We have less than two years to eliminate the use of the word “polarizing” as an attack against female candidates.
This has been the primary MSM-approved first attack against Hillary Clinton for almost 20 years now. It was the first thing out of people’s mouths when we campaigned for Clinton in Iowa in 2007, leading up to the Caucus. ”She’s so polarizing”, people would parrot. When pressed as to what they meant, they’d hem and haw, drool a little, and occasionally admit, with the candor of children, “Well, the TV said it, and I listen to the TV”.
Honestly — a man in Clinton, Iowa, of all places, ironically enough, really did say that. It was stunning. ”The TV said it” is a lot more common than you’d think. Especially in Iowa. Just wait for the HillBuzz book — there’s a whole chapter on Iowa and all the inane things that we encountered there. The “polarizing MSM-propaganda regurgitations” are just the tip of the iceberg…where “iceberg” is a stand in for “colossal pile of nonsense”.
Sarah Palin is running for president, people. If there’s any luck in the world, Hillary Clinton will be running in 2012 as well. The same “polarizing” garbage will be used against both of them. In the worst, and most bizarre, scenario, where neither runs in 2012, the “polarizing” garbage will be used against the next woman to run for president — whether that’s Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Condoleezza Rice, or whomever else you can imagine.
“Polarizing” should be as unacceptable an adjective to use against a female candidate as “faggy” is to use against a gay man, or “negro” is against a black candidate.
We need to think of a way to take this word away from the MSM, so it becomes a fireable offense at the networks and newsrooms whenever it is used…just as “faggy” and “negro” would be.
One of the things we try to communicate to all of you is just how important words are to branding. Words have great power. The MSM has invested heavily in the term “polarizing”…it is the billion dollar stealth bomber in an arsenal, used whenever a woman needs to be taken down and “taught her place”. It is employed against Democrats and Republicans alike, but only against the people the Left doesn’t like (such as Hillary and Sarah Palin). It is never, ever used against Leftist figures. Just try to find an instance where someone like Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dohrn, Cindy Sheehan, Janeane Garafolo, and other Leftists are called “polarizing”. If it’s happened, we’ve never seen it.
Similar to what we tried to do for Scott Brown in removing the Cosmo pics as a weapon the Left could use against him, we’d like to take the word “polarizing” from them, so that it can’t be used against Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential run.
We have two ideas on how we can achieve this:
(1) Start calling every Leftist female “polarizing”, every day, so that the word is over-saturated in the public’s mind, and it loses all meaning…since the lines between conservatives, moderates, and leftists will have been blurred to the extent that every female is “polarizing”
(2) Extend the use of the word “polarizing” to men, animals, inanimate objects, cities, tissue paper, and various vegetables too. Call everything under the sun “polarizing”. Just like the word “genius”, which lost all meaning in the 80s when everyone’s child was declared a genius in some way, calling everything on Earth “polarizing” for the next two years will mean that by 2012, nothing will be polarizing any more.
We’re trying to think of a third scenario where Sarah Palin just comes out and embraces the word “polarizing” and turns it into a good thing. Maybe you can help with that.
What we want to achieve is this: in December of 2011, when we are on the ground in Iowa campaigning for Palin in Dubuque, Des Moines, or wherever, we want to knock on doors and NOT have the residents say, “Oh, she’s too polarizing, I can’t vote for her” and close the door in our faces. It would be ideal if we could somehow turn this whole thing around and have them say, “Oh, I can’t wait to vote for that polarizing woman. You look cold dear, have some of these polarizing cookies I just baked, with a steaming hot cup of polarizing tea to go with it. And don’t mind that polarizing dog of ours, God love her, she’s just so polarizing, but doesn’t mean any harm. Scratch her polarizing ears and you’ll be her polarizing friend for life. Polarizing”.
There’s enough time to achieve this, but we need a game plan. We want to do the same thing to the word “racist” as well…to permanently take that away from the Left as its favorite weapon of choice to hit anyone who does not agree with them.
There is a way to take both of these words away from them, and it’s our job to find it.
What think you?

February 7, 2010 at 6:00 am
Palin, Clinton, whichever candidate, when confronted with a charge of being polarizing, should turn it around on the accuser. With a big smile the candidate should explain elections, by their very essence, are polarizing. Elections are a time for choosing between different candidates. To choose is to differentiate is to polarize. My opponent has accused me of participating in democracy. I plead guilty. Now, who are you going to vote for? My foolish opponent? Or me?
February 7, 2010 at 6:16 am
Hey, I’m first? The rewards of being up way too early.
I dont have a sense of “polarizing” as being used primarily or exclusively against women. I just think it’s one descriptive word among many. Pundits talked about Obama as polarizing, didnt they?
Though I admire her and think she would make a great president, I think Palin IS polarizing. Just because of the combination of her beliefs/personality/socio-economic profile…all the stuff we all talk about that drive urban liberals crazy. I live in NYC, a Jewish libertarian among liberal Jews, as you guys live in your gay community in Chicago. I see PDS constantly, and 90% of it is about aspects of her which have nothing to do with politics or character – her accent for example – and which are not going to change and shouldnt.
I agree using the term reinforces the perception…just dont see it as a useful battleground, but that’s just my $0.02
February 7, 2010 at 6:42 am
Yehudit,
You characterization of “POLARIZING” here is only “bad” because you are focusing on the folks who will not like Sarah’s accent or beliefs.
I could just as well argue that those very qualities are what make her a *MAGNET* to the masses in the heartland.
Here’s news for ya: there are a lot more electoral votes in the heartland than in NYC.
February 7, 2010 at 7:39 am
I agree with everything you wrote. I think HB wanted to try to neutralize the term because they do see it as a bad thing. My illustration also applies to some areas where electoral votes would be in play although God knows they arent here. I used it to make the point that I didnt think there was much point in worrying about that term.
February 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“Polarizing” was the main charge against Hillary in the Primaries to get Dem voters NOT to vote for her. People repeated it over and over again as THE reason why Dems should not “waste their vote” on Hillary in the primary. “They”, the other canidates and the MSM, said over and over even IF we like Hillary and think she would be a great president, she is so polarizing, the Republicans and Indys would NEVER vote for her blah blah blah.. They never even had to give any reasons beyond so polarizing and believe me it worked. Regular Dems believed it and not only decided not to vote for her, but made sure to tell their friends and family NOt to vote for her because it was repeated so often it became “a fact”. She is “too polarizing” was also a favorite comment made by trolls all over both the Dem AND Hillary blogs.
The reason I think it IS a point to be concerned about and plan for is because it DID work so well against Hillary, so they will be sure to trot it out again.
February 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@Lynn
the use of polarizing against Hillary as you describe is meant as a contrast to “the great uniter” – how did that turn out? ROFL
good points though
February 7, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Yep. And I will NEVER understand during the GE how anyone could be foolish enough to believe he would be a uniter, when HE divided the Democrat voters worse than I’ve ever seen.
February 7, 2010 at 8:47 pm
But, that’s the whole point. He DID unite people. Against Hillary. Against Sarah. Against (roughly) 48% of the voters in this country. He did a darned good job of it, too.
February 7, 2010 at 9:19 am
yehudit,
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but for a New Yorker to criticize Palin’s accent just made me lol this morning. I grew up with people who speak exactly like her and people out here in flyover country have thoughts about the various east coast accents too. Too funny.
February 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm
She’s from Idaho and Alaska for crying out loud. I love it that she doesn’t talk through her nose and add Rs to everything like the Eastern Elite. Yep! They are the ones with the fake accents.
February 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I was not criticising it. I was describing the libs I know who hang their fear of her on stupid things like her accent. When you ask them why she bothers them so much they actually mention that, like it is a marker for her intelligence.
I was born and raised in Dallas TX by Holocaust refugees who grew up in Berlin and Vienna and spent part of WWII in France and Britain, respectively.
February 7, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Lyn, there isnt another Reply button under your reply to me, so i am putting this here, but now I understand why applying the epithet “polarizing” is dangerous. It’s an eeyore move.
Thanks for explaining it. I agree it needs to be countered.
February 7, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Glad to help. It is something that was SO frustrating, even during the debates, I will never forget it. BTW I just googled Hillary and Polarizing and there were “1 – 10 of about 2,240,000 for Hillary polarizing”
February 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I don’t remember anyone saying Barry was polarizing. He was post-partisan, post-racial, fricken post-everything, but never referred to as polarizing. Now, as we all realize, he is the most polarizing politician in modern times.
February 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Barry is the one who truly is polarizing. It is the classic case of projection that this has been hurled at either Hillary or Sarah.
Heh, I am an outsider, and even though I do not like Hillary, I think that she would make a better President than Barry. I think that she loves her country and she would not do the damage that has been done in the 12 month period that Barry took over. However, I would not trust what she would do on things such as abortion especially in a foreign country. I will assume that she at least has the ability to be mature enough to acknowledge when she might have been wrong. Barry lacks that very maturity.
I do not mind Sarah’s accent. It does not annoy me like Barry’s accent annoys me. And yeah, when I lived in Ohio I certainly heard interesting accents !!! ROFL
February 7, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Google “Bush, Polarizing.” There are 3,770,000 entries, so polarization is hardly something new. The job of the Fourth Estate is – apologies to the great Johnny Mercer – to “Acc-cent-tchu-ate the Negative.” Let’s not let ‘em succeed.
February 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I could be wrong, but your comment sounds like the VERY recent example of a troll that the Boyz just pointed out to us.
Could it be?
February 7, 2010 at 5:50 pm
By “you”, I means yehudit.
February 7, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Er… no. if you knew me that’s the last thing you would think.
February 7, 2010 at 6:37 am
We need to embrace it as a *good* word. Political parties are, inherently, POLARIZING. That is they way it will always be with a two party system. A candidate that moves people into the party is “polarizing” (aka MAGNETIC.)
In this scheme MAGNETIC and POLARIZING are synonyms. And who does not want to be MAGNETIC?
Obama is, in fact, *POLARIZING* by nature of the fact that he drew independents into the Dem party. He acted like a magnet in this sense. Why would that be a bad thing??
Oh, I forgot… it is *bad* if a woman does it. Like Hillary or Sarah. Such nonsense.
Reclaim the word and redefine it! That is the answer. “POLARIZING” = “MAGNETIC.”
February 7, 2010 at 6:49 am
Exactly. In order to be polarizing, one must also be magnetic.
February 7, 2010 at 11:43 am
Funny point — and such an obvious one that the people who use the term as an epithet never even think about what they are actually saying when they use it.
February 7, 2010 at 10:00 am
Yes . . . Sarah Palin is “polarizing”, because she draws people from all walks of life to her. This creates energy for her because she has to deliver her message that can be received positively by people from all social stratospheres. That’s difficult to do. Reagan mastered this skill very, very well. Why else did he end up winning all but one state in his first presidential campaign?
February 7, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Hmmmm.
Don’t polarized sunglasses and windshields allow you to filter out the garbage and see things more clearly?
So calling someone “polarizing” should be like a compliment. for example,
“That Sarah Palin sure is polarizing, isn’t she? She really makes it clear how important low taxes are when it comes to growing jobs.”
February 7, 2010 at 1:09 pm
HAHAA Good one!
February 7, 2010 at 2:00 pm
polarize – cause to vibrate in a definite pattern; “polarize light waves”
polarize – cause to concentrate about two conflicting or contrasting positions
polarize – become polarized in a conflict or contrasting situation
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(politics)
Break it down Boyz and Buzzers…we can define this however we like!
February 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm
we need to do what the left does and give the word “polarizing” the opposite meaning…
If in politics it means “to put people in opposite camps” then we change the meaning to indicate that it “brings people of opposite camps e.g. moderate Democrats and Republicans together”
In other words highlight the situations where there have been strange bedfellows who have been drawn together because of a set of circumstances upon which they agree.. in this way we can empasize the magnetic meaning of the word “to polarize”
February 8, 2010 at 12:01 am
I didn’t know polarize could mean to magnetize. Cool!
—
polarize (pl-rz)
To magnetize a substance so that it has the properties of a magnetic dipole, such as having a north and south pole.
February 7, 2010 at 6:41 am
Name a successful leader who hasn’t been “polarizing.” As fondly as people remember Reagan today, there was a distinct group of people who hated him while he was in office. Bill Clinton was described as polarizing. Think about it–Lincoln (whom Utopia likes to invoke when it is useful for him) presided over a country that was literally divided against itself. People who have strong beliefs, who have a clear vision of where they want to lead and who are not afraid to describe their vision in certain terms are naturally going to repel those with a different vision and different ideas. If Sarah Palin is repulsive to the Leftists and makes the contrast between them and the rest of us more clear, that is a good thing.
February 7, 2010 at 6:51 am
Exactly AFinch!
And I am now wondering if you are the same AFinch I know from the heartland? AFinch the well published poet and muse??
Curiouser and curiouser…
February 7, 2010 at 6:52 am
I am in the heartland, but neither a poet nor a muse.
February 7, 2010 at 6:56 am
Oh. Coincidence I guess.
Your command of the language is quite good. Which is what set me to wondering….
It will take a clever group of linguists (and Reclaiming Feminists) to turn this word on its ear.
February 7, 2010 at 7:19 am
OK. Blogging and tweeting the call today!
I say “let’s rumble.”
2010 is our maiden voyage in redefinition. By 2012…. the word could be wholly disempowered.
February 7, 2010 at 7:40 am
When I was in my teens and I didn’t really want to do some chore my father asked me to do, my excuse when my dad found out that the chore hadn’t been done was, “I forgot.” This became a pattern with me until one day my dad had had enough. He started saying, “I forgot,” in a mocking tone before telling me what chore he wanted done. At the time, it seemed to me like he was saying, “I forgot” every time I started to open my mouth.
It wasn’t long before I got the message that, “I forgot,” was not an acceptable excuse to use to get out of doing a certain chore. I soon eliminated that phrase from my vocabulary, not to mention that I also started doing my chores without complaint.
My point in this is to say that I agree with you that we need to think of ways to take the word “polarizing” away from the MSM. Perhaps if we just start throwing it out there in a mocking tone before they can get it out of their mouths, we will be successful in stopping them from uttering it against women.
February 8, 2010 at 12:07 am
Maybe we can work on making it a term of ridicule, the way the Boyz did with RAAAACIST.
February 8, 2010 at 12:09 am
Chrissy —
This is exactly how to do it.
That, and calling everything polarizing, so that nothing is.
February 7, 2010 at 8:07 am
When Sarah is accused of being “polarizing” say “Yes, indeed, she is very concerned about the environment and its affects on artic regions.”
February 7, 2010 at 8:48 am
Maybe we could start using the term “polarizing” with all of the MSM “journalists”. Going to left leaning blogs and mentioning various “journalists” with “polarizing” between first and last names; ex: Diane “polarizing” Sawyer, or Andrea “polarizing” Mitchell, etc. Using a real world example of how their “reporting” of the news leans to the Utopia Administration’s advantage, making the majority of Americans skeptical of anything they say, should get the point across.
February 7, 2010 at 9:25 am
“Polarizing” is a term used against all conservatives and republicans, not just women.
How do you discourage its use? By doing exactly what you just said. If someone says Hillary is too polarizing, you can say, “oh, do you think Obama is too black, too? I didn’t realize you were such a bigot.”
Turn it back on them.
February 7, 2010 at 9:33 am
But, but, but…
If you take away the word, “polarizing”, what will the left wingers have in their arsenal…
February 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Have no fear, if/when “polarizing” starts to use its punch, the MSM will simply latch onto a new buzz word to replace it. They will then proceed to run that word into the ground until it, too, becomes “polarizing.” Liberals have never been accused of possessing an abundance of creativity, as they are incapable of independent, reasoned thought.
February 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Sorry … lose it’s punch.
February 7, 2010 at 9:49 am
A long time ago I worked in a very liberal place and one of my co-workers was complaining about “gridlock”. I said, “if it’s a bad bill, long live gridlock.”
If “polarizing” means opposed to tax and spend economics, opposed to a government takeover of the insurance and medical segments of the economy, and an end to the “I won” attitude…
long live polarization.
February 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
You’re right. Polarizing needs to be taken out of the political dictionary. So does “racist” imho.
This is a bit off topic, and yet not really. What I was thinking in the shower this morning would probably result in THE most usage of the word “polarizing” EVER, LOL. That is, unless we can succeed in immobilizing it before then.
I was thinking of Palin in 2012 and speculating on a running mate. Now if Palin ran as an independent the first to come to mind would be some combination of Palin and Clinton. That would take the governing experience of Palin and the international experience of Hillary (as S.O.S. now) for a great combo.
But it appears that Palin will probably run as a R- and I cannot in my wildest imagination see Hillary running on a R ticket. I think she’s too deeply enmeshed in the D party for that. So…. are you ready for this? A Palin-Rice ticket. Palin’s governing experience teamed with Condi Rice’s international experience. It would send the D party into convulsions like you wouldn’t believe to not only “infringe” on their “right” to have the female vote, but also their “right” to have the A.A. vote! I have no idea how Rice believes, but just based on their experiences, solid reputations, and level heads, I think a Palin-Rice ticket would be- at the very least- not only “polarizing” but exciting!
February 7, 2010 at 10:06 am
That would truly, truly explode people’s mind. Especially in the black community. Do they continue to vote in Obama (especially if at the end of the term, unemployment is even higher and more people have lost their homes), or do they vote in Palin, with a possibility that there might be a first black female president?
I don’t think this ticket is going to happen, though, because Rice doesn’t seem enthusiastic to continue participation in politics. And she has a rather checkered reputation in the Republican circle for not doing her job as State Sec efficiently (and then there’s that NSA business) . . .
February 7, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t want to see a Palin/Rice ticket happen. I’ve never been a fan of Condeleeza Rice. I just never got the impression that she was all that competent.
February 7, 2010 at 9:59 am
Another thought: equate “polarizing” with standing on principles. So, if Palin is “polarizing” because she did not dispose of her Down’s Syndrome child, you can always counter with, “so, you think it’s polarizing to stand up for what you believe is right? So, that means Obama is being polarizing by pushing through health rationing?”
February 7, 2010 at 10:06 am
Let’s add “mean” and “dumb” to “polarizing” and “racist”.
I think “Salon” magazine needs to get some HillBuzz reader comments added to their comment section. I couldn’t believe how, after Palin ROCKED last night they called her mean and dumb!!!
Check out this article, and, if you can, put in some comments:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/02/06/palin_speaks
February 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Another mess of amateur writing from Salon. Where do they find these people? Honest to God I think they put a sign out front begging anyone to write for them. They must pay their authors in boxed wine.
No specifics. Just Sarah’s mean and dumb. For some reason this author forgot RAAAACISSST.
February 8, 2010 at 12:10 am
“They must pay their authors in boxed wine.”
ROFLLLL ::snort::
February 7, 2010 at 10:19 am
I like using the word and turing it around someway. 2 things Scott Brown did very effectively which parallels the current topic:
1) When asked “What type of Republican would you be?” (B/c you know the media is obsessed with labels conservative, extreme, moderate) He answered, “I’m a Scott Brown Republican” bascially eliminating a rhetorical weapon for the MSM.
2) And of course, the “Kennedy Seat” question, which became the “People’s Seat”
Brown took these MSM narratives away from them. So, if we could turn around the polarizing term in a similar fashion it would work a la Brown.
Something like polarizing for only 20 percent of the country?
February 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Well… magnetic poles CAN either attract OR repel. We could go on the “attract” part. Or, we could say “yes, she’s closer to the North Pole than the lower 48″….
February 7, 2010 at 2:49 pm
If someone calls her polarizing, we could just say “yes indeed she is very magnetic!”
February 7, 2010 at 8:17 pm
ABSOLUTELY eor!
February 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Sara Palin is among the most polarizing figures I have ever heard speak. Palin and Obama are polarizing for the same thing, to put Americans into either of the two largest sub-sets of citizens possible: Freedom or Slavery. Polarize me, Sara.
February 7, 2010 at 10:35 am
Have Palin pull of a Reagan-esque pre-
emptive salvo like:
“I’m from Alaska, but I’m not for “polar”-izing the rest of our country.
-make it sound as stupid and contrite as it is.
Reagan defused the age issue during the Carter debate when he said that he wouldn’t make an issue of his opponents inexperience.
February 7, 2010 at 11:48 am
“Polarizing?! Well, we sure could use more ‘polar’ bears like Palin in our political life.”
February 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Ooops Peter–I think it was Mondale Lucianne had a clip up last night.
February 7, 2010 at 10:38 am
Polarizing means passionate emotions.
We can either have a nice milquetoast or a Reagan, a Clinton or Palin.
We just need to be vocal and stand up for her, not just on safe territory but on PDS sites also.
February 7, 2010 at 10:55 am
To go on with your thought here… “passionate” or “emotional”…. We could take and emphasize the “strength” in “polarizing”. There are no polarizing wimps. We need to emphasize the Strength and the Magnetism of the word. Like “Yes, she is. And this strong magnetic pole will attract Americans into one strong red, white, and blue country once again; and will bring the strength to pull America back to the top again.”
February 7, 2010 at 11:23 am
Dead-on comment about the media, from a commenter on Hillaryis44, and I think it applies here, as the “polarizing” meme is relentlessly pushed by the Media, the Village of the Beautiful People:
February 7, 2010 at 11:31 am
IOW,
They have the power we give them. If we dismiss, ignore and simply disregard them, they will have no influence at all.
February 7, 2010 at 11:54 am
If anyone remembers, John Zeigler said pretty much the same thing after Palin resigned. His basic message was that R’s and like minded individuals should not let the MSM types choose their leaders. He specifically said that leaders like Palin don’t grow on trees.
February 7, 2010 at 11:40 am
I agree with the Alaskan who says WE need to define polarizing…Just like you Boyz defused the Hottie McAwesome centerfold by calling attention to it we need to call attention to Sarah the “Polar” izer by attaching our own definition to it. As I marketer I’m seeing polar bears, anti-global warming, pro-gun, strength in the Alaska cold, drilling for our natural resources, governing from strength not weakness…use Sarah’s positions positively. If it is polarizing to stand for common sense, American values, our Military and small business than so be it! Do we want someone strong, principled and ready to take on Washington corruption or do we want Barry who votes “present,” lies according to which way the wind blows and is in bed with Marxists?
Just some thoughts…
SaraB
February 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm
hehe
On that theme, and considering the great shot that now comes with this post… the polarizing could be used to point up Barry’s many flawed positions, and show how Sarah takes the opposite view that is in fact more inclusive where the rest of the population is concerned.
Turning it on its head, showing the elites following Barry and using a South Park theme of these elites causing a cloud of smugness to envelop over Washington D.C. until the cloud builds up and it explodes. :)
February 7, 2010 at 11:47 am
First off, a confession. I was one of the rich RAAACCCIST teabaggers swindled by the conniving Tea Party Nation. I was there. What a rocking good time, and what a shock at how the press was swarming the event. The break out sessions were great, especially the Smart Girl Politics presentation on registering voters the legal way and the Abigail Adams Project which is an effort to provide non partisan verified information on political candidates at a precinct level (this is a HUGE undertaking).
Now, I don’t know how much these things usually cost for two full days and an evening prior, but we had some darn good meals there that probably would not have been cheap at a restaurant. I called my Dad and he sitting in his living room said, “Wow. It cost $500?” and “Palin got $100,000 for speaking.” When is the last time you watched convention proceedings on tv when the information on all the costs was a key part of the reporting. And he was watching FOX.
Anyways, how is this for a “polarizing” female candidate? No official announcement yet, but Angela McGlowan strongly alluded to a political announcement on Monday (House Rep for Miss District 1?) Wow. She was a firebrand and really got the crowd pumped up.
February 7, 2010 at 11:52 am
I love Angela! She’s beautiful and brilliant!
SaraB
February 7, 2010 at 11:57 am
Who is she? I’ve never heard of her before…
February 7, 2010 at 11:59 am
Interesting.. Fox news commentator? I don’t recall seeing/hearing her on there before. Is she in politics at all now? Outside of Fox news what is she with? She IS good! Very good!
February 7, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Here’s her bio… I hadn’t heard of her either. She’s apparently going to announce for Congress early this week (someone already mentioned it). It also looks like she is married to a white man… I wonder if that will be used against her? Hopefully Missippians are past that sort of thing.
February 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm
duh… helps to include the link. I need caffeine…
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/angela-mcglowan/
February 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
She’s been on O’Reilly a few times with Marc LaMont Hill.
February 7, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for that link Liberty C!
February 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm
C Mill:
I’m so jealous! I would have gone, but I had work.
I was laughing about the $549 fee that the media was going on and on about.
I went to a seminar two years ago and it cost me $1800. And I thought I got a DEAL! I learned so much that it was worth every penny.
$549 for a weekend with leaders like Angela McGlowen, Andrew Breitbart and Sarah Palin?
YOU got a STEAL of a deal!
Oh, about Palin’s fee: Speakers who are in demand easily get paid between 50K and 100K per speech.
Just ask Colin Powell and President Clinton.
Funny how the Lamestream media doesn’t talk about THAT.
I personally think that Sarah Palin should keep that money. She earned it with every word of that fantastic speech. The effect she had on the millions of people who watched her(me included) was WELL worth 100K.
February 7, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I agree, Tamara, I think Palin should have kept the money. I think she’s still paying legal fees from all the totally bogus ethics charges filed against her in Alaska.
I’m tired of so many people in the Tea Party movement buying into the liberal/communist meme that prosperity and wealth are evil.
I don’t remember any outcry from the MSM over Bill Clinton’s speaking fees. Which had totaled over $51 MILLION by 2008, according to CNN. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/clinton-releases-tax-returns/?fbid=OpwuWQMVlfC
February 7, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Right. Did Obama donate all the royalties from his book sales? Whatever happened to the $1 million Peace Prize money?
February 7, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Well we finally agree with one another.
Capitalism is GOOD.
And I’m tired of those morons on the Left degrading people who worked hard, got ahead, and made a decent living because of it.
Every time a Leftist slams the wealthy, I would like to see their yearly salary flashed at the bottom of the screen. Now THAT would get them to shut up.
LOL!
February 7, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Seriously – I know people who say things like: look, that banker (or whoever) makes too much money! I think they SHOULD tax it all away.
Then I say: well, you know, if that’s your attitude great. But don’t be surprised when someone comes knocking on YOUR door and tells you YOU have too much money and they want tto take it away.
February 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Agreed Tamara! It was definitely worth it. I found I did not have enough time to attend topics. I’m glad PJTV was there, because some of the break out sessions I missed are posted there in video. Plus, Andrew Breitbart gave a fantastic speech. It sounds like his resolve on exposing liberal media bias is as strong as ever. To the media he said, “It’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.” His speech can be seen at PJTV, but I think you need to sign in (free) to see it and I haven’t found it on YouTube (yet) to embed it.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=148
Sarah Palin was icing on the cake. I laughed at Hillbuzz’ comments on her speech. She is so much more presidential than our current faker. I didn’t even know how she finished the statement “To win that war we need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern,” because the room had already erupted in applause. Love. Her. She says things about the Naked Emperor that no one else will.
February 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I was following everything on PJTV and CSPAN. I LOVE Andrew Breitbart, and the way that he calls out the lying media.
You must have had a fantastic time.
I’m going to go back to PJTV and watch some of the break out sessions so that I can use that information to promote future candidates.
Thanks so much for the info, C Mill!
I’m still jealous :)
February 7, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I just watched Angela speak. I got TEARS in my eyes!
Damn it, that woman is a LEADER!
February 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Wow!! just Wow!!
February 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I’ve seen Angela on FOX many times before. She is great. Good luck to her if she runs.
February 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Yes, she belongs in the House; when she and Michelle Bachmann team up, Pelosi (if she even still holds office) will be entirely at a loss.
February 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm
[...] Question: How do we eliminate the word “polarizing” as a weapon used against female candidates? and Troll Dissection 101: Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin Edition and Photoshop Challenge: [...]
February 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Definition of polarizing:
1 : to cause (as light waves) to vibrate in a definite pattern
2 : to give physical polarity to
3 : to break up into opposing factions or groupings
MSM uses the term to degrade, I think we need to rid the word from our political vocabulary, maybe by use it too much:
I did a search for Sarah Palin polarizing this morning and got totally disgusted over descriptions that did not bug me tillnow.
“While that might sound like the polarizing rhetoric she used on the campaign trail in 2008 as she talked about where “real Americans” reside, the crowd knew she was talking about Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, who recently used a crude, coarse and ugly term that I will not repeat here to describe people with special needs.”
From the Baltimore Sun:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/02/sarah_palin_tea_party_conventi.html
February 7, 2010 at 12:25 pm
OOOPS, messed up the quote and my own writing—-
February 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm
[...] Question: How do we eliminate the word “polarizing” as a weapon used against female candidates? and Troll Dissection 101: Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin Edition and Photoshop Challenge: [...]
February 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Make the definition different.
The Great Alaskan Power-house Polarizing America.
February 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm
as in, she’ll govern in the lower 48 the way she governed in the polar state of Alaska.
February 7, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Remember when the boyz here at HB were trying to think of a good marketing item for Sarah Palin? Why not try to take part of their idea – a polar bear – and integrate it into the “polarization” thing.
I’m not smart enough to figure out what it could be but I’m sure there is someone that can.
February 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Hey hey! Did y’all see THIS?
Palin ‘Would Be Willing’ to Take On Obama in 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/
BRING IT ON!!!
February 7, 2010 at 12:31 pm
You really don’t eliminate the word “polarizing.” You don’t even try to, you have to transform it into a strength. Polarizing is a desirable trait, it’s just that with male candidates we call it something else. Having a spine, sticking to your guns, bringing about “change.”
It’s a bit like the word bipartisan. Being bipartisan is not really a good thing. Certainly working together in some form is important, but this is America and a democracy. Some of our best governments have involved one party controlling congress, the other controlling the white house. The whole foundation, the whole structure of our government is about checks and balances. You wouldn’t want a bipartisan supreme court that totally agrees with congress, for example.
Martha Coakley for example, wasn’t polarizing enough. People viewed her as going along with the program.
February 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Polarizing is a good verb . We SHOULD be dividing the country into right and wrong .I’ve always thought polarizing was a good thing when your right , your right , no compromising aloud . thank you
February 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm
THAT is one of the words that makes my blood pressure go up and STILL makes me angry. I was so tired of hearing Hillary is to polarizing BY the other dem candidates AS a reason to vote for THEM. The little slugs (I’m looking at you Mrs and Mr Edwards, and Dr.U)Would tell people NOT to vote for Hillary because SHE was so polarizing that she could NEVER win the GE (during a time a Plant could have beaten an Republican)They had nothing to get the voters to actually vote for THEM so instead tried to convince people not to vote for Hillary, by playing eeyore/concern Troll and saying since she waa SOO Polorizing even If she was the best candidate, she didn’t have a chance of winning the Ge. Of course they would say WE like Hillary but …
Then since the other candidates and the MSM said Hillary was polarizing over and over, the foolish Dems believed it.So many people would tell me not to vote for hillary she was too polarizing , but when I asked for examples….crickets
February 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
How do we eliminate the word “polarizing” as a weapon used against female candidates?……
I could tell you but I can’t post that here………trust me on this one.
LOL
All joking aside, every time someone uses that word I turn it around on them and make it meaningless and while they are standing there wetting themselves I ask them if they have any other big words they found in the dictionary they want to use.
February 7, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Holy cats. This photoshop is GENIUS.
Taste my freezeray?!
Should have weatherized?!?
Hats off to whomever did this. Round of applause.
February 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Just what the doctor ordered, brilliant
February 7, 2010 at 5:52 pm
*curtseys*
I’m glad you like it! It was fun to do.
February 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I agree the word “polarizing” has become a negative term, which was used against Hillary Clinton. I will never forget a woman I worked for back in 2008 who was a democrat and held a local political office said she was supporting Obama over Clinton. Her reasoning was that Clinton was “too polarizing”. When I asked her what she meant by that, her response was vague and went something like this, “oh you know the thing about she and Bill. It was always about them when he was in the White House.” I didn’t know what she meant by that response either but it was clear she didn’t want to discuss the matter further because she walked away from me.
I think the best strategy you suggested would be to overuse the word. If someone tries to query your use of the word, walk away literally or figuratively, change the subject or just keep talking and ignore the question.
BTW your hypothetical situation was hilarious. I especially loved the “polarizing dog”. We’ve had a few of those type of dogs.
February 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm
LEFTISTS ORGANIZE [POLARIZE]
Obalinsky Rules for Radicals
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Groundswell – [Polarizing] Organizing for [Obamerika] America
http://groundswell.barackobama.com/
February 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm
SARAH’S SMILE – POLARIZING FOR AMERICA
HillBuzz needs to ridicule the Leftists use of “polarizing”, by ridiculing the Leftists flagship organizing/polarizing media campaign for the Leftist in Chief, “GROUNDSWELL – ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA”, by launching its own media campaign for Sarah, such as the following:
BUZZ ON THE GROUND – POLARIZING FOR PALIN
SARAH’S SMILE – POLARIZING FOR AMERICA
“…if you want to be free, freeeeeeee you know, all you got to do is say so …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRgr9h2iO40&feature=related
Obalinsky Rules for Radicals
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
“Ridicule is man’s [HillBuzz's] most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition [Obosition - Leftists/Saatchi & Saatchi S/DNC/Axelrod/etc.], which then reacts to your advantage.”
February 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm
SARAH’S SMILE – POLARIZING FOR AMERICA
“…if you want to be free, freeeeeeee you know, all you got to do is say so …”
February 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Polarizing? Make it cute… A dance party filled with penguins & polar-bears is, er, “polarizing” (never mind that in real life, if these polar animals got together, the polar bears would undoubtedly want to eat the penguins).
Going with Katie’s graphic, make “the Polarizer” a term of admiration & endearment. Have “the Polarizer” ride a polar bear, like a sort of White Anti-Witch, freezing the chattering classes with her wand of common sense.
As Kathleen @3 mentions, you could go nerdy with this. Polarizers are damned useful gadgets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
as are polarizing filters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter
Here’s a fun bit of polarizer terminology: the Extinction Cross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_cross
Anyhow, lots of stuff on earth is polarizing, or at least polar. “Polarize” is one of those words that’s — to use a defunct Girl Scout slogan — “as great as you want to make it!”
Let’s get polar!
February 7, 2010 at 3:27 pm
And now Edgar’s gone… something’s going on around here
http://oswego.edu/student/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/penguins_polar_bear1.jpg
And now Edgar’s gone… something’s going on around here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuperez/412864148/
February 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“And now Obama’s gone… something’s going on around here”
Picture Sarah sitting on an ice flow surrounded by penguins. Sarah is wearing an Organizing for America T-shirt. The penguins are are named, Nancy, Harry, Barney, etc…
February 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Happy Feet – ROFL…. it has great dance moves ROFL
but the penguins were supposed to sing, not dance…..
Look what can be done by bucking the system.
February 7, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Here’s something that’ll piss you off. An AP story written by Liz Sidoti slamming Palin as having no ideas, her speach was all hyperbole…yada…yada…yada.
Everytime someone challenges dumb Lib Ideas, the libs portray them as dumb, with no substance. It gets old sometimes.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100206/US.Palin_s.People/
February 7, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I think it’s a free speech issue. Different people like using different words. Negro was a old term of respect and I have no idea how it became a “derogatory” word. Maybe in the film “Pulp Fiction” when used by Samuel Jackson. Either way it’s a free country and people should be free to speak as they wish and suffer the consequences to their reputation.
Firing people for “bad” words and thought is so fascist or communist. It’s not American and I was surprised when Palin called for Rahm’s dismissal for using the “F—— retarded” phrase. Deal with it. Let the people on the right and left say what they want to say.
As for Hillary and Palin they are political polar opposites. One is a Woodrow Wilson progressive (the guy jailed hundreds of thousand of Americas for exercising free speech)and one is a Libertarian light candidate. Pretty stark contrast all across the board.
Keep up the good work. I really admire your ability to think on your own which is rare on both sides of the isle.
February 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Here’s a song for all the polar bears and penguins — those naughty polarizing beasts — to dance to:
One love [the good ol' USA]
Two poles [the two different visions for this country]
Let’s get to polar and feel all right –
Hear the children crying (One love)
Hear the children crying (Two poles)
Sayin’ give thanks for an open debate and I will feel all right
Sayin’ let’s get to polar and feel all right
Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One love)
There is one question I’d really love to ask (Two poles)
Is there a place for the hopeless sinner
Who has shut down debate just to save his own?
Believe me…
February 7, 2010 at 2:44 pm
The photoshop is brilliant. I was just looking at that pic of Sarah earlier today. It’s so cute.
February 8, 2010 at 12:28 am
Double click and make it open up bigger. It’s way more fun!
Nice job, Katie!
February 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Polarized indeed, to keep the glare of ideological fervor without thought under control and out of our eyes.
Polarized like a good pair of sun glasses against the too bright rays of a too dull Democrat.
Polarizing as the way to the future by shining the harsh light of the sun on the muck called politics as usual.
Polarized because her compass runs true, and not like a wind up toy, ready to spin whichever way the wind goes.
Polarizing as in for the best versus the worst.
Oh, guys, there are lots of positive ways to spin polarized.
Why, think raybans, and good sun glasses — polarized.
Also, since She — *you know who — is from Alaska, the Polar State, well, she’s polarizing the nation, and getting the gov’t's head out of where it doesn’t belong.
The list is near endless.
February 7, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Love this Sarah stoning cartoon:
http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/media-bias-3/stoning-09-1024srgb/
February 7, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Hillbuzz Guyz,
You said, “‘The TV said it’ is a lot more common than you’d think. Especially in Iowa. Just wait for the HillBuzz book — there’s a whole chapter on Iowa and all the inane things that we encountered there.”
I’m assuming that you maybe spent most of your Iowa time in bigger cities, like Iowa City and Des Moines. Those college towns are chock-full of angry liberals who, unfortunately, have managed to impart their radical ideas to young Iowans. Past 30+ years something happened: the percentage of young people attending four-year colleges went from 9% to 35%. Plus, we manage to lose good people to other states—especially during the Vilsack terms & now the Culver years. Businesses are punished with high taxes and restrictions.
As a lifelong Iowan, I can tell you that “inane” people used to be a rarity. Most of my fellow Iowans used to be conservative, down-to-earth and common sense. And the state usually went Republican.
By “inane”, do you mean lack of sophistication or just the naivete of believing the liberal talking points??
Right now, my Iowa county is split down the middle when it comes to elections, even though the majority still harbor conservative social ideas personally. So I would say that while close to half the state drinks the liberal Kool-Aid, one-third of us “get it” and vote conservative. It’s the minority mushy moderates who went for Benito (coupled with libs) who drug our state into the Democrat column.
However, I can tell you that, as a business owner, many customers who visit my shop are now experiencing Obama Buyer’s Remorse in a big way. So I believe we will see Iowa turning into a Red State come this fall’s election!
February 7, 2010 at 4:18 pm
As an Iowan, I think our own state-wide character flaw is that we’re trusting to a fault. Makes us rather gullible.
February 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm
That makes so much sense, NeeNee. Our nephew changed into an angry, ranting, mean-spirited Liberal during his first year at U of I. Smart, smart kid, and he was so much fun to be around (had great comedic timing), now he just tries to start an argument over trivial non-issues. I miss him a lot, but can’t be around him right now, not because I can’t argue reasonably, but because he can’t. We used to be very close. :/
February 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Love Love Katie’s PhotoShop above. I laughed so hard!!! ;) Thumbs up Katie! ~Jodee
February 7, 2010 at 4:29 pm
If we must deal with polarity I prefer to think of Sarah Palin as representative of positive polarity while the MSM and its sympathizer are the negative pole(s). If I remember basic electricity, especially DC, correctly energy/power flow from the negative polarity toward the positive.
February 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm
As always, I think HillBuzz is brilliant with this one. And if there is one candidate who can take “polarizing” out of the dictionary, it is one from Alaska.
I think they are a bunch of socialist topics that could use “a little cooling off”, like Global Warming. You want some climate change? Bring in a polarizer :-)
I think nothing takes the sting out of a term than by attaching to it something a bit silly or ridiculous. It is hard to feel threatened by something that no one takes too seriously. And I think that is what Sarah and her supporters should do on this one …
I think there is a lot of work here, but I think humor is the key.
That way, everyone can reference a slightly humorous cultural point initally, to defuse the accusation.
Then I would also research who else from history was known as polarizing … but is seen in a positive light today. (Lincoln is a bit too strong, I think, but it didn’t get more polarizing than that).
Once you defuse with humor, than it is much earier to work in a mild reference to some other famous “polarizer” to create a positive image of it.
I think you need to humor to defuse the middle to being open to the positive. You’ll never get the true leftists to lower their shields, but humor is the great answer to getting the undecided’s to lower their shields and be open to a then positive comment …
February 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I would respond with an add:
According to a recent poll, the majority of Democrats believe that socialism is a good thing. These are the same ones who stand behind Barack Obama and support his vison to remake American and redistribute wealth from one class of Americans to another. These same democrats demonize Sarah Palin because she stands against Obama’s remake of America and fights for the constitutional principles which made America the greatest country on earth.
THEY call her “polarizing”.
Most Americans would call her ‘Patriotic”.
I might then include video exerpts showing:
Harry Reid calling Obama a Negro.
Biden calling Obama a clean black.
Pelosi calling tea partiers Nazis.
harry Reid calling George Bush stupid.
Kennedy calling Scott Brown a joke.
Etc…..
You could then include an exerpt from Palin’s speech, saying she would fight and die for America.
February 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I think that once a woman wins the presidency, that will subside. The reality is Sarah is polarizing. She tends to be loved or hated. There isn’t a lot in between with her. Part of that is the media dumping on her. Another part is her prolife stance. Being a pro life woman is hard, you get called all kinds of names. My gosh during the election NOW called her a man since she is pro life. They don’t represent women, they represent liberal women.
February 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Is she really a “polarizing” figure? Does SHE divide people into sharply opposed factions?
A topic can easily be polarizing: Abortion for example. But it’s different for a person to be polarizing.
She represents a specific set of ideals. Those ideals are not new. They are similar to the ideals of some great figures like Ronald Reagan, and to the ideals of millions of Americans.
Some of those ideals are diametrically opposes to the ideals of the left. The ideals are polarizing.
Sarah Palin did (and continues to do) something that no conservative Republican has done SINCE Ronald Reagan – excite the base. Ignite a specific kind of fervent passion among a group who are generally dispassionate about their candidates.
Can that REALLY be called “polarizing”?
I contend not.
Sarah Palin has become a popular figure. The ideology she professes is not so different from the ideology of main street. It’s hard to argue with her ability to relate to the common person.
That makes her dangerous. Very dangerous.
It also means it’s very hard to argue with her POLICY. Notice that Palin is rarely attacked on her positions. She’s attacked for being “stupid”, “inexperienced”, or “polarizing”. But her ideology is rarely assaulted, because the progressives know that her ideology is too similar to main street.
Attacking her ideology is attacking Joe Everyman.
Therefore, it becomes the job of the progressives to diminish her viability in other ways.
The goal of her opponents is to call her polarizing over and over and over again until people accept it so much that she becomes polarizing because she is “polarizing”.
The point is, the term “polarizing” has become a surrogate adjective for “bad”.
Like the HB Boyz said, words are power. Whoever controls the language controls the debate.
Don’t allow yourself to fall victim to their games.
February 7, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I have a great deal of respect for Palin. I admire her courage, but I will not vote for her for a variety of reasons. The most important being she isn’t qualified enough and at times she comes across that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. I am far from the only conservative woman who feels this way. She does excite some of the base, but she doesn’t excite the base the way Reagan did. His support was much broad.
One of the things that I have found with Palin is that if you are a conservative and say something negative about her you get attacked.
When she was interviewed by Glen Beck and he asked her who her favorite founding father was she seemed like she didn’t know the answer. She may very well have been guarded looking for the right answer, but it really seemed to me that she didn’t know the answer. It wasn’t a trick question, it was her opinion. That is part of her problem. She doesn’t always articulate herself well and sadly, that allows her critics to continue that narrative.
Like I said, I like her on a personal level. But I hope she doesn’t run.
I read one of her answers from the Q&A last night…….it was awful. It made no sense, it was all these words that didn’t mean anything.
I would much rather see Michele Bachmann. The belief systems are very similiar, but she is much more articulate. She gets some names mixed up sometimes, but she handles interviews much better.
There are many people in this country who think Palin is stupid. I don’t agree with that, but that is why she is considered polarizing.
There are many people in this country who think that Hillary Clinton is cold and calculating.
These may not be accurate or even fair, but they are the impressions that people have.
I don’t like hearing people dumping on her on all the time, but she needs to improve her speaking skills before many people in this country will take her seriously.
February 7, 2010 at 6:44 pm
TROLL ALERT?
“CONSERVATIVE” GIRL????
February 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm
You are just NOT a conservative. You also didn’t watch her on Chris Wallace today. She didn’t appear the LEAST bit stupid. It is you that looks stupid allowing the left to choose your candidate.
Sarah was in total command today. Extremely well versed on all subjects. She appeared much more knowledgeable than Obumble. The Cuda was in overdrive. She has kicked it up a notch.
Look out, she’s kicking butt and taking names. She’s got them in the palm of her hand.
WHOO-HOO!
February 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Good one.
“Taking names ….in the palm of her hand.’
February 7, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“”When she was interviewed by Glen Beck and he asked her who her favorite founding father was she seemed like she didn’t know the answer. She may very well have been guarded looking for the right answer, but it really seemed to me that she didn’t know the answer. It wasn’t a trick question, it was her opinion. That is part of her problem. She doesn’t always articulate herself well and sadly, that allows her critics to continue that narrative.”"
Did she answer? Or did she merely “look” like she didn’t know the answer?
Am I to understand you correctly in assuming she didn’t answer the question? Did she merely sit there looking like she didn’t know the answer until Glenn Beck asked her another question?
When she answered the question after “looking” like she didn’t know the answer were you left wondering, “hummm….I wonder who she meant when she answered George Washington”…
Because if so, that’s YOUR problem. Not hers.
February 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Ronald Reagan had something like 35 years in radio, television, and the big screen to hone his skills in speaking and delivery before he ran for GOVERNOR.
By the time he ran for President in ’81, delivering a speech was second nature to Reagan.
Speaking to crowds and articulating oneself is a skill. It can be learned. It can be used. It can be abused.
Obama is a pretty good orator. That doesn’t make him a good President. It doesn’t change his ideology. Yet it fooled a lot of people.
You say you won’t vote for Palin because of that perception. So my question is, are you the same as all the sheep who voted for Obama because he was such a good speaker, only now you’re saying you won’t vote for Palin because you think she’s NOT a good speaker?
Illogical, at best.
Let’s try voting for people because of the ideologies they represent and their abilities to lead.
Palin had more PRACTICAL leadership experience than Obama did. She had more executive experience than Obama did. She was in charge of more staff and more money than Obama ever had been. Yet nobody seems to credit her for this or discount Obama, apparently, yourself included.
I encourage you to step back and take a look at what you believe and why. It seems clear to me that you’ve been influence by arguments and opinions that don’t carry water.
February 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Just a Conservative,
I HEARD the question from GB about her favorite founding Father…. She simple stated, “Well, all of them.” ready to move on to the next question.
Glenn backed up and said “No, you have to pick a favorite.”
I heard nothing wrong with her remarks.
HOWEVER–
I did hear that the liberals in their nickage if nitage were going apeshit trying to prove she didn’t know who was her favorite.
BTW, she answered George Washington.
I am so sick of this whiney ass shit.
February 7, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Obama doesn’t even know how many states there are.
And, he is not a good orator. He’s as phoney as they come and hence he is not believable.
He’s also too embarassed to show his grades from school.
February 7, 2010 at 10:10 pm
It’s not fair to say she is a troll or not a conservative.
She might be fairly accused of being an “Eeyore”, but the poster shouldn’t be disparaged simply for having an opinion.
Yes, I disagree with her opinion, but I am trying to address her points with counter points. I don’t question whether or not she’s a conservative.
February 7, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Boy, It didn’t take long to prove my point about being attacked if you say anything negative about Palin.
I don’t think she make a run for the presidency. I don’t think she can win. I don’t want four more years of Obama. The worst possible outcome.
I am not a conservative simply because I would rather see Bachmann make a run for it? Some how I don’t think to many liberals want Bachmann as President.
Isn’t that just the attitude that got us Obama? I am supposed to go along to get along? Sorry, I think for myself.
Palin needs to get herself a speech coach. She made a good piece of change on her book sales, she can afford it. Don’t just listen to the Q&A from last night, read the transcript. One of her answers made no sense at all nor did it answer the question.
I also am very unhappy about someone of the people her pac is supporting. Rand Paul and John McCain for two examples.
I understand her loyalty to McCain. It is admirable, but blind loyalty is not a sign of a leader. He is let down conservatives over and over. Bush had blind loyalty to Rumsfeld. Look where that got us.
February 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I’m not calling you a troll, but I find it odd that you’re pointing out flaws in Sarah’s speaking that simply aren’t there, but ARE strong talking points on Liberal sites.
Also, Bachman is mocked as a loon on the Liberal sites more than Palin, so I find it odd that you pick an even less popular woman than Sarah as your standard bearer.
Lastly, loyalty is a virtue I admire. She was nominated and brought into the national spotlight because of McCain. Treating him badly now would just make her look vapid and mean….kinda like Obama.
And yes, this is a very pro-Palin site. Like it’s a pro-Hillary site. I’m here because I get so effin’ weary of Sarah bashing I come here for a pick-me-up.
So again, did you actually hear the GB interview or did you pick up your talking points on a liberal forum, because what you’re describing I didn’t hear or take away from the interview.
Then again, I’m not foaming for fault either.
February 7, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I did watch it. I thought she was searching for an answer. I also heard Beck later say that she is the most guarded person he has ever met. That may very well be the reason she hestitated. Maybe she sometimes is searching for the “correct” answer.
Again, I like her. I just don’t want her to run for president.
I stood in line for four hours in the snow to get my book signed by her. I am a special needs mom. I think her voice is important and needed. But that doesn’t mean I would support a run for the presidency.
Also, I don’t spend a great deal of time on liberal forums. So I don’t know what they say about her in detail, I can guess, but don’t know for sure.
There was a long stream about Palin on facebook after the founding father comments and it was the same thing. One guy said that he didn’t like the way she answered the questioned and he was attacked.
I am not alone in my opinions among conservatives. This has nothing to do with her as a person, this about who can be a good leader. Something that we sorely need right now.
there is a blogpost on smart girls politics right now called Sarah not such a smart girl after all. I didn’t write it. So, while she is wildly popular among some conservatives, the numbers that aren’t that jazzed with her is growing.
12 is long ways away right now. Who knows, she may be able to get herself over the some of the criticsm and be a viable candidate that can win. But, I don’t believe that she is that candidate right now.
Read my blog, I have said many postive things about Palin. I have one negative post……when she announced she was stumping for McCain. I don’t like it, she is damaging the brand that she worked so hard to create for herself.
February 7, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I am just wondering where the evidence exist about conservative people un-jazzed about Sarah Palin??
Please enlighten.
She draws huge crowds, is three points ahead of Romney as presidential contender and her FB page seems to have grown with more than 10000 followers during the last few days.
I do not think you are a troll or a liberal, but I have a feeling you do not figure yourself to be one of us angry tea-partiers.
Sarah said today during the Wallace interview that she would fight for us commoners against the elite.
Does that frighten you?
February 7, 2010 at 9:23 pm
It’s not Sarah who needs a speech coach. It’s obama. But I don’t think he can be taught to be authentic. I never have been able to watch him.
If you think Sarah needs a coach, then you must be an elite conservative along the lines of David Brooks and Peggy Noonan.
February 7, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Again, I think she has an important voice……..Being a symbol of the tea party movement and being president are two different things.
She certainly didnt’t do herself any favors last night when she talked about divine intervention. One thing that she must do to be president is win over the indie’s. You can’t win an election without them. That comment is not going to help in that venture. That scares some people. Why? I don’t know, but it does.
Some of the pro palin websites have been taken down after her annoucement of her support of Rand Paul. She made a very conserted effort to address that in her appearances this weekend. So she is well aware of this opposition.
She could have supported John McCain with funds from her pac, but to stump for him in a primary that has another much more conservative opponent put some people off. Some people are very upset about her support of Perry in Texas. I don’t know enough about him to have an opinion.
One of the points I am trying to get across here is that not all conservatives think alike.
Read some of the blog posts on Smart Girl Politics. Some are very pro Palin. Others not only agree with my views, but are even more strong in their language of opposition.
I agree with Hillbuzz, I think her statements yesterday and on Fox News Sunday this morning certainly indicate that she is going to take a run for it. She will be able to raise the money. She may even be able to win the nomination, but can she win the general election?
Here is good example of what I mean about not thinking the same. I mentioned this site on my facebook page. I love this site, while I don’t agree with every thing that they believe in; I wouldn’t vote for Hillary but, I appreciate the passion that they have. About 30 or 40 people defriended me; some just outright, others had to call me names first. Not exactly a productive exchange of ideas is it?
February 7, 2010 at 9:35 pm
What is your point is saying anything negative about Palin. Negative things can be said about any and all candidates. I don’t think anyone here thinks she is God and will follow her blindly. She’s messed up. So what, Do you think we are such idiots that we don’t see any of her mistakes.
People here admire her because so far she is the only one who stands up to Obama with great success. Liberals don’t like Bachman because she is a strong conservative and she is also great. However, right now, she cannot affect change with her words as Sarah can with hers. I’d love for Bachman to be president. but right now….SArah is the Man!!!!
And she can beat Obama in 2012. No doubt about it. And for those who are trying to say she’s not ready and she’s not up to par with Obama, Well , you are just spouting Democratic and Rhino talking points. You are afraid of Sarah!
February 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Who is your fantasy candidate to run and win in 2012
February 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm
k, here’s the thing – is she the PERFECT candidate?
maybe not.
does every single conservative, independent, or red-blooded American patriot agree with her, all the time, 100%?
maybe not.
are these reasons to become an Eeyore – to bemoan her “inadequate” experience or knowledge – to list all possible reasons she can’t possibly win?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
she’s a little guarded during interviews – i don’t blame her one bit. after the way she was (and is) savaged by the media, by bloggers, by people commenting on blogs, i’d say she has reason to be a little guarded!
i believe she’s the best chance our country has to elect a true champion of our collective cause – the preservation of our liberty. so we need to stop focusing on the nipick-y crap and do everything we can to support her.
FWIW – intelligent people are not immune to lapses of coherence, you know. having kids can sometimes render one virtually unintelligible. just sayin’.
February 7, 2010 at 10:20 pm
“That comment is not going to help in that venture. That scares some people.”
Not really. I am a democrat/independent, I heard that line, and really have no issue with it.
I have seen her record in AK, and seen she governed very fairly, did not impose her views on others.
I would like to remind people, that there were millions of conservative who stayed home in 2008 b/c Mccain was not conservative enough, while millions of moderate dems like HillBuzz who voted and campaigned for McPalin.
In terms of social issues, I do not agree with Palin, I am more of a social centerist. But I am conservative when it comes to fiscal, free market and national security issues.
And yet, I voted and campaigned for a candidate who is further from my views than they are from yours.
February 7, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I also meant to add, as an Independent voter, I do not see Michelle Bachmann as president.
Speaker of house? yes, maybe. Not president.
As much as I respect this woman who I wrongly detested when I was still a loyal democrat, I can guarantee you, Independents will not vote for her, there will be no Bachmann democrats or Independents.
Bachmann is wayyyyy too conservative for me. I agree with her on a lot,but I would rather see her as speaker not president.
There will be Palin democrats and Indies.
–just my humble opinion as a democrat/independent.
February 7, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Again, you did NOT watch the Chris Wallace interview. She explained why she endorsed Paul.
Reagan talked about God all of the time and the lame stream media mocked him but he didn’t care.
Your problem is you STILL care what progressives think. You are intimidated. Why?
I don’t happen to care what progressives think because they are misinformed and their beliefs are flawed.
I argue with them all of the time and shut them down. I make them feel like they are STUPID.
February 7, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Sounds like you’re asking her to be just another politician. Stifling her values and beliefs because it frightens some people?
That’s what we’ve had for far too long – politicians who sacrifice the core of who they are just to win a few votes. One of the reasons people love Sarah Palin is that she isn’t afraid to stand up and say “I believe in God. I believe in his will”.
Something like 80-85% of the population believes in God or some similar variation of God. Yet for some reason we’ve been pigeonholed into thinking that it’s not OK for our leaders to talk about God. Just another example of how the big party politics of the GOP have abandoned true conservatism.
I find it interesting that you seem to say Palin it’s conservative ENOUGH because she’s campaigning for McCain, and then turn around and criticize her for making a VERY hard-conservative move by mentioning “divine intervention”.
February 8, 2010 at 12:16 am
Why wouldn’t you vote for her?
Be specific.
What I find moronic about all of your statements is that you’ve just flat out made your decision about NOT supporting Palin, and you act like it’s cut and dry.
Come on. Give a list.
Get specific.
February 7, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Read answers Obama gives to just about anything. They are ethereal, nebulous, and virtually devoid of any substance. Yet people lap them up.
Is that because Obama is such a great orator that he can talk about nothing and make it sound like gold?
Or is that really a problem with people being too focused on how someone SOUNDS rather than what they stand for?
Remember – none of Obama’s radical socialist ideals were hidden. He wrote about them. He went to a radical church. He said “spread the wealth around” on national television.
Everybody says things they want to take back when they are put on the spot.
Sarah Palin is a “real person”. In other words, she doesn’t have someone to coach her through her presentation. She’s not out there wearing some kind of mask to satisfy the superficial conservatives who care far too much about matters not relating to substance. That is exactly why so many people love her. And that is exactly why she would make a great president.
I, too, have my concerns about Palin. But I have my concerns about every candidate. Nobody is perfect because humans aren’t perfect. Expecting perfection is unreasonable. I’ll take someone who’s not a polished orator but who’s ideology and values are solidly aligned with my own any day.
Bachmann is a fine woman and a good politician, from what I know of her. If she decided to run, I’d give her a fair shot. I’m sure I would vote for her if she were the nominee. But so far she’s not even on the radar.
You make some valid points. Palin does have shortcomings that she can work on. A speech coach would probably help her. It’s not a bad idea. But like you said, 2012 is a long way off. We don’t even know if she’s running. So your adamant criticism of her “not being able to win” seem more false than anyone here who wants to see her give it a shot.
February 7, 2010 at 10:16 pm
oh, i should’ve just waited for you. this is EXACTLY what is was trying to say. you did a much more beautiful job!
February 7, 2010 at 10:18 pm
well, what “I” was trying to say, anyway!
February 7, 2010 at 10:33 pm
My frustration is that she’s light years ahead of anyone else out there.
And we learned the hard way last election. While we were fretting about the details with 40 umpteen average guys and coming up with THE most uninteresting of the group.
The dems found their Passion God. They guy that excited people, drew crowds etc.
It’s like there is this 3 tier, triple chocolate ganache’ coated, Ace of Cakes confection that folks are lining up to sample, but there are those buzzing around telling us that we need to find a nice gluten free vanilla Gluten Free Kroger’s cake that more people can eat.
I’m not saying the triple tier chocolate cake doesn’t have a flower or two off kilter or a layer of raspberry filling with seeds that some folks won’t like.
But DAMN! It’s the most fantastic thing in the room and folks want Krogers!
February 7, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Sometimes polarizing isn’t a bad thing.
Sometimes there can be no compromise.
Where is the compromise between life and death?
Where is the compromise between good and evil?
Where is the compromise between a thief and the owners of the house he robbed?
Where is the compromise between a murderer or a rapist and his victim?
Where is the compromise between slavery and freedom?
Sometimes, sometimes, polarity is not just a good thing: it’s a necessity. Some of the greatest things in this world came to be thanks to a REFUSAL to compromise or, if you prefer, by EMBRACING polarity.
A perfect case study: Slavery.
The southern “slave-ocracy” pursued a single-minded, heavy-handed approach to slavery. While the north was starting to push for restrictions and reduction of slavery, they were 110% opposed to any kind of gradual reduction, elimination, or regulation on slavery. They even pushed hard for slavery to be EXPANDED into the slave-free western territories.
Now that I think about it, this sounds an awful lot like the Saul Alinsky strategy.
Anyway, the anti-slavery factions in the north, and Abraham Lincoln, were so unwilling to compromise on slavery that the country was driven into civil war.
One might say that Lincoln was the most polarizing president in American history.
So, was that a bad thing?
February 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm
conservatives are not polarizing. They are patiotic. Democrats confuse the two. They both start with “p”.
February 7, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Hehe—
I do not like the word polarizing, simply for the fact that it seems it is always used in connections with negative descriptions or negatively intended descriptions
Therefore I think it would be useful to use it jokingly in the political realm, like the photoshopped image leading this discussion.
Also, I have polarizers (filters) at the end of my lenses, and as a photographer, it makes me see more clearly when looking at the potential image in front of me:)
February 7, 2010 at 6:56 pm
The word polarizing in a positive light can be seen as a separation of the good vs bad, the right vs wrong, etc…
The cream rises to the top.
Separating the wheat from the chaff.
With the Tea Party, Sarah et al, I see it as clear thinking, common sense, US Constitution respecting people of various backgrounds coming together.
What is left? Those who aren’t paying attention still stuck on “Hope & Change” and the far lefties.
February 7, 2010 at 7:15 pm
When people understand the differences between the main opposing issues (like big gov. vs small gov.) involving the foundations of our country, the accusations lose their power.
More people need to be educated in basic economics and government. This is a bigger project, but would be a wise investment for the country. Maybe commercials or neighborhood outreach. Maybe there are some groups already out there that could be beefed up with more support. Anyone know of any?
February 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I think polarizing the country would be a very good thing.
If by “polarizing” you mean “put the woman from the frozen north” in charge.
February 7, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Funny!! Clearly a great polarizing perspective
February 7, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I know this is OT, but I haven’t seen this theory out there much…
So, like, in 1992, it was 2 years after a census – which means that there was a change in the electorate. Perhaps that’s one reason that Clinton was able to win…? As in – a few here, a few there, and good momentum.
So, I’m really freaked by Obama taking so much control of the census. We’ll see where ACORN winds up – you haven’t really heard much about them…are they really out of there? Is Obama maybe afraid of all those electoral votes being lost in NY and CA (as is happening) and having them come to states like GA (we got two extra reps 10 years ago). Just a thought…This census thing is really getting incredibly political. Those ads I hear are REALLY disgusting (make sure you’re counted so you get your ‘fair share’ of money from the feds…WTF is that…? Seriously – how about we don’t send the money to DC so that the states have enough? so that those in DC don’t waste it with another layer of unnecessary govt?).
February 7, 2010 at 8:24 pm
My answer would be I am not running as a woman I am running as an American.
February 7, 2010 at 8:25 pm
repost:
you know how the daily kooks are going on and on about some nonexistant writing on Sarah’s palm during her Tea Party convention speech?
WELL GUESS WHAT SHE DID TODAY AT HER RALLY WITH GOV. RICK PERRY???
She wrote in HUGE letters “Hi MOM!” on that same left palm to mock these losers at the Daily Kooks and DU and Huffy-post
(the picture is below)
THIS WOMAN ROCKS!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×7663589
February 7, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I LOVE her!
BTW, I always feel the way I feel mucking out under the bird roosts when I go over to DU.
February 7, 2010 at 8:52 pm
DU was never as disgusting as it is in recent years. When Hillary was in the dem primaries, I saw some of the most disgusting crap against this sitting senator and former first lady.
I never went back. Truely some very disgusting people in that lunatic echo chamber.
February 7, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Could not get link above to work, here is another one, seems she can deflect her own enemies just fine:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/OGLMyth9f9P/Sarah+Palin+Attends+Campaign+Event+Texas+Governor/I-6qImw7h7B
February 7, 2010 at 8:33 pm
I am having some problems with the paranoia that I am seeing on several of the recent threads. Seems like some of the posters are very quick to call dissenting opinions “troll” or “troll alert”. I have been a regular here for a very long time…comment when I have something to say and post links when I think they are relevant. I enjoy reading opposing views…keeps me on my toes and gives me talking points when I have to spend time with my liberal fam and friends. I am finding that the “troll disecting” lessons are invaluable when I read other blogs and newsletters. If I had been called a troll when I first started posting here I may have gone elsewhere and would have missed out on some very valuable lessons and insights here.
Love you Boyz…love my fellow Hillbuzzers too…there will be many people reading the posts here that don’t agree with us…educate them with valid talking points, give them links to factual information and give them respect. This is America and as a veteran I fought for the rights of all citizens to have free speech and the freedom to make choices for themselves.
Okay…off my soapbox now.
Peace.
February 7, 2010 at 8:52 pm
oops, sorry, I wrote my reply to this post below. #55
February 7, 2010 at 8:50 pm
First, thank you for your service.
Second, I agree with you. I have been posting here since Hillary was running in the dem primaries, and places like this blog were so heartening as a Hillary dem, a PUMA, to know other dems felt like me at that time when we switched to support McPalin.
I agree with you, I will be the first to call a troll a troll, but disagreements are not trolling, or else the place becomes an echo chamber with all dissenting views driven out. And frankly this is a site created and maintained by moderate dems, although there are so many repubs/conservatives/newly converted independents who post here, and amazingly we agree on many many fundamental issues on the future of our beloved country.
I like HB’s “spotting a troll” lessons.
I don’t agree that when there is a dissenting view that person is a troll, or should be called one, if they are, it will be pretty obvious the longer you engage with them, and so I agree with you, instead on just doing the knee jerk thing and calling a poster a troll, engage with them. If they are a troll, as I said, the longer one engages with them, it will be very obvious they are, but the knee jerk reaction is not good.
February 7, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I agree.
February 7, 2010 at 9:41 pm
If “polarizing” seems to be applied only to women, maybe that needs to be consistently pointed out. Maybe it’s just SEXXXXXXXXXXISM!
February 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Oops, I didn’t finish my comment…
I actually think the best way to counteract terms like that is to constantly, consistently challenge and dissect them.
“Polarizing? What exactly do you mean by that?” And when someone answers with more TV talk, “And what do you mean by that?” It can force people to realize–if not admit –that they don’t really know what they’re talking about or that what they mean is ugly . “So it sounds like she’s ‘polarizing’ just because she’s a woman? Doesn’t that support sexism?”
February 8, 2010 at 12:01 am
This is OT, but I wanted to give this gift to the Boyz. Boyz, here’s Hottie McAwsome, Jr.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/297960.php
February 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm
OK, I’m late to the party on this but I believe we can do our best to neutralize the word but there is one way and one way only to put the “polarizing” charge used against all female candidates to rest.
A Hillary vs Sarah, head to head match up. Force Americans to choose between the two most labeled polarizing political figures. Force chauvinists and misogynists to have to make a choice between two women. The polarizing card can’t be played effectively because it can pertain to either candidate.
It will be a point in which polarizing will simply be accepted and people will say “so what, we can’t get around that with either candidate, you have to choose now who is the best candidate?” Once a choice is made, American’s will find out that it was all a fuss about nothing. From that point on, it won’t be an issue anymore.
However, it only works if Clinton and Palin both run honest and positive campaigns. Doesn’t mean they can’t question records, words, opinions etc… just not down and dirty Alinsky style campaigns. That would make Americans run for the hills on any future female President.
No, a head to head match up is the only answer. It is very similar to time in history when women first ran for Congress. They used the same attacks. Once, we have proven women can represent, it is no longer even brought up. POTUS is new territory and can also be put to rest with a first female president.
February 8, 2010 at 4:23 pm
po·lar·ized light (pōˈlə-rīzdˌ)
noun
Light that is reflected or transmitted through certain media so that all vibrations are restricted to a single plane.
Sarah helps all to see the light, and the media cannot change the vibrations