Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
Paige Wiser's column today about how Sarah Palin "could look even better" doesn't even make the claim that changing her look could earn her ticket more votes. Don't we all just want to be the prettiest princess at the party? C'mon, girls!
"The former beauty queen is unquestionably attractive. Her signature look, however, is proving more divisive than her politics," Wiser writes. I think "unquestionably" is a stretch, though hairdos and shoes do indeed divide Americans more than book-banning or definitions of life. But is it Palin's "'propensity for wearing light colors'" that prevents her from presenting "'the gravitas she needs,'" or could it be that she doesn't appear to know very much? Palin's eyeglasses "can cost up to $700 a pair, depending on the lenses." Not mentioned is that for those of us reliant on prescription eye wear, the choice isn't exclusively one of fashion; It's also one of insurance coverage. But please, tell me more about how just-folks Palin is. Oh wait. This story doesn't get anywhere near that. Instead, it's a head-to-toe analysis of what Sarah Palin should do if she wants to be prettier, how to "'boost her sex appeal;"—because if a female politician can't have the courtesy to be a boner machine, then she's not really worth the party-line rhetoric she rode in on.
Stories like this degrade women, and even though Sarah Palin makes my skin crawl, that's secondary to how much I can't stand reductive, objectifying bullshit columns about how she looks, if she's sexy enough, what she should do to be more attractive. It's not Sarah Palin's job to be sexy.
And if you're going to write an entire article about how Sarah Palin looks, and include two whole paragraphs about what kind of make-up she wears, but not make a single a lipstick joke...well, that's just lazy.
Photo via Palin's Facebook page
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
WTF!?
I don't see articles on how McCain could look more attractive if he did something about that Tipsy Turtle look he's been rocking or Barack could look even more yummy if he only got his ears pinned back. Hmmm....I wonder why?
I really hope that article was written in jest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/fashion/18pelosi.html?_r=2&ref=style&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
@ Kaonashi: Paige Wiser probably considers "lather, rinse, repeat" to be a three-step chemical process. Did you expect a deeper piece from her?
Makes me miss the satire of Debra Pickett.
No, it's not her job to be sexy, but I've got a feeling that McCain wouldn't have given her more than a cursory thought if she didn't have that MILF appeal (or at least what some people think is MILF appeal) going on.
It's not right that Hilary got mocked for the pant suits, or that Chelsea got made fun of for not being attractive enough, so it only follows that it's not a good thing that Palin gets so much attention for her looks, although in my personal opinion I wouldn't give her a second glance. She's pretty ordinary looking in a sexy-secretary kind of way, I guess.
On a brighter note, I would also like to mention here, that there was a rally yesterday in Anchorage called "Alaskan Women Reject Palin" and I guess it was pretty big.
It was the biggest political rally, ever, in the state of Alaska.
Bigger than the Palin rally that got national media coverage.
I think that once people get beyond the designer lenses and cute little outfits they're going to see what she really stands for.
Ugh. So what's up with the Sun-Times' plan of cutting three columnists? Please let one be Wiser. I haven't been able to stand her drivel since she was a Smoron.
I appreciate Chicagoist posting such stupid pointless garbage (which has nothing to do with Chicago either.)
It does several things; 1.) shows your ignorance on the issues at hand, 2.) further solidifies the hard core left, further dividing and distancing the much needed independant, or sane and rational, left vote, 3.) shows your inability to practice the most basic of journalistic standards, including research, and 4.) does more for the other side than your arrogant, cynical, smug self could imagine.
So thank you
Nothing to do with Chicago? The story is from a Sun-Times columnist.
Whats your point? The Sun Times also has articles on terrorism in Australia, car bombs in Iraq, Charlie Weiss and Notre Dame, New York and AIG, Lehman, national gas prices...
Are we going to regurgitate everything we want to and nothing we don't from the Sun Times or Trib now?..Oh wait... Sorry
I think that we as women should objectify Palin forever and ever becasue it is offensive to be as a woman and a feminist that she would grab on to Hillary's coattails and hang on for dear life when she has nothing even approaching the resume of Hillary.
She is the worst kind of woman to be heralding as a feminist. She disgusts me in everyway.
She makes Dick Cheney look like Wayne Brady.
the sexism ... it's so deep!
OK, "Leftcagoist," er, I mean "Obamaist."
Don't realize how you have reduced your website to a liberal whine-factory?
Let's look at just a few of the pathetic snipes from the above article:
1. "...more than book-banning..."
On this point, Chicagoist, if you had the slightest hint of a fact-checking policy, you would know that Sarah Palin never banned ANY books nor even hinted that ANY books would ever be banned. You are simply repeating a LIE that is being regurgitated on left-wing blogs.
2. "...or could it be that she doesn't appear to know very much?...."
Boy, I could see that one coming a mile away. You can't read ANY article on a left-wing site like Chicagoist without the point being made that liberals are SMART and conservatives are DUMB. Here's a question. Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that Obama is smarter than Palin? Do you have his SAT scores or hers? Surely, on just all matters I have heard, she sounds better than the Obamessiah.
3. "...she's not really worth the party-line rhetoric she rode in on..."
Come on, Chicagoist. Why not just change your name to "The Chicago Hipster Edition of the Daily Kos"?
4. "...and even though Sarah Palin makes my skin crawl..."
Look around, Chicagoist. Don't you have any writers who are not afflicted with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome)?
As a final point, please note that other -ist sites, such as Gothamist and LAist, do NOT engage in the pathetic right-bashing, "Coronate Obama" mentality of Chicagoist. You are making yourselves look bad. And you are making the Obamessiah look bad by association.
Come to think of it, thanks!
, that's secondary to how much I can't stand reductive, objectifying bullshit columns about how she looks, if she's sexy enough, what she should do to be more attractive. It's not Sarah Palin's job to be sexy.
jennyblur,
Agreed.
Palin is NOT a feminist and a couple of reasons why:
She does not support a woman's right to choose. The only choices under her plan are having the baby or putting it up for adoption.
But if you choose to keep the baby (even if you've been raped because under her plan that's the way it's going to be), but if you choose to keep it then she doesn't want to support you as illustrated by the fact that she cut funding for a local shelter in Alaska for pregnant teens.
(this is what KILLED me, when she mentioned how wonderful her daughter was because she CHOSE to keep her baby. Wow. Isn't it nice she had that choice? First of all, she has the choice to keep it but secondly, she is a child of privilege and has no worries about where her rent or next meal or healthcare will come from.
Also, Palin is a working mom. That's great, but she does not support other working moms. Her running mate is John McCain, who supports business' rights to discriminate on the basis of gender, who opposed funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program and also supports cuts to the Family and Medical Leave Act.
So....it's cool if you're a teen who is pregnant AND have a wealthy family to take care of your problems. It's cool if you're a working mom who does not have to rely on day care. That is Sarah Palin's brand of feminism.
Big city news paper columnist= Lipstick
Sexist comments focused on canidate's appearance = pig
I agree with mepps. There is no Chicago connection here. It looks like the editor is using this site again as a platform to express her personal opinions on national politics and gender issues.
It's bad enough that we have to endure endless posts in here regarding Barack (because he's from Chicago, I guess) but I'd hate to think this site is becoming just another noisy left wing political blog.
I am the only one that noticed that Lyons, despite her stated dislike of Palin, actually offers what amounts to a defense of her? Yeah, the defense is more against the ideas of the column than of the potentially wounded feelings of the GOP candidate, but I refuse to believe I am the only one here who can read, or who remains unblinded by partisan passion that I am able to read this without having an overly-sensitive reaction.
Ward Up: For one, it seems pretty clear--though not 100% certain--that Palin did, at least in theory, support the idea of removing books from the public library in Wasilla because they offended her religious and/or political beliefs. My sources are the usually left-wing propaganda sheets, I guess: New York Times, WSJ, other publications that actually do real reporting. And can a person in this country EVER express any dislike of ANY candidate without being accused of acting like some victim of ideology? Christ, this country doesn't even know how to handle different views anymore--it's all about being a "hater" or whatever.
Heaven forbid a woman with a family is also a governor, mayor, hunter, business owner, and fisher amongst countless other things. I guess the new feminism is NOT doing things men can do and sitting at home espousing the reasons woman should kill babies.
Maybe you guys should applaud success amongst woman instead of trying to degrade any person who does not espouse the extrememe left wing positions on abortion as anti-feminist.
Seriously, you have one quota to fill for someone to be a feminist? And at the same time you call people without your view simpletons.
You. Are. Laughable.
Maybe you guys should applaud success amongst woman instead of trying to degrade any person who does not espouse the extrememe left wing positions on abortion as anti-feminist.
I think it is a bit more complicated, and less ideological, then you contend. For one, Palin is seen my many as achieving her jobs less through talent than through charm and good looks and friends--not evil tactics, and certainly not uncommon in politics--but hardly the stuff that would make feminists cheer. Certainly her views on abortion play a part, as her views are not just contrary to those held by those on the far left, but outside the mainstream, as evidenced by various polls over the last few decades. As well, some see Palin as another mascot put up by the GOP to satisfy a need to look progressive. That is hardly the stuff of feminist legend, either.
Mind you, I am not saying I believe this, only trying to point out some holes in your partisan emotionalism. Actually, I think it is pretty cool that Palin hunts, but then again, I have a soft spot for hunting, even those who, like Palin, shoot from the air, which I consider rather elitist :)
mepps:
Go to ANY reputable newsite (slate, washingtonpost.com) and they are reporting that McCain/Palin have told more out and out lies than the Obama/Biden ticket. It seems to me the the Republicans, rather than admitting that they are disgustingly outmatched, are just resorting to the blame game on blogs that don't match your ideology.
And while I agree that the Palin/Chicagoist connection here is tenuous at best, the issues discussed (sexism etc) are valid in any forum.
Also: in case you haven't noticed, the McCain/Palin themed posts are getting by far the most comments. My guess is that this was posted to up page-views.
The Sun-Times employs such hacks as Dippy Doper and Lori Rackl so any commentary about how mediocre the rag is, is redundant.
Actually, we do better traffic posting about bacon.
Jennyblur; thanks, but exactly where in the discussion did you pick up anybody discussing which campaign lies more or who exagerates the truth more?!
Nice try though.
@Margaret:
As long as the bacon came from a pig wearing lipstick.
ZING.
"Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that Obama is smarter than Palin? Do you have his SAT scores or hers? Surely, on just all matters I have heard, she sounds better than the Obamessiah."
Ward Up, do all matters you have heard include Obama's and Palin's college experience?
Tale of the tape:
Palin in 1982 attended the University of Hawaii at Hilo but left after a few weeks because of the constant rain (according to the biography "Sarah," by Kaylene Johnson). She subsequently attended Hawaii Pacific University, according to AP.
In 1983 she attended North Idaho University; in 1984 and 1985, University of Idaho; in 1985, Matanuska-Susitna College (Palmer, Alaska); in 1986 and 1987, University of Idaho. She graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in journalism, but never worked for the college newspaper or television station, according to AP.
Obama from 1979 to 1981 attended Occidental College; from 1981 to 1983 he attended Columbia University, graduating with a degree in political science, with a specialization in international relations.
In 1988 Obama entered Harvard Law School. In 1990 he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated from Harvard in 1991 with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude.
Speaking as a journalism grad myself, I think Obama's academic accomplishments are a teensy bit more impressive.
It's always a joy to read the vetted-for-accuracy, sensible commentary of our conservative readers.
I'm going back to eating more bacon.
Margaret, while I usually fault Ward for finding some "liberal conspiracy" in just about everything, I think there's a precedent for Chicagoist to turn into the Huffington Post. Which may be its intention, I don't really know. The piss fights in the comment sections usually devolve into name calling, liberal this-neocon that. I know that articles are tagged - since I really enjoy the food, entertainment and others news - maybe start breaking the sections up to politics, non-politics? Or give Ward a job as a columnist. I guess the bottom line is that Chicagoist is a media source, like the Tribune, Sun-Times, and as such will have its political bent.
In that case, Ward old sport, you could probably start up your own site and give it whatever lean you want. Let me know if you do and I'll scoot over for a look - fremodada@yahoo.com
Anything written by Paige Wiser should be taken with a grain of salt. Her column is one of those flair pieces that happens to be far from critical journalism. If one is looking for 'objective' journalism from Wiser -- or the Sun-Times -- it'll be pretty much a futile search. Wiser's columns are generally fluff pieces.
Even the Times will outright tell you that Wiser "looks at the quirkier side of the news."
Hey, Chicagoist, you have some good company to join in Palin-bashing.
Deriding Palin this past weekend (no, I'm not kidding) were (1) overly surgerized man-juice gobbler Pamela Anderson, (2) popstar "Pink," and (3) Lindsey Lohan.
Thank goodness those three have set us all straight!