mate. Actually, her looks have taken a backseat to her daughter's shotgun fiance joining the campaign trail. However, I hope she doesn't cut; I hate to see a Hillary clone with the whole, "Since politics is a man's business I must as closely resemble one as possible' look.

florenonite
September 7th, 2008, 07:48 AM
"Since politics is a man's business I must as closely resemble one as possible"

I definitely snorted when I read this; you're lucky I wasn't drinking my tea at the time!

cutastrophe
September 7th, 2008, 07:49 AM
“It gives me the impression that she just washed her hair, pays attention to the front and throws up the back in a bun”


shudder:

Oh my, now that IS scary...tsk tsk.

busnutmedic
September 7th, 2008, 07:51 AM
Oh that is so ridiculous! Regardless of stance on political issues, that is just so silly.

Tangles
September 7th, 2008, 08:07 AM
Actually, I noticed that Palin has started wearing her hair down and I actually liked the updo she had when McCain first announced her as a running mate. Actually, her looks have taken a backseat to her daughter's shotgun fiance joining the campaign trail. However, I hope she doesn't cut; I hate to see a Hillary clone with the whole, "Since politics is a man's business I must as closely resemble one as possible' look.

I don't like most of Hillary's haircuts, but I don't think she looks like a man at all. She's not gorgeous, but to me she looks like a perfectly pleasant and nice-looking older woman. Why do so many people consider her ugly? :confused:

I thought she was quite pretty in her forties with that soft longish blonde hair.

getoffmyskittle
September 7th, 2008, 08:09 AM
I am deeply troubled by his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act. What this act does is require that Doctor’s give medical assistance to any baby born alive from an abortion. Prior to the passage of this act these babies born alive could be left to die without medical attention, sometimes taking several hours to do so, and no action could be taken against the Doctor. He prevented passage of this act on multiple occasions while in the State Senate and, as mentioned above, it passed only and immediately after he left.

How interesting. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America supported this act.


I hate to see a Hillary clone with the whole, "Since politics is a man's business I must as closely resemble one as possible' look.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :rolleyes:

Anlbe
September 7th, 2008, 08:24 AM
Why must we define women by the way they look so much more than we do men? It's pathetic, whether it's long or short hair, headscarves or short skirts, truly pathetic.

FrannyG
September 7th, 2008, 08:38 AM
That's it.

I'm moving to Sweden.

I like your, um...political views. Yeah, that's it! :D

You really made me laugh, girl. :laugh:

Hue
September 7th, 2008, 08:53 AM
I am deeply troubled by his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act. What this act does is require that Doctor’s give medical assistance to any baby born alive from an abortion. Prior to the passage of this act these babies born alive could be left to die without medical attention, sometimes taking several hours to do so, and no action could be taken against the Doctor. He prevented passage of this act on multiple occasions while in the State Senate and, as mentioned above, it passed only and immediately after he left.

How interesting. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America supported this act.

I was surprised when I first heard discussion about this, given that I recalled that both the Illinois Medical Society and several Republican Senators registered the same opposition.

On further reading, I think there is some confusion about multiple acts that were proposed at either the state or federal level, the wording of each, additional context of that wording, and so on.

[Part of that context is that legislating the basic idea (born live infants should be taken care of by physicians as would any other patient) would be redundant; it is additional wording and language that became problematic in the specifics. The basic point of the legislation was already covered in law and profesisonal standard. But the additions and specifics of the detailed wording of that legislation introduced other issues at that particular stage of its formulation.]

From what I can see, NARAL was not opposed to the 2002 federal version of this legislation, which Obama supported. I can't find evidence that NARAL was involved in the issue at the state level. I also can find record of Obama at times voting "present" on this issue [which comes up multiple times as different bills], not "no," which is obviously not registering support, yet is not the same as registering opposition. I think this has to do with the conflict over the precise wording.

Unfortunately (or maybe not), both law and medicine require very precise language. I think it's impossible to summarize this particular dispute correctly in just one or two sentences. There is good reason, I think, why many people opposed the specific wording of various formulations of the acts referenced above, including the formal representatives of Illinois physicians (family physicians, pediatricians, all the Illinois doctors as a group) and other senators from both parties.

I haven't found a simple summary on all of this on a neutral third party site, but I'd love to see it, if someone can find it. I suspect a different thread might be a better place to post that, but I wanted to respond in the spot where this came up. I'm happy with registering my thoughts and agreeing to disagree, rather than come to a more intimate and personal state of disagreement :) (no hair-pulling!), as I'm happy with just noting that there are other interesting aspects at play here.

----

And I love the dashing updo worn by Palin in several shots I've seen of here. Spunky and shiny!

dorothea-brooke
September 7th, 2008, 09:14 AM
[Part of that context is that legislating the basic idea (born live infants should be taken care of by physicians as would any other patient) would be redundant; it is additional wording and language that became problematic in the specifics. The basic point of the legislation was already covered in law and profesisonal standard. But the additions and specifics of the detailed wording of that legislation introduced other issues at that particular stage of its formulation.]

From what I can see, NARAL was not opposed to the 2002 federal version of this legislation, which Obama supported.

Thank you; you saved me the trouble. :)

biggeorge, why is the 2007 Ethics Reform Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110P59gcY:e0:) not considered a major piece of legislation?

I think that simply in terms of tactics, Palin would be better off staying away from the "inexperience" claim with regards to Obama. I find it an odd strategy, to say the least. :shrug:

Kuchen
September 7th, 2008, 09:55 AM
The fact that she's only been abroad twice, and then to US bases is shocking. Then there's the banning books thing. And also what gets said in the church she attends (something the Obama campaign also experienced, although oddly Palin's doesn't seem to have "blown up" yet.)

The hair is sorta light relief.

dorothea-brooke
September 7th, 2008, 10:17 AM
The fact that she's only been abroad twice, and then to US bases is shocking. Then there's the banning books thing. And also what gets said in the church she attends (something the Obama campaign also experienced, although oddly Palin's doesn't seem to have "blown up" yet.)

The hair is sorta light relief.

As mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin made Senator John McCain's own "pork list" (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story) for worst earmark offenders three times.

As mayor of a small town, she three times attracted the attention of her future running mate for her over-the-top government hand-out demands.

According to her own state's flagship newspaper (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html), Palin is stonewalling the "Troopergate" investigation.

'Kay, stopping now. :(

GoldenRed
September 7th, 2008, 10:17 AM
Haven't read the entire thread, but what ignorant comments were made about her hair! People have these stupid and senseless "rules" about what is acceptable and it makes no sense, such as the ignorant and ridiculous comment below:


In fact, some argue Palin might be a little too long in the tooth for such tresses, sparking another squabble: to cut or not to cut after hitting 40. Yes, long hair evokes youth, but long hair after 40 can flirt with desperation.

LisaButz2001
September 7th, 2008, 12:52 PM
Dorothea-Brooke, why would McCain select her as a running mate then?

Alun
September 7th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Given the press attacks on John Edwards' hair for looking too nice and on the high price of his haircuts, I doubt if this is really about either the party or the gender of the candidate. I deplore silly stories about politicians' hair, but they will go on printing them.

That said, we need to see longer hair on candidates regardless of gender or party, of course! If Palin's hair goes even a little bit in that direction, I applaud it.

It also most certainly isn't because they can't find anything else to criticise about her. Between Troopergate and the upcomng shotgun wedding of her daughter Bristol I'm sure they have plenty.

Speaking of whom, how could anyone christen a daughter Bristol (?), as where I come from a lady's Bristol cities are her most prominent assets (hint: rhymes with t*tt**s).

Kuchen
September 7th, 2008, 01:02 PM
Dorothea-Brooke, why would McCain select her as a running mate then? A lot of people are asking that question!

dorothea-brooke
September 7th, 2008, 01:04 PM
Dorothea-Brooke, why would McCain select her as a running mate then?

My opinion? A boo-boo. It was one of a very large number of "issues" with Palin that the McCain campaign staff did not seem to know about prior to her being named to the ticket: all indications are that the choice was hasty and ill-advised.

My further opinion: he doesn't think anyone will care about the inconsistency. And maybe he's right: all this Palin stuff is siphoning off a lot of energy from the real issues of the campaign. If the choice was meant as a distraction, it's been working so far.

But soon we all need to get back to focusing on the real issues before the country and deciding whom to vote for based on substantial platform differences. :twocents:

Which I now plan to do myself. Really. I must tear myself away from The Sarah Palin Show. :)

LisaButz2001
September 7th, 2008, 01:08 PM
Sounds like a fair assesment. Prior to you mentioning it I hadn't heard about it on MSNBC or CNN or anywhere else and this is the type of stuff the opposition usually pounces on. Especially as it relates to finances and government spending which are major items on both parties tickets.

LisaButz2001
September 7th, 2008, 01:10 PM
PS: Just noticed your avatar. My Mom had that book in her collection. I've never actually read it though, what made you select it?

dorothea-brooke
September 7th, 2008, 01:19 PM
PS: Just noticed your avatar. My Mom had that book in her collection. I've never actually read it though, what made you select it?

Ah, a question after my own heart! :cloud9: It's my favorite novel, I think one of the greatest in the English language, certainly of the 19th century. :twocents:

It's wise, and challenging, and beautiful, and heartbreaking.

And one of the plots centers around the possible election of a potentially disastrous candidate to Parliament! :laugh:

TheSpottedCow
September 7th, 2008, 01:39 PM
The advert at the top of this post is asking for donations for the "McCain Palin Compliance Fund"... I don't know why I find that so funny. I guess it's expected given the amount her name has been mentioned in this thread. But, I've just never seen a political ad on LHC before...

Anyway, I agree with dorothea-brooke on why he selected Palin. I also think it was a perhaps misguided (misguided in my opinion, but other people seem to think she's a great choice) strategic move. There were/are angry Hillary supporters who felt Hillary was the victim of sexism on one side, and then Evangelicals who doubted McCains conservativeness given the rumors he might choose Lieberman or a pro-choice VP. Palin is a woman, and very very religiously conservative. She is also young like Obama and fairly new to the political arena. It has caused the "experience" argument put forth by the GOP about McCain and why he is better than Obama to be criticized and IMO nullified, but at the same time many Obama supporters were happy about his percieved "Inexperience" because his promise of Change is more believable coming from someone who hasn't been in a generally unchanging Washington for decades. She can have a similar appeal.

It has gone over better with conservatives than it has with Hillary supporters... Infact, more Hillary supporters have now decided to vote for Obama. But many Evangelical Christians are excited about a pro-life, pro-intellegent design, anti-sex ed VP.

I'm not sure if they overlooked her flaws thinking nobody would care since she would energize the GOP base, or if they didn't know about it before hand, but either way, it seems this choice has really hurt them with some voters, and really helped them with others.

In the end I don't think it will go over well. She is a great pick for the conservative base because of her ideology, but she comes with too much baggage. When the media calms down over her pregnant daughter and the fact she was a beauty queen and starts looking at the real issues, I think independant voters will begin to become turned off.

pariate
September 7th, 2008, 01:45 PM
These people really should go and find some real news to report. I am so ashamed of my species sometimes - nature grants us intelligence and innovation, and we fritter it on worrying about a VP candidate's hair. :(

Blueglass
September 7th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Sad, she looks fantasic has great hair. She does not look 44. What does it have to do with current events?

Nightshade
September 7th, 2008, 05:37 PM
A lot of people are asking that question!

I don't think a lot of thought went into the choice, as I've read in more than one place that she was initially vetted by a Google search and McCain picked her after a 15 minute meeting. Lieberman was McCain's first choice, and I'd suspect that Rove produced a short list of "acceptable" VP choices, which had to be far right (as McCain was polling behind in that sector), and female (to pick up the PUMAs or as I call them "vagina voters") that may have been considered swing voters that were burned that Hillary didn't get tapped for the Dems.

rubyann
September 7th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Sarah Palin's hair is lovely and feminine. I bet her handsome husband likes it;), and that may matter more to her than what the talking heads think. I hope she doesn't cut it. I hate the "helmet hair" most usually seen on women in politics.

Tangles
September 7th, 2008, 07:26 PM
I don't think a lot of thought went into the choice, as I've read in more than one place that she was initially vetted by a Google search and McCain picked her after a 15 minute meeting. Lieberman was McCain's first choice, and I'd suspect that Rove produced a short list of "acceptable" VP choices, which had to be far right (as McCain was polling behind in that sector), and female (to pick up the PUMAs or as I call them "vagina voters") that may have been considered swing voters that were burned that Hillary didn't get tapped for the Dems.

Had he picked Lieberman, he may have gotten my vote. That's all I'll say on the political side of things. :)

wintersun99
September 7th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Had he picked Lieberman, he may have gotten my vote. That's all I'll say on the political side of things. :)

Rumor has it (via Fox and CNN) that K. Rove actually called Lieberman and asked him to withdraw because Rove was angling for M. Romney for the VP slot...

getoffmyskittle
September 7th, 2008, 07:44 PM
I'd suspect that Rove produced a short list of "acceptable" VP choices, which had to be far right (as McCain was polling behind in that sector), and female (to pick up the PUMAs or as I call them "vagina voters") that may have been considered swing voters that were burned that Hillary didn't get tapped for the Dems.

If this is indeed the reason for the choice, then the choice was patronizing, as it implies that women are interchangeable and monolithic.

That said, I wouldn't call women who wanted to vote for Sen. Clinton "vagina voters." There is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate for nomination and calling them vagina voters implies that a) only women supported Sen. Clinton (which is completely untrue) and by extension b) they only supported her because she is a woman (also untrue). Gov. Palin is ideologically about as far from Sen. Clinton as one can get. The idea of using Palin to secure would-be Clinton voters is... a bit ludicrous.

I do remember that there were Clinton supporters "threatening" to vote McCain (although it is THEIR VOTE) after Obama won the primaries, but IIRC at that time McCain was also playing heavily to the middle, and there were Clinton supporters who were moderates and just liked Hillary Clinton. The Palin pick sends McCain pretty far right, and is allegedly already scaring those people away.

Nightshade
September 8th, 2008, 07:43 AM
If this is indeed the reason for the choice, then the choice was patronizing, as it implies that women are interchangeable and monolithic.

That said, I wouldn't call women who wanted to vote for Sen. Clinton "vagina voters."


It wasn't my intent to infer that all women who for for other women are "vagina voters", however, I do know more than a few women personally (my mother is one of them) that was for Hillary, and now is for McCain, not because of policy issues, but simply because she "thinks it's time for a woman president."

To her, the political statement of seeing a women in high office is more important than the policies that the women and her party are representing, which I think, frankly, is a bit backassward and sexist.

Although Sarah is running for VEEP and not PotUS, due to McCain's age, there's a reasonable chance that were he PotUS she could take his position before the end of his term.

So, to clarify: Not all women voting for another women are vagina voters, but they are out there. Now is the demographic is large enough to warrant a female VEEP pick? I'm not sure.

yogachic
September 8th, 2008, 07:57 AM
How long is her hair about??

biggeorge
September 8th, 2008, 08:29 AM
I don't think a lot of thought went into the choice, as I've read in more than one place that she was initially vetted by a Google search and McCain picked her after a 15 minute meeting.

You also read in more than one place that her child with Down’s syndrome is not really hers; just because more than one media outlet reports false information doesn't make it viable.

And I find it strange that it is reported that she is a recent add to the list and the pick was quick, as I saw her name mentioned as a VP candidate two to three months ago and began looking into her qualifications at that time.

And I find it odd that many here state that she is only bringing in the "far right". Yes, she has energized the conservative base, but one of the big groups she is getting favorable reviews from is the Reagan Democrats, who are much more middle of the road and in line with many of the Republican ideals. This has been reported by the major networks on several occasions.

It’s interesting that during the primaries the women who were for Hillary were dubbed “enlightened”, and now the women who are for Palin are “Vagina Voters”. Nightshade is one of the few that have placed women for either candidate in the same category; my compliments.

The ex-governor of Louisiana is a perfect example of why someone should not be supported just because of their sex. Many women I know voted for her because she was a woman, and have since said that they will never make that mistake again.

That being said, just because someone doesn’t agree with her stand on the issues doesn’t mean she isn’t qualified for the post. IMO there is only one person in this election less qualified than her, and that is Barack Obama. And that is what makes her selection such a good move on McCain’s part. Every barb thrown at her on “inexperience” can be mirrored right back onto Obama many times over. It’s a win/win situation on her part.

dorothea-brooke
September 8th, 2008, 08:31 AM
<snip>
I do know more than a few women personally (my mother is one of them) that was for Hillary, and now is for McCain, not because of policy issues, but simply because she "thinks it's time for a woman president."


Ugh. This is depressing. Not the woman president part, of course, but the blind "woman at all costs" philosophy.


Although Sarah is running for VEEP and not PotUS, due to McCain's age, there's a reasonable chance that were he PotUS she could take his position before the end of his term.


Yes, this is the part that actually frightens me. Whatever one thinks of Palin's politics, I cannot imagine that very many people believe she is actually ready to be president of the United States. She is on record as saying, within the past year, that she doesn't have any opinions about the Iraq War (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/palin-on-iraq.html)* because she hasn't thought about it. [*This is a link to a lefty blog on Atlantic Monthly.com -- the first reference I could find -- but within the blog itself is a link to the original interview with Palin in which she makes this statement, if anyone is interested.]

The McCain campaign initially said that she will not answer questions from the media for at least two weeks, since she is not ready yet and might "make a mistake." (They apparently have reversed this ban (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/356358) under pressure from the press.) If they don't believe this person is ready to be a candidate for vice president, how can they expect us to accept her are as ready to run the country?

biggeorge, is Barack Obama in hiding because he cannot answer hard-hitting questions about foreign policy, global warming, and the economy?

getoffmyskittle
September 8th, 2008, 08:54 AM
It’s interesting that during the primaries the women who were for Hillary were dubbed “enlightened”, and now the women who are for Palin are “Vagina Voters”. Nightshade is one of the few that have placed women for either candidate in the same category; my compliments.

IIRC they were foul screaming harpies who were irreparably splitting the Democratic party...

As an aside, it's incredibly hard to quote pieces of your posts because of all the formatting.

Nightshade, I agree that that's a rather unenlightened stance to take, but that doesn't get rid of the whole "my vote is mine" thing. I wouldn't make that choice, but if they do, it's still their prerogative and calling them "vagina voters" still robs them of their agency. There are women in this country who have seen women's rights/issues/personhood get thrown under the bus time and time again; there are women in this country who have been truly among the disenfranchised (as in, no vote, although those women are now a very small demographic), and they probably think that having a woman in high office would make Washington a more sympathetic place than it's ever been before. And tbh, they are probably right - maybe not on modern women's issues, but on more classic ones. I don't think we're going to agree on this one. :shrug:

Hypnotica
September 8th, 2008, 08:56 AM
Where do I line up to be assimilated by the Borg Collective? Ohhh he's yummy.

You turn to the conservative party (Moderaterna) in Sweden.


Hypnotica: He's got an earring, too!

Yep! He is a conservative! (Or: "Moderaterna" would be considered leftist's in USA).


That's it.

I'm moving to Sweden.

I like your, um...political views. Yeah, that's it! :D

You are very welcomed. Be sure to practice form writing before you enter our border.

Kuchen
September 8th, 2008, 08:58 AM
I'm not buying the whole "Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama" thing. Not at all.

She does have longer hair though.

Nightshade
September 8th, 2008, 09:05 AM
You also read in more than one place that her child with Down’s syndrome is not really hers; just because more than one media outlet reports false information doesn't make it viable.

Fair enough :) It's very true that there's a lot of garbage out there, but I read a wide spread of news outlets (left leaning, right leaning, and those that claim to be "neutral") and I've read that on all sides. Not that it makes it true, but it does seem strange at best that the normal vetting process, which does go through some federal security agencies (for the life of me I can't remember if it's the FBI or the CIA), had not done checks on her until after she had been declared the VEEP pick for McCain.

I'm sure there's more too it, as I can't fathom why McCain, who had forever and a day to pick his VEEP after he was pretty much sealed as the Rep nominee, would do a poor job vetting. There's dodgy information on all sides on this one, but in any event, it doesn't seem to be the SoP for picking the VEEP.



And I find it odd that many here state that she is only bringing in the "far right". Yes, she has energized the conservative base, but one of the big groups she is getting favorable reviews from is the Reagan Democrats, who are much more middle of the road and in line with many of the Republican ideals. This has been reported by the major networks on several occasions.

You are correct that that's one of her draws, I think McCain himself is more appealing to the "mushy middle" and Sarah more to the far right base, but in any event, the combination is obviously appealing to many.




It’s interesting that during the primaries the women who were for Hillary were dubbed “enlightened”, and now the women who are for Palin are “Vagina Voters”. Nightshade is one of the few that have placed women for either candidate in the same category; my compliments.

:flowers: Thank you. Sexism is sexism. When one votes it should be gender-blind, color-blind, etc. Voting should be about the issues, period.





That being said, just because someone doesn’t agree with her stand on the issues doesn’t mean she isn’t qualified for the post. IMO there is only one person in this election less qualified than her, and that is Barack Obama. And that is what makes her selection such a good move on McCain’s part. Every barb thrown at her on “inexperience” can be mirrored right back onto Obama many times over. It’s a win/win situation on her part.

The thing is, the "inexperienced" barb was much more common coming from the right to the left than vice versa. It seems more to me, that in this case since the "Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president" thing was such an advertising point for Reps that it more defanged them than it did the Dems.

With the aforementioned point that there's enough of a chance that McCain may not live through his term(s) if elected president, that would leave Sarah in his place. And it bewilders me a bit that the party that has accused Obama of not having enough experience time and time again now has a VEEP canidate that, in some eyes, has slightly more, comparable to less experience (in any event they both have less than McCain or Biden, and I think that we can agree on). (And yes, Hillary herself was playing the "Obama doesn't have enough experience" card and now backs him, but that really has little to do with the VEEP issue. I just wanted to acknowledge that I was aware that it was an inner-party attack as well.)


In any event, I'm enjoying this politial discussion which has been polite, and very civil :flowers: My thanks to all participating and keeping such a tone that this thread can continue.

Nightshade
September 8th, 2008, 09:13 AM
IIRC they were foul screaming harpies who were irreparably splitting the Democratic party...

As an aside, it's incredibly hard to quote pieces of your posts because of all the formatting.

Nightshade, I agree that that's a rather unenlightened stance to take, but that doesn't get rid of the whole "my vote is mine" thing. I wouldn't make that choice, but if they do, it's still their prerogative and calling them "vagina voters" still robs them of their agency. There are women in this country who have seen women's rights/issues/personhood get thrown under the bus time and time again; there are women in this country who have been truly among the disenfranchised (as in, no vote, although those women are now a very small demographic), and they probably think that having a woman in high office would make Washington a more sympathetic place than it's ever been before. And tbh, they are probably right - maybe not on modern women's issues, but on more classic ones. I don't think we're going to agree on this one. :shrug:

It's okay not to agree :flowers:

I do see what you're saying, but to me, voting for someone because of gender is no better than voting/not voting for someone because of their race for similar reason.

Yes, it may put a good sympathetic ear in Washington, but to me while it still is their vote, and I'll obviously agree they are right to use it however they choose, I just see it as a shame that for many, like my mother, the evaluation of potential candidates stopped at what was in their pants rather than what was in their minds. It can be a factor, but it should not be the *only* factor.

To me, voting in the wrong woman just because she's a woman could do great harm to the perception of women in politics for a very long time. I would LOVE to see a female as PotUS, however, I want it to be the woman I feel is right for the job above and beyond her gender.

ETA: I think what I'm trying to say here and failing is that someone does not have to be a woman to want equal rights for women/minorities/other special interest groups. One can be a champion for a group that they were not born into. :)

truepeacenik
September 8th, 2008, 09:57 AM
Wouldn't they freak if one of our especially-long-haired members ran for political office somewhere? Democrat or Republican - I bet somewhere, someone would freak out over the hair and really bash us.

I wonder what the reporter would say about Art Goodtimes out here in Colorado?
http://sanmiguelcounty.org/goodtime.htm
http://www.greens.org/colorado/artgood.html

What the stylist is missing is different parts of the country have different standards of fashion.
Some would say Boston is X amount of time behind New York in creating new hair designs.

And who wants their hair designed? Arranged, maybe.

as for the accent mark, many new copy flow programs drop hem out, even if the reporter puts them in.

ClareDee
September 8th, 2008, 10:24 AM
I'm barging into this thread to say something trivial and stupid about an Irish politician and his hair.

Last year we had a general election here, with two major parties at loggerheads for seats. The leader of one of these parties is Enda Kenny - not a long-haired man, but a man who clearly cares for his hair. It always looked carefully side-parted and combed over. Slightly waved.

In the run-up to the election, he decided (or perhaps was advised) to 'modernise' his look. His hair went from 50's-heartthrob to couture-messy -- no more combover or side-part. It was now short, tousled, boyish.

I sent this prominent politician an email (never expecting a reply), telling him I was disappointed by the new hairstyle. I explained that I think he's a gorgeous man, but that I preferred the "heart-throb" hair (Yes I used that phrase).
He replied saying "A man could love you for that!". His hair went back to his old style quite rapidly, and I like to think it was because of my urgent appel.

The other party won the election though.

True story.

dorothea-brooke
September 8th, 2008, 10:40 AM
OMG, I love this story so much!

Thank you for injecting a (hair-related!) note of levity into this thread.

I am so tickled right now.... :cool:


I'm barging into this thread to say something trivial and stupid about an Irish politician and his hair.

Last year we had a general election here, with two major parties at loggerheads for seats. The leader of one of these parties is Enda Kenny - not a long-haired man, but a man who clearly cares for his hair. It always looked carefully side-parted and combed over. Slightly waved.

In the run-up to the election, he decided (or perhaps was advised) to 'modernise' his look. His hair went from 50's-heartthrob to couture-messy -- no more combover or side-part. It was now short, tousled, boyish.

I sent this prominent politician an email (never expecting a reply), telling him I was disappointed by the new hairstyle. I explained that I think he's a gorgeous man, but that I preferred the "heart-throb" hair (Yes I used that phrase).
He replied saying "A man could love you for that!". His hair went back to his old style quite rapidly, and I like to think it was because of my urgent appel.

The other party won the election though.

True story.

biggeorge
September 8th, 2008, 11:12 AM
biggeorge, is Barack Obama in hiding because he cannot answer hard-hitting questions about foreign policy, global warming, and the economy?

Here is what the Associated Press reported about that very same issue:


Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.
In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.
Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama's the front-runner.
And on CNN:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed further away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates, agreeing only to the standard three face-offs in the fall proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.


Other major news networks have reported the same.

And in case you wonder about his agreeing to debate "anywhere, anytime" here is a youtube video where Obama states exactly that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGgyPm9kh4&eurl=http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258164

His campaign openly admits that they don't want to debate because they have a slight edge and don't want to lose it.

The facts speak for themselves.

dorothea-brooke
September 8th, 2008, 11:19 AM
But surely you see the difference between agreeing to "only" three debates and being sequestered away from all press contact because you cannot answer questions about foreign policy???

I repeat; this is a direct quote from Sarah Palin a little over a year ago: "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

I'm not sure that I want to trust the country to a person whose entire foreign policy thinking -- not just experience, but even thinking -- has been crammed in a massive two-week debriefing session behind closed doors.

Yes, I do indeed think the facts speak for themselves! :)

memphisluvr
September 8th, 2008, 11:50 AM
I've not read the thread, but after reading the article I spotted a major WIN in there. Did you see it?! They said long hair should be cut after FORTY! 2-3 years ago the general rule was after 30.

The 'rule' is still stupid, but at least it's currently inching back.

As far as her hair goes..I'm not a beauty queen like she is, but I personally wear my hair in just a plain bun so it and I won't get too much attention. My plain bun is a bid to be taken more seriously. Maybe she's doing the same.

biggeorge
September 8th, 2008, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure that I want to trust the country to a person whose entire foreign policy thinking -- not experience, thinking -- has been crammed in a massive two-week debriefing session behind closed doors.


You are correct here.

You should want to trust the country to someone who has solid and extensive military background, has served in various international postings while in the Navy from 1958 to 1981, has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the Senate Committee on Commerce and Science, had the right solution to the Iraq War several years ago and has been proven right by the success of the Surge of Troops, and who does not change his position based on public polls and perception.

Simply said, I want to trust the country to someone who has experience in this area.

And the fact that Obama had his two week cram session 19 months ago is immaterial; his comments on foreign relations show that he is not ready. And an example of why; his one position on a Foreign relations committee was that as a chair on a NATO committee; and he held ZERO hearings during his tenure in Senate.

If Palin's lack of experience in Foreign Relations after only having been on the national stage for two weeks bothers you, then you should run screaming and shouting from a candidate that in two years in the US Senate shows no more experience, and made no efforts to gain it.

And lest you forget, Palin is not a Presidential candidate. Obama is.

Beatnik Guy
September 8th, 2008, 12:07 PM
I'm not buying the whole "Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama" thing. Not at all.

Nope -- and I'd recommend 'The Audacity of Hope' to anyone who has doubts about Obama and how ready for office he is.

As for a woman leader, some may recall Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. In retrospect, yes, she wasn't as bad as she seemed at the time, but I don't think anyone here would argue that someone should be President based on gender, even jokingly.

Nightshade
September 8th, 2008, 12:14 PM
Nope -- and I'd recommend 'The Audacity of Hope' to anyone who has doubts about Obama and how ready for office he is.

It's a fantastic book for insight into Obama's character.



And lest you forget, Palin is not a Presidential candidate. Obama is.

But there is a terribly real possibility that McCain will be the oldest person to ever take office as PotUS, and the idea that Palin may become PotUS in his stead is also not something that should be ignored. To dismiss Obama as unprepared is to acknowledge the same unprepardness in Palin. Should something happen to Obama as President, nobody would question of Biden was lacking the experience, as the phrase puts it to be "ready to go on day 1."

dorothea-brooke
September 8th, 2008, 12:21 PM
biggeorge, no one is disputing that McCain has more experience than Obama; that would be silly. And of course McCain is at the top of the ticket. But it is not at all fanciful to worry about who else is on that ticket, especially under the circumstances: McCain is 72 years old and has a history of multiple skin cancers -- a disease that yes, can kill you. His age alone gives him a actuarial chance of 1 in 6 of dying in office. I do think the qualifications of his running mate are of particular, and vital, importance.

Again, I'm puzzled at your series of equations: does "only" being the chair of a Senate NATO committee make one as unprepared on foreign policy as a small-town mayor/small-state governor who is on record as saying she has no thoughts on the Iraq War?

Obama is a smart, well-informed, thoughtful legislator who has been more or less preparing for the presidency his entire life. I have no problem saying that his experience and qualifications vastly outstrip those of Sarah Palin.



And the fact that Obama had his two week cram session 19 months ago is immaterial; his comments on foreign relations show that he is not ready.

As for the first part: why is it immaterial? Even if I grant you this assertion, and assume Barack had only started thinking about foreign policy 19 months ago, why would 19 months of thinking deeply about the issues that face the country, honing those opinions in the Senate, and having them tested over and over again in front of the media bulldogs be "immaterial"? Does that mean that even 19 months from now Sarah Palin would still not be ready to be commander in chief? Hmmmm....

As for the second part, it is rather vague.... I have been quite conscientious about providing links for the facts I have laid out in my posts -- can you provide us with some to back up these assertions?

ETA: Cross-posted with Beatnik Guy and Nightshade. Word.

Wind Dragon
September 8th, 2008, 12:36 PM
And on CNN:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed further away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates, agreeing only to the standard three face-offs in the fall proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.


Other major news networks have reported the same.

Interesting. I wonder if they have that quite right. To the McCain campaign's actual proposal of a series of very small, formally-structured (ETA, whoops! minimally structured, rather :oops: ) town hall meetings back in June, Obama's campaign officially responded with this:

As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country. We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

The McCain campaign declined.

dancingbarefoot
September 8th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Folks, this thread is temporarily closed while the moderators decide what to do with it.