Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From one of Andrew Sullivan's readers, a woman who has Sarah Palin nailed dead to rights:
Sarah Palin is the peppy cheerleader in high school all the boys thought was so sweet but the girls knew was really a vicious shrew. She's the new girl in the office who wears tight shirts and three-inch heels, is super-friendly to her male superiors, ignores the other women, and gets promoted sooner than her more capable and hard working peers. She's the outgoing PTA mom all of the other women are scared to cross because they will find themselves put on the worst committees. Only a woman knows how to give another woman a sweet smile and at the same time cut her down to size with an artfully crafted "compliment" without male observers having a clue about what just happened. It's like a dog whistle.
She continues:
After her convention speech that so many pundits raved about, I talked to a few of my Republican girlfriends and they all disliked her immediately, telling me things like, "she's mean", "who does she think she is putting Obama down like that" and "I just don't like her". And these were women who, all except one, ended up voting for McCain anyway, although much less enthusiastically than they would have before his VP pick. The one who switched her vote to Obama did so solely because of Sarah Palin. It wasn't really the attack lines the McCain camp gave her to deliver that had turned my friends off. It was the relish with which she delivered them.The Republican women I know who love Palin are a great deal like her--simplistic thinkers who are always feeling victimized themselves. I have a feeling that if the McCain camp had spent more than a weekend checking Palin out, a woman on his staff (my money would be on Nicole Wallace) would have figured out what kind of person she was and none of us would know her name right now.
Nails and heads.
Politics
Comments
"Sarah Palin is the peppy cheerleader in high school all the boys wanted to score with, so they said that they thought was so sweet but the girls knew was really a vicious shrew."
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 9:28 AM
Knowing what kind of woman Palin is from male and female perspectives is interesting but provides no bigger wedge with which to move her out of the spotlight. Clear, logical thinkers could not despise more. Right-wing nut jobs would love her regardless. She could bite the heads off live bunnies and that would be okay for them. There aren't that many people left in the middle.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 26, 2009 9:31 AM
To validate this observation with empirical data, my favorite post of the entire month. Money quotes:
I have been dueling it out with Palinistas at Amazon in the comment sections of reviews for her book. What I've learned about her fan base is the following:
Most barely realize she is accused of being dishonest, and if so, it's only the 'far left'. Their response is that her dishonesty is revealed only because Obama wasn't scrutinized.
They are incredibly ignorant and have almost zero reading comprehension skills.
They believe Ms. Palin distinguishes herself with attributes where she does in fact distinguish herself but in the exact opposite of reality: honesty, ethics, leadership, team player, common sense, character. When I've cited actual public records (like the state record determining her violating ethics codes and Palin accepting that determination by lying about it), they ignore the evidence (I assume they're all YECs).
They believe that Katie Couric interview was an unfair hit job. When I point out most well-informed citizens could easily answer Ms. Couric's questions with no preparation, they claim that CBS News edited out Ms. Palin's answers (liberal media and all).
When I point out that Ms. Palin is ignorant and that's why she stays away from the press, they respond it's because of a liberal media out to get her. When I respond that Ms. Palin is just as ignorant in a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh interview, they avoid a response.
They are not merely willfully ignorant, they are unable to comprehend facts that falsify their worldview. For example, when I pointed out Ms. Palin lied about Alaska's founding in her book, noting that she falsely claimed it was purchased only through 'unpopular common sense' when in fact it was not a controversial decision with the press or people and the Senate passed the measure 37 to 2, one responded by claiming that Ms. Palin is correct that Alaska was purchased by the U.S. and I'm wrong to claim otherwise.
It's an entirely emotional connection with them. The more Ms. Palin is criticized for bad behavior, the more they love her as a martyr being attacked by the evil 'far left'. They're like the kids in class who hate the smart kids in spite of their being bad students because they refuse to study. They wear Ms. Palin's ignorance as a badge of honor, saying its common sense.
They're completely wedded to William F. Buckley's old canard that a regular Joe/Joanna would make a better President than an elitist.
They have absolutely no memory regarding what happened during the Bush years except the elitists screwed us and Obama is an elitist (there's some element of truth to part of that, perhaps the only outrage they have that I think is legit).
Some have completely bought into David Barton's Christian Nation thing.
One commenter argued that one can claim they are for freedom but fight against the freedom of others if their opposition is based on a conservative idea - like moving slowly or defending traditional
prejudices'institutions. When I pointed out how absurd that was in light of slavery and women's rights, they change the subject.One commenter actually believe conservative Christians ended slavery. Even one readers from the South defended this commenter.
They really hate liberals, it's very visceral. One woman refused to consider anything Mr. Sullivan even linked to merely because he's gay, therefore he can not be trusted. This same woman claims she refuses to read anything from any 'liberal' media source, where nearly all media sources are liberal.
I'm done in that forum. This poll has me relaxing. One thing the Palinistas and I did agree on was that I fear a Palin presidency. Therefore Frum provided a nice Thanksgiving day gift that ain't goin' to happen.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 26, 2009 9:57 AM
About a month ago, I discovered a blogger who uses the name, Morialekafa, both for himself and his blog. He is an 80-year old -- born the day of the Great Crash -- retired Anthropology professor from UCLA, now living in Idaho, who I have been describing as the best writer on the net that nobody knows. I don't always agree with him, but I usually do, and I expect the Menckenites here would love him even more than I do. He does one long post a day, and he's delightful. Here's his take on Palin from yesterday's post. Not as 'pithy' as the one above, but worth passing on:
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 26, 2009 10:13 AM
Jealousy is an ugly emotion. Some women get over it. Others become feminists.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | November 26, 2009 10:16 AM
This made me think of Stephen King's comment on her:
Posted by: equisetum | November 26, 2009 10:21 AM
You people don't like her just because she calls it like she sees it, even when what she sees in no way resembles so-called "reality". Everybody knows that reality-based (or for you ivory towers eggheads, knowledge-assisted) reality is bunk. Pasteur proved that in the 1400's.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 10:34 AM
The fact that she marketed herself with that "Barracuda" shtick was very telling.
It's not a nickname women confer on other women out of affection--and Palin either didn't know, or thought the fact that she pissed off other women was irrelevant.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 26, 2009 10:55 AM
If Palin's troubling poll numbers with women, and dismal ones with minorities don't dissuade her from a presidential run in 2012 I don't know what else could.
However, I'm among those who feel that Palin won't go that route, and will instead stay on the media's very lucrative gravy train to angle for a TV or radio gig.
Posted by: CHV | November 26, 2009 11:01 AM
"Feminists," for Pat, are all those women--pretty much every one on this planet--who can tell without even lifting their heads that Pat would be a waste of their time.
"Feminism," for Pat, would be all those schools and employers who noticed that they don't have to take on a waste of time like Pat when there are smarter, nicer and better-qualified women applicants.
Yeah, there's a jealousy problem, all right.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 26, 2009 11:14 AM
Spot-on. I would add that, just as the boys were unaware that the peppy cheerleader was really a stone-cold bitch, so are male admirers of Palin so blinded by their tribalistic fanaticism (or their hard-ons) that they don't see or don't care that she's a certified moron.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 26, 2009 11:25 AM
Michael Heath: Alaska was in fact purchased by the United States. I'm surprised you did not know this. Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Posted by: kehrsam | November 26, 2009 11:29 AM
@ Michael H #3
Great comment. Are you familiar with Drew Westen's research?
Posted by: Dr X | November 26, 2009 11:29 AM
"Around my house we kinda laugh when Sarah Palin comes on TV, and we say, "That's Greg Stillson as a woman."
Yikes! True, that. I thought Huckabee was more the Stillson type, but Palin is actually a better fit.
Posted by: Rick R | November 26, 2009 11:45 AM
And others just become pathetic misogynists.
Posted by: Wes | November 26, 2009 12:08 PM
Aw, Come on! She totally kicked ass in that Biden debate. Didn't you see how she was winking at me?
Posted by: n | November 26, 2009 12:21 PM
It seems to me, and I believe Mr. Sullivan cross posted a comment similar to these sentiments two weeks ago, that Mrs. Palin is the prefect woman for the misogynist right; She qualifies as "sexy" in their book, she's aggressive enough to seem sexually available to them (because they equate the two qualities), and she's stupid enough to be non-threatening. Her political rise is, in my eyes at least, just another example of the unreconstructed, lust-driven, woman-hating right. Just compare her treatment to that of Elizabeth Dole, or even Mrs. McCain.
Posted by: Julian | November 26, 2009 12:26 PM
I think what Michael was saying was that the Alaska Purchase was not controversial at the time, as opposed to what Sarah Palin stated.
Posted by: T.Bruce McNeely | November 26, 2009 12:49 PM
Looking at Palin and her supporters I'm struck by how much she exploits, and is victim to, the so called 'Halo effect'.
The Halo effect notes that physically attractive and outgoing people to be assumed to be smarter/more honest/generally more virtuous. This assumed virtuosity is formed in the mind entirely from appearance and independent of any actual evidence, the testing is often done with photographs of strangers.
The down side of the Halo effect is that once the spell is broken the estimation of the person drops like a rock, falls far below the baseline and this new assessment is resistant to improvement.
The Halo effect predicts that people who fall into its influence will be unthinkingly adoring, loyal, and intolerant of any criticism. Those who fall under this spell but then see through it will be more vicious their interactions should suggest because of feelings of betrayal and resentment. The third group, those who never feel under the Halo effect, and so were neither taken in or let down, will simply be dismissive.
Which, IMHO, explains the dynamics around Palin. The believers adopted their estimation of her almost entirely from a gut level analysis and their love of her is largely independent of logic and evidence. All facts to the contrary can be explained away as bias and misunderstanding.
The people who were taken in initially but saw through the shine are very critical and about as negative as the believers are positive. The difference being that the loyalist have only a feeling while the critics have her history to point to.
The cynics, myself included, pretty much saw through her from the beginning and have always seen her as a lightweight that slid by on looks, intrigue and viciousness. All shine and no substance. Easy to dismiss as an individual and a waste of time to spend too much time contemplating. As a phenomena, and exploration of the Halo effect and psychology, she has some use.
Posted by: Art | November 26, 2009 12:51 PM
In a three-way between Francis the Talking Mule, Mr. Ed and Sarah Palin, I'd vote for Francis because I think "he" has a better grasp of foreign policy, but Mr. Ed would make a great vice-president.
Posted by: Doc Bill | November 26, 2009 12:59 PM
Wes wrote:
Conservatives playing the misogyny card are like Klansmen playing the race card.
Posted by: Dr X | November 26, 2009 1:17 PM
What a silly generalization.
Posted by: cm | November 26, 2009 1:21 PM
T.Bruce McNeely "I think what Michael was saying was that the Alaska Purchase was not controversial at the time, as opposed to what Sarah Palin stated."
I think you missed kehrsam's joke. Michael Heath said "For example, when I pointed out Ms. Palin lied about Alaska's founding in her book, noting that she falsely claimed it was purchased only through 'unpopular common sense' when in fact it was not a controversial decision with the press or people and the Senate passed the measure 37 to 2, one responded by claiming that Ms. Palin is correct that Alaska was purchased by the U.S. and I'm wrong to claim otherwise." (emphasis mine)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 1:29 PM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 26, 2009 1:31 PM
Clearly you Palin haters have come to believe your own propaganda. Pitiful!
Posted by: Fred | November 26, 2009 1:47 PM
Fred "Clearly you Palin haters have come to believe your own propaganda."
It could be worse. We could believe Palin's.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 1:55 PM
Re: the defensive reactions to attacks against her in the media
I asked a conservative friend of mine why he didn't think of Octomom as a martyr too. His response was along the lines off "Octomom is an idiot who bred beyond her capacity. Sarah Palin is a strong conservative woman."
Posted by: FishyFred | November 26, 2009 2:13 PM
Sarah Palin is the perfect vessel for all the shallow cliches right-wing conservatives mistake for real policies and solutions.
Freedom, check.
Lower Taxes, check.
Right to Life, check.
Hard Working, check.
Real Americans, check.
Support the Troops, check.
If you watch any of her interviews, you can get past the five minute mark without her regurgitating this list at least once, and since she's now a celebrity and not a politician, she's doesn't have to worry about being asked any really tough policy questions.
Posted by: tacitus | November 26, 2009 3:10 PM
tacitus "...and since she's now a celebrity and not a politician, she's doesn't have to worry about being asked any really tough policy questions."
Did she before? You basically listed all of the solutions to policy questions, tough or otherwise. All you're really missing is "cutting red tape", "tough on crime", "family values", "personal responsibility", "drill, baby, drill" and a few scattered mentions of "free market".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 3:26 PM
The worst thing about Palin is she seems not to understand the difference between talking points and detailed analysis. She really doesn't get why when she spews one out it's not the end of the discussion.
Posted by: Taz | November 26, 2009 4:44 PM
Thank for the additional cliches, Modus, I knew I'd missed a bunch.
She did had to worry about the tough questions before she quit being governor (which is probably one of the main reasons she quit) though her solution was just to repeat the cliches and mix them up into an incoherent mess. When that didn't work she simply accused the press of being mean and badgering her.
I still think she will run for the presidency in 2012. With Fox News on her side she can essentially avoid any tough questioning one-on-one by staying on Fox News (but avoiding Fox News Sunday, even that's too tough for her) and conservative talk radio. And she can prep for the limited number of debates during the Republican primary just like she did the VP debate where she avoided disaster at least. There will likely be a large field early on, so there won't be much chance of being exposed.
Posted by: tacitus | November 26, 2009 4:52 PM
tacitus "There will likely be a large field early on, so there won't be much chance of being exposed."
Well, the best camouflage for a pecan is being in a bowl with other nuts.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 5:13 PM
They are not merely unable to comprehend facts that falsify their world view; they do not even recognize the existence of an objective reality about which propositions called "facts" can be posited, and which must be either "true" or "false".
BTW, there is some serious misogynist stereotyping crapola in the comment from Sullivan's blog.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 26, 2009 5:56 PM
No, the Baroness Munchhausen will neither become a Fox host or run for President as a Republican. (I doubt if she'd run 3rd Party but it is at least a possibility, as the others are not.)
Fox won't hire her, because, however vile their on-air people are, they are, in the technical parts of the job, professionals. Palin isn't and she doesn't have the basic skills required for the job, which isn't as easy as you might think.
As a candidate, she'd be the 'celebrity' and would be walking around with a large target on her back, and republicans 'play rough.' If you don't read Alaskan bloggers like Mudflats, Shannyn Moore, or Andrew Halcro, you have no idea either how much information is available against her that hasn't made it 'down here' yet or how many enemies she's made of her former supporters -- including her former legislative director, who called her a sociopath on radio last weekend.
Throw in her tie-ins with very strange religious leaders, and the still unexplored questions about her college career -- six colleges in five years, why? -- and how Wasilla became the 'meth capital of Alaska' during her mayorality, when it wasn't known as such during the term of John Stein, her predecessor. (Remember him, her mentor, the Lutheran who she defeated by running as the 'first Christian mayor of Wasilla.')
No, they'll use her to draw crowds, to fire up the base, but if she ever seriously started a campaign, she's have more holes than a wiffle golf ball in about a week.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 26, 2009 8:46 PM
Correction, John Bitney called her a sociopath on television, I'd forgotten Shannyn has her own tv show. The whole show -- which isn't just intelligent but frequently hilarious -- is available at Shannyn's site and, Ed, you might enjoy the section on 'Sarah's war on science.' featuring Rick Steiner in section 2.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 26, 2009 9:24 PM
tacitus @28,
Hard Working? No check for that. She quit as gov and gave some bullshit lame duck excuse. If you agree to do the job, you finish and not give some sorry lame-ass excuse for being too lazy to finish your term.
I've known lots of shallow people like her always looking for a better offer.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 26, 2009 9:26 PM
Jealousy is an ugly emotion. Some women get over it. Others become feminists.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | November 26, 2009 10:16 AM
Clearly you Palin haters have come to believe your own propaganda. Pitiful!
Posted by: Fred | November 26, 2009 1:47 PM
Boys, you both need to get out more, or at least get your heads out of your asses once in a while.
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 10:30 PM
unfortunately palin supporters make such easy arguments for post partum arbortion or death comittees that palins fan base could come to feel as at risk as an alaskan wolf.
Posted by: yoyo | November 26, 2009 10:59 PM
Perhaps at our own peril we underestimate the power of the Cult of Personality to sway voters...Read any of Dr. Robert Altemeyer's work on Right-wing Authoritarianism - both in leaders and followers - and it's a little more difficult to just dismiss her chances in 2012. She is (probably literally) a rabid conservative's wet dream. But hopefully I'm just paranoid; I recently listened to a NPR Fresh Air story on "The Family" and now I'm seeing Christian boogey(wo)men everywhere!
Alas, don't fret - remember that Greg Stillson brought his ruin upon himself by showing during a moment of stress the rat bastard coward that he was. Anybody have any good ideas about triggering a similar event (no, I'm not implying we get Christopher Walken to shoot at her)?
Posted by: marnk | November 26, 2009 11:05 PM
You're making the assumption that loyal Fox viewers care about professionalism.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 26, 2009 11:23 PM
I'm not entirely certain the Republican base would completely go for her though. A lot of people here claim far-right conservatives can act or vote misogynistically [sp?]. You think they'll actually support Palin in any position that isn't subservient in some fashion? VP might be as far as she's able to go.
Of course on that point, any Rep with her on his arm (and I do think it's going to be a he) is gonna be popular with those loons.
Posted by: Erin | November 26, 2009 11:51 PM
I'm not entirely certain the Republican base would completely go for her though. A lot of people here claim far-right conservatives can act or vote misogynistically [sp?]. You think they'll actually support Palin in any position that isn't subservient in some fashion? VP might be as far as she's able to go.
Of course on that point, any Rep with her on his arm (and I do think it's going to be a he) is gonna be popular with those loons.
Posted by: Erin | November 27, 2009 12:27 AM
There was controversy at the time of the Alaska Purchase. The press was divided, but that's where the name "Seward's Folly" came from. The House in fact took a year to approve the purchase, and it was not a slamdunk vote.
Posted by: william e emba | November 27, 2009 11:31 AM
This post is kind of weird, frankly. It assumes that men have, for the most part, fallen under the spell of Sarah Palin, and only the women see through her in significant numbers. This is, obviously, not the case: enormous swaths of the population are repulsed by her, and this includes men, women, blacks, whites, rich, poor, christians, atheists, liberals, conservatives and everything in between.
Given this, I fail to grasp the point she is trying to make.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 27, 2009 11:57 AM
Pretentious moron Michael Heath is relying on another pretentious moron, Andrew Sullivan, who cited a cranky historian to the effect that "most newspapers supported the Alaska Purchase." I do not know whether that is correct, but the Alaska Purchase was known as Seward's Folly and I question the legitimacy of relying on newspaper endorsements as a barometer of public opinion.
Posted by: Milesius | November 27, 2009 12:03 PM
...I want the Kleenex concession. Starbursts, Wiiiiiiiiilbur!
Posted by: Joey Maloney | November 27, 2009 12:06 PM
Here is something else for pretentious morons Michael Heath and Andrew Sullivan to consider:
"The Senate ratified the Treaty with Russia on April 9, 1867, by a vote of 37 to 2. However, the appropriation of money needed to purchase Alaska was delayed by more than a year due to opposition in the House of Representatives. The House finally approved the appropriation on July 14, 1868, by a vote of 113 to 48."
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alaska.html
Posted by: Milesius | November 27, 2009 12:06 PM
Mr Ed has got my vote.
Posted by: teammarty | November 27, 2009 4:48 PM
Miliceinfested:
"Pretentious moron Michael Heath is relying on another pretentious moron, Andrew Sullivan, who cited a cranky historian to the effect that "most newspapers supported the Alaska Purchase." I do not know whether that is correct, "
That last bit, first time you.ve been incontrovertibly correct. You don't that or a fuck of a lot else.
Where is the link to your published work, whanker.
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2009 7:49 PM
Re: comment #7 from modusoperandi. You don't know what you're talking about and proved your ignorance when you cited Pasteur as having proven something you were alluding to in the 1400's. Louis Pasteur? Dr. Pasteur? Who were you talking about? Sarah is like anthrax.
Posted by: Shmice | November 27, 2009 8:21 PM
Shmice: Yeah, you tell it to me! Tell it to me good!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 27, 2009 8:23 PM
Mr Analytical, as usual, is so focused one one tiny detail he can complain about, goes well wide of the point.
So let's see what did Michael Heath actually say?
Firstly, Sullivan said nothing about this issue, MH was describing his own personal experiences. Mr Sullivan was not involved at any stage. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether the press as a whole liked it (What did the Times say? How about the Sydney Morning Herald? etc.), whether the people liked it (warm-up the 'Obama mind-control and time-traveling device'™, Ma, we've got surveying to do in 1867!) or even if it was popular with politicians (Senate: 37-2 House: 113-48), the point was the person he was speaking with claimed that he (MH) had said that Palin was wrong about the US purchasing the Alaskan Territory and that he claimed this did not happen. Which is not at all the argument he was making.
Apparently for Republicans now winning mere debating points never made by their opponents is far more important than actually having any kind of cogent line of argument or any workable policy ideas. The Republican think these transparent tactics are winning them something, except the public can see how rudderless, shallow and childish the party has become and are deserting it.
If the Republican Party doesn't change tack soon they'll be becalmed in an electoral Sargasso, with no-one to blame but themselves. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 27, 2009 9:06 PM
"If the Republican Party doesn't change tack soon they'll be becalmed in an electoral Sargasso, with no-one to blame but themselves."
Hardly. They'll blame ACORN for rigging the Sargasso election.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 27, 2009 9:50 PM
MO - Oh I'm sure they will blame ACORN, further rowing themselves into the electoral Sargasso.
If they had any kind of leadership, they would admit the problems of their making, commit to repairing these problems, and actually do something to fix them. A start would be to recognise reality, dump the RR Retards, and reach out to moderate and swing voters.
This would make them, at the very least, a creditable opposition. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 27, 2009 10:18 PM
DingoJack "If they had any kind of leadership, they would admit the problems of their making..."
But they're never wrong. That's why they're called the "Right". Obviously.
"...commit to repairing these problems"
No, no, no! It was Obama who did all that, like two poorly planned wars and a wrecked economy, most of which he did even before he could've possibly been involved. That's how much Muslimers from Kenya hate our FREEDOM!
"...and actually do something to fix them."
Exactly. What we need are tax cuts and deregulation. I'm glad you're seeing clearly.
"A start would be to recognise reality..."
Reality? Pah! Reality is for people who can't stand "trickle-down", which works so well that if you gather on the streets of Wall Street, you can literally feel as though you're getting pissed on. Literally!
"...dump the RR Retards..."
Dump the base? Madness! What other group is so easy to rally on hot-button topics like abortion or "the gays"? See, I said that just then, and there are already two dozen Values Voters gathered outside my window.
"...and reach out to moderate and swing voters."
RINOS? Again, pah!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 27, 2009 10:48 PM
marnk: "Anybody have any good ideas about triggering a similar event (no, I'm not implying we get Christopher Walken to shoot at her)?"
Trying to convince Todd Palin -- who spent Thanksgiving "fixing the roof" on one of their 3 houses in Wasilla AK while the rest of the family feasted down in the Tri-Cities in Washington state -- to make good on the rumor that's been swirling southeast Alaska since summer that he and Sarah Palin are separated and Todd's about to file for divorce.
I'm serious. Todd leaving her is probably the one thing that'd shake her psyche to its core.
Posted by: KarenJ | November 27, 2009 11:11 PM
As long as it doesn't get so technical that it involves arithmetic.
Posted by: Taz | November 27, 2009 11:17 PM
Todd leaving the Impalinator? Hope he's got some holy mormon undies? Hell hath no fury like a fundiewoman, at least one with a closet full of hunting rifles, scorned.
Posted by: democommie | November 28, 2009 6:57 AM
Demo - The First Dude leaving the Impalinator?
Nah, He'll be back! :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 28, 2009 7:17 AM
It's telling how the Palin supporters slide in here with their snark but don't manage to actually say anything. You can just see them sitting back after typing such intellectually thought out bombs as "Pretentious moron Michael Heath is relying on another pretentious moron, Andrew Sullivan, who cited a cranky historian to the effect that...." , and then patting themselves on the back in a palineasque sort of way.
I have no real knowledge of who Michael Heath is. But I'll tell you this. He is by far your intellectual superior milesius. All you need do is look at some of his past postings.
Posted by: Trismos | November 29, 2009 1:59 AM
Art (@19) mentions the halo effect and Prup (@34) brings up Peppy Palin's odd multi-college career.
I have a hunch the two may be related. Might it be the case that once the halo effect kicked in (or out, as you please) at one particular college, Peppy had an incentive to move on elsewhere?
If what you crave is unquestioning popularity, when the bubble bursts it must be such a drag, so why stick around?
It's not so much that I care one way or the other (or that indeed anyone else should), but I enjoy exploring possible patterns of behavior to see where they might lead.
Posted by: The Patternator | November 30, 2009 8:33 PM