Home » Any bets on whether Vanity Fair…

Comments

Any bets on whether <i>Vanity Fair</i>… — 20 Comments

  1. They won’t and they won’t understand where their readership went either. And, when they publish their last issue no one will care.

  2. Palin is the real deal.

    People are always saying we need a new Reagan to lead the charge and be the one who makes all the changes we want.

    She’s here.

  3. I opined elsewhere that the MSM retains sufficient clout to defeat Palin in 2012. I think they will ruin themselves sufficiently that they’ll have no measurable impact in 2016.
    Whenever she runs, I look forward to asking libfriends, if I have any left, why they are afraid of a strong woman.

  4. Palin is a huge threat to many people because of her lack of advanced or elite educational credential coupled with her lack of deference to holders of such credentials.

    Imagine being someone who drank the academic kool-aid and has spent years and $$$ getting an advanced degree in some squishy-soft subject…and is now working as an underpaid adjunct (if you’re lucky) or at Starbucks (if you’re not). The success of someone like Palin is likely to be a serious threat to your ego, in the same way that the success of a commoner would be a threat to an impoverished aristocrat.

    There are probably enough people of this type to keep Palin from winning.

  5. An unverifiable, vicious hit piece like the VF article gives Palin a great opportunity to demonstrate her character:

    …impotent, limp, and gutless… (said twice)

    Never mind.

  6. gs,

    You’re just one of the brainwashed mob on Palin dude.

    There is a certain type of person who is invested in degrading her at every chance, and you’re one of them. It has something to do with your over-inflated opinion of yourself, while the actual facts of her life show she is galaxies ahead of you in terms of actual accomplishments and basic goodness as a person.

    I don’t know if that’s just old fashioned jealousy or envy, but it’s close.

    She’s a fighter. What she did there is what Dems do for breakfast. Republican “men” are afraid to. She fires right back when wrong is done to her and her family – like any good person should and does when they have to.

    That you have a nitpick problem with her in this incident reflects far more negatively on you than anyone else involved.

  7. 1. The way that some Palin supporters lash out with personal attacks reminds me of how some Obama and Clinton supporters lash out with the race and gender cards.

    2. Per my previous comment, the VF piece is unverifiable. (It should not have been published.) However, to some extent, it can be repudiated.

    Let’s see whether and how the people of Wasilla express support for their neighbor Sarah Palin.

  8. It is bad form for a man who attacks someone personally, to complain in the next ten seconds about being attacked personally.

    And as to personal attacks, maybe it is you that is the problem, and not Palin. Have you ever considered that possibility?

  9. Mike Mc. Says:

    It is bad form for a man who attacks someone personally, to complain in the next ten seconds about being attacked personally.

    And as to personal attacks, maybe it is you that is the problem, and not Palin. Have you ever considered that possibility?

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

  10. Neo’s question (whether VF will retract) has been overtaken by events.

    The article was a shoddily executed piece of dirty politics. It should have fallen flat or backfired to Palin’s advantage. Instead, after Palin’s intemperate response, I can picture the VF people high-fiving each other.

  11. There was no particularly intemperate response except by people who freaked out about “limp wristed.” Even liberals said the VP was a shoddy piece of journalism. Time for folks to get out another Palin hit job. The mill has got to keep running.

  12. It was a pretty poor piece of “journalism”. Seemed like a college paper piece. Will probably have the opposite effect of what they’re going for. It was all so vague with lots of “sources have said” kind of stuff, by people who are “afraid of being public” because they’re afraid of retribution. Big deal. In my building we’re all afraid to complain about neighbors with our names, because we’re afraid of retribution. So we get and give complaints to the super who keeps it anonymous because we are all too wimpy to confront folks. Big deal. The article also didn’t even say anything that bad. Just lots of petty examples that Palin is ambitious and narcisisstic. Even if these examples are true Big Deal. Ambitious. Narcisstic. Who isn’t who is on the national stage? This is really really bad? I mean, I guess it would be better if famous people were gracious and selfless and all that, and really classy but really, how realistic is that gonna be? Read the article and just think for a hit piece it’s kind of pathetic. There’s no meat, just a lot of “we don’t like her” stuff.

    Vanity Fair has become such a dissapointment.

  13. 1. FenelonSpoke, the phrase Palin used to Hannity was “impotent, limp, and gutless”. One of my comments above has a link to a transcript and audio.

    2. Among the unsourced VF smears there is verifiable criticism of Palin attributed to one of Wasilla’s leading citizens, Colleen Cottle.

    3. As linked by Neo, Gina Loudon quotes the VF piece and comments:

    “…But it is Palin’s persistent encouragement of the prayer warriors that most clearly reveals her worldview: she is good, her opponents are evil, and the war is on.” Agreed. She is good, her opponents are evil, and the war is on!

    Words fail me.

  14. Pretty lame: the retraction should come from the magazine, not just the reporter.

    Vieux Charles, at the moment your link doesn’t work. Fify, hopefully.

  15. not so pretty but it should work:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/vanity-fairs-sarah-palin-_0_n_706485.html

    it’s still lame, Gross apologized for making an error not lying – as Gina Loudon stated.

    an observation: So how exactly did this esteemed investigative reporter confuse well-known conservative activist, Dr. Gina Loudon, as being Palin’s “nanny”? She’s got her own webpage for crissakes – and she doesn’t even have an apple in front of her face.

    😉

    He’s either incompetent, a liar or both.

  16. “Palin’s advantage. Instead, after Palin’s intemperate response, I can picture the VF people high-fiving each other.”

    If the VF people are high-fiving each other in a cold dark room with no windows, does anyone care?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>