The Best Case Against Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin

palin_sarah.jpgMuch has happened since John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his Vice President, having chosen her after an extensive vetting process composed of… oh, I don’t know, picking her name out of a hat, perhaps, or a lively session of “Spin the Bottle” with all available candidates. Back in those days – the halcyon, innocent days of August 29 through 30 – I was merely insulted that John McCain had chosen to exploit the feminist optimism born of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Lots of people were inspired and made hopeful by Hillary Clinton’s relative success as a candidate, which was undeniably historic; even if you preferred Obama’s policies (as I did), Hillary Clinton made it possible to believe that someday, some woman might be elected President of the United States. Many of the same people were disappointed when Obama picked Joe Biden, Long-Time White Dude, to be his running mate. He could have chosen Sebelius! Hell, maybe he could even have chosen Clinton! What is Grandpa doing at the party?

Then, John McCain picked Palin as his VP.

You see, the press has been operating, for many months, under the following three assumptions: 1) women supported Hillary because she was a lady, 2) women who supported Hillary hated Obama, 3) these women (who, one must assume, are Democrats) are so fuzzy on the whole “politics” thing that they will vote against Obama even if it means supporting a candidate who has basically nothing in common with HRC, because women always vote with our emotions and simple logic (as in, “if you can’t vote for HRC, vote for the most similar candidate”) is beyond us.

If you believe all this, then nominating a lady on the Republican ticket was a super-savvy move! Women, the theory ran, would be so blinded by vagina that we’d rush to vote for McCain and his Special Lady Friend, and we’d ignore the fact that, in his years as a senator, McCain has persistently voted against the rights and interests of women.

So yes, at first, I was insulted. (“Does McCain really think I’m going to vote against my own interests because he’s picked Token McLadypants?”) Then, I was despondent. (“Oh, my god, people are going to fall for this, my right to choose is DOOMED.”) Now, however, as more and more information about Sarah Palin surfaces, I am absolutely ecstatic. Because Sarah Palin is her own – and her party’s – worst enemy.

Let’s pick an issue. A simple issue. Something like… oh, let’s say, birth control. Sarah Palin has stated publicly that she will not support education about birth control in public schools. Then, of course, her 17-year-old daughter got knocked up. Gosh, it sure seems like some education about birth control could have prevented that! Or perhaps, if her birth control failed, some EC – though it’s unlikely Palin would support that, since evangelical Christians (of which Palin is one) tend to believe that it constitutes abortion (which Sarah Palin is adamantly against) even though there’s no evidence that EC can terminate a pregnancy once it’s begun. Then again, by talking about “evidence,” we’re veering dangerously close to the realm of science, to which Sarah Palin is also opposed: she has supported teaching creationism (or, as it is also known, “Magic Jesus Studies”) in public schools, and doesn’t believe in global warming.

Let’s move on. Surely, since Sarah Palin is opposed to birth control and abortion, she’ll support teenage mothers who choose not to abort their unplanned pregnancies, right? I mean, they represent everything she’s working so hard to create! Wrong: Sarah Palin chose to cut funding to the Passage House center for teenage mothers. To be fair, she also cut funding to several other programs aimed at helping at-risk or troubled teenagers, and apparently did almost nothing to address the failing educational system of her state, so she seems to be against children in general – at least, once they’ve left the womb.

Voters will be glad to know that Palin isn’t wasting taxpayers’ money. Instead of spending it on things like education or support for people in need, she’s concentrating on the essentials, like shooting wolves from helicopters.


That’s right.

Sarah Palin supported a government-funded program to SHOOT F–KING WOLVES FROM GODDAMN HELICOPTERS. You get in the helicopter, fly over some wolves, and shoot them. This is a favorite hobby of hers, apparently! She wants taxes to pay for it! You cannot make this up. This is one more step in Sarah Palin’s lifelong campaign against nature, which also includes a proposal to drill in wildlife reserves, and probably a “kicking baby squirrels to death” initiative we haven’t heard about yet.


So, yes: Sarah Palin hates children, animals, and knowledge, is wrong about pretty much everything, and is usually wrong in a spectacularly bizarre fashion. She’s probably her party’s greatest liability at the moment. However, even if she doesn’t become our next Vice President, there’s a chance that she could end up running a country. She has extended her support to the Alaskan Independence Party, which wants Alaska to secede from the United States, so she could very well wind up becoming the new Empress of Coldsvania. This, combined with drilling in wildlife reserves, means that in a few years, we may actually invade Alaska in order to get control of its oil.

We’ll have to watch out for the Alaskan army, though. They’ve got those wolf-shooting planes.

[IMAGE 1: The terrifying maw of Sarah Palin, taken from]

[IMAGE 2: Sarah Palin wins yet another victory over the Godless caribou that plague our nation. Yes, it’s really her. She’s “pro-life,” you see, which explains why she spends so much time killing things. Image from the Sydney Morning Herald,]



    1. Educated Voter says:

      That is the dumbest article I have ever read. It's sad to think people like you actually have a vote in the up coming presidential election. Instead of arguing about her views on the economy, the excessive government spending that is going on in Washington and what needs to be done about it, or the 2 candidate’s tax plans you argue about how Palin hates kids and like to shot wolves from helicopters. Smart, you really changed my vote. Maybe you should actually grow a brain do some research and come back and right an educated article.

    2. Wayne says:

      This article sucks partly because it's factually wrong.

      Also, Erica of Kent State, I would like to know why you can't imagine why any woman would vote for her. Are you saying that all women have certain shared viewpoints and that anyone who doesn't hold those viewpoints cannot be a woman? If so please tell me what those viewpoints are and please tell me if there are any viewpoints that I should hold if I want to be considered a man and further tell me if there are any viewpoints I should hold if I want to be considered an ethnic minority.

    3. Lauren, University o says:

      Um, Educated Voter…

      If you are so "educated" you would know that 1) you cannot "right" an article, 2) Palin actually hates kids and likes to shoot (not "like to shot") wolves from helicoptors and, 3) this is a very well researched article.

      I am not worried about having you as a voter – you seem like someone who wouldn't be able to figure out the voting instructions anyway.

    4. J - NYU says:

      Seems like Sady is just following Palin's lead…did she say ANYTHING about tax plans, Iraq, Washington, or foreign policy during her speech on Wednesday?

      I think not.

    5. Educated Voter, you are the reason why we still have an electoral college. Did you HEAR the speech she gave at the RNC? I don't know why any HUMAN(or animal for that matter) would want to vote for her!

    6. Shar says:

      Sarah Palin wasn't picked to appeal to Hillary's voters. She was picked to appeal to the far right, who McCain has traditionally had trouble with. If the GOP was more concerned with swaying the votes of independents or moderates, they might have stuck with Lieberman. However, they didn't want the far right voters to be pissed off by the choice of a Democratic Jew, and stay home and not vote, because they are a huge faction of the Republican party. So while yes, Sarah Palin was definitely chosen to shake up the GOP a bit, so it would appeal fresher and less stale, she wasn't chosen to sway Hillary's voters. She was chosen to attract the far right.

      I don't like Palin either, but this article is a god-awful piece of propaganda.

    7. Elizabeth says:

      This article couldn't have been better. I challenge anyone who feels differently to address the issues in this article one by one and show us all the light. The Northern Lights. (Yes, I had to throw that in there).

    8. Educated Voter says:

      Lauren sorry for not using the spell check on my comment box, my fault and yes I am able to figure out the voting instructions unlike the people down in Florida.

      Yes I watched her speech the other night she addressed everything that she need to she introduced herself to the nation.

      By the way have any of you actually read the two candidates tax plans or are you just going off what the media tells you? Just interested in seeing how much you actually know about what you are voting for.

    9. BJ says:

      Sadly, the republicans – especially the ones where I am – are really excited about the woman.

      It makes my head hurt…

    10. Sady - The New Schoo says:

      Actually, Educated Voter, a large part of the article was devoted to the economy. I discussed why she cut funding to and/or failed to fund issues of importance, such as minimizing her high school's drop-out rate or providing centers for assisting at-risk populations in training for and finding jobs. I also discussed why she pushed for drilling in wildlife reserves (rather than backing research into alternative energy sources) and, yes, paying for government employees to shoot wolves from helicopters, which seems like the textbook definition of "frivolous spending." I haven't heard Palin voice a single coherent plan for salvaging our national economy – all I know is that she doesn't like Obama's policies, which means nothing if she doesn't have a better plan to offer.

      Shar – I do agree that Palin appeals to far-right extremists, but Palin's (pandering, offensive) references to Ferraro, Clinton, and the "cracks in the glass ceiling" also indicate to me that she is meant to appeal both to the rising feminist sentiment stirred up by Clinton's campaign, and to the middle-aged white women who were some of Clinton's most dogged supporters. It's not either/or; it's both. And frankly, I find both her authentic support of the far right and her false support of feminist principles equally intolerable. Call it propaganda if you want; in newspaper circles, it's referred to as an "op-ed."

      Wayne – Factually wrong? Are you referring to the jokes? Because I read up on these things, and as far as I can see (and you can see, as per the links I've provided) everything I've said about Palin's policy choices is backed up by statements or decisions she has made.

    11. Wayne says:

      The point about birth control.

      I mean really? Who are you to say that her daughter didn't use birth control? I thought one of the abortion rights arguments is that birth control ISN'T 100% effective and that "accidents" do occur.

      And so what if she doesn't want it taught in schools? That doesn't mean she didn't teach her about birth control or practicing abstinence in private, in a mother to daughter talk. And even if they did have that talk, would it have been so unusual for a teenage daughter to disobey her mom? Can't wait until you have teenage children.

      That's point #2.

    12. Belle says:

      As much as I agree with this article's core points, I am worried that inflammatory articles like these will not sway undecided voters toward the best candidate for America. Everyone knows that Palin is all guns, God and anti-gay, but a surprising amount of people fall in line with these values. Sarah Palin is pretty, consistently conservative (no surprise given that she has no experience actually dealing federal bipartisan issues), and fills the "Maverick McCain is back with a new twist – it's a woman!" card. Unfortunately, many Americans vote on personality politics alone and this was a pretty great strategic choice.

      Now that I've said that, I have to at least attempt to steer this toward an issue-based discussion. Sarah Palin's policy choices/beliefs will lead this country into even further decline following the disasterous Bush adminstration (recession, Katrina, an at-best plateauing war, terrible American image abroad, etc.). She has no experience dealing with federal government, let alone internationally, does not seem to understand long-term planning (off-shore drilling anyone?), and has a tax plan that seems to follow Bush's useless one (cut corporate taxes and trickle-down economics lead us where? oh right, into China/abroad for greater debt). Can a Palin supporter please address these issues?

    13. snarktastic says:

      wanna know something funny? 22 million people watched biden's speech. 38 million watched obama's. MORE THAN 40 MILLION watched palin. [numbers from cnn] like her or not, she's not someone you can just ignore and hope she'll go away.

      besides, as wayne said, she wasn't selected to appeal to the moderates, she was picked for the far right base that threatened to stay home because mccain is "too moderate". you might have done "research" but this is far from a good article. she doesn't "hate children" and it's pretty ridiculous to say someone is wrong for disagreeing with you on the issues. simply, this is a piece of propaganda.

      good god college candy needs someone more conservative to balance out all the libs.

    14. a tax payer says:

      I assume the writer of this article is:

      1. Voting for Obama

      2. Unemployed (don't say employed by that’s not a real job)

      3. Doesn't pay taxes

      4. Doesn't understand that by increasing taxes on small, medium and large business/company's decreases job growth, innovation and investment

      5. Doesn’t have a retirement plan since Obama wants to tax people who invest in our economy basically anyone with a 401K, IRA, or any online trading account.

      When did this website become political, it was better when you girls where talking about drinking, hooking up with random dudes and parties.

    15. Cookie says:

      As I'm not an American and have absolutely no plans on ever living over in your side of the pond because to be honest about 50% of you freak me out…I thought I'd share with the rest of you doomed souls an open letter from someone who has known Sarah Palin for sixteen years. I don't know if the facts are verified, but if it's true, damn scary thought for all of you.

    16. Sady - The New Schoo says:

      It's ridiculous to say that someone is wrong when you disagree with them? Do you have some bizarre alternate definition of the word "disagree"? When you say the word, does it mean "to make and eat some delicious pancakes"? Because, if so, I would love to hang out with you some time, so that we could disagree.

    17. Wayne says:

      Point 4, Creationism.

      I'm not about "Magic Jesus Studies" myself but it seems that Sarah Palin's position was taken out of context ( somewhat and she has said (,

      "she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

      Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said."

    18. Sam says:

      Blimey O'Reilly's panties, can't we all agree to stop with the mythical evil Meeeeedia and cutesy nicknames for the other side? 'Lib' is not cute. 'Lefty' is not cute. Using said nicknames doesn't make you witty, it makes you look like a self-righteous prig. I doubt this article was posted at the mythical Media Mafia's behest, regardless of its inflammatory nature. The points it makes aren't bad ones.

    19. Shar says:

      So, yes: Sarah Palin hates children, animals, and knowledge, is wrong about pretty much everything, and is usually wrong in a spectacularly bizarre fashion.

    20. Wayne says:

      As for the rest… Meh… So what if she courted the AIP? Let's call that an act of non-partisianship. I'm sure the AIP stands for other things than secession from the Union. If anything she should be praised for trying to bring people of differing views into the political fold.

      Drilling in ANWR? That's a point I think reasonable minds can disagree on, don't you think?

      As for helicopter wolf killing machines? That's just too cool for words.

    21. Shar says:

      Ok, the above statement is propagandist, in other words, meant to sway the misinformed. It was also the beginning of a very long diatribe, which was apparently cut off when I hit post comment. Will repost my argument later.

    22. Sady - The New Schoo says:

      (Psst, Shar: I was using hyperbole for the sake of making a joke. I also said that she probably wanted to start a government funded program to kick baby squirrels to death, and that John McCain selected her after a round of spin-the-bottle. I'll try not to mix humor with politics next time around. I know it's really confusing.)

      Annnnnd, I'm commenting too much, so I'll let you all sort this out amongst yourselves. I really like the fact that people are actually discussing these things.

    23. J - NYU says:

      As I've said countless times to the more Conservative minded readers out there: If any of you want to do more than just write novels in the comments, send us your writing resume, a few samples!

      We're not anti-republican around here. As everyone seems to be saying these days, YOU have to be the change you want to see…

    24. Erica - Kent State says:

      Thank you thank you thank you!

      This woman is ridiculous. I just can’t imagine why ANY woman would vote for her.

    25. T-HACC says:

      CC isn't supposed to be a serious alternative news source. It's a blog and guess what….blogs are allowed to be sarcastic/witty/entertaining/opinionated/inaccurate. If this article were in a newspaper or a report on the news I might find the tone inappropriate. But this is a BLOG. The writers are not obligated to be fair and balanced. Are you going to b*tch because John Stewart may have exaggerated a line in someones speech? I'd hope not. Jeez people pull the stick out.

      I'm not voting for McCain and Palin but I can also say this article didn't sway my opinion. It did, however, entertain me. Thanks for making me laugh Sady!

    26. Sady - The New Schoo says:

      "Fine, then, Sady-if you are going to write a serious article and try to make legitimate points, write it seriously."

      Oh, Lord, Shar. I hope you never watch "The Daily Show." Given how angry political humor makes you, I think it would just about kill you dead.

      Thanks for telling me how to do my job, though! That's always a helpful little bonus.

    27. Jess says:

      I'm getting pretty tired of reading about Sarah Palin on here. I know you all don't like her, so let's get back to the funny drinking stories.

    28. Steph says:

      I can't even wrap my head around people saying that they don't understand how any woman (or human) could vote for Palin. It's a free freaking country, and people have different opinions. Just because they don't line up with yours doesn't give you the right to attack people who are going to vote for her.

      I've been trying to overlook the ridiculous political pieces on here, and the ridiculous comments that go along with them, but it's getting harder and harder. For people who claim to be such feminists it's amazing to me how you sit here criticizing a woman. Comments in another article actually call her a "feminist" like they really don't believe it..well I didn't realize it was your place to decide who is a feminist and who isn't.

      If you want to vote for someone who's a borderline Socialist with minimal experience..then don't bitch when your taxes soar and this country keeps spiraling downward.

    29. Lauren, University of Michigan says:

      this article is great. you go girl.

    30. Jennifer says:

      "22 million people watched biden’s speech. 38 million watched obama’s. MORE THAN 40 MILLION watched palin."

      As they say, "there are lies, damn lies and statitics." Did you ever stop to think that the reason 40 million watched Palin's speech was due to the fact that two weeks ago no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin? If McCain picked a one-legged crack dealer who wore velvet pants and perpetually carried around a bowl of goldfish and then said, "Hey, here's my running mate and he's gonna give a speech tomorrow," trust me, more than 40 million people would tune in to watch that freak show. Millions of people watch Nascar, Pro Wrestling and The Hills…strange fascination is like that.

    31. Shar says:

      Sady, I'm willing to go past this and have an intelligent debate if you are. Political humor doesn't make me angry; I just think you have to be careful with it. I orginally did not criticize your humor; I criticized the statement where you said Sarah Palin was "wrong, wrong, wrong". I think it was overblown. I, personally, am not a fan of sensationalist statements.

      Regardless, there are more pressing issues at hand, such as actually discussing political issues rather than how an article should be written. Now, there was a lot more to my post than that first line, and I am honestly interested in your thoughts.

    32. Wayne says:

      I’ll take you up on that Elizabeth. First of all, the vetting process; from the article that is linked to:

      “The campaign describes a process that left no proverbial stone unturned, with lawyers and investigators taking months to scour matters including Palin’s credit history and the formal complaints that citizens lodged against her as mayor of Wasilla and, for the last 21 months, as Alaska’s governor. Breaking two days of silence, McCain told reporters Tuesday in Pennsylvania, ‘The vetting process was completely thorough, and I’m grateful for the results.'”

      Yes there are other points made in the article that the vetting process wasn’t so thorough but so what? At the most, it makes it a they say but they say otherwise argument in the article linked. I will say though that her name wasn’t just picked out of a hat. For more about the vetting of Sarah Palin (

      “Since at least the end of May when the leader of McCain’s VP vetting team (Arthur Culvahouse, not exactly a novice at this) was spotted in Juneau, it has also seemed like Palin made it to a fairly advanced stage in that process and was one of the people being interviewed. That suggests that a pretty extensive early vetting had been completed by then. The full vetting process takes months of research, interviews, document review, and re-interviews. The campaign, like modern presidential campaigns do, had a fairly large team of people devoted to the effort, working in parallel on the potential running mates who made it to the latter stages of the process. The final decision evidently wasn’t made until last week, but the vetting process is there to provide the candidate with a choice among several finalists all of whom have been vetted, and that process (public source research, extensive questionnaire, document review, a lengthy vetting report to the candidate, interviews with the lawyers) clearly included Palin….

      What took place both before and after last week’s decision just doesn’t seem out of the ordinary. The fact that the political mavens were surprised doesn’t mean the McCain team did something wrong—quite the contrary.”

      And really, so what about vetting? She’s out there now, I’m sure the media and more importantly the public will entirely have her vetted by the time we go to the polls.

      That’s enough now on point one.

    33. K says:

      I agree with everyone, this article is terrible, but really, if anyone is looking for political advice from then they're in trouble.

    34. Wayne says:

      Point #3 I’ll take issue with, “Sarah Palin chose to cut funding to the Passage House center for teenage mothers.”

      I tried clicking on the link for the details but it’s apparently a bad link.

      Anyway, the story I heard came from The Post (

      Well that’s already been shown to be a false statement (

      “In 2007, Covenant House reported $1.3 million dollars in “grant income”. In 2006, the figure was $1.2 million. So why, all of the sudden, did Covenant House seem to need 4 times that amount, $5 million or so in state money?

      The answer is that Covenant House is expanding. The plans are described in the 2009 Alaska capital budget proposal…

      State funding will assist Covenant House to relocate, and construct a new Crisis Center for Covenant House in downtown Anchorage.

      $22 million is needed to complete the expansion. Covenant House asked the Alaska legislature to provide $10 million, the legislature answered with $5 million in the 2009 budget. Governor Palin cut the figure back to $3.9 million — for this year. This likely doesn’t stop the expansion; Covenant House will either have to get more from the state in a future year and/or increase the amount from private donations to make it happen. But no existing program that helps teenage mothers or the children of teenage mothers has been affected by this budget decision, and calling a one-time infusion of $3.9 million added by the state on top of normal operating expenses a “cut” only makes sense if you can’t do math, if you don’t understand the difference between a capital outlay and an operating outlay, or if you hate Republicans.”

      To re-emphasize, “no existing program that helps teenage mothers or the children of teenage mothers has been affected by this budget decision, and calling a one-time infusion of $3.9 million added by the state on top of normal operating expenses a “cut” only makes sense if you can’t do math.”

      That would conclude point #3.

    35. Belle says:

      I would be interested to hear how people reading college candy feel they would benefit from McCain's tax plan versus Obama's. Maybe some of you make +$200K but given that this site is oriented toward 20-somethings and younger I would find that surprising. Yes, the GOP as always pledges tax cuts, but those will affect those of us making less than $200k very little, and decrease funding for essential public programs (education, public grants, poverty/crime support, etc.). Or they could be like Bush and just put everything on credit (while practicing no-contest contracting that leads to $19 million being budgeted for some nails…see Iraq war budget) ballooning the deficit to even higher numbers. But, I don't have an economics degree…maybe someone could explain how these fiscal policies might benefit those of us without trustfunds…

    36. Shar says:

      Fine, then, Sady-if you are going to write a serious article and try to make legitimate points, write it seriously. Don’t pepper it with overblown, inflammatory O’Reilly-esque sentences—they ARE misleading to the uninformed. If you want to take on the responsibility of informing readers about candidates in order to help sway their decisions, do it, well…responsibly.

      McCain may have tried to used Palin to sway women voters-she certainly lit up my radar until I read about her politics, which I don’t agree with. Hillary supporters who voted for Hillary based on Hillary’s platform aren’t going to agree with Palin. Right-wing women are. I highly doubt McCain’s camp thought all Hillary voters were simply voting for her just because she had a vagina, and were going to switch over to Palin immediately for being her gynecological twin. As for the women out there who are doing just that-it is their own fault for not keeping themselves informed, no one elses.

      It’s apparent that as young liberals, College Candy authors are most inclined towards social issues. I am as well; it’s simply something that appeals to young, idealistic hearts.

      Francois Guisot (1787-1874)–“Not to be a

      republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is

      proof of want of head.”

      Sarah Palin is certainly scary in terms of social rights, although, to be fair, she hasn’t pushed any of her personal beliefs on the Alaskan legislative system. It could be that she’s a Mitt Romney, who said that he is personally pro-life, but would always vote pro-choice. It’s something I’d like to hear her say, else I would find it hard to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket with three Supreme Court Justices ready for election in the first coming term.

      However, it’s important that we young liberals also focuses on other things, things less fun to debate about; e.g. taxes, the economy. Politicians on either side can swear up and down that they are going to cut taxes on the middle class and do everything in their power to boost the economy, but the economy? Is cyclical. Politicians have little to nothing to do with it—however one way to make sure it absolutely tanks is to cut taxes on the largest bracket of America’s earners.

      As A Tax Payer pointed out a couple posts above me, Obama’s plan for taxing is frightening. His post-profit investment taxes are certainly not going to encourage anyone to invest, and they threaten taking money away from the elderly. McCain, to his credit, wants to privatize Social Security, which is something that desperately needs to be done. I’d like my hard-earned money to go to my own nest egg, thank you very much. That’s one of the biggest issues I have with the Democratic Party-they are never going to give up the SS Social Security, that flailing ship.

      I don’t know who I’m going to vote for. I think both candidates are scary in their own right. I don’t think McCain is going to drop dead in the next four years, because in this day and age, 72 is not that old-especially not when you have the kind of finances and access to excellent healthcare that McCain does. I like his experience, but I do think he is hypocritical and a potential loose trigger. Obama, for all of his wonderful oratory, probably is NOT ready for the position-he has some wonderful views, but it’s hard to wrap your head around a candidate who really does have no direct leadership experience

    37. Stefani says:

      Yup, as far as I know, you got your facts right. There are more!

      Sarah Palin not only said we were doing "God's work in Iraq" (i.e., god sent us there . . . )

      But she also said (I heard it on a recording today on NPR) that God was telling the gas companies and other corporations to cooperate to build a gas pipeline in Alaska.



      But yeh, its the animal stuff that bothers me most.

      Her staff (Dept Natural Resources or whatever) killed 14 wolf pups this summer. They'd killed the adults, then raided the den and found 14 pups. They are supposed to try to place them in rescue, but instead, illegally, they killed them all.

      Big macho dudes I'm sure they all were, or dudettes. Wolf pup slaughterers, wow, how proud they all should be.


    38. Amy says:

      Lets just hope this horrible spine-shiver inducing choice in a VP does just what my ever-so-loyal roommate's republican grandmother stated it would do when she exclaimed that "McCain just f*cked up his chances in choosing a woman."

      I absolutely love this article and your sardonic humor has been much appreciated from this feminist temporarily stuck in the deep south. Thank you! I needed this breath of fresh air.

    39. Jackie says:

      I just want to understand, why in the HELL do any of these politicians still try to push the TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT?

      It did not work in the past; let us no repeat history. It only benefits people and companies who already have more than enough money, so why do people still support these political figures such as Palin with this idiotic sense of logic?

    40. Shar says:

      Belle, neither McCain or Obama is going to cut taxes for the middle class. Both are going to promise it, as politicians promise it every time they run for election, but it is very unlikely that that would happen. Obama is more likely to tax the $200k + crowd than McCain, but it’s going to do very little, if anything, to improve the economy.

      Obama has proposed taxes on profits made from investments. If you invest in your company’s 401k plan, you are going to be taxed on it. You will still be taxed income tax, meaning you will be taxed twice. Three times if you live in cities such as New York that claim extra income tax.

      McCain is proposing to privatize Social Security. This means that the money you are being taxed for SS now is being put aside for you. Currently, it goes to those who are retired now, and the amount those people receive depends on how much they made while they were working. So its likely that the money being taxed out of your paycheck is going to a well-off elderly person. If SS continues on the path its on, it is going to be entirely gone by the time our generation is retired. Privatization is important, and it’s one big issue I have with the Democratic Party-its their baby, and they’ll never take it away.

      Those of course are only two facets of their tax plans. I too am still learning about them and researching them every day. Keep in mind that fiscal conservative doesn’t always ride along the same values as social conservative.

    41. heather says:

      loved this article, i agreed with everything… though i dont think we should badjer palin about her pregnant kid, even though i dislike her much, i thought it was interesting how you made the connection between what happened to her daughter and how she feels about sex education. also, advertisements in my area actually depict people saying that they voted for hillary and now are voting for mccain, so to everyone who thinks this isnt a rub off of hillarys sucess, i can tell you it is. mccain advertising is evidence of it…. and i live in new jersey, which voted hillary, so that is probably why it is being aimed strongly in my area.

      his advertising, or his choice of palin, is not going to do it for me. both of their records are horrendous concerning women and sex education, not to mention the environment and the economy, and i just could never cast a vote in that direction.

    42. Kel says:

      GREAT article Sady! It def caused a lot of buzz an was hilarious as always. I think it would be cool to do something like the "He Said/She Said" articles with you and someone (maybe one of these frequent commenters?) on different political topics.

    43. molly says:

      Good article Sady, I enjoyed it.

      To all of those who are arguing over the tax issue, I just wanted to throw one thing out there;

      Do I like taxes? hells no.

      Do I think welfare is awesome as Christmas morning? not particularly. BUT…

      Since taxes DO exist, and always will, I would still rather pay for some fat worthless slob’s diet of diet pepsi, beer and twinkies than have that money go towards killing people (I don’t care WHO they are) in some country thousands of miles away. It’s all a waste of my hard earned money, but at the end of the day I prefer to not contribute to the killing of other people, no matter what they did or might do.

    44. CW says:

      Hmm, interesting if not extremely biased article. Quite frankly this country gets to pick between two candidates that much pretty much have zero upsides for myself. I may once again have to choose between the lesser of two evils, just like between Gore and Bush (horrible horrible). This isn't much better. McCain is an older Bush with a hotter VP and Obama just scares me. Bleh, I'll just do a write-in…

    45. jordan says:

      for those of you who are complaining about the article and how it isn't the most scholarly piece of literature you've ever read…what the fuck were you expecting from a site like this…

    46. jordan says:


      just out of curiosity, since you are so uninterested in killing people you don’t know (regardless of what they did or didn’t do) are you pro-choice?

      if you are pro-choice, why don’t you care about those innocent lives that are killed or aborted (same difference) for convenience every day here in America?

      If you are pro-life, congratulations on making sense in your statement and hopefully you can take that somewhere.

      And to all you “so-called” feminists” on here preaching that Palin is an insult to women, where do you stand in feminism? And do you even understand the roots of sexual equality? When are you going to learn that reproductive freedom and capability is the base of our movement and we are supposed to be fighting to make life easier for ourselves and our bodies? When will you realize and admit that abortion is a burden in our minds and our hearts and actually FIGHT for the women of the future to KNOW that abortions were created to make us feel like we can’t be ourselves in our bodies and succeed.

      Stop blaming the problems in a women’s life, future and in the world on babies. It’s ridiculous, and the democrats’ most ignorant argument, to say that killing a child is an option to make life better. The basic common sense idea for happiness is: To be happy do something FOR someone else. Find me a person who delivered an “oops” and let them explain to me why their life is bad or hard without them embracing the joys and challenges of motherhood (or the gift of giving up for adoption).

      The worst part about Palin for all you pro-choicers is that she is an empowering woman who has shown us that being a WOMAN, in all her roles as an individual, politician, mother, wife, can do everything a man can. Applaud her for that example if you are true in your feminism.

      I imagine the reason why so many younger women are democrats is because they don’t fully understand the feminist movement as EMPOWERING WOMEN. The radical feminists have changed it to making our bodies more like a man’s- turning off our power to pro-create. To all you women who claim to be proud of yourself and your body, I pose this: examine the truth about the epidemic of teenage pregnancy and unplanned pregnancies among adult women and see if you can find why abortion is a so-called solution to the problem. Really think about what women deserve. Do we prefer a life where we need to kill our spawn to go on “successfully and happily?” Or a life where our bodies are accepted for what they do and we aren’t penalized for that?

    47. john says:


      Thanks for the post. I was leaning towards Obama but you have convinced me that Mccain and Palin are the way to go.

    48. Janet says:

      Educated Voter – you need to learn to think. Not just "read" but learn how to think. There are a lot societal issues such as right to choose and hunting support that are interrelated with the overall issues in an election. Let me give you an example which will teach you to extrapolate.

      Palin supports shooting wolves out of helicopters and wants tax payers to pay for it. That means a federal or state funded program. Right? paid for by the government (you do get that, right?).

      So (this is the part that counts as thinking) if Palin says she supports cutting wasteful government spending and she wants a program like this to be paid by the gov't it really means that she is NOT into cutting government spending. She's a hypocrite.

      The writer of the article above was writing with the assumption you could understand nuances like that from text.

      This site might be too advanced for you so you might want to start with a little less ambitious reading.

      By the way- if understood the tax plans of the candidates you would know why 4 former secretaries of the treasury (hint- they control the currency) and most world leading economists say that McCains tax plan would end up with most people paying higher taxes.

      I will give you an example of a loop hole in the plan (see, I read them too). If your salary is $40,000 a year, you pay taxes on the $40,000 a year. McCain's plan argues that if a company pays the insurance industry $5,000 as subsidy for your health insurance then why don't you (as the beneficiary of those insurance benefits) also pay taxes on that $5,000.

      Your tax bill is now on $45,000 (because the employer can now report your benefits as cash) as opposed to the $40,000. That means less money in your paycheck and a tax break for whom? Your employer. That, though, is in line with the tax cut McCain talks about but as you can see its not a tax cut for you, its a tax cut for your employer.

      Don't be naive and learn to analyze. Your life will be so much better for it and you'll be so much smarter.

    49. Wayne says:

      Enough about the wolf killing helicopters already! It’s as if they’re killing wolves for the sake of killing wolves, which isn’t the case. (

      “The state created its current wolf-kill program four years ago to protect the moose and caribou that wolves eat, and it’s been controversial since day one.

      But the effort to boost moose numbers for subsistence-food gatherers and other hunters has its fans, particularly in parts of rural Alaska.

      Wolves reproduce quickly, with large litters, and the effort to boost moose and caribou populations could be set back if kill goals aren’t met, he has said.

      Volunteers gunners and trappers have done all the killing, eliminating 607 wolves since the program began four years ago. There are 7,000 to 11,000 wolves in Alaska, the state estimates.

      The Board of Game, concerned about this year’s low numbers, recently urged Palin to let state staff shoot wolves from helicopters. Shooting from helicopters that hover close to packs would be more deadly and humane than from the airplanes that are currently allowed, board members have said.”

      So it’s not just killing wolves for the sake of killing wolves but for the sake of controlling animal populations by both directly decreasing the number of wolves and indirectly increasing the number of caribou and moose, which the indigenous Alaskans use for subsistence.

      Now one can still argue whether this is WASTEFUL government spending or not – quite frankly, I would much rather see a lot less government regulation in this area to begin with. But it helps if you can argue with all of the facts.

    50. Roberta Pliner says:

      Wayne asked:

      Also, Erica of Kent State, I would like to know why you can’t imagine why any woman would vote for her. Are you saying that all women have certain shared viewpoints and that anyone who doesn’t hold those viewpoints cannot be a woman?

      The answer to that is that there are so many reasons why Sarah Palin is not qualified to be

      vice-president that there's something for every


    51. jordan says:

      Roberta Pliner-

      I am a woman- a feminist at that- and I support Palin. Explain to me why, as a woman, I shouldn't vote for her.

      The fact that you think people wouldn't vote the McCain/Palin ticket because of qualifications just goes to show how unqualified Obama is- so I hope you aren't going to vote for him either.

      Maybe this will help you put "experience" in perspective.

      You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

      You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

      You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

      You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.

      You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

      You couldn't get a job as Director of Nursing after 143 days experience as an RN.

      BUT from the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.

      That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World…

      We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is – a start.

      AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him.

      We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?

    52. Al K. Hawlick says:

      "Long-time white dude?" You mean it's OK to judge someone by his skin color? You racist cvnt?

    53. goto says:

      I’ve been surfing on-line more than 3 hours these days, yet I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made just right content as you did, the internet will be a lot more useful than ever before.

    54. about black currant oil says:

      You really make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I find this matter to be really something which I think I’d by no means understand. It seems too complex and extremely wide for me. I’m looking ahead on your subsequent submit, I’ll try to get the dangle of it!

    • You Might Like