OK, this I can’t resist breaking out in vicious laughter over:
As the late-middle-aged couple at the table next to us get up, the male half approaches, grinning: “Excuse me, aren’t you Governor Sarah Palin?” It’s so lame that [the now-permanently typecast Tina] Fey can barely manage a quarter of a fake smile. “Not for, like, three years now,” she says, looking as if she’d like to dive under the table.
The guy has his gag, though, and he’s going to run with it. “I so enjoy watching you on Fox,” he says.
“Thank you, have a nice day,” she replies. As he walks away, she murmurs, “Until the day I die. Until the day I die.”
I mean, Awwww. It’s so cute when Hollywood actors and actresses think that they’re people. Continue reading Tina Fey not reacting well to her perpetual typecast.
…don’t have to.
Anyway, in the process of watching Paul Krugman skirt as close of the edge of racism – i.e., recognizing objective reality about our current President – as he dares, the fellow exudes this sentence:
The 2008 race was looking close until Sarah Palin and Lehman came along.
Dude. That’s not even wrong. I mean, I was there for 2008: the race only started looking close when Sarah Palin came along. It took the American economy melting down – and John McCain’s in-retrospect stupid response to it* – to put it away for President Obama, sure… but Sarah Palin was the only thing that gave that campaign any internal energy at all. This should have been well known, even to those associated with the New York Times: I can only conclude that Krugman has somewhat, ah, peculiar requirements for maintaining a particular narrative.
I mean, seriously. Jeebus, Krugman, order a wig and fake glasses for your wife like every other liberal male of your social class and proclivities, already. This was hardly dignified of you.
*IIRC, at the time I thought that his was brilliant. Well, that’s how you learn.
…I was going to try for the same pseudo-legal blather that Eric Wimple was using to try to pooh-pooh the idea that the Washington Post really needed to get its readership to paw through Sarah Palin’s emails, but fortunately I realized that all I actually wanted to say was “Eric Wimple is being a schmuck here.”
Eric Wimple is being a schmuck here.
Yeah, that’s a lot more straightforward. Continue reading #rsrh Bias Watch: “Bias Watch: The Palin Emails.”
A picture is, as they say, worth a thousand words… or, in this case, several pounds’ worth of emails.
That picture is of the media, as Justin Hart put it,” jammed and running to the elevator to get the #PalinEmails.” For those wondering, the “#PalinEmails” are… the collected email record of Sarah Palin when she was Governor of Alaska, and the media has gone into full Geraldo-Rivera-Capone-bank-vault mode over perusing them. Not to mention stark, raving mad. And that’s why New Media exists: not because Old Media has decided to devote finite resources to this story, but because they’re apparently ready to devote enough resources to make the whole thing into a sweaty, high-density spectacle. Which would be fine, except that people were kind of counting on them to report, well, the news.
Seriously. Look. At this moment Sarah Palin is a television pundit on a road trip. So could the media please stop obsessing over her like this? They’re starting to set off my stalker-detection alarms.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
Apparently, THAT WOMAN is making them break traffic laws.
The reporters who are speeding, tailgating, cutting off other cars, blasting through roundabouts and passing on the right in an effort to keep up, say they have no other choice since they never know what Palin’s up to or where she’s headed — and aides typically won’t tell them anything. Once they’re on the road, they’re filing urgent updates by phone and figuring out unorthodox bathroom breaks, like the reporter who pulled over to relieve himself on the side of the highway going from Gettysburg, Pa., to Philadelphia — drawing notice from both Palin aides and the rest of the trailing press.
Hey, here’s a radical notion: STOP STALKING HER, then. Because you do realize that she’s doing this to mess with your heads and give everybody else a good laugh, right?
Via Hot Air Headlines.
Jon Ziegler, in passing while talking about why Kathleen Parker got canned from her CNN gig (short version: she was intellectually flabby, yet uninteresting) (H/T: Hot Air Headlines):
There is also an interesting secondary element to Parker’s demise which might make media pundits a little more hesitant to attack Sarah Palin. Since the 2008 election, many of [Palin’s] biggest media critics have found themselves out of a job. Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, David Shuster, Alan Colmes, Campbell Brown, John Roberts, Larry King, Harry Smith and Parker are all prominently mentioned in my documentary and all of them have been let go from TV jobs since Obama got elected.
I am pretty sure that it’s a coincidence, or perhaps a situation that’s just developed in parallel: after all, these are all television news/opinion media personalities, and it’s no secret that television news sucks these days. Which doesn’t mean that the talking head designated as ‘Chris Matthews’ should not, as Jon suggests right after the above quote, be unworried about retaining its position…
Mister President, here’s the bar that you have to clear.
Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
It’s a high one. A much higher one than your attendants are telling you that it is. They are almost certainly telling you to concentrate on the ‘blood libel’ comment – which, by the way, will immediately resonate with at least 40% of the population of the country, mostly because it is damned accurate* – but what you really need to do is take note of the fact that she’s saying the things that the President should be saying right now about the need to come together, the glory of this country – and, yes, that the Democratic party is acting like a bunch of [expletive deleted] right now, and that they need to stop.
Call in your speechwriters. Make them watch this speech. Tell them that you need one just like it, only twice as good. Because if you don’t – if you go with your usual scheme where you try to set yourself up as the only rational solution in a world full of the irrational – you will merely hasten your irrelevance.
(See also here: I promoted, but I had more to add).
Moe Lane (crosspost)
Continue reading Obama’s Tucson speech preempted by THAT WOMAN.
Which is not bad for a political prognosticator, actually. Charlie Cook is arguing in his latest column that the President must be hoping that one or more of the following things happen:
- Unemployment goes down;
- We not lose the war in Afghanistan; and/or
- THAT WOMAN gets the Presidential nomination.
…if the President wants to be reelected. First off: amazing what two years of institutionalized blithering incompetence will do to a man’s public perception, isn’t it? Seriously, Barack Obama should have taken four years off to go be Governor of Illinois, or something: because he’s got pretty much none of the life skills that we expect from chief executives these days. Second: let’s look at Charlie’s points, more or less out of order.
Continue reading Cook gets two out of three right.
If you’re not reading Andrew Malcolm… um, why is that, anyway? From his latest:
Palin should only hope Obama was telling the truth about his inattentiveness to her activities. That would be repeating the same mistake some of Obama’s Democrat competitors made back in 2006-07.
They thought that an inexperienced elected state official who’d quit that job to run for higher office, who could give a real good speech but had zero foreign policy experience and who had only written a couple of best-selling books, could not possibly present a serious political challenge to established Washington veterans.
And we all know now how accurate that thinking was.
Man, there are levels to that. And read the whole thing.
Let me sum up this story (via Hot Air Headlines): the America by Heart book tour of THAT WOMAN – who has not yet announced whether or not she is running for President – does… not include any stops in the state of New Hampshire. This apparently confounds a large variety of professional political observers, even though THAT WOMAN is not particularly popular in New Hampshire and is not running for anything at the moment.
I know that this is going to sound like a radical, wild-eyed theory: but have people considered the notion that a state with a total population of 1.3 million people and no major cities might not be the most cost-effective place to hold a book media event?