Rochelle Riley: Jealous Ditz
It is difficult for me to understand the animosity that Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press has for Sarah Palin. Riley is writing like a spurned 17 year old at the high school prom.
In her latest opinion piece splashed on the front page of the Freep's online edition, (since I never spend a nickel on that particular tired city rag, I don't even know where it is located in the print edition,) Riley asserts that
Palin is setting the gender back by decades. The next time a woman runs for any national office, her opponents will have sound bites galore from the Palin ditz reel, the last time a woman ran. That reel will grow if Palin participates in a vice presidential debate that will be funnier than the "Saturday Night Live" parodies that already have aired.Seriously? Palin's candidacy has, according to Riley, pushed the female gender back at least into the 1980s and perhaps further, depending on how hysterically Riley meant the word "decades." Has a more profoundly idiotic comment ever made it into an opinion piece of a major newspaper in history?
McCain cannot drop her; to do so would be political suicide. He cannot cancel the debate. He failed to do that with his own. But I cannot imagine that Palin really wants to continue with this campaign just because she doesn't like to lose. This isn't a beauty pageant or a mayoral run or even a gubernatorial campaign among the moose.So, Rochelle, please go ahead and tell us why you think she really wants to continue with this campaign. Perhaps you can project for us what you would do if you were ever taken seriously enough to be elected a governor, a mayor, or a beauty queen. All platitudes aside, is there even a point to this article other than trying to dig your nails into the hide of another woman?
This election comes at a time when our country is globally hated and financially imploding. What person in their right mind still thinks that this is politics as usual?There are numerous lucid arguments as to why any of the top four candidates on this year's ballot are less than desirable for the jobs to which they have been nominated.
Sarah Palin, go home.
Rochelle Riley's "I hate her because she is prettier than I am" article is not one of the better ones.
7 comments:
You're being generous in your assessment of Mrs. Hollowell.
--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com
100% agreement from me. The opinion article clearly projects Rochelle's bias & jealousy.
I like the fact that Gov. Palin can relate well with small-town people - which is rare for a candidate these days.
Your assertion that women overlook policy positions and qualifications when choosing a candidate is ridiculous.
The piece is Rochelle's opinion. Of course it is biased - it is an opinion.
If you don't agree with Rochelle's opinion it would have been much more effective if you tried to undermine her assertions. But since you seem unable to do that, I suppose just saying that she is the equivalent of a jealous ugly 17 year old will do the job. Attack the messenger - it always works.
I know, I know - all women are catty, jealous unsophisticated voters.
Surely you would find it strange if someone told you that the only reason you do not like a particular politician is because s/he is prettier than you
Let's stop with the sexism.
Your assertion that women overlook policy positions and qualifications when choosing a candidate is ridiculous.
Exactly where did I say anything about any woman other than Riley? Please, find me the text. I mentioned Riley specifically who is the only one that treated women as a bloc in any context in this post.
The piece is Rochelle's opinion. Of course it is biased - it is an opinion.
At least we agree on that much.
If you don't agree with Rochelle's opinion it would have been much more effective if you tried to undermine her assertions. But since you seem unable to do that, I suppose just saying that she is the equivalent of a jealous ugly 17 year old will do the job. Attack the messenger - it always works.
I suppose I just had difficulty getting beyond the hysteria of Riley's words.
Set women back decades?
Which decade have the women you know landed in because of Palin? Such an assertion by Riley is laughable. I think that is what I said in the post--did you miss that part?
I know, I know - all women are catty, jealous unsophisticated voters.
Do you really believe this, or are you projecting this attitude onto me? Again, I only referred to Riley, not to women in general. Incidentally, she does appear to be catty and jealous.
Surely you would find it strange if someone told you that the only reason you do not like a particular politician is because s/he is prettier than you Irrational arguments make rational people seek answers. Why do you suppose Riley said such things?
Oh yeah, I remember, you said she was biased. Thanks for clearing that up--it barely came through.
I do have to admit though, and I feel really, really guilty about this, I didn't like Ross Perot's ears.
Let's stop with the sexism.
You have a skewed interpretation of the word sexism. If you want me to stop criticizing Riley because she is a woman, then go ahead and say so. Or, if you want me to stop noticing how emotional some 17 year old girls get at dances I suppose you could ask for that too. But, since I criticize irrationality regardless of gender, and since I've attended too many dances not to notice, it might prove difficult to change my tactics and wipe out my memory so late in life. The good news is that maybe when I go senile that last problem will take care of itself.
Perhaps it would just be easier if you owned up to your own sexism, projection, and identity politics rather than heaping it all onto me.
Oh, and tell Riley to finish her articles before she finishes that third cup of coffee. Maybe this whole thing just boils down to caffeine.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
However I stand by my observation. You treated the opinion piece differently than you would have if you did not know the gender of the author.
If however, you bring up teenagers, prom dates, and prettiness when undermining a man's opinion of a candidate - then I apologize for misunderstanding you post.
Rougman, I couldn't agree with you more. Rochelle Riley's article was biased and hysterical. And why? Because she didn't like Sarah's responses or timing on her responses to certain questions. Of course, Obama and Michelle haven't made any "gaffes" (tongue in cheek). At least Sarah Palin doesn't have to answer to any "questionable, anti-American, radical associations". One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.
I just discovered Riley and your blog via Drudge today.
Funny, before I read the byline I knew the writer was a woman and black. I guess that makes me sexist and racist. I rather call it observent.
Just because I figured it out so quickly doesn't mean I am either of the aforementioned "labels" I'm sure annonymous would love to hang on me after reading this post.
I'm quite sure anonymous has never participated in the very things she accused you of doing. Wait, in fact she did it in fact right here on this blog.
I'm tired of the liberal double standard. They can't handle criticizm and their world view is so warped deep down inside you know they hate themselves.
Riley wants Bush impeached now for Fannie and Freddie (they started the economic crisis.) I wonder if she wants Chris Dodd and Barney Frank arrested for their part in the crisis.
This crisis was driven by the left and it goes all the way back to Clinton and the banking legislation he pushed through. No Democrat would ever admit it. They have Bush to blame instead. In spite of the fact that his administration warned of this doom.
Post a Comment