Thursday, March 05, 2009

The unbearable hotness of being Sarah 

Apparently a social science experiment purports to prove that Sarah Palin's manifest sex appeal in and of itself caused voters to rate her as less competent. This is not known to have been a burden for similarly situated male candidates. It is also ironic, insofar as the left's candidate may twice have benefited more from sexism than he suffered from racism, first in the media's treatment of Hillary and then in the reaction of both the media and the public to Sarah Palin.


By Blogger Christopher Chambers, at Thu Mar 05, 02:10:00 PM:

The manifest sex appeal of Sarah? I guess if I was a redneck in a doublewide, or in the Aryan nation on lockdown in cellblock B, or in my bunk at Camp Lejuene, she'd be my fantasy.

It appears from recent revelations that McCain and his staffers were too turned on by her either.

How about this interpretation: People didn't vote for the ticket because she's right wing & religious loon, hypocrite and perpetrated a bizarre Any Oakley, Christian Mom thing which most Americans in urban and suburban communities found disturbing. Taking the MILF image didn't trun off voters who already saw and heard the racist tools at her rallies, or the silly, unfounded attacks on Barack that weren't racial or Muslim-baiting. I think that's a reasonable alternative view, dont you? ;-)  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 02:12:00 PM:

How about this interpretation:
Chrissy Chambers is afraid of the truth.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 02:26:00 PM:

Pffttt. I dare say more folks ignored whether she was competent because of her alleged manifest sex appeal. Men are funny that way.  

By Blogger Charlottesvillain, at Thu Mar 05, 02:43:00 PM:

I'm with you Chris. I don't see it.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 02:59:00 PM:

"How about this interpretation: People didn't vote for the ticket because the mainstream media helped spread lies and rumors about Sarah Palin and tried to portray her as right wing & religious blah blah blah... The same media BTW covered up the truth about our socialist president - how he associates with fascist left-wing radicals, wants to shrink the private sector and grow the government and make us all dependent on the government (in other words Democrats). I think that's a reasonable alternative view, don't you? ;-)"  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 03:20:00 PM:

Thank you, anonymous, very well said.
Sounds like Chrissy has problems with women.
Mother complex?
Oh, and can't spell either.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 03:23:00 PM:

How about this interpretation, people voted for Obama because they are a crowd of morons, and easily swayed by socialist/marxist BS.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 03:23:00 PM:

I've never seen such rampant sexism and racism as I saw in the last election. I fault the news media, and I have a unique perspective on why their malfeasance was so common.

I believe they were looking to add subscribers and/or advertisers. I believe they turned to tabloid journalism to boost sagging sales, and supported the candidate (Obama) most likely to 1) drive sales and 2) serve their purposes in rescuing their business post-election.

I submit for analysis a casual review of Opinion pages from 20 years ago, contrasted to today. Then compare them to the National Enquirer over the same period.

Having said all that, Sarah Palin is amazingly attractive, very intelligent, and was simply not prepared for the media onslaught she received. Perhaps she should spend her every waking hour planning for a run for president, and do this for 27 months. She'd apparently do well.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Thu Mar 05, 03:41:00 PM:

I'll take a slightly different view. I think she helped McCain quite a bit. He was, however, a weak conservative who drew unenthusiastic support and turnout from the right, especially because the central campaign issue moved from the war (during the primaries) to the economy (during the general election). Obama, by contrast, had tremendous enthusiasm behind his historically unique candidacy (and therefore turnout) due to many factors - but the clincher for the centrist vote was his perceived superior competence on the economy and his finisse on the question of taxes. Had his current budget been a plank on his campaign ladder, I think he would lose. Who would vote for $1 trillion in tax increases during a recession? It's simply illogical.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 03:42:00 PM:

Sarah's cool.....she's real. Unlike Barky, who led a pampered life in private schools and he's still too dumb to realize that stateism/socialism/Marxism doesn't work. Gee, could it be cuz Barky never actually worked a real job in his life, nor has he ever owned a business in his life.

Go Sarah go!  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 03:46:00 PM:

Limp-wrists, aka, left-wing liberal Dems hate Sarah cuz among other things, limp-wrists are self-loathing and very often homosexuals and other feminized "men", who feel a little less than a full man, when a cool, hot, action-oriented, physical and accomplished woman like Sarah Palin comes onto the scene.

Can you say Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 05:09:00 PM:

From the actual article about the study: The study suggests that their confidence in her abilities may have decreased the more they focused on her looks — and thus, in feminist terms, objectified her.

The study included a predominance of females (97:37), from which one might induce that it's the women who are objectifying beauty...worrisome indeed.

it was a remarkable exercise in Intellectual Dishonesty to watch the BigMedia Attack Machine line up - lockstep - with the D'ohBama Attack machine to try to destroy this beautiful, smart, sassy, and incredibly accomplished woman. I'll just bet that any of you holding stocks in your potfolio or 401K are wishing you'd voted for teh EXPERIENCED candidates, now!!!  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 05:15:00 PM:


I mostly disagree with you. Your premise is that McCain lost because he didn't inspire the right.

McCain lost because Obama won the independent vote 52% to 44%, which was roughly in line with the overall outcome. I read that the ranks of the independents have grown, so that they now outnumber Republicans nationally.

Picking Palin should have satisfied the right ... and given McCain freer play to the middle. He didn't do this enough, and couldn't find a way to distance himself from Bush. The left turned Palin into a caricature -- unfairly -- which hurt with many independents.

If the Republicans let Rush be their public face, this same thing can happen again.

Karl Rove's strategy of relying on the base was only effective in 2000. Even as an incumbent Bush should have lost in 2004, except that Kerry was so inept a candidate.

If the Republicans keep thinking that "party purity" is the answer they'll be in the wilderness and we'll be stuck with Obama.

I'm the kind of voter that the Republicans need -- small "l" libertarian ... but they betrayed me for eight years. If Obama wasn't so bad, I'd be happy to stay home.

By the way, I'm actually a fan of Palin. But I think she should wait until a little further down the road to make a serious run. Reagan should be her model ... he was dismissed for years until the stars aligned.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 08:33:00 PM:

Sex appeal may have been an issue which swayed small percentages of voters one way or the other, but it's the ideology that made the difference here. Of course, the left (particularly women) saw her as a slap in the face to feminism and just about all they hold sacred. The right loved her. Independents represent a broad spectrum of political thought. Media persona and personal charisma were a strong motivating factor also. Obama had that; McCain looked unfocused after the economic turmoil started, Palin choked on the Katy Couric interview and came across looking goofy and stupid. She'll hopefully learn to prepare herself better next time. Gaffemaster Biden is much more subtle when he's wrong or talks too much, so people often let it slide. Obama looked so confident and compelling that nobody asked the vital questions they should have, so now we suffer the consequences of his inexperience and incompetence.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 05, 09:12:00 PM:

Not all women saw Palin as "a slap in the face of feminism." At least some of us, including professionally-trained career women, saw her as a triumph of feminism -- married, with children, a spouse who shares duties with home and family, and a governor to boot. For Pete's sake, how can anyone say that this woman doesn't "have it all."

Oh and yes, she's good-looking, and obviously gets laid on a regular basis. Which drove the femi-nazis nuts.

Palin is a natural politician. She was just launched too soon. Give her some time to get seasoned, and I think she could pull it off. Meanwhile, I'm happy to know that she's at least working on a real solution to our energy problem, while Bambi and his friends dream of windmills and solar panels and carbon taxes.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 12:25:00 AM:

My daughter was "too pretty to be smart" to many of her teachers. It happens to many girls. I asked one of our IT support team, who happens to be a very hot blond, if she had the same experience and she still does. Certain small minded people have a prejudice against beautiful people.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 01:52:00 AM:

Of course, the left (particularly women) saw her as a slap in the face to feminism and just about all they hold sacred.

Since the left's worldview assumes that all women are naturally and rightfully leftists, it's not surprising that they think a conservative woman a slap in the face.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Fri Mar 06, 02:57:00 AM:

As usual, Chrissy shits and runs away ... guess that makes him "Sissy Chrissy".  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Fri Mar 06, 03:00:00 AM:

By the way, have you noticed how obsessed Sissy Chrissy is with Sarah? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  

By Blogger cubanbob, at Fri Mar 06, 04:08:00 AM:

If the election were to be re held 60 days from now between Obama and Palin, she would win by a landslide.

If the election were to be re held 90 days from now between Rush and Obama, Rush by a landslide.

If the election were to be re held a year from now between Bozo the Clown and Obama a landslide of epic proportions for Bozo.

At this rate of incompetence and mendacity the republicans can take back the congress merely by breathing in two years time.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 06:42:00 AM:

To Cubanbob, I want you to be right, but it may not play that way.

Consensus is that 2009 will suck, but that we'll be out of the recession by 2010 ... just in time for the Stimulus Bill to goose things. Stocks may be still be down from when Obama came in, but Obama will claim that they're up from their lows and have momentum. Obama is still getting a pass from MSM and most of the populace. Democrats may not be in a bad position when we hit the mid-term elections.

If the rest of the world weren't in worse shape than us, this couldn't happen. It's propping up the dollar and helping keep rates low. When inflation starts, it will feel good ... at first.

Cubanbob, you won't be right unless we see a total near-term meltdown.

Most Americans wouldn't vote for Palin anytime soon -- she was unfairly made a caricature ... she needs a long-term make-over before she can be an effective national candidate. But she has a twenty year window. I bet she'll still be hot at 55.

Most Americans hate Rush -- myself included. Although I agree with Rush a lot ... the differences are key. Rush wants to be hateful and divisive ... he needs to be so to draw ratings. In the 1920s he'd be wearing a white hood and cloak and demonizing my immigrant parents. As a politician, for every dittohead he gathers, he loses two other voters. Why do you think Obama created the Rush controversy?

What's bad about Obamanomics is "opportunity cost." Things we should have done, but didn't. Real "dividend paying" investments we could have made with all those trillions, but didn't. The bill won't come until much later, but it will be a whopper. The young and the hard-working will pay a lot more than their fair share.

This isn't a fight about top ordinary rates going to 39% and capital gains going to 20% ... it's about the huge deficits that will hit in years after 2010. We'll have spent trillions ... maybe the last time the US can spend trillions with discretion ... and we'll have dick to show for it.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 06:46:00 AM:

In the 1920s he'd be wearing a white hood and cloak and demonizing my immigrant parents

That's just a smear. Rush doesn't dislike immmigrants, he dislikes (rightfully in my opinion) illegal immigrants.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 07:08:00 AM:

Ask a legal Hispanic what they think of Rush.

Bush won because he drew something like 40% of the Hispanic vote ... McCain got 31%. The Republicans can't be a national party by only drawing white voters. The numbers aren't there.

I stand by what I said. Rush is a modern-day "know nothing" and he hates people who aren't white. His audience knows it. If the Republican party kowtows to him, they may never win the White House again. Obama is counting on it.

On a personal note, I think Rush is a pill-popping pederast hypocrite ... but that's just me talking.


By Blogger TigerHawk, at Fri Mar 06, 07:25:00 AM:

I have not listened to Rush on the radio for more than 20 minutes in the aggregate, but I must admit that when I see him on television I find him unappealing. I do not like to argue the way he argues, and do not like my opinions represented the way he seems to represent them. Again, at least on television appearances. So I do not know whether Link is right about Rush not liking people who are not white, but it would not surprise me if people come away with that impression.

Link is also correct that the GOP cannot survive as the party of whites. It simply must find a formulation that defines great American values of the right in a way that resonates with a large percentage of non-whites. So far it has failed.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 06, 10:57:00 AM:

It simply must find a formulation that defines great American values of the right in a way that resonates with a large percentage of non-whites. So far it has failed.

Since the Democrats explicitly push for a racial spoils system, I don't see how the GOP can ever "resonate" with the people on whose behalf the Democrats are going to steal. The Democrats want to Balkanize this country, and since they control the education system, there's no way to resist this infection.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Sat Mar 07, 05:19:00 AM:


I'm no Rush fan but WTF is your evidence for that? Or are you just projecting? Nasty thing for me to say but don't dish it out if you can't take it.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Mar 07, 01:21:00 PM:

We know Rush was an oxycontin addict. I'm not blaming him for that ... but he's a hypocrite for coming down hard on the addictions of others, especially blacks. He could have done jail time, and should have ... if authorities had followed Rush's own edicts.

He was caught coming back from the Dominican Republic with a boat load of viagra, not in his name. The DR is well known for enabling sex tours, often with underage prostitutes. Maybe not a pederast, but I suspect so. Certainly a very ugly American. Would you leave a teenager with him for the weekend?

Rush is a reprehensible hateful guy and a world class hypocrite.

It's his right to have a radio show. To me, he's a less funny Howard Stern.

But I have misgivings about being associated with a political party that kowtows to a guy like this, and in effect has given him a veto right on its national candidates.

I don't think I'm alone. For every ditto head Rush attracts, he loses two other voters. As long as Rush is part of their public face the Republicans won't be a national party ... and Obama & Co will run riot.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?