FOLLOWING AN ARTICLE online about Sarah Palin's "press conference" in NYC - four questions of which she answered only three, by the way - was this little gem of a comment:
I believe Sarah is right in avoiding the press ( if indeed she is) because the press is trying to trip her up any way they can so that the Dems come out in the lead. Sarah is a far better VP candidate than old joe ( with his feet in his mouth) any day. She has the experience and will handle anything thrown at her. However, because she is a woman, she is being subjected to a sexiest bias and a more stringent scrutiny than joe. She is being held to aq different level of attention. How she looks, what she says, her family, her job as govenor, her experience, etc., etc. On the other hand - Joe Biden, who cares what he looks like, how often his foot is in his mouth, his family, his job - how long he's been in the senate - ( ???? what's he done in that time?), etc., etc. Sarah will step out and up to the plate when the time is right. This may not be when the media would like, but soooo what! Get over it. GO SARAH
Um, really? I mean really really? What exactly IS the "sexiest" bias, hmm? And just what special experience does she have that makes her a "far better VP candidate" than Joe Biden? I'm really curious. I'm sorry, but people should take intelligence tests before they're allowed to comment on internet stories. And before they're allowed to vote. The American public has proven itself to be quite the paradox: vacuous and dense at the same time.
Of course, most of the comments on the article were incredibly critical of Palin's press corps debut, and rightly so. When asked by CNN if she agreed with the way the Bush Administration has handled the war on terrorism, and whether she would do anyting differently, she had this to say:
I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them. We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.
Soooo, she expressly AGREES with the Bush Administration, and she implies that she WOULDN'T do anything differently. Oh Sarah, you maverick you! You crazy agent of change! You go on with your bad self.
She was then asked whether she thinks our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is inflaming Islamic extremists. Her answer?
I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction. Terrible destruction on that day. but since September 11, Americans uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.
Answer the question much, Governor? It's really a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. The question of whether our presence in that region increases the security of the U.S. is an entirely different question; one that was not asked, I might add.
I'm sure Palin has some original thoughts in her head. I really do. But I've seen not a shred of evidence of them, and frankly, the second in command of the most powerful nation on the planet really should to be able to think on his or her feet. And if Palin's party handlers are preventing her from showing her mettle, either a) she needs to take the bull by the balls and tell them to get the fuck out of her way, or b) it's a good bet she really doesn't have any and we'll be up shit's creek if her geriatric running mate is elected.
As a final note, this post-article comment made me snort my coffee:
Sarah!! Sarah!!!! Over here…
Thank you. Sarah, I can see the MOON from my house. Do you think that qualifies me to work for NASA?
Tee hee.
Chatboard (0)