Sarah Palin

[sr71plt]

There is a difference between protective and evil. The implication that I was going for here was evil. A kind of dark, malevolent, inhuman quality to both Palin and Hillary, which I don't see in a Nancy Pelosi (no matter how much I dislike her for political reasons) or a Kay Bailey Hutchison.

For a woman to be protective is to be natural and instinctive. For her to be twisted, an "ice queen" like these women, is something entirely different. I just get this negative vibe that's hard to explain. It's primordial.

Evil? No, certainly not. I was in government for the Nixon administration. There ain't nuthin going now (outside of Cheney) that I'd call evil.

 

[Guest]

There is a difference between protective and evil. The implication that I was going for here was evil. A kind of dark, malevolent, inhuman quality to both Palin and Hillary, which I don't see in a Nancy Pelosi (no matter how much I dislike her for political reasons) or a Kay Bailey Hutchison.

For a woman to be protective is to be natural and instinctive. For her to be twisted, an "ice queen" like these women, is something entirely different. I just get this negative vibe that's hard to explain. It's primordial.

As a matter of fact I get that evil feeling from Kay Bailey Hutchison.

She smiles. A lot.

It's disturbing.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Put it this way. I couldn't see most politicians of either sex being tyrants or murderers. I could picture it of a small number of pols of both sexes, however.

Palin and Hillary are two female examples. Tom DeLay and Karl Rove are prime male examples. Just to pick some names.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Evil? No, certainly not. I was in government for the Nixon administration. There ain't nuthin going now (outside of Cheney) that I'd call evil.

It's interesting that you mention him. Because I get the same creepy feeling about Palin and Hillary that you do about Cheney.

There is another politician who gives me the same impression: Howard Dean....there's just something wrong about him.

4 more such cases: Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Charles Schumer, and Janet Reno.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Contrast this with Al Franken. I don't agree with the guy, but he's funny and hardly a sociopath.

 

[sr71plt]

It's interesting that you mention him. Because I get the same creepy feeling about Palin and Hillary that you do about Cheney.

There is another politician who gives me the same impression: Howard Dean....there's just something wrong about him.

4 more such cases: Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Charles Schumer, and Janet Reno.

I don't think Dean is clever enough. I don't see Reno as that self-absorbed.

I've been "in the room" with Clinton and Nixon. No comparison whatsoever in the vibes received. From what I see of Pailin so far isn't creepy, it's focused straight ahead--just not ahead in a direction I'd want to go.

 

[epiphany65]

Here's an article from salon.com about a Baptist minister who clashed with Palin on a variety of issues, including her attempt to ban one of his books from the local library:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

 

[Pure]

epi

nice article.

it's pretty clear Palin is a theocrat, with a Falwell type agenda. same as our amicus both are enemies of liberty as per the US Bill of Rights.

 

[rgraham666]

This is what I fear will happen if Palin becomes President. Which she probably will.

 

[epiphany65]

This is what I fear will happen if Palin becomes President. Which she probably will.

No one in their right mind wants nuclear war, and if Palin (or anyone) ever tried to start one -- especially if their reasoning was that it's God's will -- you'd see either a mass rebellion amongst generals, or a coup. Analysts say this is most likely what would happen if any leader of Pakistan ever tried to begin a nuclear war and I believe the same is true for the US. Those in the military seem a lot saner than politicians and they don't have to pander to chickenhawk voters.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No one in their right mind wants nuclear war, and if Palin (or anyone) ever tried to start one -- especially if their reasoning was that it's God's will -- you'd see either a mass rebellion amongst generals, or a coup. Analysts say this is most likely what would happen if any leader of Pakistan ever tried to begin a nuclear war and I believe the same is true for the US. Those in the military seem a lot saner than politicians and they don't have to pander to chickenhawk voters.

I think you will find that hardly any members of the military like the idea of war. This especially applies to high ranking officers, most of whom have had combat experience, and have had to send their forces out to kill and to die.

Quite a few former colonels and generals have been president, and not one of them has ever gotten the US involved in a war. The Korean War was going on when Eisenhower became president, but he was the only former general to ever have a foreign war going on during his administration, and that one ended shortly after he took office.

 

[rgraham666]

No one in their right mind wants nuclear war, and if Palin (or anyone) ever tried to start one -- especially if their reasoning was that it's God's will -- you'd see either a mass rebellion amongst generals, or a coup.

I've heard this before, when people were sure the German generals would pull a coup on the Austrian Corporal.

 

[adabbaduli]

This will be an interesting election thats for sure

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I still think that Hillary would be just as evil in her own way, but, yes, Palin is creepy.

There's plenty of female politicians who don't strike me that way, but those two do.

 

[sr71plt]

There's plenty of female politicians who don't strike me that way, but those two do.

Which brings us back to questioning McCain's judgment I think. If it was a woman wanted--and one who could pull at Clinton's less one-note supporters--Elizabeth Dole, for instance, has credentials and style and grace (and conservative standing) that put Pailen in reform school in contrast.

 

[DeeZire]

Here's an analysis that touches on the 'evil' aspect referred to above.

Obama and The Palin Effect
By Dr. Deepak Chopra

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City . By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other."

For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)

I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America 's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America 's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is."

The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. [Um, maybe, but not likely.] It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

 

[sr71plt]

I still think that Hillary would be just as evil in her own way, but, yes, Palin is creepy.

If Hillary is so evil, why is she out there busting her butt to hold the Democratic party together and in full strength for the Democrats to win the election? The Hillary you describe would just go home, let her supporters tear the party to shreds, and play "I told you so" to both the Democrats and the Republican administration for the next four years until she could scheme again. (Which is quite possibly what her husband counseled her to do.)

In fact, that's what a lot of the armchair "pundits" on this forum said she would do at each turn in the party campaign trail. And they were all wrong--so maybe it's the hard-edged pundits that need to adjust their approach to political assessment and to their assessment of people.

Of course she wants the job and is willing to fight for it. How does that separate her from thirty other public leaders who have been fighting with their best efforts for it this campaign season? Or make her more evil? Or is just that she's a woman. Can't take this from a woman?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It has nothing to do with being a woman. In fact, I've given several examples of women who didn't give me that impression. There are just some who do. And some men who do, as I've noted. Some people are sociopaths.

And, of course, she's stumping for Obama. Her political credit with the Dems would be finished if she failed to do so. Then again, I'm no fan of Obama, either. Though I don't think that he has the male equivalent (and, yes, there is one) of the "ice queen" quality. No, he's just a typical demagogue, mostly hot air and nothing else.

As for McCain, I still respect him, but that admiration has been diminished by his choice for VP, for certain. Though part of me thinks that he is doing that to motivate himself to stay in good health, lol. Who knows? Maybe he just wanted to stick it to Romney one more time.

But I'm not a fan of either party these days. Both have screwed me over too many times, despite the fact that I've never voted for a candidate of one of the twain (the Dems).

 

[Belegon]

The Hillary you describe would just go home, let her supporters tear the party to shreds, and play "I told you so" to both the Democrats and the Republican administration for the next four years until she could scheme again.

Kinda like Reagan in 1976.

Honestly, I have no issue with the direction Hillary has taken. I think she is doing the honorable and ethical thing, and if *crosses fingers to avoid jinx* Obama loses, she will not have hurt her chances four years from now.

 

[sr71plt]

And, of course, she's stumping for Obama. Her political credit with the Dems would be finished if she failed to do so. Then again, I'm no fan of Obama, either. Though I don't think that he has the male equivalent (and, yes, there is one) of the "ice queen" quality. No, he's just a typical demagogue, mostly hot air and nothing else.

There's no evidence Clinton would lose an appreciable amount of politcal credit if she just walked off--even in the short run, and absolutely none in the long run if Obama fell on his butt in the election (with her helping that happen). Teddy Kennedy walked off from a convention in a snit and gave no help to the party and lost nothing. She's still a powerful U.S. senator from a megastate and married to a former, still-very-active president. In fact, as evil as you think she is, she could have parleyed this into a fast "told you so" with a resounding Obama defeat and there'd be absolutely no one in the Democratic Party to gainsay her control through the next four years of preparation.

There's nothing to be done about your feeling, of course. But this (combind with having seen true evil close up) is why I couldn't agree with you. She has put her clout and effort behind very worthy and needed causes for decades and decades. I'll take someone ruthless who can deliver on social legislation over an empty mouth any day of the year.

 

[Belegon]

There's no evidence Clinton would lose an appreciable amount of politcal credit if she just walked off--even in the short run, and absolutely none in the long run if Obama fell on his butt in the election (with her helping that happen). Teddy Kennedy walked off from a convention in a snit and gave no help to the party and lost nothing. She's still a powerful U.S. senator from a megastate and married to a former, still-very-active president. In fact, as evil as you think she is, she could have parleyed this into a fast "told you so" with a resounding Obama defeat and there'd be absolutely no one in the Democratic Party to gainsay her control through the next four years of preparation.

There's nothing to be done about your feeling, of course. But this (combind with having seen true evil close up) is why I couldn't agree with you. She has put her clout and effort behind very worthy and needed causes for decades and decades. I'll take someone ruthless who can deliver on social legislation over an empty mouth any day of the year.

You're right about Kennedy, of course. But I still think that Hillary is taking a path that can only enhance her future in most ways. It's almost a win-win for her. If Obama wins, she will gain immense respect for her role. She also might end up on the cabinet or even the Supreme Court. If he loses, she has gained respect from those that supported him.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'll take someone ruthless who can deliver on social legislation over an empty mouth any day of the year.[/QUOTE]

Given that this description could apply to Lenin, Hitler, or Mussolini, I'll pass. But then, I'm not a liberal, either. Social legislation doesn't tend to appeal to me.

Not saying that Hillary is a Red or Nazi. Just saying that sociopaths are not to be trusted, regardless of ideology or achievements.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

As a matter of fact I get that evil feeling from Kay Bailey Hutchison.

She smiles. A lot.

It's disturbing.

Not sure why smiling would disturb you. But to each his or her own.

There's a certain penetrating glare, a predatory one, that comes from a sociopath that I believe that I see in Hillary. Or it could just be vibes and my imagination. But I see it in Palin, too.

Unlike, say, James Carville or Mary Matalin, for instance.

 

[sr71plt]

You're right about Kennedy, of course. But I still think that Hillary is taking a path that can only enhance her future in most ways. It's almost a win-win for her. If Obama wins, she will gain immense respect for her role. She also might end up on the cabinet or even the Supreme Court. If he loses, she has gained respect from those that supported him.

I don't see a cabinet position. That takes her away from a voter base and won't bolster her credentials any in the voters' minds over continuing to represent New York. The only two cabinet positions that mean anything in terms of presidential aspirations are State and Defense, neither of which suit her. She's not really a foreign policy person and whatever reputation she has that isn't defined by ruthless and ice queen would be torn to shreds in the DOD position.

I laughed when I first heard the Supreme Court appointment idea (from some young starry-eyed delegate at the convention). That's a dead end if I've ever heard of one for someone like her, and she's a legislation lawyer, not anything remotely like a consitutional lawyer. She'd be bored to tears just at the glacial pace of it, and I would think she realizes that on this end of any suggestion of that as a possibility. (Obama, on the other hand, would probably just love to dead end her into the Supreme Court).

Governor of New York. I'd guess that's her next stop.

 

[sr71plt]

Given that this description could apply to Lenin, Hitler, or Mussolini, I'll pass. But then, I'm not a liberal, either. Social legislation doesn't tend to appeal to me.

Well, given that these men were actually reactionary conservatives who didn't, in reality, give three figs for social programs except as a means to reactionary ends . . .

But I'm beginning to get the drift of what makes you categorize Hillary as your "feelings" urge you to do.