You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Palin’ tag.
It was hard to find non-Woods stories today as everything from Stars and Stripes to the Wall Street Journal is pretty much taken. Still:
In Nevada they are covering Obama’s visit to stomp for Reid
Doubt, caution meet President Obama’s foreclosure plan
Kaiser said measures such as Obama’s plan “can help stop the bleeding for now, but for there to be a true ‘recovery’ in the housing market, we will absolutely have to see more jobs being created than we currently are.
In Indiana the scramble to fill Bayh seat continues. One candidate who missed the headline switches to Libertarian, another declines the offer – would rather be governor
NY Times puts the “retard card” story on page one
“I was making fun of Sarah Palin, but not her son.”
because mothers of Down syndrome babies are so much funnier….
More hilarious WaPo writing in my next entry
As Newsweek is put in the hot seat for their blatant sexism. I thought I might remind people who gave the cues for the tone on women opponents last election.
I must say I was glad to see Palin making the point herself, when referring to Newsweek
“out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.”
Although yesterday, reading a live blog of Oprah from “obsess much”-Sullivan, he noted that Oprah got Palin to admit that Obama defended her. From what?
Back to Newsweek though: to think she didn’t even see their website last week, where they posted the internet doctored photo of her with a shotgun in flag bikini.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek‘s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag.
They actually took the opportunity to finally note what was done to Hillary
With regard to Palin, Media Matters documented the sexist treatment both Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received throughout the 2008 campaign.
And to make their point better….they reproduce the “legs” and “slutty schoolgirl” doll photos Newsweek published inside the article. Yeah, we get it.
The only person who doesn’t is Newsweek editor John Meecham who responds
“We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”
“interesting” to whom? And what are they really saying that needs to be conveyed with this?
That they can’t look past the body parts?
Meanwhile, beyond Newsweek, pundits are still longing for that chick fight they’ve been denied in the primaries as Cinie notes.
illustration from hopeful NY Post back then – see NYT walking that one back
NYC tabloids are giving fodder to politics again today.
Newsday, the most relevant – covers the Healthcare Club for Men other slight to women: get your mammograms late, please – we don’t want to spend on you
It seems that for all the put-downs out there Palin is the talk of the day – or at least 2 out of 3 tabloids.
The Daily News covers the Oprah stint
while AM-NY pouts over “NYC being snubbed” in the book tour.
NY Post has been giving Bloomberg good press (or rather Thompson bad press). Now that his 150 millions helped Bloomberg squeek by against an unfunded opponent, it’s safe for NY Post to balk at the post-elections budget cuts.
You get what you voted for, NY. Or rather, what you couldn’t be bothered to show up to vote against. As for NY Post? Since they failed to tell us that “Mike was one heck of a guy” before election day, they can stuff it!
And they said it well, to be sure, covering the kids aspect, the way Chelsea Clinton was treated, how political sides are no excuse for demeaning of women. They even said
Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men.
Which is wonderful – and very, very, very late.
Where were you when they were calling Hillary names? I only remember the post-portem
“NOW’s president, Kim Gandy, said her members would remain alert: “We’re going to keep watching because we think Michelle Obama will be the recipient of the same kind of attacks that Hillary was.”
Thank God you remained vigilent on Michelle while declaring Palin was not a woman
Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman.
So, you may imagine why Dave got a bit confused about all the mixed messages. Maybe he understood from you and all the other “feminists” that Palin was a dude, therefore offense-proof. Maybe he thought that now a days , that’s what a feminist looks like
and not them objects with skirts and slutty looks…
That being said, we hope that you’ll be able to stay awake long enough to see sexism and misogyny even when coming from Teh One.
I am still waiting for your reaction on his defense of the women’s right to wear a hijab?
Or the one about Obama not asking Sotomayor about her position on choice rights?
It would be nice if NOW could actually respond to events as they happen – not a week later – as in this case. (NOW, not later)
Still, your taking on Letterman was the bravest thing you did in a long, long time.
Let’s see you actually speaking truth to power next time, and maybe your credibility may start being restored.
Or better yet, as the Reclusive Leftist recommends, change their leadership
LA Times blog reports the record numbers
An estimated 4.921 million folks tuned in on Wednesday to hear Palin
which were second only to…
The only higher viewership this year for Hannity & Colmes — 4.948 million — was on Sept. 3. And what was happening that night? The nation was awaiting Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention.
Here’s how the competition did
FNC’s Hannity & Colmes: 4,921,000 viewers (1,391,000 in the 25-54 demo).
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: 1,716,000 viewers (635,000 in the 25-54).
CNN’s Larry King: 1,646,000 viewers (630,000 in the 25-54).
Gee, maybe in light of those numbers Fox might reconsider that temporary truce they reached with Obama….Unfortunately, when it comes to propaganda, ratings are not an issue