« Sarah Palin has Hot Librarian Vibe for Late Night Host. | mageduley's Blog | If the impossible happens - A Backup Plan »
CNN's Campbell Brown goes on a glorious rant - FREE SARAH PALIN!
This is just too good to pass up. Campbell Brown is fast becoming one of my favorites (and I am not a big CNN fan).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNkloIFTQ0
She demands that the McCain campaign to stop this sexist sequestering of Palin. Campbell makes the point that treating Palin as if she is some delicate flower - instead of the tough Alaska fighting woman she has shown herself to be - is horrible proof of McCain's sexism.
The best part is watching Campbell try to keep a straight face. The media knows darn well why the McCain campaign is keeping Palin away from reporters - and it is not because she is a "delicate flower".
I guess they are taking a cue from a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
" 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Have a great evening all :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNkloIFTQ0
She demands that the McCain campaign to stop this sexist sequestering of Palin. Campbell makes the point that treating Palin as if she is some delicate flower - instead of the tough Alaska fighting woman she has shown herself to be - is horrible proof of McCain's sexism.
The best part is watching Campbell try to keep a straight face. The media knows darn well why the McCain campaign is keeping Palin away from reporters - and it is not because she is a "delicate flower".
I guess they are taking a cue from a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
" 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Have a great evening all :)
Advertisement
I was CHEERING out loud! I can't say I'm a big CNN fan either, but after she took on that low life from the McCain camp for not answering a question, I started recording her show, and now I'm a regular.
September 24, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was either hilarious or empowering or both.
September 24, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed. This is no better than the sleazy discussions on FNC.
To claim the McCain camp is sexist for sequestering Palin is disingenuous. It's because she is not seasoned enough for her job. (It may also be that she isn't bright enough -- but we have to wait more before that judgment is passed.)
CNN just lowered the standards of journalism a bit more. This video contributes to the "silly season" politics and is no better than the rants from Bill OReilly.
When mainstream America gets no news at all from these cable stations, what will that do to our uninformed electorate? It's one thing to be uninformed because you don't watch. It's another to be uninformed because it's impossible to get informed.
September 24, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to disagree, CT. While there's no question that this clip does little to advance information, it's pretty clear to me that she's satirizing the GOP's awful "defense" of Sarah Palin. That is, attempting to characterize all criticism of her as sexist. Put in the context of the little debacle between the McCain campaign and CNN today, this bit isn't just an O'Reilly rant. It's tongue-in-cheek warning to the McCain campaign straight from CNN.
September 24, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the average viewer will see it as tongue in cheek? Do we really want CNN to be the "anti-FNC" where journalistic standards continue to drop -- only from a more left viewpoint?
The word "sexist" really didn't enter this election season until Hillary started losing. The problem is now that anything said against a woman candidate is deemed "sexist". This not only cheapens the word, it creates whole new burdens on sensitivity training, etc.
It's a similar phenomenon to how "sexual harassment" has lost nearly any and all meaning. It's meaning got cheapened along the way until now it's used as a "j'acuse" code word -- which can dangerously destroy innocent people's career. It's so out of control, it's easy to satirize:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2143915578134513037
As Orwell taught us, language is important as it molds our thoughts -- not the other way around.
I would hate to see the words "sexist" and "racist" cheapened in these ways because then it will be difficult to describe those comments which actually are.
I believe Palin can be journalisticly attacked to a bloody pulp without any of these besides-the-point comments. Though I suppose then FNC would call out CNN on being... sexist.
God, I hate Rupert Murdoch.
September 24, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's another subtext at play here. I'm not a woman, but Campbell Brown is. She, like many other women, has watched this tempest-in-a-teapot all season long. I imagine that she, along with many other women, is sick of seeing the sexism card being played as it has for precisely the reason that you've highlighted. In fact, in the case of Palin, we've watched her hide from the media while male GOP operatives deflect criticism with this flimsy shield. By all appearances, she's had it with the bullshit.
Will the average viewer see the satire? I can't say. I don't pretend to be a good judge of what the average voter finds appealing.
I think you wouldn't be surprised to know that I was none too impressed with Hillary Clinton's grousing either.
Perhaps not all will see the satire for what it is, but then again not all reject the claims of sexism. Perhaps those who found the objections to criticism of Palin on the grounds of sexism appealing will find Brown's rejection of it provocative for the same reason.
Believe me, I share your discontent with the state of the media, particular that of television media, but at least she's not carrying water for Palin like so many others.
September 24, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the average CNN viewer would recognize the satire. The average FNC viewer? No. They're used to watching "news" anchors who are parodies of themselves.
September 24, 2008 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to disagree, DF. Call me average, but I don't think it's satire. If CNN were to do satire, it would be hokey, over-the-top, and obvious to everyone, including...um...me.
And yet I'd also have to disagree, CT. Brown's point is not that McCain is sequestering Palin because she's a woman, it's that the only reason they've been able to get away with it is because she's a woman. A man protected from the press in this way would have already been a laughing stock. That is to say, the McCain campaign is exploiting sexist double standards in order to protect its little lamb from the wolves.
September 24, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on this point... but even after rewatching the video, I don't see Campbell Brown making it. She talks about McCain treating her special ("delicate flower") because she is a woman, ergo, McCain's reasons for the sequestering Palin is based on sexist logic.
September 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to remember CT, that it was the McCain campaign itself that said they would not make her available until they were assured she would get the appropriate deference.
Check out Rick Davis on Fox:
"She will do interviews, but she will do them on the terms and conditions which the campaign decides she is ready to do it.
It is totally appropriate for Brown to attack the McCain campaign. They have all but admitted they are the ones sequestering her.
September 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops forgot the link
Rick Davis: No Interviews Without Respect and Deference
September 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree that (a) McCain's campaign should be attacked for sequestering Palin and (b) CNN should be doing it.
But Brown's editorial was targeted to the reasons for the sequestering, claiming it was gender. This is what I'm having a problem with.
September 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the McCain's supposed reasoning for not making her available is that the press is horrible and will not ask "appropriate" questions.
(Just why she cannot pull a Guliani and say "I am not even going to dignify that with an answer" is beyond me.)
The press has been screaming that the McCain campaign is not revealing the real reason they won't let her be questioned.
I think Brown's take is brilliant. She takes their own argument and uses it against them.
Basically she is repeating the GOP line back to them: "I believe Sarah Palin is a strong woman and could be a strong VP. How about showing America how strong she is. By hiding her away, you are giving the impression that she is weak. You don't want to do that, do you?"
It is brilliant in it's simplicity.
September 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is not attacking the REASON Palin is being kept away from the media. She is attacking the ludicrous EXCUSE given for doing so.
Why I liked least about Brown's editorial was her saying -- without qualification -- that Palin is "tough," etc. She isn't: she's a fraud, and I don't like fraud being falsely legitimated. She's a loon, and a sick bitch as shown by her sadistic actions concerning wolves.
And, she is clearly no Christian. It's ironic that her sort of extremist anti-separation of church and state thugs claim to want to return to the "good old days" of the "founding" when theocracy ran "the city on the hill". The fact is that that theocracy PROHIBITED cruel treatment of animals IN STATUTORY LAW, and PROSECUTED those who violated that prohibition.
Sexism works in two ways: it either denigrates -- simultaneously disempowers and absolves of individual responsibility (see Lyndie English) -- or it elevates, thus requires "deference," which is also disempowering and absolving of responsibility. GENUINE feminism is opposed to both -- especially the disempowerment which goes with absolving of individual responsibility.
September 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
On one hand I agree: She isn't being kept away from the media becausee she's female. She's being kept away from the media because she ISN'T QUALIFIED for ANY national office.
On the other hand, ANY attack on that anti-American tactic is better than none. As well, I suspect the assertion that she's being kept away from the media is because of "sexism" is a direct mocking of the Republican/McLame BS about all the outrageous "sexism" Palin has suffered by being asked relevant softball questions she COULDN'T ANSWER.
At the same time: Of course it's sexist to have chosen a female who is an embarassment to intelligent women, and an AFFIRMATION of the Republican view that women should be seen and not heard . . . And it is sexist to keep her away from the media behind the implication that she can't handle tough questions because she is female.
Let me ask: Have we ever been told we MUST show "deference" to a MALE candidate? Are we really to pretend that a sadistic bully, a fake Christian, who is about slaughtering wolves in the most obscene and cruel of ways, is actually a legitimate candidate for the term "lady"?
Deference? Fuck you, Palin -- and the mooseburger you rode in on. Answer our questions, or go the fuck back to Alaska where your sort of political canniblism is something of a norm.
September 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had a thought. Does anyone remember Dan Quayle's campaign for VP? Did Bush Senior keep him sequestered the way McCain's handling Palin?
Campbell's rant was a satire - but there is an essential truth to it. It is patronizing to women to nominate one of us and then treat her like she's incompetent.
Of course, she is incompetent. But that just means they were patronizing all of us when they chose her.
Kind of like it's patronizing for them to think women aren't competent enough to make choices about our own bodies. Hmm.
September 24, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
F*ck yeah! Finally some folks in the media are doing their job. This is the most important job in the WORLD. If she can't handle a press conference then McCain should not have picked her.
Poor judgement.
I love the sexism flip too and I actually think its true. Its too easy to call any criticism of her sexist and even if that were true, the best way to defeat sexism is to stand up to it and show what your made of. Not hide.
September 24, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The average viewer doesn't get it. Look at the posts on YouTube. They don't read, they don't think, they don't apply intelliegence because they don't have any. That's why they vote a straight ticket regardless of who is on it!
September 24, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing average about the people who post stupid comments on youtube. That place is more infested with trolls than any other site I've been on.
September 24, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the rant. Very creative way to attack the problem the press is having. This had to be done by a woman. And her method of doing it is superb!
Frankly, now there needs to be a website. There's already one to Free Levi. But apparently Levi is not the only prisoner.
More than likely the website is already up and running. And we just have to wait for the link.
Perhaps, like Bonhoeffer, she'll write "Letters from Prison."
September 24, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
way to go cambell-brown.....i cant stand cnn but you are quickly becoming one of my favorites...
clearthinker-give it a rest...everyone is not as logical as you..most voters are really quite "simple" and campbell-brown will reach most women voters on that "SIMPLE" level..only republican women want this sham of a woman shielded...hillary clinton is about to have an aneurism over this i bet...she cried wolf a few times, but no one can deny that she had some real sexist charges against her...sarah palin on the other hand is using sexism as a shield to avoid being vetted for a very important position..neither hillary, obama, biden nor mccain had that luxury even though they all have more experience than palin...we are just supposed to accept her and ask no questions....the media is a joke...they continue to cover her and mccain...
this election has been a joke from primaries to now....may it all end on a positive note..
obama/biden 08
September 24, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes you think SP is thinking of taking the veil.
September 24, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no need to make sexism charges in order to call on the McCain campaign to allow her to talk to the press. Her gender is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that she is a major party VP candidate, potential president, and no one can ask her questions. That should provoke outrage.
The sexism charge only muddies the water.
September 24, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
To those, like a poster of another thread on this same topic, who think this might actually help the McCain-Palin campaign:
I decidedly disagree.
She is decidedly not doing them any favors.
One, Brown is explicitly calling them out as sexists, sure to raise the ire of women already suspicious of Palin and raise the eyebrows of those already supporting her. Yes, I believe something like this serves as a wakeup call to a lot of women (heck - men, too) entranced by Palin's potential to make history.
Two, it forces the McCain campaign into a corner. Either they continue to "protect" Palin and invite more and more media scrutiny about that fact alone; or they give the media the access to Palin they're requesting (and merit), and are seen as reactive at best.
Three, it only makes the potential scrutiny of whatever Palin eventually says even greater.
Despite the fact that Brown is married to a Republican, I don't think she's some tool of the party. Overall, I think she's fair, and even in calling out the McCain campaign for this, she maintains that fairness. Plus, she knows that this had to come from her. If Chris Matthews said this, it would be regarded as a hypocritical joke. If Rachel Maddow said it, it would be pigeonholed as more partisan rhetoric. If Olbermann said it...yikes. Coming from CNN, the only cable news network that can be seen as anything resembling objective in this race, Brown aired what surely a lot of people are thinking.
Hopefully, Brown's rant will be important in this news cycle. It's up to us to spread this around to friends, family and colleagues - particularly those who actually buy into the McCain line that even asking Palin questions is somehow unfair.
Yes, it has to do with the fact that she is not qualified for the job and the McCain campaign seeks to hide this from America until after they're elected. No, it's not solely for that reason.
If you think that that fact that Palin is female has nothing to do with why McCain is protecting her in this way, you're out of your mind. There's no way on this earth that this happens to a male candidate in the same position. We know that for a fact - look at Dan Quayle. We have a precedent for incompetent, media-unfriendly VP candidates. What we're seeing here is utterly without precedent.
September 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis. Simply think of other women political leaders around the world. Sequestration is not a sign of leadership!
September 24, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this case, I find the Quayle analogy not accurate: the news media was quite different in 1988, no cable (to speak of) let alone Internet!
Moreover, Dan Quayle was a US Senator for a number of years from an older state who was more use to interviews, especially at the national level.
September 24, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
All true, but I didn't say it was the sole reason for her sequestering. Her gender is a factor. Just look at the reaction to the "lipstick on a pig" comment. From the day they announced her, they've used words like "deference" in reference to her, and been overt about her gender in an effort to court female voters.
But you have to look at who these people are. These are people who:
-- feel that a bunch of old White men on Capitol Hill are better suited to make decisions about a woman's body than she is
-- feel that equal pay for equal work is not a priority
-- selected a VP candidate who is unqualified strictly for the cynical belief that she'll woo disaffected Hillary Clinton voters to their side.
And you think they're antiquated treatment of Palin has nothing to do with gender?
September 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin was obviously chosen for gender.
But that's not the point of this thread. Campbell Brown was arguing that Palin is being sequestered for gender-reasons.
We know the real reasons: she isn't good at having a press conference. Possible reasons:
a) doesn't have command of the facts
b) isn't quick on her feet
c) inexperience going against the "best" of the press corp
d) isn't bright
I would tend to rule out (d) because being skilled enough to get elected in a state without a huge entourage of advisors shows a high degree of intelligence.
I would suspect (a) is the real reason -- and I think we all do. But that doesn't have anything to do with gender, right?
September 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also add that the sequestering is crucial for the GOP Plot line.
I really think that Matt Damon had it right. Since the GOP cannot win on issues, they were trying to win a personality contest.
Only they could not let Sarah's real personality show through. The character they gave her was the Disney version. Tough hockey mom makes her way up the ladder...
That is why shutting down troopergate was essential. Mean, vindictive and prone to cronyism does not fit the character of the movie.
Remember the look of death she gave Charlie Gibson when he asked the Bush Doctrine question? (and that was the restricted interview)
They can't risk her answering tough questions on the fly. They are afraid they she will be more hot headed than McCain. It would totally break the character spell.
September 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One day they will release the uncut version...
September 24, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The special features would be great, wouldn't they? :)
September 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes... special features! God help us!
September 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I asked:
Here's what you said in direct response:
That's not what I was asking, was I?
I was talking about the sequestering, not the reasons she was chosen.
Oh, and Quayle, per Sullivan, gave a presser one day after he was announced. It's been 27 for Palin, who is quite obviously smarter than Quayle was.
Yes, part of the reason is because she doesn't have command of the facts. But to ignore gender in considering this is to be obtuse.
September 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh, Scientific... if you are going to quote me, how about in a more rational way?
I said:
So I am answering your question. They aren't sequestering her because she is a woman, they are sequestering her because they are concerned she won't come off well (it's a brain thing, not a gender thing).
September 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm glad that your point is proven true merely because you say that it is. You've offered absolutely no evidence to back up your theory. While mine is, yes, a theory as well, it's certainly is based more upon precedent - precedent I've cited (Quayle). You just seem to hope it's not true that gender is a factor because, well, you hope it's not true.
Agree to disagree.
September 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen evidence on why gender would be a factor for the sequestering itself. Why would be gained from that?
See, Genghis's comment above. While McCain might be able to get away with sequestering because Palin in female, that doesn't suggest he is doing it because she is female.
And as far as the Quayle precedent, I was under the impression you agreed with me that it's not really the same thing.
September 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see Genghis' point, which is a great one. Thanks for pointing that out. I see now where you're coming from.
September 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love moving beyond "agreeing to disagree"! Thanks for hanging in there with me.
September 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on how far back you want to trace the causation.
September 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew someone would bring this up! ;-)
September 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, seems to me the McCain campaign was the one that threw down the "sexist" gauntlet. Brown did well to point out the irony.
The one thing she didn't do was point out that McCain hasn't given any press conferences either.
Perhaps the story should be that the GOP is afraid of the press and afraid of the people.
It's a pattern they've had since at least 2000 when Bush wasn't expected to speak in front of anything but friendly crowds. It's AFT the press pointed this out.
What are they afraid of, exactly?
September 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Campbell got her job because the other Candidates for a slot at 8 on CNN were deemed too "Old" or "plain" looking. She is complete fluff and is an embarrassment. She should just shut up.
As well, can someone tell me why the press has a "right" to have questions answered? Think not.
September 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its called "free press" Louisville. And if they were doing their jobs for the past 8 years, instead of reporting as fact everything they were spoon fed from the White House Press Office, we would not be in the mess we are in now.
We know nothing about this person who is to be a heartbeat away from the presidency if McCain wins...
I think it would help the American people make an informed decision if she made herself available like every other candidate.
I think the media is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. We have finally started to rake the press over the coals for not informing the public. Now they are finally trying to do just that and are frustrated by the blackout - and they are sexist?
The Press Does Have The Right to have their questions answered, because they are the ones who inform us. You know, we the people, the ones who vote?
September 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they have no right to have their questions answered. Where did you get that? They have a right to report but other than that...where do you get to have a random question answered by a member of the press? My first Admendment reads different than yours.
September 24, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok I'll rephrase...The press has a Right To Ask Questions
If you want to be the VP of the united states. better be prepared for the job interview. The potential boss (US, or in this case, the press on our behalf) has the right to ask any question we deem necessary to make an informed decision on whether to give you the job. Period. End of story.
September 24, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am tired of the people that make up the "WE" of the press corps....
September 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am tired of the people that make up the "WE" of the press corps....
September 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's "not plain-looking" (ergo, pretty) and should just "shut up". Um...
September 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read. I said that she got the job because the other Candidates were "plain" and "older" than she is. And, yes, she belongs on fox news.
September 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so why does Lou Dobbs still have a place on the network? And why is Larry King one of their most popular shows?
Your argument against her rant is that she's pretty and that she was basically hired because all the other candidates were male and less attractive. Oh, and that the only place good-looking female anchors should work is Fox News.
Glad you cleared that up. Want another shovel to keep digging that hole?
Disagree with her on the merits or demerits of her argument. Campbell Brown's looks have nothing to do with what she said.
September 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!! Scientific! (in a secular way of course) :)
Louisville - are you trying to prove Rush Limbaugh right? He says all feminists are ugly and hate pretty women based on their appearance.
So tell me, is Campbell Brown not talented? Does she not read the prompter sucessfully? Does she not interview well and call people out on their obvious lies? I hate to tell you this, but she does all of the above and very well from the limited times I have seen her work.
Don't you think it is more likely that she does her job well? As a feminist you should be applauding, not deriding Campbell Brown.
You give real feminists a bad name.
September 24, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is pitiful. Plain and simple. Nothing to aruge about. 8 pm has been designated as the Female slot for a CNN anchor. Surely there is someone more noteworthy out there that could do the job and give us a high level of ability and integrity. She isn't it. Sorry.
September 24, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry didn't specify for you. The other Candidates were female and not as...attractive on camera as she is. Come on...its not arguable. If she was Andrea Mitchell she wouldn't even be allowed on the View.
September 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your shovel must be worn to a nub.
September 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you on drugs? What world do you live in. Please come back to earth. Campbell Brown is on TV cause she looks good. END OF STORY. THE Boys in the backroom of CNN put her out there cause they know that Misogynists like you need to see a pretty face on a woman or they won't watch. Plain enough?
September 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"good looking anchors on FoX"?
Are you kidding? Get your eyes checked. They all look like vapid crack whores and speed freaks.
September 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you have something against vapid crack whores and speed freaks?
September 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"An informed electorate is the cornerstone of democracy." ___ Woodrow Wilson.
We the people have the RIGHT to have our questions of our potential EMPLOYEES answered, and the media is our proxy for ASKING our questions AND GETTING THE ANSWERS.
September 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the press has a right to ask questions b/c the average joe doesnt have access to these people who are running for high office...
when the press was grilling obama and hillary, i am sure you were sitting there going--ASK MORE QUESTIONS...ASK MORE QUESTIONS...
this lightweight doesnt even know what the vp position entails..until recently hadn't met one world leader...has a total disregard for living creatures, killing wildlife for sport...preaches one thing, but clearly practices another on every issue..is going for the number 2 slot, which is scary considering the number 1 guy is very old, sickly and senile and may die at any moment....palin needs vetting period!!! the stories about her kids and her lying about mothering a sick child are personal, but evaluating her readiness to jump in and serve as CIC should mccain kick the bucket is not sexist, it is prudent!!!!
September 24, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually no, I wasn't asking them to ask more questions. With 99% of so called journalists out there less is more. Hell, look at the sad state that Carl Bernstein has dropped to. A commentator on CNN?
The "Press" has lost its viability long ago.
September 24, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, they should be asking fewer questions of the people who could one day be the leaders of the free world? Are you high? Who cares if you think the press still functions properly - someone has to ask these questions.
And what the hell does Carl Bernstein have to do with this?
September 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
High? I wish..but no. Hey, consider the questioning I've seen on countless debates over the past TWO YEARS....Current reporters don't even know how to frame the question much less ask one with content.
The sort of pomposity that she displays time and again is no different than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill Bennet. It is no different than that idiot Keith Olberman. If they would only take the time and investigate issues and then report on them...THEN ask questions and complain I would get it...but that isn't how it goes....
Hey, Carl used to be a great reporter and asked many many MANY questions..but those days are gone. He is more interested in his pocketbook now..Ditto for Bobby Woodward..
September 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - go ahead, call me a sexist-----
Sara Palin is stupid and vacuous. She the poster child of Bimbos. Her foreign policy experience is considerable and was formed from adolescence to recently move her to support the "Global War Against Witches" across Alaska all the way to Africa.
McCain's comment on equal pay was prescient in Palin's case. She needs more education and training!!! But even with, she will never rise above being a confused personality on the "L Word".
September 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
sexist
September 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is pure sexism that ALLOWS the McCain camp to claim that their vice presidential candidate is due "deference", and that she shouldn't have to answer anybody's questions - simply because she's a she.
Palin's nomination is simply a continuation of Bush's policy of putting incompetent women & minorities in positions of power, in order to further the Republican justification for keepingp power in the hands of white men. He could have found some competent Hispanics and black people, but instead he chose to put the likes of Alberto Gonzales and Condoliza Rice (for example) in positions, far over their respective heads, in order to further the conservative stereotypes of Hispanics, blacks and women, embodied in these two failures. And, McCain could have chosen a competent, knowledgeable woman for his running mate, if he cared one whit about this country. Instead, he cynically made the most ludicrous choice imaginable, knowing full well that Sarah Palin's ignorance and intolerance would set the women's cause back, for years to come.
Hillary's candidacy and viability scared the tar out of many misogynists in public & private life. Obama's candidacy also strikes fear in the hearts of white males - but at least Obama is a MAN (and, he IS half white....).
September 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a stunt, completely coordinated and approved by Campbell's editorial bosses, complete with "Free Sarah Palin" onscreen Photoshopped graphic. Since when did CNN have editorials on air by anyone other than Lou Dobbs or Jack Cafferty? They want access, that's what this is about, and the minute they get it Campbell's "righteous rants" will disappear.
September 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is Sen. McCain's praetorian guard going to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin'? Miss Palin' is an energy expert and this nation is in the midst of an energy crisis, for criminy sakes!
September 24, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Palin's nomination is simply a continuation of Bush's policy of putting incompetent women & minorities in positions of power, in order to further the Republican justification for keepingp power in the hands of white men. He could have found some competent Hispanics and black people, but instead he chose to put the likes of Alberto Gonzales and Condoliza Rice (for example) in positions, far over their respective heads, in order to further the conservative stereotypes of Hispanics, blacks and women, embodied in these two failures. And, McCain could have chosen a competent, knowledgeable woman for his running mate, if he cared one whit about this country. Instead, he cynically made the most ludicrous choice imaginable, knowing full well that Sarah Palin's ignorance and intolerance would set the women's cause back, for years to come.
Hillary's candidacy and viability scared the tar out of many misogynists in public & private life. Obama's candidacy also strikes fear in the hearts of white males - but at least Obama is a MAN (and, he IS half white....)."
judyinnm,
So minorities are automatically incompetent? Comparing Secretary Rice's qualifications to those of the former Attorney General tells me that apparently we brown-skinned types all look alike to you. So Hillary speaks fluent Russian and was a professor at Stanford? As I recall, she claimed some rather dubious foreign policy qualifications as a consequence of her position as First Lady. Let's be honest about her experience: Hillary Clinton would never have been elected to her safe senate seat or attempted a run for the presidency had she not first been married to Bill Clinton. Like it or not, Hillary gained some of her bona fides by spending at least part of her time flat on her back. Racist beyotch.
September 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take this kinda rant from any quarter. But as far as Campbell Brown is concerned, I have trouble getting past the whole married to Dan "Coalition Provisional Authority" Senor thang.
That's just me.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
September 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink