Because she doesn't just repeat it, she repeats is just about verbatim from her coming out speech at the convention. "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska".

-- Kitt

I actually get it. I know a lot of people believe that she is shrewd, intelligent, crafty, etc., but she's coming off like a plastic doll, where you pull a string and a pre-set phrase comes out. (http://tinyurl.com/6bw3ve) It's kind of embarrassing.

That's pretty much every speaking engagement she's had since being named McCain's running mate. Shall we look for the string?

-- Pedinska

Of course, the Pee Wee doll didn't tell lies. ;)

Shooter's just irritated because the doll/string analogy works pretty well for his, er, "contributions" to this letters section, as well.

The double standards here are so frustrating. There are so many being spewed forth, it seems impossible to keep track of them much less respond to them. (See here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/cheap-and-tawdry-political-trick-by.html. In fact, Digby and her cohorts are doing a fantastic job cataloguing all of the BS being spewed forth by McCain/Palin. Where would we be if not for our bloggers?)

I guess that's the whole point. The Republicans think that if they bury their opponent in enough garbage, they don't have to actually talk about their ability to govern or their positions on the issues (which proves that they know damn well how little appeal they have on both counts). As demonstrated here, their minions continue to come to a gun fight with butter knives, but why would they bother doing any more than robotically spewing Rush Limbaugh's leftovers circa 1992? As far as they're concerned, and as McCain is instructing them, that's all they need to win a Presidential election. I hope they're wrong.

We have the right to call her on it, regardless of her sex.

-- AnnieW

...Isn't is sexist to ask for her to be treated with kid gloves simply because she's a woman?

I certainly don't think that mysoginistic or sexist comments are fair play. But, I also think that suggesting that, because she's female, she can't adequately handle being challenged on the issues surrounding her history as mayor and governor (of which there are many, and more coming to light every day) is sexist. But, every time anyone questions Sarah Palin's credentials, McCain's surrogates scream sexism. So, what, as a woman she can't be asked serious questions about her background? Why not? (Never mind that it's beyond laughable that the Republicans have suddenly become arbiters of feminism and women's right since it suits them... today. It's crazy making! See link @ sig for a great example of the hypocrisy.)

They're using her gender as a shield. That's sexist.

We have a new troll. Unfortunately, it didn't bring anything new with it. (Shocking, I know.)

I say we ignore it. It's not worth anyone's time to have to debunk (for the ten millionth time, at least) the current Democrats = KKK myth.

Talk about "new heights of stupidity."

Google "Sarah Palin sexist."

My first inkling of this theme was when Rick Davis said the campaign wouldn't allow Sarah Palin to be interviewed by the media until the media showed more "respect and deference" to her.

However, if you read my post to mean that the McCain campaign has specifically stated that Sarah Palin can't handle challenges to her record because she's a woman, I apologize. That's not the case. But, the implication is definitely there, IMO.

But do not pretend that Obama was not, in effect, calling Palin a pig. His audience laughed at the comment. They did not laugh because he was criticizing John McCain's policies. They laughed because they correctly made the connection between the lipstick on a pitbull that Sarah Palin referenced and the lipstick on a pig that Obama was referencing--and it was believing that he was, in essence, referring to Sarah as pig that made it funny.

So you spoke to Obama and every person in the audience?

There is an explanation for that I just made at the top of the page.

-- Retired Military Patriot

Do you mean this one: "YOu can see that the crowd reaction surprised him because they did relate the pig comment to Palin"? How do you know that they related the pig comment to Palin?

No disrespect to you, but I don't see any evidence for that explanation. I'm unwilling to impute beliefs or motives to a group of people I don't know simply because they laughed at something. Did anyone interview members of the audience? That would convince me.

Did it occur to you that people find the phrase funny on its own - "you can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig." The reason it's used so often by politicians is because it is vivid imagery that strikes people as amusing.

-- GlennGreenwald

Thank you! I cannot get one cogent explanation from all the mind readers out there as to how Obama's actual words = calling Palin a pig. All you get is this already oft-repeated, "but they laughed!" explanation. How on earth can anyone know why those people were laughing?

I thought Obama was talking about McCain's (stolen) message of "change." (This has been is a theme of his speeches since the RNC - that McCain has co-opted Obama's "change" message.) That saying you're about change when really just carrying on failed policies is putting lipstick on a pig ("change" is the lipstick; the failed policies the "pig"). I would have laughed at that, too!

Better trolls, please.

-- Arne Langsetmo

It is rather fitting that this guy showed up for the first time to comment on the post entitled "New heights of stupidity."