World Politics

[redtreviso]

I thought the NY Times was "liberal media?"

You'd think the "liberal media" would be all over her flip flopping against her own..and the freepers and worldnutdailies would be trying to defend..I didn't see it mentioned anywhere today at all.. Could it finally be that her 15 minutes is indeed up?? A black basketball player too far?

 

[gregod]

That is a real stretch. Palin almost holds Ku Klux Klan rallies..There's no way Bill Clinton is just the opposing version of this..This is why people who ought to know better say "might as well vote republican because everyone else round har duz"

it isn't such a stretch. you are confusing substance with style. the point was that both of them inspire people. what they inspire in people is what causes the polarization.

as for "ku klux klan" rallies; this kind of hyperbole is unproductive. it is no different than claims that obama is a "commie, america-hating, kenyan, muslim, etc."

 

[gregod]

You'd think the "liberal media" would be all over her flip flopping against her own..and the freepers and worldnutdailies would be trying to defend..I didn't see it mentioned anywhere today at all.. Could it finally be that her 15 minutes is indeed up?? A black basketball player too far?

so what if she screwed a black basketball player, or a hundred? it is nobody's business.

 

[redtreviso]

it isn't such a stretch. you are confusing substance with style. the point was that both of them inspire people. what they inspire in people is what causes the polarization.

as for "ku klux klan" rallies; this kind of hyperbole is unproductive. it is no different than claims that obama is a "commie, america-hating, kenyan, muslim, etc."

pffffft

http://youtu.be/KjxzmaXAg9E

 

[gregod]

pffffft

http://youtu.be/KjxzmaXAg9E

that vid just proves my point.

 

[redtreviso]

that vid just proves my point.

There's no bill clinton fan videos that compare in the least.

 

[redtreviso]

so what if she screwed a black basketball player, or a hundred? it is nobody's business.

The Knights of Republican base might say otherwise..

 

[gregod]

There's no bill clinton fan videos that compare in the least.

maybe, maybe not. different era. but there are obama rally vids like that.

however, this is besides the point. both were inspirational leaders who were loathed by the opposition and the establishment. the merits of said loathing are irrelevent to the original question.

 

[redtreviso]

maybe, maybe not. different era. but there are obama rally vids like that.

however, this is besides the point. both were inspirational leaders who were loathed by the opposition and the establishment. the merits of said loathing are irrelevent to the original question.

no there aren't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_j2w4g1mck

 

[gregod]

no there aren't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_j2w4g1mck

then you are not looking. the daily show has featured many such instances.

 

[redtreviso]

then you are not looking. the daily show has featured many such instances.

When you see democrats looking like this let us know..

 

[rhubroma]

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

No, I still almost like you.

 

[rhubroma]

maybe, maybe not. different era. but there are obama rally vids like that.

however, this is besides the point. both were inspirational leaders who were loathed by the opposition and the establishment. the merits of said loathing are irrelevent to the original question.

While your point may be essentially true, Gregod, I have to say I think you do not consider the nature of the messages being announced, which, in this case, is rather important.

In addition, while not substantially different in maintaining a pro-business-liberal market ideology or military policy that was espoused by Reagan and Bush I (though such is simply the cold reality of the hopelessly compromised and rigged American two-party political system, as well as the behind the scenes powers of empire), Clinton was, at least, by all accounts, one of intelligence; however cynical, hypocritical and repulsive that intelligence may have been Gregod, I've thought.

By contrast, Palin is just quite dumb and alarmingly bigoted and certainly is no Clinton in terms of the image of America that she would cast upon the world if elected.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

it might be instructive to look at another leader who also caused heads to explode: bill clinton.

You're ignoring a few key differences:

First, they had an enormously different level of education. Palin attended six different colleges, some just community colleges, before finally getting a BA in communications from Idaho. Clinton was a summa cum laude Rhodes Scholar with a JD from Yale.

Next, Palin served just three years as governor of Alaska, that's it, before quitting mid-term. Clinton was AG of Arkansas, and served two separate terms as governor, totaling 12 years.

Finally, and I'm not really joking here, there's probably an IQ difference between them of about 30 points.

 

[rhubroma]

I thought the NY Times was "liberal media?"

By US standards, yes, but by the European standards it would be considered as no more than substantially in tune with the Economist, which is a pro-market, central right-wing magazine.

So not really.

 

[Maxiton]

You're ignoring a few key differences:

First, they had an enormously different level of education. Palin attended six different colleges, some just community colleges, before finally getting a BA in communications from Idaho. Clinton was a summa cum laude Rhodes Scholar with a JD from Yale.

Next, Palin served just three years as governor of Alaska, that's it, before quitting mid-term. Clinton was AG of Arkansas, and served two separate terms as governor, totaling 12 years.

Finally, and I'm not really joking here, there's probably an IQ difference between them of about 30 points.

I'm not about to get involved in this thread, but I couldn't pass this up having seen it. The IQ difference between Clinton and Palin could be 20-30 points, but it's very likely closer to 60 points. If she's 90-110 (she's almost certainly in that range, probably more towards 90) and he's 130-150 (also very likely) . . . .

 

[gregod]

While your point may be essentially true, Gregod, I have to say I think you do not consider the nature of the messages being announced, which, in this case, is rather important.

In addition, while not substantially different in maintaining a pro-business-liberal market ideology or military policy that was espoused by Reagan and Bush I (though such is simply the cold reality of the hopelessly compromised and rigged American two-party political system, as well as the behind the scenes powers of empire), Clinton was, at least, by all accounts, one of intelligence; however cynical, hypocritical and repulsive that intelligence may have been Gregod, I've thought.

By contrast, Palin is just quite dumb and alarmingly bigoted and certainly is no Clinton in terms of the image of America that she would cast upon the world if elected.

i agree that the nature of the messages is important. but that is not the point i was originally trying to make. i was addressing the question of the vitriol toward sarah palin by bringing up the vitriol that was directed at clinton. the substance of that vituperation is different, but no less passionate on either side. the right arm themselves because they lack ideas. the left use ideas that frighten the right. i'm not applying value judgements, although you can probably guess on which side i would be more comfortable. i am pointing out that the effect is the same. sarah palin draws equal measures of adoration and hate. so did bill clinton.

You're ignoring a few key differences:

First, they had an enormously different level of education. Palin attended six different colleges, some just community colleges, before finally getting a BA in communications from Idaho. Clinton was a summa cum laude Rhodes Scholar with a JD from Yale.

Next, Palin served just three years as governor of Alaska, that's it, before quitting mid-term. Clinton was AG of Arkansas, and served two separate terms as governor, totaling 12 years.

Finally, and I'm not really joking here, there's probably an IQ difference between them of about 30 points.

i know they are different. but, again, i was only using him as an example of someone who was inspirational to a large group of disaffected voters and was hated by both the opposite party and elements of his own party.

this is ancillary to the point that i originally was trying to make, but there is something very interesting about clinton and the matter of his intelligence. no doubt, given the credentials you listed, he is smart and hard-working. certain elements of american society dislike this and immediately scream, "elitist!". clinton with his good ol' boy schtick appealed to a large segment of that group. his accent, common touch, and other things gave him an air of anti-intellectual without the overt language used by people on the right.

this is an example of the "dog whistle" mentioned in a previous post. his credentials signalled to part of his supporters that he was a smart guy and therefore his appeal to the hoi-polloi was just an act.

 

[redtreviso]

this is an example of the "dog whistle" mentioned in a previous post. his credentials signalled to part of his supporters that he was a smart guy and therefore his appeal to the hoi-polloi was just an act.

dog whistling is most often racist and republican.."real americans" or "state's rights" (Reagan in Philadelphia Ms)The republican party went to the David Duke In A Suit school of public relations.. There is nothing close to equivalent in a Clinton or any other democrat..
The Blitzer question the other day about the guy that should DIE for lack of insurance was a perfect example..You see,, he couldn't possibly have asked them about the "inner city" woman from the housing project with a ruptured appendix. The same message came across though.

 

[gregod]

dog whistling is most often racist and republican.."real americans" or "state's rights" (Reagan in Philadelphia Ms)The republican party went to the David Duke In A Suit school of public relations.. There is nothing close to equivalent in a Clinton or any other democrat..
The Blitzer question the other day about the guy that should DIE for lack of insurance was a perfect example..You see,, he couldn't possibly have asked them about the "inner city" woman from the housing project with a ruptured appendix. The same message came across though.

perhaps i misused the term. i was trying to indicate that left has their coded speech, as well. furthermore many things said by the left often, like a "dog whistle" set off the right. i am not implying that they are equivalent, just that it exists.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

You're ignoring a few key differences:

First, they had an enormously different level of education. Palin attended six different colleges, some just community colleges, before finally getting a BA in communications from Idaho. Clinton was a summa cum laude Rhodes Scholar with a JD from Yale.

Next, Palin served just three years as governor of Alaska, that's it, before quitting mid-term. Clinton was AG of Arkansas, and served two separate terms as governor, totaling 12 years.

Finally, and I'm not really joking here, there's probably an IQ difference between them of about 30 points.

Clinton is the greatest politician I've ever witnessed. I have on good authority from someone who has worked with and around politicians for the last 40 years that his ability to work the room and make everyone feel special is unparalleled. He is also accutely politically intelligent, (It's the Economy, Stupid). Couple those with his academic gifts and that he was married to someone who was fiercely politically ambitious for the two of them, and you have the perfect political machine.

While the above looks like high praise, it depends on whether you equate the word 'politician' with something positive or not. Unfortunately I don't think his influence on the way politicians act now was positive, certainly not in the UK where Clinton had a massive influence on the way the ruling cabal within the Labour Party operated.

So to compare Palin and Clinton is perhaps a little unfair. But yes she has the same political intelligence that Clinton has/had. And one that Obama seems to be missing.

If any politician, can harness the groundswell of opinion that launched the Tea Party movement, without allowing it to be sucked into the Republican Political Machine, corporate self-interest or the Guns, Gays, and God lobby, they'll be unstoppable. It requires someone of political intelligence, academic intelligence doesn't come into it. Palin maybe? Personally I think Palin's brand is too damged to go too far with it herself but she could be a pathfinder for someone else.

 

[gregod]

...

While the above looks like high praise, it depends on whether you equate the word 'politician' with something positive or not. Unfortunately I don't think his influence on the way politicians act now was positive, certainly not in the UK where Clinton had a massive influence on the way the ruling cabal within the Labour Party operated.

...

truth. bLIAR distilled clintonian politics into its logical and most evil extreme. it was neither left, right or center. it was self-serving, craven and venal.

 

[redtreviso]

perhaps i misused the term. i was trying to indicate that left has their coded speech, as well. furthermore many things said by the left often, like a "dog whistle" set off the right. i am not implying that they are equivalent, just that it exists.

Yea but what doesn't set off the right? They try to take exception to every word, every paper clip..Dogwhistling on the right though is directly targeted, they know who they are speaking to and how to make them listen. They take the most direct, vulgar and bigoted dialog and then disguise it for the masses.
Hell.. Newt Gingrich put out a keyword list for Republicans to use. Dogwhistling is a republican institution.

 

[redtreviso]

so what if she screwed a black basketball player, or a hundred? it is nobody's business.

Word is...that it is ok because it was before she was born again..

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re. The New York Times. My "liberal media" comment was aimed at the fact that the (positive) Palin article first appeared there.

The IQ difference between Clinton and Palin could be 20-30 points, but it's very likely closer to 60 points.

I wanted to be conservative in my number, but now that you mention it...

I was addressing the question of the vitriol toward sarah palin by bringing up the vitriol that was directed at clinton.

In my previous post I only brought up their background leading to national recognition. But I think there's also another sharp difference between the two. While both do have certain populist appeal, I can't think of a single "liberal" who would vote for Palin. Even a (moderately) conservative such as George Will has stated she cannot ever be elected President because the independents of the country won't vote for her other than a scattered few. Clinton on the other hand was very well loved and admired, by the left, center, and several conservatives. Granted, there was indeed some 15% of the country that hated him no matter what he did, and many were very vocal about that. But I can't see Palin ever having the widespread, cross-section appeal that Clinton did. I just don't think she's that sage, nor savvy.

It's been said before that Clinton was a Democratic version of Reagan. Both were smarter than they appeared sometimes on the surface. Both were able to work a room like no other. Both knew when to compromise, and when not to. And both got quite a bit of their legislative ideas through Congress, even a Congress of the opposite party. Both also left office with very high approval ratings. There's also a lot of people who detested Reagan and what he stood for. Probably an equal 15%, some who are very vocal.

Clinton has also achieved much more in his life than I think Palin will ever come close to doing.

Yea but what doesn't set off the right?

Actually Red, there are plenty on the left that do this as well. What I would argue in your favor is that a larger percentage of the right, at least the Tea Party right, play upon this, and use it more frequently. That I would agree with.

Of course, to me the whole "left vs. right", "conservative vs. liberal" talk is just a bunch of nonsense. Buzzwords. Rubber terms stretched to mean whatever the user wants them to mean, most often as an undefined pejorative. It's unfortunate that this poorly divided ideology, has IMO, damaged the country severely.

 

[redtreviso]

Actually Red, there are plenty on the left that do this as well. What I would argue in your favor is that a larger percentage of the right, at least the Tea Party right, play upon this, and use it more frequently. That I would agree with.

Of course, to me the whole "left vs. right", "conservative vs. liberal" talk is just a bunch of nonsense. Buzzwords. Rubber terms stretched to mean whatever the user wants them to mean, most often as an undefined pejorative. It's unfortunate that this poorly divided ideology, has IMO, damaged the country severely.

oh please.. enough of your just 2 sides of a coin talk.. The Foxnews/Rush Limbaugh , right wing hate radio, Heritage, cato, etc go into hyper drive over anything..There is no liberal machine that even comes close to it..Rush starts the day's talking points and the freerepublic test the waters then Hannity and O'Really run with it..CNN MSNBC follow, then republican congressmen... It is so bad here that people who quite honestly do not listen to Rush or Hannity speak their exact words when giving THEIR opinion..