Palin: Hillary would NEVER be treated this way!

Sarah Palin talks about wardrobe flap, double standard for women and special education:

Yep, Sarah, you got the short end of the stick. Nobody would dare criticize Hillary’s outfits, or treat her in a sexist way. Oh, wait…

Eat it, Sarah. Welcome to DC.

Upon looking at the linked article, she seems to be saying that in her primary Hilary was held to a different standard than a male candidate would have been. In other words, I see a bit of sisterly solidarity here, not Palin saying she is being treated worse than Clinton.

(I have got to stop defending this woman. Gah!)

Hilarity N. Suze, You may have a point, but it really pisses me off when I see a sexist article about a feminine politician, and the “Hillary + Cleavage” WAPO article stuck in my mind at the time. If Palin wants to claim sexism, Hillary’s treatment by the press has some high points to cross. And I don’t even like nor support Hillary, not a bit.

Cry me a river, Sarah.

You’re pissed off by sexist articles, so you pit Palin? There are good reasons to pit her, but that doesn’t seem like one to me.

Third sign of the Apocalypse, Palin is right.

I’m pitting Palin for saying she’s gotten half the trouble HRC got. The Wapo article is my counter example – Palin has gotten kid gloves compared to Clinton. Got a problem with that?

She doesn’t make that claim in the first article you linked to. Got another? In fact, she’s kind of implying the opposite.

OK, apparently I wasn’t clear the first time, so let me break it down. First, you pit Palin.

Then, when it was pointed out to you that Palin didn’t actually say what you said she said, you acknowledged this possibility but added that it was sexism that pissed you off.

So, it would seem the original pitting was pretty much dead at that point. But then you turned it back on Palin.

So do I have a problem with it? No, not like I’m going to lie awake worrying about it. I just don’t get why your anger at sexist articles leads you to pit the subject of sexist articles, unless you just really want to pit Palin and don’t care what the reason is.

Bah. OK, you’re probably right. The ‘cleavage’ article STILL pisses me off. And, Sarah can still eat it. OK?


There’s probably big money in Palin “eating cleavage” porn, and if she did that, her and McCain would probably win the election.

Complaining about how she’s being treated because she’s a girl? Not Sarah Palin. She doesn’t like it when chicks whine about sexism and being treated differently than the boys. Or, she didn’t in March when she was at the “Women & Leadership” conference in LA.

 Yepper. But I hope she's reflected on the fact that sans tits she wouldn't have been picked nor have $150K wardrobe expense to play up the fact.

I read this in the Chicago Tribune this morning and laughed our loud:
"PITTSBURGH - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin insisted in an interview with the Tribune on Thursday that she did not accept $150,000 worth of designer clothes from the Republican Party and “that is not who we are.”

“That whole thing is just, bad!” she said. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are.

“It’s kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported,” said Palin, saying the clothes are not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention. Still, she has been wearing pricey clothes at campaign events this fall. She said they will be given back, auctioned off or sent to charity. Most of them, she said, haven’t even left the belly of her campaign plane."

Hell, I wish they wouldn’t focus on how she looks (not bad) or how she dresses and focus more on the stuff that comes out of her mouth. If Sarah Palin was ugly she’d still be in Wasilla, probably working as a clerk or giving hunting tours. And if you want people to focus on your substance, a few suggestions:

  1. Have something substantive to say.
  2. Don’t do glam photo spreads with your boy toy hubby for People magazine.
  3. Buy moderately price clothing and tone down the make up and accessories.

I read this title as “Paris Hilton would NEVER be treated this way!” and wandered in to try to figure out what was Pit-worthy about it.

You know, it’s really not your fault you misunderstood. It’s Sarah Palin’s fault, for failing, once again, to properly communicate. I personally don’t give a shit how much money her campaign spends on clothing her. Her basic, most fundamental flaw is enumerated by this very example–nobody understands what the fuck she’s saying. That fact in and of itself renders her unworthy of the vice presidency.

Bad pitting…this time.

However, can we all get behind this question: WTF is up with her family and kid names? Track, Trig, and now we find out her sister’s kid is named Karcher? Is it something in the water up in Alaska?

I have a weird name, but I can always say my parents (liberals) did drugs*. What’s their excuse?

*They didn’t, but since I was born in the 60s it’s what many people assume. I’m looking at you here, Starving Artist. :wink:

That’s true. Sarah thinks we don’t know the difference between knowledge and winging it. We’re not suppose to recognize the void beneath those cute facial expressions.

I agree. Stretch is a very weird name for a child.

Originally said by Eliza Think-Little:

Whatdoes being frugal have to do with refuting that you accepted $150,000 worth of free clothes from the RNC? Accepting free goodies sounds exactly like something a “frugal” person would do.