The Perils of Palin Blogging:
I appreciate my co-blogger David P's post explaining why he won't be blogging about Sarah Palin. David suggests that the problem with Palin-blogging is that it's an unusual distraction. I disagree. Remember the topics in the blogospheric limelight back before the 2004 election? In September 2004, the blogosphere was in an absolute frenzy about the forged memos of W's military service that had misled Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes segment. Compared to that, blogging about Palin is tremendously substantive and important.
Instead, I think the problem with a lot of Palin blogging is an aggravated version of the problem with blogging about political candidates more generally: There are many acceptable criteria for evaluating candidates and no real agreement as to which criteria are more important than the others. As a result, it's easy for commentary to focus on what many will perceive as minor points while ignoring what many perceive as bigger ones, and it's easy for commentary to speak to a very small slice of the ideological pie while ignoring or even alienating the rest. The result is that a lot of blogging about candidates ends up just running in circles.
Let me explain what I mean. For any political candidate, there are dozens of possible criteria that you could use to assess a particular candidate. The criteria might include, to just pick 20 or so obvious ones: 1) the candidate's position on a particular issue, 2) the candidate's experience on a particular issue, 3) the candidate's perceived honesty, 4) the consistency of the candidate's views, 5) the candidate's articulateness, 6) the candidate's past connections to extreme groups, 7) the candidate's understanding of the lives of average Americans, 8) the candidate's leadership qualities, 8) the candidate's sense of fair play, 9) the ability and background of the candidate's current advisers, 10) the candidate's friends and associates, 11) the candidate's personal history, 12) the candidate's intelligence, 13) the candidate's charisma, 14) the candidate's judgment, 15) the candidate's generosity, 16) the candidate's ability to delegate, 17) the candidate's management skills, 18) the candidate's family life, 19) the candidate's willingness to work hard, and 20) the candidate's health.
There are many other criteria, of course — these are just a few. But you get the idea.
The key difficulty with blogging about political candidates -- and Sarah Palin in particular -- is that any one of these criteria can be an acceptable basis for commentary. A really predictable dynamic follows: One commentator picks one aspect of one criteria and focuses on it, while others will marvel at the commentator's focus on such a narrow issue while ignoring everything else. And that criticism will often be pretty fair. That is, often the commentator really will be more focused on some things and less focused on others based on their own biases and interests in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the merits of the candidate for a lot of people.
You can see this in a lot of threads on Palin, both here and elsewhere. A blogger might make argument #2 about candidate A, and a commenter will respond my making (say) argument #6 and #7 about candidate B. Another commenter will respond to the first commenter with argument #12 about candidate A, which will then lead yet another commenter to pivot to argument #8 about candidate A with a left hook of argument #1 on candidate B. You end up running in circles, which everyone changing the topic to whatever ground they think puts their side in the most favorable light. The only conclusion anyone reaches is that everyone else is a political hack.
Is there a way out of this dynamic? Maybe, maybe not. But I tend to think that it would improve the level of commentary for bloggers and commenters to explicitly acknowledge how limited their claims really are. Given how many criteria exist, narrow commentary about just one criteria is necessarily only a very small piece of the puzzle about the merits of voting for a particular candidate. I think it would help us if we all acknowledged that, and didn't pretend that any one point was determinative. Perhaps it won't make any difference. But possibly, just possibly, it will be a fairer way of discussing the candidates and won't send us running in circles quite as much.
Instead, I think the problem with a lot of Palin blogging is an aggravated version of the problem with blogging about political candidates more generally: There are many acceptable criteria for evaluating candidates and no real agreement as to which criteria are more important than the others. As a result, it's easy for commentary to focus on what many will perceive as minor points while ignoring what many perceive as bigger ones, and it's easy for commentary to speak to a very small slice of the ideological pie while ignoring or even alienating the rest. The result is that a lot of blogging about candidates ends up just running in circles.
Let me explain what I mean. For any political candidate, there are dozens of possible criteria that you could use to assess a particular candidate. The criteria might include, to just pick 20 or so obvious ones: 1) the candidate's position on a particular issue, 2) the candidate's experience on a particular issue, 3) the candidate's perceived honesty, 4) the consistency of the candidate's views, 5) the candidate's articulateness, 6) the candidate's past connections to extreme groups, 7) the candidate's understanding of the lives of average Americans, 8) the candidate's leadership qualities, 8) the candidate's sense of fair play, 9) the ability and background of the candidate's current advisers, 10) the candidate's friends and associates, 11) the candidate's personal history, 12) the candidate's intelligence, 13) the candidate's charisma, 14) the candidate's judgment, 15) the candidate's generosity, 16) the candidate's ability to delegate, 17) the candidate's management skills, 18) the candidate's family life, 19) the candidate's willingness to work hard, and 20) the candidate's health.
There are many other criteria, of course — these are just a few. But you get the idea.
The key difficulty with blogging about political candidates -- and Sarah Palin in particular -- is that any one of these criteria can be an acceptable basis for commentary. A really predictable dynamic follows: One commentator picks one aspect of one criteria and focuses on it, while others will marvel at the commentator's focus on such a narrow issue while ignoring everything else. And that criticism will often be pretty fair. That is, often the commentator really will be more focused on some things and less focused on others based on their own biases and interests in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the merits of the candidate for a lot of people.
You can see this in a lot of threads on Palin, both here and elsewhere. A blogger might make argument #2 about candidate A, and a commenter will respond my making (say) argument #6 and #7 about candidate B. Another commenter will respond to the first commenter with argument #12 about candidate A, which will then lead yet another commenter to pivot to argument #8 about candidate A with a left hook of argument #1 on candidate B. You end up running in circles, which everyone changing the topic to whatever ground they think puts their side in the most favorable light. The only conclusion anyone reaches is that everyone else is a political hack.
Is there a way out of this dynamic? Maybe, maybe not. But I tend to think that it would improve the level of commentary for bloggers and commenters to explicitly acknowledge how limited their claims really are. Given how many criteria exist, narrow commentary about just one criteria is necessarily only a very small piece of the puzzle about the merits of voting for a particular candidate. I think it would help us if we all acknowledged that, and didn't pretend that any one point was determinative. Perhaps it won't make any difference. But possibly, just possibly, it will be a fairer way of discussing the candidates and won't send us running in circles quite as much.
I'm a regular reader and enjoy your posts. If you wouldn't mind sharing, what are your major criteria and issues in this election? I understand however if you don't want to throw yourself into the fire. :)
So let's not kid ourselves. You can use "criteria" as ammunition to toss at opponents or allies; but your decision to use them came from deep within yourself, and not by reasoning them out.
Intelligent logical commentators like yourselves are the breath of fresh-air needed on these debates. If you have the energy, I'd even encourage follow-up posts dissecting comments to prior posts.
Arguing logic doesn't involve normative choices about what's important. It just involves identifying the weakness in someone's reasoning. The someone picked the normative topic.
I disagree. Thoroughly investigating every single possible basis for evaluating a candidate is too big of a job for any one person. Having a commentator focus on just one issue will help inform others when trying to get a more macroscopic view of the candidates.
Sadly, though, what usually ends up happening is that supporters of candidate A will claim that the only important criteria are those that favor candidate A (as you've stated).
However, I do think that David Post does have a point, in that we can probably agree some criteria are more important than some other criteria. And David is merely adding his commentary as to which issues he thinks should be given weight. This meta-commentary, IMHO, is just as valuable as the exploration of the criteria themselves.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I actually make your point. I'm not sure why you think I disagree with the gist of it.
Jeff,
My own views are boring, as I'm close to a single issue voter and I long-ago endorsed McCain. So I can't imagine anyone wants to hear about what I think.
That is an excellent example of what I'm describing, and I trust other commenters here will pick up the ball and run with it (granted, in circles).
The problem is not that commenters are focusing on different criteria, but rather that this is an election where ideology is playing a major role. Obama really is from the extreme left wing of American politics and Palin really is a true American conservative.
Apropos this, notice how much of the vituperation is based on comparing Obama with Palin. When you think about it this is bizarre: Why would anyone compare one ticket's presidential candidate with the other ticket's vice presidential candidate? Ideology is the answer. Biden and McCain both, whatever their other faults may be, are far more centrist. They raise far less ideologically-based anger and angst.
Another interesting point is that in this contest Obama is doing everything in his power to hide the extent of his leftist ideology , the like of which has not been seen in US politics since the days when Wallace opposed Truman. Palin, on the other hand, seems to have been chosen purposefully to suggest that the McCain ticket is far more to the right than it actually is.
As you may recall from another of your threads, I'm not exactly a fan of what appears to be VC's new mission to play a major role in the blogsphere's coverage of the campaign. Speaking personally, I see some downsides to the current disproportionate emphasis on the campaign on this blog. In the recent political postings, there is a lot less of the sort of original contributions to issue debates that has made VC such an influential and interesting node -- frankly, quite a few of the recent political posts seem to merely be publicizing points that are already covered elsewhere in the blogsphere and the press, rather than exploring new issues. And perhaps not coincidentally, the quality of the thread comments seems to have dropped greatly. Trolling is way up, and there are numerous serial comments from the same few persons making the same repetitive partisan arguments over and over again on numerous threads. And many of the political debates on this blog lately seem to have little or no grounding in VC's traditional areas of expertise, legal affairs and libertarian analysis (yes there have been exceptions, but they've been just that - exceptions).
It was a big disappointment to read a couple of thread comment responses by Jim Lindgren in particular that approvingly note how much VC's hit count has increased since the start of the conventions. As some have pointed out, the sheer volume of hits, particularly hits just coming from search engine queries, really shouldn't be a relevant marker for a blog's quality or influence. Since I assume Professor Volokh pays for bandwidth, artificially elevated hits could actually prove counterproductive in the long run (although obviously they help to the extent those hits lead to ad click-throughs). Some wags even suggested that if you're just looking for hit quantity rather than quality, start posting porn. OK, that's clearly hyperbole but it makes the argument quite starkly that after some point, mere hit counts really shouldn't be all that relevant to a noncommercial legal issues blog.
Just one pinhead's humble opinion. You may fire when ready, Gridley...
As to blogging about Palin, perhaps you should consider that it's only another 8 weeks until the election. You will enjoy a spike in your readership and comment participation until then and after the election this blog can return to its regular niche.
I agree that our traffic numbers shouldn't be a guide to our blogging: The least thoughtful posts often draw the highest traffic. Our reputations should be far more important to us than our very meager advertising income: I think we should be maximizing insights, not traffic.
I think I have probably blogged about 1,000 hours on that topic in the last few years. What would you like me to say that I haven't said already?
In any case, I'd welcome it if VC bloggers shifted over to how the race might impact the jucidiary, DOJ, drug war, and such. I don't want this to become solely a technical blog aimed at lawyers (especially since I am not one!), but I think the legal slant on current issues is what makes VC unique and what has kept me reading and posting here for years.
That must tell you something. Perhaps your view of what is thoughtful isn't infallible?
"I think we should be maximizing insights, not traffic."
Wouldn't greater participation add to the possibility of maximizing insights? Otherwise, it seems you risk an echo chamber, preaching to the choir, etc.
But it is your blog. There are certainly enough other outlets for Palin blogging, etc.
I think through experience the answer to that is "no." There have been a whole lot of new posters in recent days, and a lot of them have been anything but insightful.
Dailykos, Atrios, Democratic Underground, Hot Air, Free Republic, and Redstate all have a lot of participation. All are echo chambers and preach to the choir.
I've seen your commentary on blogging in general (as far back as the 2004 election) and you used the same Rather controversy to show that (1) journalists aren't necessarily experts in their chosen topic, and (2) journalists often don't know who the experts are in that field.
Would it not be prudent then, in the great tradition that's developed around blogging, to "let a hundred flowers bloom"?
I never claimed a particular ability to measure thoughtfulness. But I've been blogging for more than 5 years, and as far as I know I have never heard anyone claim that volume measures thoughtfulness. That must tell you something.
Our archives are open: Could you link to the posts of mine that you have in mind? It's hard for me to respond without knowing which posts you are thinking about.
"First, reporters for major newspapers have to present things in a very simple and quick format, and in the course of doing that they often make major mistakes.
"Second, and perhaps more importantly, reporters often don't know enough about a topic to know who the real experts are in a particular area... Many who purport to be experts actually don't know very much about the topic but feel unwilling to turn down an opportunity to be quoted in the New York Times."
Well, that wasn't quite my point. I was trying to say that when one of you here writes something and it attracts a lot of interest, presumably it's because it's provoking thought in those who read it, or some reaction anyway (maybe more emotional than thoughtful).
Now yes, a lot of the reaction might just be flamers, people with nothing meaningful to say. But for the most part the commenters here seem to have something worthwhile to say and it's not just inane trolling.
As to some of the other sites, I don't frequent any of the far left sites and seldom read Free Republic for the very reason that they are echo chambers and don't encourage competing points of view.
I understand, to continue your signal metaphor, that the echo chamber is amplified, but I've found recently that I'm able to cover reading a lot more blogs with tools such as Google Reader, and that I can diversify my sources... that is, when I do use my time judiciously and don't waste an entire Sunday refreshing a single post on this site to defend my points.
My post is not about the benefits of blogging generally. It is about the specific perils of blogging about political candidates. Given that, I'm not sure what is to be gained by recycling the many discussions we have had about the benefits of blogging in the general case.
As for "letting a hundred flowers bloom," I don't think that approach works if you are trying to maintain high standards. A gardener wants to let the best flowers bloom, not just anything that counts as a flower.
Our traffic boost in the last week is mostly the result of links from Instapundit. So it's really just whatever Glenn Reynolds likes.
Anyway, Professor Kerr, I think you've hit on something without quite stating it explicitly. As you said, you're "close to a single issue voter". And there, there may be 20 criteria to judge a candidate by, but on many you just don't care. So, while the commentators may be picking whatever they think puts their side in the best light... I imagine if they haven't picked the issue the voter cares about, the potential voter isn't listening. So not only is there argument in circles, there's only an audience in snippets.
At least, that's my take on it as a minimal-issues voter as well.
More likely: it's controversial, off-the-wall, or titillating (a big issue with Palin; I noted with amusement how it even [sort of] infested Dave Hardy's high-quality blog. Or formatted to return a lot of Google hits -- want a lot of hits? Just entitle your post "Palin bikini."
There's a reason the National Enquirer sells more copies than the Wall Street Journal.
The question for VC posters is whether they're looking for a mass market, or to influence the influencers with thoughtful analysis in areas of their expertise.
It may be a little far down in the comments for you to read, but I'm sorry to have missed your point. I reread your post and see what you mean.
No discussion of any purported scandal if it has been labelled a "-gate."
No more than three consecutive posts by the same person on any thread. Ever.
No deliberate misspelling of the name of any cadidate.
More discussion of the sex life of fruit.
Which rasies another rule: Proofread before posting if you are anywhere near Indianapolis.
I'm not sure Palin has run to the ground. If she doesn't surface by next Wednesday, then I too will say she's run to the ground. Given the need for some briefing of McCains specific positions and some strategizing on which venues are best for the ticket, I think missing the first weekend cycle is fine. If she's a no show next week, she's toast burned black on both sides. (And not just because I think that's too long to be absent. If the VP candidate doesn't campaign for any reason, that ticket won't win. Period.)
Orin--
Oddly, I'm liking the bizarro arguments. There a lot of hoo-haa flying right now. (There always is a lot during elections.)
I'm the opposite of you. I'm not a single issue voter-- I try to take lots of stuff into account. That includes some aspects of people's personal lives. But that doesn't mean I let other people decide what I think a person's personal life tells me. Choices people make can have many meanings-- in context. Right now, I'm just trying to get information, and oddly some of the most disorganized comments threads help me find it. ( That is, they help me find it provided I dash to Google news and read several articles fleshing out the story.)
Why do people who know nothing (or almost nothing) about Palin feel comfortable blogging about her at all?
I haven't seen any evidence that the VC bloggers are paying the same attention to research on Palin that they would a case.
Are you guys running Lexis-Nexis searches on her? Reading profiles? Doing anything beyond a basic Google search or repeating Andrew Sullivan's rumors?
To properly research Palin would take dozens of hours. But at least if y'all did so, the Palin posts might rise above the lowest comment denominator.
So far, I've seen mostly arm chair guesses and rumor mongering. What is the value in such "commentary."
Actually, in that case it seems to me that the Obama supporters simply couldn't find a good line to attack Palin on, because it was all too easy for Republicans to compare to Obama, and the fact was that any comparison was a bad thing for Obama because it highlighted that Obama was at the top of the ticket and Palin on the bottom. So rather than finding strong arguments on both sides, it was more like the Democrats simply couldn't get the line of argument they wanted while the Republicans smashed away on their chosen line.
(I find this to be true of a lot of the personal arguments about Palin: she's young, inexperienced, has some controversy over past connections and religious positions, family values issues...and everything seems to come back to bite Obama in the butt by bringing up some scandal that would otherwise be dismissed as old news. IMHO, that's the reason why Troopergate is getting so much traction/attention; it's the only major Palin fault that doesn't have a mirror fault in Obama.)
Do you mind telling us what the single issue that mostly determines your vote is?
Sarah Palin single-handedly removed Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from the anchor desk at MSNBC.
Thank you, Sarah!
Olbermann's and Matthew's liberal agenda at MSNBC finally gets them demoted - after biased coverage of Governor Sarah Palin is plain to all.
Might make an interesting blog post about executive privilege or some such.
2) the candidate's experience on a particular issue, None, but sued the government for listing the polar bear as endangered.
3) the candidate's perceived honesty, Lies constantly to pad her credentials and/or image, i.e., “Bridge to Nowhere,” “state jet,” “earmarks,” “fiscal responsibility,” gas line as helping U.S. energy problems, Public Safety Commissioner firing.
4) the consistency of the candidate's views, “fiscal responsibility: she just pushed a $1,200 ‘energy rebate’ for every man, woman and child in Alaska, at a cost of about $750,000,000.” In addition to that, they all get $2,069 from oil funds.
5) the candidate's articulateness, Often lost when questioned, inventing neologisms, making stupid statements even in writing: i.e., supports the Pledge of Allegiance as did the “founding fathers” Eagle Forum questionnaire, 2006
6) the candidate's past connections to extreme groups, Closely connected to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party. Husband belonged, she welcomed their convention (see YouTube).
7) the candidate's understanding of the lives of average Americans, Unknown
8) the candidate's leadership qualities, Appointed a gaggle of hacks, neighbors, fellow church members and incompetents to run the state government. These include her HS buddy as Director of Corrections whom correctional officer gave a vote of “no confidence” four months ago, 514-19 but she continues to back him.
9) the candidate's sense of fair play, Called shock jocks who referred to the Republican senate president as a “bitch” and she laughed when they did it.
10) the ability and background of the candidate's current advisers, See #8. Her AG for instance was virtually a complete unknown even in his hometown.
11) the candidate's friends and associates, At a restaurant when Obama clinched the nomination she said loudly, “Well the spook beat the bitch.”
12) the candidate's personal history, Used her official position to wage a vendetta against her ex-brother in law and lied about it.
13) the candidate's intelligence, Wanting.
14) the candidate's charisma, Excessive, but not warranted.
15) the candidate's judgment, See # 8, above. At 44, with four children and having a one in 40 chance of having a Down syndrome child, she got pregnant. Her water broke while she was giving a speech in Texas. She waited, took a nine-hour flight back home, drove past a number of top flight hospitals to a clinic 50 miles from the airport. Took 10% of her 2002 contributions from notorious corrupter Bill Allen and his VECO campaign finance laundry.
16) the candidate's generosity, Unknown.
17) the candidate's ability to delegate, Delegates, but to whom? Incompetents.
18) the candidate's management skills, Terrible. Got her 5,000 population town which was virtually debt free into a $20 million hole, despite $27 million in earmarks that she had hired a lobbyist to secure. The city had to hire an administrator to cobble its bureaucracy back together and get things running smoothly again. State departments are in chaos.
19) the candidate's family life, Peyton Place. Affairs, pregnant daughter, arsonist son.
20) the candidate's willingness to work hard, Wanting. Doesn’t even live in the capitol, but moved her office to her home. Her staff is the same, almost absent when the legislature was holding hearings on and debating core questions.
21) the candidate's health. Hey, that’s okay! Way better than Mr. Standing on a Banana Peel, John McCain’s.
I know that the GOP and conservatives would like us all to think this is true, but that does not make it so. He holds some liberal positions and some moderate positions. It is an effective tactic, however, to label every democrat as an extreme, radical, hard-left communist.
Sort of like how anyone going faster than you on the highway is a maniac, and anyone going slower is an idiot.
Some of the issue is that people cannot possibly analyse a candidate by every criteria and perform a Sandra Day O'Connor-esque 20-factor balancing test.
Often, the issue is simply that one is voting against another candidate, or simply thinks that his preferred candidate is fallible (i.e. never a candidate for the papacy), but the best of all options, or the best option he has. Preferably, people will admit those biases, such as by stating which issues are important to them in an election (judges, health care, immigration, and energy for me - with McC/P on 2-4 of those, oppose Ob/Bi on all).
Unfortunately, many people do not know the difference and think the two are interchangeable. As you know, they are not.
As Professor Paul Brians notes on Washington State University's website:
Right. Agreed. That would add something to the discussion.
But speculation about whether Palin knows the name of some guy who made a bunch of uncomfortable chairs.... Does that really add to the discussion?
OK. Thanks!
Any other tips?
OH MY GOD! Did she REALLY?!!!
OH MY GOD!!!!
This is even worse than the well-established fact that she EATS RAW BABIES!
It's not so much that he's a communist as that he doesn't bother to fight the party line. When he doesn't vote "present", he's 97% in line with his party - not exactly a breath of fresh air or a force for change.
Your analysis is sensible as usual, but I think you politely tip-toed around the elephant in the room -- us. You explained what creates the misunderstandings, but our responses decide the severity of the conflict. Considering how intense the dissonance has been around here, I think we should expect better from ourselves. Like maybe if we were a little less dogmatic and personal we'd realize without even being told, that we're talking past each other. That in turn might quell a little more of our compulsion to throw fuel on the fire.
The acrimony in these election threads seems different only in degree, not kind, from what's generated by other VC fare, so maybe this can be a learning opportunity? I'd like to think seeing our discourse this dysfunctional might shock us into some badly needed humility and civility.
I hesitate to bring this stuff up, because it may seem like I'm pointing fingers. Not to mention it's so damn preachy. FWIW, I'm talking to myself as much as to anyone. That said, I'd be disingenuous if I pretended some of us don't offend more egregiously than others. But unless we want the VC bloggers to take a more authoritarian posture, I don't see this problem solving itself without some kind of cooperative, non-partisan peer pressure. Or not. Maybe others have better ideas. Santaria? Waterboarding? Group hugs? My mind is open. The alternative seems to be accepting that Jim Lindgren is a paid shill for both sides.
Yes. It's a pretty vivid demonstration of tastelessness. The tape is here.
How near? The whole west coast?
So what's your problem with Charlie Gibson?
Which rasies another rule: Proofread before posting if you are anywhere near Indianapolis.
How near? The whole west coast?
Yep. And all the parts in between. But your talk of the Coast raises an interesting fact of life in Indianer. Namely, Indy is the largest American city that is not located on a navigable body of water.
So it's a real distinction, as you no doubt recognize.
It's nom de blog, not name de blog, you blithering idiot. And theobromophile is a she, not a he as you called her. My God, what the conservatives won't stoop to!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3
The Newsweek article on Governor Palin trots out many paragraphs of liberal-think:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157696
But this part is interesting:
* * *
Over the weekend before the convention, campaign aides made the uncomfortable decision to urge her to go public with her unmarried 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy in order to rebut salacious Internet rumors that the teen was actually the mother of Palin's own newborn child. An aide, speaking anonymously because the matter is sensitive, says that Palin and her husband grew angry about the allegations. "Do I have to show them my stretch marks?" she asked one campaign official...
Despite the worries, she struck many campaign officials as more calm and cerebral than expected. She was quick to ask questions, and to "engage in a back and forth" with briefers. One aide describes her as "quick on her feet"—like "a lawyer who didn't go to law school."
* * *
1) Censorship- Nope false.
2) No contraceptives- Nope false.
3) Faked birth (?)- Nope false.
4) Affair with husbands business partner- Nope.
5)Small town Mayor- Well, this one is true but leaves out a Governorship.
6) Used power as Governor to try to get ex-brother in-law fired as state trooper- Kind of true but only after he tased Palin's nephew and threatened to kill her father.
Upon further reflection, here are some truths:
1) She's a woman
2) She's against abortion
3) Her husband got caught driving drunk (before they were married)
4) Daughter is pregnant
5) Had a kid with Down's Syndrome, even though she knew Trig might have Down's
The Democrats recognized that she had to be destroyed and spread false rumours about her that were lapped up by the media.
Palin backers had better hope this rumor doesn't have legs. Calling her "like a lawyer" is a good way to turn people off.
I'm a girl. A long-haired, chocolate-eating, puppy-loving, lipstick-wearing, Vera-Bradley purse-toting GIRL.
I apologize profusely for getting your sex wrong (and your nom de blog as well). We are both regular enough here that I should have realized that. I can only claim, as a do for using "name de blog" rather than "nom de blog" (which I believe I may have used here first) to sleep deprivation, since my posting times were between 1:38 and 1:44 a.m.--and even when translated into Pacific Daylight Time that is still rather late for me.
My apologies if my comment came off as anything but light-hearted humour. I'm not at all upset. (It's a frequent mistake, so I just thought I would emphasise the point. ;) )
Had I known, back when I was choosing "theobromophile," that everyone would think I was a guy (Theo), and/or The Bromophile or The Ombrophile, I would have picked something else... like Kate. Or Amy. Something basic but anonymous. ;)
I figured you were. I also figured Mark Field was when he called me a "blithering idiot." At least I hope he was.
I still blame sleep deprivation, though.
(Oh, and keep using "i.e." correctly--your use of it has now led, directly or indirectly, to a total of 11 posts)
And chocolate. Especially chocolate labs.
Ironic you'd make that association, Ms. Theobromophile, considering that chocolate can be lethal to dogs. And just what makes it lethal? That it contains the toxic stimulant, theobromine! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, need we go on?
That said, I do have a hard time imagining most guys saying their dog is a "chocolate lab," any more than they'd know, much less admit, that their sheets are "ecru."
Yes, I was. I did hesitate before posting that, but figured you'd get the (loosely called) joke. After I posted it, I decided it should have begun "Dave, you ignorant slut...". Then again, maybe that's just dating myself.
(By the way, I'm a "miss." Marital status is "permanently single, cannot find a date to save life.")
Mark Field,
Some of us young folks would have gotten that.
To all: maybe I'm speaking too soon, but did a political/Palin thread devolve (evolve?!?) into... puppies, chocolate, and humour??? It's a topsy-turvy world.
S/he's adorable. And sweet. But not chocolate.
Reminds me of the expression about going to a fight and a hockey game breaking out. Nice to know it's possible.
I would have gotten it, too. Absolutely no offense was taken. We may often disagree but I am unaware of any rancor between us either way.
theobromophile (finally getting that spelling thing right),
I think at this point I would rather be talking about puppies, chocolate, and humour. We are are ALL taking ourselves way too seriously here.
Just do what everyone else does - call me "chocolate lover" or some variant thereof. :)
LM,
This is true; she is a very sweet, very adorable animal. She's grown up a bit since that picture was taken. (Took her for a walk tonight, and she decided to pick up a stick that was larger than she was. She carried it home, which was about a mile away, and wouldn't come inside, because outside had the stick and inside did not.)
I wonder if this is what Prof. Kerr meant by the "perils of Palin blogging"....
Meth?