Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Prog Blogs Force Palin to Come Clean.. hurray for our side!

dupager's picture
Thread: 

Just saw this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_n...

The headline: To rebut rumors, Palin says daughter, 17, pregnant

"The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child."

I'm stunned. There were actual "liberal" bloggers who claimed Palin "faked" a pregnancy..

wow..

This "shame the b*tch" line of attack is sure to do wonders for elevating the discourse.

yay for us!

0
No votes yet

Comments

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Anyone have any idea which "liberal blogs" this may have been?

What the McCain people claimed in the statement sure rings true to my ears, but still...

[UPDATE] Over at NQ, someone cites Andrew Sullivan as, if not a leader in spreading the rumor, practicing his best "Well, it's OUT THERE":

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th...

and, er.. calling for OB/GYN and other medical records to be released.

I suppose his ObamaLove of ther past year makes him a part of the "liberal" blogosphere. Ick. How many times can it be said? The Ariannas, Koses and Sullivans of the world? THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS!

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i put it out there as a rumor, and wasn't specifically trying to make any point out of the observation, except to say that it's out there in the chattering classes and that's more or less where it will stay.

free speech means everything to me, so i'm not afraid to speak of the rumors around this. as i said someplace else today: it's not about the behavior, it's the hypocrisy. if (and i don't know she has, but mccain certainly has) wants to make an issue about "family values" and deny me my full rights because "gays can't be trusted with children" and yadda yadda, then a little fact based investigative reporting on the actual mom of the kid in question is worthy of my attention.

otoh, if palin has never made an issue of the idea that the gov't should nose into people's reproductive patterns, then i'll say nothing more. but i'll be a dollar she has. there's a reason why i love the saying "don't go there..." republicans deserve all that we can throw at them when they do.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

but gawddammit, i'm ready to play it.

look, the bottom line is that as good progressives, we have never advocated gummint intrusion into ob/gyn records, we don't think reproductive status is important to holding office, we don't want or support calls to investigate people's private lives. and yes, i hear you: those progressives who maliciously attack her solely on the basis of unsubstantiated rumour should be shunned by our side for failing to live up to their stated aims/values.

BUT

it's time to play hardball, no? who put reproductive status on the table? *republicans.* specifically J. Sidney McShame. and, if i understand her correctly, Palin too. so, a little medicine that's good for goose and gander, yo?

as i said, let's keep it "fact based." so i agree with you, w/o a cite, link, proof...good progressives should at the most make politically incorrect jokes about her, and not so many as there are far more pressing issues deserving of our time/effort/blogspace. but: if they want to bring it up, make it a center of their platform, campaign on how they are great Moral Values people who articulate in strong and clear language that I'm Not Worthy to touch children because i like grrlz...well, don't expect me to take it lying down.

i've said it before: this just isn't the best attack we can come up with, when it comes to why Palin is wrong for america. as you're very interested in the feminist project (i mean that sincerely and respect you for it) tell me then: what is a better line of attack? but don't deny that amurkins live for "sex scandals" and palin seems, at least, rife with example that most people will be unable to cease to speak of; let's take advantage of that, in a very realpolitik sense. if you need a reason to hold your nose, think of all the kids in iran and elsewhere who would likely die under an attack via a McStain/Palin admin. isn't that "Life" worth protecting as well?

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

Did she deny her daughter access to an abortion?

If not, I don't get the "hypocrisy" charge. If her daughter's pregnant, so what? That has more to do with her daughter's reproductive rights than with mine or yours.

I'm as "don't mess with my uterus" as you can get, but I just don't see the value in smearing Palin for her daughter's belly bump. I think it's a lot more important to out her for her 'tudes on policy, foriegn and domestic.

Smears are difficult to control without getting your hands dirty. I wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole!

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

is no different than the way humiliation was used by torturers at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo and its purpose is the same - not to accomplish some political goal, but simply to inflict pain on the enemy. If you took away their hatred, they'd have nothing left to post.

If dailyKos posters had more power, Palin and her entire family would be in some secret prison in Poland by now, and those posters would feel righteous about it and post facile defenses.

If I voted based on which side was more disgusting, I'd vote against Obama and for McCain. (I'm not voting at all).

Orwell miscalculated - it doesn't require a totalitarian state to generate 5 minutes hate and create enemies like Goldstein. It just takes a few liberal blogs to enable people to do it themselves.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that's a losing strategy to begin with--In fact, this whole thing gives her more cred since she's not being a hypocrite like all the other GOPers.

Most of them believe that laws/crimes are for other people--not them.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...Palin just took lemons (a pregnant, unmarried 17 year old daughter wouldn't exactly go over well with the religious right) and made lemonade by tying the announcement of her daughter's pregnancy into an attack on Obama's supporters.

Next up, the Oborg attack Palin's parenting skills, alienating every parent who ever had a kid who got into trouble despite their best efforts -- and a 'pushback' against 'liberal permissiveness in the media'

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Yahoo dutifully wrote down the PR-speak of the McCain campaign that it was festering in liberal blogs.

Even in a major post at the Confluence _today_, the author refuses to provide links to the Great Orange Satan out of principle, but it leaves the rest of us wondering whether the characterizations are true or not.

Without the linky goodness, we just have another zombie meme: LIBRULS ARE INVADING SARAH's VAGINA!

CD:


i put it out there as a rumor, and wasn’t specifically trying to make any point out of the observation, except to say that it’s out there in the chattering classes

Which makes it wrong. You know it's wrong. You know that's the same weak-ass "justification" which introduced the swift-boaters (and much, much more) into mainstream discourse.

if (and i don’t know she has, but mccain certainly has) wants to make an issue about “family values” and deny me my full rights because “gays can’t be trusted with children” and yadda yadda, then a little fact based investigative reporting on the actual mom of the kid in question is worthy of my attention.

If we were talking about a hidden abortion, or the fact that Sarah's pregnant daughter is in fact a big ol' dyke, you'd have a point.

Until that time that these things are shown to be true, asking a candidate "Hey, now - what's going on with your pussy, and are you treating it the way I think you should?" is not where we want to be.

No matter how much it benefits The Precious.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

CAN SOMEBODY CHECK? I've got to do RL stuff. Linky goodness from the liberal blogs?

Let's remember that one reason McGovern lost (I'm recalling) because of his supporters. Nothing prevents the Rs from remembering that and creating their own reality. Just like nothing prevents the Ds from not remembering it, and totally fucking things up.

Some evidence, please? DK? WKJM? If this is a zombie meme, let's for pity's sake destroy it now. Just because the OFB would do it doesn't mean they actually did.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

If you can't type that in, here's a link

If you scroll through the diaries since Friday, you can find diaries about Palin faking her pregnancy to cover for her daughter (multiple), that say Palin is an unfit mother because she isn't staying home to take care of her child, about her daughter's pregnancy, and - it wouldn't surprise me - probably worse. I don't spend too much time there anymore. I'm betting someone will post a diary speculating about incest in the next day or two.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

I know where DK is, thank you very much.

For all I know, the examples are fringe posters, cherrypicked comments, etc. Now, I don't believe that, but there does happen to be stuff I believe that's not true, and so with others.

When I make a claim like you're making, I give a link or, better, a screen dump.

It's not hard! Try it! It's fun and proves points!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

The first being I don't take copious notes or bookmark every page I load as I surf. There is a reasonable expectation that people keep themselves reasonably informed about the topics being discussed - I don't have to link to a bio of Obama or Palin every time I post something about them, so the less informed will understand who I'm talking about.

So if you want to discuss, say, posts that appeared on dKos, if you have links cool, and if you don't it's not unreasonable to expect other people have a) seen them, b) can go and look for themselves. I would agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but that isn't the case here.

Somebody posted this article on the front page, I commented with my opinion and what I knew about it when asked. If every comment or answer requires an hour's research, then just ask me to quit commenting - it's OK - it won't hurt my feelings. If your policy is now that every comment or claim requires supporting evidence, then post that clearly and I'll either comply or leave (quite honestly, I'm about totally fed up with blogs anyway - not caused by this one, but it carries over).

Second, whether this is fringe posters, etc. is irrelevant. It's kos' policy to allow this kind of posting. In fact I know from a personal exchange with kos that he thinks this kind of thing is cool (it was over outing Alan Keyes' lesbian daughter, which I thought was equally poor - given kos' archives and my internet connect speed, it would literally take at least an hour to provide a link; don't believe me if you doubt it - skepticism is healthy, and if I thought it was really important I'd spend the hour to find the link).

Even if all of the posts were written by GOP operatives, kos allows this kind of thing, even encourages it and that's pretty common knowledge. See intranets' front page graphic that shows the situation accurately (or do you want links to kos' posting policy too?). And I've been there long enough (mid 4 digit UID) to know that the names of some of the people commenting favorably or recommending the diaries had UIDs lower than mine (do I need to link that too?).

There's even a post upthread that condones this kind of stuff. How much proof do you need?

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I prefer not to have to prove the joke about election irregularities being banned from dkos, or does that also need citation. Anyone with even casual cheeto tasting over the years will recognize the truth in that graphic. (Also political cartoons don't need citations)

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

[EDIT: this is now a double post due to spam filter goodness. original comment is the longer one below]

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I posted a round up of all the diaries.. It was like three pages of linky goodness now lost to the ether, I'm guessing because the post I was replying to was editted before I started writing and click Post.

Not sure if you can dig it out of the server somewhere. (I think it is when you start a reply and the main thread gets another comment or so)..

It should be somewhere under
../comment/13101/11037x

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I saved my post with a little scoop hacking...

Ok, linky goodness.
"BabyGate: Explosive New Details [Photos+Video]"Comments: 600+ Recommends: 100+

"Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother [Photos+Video]" Comments: 1900
Recommends: 490

"Sarah Palin Baby Story Ender"Comments: 1100+ Recommends: 200+

"Palin's Pregnancy Decision Map - LOL"

"OMFG: Andrew Sullivan Goes BabyGate on Palin!"

"Pregnant over 40 causes me to question her judgment"

Cavalier pro-lifer Palin risks life and the life of her unborn child

Palin's Baby? and Let the Enquirer Figure It Out.

How about a top comment:


I see this "mommy" talk is disparaged (76+ / 0-)
but as a 65 yr old who worked for womens rights through the sixties, I think it is fair game.
What "family values" put a child at risk not to mention her own. How can a mother leave her 4 month old for three months?
Of course we should discuss it. Can you imagine if any Dem candidate did the same.

Also, if there is not truth to it being a real problem, then explain this diary which is pleading to stop all the baby talk.

Think that main diary is a fluke from a plant? How about a poll about removing it...

Should this diary be removed?
yes 31% 145 votes
no 58% 272 votes

How about this diary about the disappearing baby diaries.

On August 30, 2008, I read a diary entitled Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother by ArcXIX. An hour later it disappeared. This was a presentation of inferences by ArcXIX, the writer, who argued that Sarah Palin was claiming to be the mother of a baby that was actually delivered by another woman, who most likely was her own, unmarried, teenage daughter.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

What a mess. And that comment not only makes the mess completely clear, it timesstamps the record for future reference. Well done.

NOTE Probably the sheer number of links triggered the spam filter, and I then approved it.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

didn't mean to re-post but it really didn't appear to be the spam filter. I really never saw anything, it posted like normal and reloaded the page.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Someone suggested Palin wasn't a real choice, and just done to draw out the attack liberals. (give them enough rope).

I wouldn't be surprised if Palin bows out because of private intrusion and respect her private life martyr thing. And then McCain announces an actually qualified VP pick.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

if they want to bring it up, make it a center of their platform, campaign on how they are great Moral Values people who articulate in strong and clear language that I’m Not Worthy to touch children because i like grrlz…well, don’t expect me to take it lying down.

On another forum I'm on, I apparently wasted breath trying to convince people that casting aspersions on moms who work despite having <1yr old infants, was, at BEST, always condescending, and in fact, much much worse.

And now, I've got an ostensible lib/progressive are sitting here telling me it's a good idea to slime (without leaving a trace) a pregnant 17 year old.

These are not good ideas. Are they a part of the world you hope to build? Your 1 step forward - if it happens at all - will most likely take you two steps back.

And for sheer pragmatic, political value: do you really want to go around ranting about working moms and pregnant 17 year olds?

[Madge]
You're soaking in it.
[/Madge]

haelig's picture
Submitted by haelig on

There's a difference between fighting fierce and smart politics and resorting to dirty smears. If Palin was parading Bristol around as a paragon of pro-life policy, then the pregnancy becomes political. But the "liberal" blogs were pushing out nasty rumor after rumor until Palin was forced to reveal the news and she stated that it is a private family matter.

We can attack Palin for *her* declared stance on reproductive rights, but her daughter Bristol is a separate individual who, according to the evidence we have, made this decision on her own. Therefore, we should respect her situation as an independent and entirely private one.

And face it, Democrats cannot beat the Republicans at their own game: if Obamacans keep pushing this meme, it will blow up in their face just like in 2004, when Kerry tried to point out the dissonance between the Bush/Cheney anti-gay policies and Cheney's lesbian daughter. The Repubs will scream bloody murder and the SCLM will obligingly portray the Democrats in the worst possible light as ruthless rumor-mongers and practitioners of the dirtest politics.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

Not only is nobody talking about the convention, Obama's speech or anything else, but now the so-called progressives are goaded into attacking single mothers and breathless speculating on what is going on inside someone's uterus. You couldn't do anything with Cheney's lesbian daughter (in fact, that kinda backfired, didn't it?), so if this line of attack will backfire in a big way too, if you make the mistake of obsessing about her personal life. It was the relentless, sexist bullying of Hillary that split the Democratic Party. Now the prog blogs seem determined to drive these voters into McCain's arms. Which is fine with me. I'm there already. So please, keep it up.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

It's exactly like Sullivan endorsing Obama on inter-generational grounds. Split the base. Of course, the Hillary hate was a bonus!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

from exercising their legal choices as Governor--i've seen no proof at all. And i've seen talk about how she didn't want public financing for abortions, but no action taken at all about it.

And being pro-choice means it's your choice--whatever you decide to do.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Click here if you want a summation or click from there if you want to give characters like Aravosis some hits.

I ran into this proud little slime merchant in a thread at Avedon's "The Sideshow." Apparently this blogger is a fan of this site. I'm not sure what the slants of those sites are, I didn't bother to look around much.

Anglachel linked to Zuzu at Shakesville who has a pretty good take on this:

This is vintage Rovian turning-your-opponent's-greatest-strength-into-a-weakness politics. ...

Well, what's one of the Democratic Party's greatest strengths? Its appeal to women ...

Obama was losing support among women and other groups with his lurch to the right. And instead of trying to bring those voters back into the fold with persuasion and carrots and addressing their concerns, the campaign, the party, the media and especially the fan base turned to threats, mockery, infantilization, accusations of racism, doomsaying and RoeRoeRoeRoeRoe ...

And then a funny thing happened -- after a lot of tension about whether Clinton and her 18 million supporters would be shut out of the Convention, the Obama people agreed to give Hillary and Bill Clinton prime-time speaking slots. ... a lot of the Hillary diehards here watched those speeches and said they were convinced, they'd now vote for Obama. ...

Then McCain -- who, it should be noted, was telling the press he had not selected a running mate as late as the final day of the Democratic National Convention -- dropped the Palin bombshell.*

Right on cue, the sexist attacks against Palin began on the left -- which the McCain people were undoubtedly counting on. ...

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

But "finding" something at that site can be difficult if you're not there navigating it every day. It's not exactly linear.

I entered "pregnant" on their front page search and nothing Palin-relevant came up...

So thanks to the pointer to that particular diary.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I have no idea where it was, but I url hacked to the original to copy and paste it. And the post now shows up, so it is fine.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

comments don't automatically appear; but when they've been fished out of the firewalls, they'll show up back in the order where they should originally have appeared.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Is this how Democrats want to play the game? Do they really want to try to play with the Republicans on their custom-built court of smearing through rumor-mongering? This is ultimately dumb politics, because the Republicans always win the game of smearing, but more importantly, to me, I can not understand for the life of me why Democrats continue to want to try to alienate their base. For progressives, Palin is so wrong on policy that going after her personal life shouldn't even be attractive to a smart campaign.

I guess for them this saying holds true: The only thing I can't resist is temptation. If the Dems think that they are going to get away with doing to Palin what they did to Clinton, they are wrong. The DNC may have nothing to say about sexism and misogyny, but, ironically, the GOP sure will. That the Dems, by their very actions, left the GOP to defend against the media's critique of female politicians in this political season was one of the stupidest moves the party could have ever made.

Folks, the Democratic Party left John. Fucking. McCain. to benefit from defending female politicians from unfair media critiques. Really, just let ridiculousness of that sink in.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Looks like the McCain camp is relishing scoring points with this one...

Schmidt raises gender double standard

Swarmed by reporters upon coming into the convention, McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt suggested Sarah Palin was facing a double standard because of her gender.

Questioned if Palin, who just gave birth in Apirl to a Down syndrome baby, could handle being vice president and the mother of a young family, Schmidt shot back: “I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”

Again, this world has been turned upside down.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Say this posted on a PUMA blog from the August addition of Vogue magazine:

Robert McCain - The Firecracker

"I think the treatment they've given Hillary is just awful. She's a human being, and she's certainly worked hard.

And, the Dems aren't going to even try to salvage this part of the base? Really? So, now only Republican's can call sexism and misogyny? Really? I hear even Cindy McCain is now speaking out against this.

Turlock