• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin: Media going easier on Kennedy because of class

ARealConservative said:
Biden was a walking gaff machine, but you sure wouldn't know it from the media.
Click to expand...

Do you have covert sources?

Do you stalk Biden?

Without the media, how do you know this? :roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The guy doing this documentary is starting with a premise and working backwards from there. He is fitting things to support his claim instead of letting the evidence lead him to the conclusion.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, then ANYTHING can be "proven" by distortion.
 
aps said:
I wasn't able to watch the interview until last night. I don't know how people can watch it and think she handled it well. I'm sure she's smart; she hasn't gotten to where she is because she is dumb. However, she doesn't exude intelligence IMO when I listen to her speak. I see a whiner in this interview. She blames EVERYONE but herself on why she was portrayed the way she was. WHAT? Yes, it's everyone else's fault that you were not portrayed well, Governor Palin. :roll: Gag me.
Click to expand...

I like how she thought that if she was on the Dem ticket everything would have been different.

I wonder if she would have accused McCain of "palling around with the North Vietnamese."
 
Middleground said:
If that is the case, then ANYTHING can be "proven" by distortion.
Click to expand...

You don't see Michael Moore starving.

And yes, anything can be "proven" by distortion. I have it on good authority that Obama is from Mars. :mrgreen:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I like how she thought that if she was on the Dem ticket everything would have been different.
Click to expand...

Because Democrats don't attack other Democrats, of course. Please ignore Hillary Clinton's attack on Barack Obama. They don't count. :roll:
 
I just found this gem of an interview that Newsweek did with Sarah Palin in August of last year. She has some great advice for Hillary, which based-on her complaints now, are words that she does not follow for herself. Double-standard, or has she really come to the conclusion that the media--fair, or unfairly-- can be harsh? So why the turn-around, Sarah?

NEWSWEEK: Sarah Palin, you are a Republican and a conservative one at that. It's unlikely that you and Hillary would agree on too many issues. But, yet, as a woman, chief executive—someone who's been through the grinder—when you look at the coverage and you listen to the conversations, what do you see?
Sarah Palin: Fair or unfair—and I do think that it's a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that's unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you're getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it's reality and it's a given, people just accept that she's going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. That's what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.

Q&A: Sarah Palin on Hillary and Bucking the GOP | Newsweek Politics: Conventions | Newsweek.com
 
Middleground said:
I just found this gem of an interview that Newsweek did with Sarah Palin in August of last year. She has some great advice for Hillary, which based-on her complaints now, are words that she does not follow for herself. Double-standard, or has she really come to the conclusion that the media--fair, or unfairly-- can be harsh? So why the turn-around, Sarah?

NEWSWEEK: Sarah Palin, you are a Republican and a conservative one at that. It's unlikely that you and Hillary would agree on too many issues. But, yet, as a woman, chief executive—someone who's been through the grinder—when you look at the coverage and you listen to the conversations, what do you see?
Sarah Palin: Fair or unfair—and I do think that it's a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that's unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you're getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it's reality and it's a given, people just accept that she's going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. That's what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.

Q&A: Sarah Palin on Hillary and Bucking the GOP | Newsweek Politics: Conventions | Newsweek.com
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow! :wow:
 
Sir Loin said:

Perhaps she would have been criticized either way? So perhaps “they” would not have spent so much time dreaming up a theory by which her son was not hers, but her daughter's because she was trying to cover up her daughter's pregnancy? Except for the fact her baby was hers, her daughter was actually STILL pregnant? Or perhaps your odd defense of this crap is exactly what I meant by the ironic scorn visited on her worst by.......... females. Who should KNOW BETTER. :shock:

As an old salt for actual journalism, this blue shite is exactly that. Yellow dog too.

Well you gotta actually read the attached article to get that McFly!!!

Yes you are right, Mrs. Obama was as you say “vilified” at times. Versus the 24/7 and even till now vilification of Palin, as in this thread which is illustration of the same. Doh!:doh

I don’t believe for a New York second that she was naive about what happened to her. I credit her with the smarts to completely understand the scope and meaning of her words. And I find it ironic that you criticize this interview and the "cuts" in it while ignoring her points about the SAME THING IN THE COURIC interview. Really MG, are you even paying attention here?:confused:

And might I say that having come through that kind of raging hypocritical crucible, she will be around and a serious thorn in the sides of her detractors for a long time to come? When you see someone saying she is washed up and done, dumb as a bag of hammers.......you see a hopeful fool in the act of full on braying. To quote Mel Brooks……………trust me.
Click to expand...



I wrote a whole reply to this and my browser crashed. :-(

Anyway, I'd like to know from Sarah what did Katie do in particular to be unfair to her? :confused:

If she would have answered the newspaper question as well as she did in this particular interview, then I would have come to a different conclusion. But she didn't come across well with Katie, IMO. Not because of Katie, but because of her answers. I've seen her in other interviews, with other interviewers, that produced the same old indirect generalized answers that I find unappealing.

So I'd like to know from Sarah-- in a direct manner, rather than "she thinks she's the center of the universe"--why that particular interview was misleading.
 
Middleground said:
I wrote a whole reply to this and my browser crashed. :-(

Anyway, I'd like to know from Sarah what did Katie do in particular to be unfair to her? :confused:

If she would have answered the newspaper question as well as she did in this particular interview, then I would have come to a different conclusion. But she didn't come across well with Katie, IMO. Not because of Katie, but because of her answers. I've seen her in other interviews, with other interviewers, that produced the same old indirect generalized answers that I find unappealing.

So I'd like to know from Sarah-- in a direct manner, rather than "she thinks she's the center of the universe"--why that particular interview was misleading.
Click to expand...

God! It was just an interview! Katie did good. Palin did good.

There was absolutely nothing about that interview that should have caused anybody's ire. That should have gotten so much scorn and hatred from anybody!

You had a self made small town church going woman being interviewed, not some spawn of Satan.

It really made liberals look like the most out of touch with America whiny bastards.
 
sazerac said:
God! It was just an interview! Katie did good. Palin did good.

There was absolutely nothing about that interview that should have caused anybody's ire. That should have gotten so much scorn and hatred from anybody!

You had a self made small town church going woman being interviewed, not some spawn of Satan.

It really made liberals look like the most out of touch with America whiny bastards.
Click to expand...


LOL Sorry, but the person who looked like she was out of touch with American history was Sarah Palin.
 
The only thing Couric can read is what she's told to.
 
sazerac said:
God! It was just an interview! Katie did good. Palin did good.

There was absolutely nothing about that interview that should have caused anybody's ire. That should have gotten so much scorn and hatred from anybody!

You had a self made small town church going woman being interviewed, not some spawn of Satan.

It really made liberals look like the most out of touch with America whiny bastards.
Click to expand...

If you didn't see "it," then you have low standards, IMO. She didn't come across well at all to most. The reason why she bombed is the big question.

And, BTW, who's doing the whining now???
 
aps said:
LOL Sorry, but the person who looked like she was out of touch with American history was Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...

Out of touch with normal Americans.

Americans don't feel automatic contempt for self made governors who come up through the ranks quickly and pick fights with their own party and who go to church on Sunday and have great kids. That usually doesn't send off red flares for Americans that this is somebody I should hate.

Unless you're a liberal, of course. It made them look like complete assholes who don't even belong here in this country.
 
Last edited:
Intelligence is not the point. She ultra biased, and therefore unreliable.
 
American said:
Intelligence is not the point. She ultra biased, and therefore unreliable.
Click to expand...
No question about that. But its the smart, biased ones that are so damn dangerous. I would say that she fools many into thinking that she is unbiased, simply because of her intelligence.
 
Middleground said:
If you didn't see "it," then you have low standards, IMO. She didn't come across well at all to most. The reason why she bombed is the big question.

And, BTW, who's doing the whining now???
Click to expand...

The reaction of the liberals was bizarre. They didn't think "she didn't come across well." It went far beyond that.

I don't get why a nice lady from a small town in Alaska would cause people such rage from the very bottoms of their hearts that they would spend countless hours writing about how awful she is on internet forums. Especially after she lost the election.

Am I whining? I'm calling liberals completely out of touch with normal Americans is what I'm doing. What else are we to think of this bizarre hatred and contempt of a nice lady from Alaska?

A lot of people managed to disagree with Palin without resorting to weird cultish behavior.
 
sazerac said:
The reaction of the liberals was bizarre. They didn't think "she didn't come across well." It went far beyond that.

I don't get why a nice lady from a small town in Alaska would cause people such rage from the very bottoms of their hearts that they would spend countless hours writing about how awful she is on internet forums. Especially after she lost the election.

Am I whining? I'm calling liberals completely out of touch with normal Americans is what I'm doing. What else are we to think of this bizarre hatred and contempt of a nice lady from Alaska?

A lot of people managed to disagree with Palin without resorting to weird cultish behavior.
Click to expand...

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

If you think that it's just liberals that cringed watching the Couric interviews, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
sazerac said:
The reaction of the liberals was bizarre. They didn't think "she didn't come across well." It went far beyond that.

I don't get why a nice lady from a small town in Alaska would cause people such rage from the very bottoms of their hearts that they would spend countless hours writing about how awful she is on internet forums. Especially after she lost the election.

Am I whining? I'm calling liberals completely out of touch with normal Americans is what I'm doing. What else are we to think of this bizarre hatred and contempt of a nice lady from Alaska?

A lot of people managed to disagree with Palin without resorting to weird cultish behavior.
Click to expand...

All hyperbole aside, who are the "normal" Americans? I don't think "normal" Americans pontificate on political forums either way.
 
Southern Man said:
No question about that. But its the smart, biased ones that are so damn dangerous. I would say that she fools many into thinking that she is unbiased, simply because of her intelligence.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Palin was duped by Couric?
 
sazerac said:
God! It was just an interview! Katie did good. Palin did good.

There was absolutely nothing about that interview that should have caused anybody's ire. That should have gotten so much scorn and hatred from anybody!

You had a self made small town church going woman being interviewed, not some spawn of Satan.

It really made liberals look like the most out of touch with America whiny bastards.
Click to expand...

Um..are you kidding? Even Palin admitted that the interview didn't go good. What interview were you watching?
 
sazerac said:
Out of touch with normal Americans.

Americans don't feel automatic contempt for self made governors who come up through the ranks quickly and pick fights with their own party and who go to church on Sunday and have great kids. That usually doesn't send off red flares for Americans that this is somebody I should hate.

Unless you're a liberal, of course. It made them look like complete assholes who don't even belong here in this country.
Click to expand...

WTF does going to church and having kids have to do with anything?

Since when did that mean anything?
 
sazerac said:
Out of touch with normal Americans.

Americans don't feel automatic contempt for self made governors who come up through the ranks quickly and pick fights with their own party and who go to church on Sunday and have great kids. That usually doesn't send off red flares for Americans that this is somebody I should hate.

Unless you're a liberal, of course. It made them look like complete assholes who don't even belong here in this country.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. *yawn*

Sorry, but this woman was running for the 2nd highest office in our country. I expected more substance and intelligence out of her answers than what she provided. But that's me.
 
aps said:
First of all, Sir Loin, I thanked danarhea because I thought his post was hilariously written. He makes me laugh, and I thank when I do. So there you have it. Next time, ask me why I thanked him instead of assuming you know the answer.


I don't mind your thinking my complaints are irrational, as I think your compliments are irrational as well. You're not going to get me to change my mind about what I think of her, and I am not going to get you to change your mind about what you think of her.
Click to expand...


I think my point was spot on regarding you and Mrs. Palin, as the rest of your reply certainly confirms my dear.

aps said:
It's beyond logic? The quotes I will provide below are in this Washington Post article: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Her statement:

She's making this statement in connection with the rumors that Trigg is not her son. Okay, I can see why this upset her. However, upon what basis did she reach the conclusion on Barack Obama palling around with Bill Ayers? And how Obama launched his campaign for Illinois senator in Bill Ayers's living room? Did she get that from a reputable news source? I don't think so. No reputable news source provided such information. Rather, bloggers provided that information, and she used that information in her speeches at multiple rallies. So for her to complain that others are basing their conclusion that Trigg was not her son on bloggers is laughable, at best.
Click to expand...
 Well let’s see, despite the fact that Obama pretended Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood, Ayers did in fact play host to Obama’s political coming out party. It was in fact at Ayers house and Obama in fact sat on a board with Ayers for several years. So your argument is beyond logic, erroneous and IMO a perfect example of just how irrational some people are willing to be for the sake of politics. In short aps, if Palin is dishonest Obama is full of shite and this should really be an important issue to you; Obama’s bald faced lies about his friendship with Ayers. But strangely, not the case at all is it?

aps said:
Katie Couric asked Palin appropriate questions. She was running for Vice President of the United States. It was appropriate for us to find out her world views and upon what facts she based them. Her claim that Couric was asking the question in a way that implied that people from Alaska are out of touch was ridiculous. I would be able to name off the newspapers I read in a matter of seconds if asked. Asking about Supreme Court cases is also appropriate, and yet Palin couldn't name one, even though she had spoken about the Exxon decision months earlier. When asked about examples of McCain showing he was a reformer, she couldn't name one, but there was calling him a reformer, reformer, reformer.
Click to expand...
aps said:

For her to blame Katie Couric for making her look foolish is really, really sad. I would have more respect for her if she said, "I was nervous because it's not every day that I get interviewed on national TV." THAT would have made sense to me. Instead, she blamed herself looking rather unintelligent/uninformed on Katie Couric's questions. That, to me, is whining.
Click to expand...


I could care less about rehashing the Couric interview, I brought up a different point with regard to that interview and the so called editing of it as versus this interview. You and MG would do better to address that, rather than trot out all your old arguments about the Couric interview. Besides that, in this interview she is asked about that one and she shares her feeling on it. Which you are trying to spin to fit your take, a take I might add in which you have already demonstrated poor knowledge as it comes to Ayers. Unless you really think the facts of that matter come from a blog. Chuckle. When Tim Russert trotted out many of these same facts about Ayer’s and Obama’s relationship on Meet the Press, I am dead certain he was not using a blog as his source.

aps said:
I have yet to see any reputable news source claim that Bristol and Levi are high school dropouts. It's bloggers who are claiming this fact. Clearly, her complaint that, "When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers, anonymous bloggers especially?" would indicate that she thinks these sources are bogus. So why she would think that these sources would provide accurate information about her or her family?
Click to expand...
 Yet you think Obama did not have his political coming out party in Ayers home/living room and he and Ayers barely knew each other despite all the information available on this matter from reputable news sources. And it was somehow wrong for the transparently obvious lie’s from Obama about his friendship/relationship with Ayers to be used a campaighn fodder. How ridiculous.

aps said:
Come on. Does she genuinely believe this? Barack Obama was portrayed horribly by mutiple sources/people during the campaign. Sarah Palin helped paint a very UGLY picture of Barack Obama during the campaign. (“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. . . . This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America.” Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists - Los Angeles Times). So for her to say that somehow she would have been so LOVED as a candidate had she been on his ticket is so ridiculous, I pity her if she genuinely believes that.
Click to expand...
She certainly never made any comment about being loved. I have no idea what you are asking does she genuinely believe, you’d be the last person I think is well informed in that regard. However, most Americans (by polling) and quite a few “lefty” posters such as Lerxst think the MSH went very soft and showed favoritism in their coverage of Obama versus Palin. I honestly don’t know anyone BUT you and some posters at DP who are still trying to argue otherwise.

aps said:
This is why I think she is a whiner during this interview. She has not seriously reflected on what happened during the campaign trail. Excuse me, Sarah? You're upset how you were portrayed, but there you are portraying Obama as a terrorist or, at a minimum, a terrorist sympathizer. Nice.
Click to expand...
aps said:

I understand her being upset about the media (not reputable media) making derogatory comments about her family. It would not have been ANY different had one of Obama's daughters gotten pregnant out of wedlock. I can say that with 100% confidence.

Again, Sir Loin, call me irrational all you want. I stand by my above words and feel confident that such conclusions are rational. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
I think it both funny and illustrative that you are forced to defend yellow dog journalism and a lack of journalistic integrity, in order to complain some more about Palin and your “feelings” about her. Indeed the irrationality is strong here.
 
Last edited:
Sir Loin said:



I think my point was spot on regarding you and Mrs. Palin, as the rest of your reply certainly confirms my dear.


Well let’s see, despite the fact that Obama pretended Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood, Ayers did in fact play host to Obama’s political coming out party. It was in fact at Ayers house and Obama in fact sat on a board with Ayers for several years. So your argument is beyond logic, erroneous and IMO a perfect example of just how irrational some people are willing to be for the sake of politics. In short aps, if Palin is dishonest Obama is full of shite and this should really be an important issue to you; Obama’s bald faced lies about his friendship with Ayers. But strangely, not the case at all is it?



I could care less about rehashing the Couric interview, I brought up a different point with regard to that interview and the so called editing of it as versus this interview. You and MG would do better to address that, rather than trot out all your old arguments about the Couric interview. Besides that, in this interview she is asked about that one and she shares her feeling on it. Which you are trying to spin to fit your take, a take I might add in which you have already demonstrated poor knowledge as it comes to Ayers. Unless you really think the facts of that matter come from a blog. Chuckle. When Tim Russert trotted out many of these same facts about Ayer’s and Obama’s relationship on Meet the Press, I am dead certain he was not using a blog as his source.


Yet you think Obama did not have his political coming out party in Ayers home/living room and he and Ayers barely knew each other despite all the information available on this matter from reputable news sources. And it was somehow wrong for the transparently obvious lie’s from Obama about his friendship/relationship with Ayers to be used a campaighn fodder. How ridiculous.

She certainly never made any comment about being loved. I have no idea what you are asking does she genuinely believe, you’d be the last person I think is well informed in that regard. However, most Americans (by polling) and quite a few “lefty” posters such as Lerxst think the MSH went very soft and showed favoritism in their coverage of Obama versus Palin. I honestly don’t know anyone BUT you and some posters at DP who are still trying to argue otherwise.

I think it both funny and illustrative that you are forced to defend yellow dog journalism and a lack of journalistic integrity, in order to complain some more about Palin and your “feelings” about her. Indeed the irrationality is strong here.
Click to expand...

How did I know that you would still call anything I say about Sarah Palin irrational. :roll:

Bye bye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom