<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sarah Palin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/</link>
	<description>History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:56:54 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A tale of two Senators : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-198102</link>
		<dc:creator>A tale of two Senators : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-198102</guid>
		<description>[...] on leap-frogging up the seniority ladder, aren&#8217;t you?  Christ on a cracker, people:  now will you believe me about Sarah Palin?  Because Senator G went to Dartmouth, has a law degree from UCLA, and learned Chinese as a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on leap-frogging up the seniority ladder, aren&#8217;t you?  Christ on a cracker, people:  now will you believe me about Sarah Palin?  Because Senator G went to Dartmouth, has a law degree from UCLA, and learned Chinese as a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Historiann</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71363</link>
		<dc:creator>Historiann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71363</guid>
		<description>Oh--OK.  Sorry for the misunderstanding, ej.  But it&#039;s one of the only ones, along with Corrente (which talks about the issue but most commenters strongly condemn that it&#039;s an issue at all.)  I like Shakesville, which is defending the Palin family&#039;s right to privacy while decrying Sarah Palin&#039;s politics.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh&#8211;OK.  Sorry for the misunderstanding, ej.  But it&#8217;s one of the only ones, along with Corrente (which talks about the issue but most commenters strongly condemn that it&#8217;s an issue at all.)  I like Shakesville, which is defending the Palin family&#8217;s right to privacy while decrying Sarah Palin&#8217;s politics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ej</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71359</link>
		<dc:creator>ej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71359</guid>
		<description>Historiann, I don&#039;t think the position of Jeralyn at Talk Left is bad at all-merely citing that as one example of a liberal blog that isn&#039;t participating in the personal smear, but trying to focus on policy. Which I applaud!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Historiann, I don&#8217;t think the position of Jeralyn at Talk Left is bad at all-merely citing that as one example of a liberal blog that isn&#8217;t participating in the personal smear, but trying to focus on policy. Which I applaud!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Historiann</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71295</link>
		<dc:creator>Historiann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71295</guid>
		<description>Shinhao Li--a very astute analysis.  McCain is the candidate that no particular faction of the Republican party had any love for, but the party backed into nominating him anyway.  I think the Palin nomination is best explained by his need to get the evangelicals on his side--the Western governor, moose-hunting, &quot;maverick&quot; reformer stuff is all a bonus.  One thing I actually admire about the Bush/Cheney political operation is that they actually care about their base and pander to it--whereas huge swaths of the Democratic party are regularly dissed by their nominees!  (And, as someone who has spent a lot of time in N.H., I have to say that McCain is a tailor-made candidate for that state.  But, there were a LOT of Ron Paul signs there last year and this year!)

ej:  I respect Jeralyn&#039;s decision at TalkLeft to forbid discussion of Palin&#039;s private life, and I wish more blogs would follow her lead.  I don&#039;t get why you think that&#039;s bad.  However, she clearly thinks that Palin&#039;s candidacy is a joke, whereas the other major contributor, Big Tent Democrat, agrees with me as to how to approach Palin, and ze&#039;s been critical of the panty-sniffing slut-shaming all along...

Once again, we see the happy accident that the Palin nomination not only makes a key element of the Republican base happy, but it sets Democrats at each other&#039;s throats!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shinhao Li&#8211;a very astute analysis.  McCain is the candidate that no particular faction of the Republican party had any love for, but the party backed into nominating him anyway.  I think the Palin nomination is best explained by his need to get the evangelicals on his side&#8211;the Western governor, moose-hunting, &#8220;maverick&#8221; reformer stuff is all a bonus.  One thing I actually admire about the Bush/Cheney political operation is that they actually care about their base and pander to it&#8211;whereas huge swaths of the Democratic party are regularly dissed by their nominees!  (And, as someone who has spent a lot of time in N.H., I have to say that McCain is a tailor-made candidate for that state.  But, there were a LOT of Ron Paul signs there last year and this year!)</p>
<p>ej:  I respect Jeralyn&#8217;s decision at TalkLeft to forbid discussion of Palin&#8217;s private life, and I wish more blogs would follow her lead.  I don&#8217;t get why you think that&#8217;s bad.  However, she clearly thinks that Palin&#8217;s candidacy is a joke, whereas the other major contributor, Big Tent Democrat, agrees with me as to how to approach Palin, and ze&#8217;s been critical of the panty-sniffing slut-shaming all along&#8230;</p>
<p>Once again, we see the happy accident that the Palin nomination not only makes a key element of the Republican base happy, but it sets Democrats at each other&#8217;s throats!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shinhao Li</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71273</link>
		<dc:creator>Shinhao Li</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71273</guid>
		<description>Historiann:

I don&#039;t mean to triangulate between you and ej, but yes, your points exactly.

The question of how to vote is an interesting one, because your counterparts on the right, the hard-right social conservatives, have the same problem of being ignored by the Republican party.

I say this with no pleasure, but the Religious Right, despite no where else to go, remains a powerful force in the conservative movement. Not overwhelming, but at least relevant. How? Recall the Bush 2000 campaign - he didn&#039;t pay much attention to the religious base at all. They didn&#039;t turn out, and (let&#039;s not get into details) barely, somehow, won. He and Karl Rove didn&#039;t forget that. Contrast that with Bush 2004. Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage! Outrageous, IMHO. 2004, he won, and not by a little. 

McCain, by sheer dumb luck, won the primary this year. He first won in NH, where he&#039;s always been strong. (My grandmother lives there, and calls him John. &lt;i&gt;&quot;John&#039;s coming this weekend to speak at the library.&quot;&lt;/i&gt; Go figure.) He won in a field of five in South Carolina. Dumb luck. By virtue of winning two in a row, he became the front-runner from a field of lookalikes, and won Super Tuesday. 

I was happy, but the religious base wasn&#039;t. They didn&#039;t give him money, didn&#039;t volunteer for his rallies, didn&#039;t show support in any way. His approval among conservatives was 60~70%. He knew he had to do something, and he picked Palin. Witness the roar. 7 million USD in donations.

Somehow, the Religious Right has been able to punish the Republican party without seriously hurting them. Nobody is stupid, and bluffs don&#039;t work. They weren&#039;t bluffing, they were actually willing to let Gore-Lieberman win. It was a near-death experience for the Bush team, and they never forgot it.

BTW, I find your sex(gender?)-neutral personal pronouns interesting, I never seen those before. In what fields are they commonly used, if any?

Ej:

Fair enough - a more fact-based, less-sensational media - I&#039;ll drink to that!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Historiann:</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t mean to triangulate between you and ej, but yes, your points exactly.</p>
<p>The question of how to vote is an interesting one, because your counterparts on the right, the hard-right social conservatives, have the same problem of being ignored by the Republican party.</p>
<p>I say this with no pleasure, but the Religious Right, despite no where else to go, remains a powerful force in the conservative movement. Not overwhelming, but at least relevant. How? Recall the Bush 2000 campaign &#8211; he didn&#8217;t pay much attention to the religious base at all. They didn&#8217;t turn out, and (let&#8217;s not get into details) barely, somehow, won. He and Karl Rove didn&#8217;t forget that. Contrast that with Bush 2004. Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage! Outrageous, IMHO. 2004, he won, and not by a little. </p>
<p>McCain, by sheer dumb luck, won the primary this year. He first won in NH, where he&#8217;s always been strong. (My grandmother lives there, and calls him John. <i>&#8220;John&#8217;s coming this weekend to speak at the library.&#8221;</i> Go figure.) He won in a field of five in South Carolina. Dumb luck. By virtue of winning two in a row, he became the front-runner from a field of lookalikes, and won Super Tuesday. </p>
<p>I was happy, but the religious base wasn&#8217;t. They didn&#8217;t give him money, didn&#8217;t volunteer for his rallies, didn&#8217;t show support in any way. His approval among conservatives was 60~70%. He knew he had to do something, and he picked Palin. Witness the roar. 7 million USD in donations.</p>
<p>Somehow, the Religious Right has been able to punish the Republican party without seriously hurting them. Nobody is stupid, and bluffs don&#8217;t work. They weren&#8217;t bluffing, they were actually willing to let Gore-Lieberman win. It was a near-death experience for the Bush team, and they never forgot it.</p>
<p>BTW, I find your sex(gender?)-neutral personal pronouns interesting, I never seen those before. In what fields are they commonly used, if any?</p>
<p>Ej:</p>
<p>Fair enough &#8211; a more fact-based, less-sensational media &#8211; I&#8217;ll drink to that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ej</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71068</link>
		<dc:creator>ej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71068</guid>
		<description>Shinhao Li, I think one thing that we can probably agree on is that the McCain campaign has accomplished most of what it hoped to accomplish with the Palin pick. A big bump among religious conservatives, stealing the thunder from the Dems post-convention, and, perhaps most importantly, attracting the media&#039;s attention, if not obsession, to irrelevant issues. I think you and I would both prefer to hear the candidates talk about policies, rather than personal lives. I also think that in the era of the blog, the line between media and supporters has become extremely blurred, and whether or not such outlets write with the approval of the campaign is even more murky.

I guess its up to us to muddle through...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shinhao Li, I think one thing that we can probably agree on is that the McCain campaign has accomplished most of what it hoped to accomplish with the Palin pick. A big bump among religious conservatives, stealing the thunder from the Dems post-convention, and, perhaps most importantly, attracting the media&#8217;s attention, if not obsession, to irrelevant issues. I think you and I would both prefer to hear the candidates talk about policies, rather than personal lives. I also think that in the era of the blog, the line between media and supporters has become extremely blurred, and whether or not such outlets write with the approval of the campaign is even more murky.</p>
<p>I guess its up to us to muddle through&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shinhao Li</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71059</link>
		<dc:creator>Shinhao Li</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71059</guid>
		<description>Ej:

Well, this is a tough topic to broach, since we are obviously on different sides. I am confusing the media, the Obama campaign, and Obama supporters to some degree, I admit. 

Let me put it this way. I perceive a liberal media bias, although the media can certainly unfairly portray Democrats. The Clinton sex scandals, for example, where the media and the Republicans were both atrocious. But when even Bill Maher is embarrassed by the media coverage of Obama, that is saying something.

As I state previously, I believe this media coverage affects the way the Obama campaign acts. And I believe this encourages this juvenile/arrogant behavior, for the reasons stated previously.

And certainly, some of Obama&#039;s supporters, taking their cue from the media and the campaign, have proceeded to attack Clinton and now McCain/Palin with wanton abandon. I apologize if I had previously implied or given the impression that I meant all Obama supporters.

The three elements (media, campaign, supporters) are linked and I am criticizing the behavior of all three. The only reason I am expending energy criticizing them is because I am seeking to explain the strategy behind the Palin pick as I see it. This is an academic endeavor for me - I&#039;m not looking for converts here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ej:</p>
<p>Well, this is a tough topic to broach, since we are obviously on different sides. I am confusing the media, the Obama campaign, and Obama supporters to some degree, I admit. </p>
<p>Let me put it this way. I perceive a liberal media bias, although the media can certainly unfairly portray Democrats. The Clinton sex scandals, for example, where the media and the Republicans were both atrocious. But when even Bill Maher is embarrassed by the media coverage of Obama, that is saying something.</p>
<p>As I state previously, I believe this media coverage affects the way the Obama campaign acts. And I believe this encourages this juvenile/arrogant behavior, for the reasons stated previously.</p>
<p>And certainly, some of Obama&#8217;s supporters, taking their cue from the media and the campaign, have proceeded to attack Clinton and now McCain/Palin with wanton abandon. I apologize if I had previously implied or given the impression that I meant all Obama supporters.</p>
<p>The three elements (media, campaign, supporters) are linked and I am criticizing the behavior of all three. The only reason I am expending energy criticizing them is because I am seeking to explain the strategy behind the Palin pick as I see it. This is an academic endeavor for me &#8211; I&#8217;m not looking for converts here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ej</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71053</link>
		<dc:creator>ej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71053</guid>
		<description>I am well aware that some liberal blogs are behaving badly, but my point is that many aren&#039;t (see Talk Left, which forbids any discussion of Palin&#039;s personal life) and more importantly, the Obama campaign has been firmly against any discussion of these matters. I totally agree with you that sexist and personal attacks have no place in a political campaign, especially as a Democrat, whose party has been the target of them for so long. All I&#039;m trying to do is encourage more careful language. Not all democrats are involved, and the whole party cannot control or be held responsible for what some blogs are saying. And phrases like &quot;liberal media&quot; suggest a uniformity of behavior that isn&#039;t deserved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am well aware that some liberal blogs are behaving badly, but my point is that many aren&#8217;t (see Talk Left, which forbids any discussion of Palin&#8217;s personal life) and more importantly, the Obama campaign has been firmly against any discussion of these matters. I totally agree with you that sexist and personal attacks have no place in a political campaign, especially as a Democrat, whose party has been the target of them for so long. All I&#8217;m trying to do is encourage more careful language. Not all democrats are involved, and the whole party cannot control or be held responsible for what some blogs are saying. And phrases like &#8220;liberal media&#8221; suggest a uniformity of behavior that isn&#8217;t deserved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Historiann</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-71043</link>
		<dc:creator>Historiann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-71043</guid>
		<description>ej, many Obama supporters have been consistently &quot;juvenille and arrogant,&quot; and many of them appear to be determined to remain so, given the obnoxious attacks on Sarah Palin and her family.  (Have you read Americablog, Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos lately?  Please consider what you would think if there were a liberal democratic woman and her family under this kind of attack by right-wing blogs.)

Like it or not, this behavior affects the way people see the candidate.  (Remember how most of us on the left reacted to the knee-jerk jingoism, chest-thumping, and triumphalilsm of Bush partisans back in 2002-03, when our splendid little wars looked like they were going well?)  Many people--some of them lifelong Dems who have been active in the party--are really stunned and don&#039;t know how they&#039;ll vote yet, because they don&#039;t want to be affiliated with jerks and they don&#039;t want to reward jerky behavior.

And, the SCLM aren&#039;t liberal, although the cheerleading for Obama by everyone over at MiSogNyBC has been undeniable (by everyone but Joe Scarborough).

Hubris is an attitude Dems should steer clear of.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ej, many Obama supporters have been consistently &#8220;juvenille and arrogant,&#8221; and many of them appear to be determined to remain so, given the obnoxious attacks on Sarah Palin and her family.  (Have you read Americablog, Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos lately?  Please consider what you would think if there were a liberal democratic woman and her family under this kind of attack by right-wing blogs.)</p>
<p>Like it or not, this behavior affects the way people see the candidate.  (Remember how most of us on the left reacted to the knee-jerk jingoism, chest-thumping, and triumphalilsm of Bush partisans back in 2002-03, when our splendid little wars looked like they were going well?)  Many people&#8211;some of them lifelong Dems who have been active in the party&#8211;are really stunned and don&#8217;t know how they&#8217;ll vote yet, because they don&#8217;t want to be affiliated with jerks and they don&#8217;t want to reward jerky behavior.</p>
<p>And, the SCLM aren&#8217;t liberal, although the cheerleading for Obama by everyone over at MiSogNyBC has been undeniable (by everyone but Joe Scarborough).</p>
<p>Hubris is an attitude Dems should steer clear of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ej</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin/comment-page-2/#comment-70833</link>
		<dc:creator>ej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=727#comment-70833</guid>
		<description>I guess I took offense to hearing the Obama campaign, and by implication their supporters, as &quot;simultaneously juvenile and arrogant.&quot; Plus even if the media is the target here, the implication is that they are in bed with the Obama campaign. When the two are conflated, the accusations can be read as offensive.

There have actually recently been some studies done about the Media&#039;s treatment of both candidates-the one at George Mason comes to mind. Not surprisingly, Obama has received a disproportionate share of the coverage. Perhaps surprisingly, an equally large percentage has been negative.

I think if you read anything from the campaign (which cannot be automatically conflated with the &quot;liberal media&#039;) you will see a lot of complaints about their treatment in the media. I don&#039;t think they consider them their friends, but rather much more critical of Obama than then are of McCain.

Perhaps my key point here is that the media generally described, including liberal blogs, is not the same as the campaign. The campaign often takes very different positions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I took offense to hearing the Obama campaign, and by implication their supporters, as &#8220;simultaneously juvenile and arrogant.&#8221; Plus even if the media is the target here, the implication is that they are in bed with the Obama campaign. When the two are conflated, the accusations can be read as offensive.</p>
<p>There have actually recently been some studies done about the Media&#8217;s treatment of both candidates-the one at George Mason comes to mind. Not surprisingly, Obama has received a disproportionate share of the coverage. Perhaps surprisingly, an equally large percentage has been negative.</p>
<p>I think if you read anything from the campaign (which cannot be automatically conflated with the &#8220;liberal media&#8217;) you will see a lot of complaints about their treatment in the media. I don&#8217;t think they consider them their friends, but rather much more critical of Obama than then are of McCain.</p>
<p>Perhaps my key point here is that the media generally described, including liberal blogs, is not the same as the campaign. The campaign often takes very different positions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
