Wow, so much coming out about Palin. Why is it we're learning about this now and not a few days ago?
From Newsweek:
"One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband." (That was campaign money.) Her family was described by one aide as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."
This is also an amusing line:
Cameron added that Palin was "hard to control emotionally," and was prone to "temper tantrums."
Less amusing:
"Fox News' Carl Cameron reported yesterday that the McCain campaign struggled with Palin's apparent stupidity, which included not knowing that Africa is a continent, not knowing which countries are in NAFTA, and refusing preparation before major media interviews."
Yet they're still talking about having her run for president in 2012?
Also:
"New York Times reports on the "difficult relationship" between Palin and McCain, and the fact that the two barely spoke during the campaign. The piece emphasized the fact that McCain aides believed Palin "harbored political ambitions beyond 2008," and was using the campaign as a platform. It noted that as late as Tuesday night, Palin was pushing to give her own speech before McCain's concession speech."
...oh... (And yeah, the news stations were reporting confusion; she had told them that she would be giving a speech first.)
Scary stuff!
From Newsweek:
"One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband." (That was campaign money.) Her family was described by one aide as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."
This is also an amusing line:
Cameron added that Palin was "hard to control emotionally," and was prone to "temper tantrums."
Less amusing:
"Fox News' Carl Cameron reported yesterday that the McCain campaign struggled with Palin's apparent stupidity, which included not knowing that Africa is a continent, not knowing which countries are in NAFTA, and refusing preparation before major media interviews."
Yet they're still talking about having her run for president in 2012?
Also:
"New York Times reports on the "difficult relationship" between Palin and McCain, and the fact that the two barely spoke during the campaign. The piece emphasized the fact that McCain aides believed Palin "harbored political ambitions beyond 2008," and was using the campaign as a platform. It noted that as late as Tuesday night, Palin was pushing to give her own speech before McCain's concession speech."
...oh... (And yeah, the news stations were reporting confusion; she had told them that she would be giving a speech first.)
Scary stuff!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 07:33 pm (UTC)A lot of this is coming from Newsweek, that made a deal going in for a high level of access to the behind-the-scenes campaign, with the condition that they don't publish any of it until after the election. I agree with criticisms that journalists shouldn't make deals like this, but that's what happened, and once they made the deal they rightfully stuck with it.
And the other part is that the losing presidential campaign always assembles a circular firing squad. The McCain loyalists have decided (and I see their point) that Palin was the reason that McCain lost, and are unloading both barrels at her in order to salvage their careers. Watching this is pure schadenfreude for me. :) I hope they do end the idea of Palin as nationally electable, even as I think she'd be no contest to an Obama re-election. I want to win, but I'd rather face real candidates like McCain, that deserve some degree of respect, not culture warriors who continually stir up anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and anti-Urban sentiments (as well as some uglier things.)
So glad that my team won this time!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 07:36 pm (UTC)Oh wow, I hadn't heard about that. And agreed that they shouldn't do that, but since they did... at least we're getting the info.
Watching this is pure schadenfreude for me. :) I hope they do end the idea of Palin as nationally electable
Agreed on both parts of that, too. :D
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:46 pm (UTC)I am by no means trying to say I don't think that she's frighteningly dim. Even if I were Republican there's no way in hell I'd put in my vote for that team, with the very real possibility of Palin having to step into the Presidency. It really seemed like a WTF right from the moment he announced her as his running mate.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:33 pm (UTC)Bullet, dodged!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:27 pm (UTC)I relish in my right to bear arms, and would gladly shoot her (from a helicopter) if she took office.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 02:05 am (UTC)I'm all for women in power, but not women who will strip away other's rights, encourage shotgun weddings as a solution to teenage pregnancy, and worse.
(Schadenfreude is pretty tasty though.)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 02:55 am (UTC)encourage shotgun weddings as a solution to teenage pregnancy
I wonder how long until that wedding is called off~?
Edit: Typo.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 03:25 am (UTC)Though, to be fair, she likely brought the bus throwing under thing on herself - bringing kids to political events uninvited, using campaign money for clothes (!), etc. Either way, we really dodged a bullet on this one.
How've ya been? :D
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 05:35 am (UTC)Though, to be fair, she likely brought the bus throwing under thing on herself - bringing kids to political events uninvited, using campaign money for clothes (!), etc. Either way, we really dodged a bullet on this one.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. :D
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 08:51 am (UTC)I know politicians lie about what they're going to do and accomplish and whatnot, but when they blatantly lie about their feelings for others in their campaign... I don't know, isn't that a really crappy thing to do? To lead the people on that you're Batman and Robin until the day you lose, when you let it be known that you don't know who the hell your sidekick is? Shouldn't people who voted at least partially based on the supposed chemistry between wise old McCain and chipper quirky Palin be appalled that they were so flagrantly manipulated?
Quite frankly, I think caribou barbie was a joke before the election, but she has my sympathy if she's going to be the target of everybody clamoring to save face in the aftermath, because she's the perfect bullseye but is no more to blame (or only slightly more to blame) than the rest of the campaign.
The Republican campaigners should take a hint from McCain's very own speech. He admitted in front of the entire nation that the fault was his, and that everybody makes mistakes. Regardless of whether it's playing for sympathy points or not, that was an impressive thing to do, and I hope that everybody takes him up on that mindset - don't find a target that isn't yourself to save face and favors. If McCain had an ounce of honesty in his concession speech, he would spread the word to his campaign that if anybody should be the dartboard, it should be him. I would expect the Democratic party to do the exact same thing in their shoes.