The Grand Panjandrum - April 9, 2010 | 3:31 pm · Link

Very good John! Star power minus any policy knowledge whatsoever = star bursts. Boy, if I were a former HRC supporter I would be very upset at this comparison. That is just plain old fashioned bull shit. One thing Clinton is not, is she is NOT an empty suit. She’s forgotten more policy than Palin will ever know.

Kevin K. - April 9, 2010 | 3:32 pm · Link

Damnit, John, you beat us again. We were just discussing Mushy over at Rumproast.

JGabriel - April 9, 2010 | 3:32 pm · Link

Taylor Marsh:

But love her or hate her, whether she runs in 2012 or not, when you look at the left, the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.

Tits? Not sure what Marsh is getting at here. There are plenty of progressive women with nice breasts, but that’s not really a relevant measure for political competence.

.

Jon H - April 9, 2010 | 3:33 pm · Link

So Taylor Marsh is now calling herself a political analyst with a foreign policy focus?

No wonder she thinks Palin is credible.

kommrade reproductive vigor - April 9, 2010 | 3:35 pm · Link

The fact remains that there is a “Hillary hole,”

Bwahahaaaaa! [cough, gasp]

MikeJ - April 9, 2010 | 3:36 pm · Link

@SB Jules:

Can you imagine anyone on the right appointing Palin to their cabinet?

Sadly yes.

John Cole - April 9, 2010 | 3:38 pm · Link

@Nutella: Taylor Marsh is a she.

burnspbesq - April 9, 2010 | 3:38 pm · Link

“Rich Lowry is going to get jealous if you go after his woman.”

Good Lord, what an epic cat-fight that would be. I can haz popcorn concession, prettypleeze? Kthxbai.

J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford - April 9, 2010 | 3:40 pm · Link

Sarah Palin debate answer to a question on the use of nuclear weapons.

This woman is a sick joke.

drew42 - April 9, 2010 | 3:41 pm · Link

editing my comment—I think I misread what Marsh means by “Hillary hole”

PeakVT - April 9, 2010 | 3:42 pm · Link

The fact remains that there is a “Hillary hole,” with women wanting their turn

Whether or not this is true, why whine about it (other than to whine about something)? It will be six years before a Hillary substitute will have a shot at the top job. Why aren’t the PUMAs out finding or making the next Hillary?

Linda Featheringill - April 9, 2010 | 3:42 pm · Link

Hillary always was very intelligent. And even when I disagreed with her, it was never because she did not know what the heck she was talking about. She did know. We just disagreed on what would be the best actions in the face of facts that we agreed on.

[And no – I never had these discussions with Hillary Clinton in person.]

cleek - April 9, 2010 | 3:43 pm · Link

The fact remains that there is a “Hillary hole,” with women wanting their turn, while people hunger for something radically different, which is currently being filled by the Tea Party, a star named Sarah and her fans

a black guy isn’t radically different ?

But love her or hate her, whether she runs in 2012 or not, when you look at the left, the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.

what’s Palin got – a Hillary Hole ?

sheesh. are you trying to make women sound like shallow sexists who vote identity over all else?

ts - April 9, 2010 | 3:43 pm · Link

But love her or hate her, whether she runs in 2012 or not, when you look at the left, the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.

No part of that sentence makes sense.

Butch - April 9, 2010 | 3:44 pm · Link

She responded to Obama’s remarks today during her, um, “speech” at the Repub convention in New Orleans. I never liked John McCain to begin with but I really resent him for forcing this halfwit on us.

TuiMel - April 9, 2010 | 3:44 pm · Link

BOOM!

Lowered by John Cole and justifiably so. The only “Hillary Hole” I can discern is the one in Taylor Marsh’s head.

kommrade reproductive vigor - April 9, 2010 | 3:45 pm · Link

@The Grand Panjandrum: Uh yeah. The Palin is the new Clinton meme is loaded with a shit ton of sexist stereotypes and slurs.

I mean, to pick just one thing at random, how does deciding to run for PotUS and going through all of that noise compare to saying yes when someone asks if you’d like to be his running mate at the last possible second? It doesn’t unless you think all female pols are interchangeable.

Smack in the face, anyone?

And, I hereby move that Hillary Hole become the tag for any post about Palin.

Cheryl from Maryland - April 9, 2010 | 3:46 pm · Link

The poll for Republicans has 29% undecided and 27% haven’t heard enough about her. So over 50% of Republicans are totally clueless.

gwangung - April 9, 2010 | 3:46 pm · Link

@PeakVT:

Whether or not this is true, why whine about it (other than to whine about something)? It will be six years before a Hillary substitute will have a shot at the top job. Why aren’t the PUMAs out finding or making the next Hillary?

That’s what annoys me in debates with people nominally on my side. There’s a big streak of authoritarianism that they’re ignoring in themselves; if there really is a “Hillary hole”, they have to work to find someone who can fill it (similarly, if progressives are being marginalized, you need to gather enough power so you CAN’T be marginalized).

@Linda Featheringill:

Hillary always was very intelligent. And even when I disagreed with her, it was never because she did not know what the heck she was talking about. She did know. We just disagreed on what would be the best actions in the face of facts that we agreed on.

That’s the sort of disagreement I don’t mind having (no matter where people stood).

jl - April 9, 2010 | 3:47 pm · Link

@drew42:

But the Secretary of State is just the real Hillary. The Dems need a pretend Hillary, but one that is different because the pretend one would not know anything, make no sense when she talks, and focus ridiculous media splashes with no substance, and use politics to rake in the dough for herself, and generally be as flashy and sensationalistic as possible.

That would be the ticket!

The real Hillary was such a loser in politics anyway, just winning a Senatorial seat and doing a good job at it, and almost whupping the current President in the primaries. What a loser!

ThatLeftTurnInABQ - April 9, 2010 | 3:48 pm · Link

@drew42:

We lefties need to fill the void left by Hillary Clinton, who has completely dropped out of public life. And into the 2nd most powerful political position in the country. And is piling up insane amounts of respect and goodwill overseas.

Not to mention that there’s been nothing like the usual sniping and backstabbing between State and DOD that just about every other administration has featured. Normally those two get along about as well as English and Irish soccer fans at a World Cup qualifying match. But under Hillary and Gates we’ve heard nothing of the sort. If they don’t see eye to eye, then it sure isn’t making it out into the press.

ETA: halp! we need a dash cleanup on aisle 41!

TuiMel - April 9, 2010 | 3:50 pm · Link

@kommrade reproductive vigor:

Second

licensed to kill time - April 9, 2010 | 3:51 pm · Link

Oh god, ‘Hillary hole’ is just too funny for words. Any hole in a storm, I guess. The fact that Palin is uniquely unqualified for any job with real responsibilities just does not register with these folks, does it? They persist in believing that she somehow threatens those of us who are pointing and laughing. The woman Is.A.Joke.

It’s sad, really.

Joel - April 9, 2010 | 3:51 pm · Link

@drew42: I think she’s comparing Palin to Clinton’s anus, which is apt.

ellaesther - April 9, 2010 | 3:53 pm · Link

I’m sorry – a fucking “Hillary hole”?!

I have a Hillary—she’s my Secretary of State!

Furthermore, I have a Nancy—she’s the most powerful person on the Hill!

I also have a Kathleen, and a Sonia, and a Janet, and a Hilda, and a Lisa, and a Susan, and a Christina. All thanks to Hussein Obama!

Holy Moses in the fucking bulrushes, if I have to hear one more fucking conservative patronizingly telling me that the only thing that will appease my poor widdle wounded feminine heart is the placement of a woman in the Oval Office, I may just hurl.

Or, on second thought (since that’s bound to happen), I’ll just hurl that conservative into the next county.

Comrade Mary - April 9, 2010 | 3:54 pm · Link

@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: God DAMN it, I had managed to forget that dog-ate-my-book-report ramble. May my suffering be on your conscience forevermore.

cleek - April 9, 2010 | 3:55 pm · Link

this is yet another example of why i don’t read Huffinglue Post. too many abject morons.

Bubblegum Tate - April 9, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link

the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.

Wait, I think I get it: She’s saying that there is no woman on the left side of the aisle who has Palin’s combination of lunacy and horrific stupidity. Right?

Splitting Image - April 9, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link

The sad thing is that these people actually have a lot in common with the teabaggers in one repect. The defining feature of the ‘baggers is their persistent sense of victimization, which was just as bad when their people controlled every part of the government as it is now.

Between Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, women control two of the three or four most important jobs in the U.S. government. I can understand wanting to see a female bum warming the chair in the Oval Office, and being disappointed that it didn’t happen, but overall women are doing fine. These people are acting like Obama purged women from elected office and put them into burqas. Or worse, raised their taxes and started interfering with their Medicare.

If anything, there needs to be more effort getting women into state and local offices, and the House of Representatives. Do enough of that and the higher jobs will take care of themselves eventually. Or they could just throw their lot in with a TV host and former half-term governor her political views be damned. Same difference.

geg6 - April 9, 2010 | 3:58 pm · Link

Taylor Marsh is the quintessential PUMA. Fuck her and fuck all PUMAs. They are idiots. They don’t speak for women. They don’t speak for progressive or liberal women. And they certainly don’t speak to women like me or anyone I know. They are bitter old bitches who are completely self-centered and who are perfectly happy to sabotage any and all liberal policy to keep cashing in on their bitter, old, bitchy victim act.

Citizen_X - April 9, 2010 | 3:58 pm · Link

Pardon my French, but sweet Christ inna whorehouse, what the fuck kind of PUMA horseshit is this?

Lots of concern-trolling about how Obama’s throwing it all away—yeah, all he’s done is gotten healthcare done after sixty years of failure, prevented a second great depression, and gotten the first arms reduction agreement since the fall of the Soviet Union—what a loser, huh? And all Marsh can ask is

Where is the woman on the left who can make headlines and draw crowds like Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, perhaps even a re-entry of Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

Liz Cheney? You want a lefty answer to Lynn Fucking Cheney? Hillary should kick her ass all the way to TMZ or wherever she belongs.

The heat is on the right.

Fine. Go there. See ya!

jibeaux - April 9, 2010 | 4:00 pm · Link

@ellaesther:

Word. Me and my Hillary hole are behind you.

General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 9, 2010 | 4:01 pm · Link

Marsh is like many of the dim bulbs that occupy the nutroots, deluded that anyone outside of their little world actually cares about identity politics. She is unhappy that all the empty spaces in the left wing ideological marquee aren’t filled to suit her image of the democratic party, of what it should be.

This is the thinking that has largely led to dems continuing for so long losing elections, but gaining moral victories. Competence is always trumped by dem variety wedge issues that nobody cares about other than at libtard dinner parties.

The wingnuts are experts at politics of this type, and trying to match them, or bemoan that it appears wingers have bested dems by having a popular woman totally misreads the opponent. Wingers don’t care about identity politics, they want cold hearted lizard cortex purity, and the fact that Sarah Palin has nice tits and legs only registers as a plus in Lowry’s et al adolescent libido.

So yea, Taylor has no clue about politics, electoral or otherwise.

Mike Kay - April 9, 2010 | 4:02 pm · Link

@geg6: This!

Micah616 - April 9, 2010 | 4:03 pm · Link

I used to read Taylor Marsh daily, up until March or April of 2008. IIRC, she’s the one who really popularized that PUMA nonsense during the never-ending Dem primary. She came down off the ledge when Hillary conceded. Somebody needs to tell her that the election is over, and has been for quite some time.

jl - April 9, 2010 | 4:04 pm · Link

@Mike Kay:

Lindsay Lohan is a Democrat?

Make her run, put her in charge of the DNC, we’re home free!

Forget Pelosi and HRC, those two-bit losers.

Emma - April 9, 2010 | 4:04 pm · Link

Maybe she should consider that there is no equivalent on the left because the media hasn’t annointed her yet! Sarah Palin is a media creation—yes, I know McCain chose her, but it was the media who lifted her to her current level. There are very intelligent, competent Democratic women out there who aren’t “stars” because people basically don’t know they exist.

And why do I see everything crossed out?

Mark S. - April 9, 2010 | 4:05 pm · Link

17 women in the Senate:
13 Democrats
4 Republicans

74 women in the House:
57 Democrats
17 Republicans

(source)

I guess none of these count because they don’t give Rich Lowry a tingling sensation.

ts - April 9, 2010 | 4:05 pm · Link

Marsh keeps referring to Palin as Sarah. Why does she presume to be on a first-name basis? Are they pals? Did they go to college(s) together?

Maybe so, in the same way that Marsh is a radio talk show host, a foreign policy analyst, and a real redhead.

kay - April 9, 2010 | 4:06 pm · Link

@General Egali Tarian Stuck:

They’re looking behind them an wondering why no one’s following them, and shit like this is why.

They admire Sarah Palin, because she draws a crowd. Pelosi just busted ass for 16 months but that doesn’t matter, because Palin attracts an angry mob.

Warren Terra - April 9, 2010 | 4:08 pm · Link

@ James Low

Yes, exactly. If only the Democrats had some powerful women in positions of national authority, perhaps racking up historic achievements in the field of Arms Control as Secretary Of State or accomplishing even more historic achievements in Health Care as Speaker Of The House (arguably the second-most powerful individual in our system of government), then Marsh would be full of crap.

Or maybe the institutional Left could have a female whip-smart widely-respected television host and pundit with her own show in prime time on a national cable news network, someone who like Palin weighs in on the issues, but unlike Palin does so honestly and after learning about them? Then maybe Marsh would STFU.

Maybe Marsh just likes Palin because Palin offers her a role model, a “heroine” who has shown it’s possible to earn money and fame by successfully exploiting resentments, prejudices, and sound-bites in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence?

Polish the Guillotines - April 9, 2010 | 4:09 pm · Link

@james low: Win.

Mark S. - April 9, 2010 | 4:10 pm · Link

17 women in the Senate:
13 Democrats
4 Republicans

74 women in the House:
57 Democrats
17 Republicans

(source)

(If this is the third time I’ve posted this, let me just get this out in front: FYWP)

Citizen_X - April 9, 2010 | 4:14 pm · Link

Think of the real Hillary reading this crap. I doubt her reaction would be printable.

ETA: Mnemosyne: got it.

Realize, though, that Dr. Incompetent is the least objectionable of Marsh’s examples.

Linda Featheringill - April 9, 2010 | 4:16 pm · Link

@Cheryl from Maryland:
So 27% of Republicans actually have positive feelings about Palin. Republicans make up about, what, 40% of the voting public? And that 27% would translate into how many of the votes in a general election?

Midnight Marauder - April 9, 2010 | 4:19 pm · Link

This is one of the most intellectually empty articles I’ve seen in quite some time.

While Democrats and the Obama White House continue to take jabs at Sarah Palin, the fact remains they can’t resist rising to her bait, with the media loving to pit Palin against Obama whenever the chance arises.

That’s how she starts the article off. Notice that the Obama Administration and Democrats “can’t resist rising to [Palin’s] bait,” even though it’s the media “pitting” Obama against Palin, “whenever the chance arises.” So, essentially, in the thesis statement of her article, she completely undermines her main assertion.

Sarah Palin may have no official title, the left calling her a “quitter,” but she continues to rise in power, with even John McCain calling out to his former running mate to save him in Arizona.

Uh…I’m sorry? Sarah Palin is rising in power? Where? In the United States of America? Surely, you jest. Her unfavorables rise every time a new poll comes out, an increasing majority of Republicans don’t even think she’s qualified to be President, and her ratings for her “Real America” Fox News show were dismal. Did she somehow manage to stop the Affordable Care Act from passing, even with all of her outlandish death panel lies? Nope. Okay, well maybe her pointed criticism of President Obama’s re-calibration of the United States’ nuclear policy caused him to immediately scrap the treaty he just signed with Russia and that fancy new Nuclear Posture Review? What’s that, she failed to stop any of that as well? I see then.

And here’s where Marsh’s argument really starts to fall apart:

The latest poll from CBS on Palin comes with an interesting graphic. Unfortunately, the headline blows the lede and the main data point. The news for Palin isn’t as bad as the CBS headline screams: “Low Favorability Ratings for Sarah Palin.” Do the math. Just Republicans: 43% approve of her; 16% have an unfavorable opinion; with 29% undecided and 27% haven’t heard enough about her. In overall opinion, beyond Republicans: 24% favorable; 38% unfavorable; 20% undecided; 17% haven’t heard enough about her.
[...]
The truth is that the CBS poll offers some hope for Palin and her people, if the crowds and cash aren’t enough. For all the “she’s a wacko” storyline, there are a lot of people who remain undecided about Sarah, even as the traditional media continues to offer stereotypical “Low Favorability Ratings for Sarah Palin” headlines, even if the data screams a different and more important story.

Now let’s slow things down right here. We’re talking about someone who was a Vice Presidential nominee in the 2008 election; someone who has not left the public’s radar for even the slightest of moments since suffering a humiliating repudiation of her ideology at the ballot box. In the short while since losing the election, Sarahgeddon has: quit halfway through her term as governor of Alaska; engaged in an increasingly petty feud with her grandson’s father; been proven to be an even bigger liar than people initially realized; been widely ridiculed for writing notes on her hand for a highly controlled Q&A; and come under intense criticism and scrutiny for inciting violence against members of Congress.

It’s pretty simple why Marsh’s argument in favor of Palin is actually quite revealing of her limitations in ascending to political prominence any time soon. You’re trying to tell me that 29% of Republicans being undecided and 27% not hearing enough(?!) about their party’s most recent Vice Presidential candidate is a good thing?! Especially after a non-stop media blitz following the election (that she handily lost), which hasn’t seen her out of the public’s consciousness for any sustained amount of time? Especially with more and more Republican operatives holding their fire until the 2012 Republican primary heats up? You are seriously trying to tell me that 56% of Republicans being either undecided or not informed enough about Sarah Palin in April 2010 is a positive for her? And, somehow, extrapolating that trend to the country at large is also a positive? The same country that not too long ago rejected this woman and the “policies” she advocated wholesale?

Get the fuck out of my face with that bullshit. Please.

liberty60 - April 9, 2010 | 4:20 pm · Link

I can hear the caterwaulin’ already, but don’t care much about it, as I’m more interested in followin’ the story, doncha know, not the negative Hillaryesque stereotyping’ of Real Americans, the latest of which comes compliments of the latest CBS poll-type thingy, which I’ll get to in a minute, you betcha.
Also, too.

Fixt.

Joey Maloney - April 9, 2010 | 4:26 pm · Link

@Bob L:

stand up to sexism and use her ass to pander to the boys to get head.

Best typo of the day. It is a typo, right?

cfaller96 - April 9, 2010 | 4:30 pm · Link

Towards the end of the 2008 Dem primaries, I wondered what the hell Taylor Marsh was going to do after Obama won. I mean, you can’t perform such epic bridge-burning and then pretend nothing happened afterward, right?

Taylor Marsh promptly disappeared for a loooooong time, but where did she go? I didn’t know, mainly because I didn’t care enough to type her name into Google. But this post explains it- she’s been huffing metallic paint in between random rants on Huffington Post.

Yeah, the Left has a “Hillary Hole.” Jesus Christ.

David in NY - April 9, 2010 | 4:36 pm · Link

@Mike Kay:

“GOS just fainted.”

Not sure just what you meant, but I’ve never thought the GOS commentariat was tits and legs aversive, either linguistically or physically. Indeed, I’ve thought that it veered a little too far into commentary on the physical characteristics of politicians etc. for my own taste. So maybe I’m the one who should faint.

Edited for coherence and typos.

El Cid - April 9, 2010 | 4:44 pm · Link

The suggestion is that accurately reporting that Sarah Palin is ignorant of anything politically significant, lazy, corrupt, mean, and dishonest to a degree beyond that of even the typical right wing jackass is “spin”?

What?

jibeaux - April 9, 2010 | 4:46 pm · Link

@ellaesther:

I think men should be able to have a Hillary hole too, if they want one.

Warren Terra - April 9, 2010 | 4:55 pm · Link

@Linda Featheringill

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....nt-1683088

A hyphen preceded by a space and immediately before a letter acts as an opening strike tag. I don’t think this is the case of a hyphen between two letters or between two spaces.

tenkindsofgrumpy - April 9, 2010 | 5:05 pm · Link

@The Grand Panjandrum: I am and I am.

DPirate - April 9, 2010 | 5:29 pm · Link

Star is the right way to think about it, as in celebrity. I suppose that is enough to get elected these days, as ridiculous as that may be. Who can understand it?

Kal - April 9, 2010 | 5:30 pm · Link

It’s a darn shame the Dems in 2012 won’t have anyone on their side who captivates audiences, gives great speeches, and attracts record-breaking crowds.

matoko_chan - April 9, 2010 | 6:09 pm · Link

Look…..Palin is a moron.
why doesn’t anyone call her on it?
McWhorter

we’re confident that we’re going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?

WTF?
what war in Iran?
....this lady is a dimbo, the posterchild for teh Stupid, intellectually impoverished and poorly educated and un-informed.
She is a bad joke.
A proud ignoramus.

Bob L - April 9, 2010 | 6:42 pm · Link

@cfaller96:

If you read the comments, Taylor actually says something like “the left doesn’t have a smart, articulate, charismatic woman with star power.” So she was able to refine her critique a bit.

Sarah Paline is supposed to have these qualities? WTF?

Taylor’s “its a woman thing” is just bizarre; every woman I know loathes Palin with a passion that makes snarks like “the grifter” seem affectionate. Considering Palin’s fan base is the white male Tea Party it sounds more Palin’s popularity is a guy thing.

Batocchio - April 9, 2010 | 7:18 pm · Link

Um, what about Pelosi? A (at least somewhat) progressive woman who wields tremendous power and has actually done things? What about other polls that show that a majority of Americans, even if they like her, do not see her as presidential material? I take it Marsh is talking about “real” Americans, since it’s a small percentage of liberal women who find Palin appealing, and a majority of the best Palin criticism has come from (no surprise) liberal women.

Ninufar - April 9, 2010 | 7:42 pm · Link

@Cat Lady: THIS!

Although I’m younger & wouldn’t have the guts to put it that bluntly.

Throughout the last months of the primary, all I could say to these folks was to look at protecting vulnerable women, like this:

Given a choice between:

a) someone who used her power of office to (arguably) protect one single woman who’d gotten out of a (reportedly) bad marriage by stalking and harassing one man

OR

b) someone who used the power of his office to argue forcefully for and pass landmark legislation which gives greater protection to every woman in the country,

this fourth-gen feminist will vote for b (Joey B Delaware, in this case!) every time.

I’m so glad I could read all this snark-coated sanity.

Debbie(aussie) - April 9, 2010 | 8:36 pm · Link

@Gravenstone: Absolutely wonderful. thanks for a great laugh. Sarah Palin, the gift that keeps on giving.

jron - April 10, 2010 | 10:36 am · Link

@Batocchio: Nancy Pelosi is not a quitter. Thus she must not be the left’s Palin.

Mrs. Polly - April 10, 2010 | 4:09 pm · Link

I’m going to try dropping in a closing strikethru tag, and should it not work, let the wrath of Tunch be visited upon me.

And….

kellygrrrl - April 11, 2010 | 11:47 am · Link

Taylor and the LA NOW ladies, along with Lady de Rothschild should be shamed and scorned.

interesting read about Shelley Mandell and Elaine Lafferty over at palingates.
Firedoglake had re-posted but yanked the story upon pressure from Mandell

http://palingates.blogspot.com.....e-not.html