We might have “jumped the gun” yesterday. We declared Sally Quinn “our national harlot”. We neglected Arianna Huffington.
Arianna Huffington is looking for a new bed to jump to and she’s eying Sarah Palin as her new objet d’amour, Watch out Sarah. Arianna has the pox and she’s looking to politically bed you. Watch out Sarah – something grisly this way comes.
In early February of this year we warned the Tea Party movement to beware of Arianna Huffington (along with our warning to use the epithet “whore” with extreme care as it is a particularly weaponized word used to degrade women). We wrote to the Tea Party activists:
“After using her gay husband’s money and reputation to advance herself, after using Newt Gingrich’s money and reputation to advance her Hillary Hating self, after politically fellating Barack Obama – Arriana is ready for a burlap covered Tea Party bed. Tea Party activists beware: Arriana has the pox. Don’t let her near you.“
Arianna Huffington has been a conservative Republican and a “revolutionary Republican” storm trooper for Newt Gingrich. From there the adaptable Arianna became a revolutionary of her version of the Democratic left. But don’t be fooled, Arianna is a harlot – looking for the latest movement, the latest star – so she can drain it/them of integrity and character – and appoint herself the queen of the scene.
Back in February, it was the Tea Party movement. And there was cooing towards Sarah Palin:
“Indeed, at times in her speech, Palin sounded like the second coming of Huey Long. “While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses,” she said. “And everyday Americans are wondering: Where are the consequences? They helped to get us into this worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Where are the consequences?”
I was within an inch of singing along: “Yeah, where are the consequences!? You tell ‘em, Sarah!”
Arianna shouted “You tell ’em, Sarah!” This is the same Arianna who just days or weeks earlier was shouting “You tell ’em, Barack!”
Now the grisly Arianna Huffington presumes to speak for the Mama Grizzlies. In her latest writing exercise, to prepare herself for the next Olympic worthy bed-hop, Arianna sings praises to Sarah Palin:
“I’ve been thinking about this paradox: the most important political ad of 2010 so far did not play on television, and came from someone not currently running for any office. It was Sarah Palin’s latest web video, “Mama Grizzlies.”
For those who haven’t seen it yet, the video features footage of women of various ages taken at an assortment of Tea Party and Palin rallies, accompanied by audio clips from a recent Palin speech. Among the choice sound bytes:
“It seems like it’s kind of a mom awakening… women are rising up.”
“I always think of the mama grizzly bears that rise up on their hind legs when somebody is coming to attack their cubs.”
“You thought pit bulls were tough? Well, you don’t wanna mess with the mama grizzlies!”
Arianna douses her Sarah Palin love letter with the cheap perfume so valued by the educated fools who style themselves the “creative class”. Talk of Jung and psychobabble is employed to explain to the stupid educated what “bitter”, “clingy”, small town America always saw:
“To really understand her appeal, we need less policy analysis and more psychology. Specifically, we need to hear from that under-appreciated political pundit Carl Jung.
It’s not Palin’s positions people respond to — it’s her use of symbols. Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young? That’s straight out of Jung’s “collective unconscious” — the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung’s words, “universal images that have existed since the remotest times.” Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are “inborn forms… of perception and apprehension,” the “deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity.”
This is the realm Palin is working in — I’m sure unintentionally — and it’s why she has connected so deeply with a large segment of the public. In fact, her evocation of mama grizzlies has a particularly resonant history in the collective unconscious. According to the Jungian Archive for Research in Archetypal Symbolism, “The bear has long fascinated mankind, partly because of its habit of hibernation, which may have served as a model of death and rebirth in human societies.”
As a matter of fact, another very popular Republican politician once used the image of a bear in an ad. The bear was used differently, but to powerful effect.”
Arianna tell us that Palin does what she does “unintentionally”. We are sure that Palin understands fully what she does, even if she is not the most educated person in the world. We have no doubt that Sarah Palin is not a particularly well educated person, but we also have no doubt that Sarah Palin is one very smart woman who understands very well what she does and how she does it.
But Arianna thinks Palin is too stupid to know what she is doing even though it is Palin who is doing it. Palin used the soccer mom pitbull analogy during the presidential election and now she uses the Mama Grizzly analogy. Both analogies are pretty much the same but Arianna presumes to declare that Sarah Palin is a dope that has fallen by accident into such vivid and powerful language.
Go to hell Arianna! Don’t come back (we’re sure when Arianna does go to Hell she will tell Lucifer what the deeper meaning of his existence is and that she would like to be Mrs. Lucifer and lead the troops from the gates of Hell to challenge the Almighty – whom she will no doubt compare to Hillary Clinton as a dynastic fraud!)
You do not need Jung nor Arianna to understand the power of Sarah Palin. All you need is to hear her when she says Barack Obama lacks, um, testicular fortitude (Palin actually said Obama lacks the fortitude and the testicles).
Obama Dimocrats and Arianna Republicans and everyone else would be smart to avoid reading Arianna’s silliness and look at the rise of the Mama Grizzlies through pink colored glasses and think Hillary. Amy Siskind, in an article also featured on Huff n’ Puff, is the article even Arianna should read:
“Why did President Obama choose to appear on The View? The answer is simple. The View’s audience is 79% female and Obama has a women problem. Obama’s approval among women voters has plunged from 59% to 45% during his term in office. Here’s a shocker: just one-third of white women approve of the President.
In fairness to President Obama, his policies and lackidasical focus on women’s issues only partially explain this nosedive with women. The Democratic Party — once heralded as the party of equality — has lost its moral authority with women after the misogyny-fest of 2008.”
Sing it sista! Sing it!
The Democratic Party — once heralded as the party of equality — has lost its moral authority with women after the misogyny-fest of 2008.”
There is lots in that article to ponder. Siskind argues there is “A redefinition of “women’s issues” as well as the issue of “gender representation” as opposed to policy.
“Until recently, conventional wisdom has been that the best way to better conditions for women was to elect politicians who would support women’s policies. The gender of the politician was secondary. When Obama was elected, Ms. magazine issued a special Inaugural edition cover featuring Obama in a superman pose with a t-shirt proclaiming: “This is What a Feminist Looks Like”. Foreboding perhaps.
In the ensuing year, neither women nor women’s issues fared particularly well under President Obama (even the widely ballyhooed signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Act only makes it easier to file pay-discrimination suits). [snip]
Whereas the policy argument makes women passively dependent on progressive male candidates; the gender representation alternative posits: get women into leadership and the rest will take care of itself! [snip]
Republican women candidates are also supported by women in their party.”
That last sentence particularly hurts. It has the ring of truth. Republicans do support their women candidates. Obama Dimocrats destroy women candidates. Amy Siskind is right about the loss of moral authority by the Dimocratic Party and the now gone Democratic Party:
“The Democratic Party of the Roosevelts and Kennedys was based on the notion of equality. Yet in 2008, we learned that equality of the gender variety had de minimis standing in the current Democratic Party.
In 2007-08, the Democratic Party fielded its first viable female presidential candidate. What ensued was a onslaught of horrific, shameful, overt sexism for which the Democratic Party was silent and in some cases complicit (if you forgot how bad it got, watch here.)
Where were the DNC officials? Where were the Democratic elected officials? Where was Obama and his aids? Why did so few speak out?
What ensued was an awakening. A realization that in 2008, sexism was alive and well in our country — and in some instances, was promulgated by the Democratic Party and the liberal media. And as women increasingly feel betrayed, their loyalty and attachment to the Democratic Party has cooled.”
What so many of us, women and men, learned in 2008 was that the Democratic Party we fought for and the allies we thought we had were as capable as the worse of the Taliban in their sexism and misogyny. Yesterday, Fox & Friends continued to fulfill its promise to examine the 2008 elections. “We Will Not Be Silenced” says CountUsOut:
“What happened with the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cover-up, as well as Holder’s Justice Department’s alleged policy of not prosecuting Voting Rights Act complaints brought by citizens who happen to be white, suddenly has a larger context, a background, a backstory, and, crucially, a THEME. And the theme is: Barack Obama and his Movement will lie, cheat, and steal to win elections. Literally.
Since many of today’s readers may be new to this site and ones like it, I’ll post a few links for background information on what’s been going on in the Democratic party and in the upper echelons of DC and the national media headquarters since at least 2005.
Hillary Clinton actually received MORE VOTES than obama in the Dem Primaries and Caucuses of 2008. Let that sink in. Every time you read or hear a media spokesperson refer to Clinton’s “bitter loss” or “incompetent campaign” or “hard-fought loss” to obama, please click on this link to reassure yourself that YES, the media is shamelessly lying. Clinton did not suffer a “bitter loss.” She won for lord’s sake. What she did do, was finally throw in the towel on June 7, 2008 because she knew she couldn’t beat the DNC Machine. So she cut her losses and tried to salvage a worthy and valuable goal from the corrupt wreckage of the New Democratic Party, as shamefully redesigned by Axelrod, obama, Emanuel, Brazile, and Pelosi. That gang, with obama as their untouchable figurehead, tragically transformed the party of inclusive, idealistic, and all-American common sense liberalism into a Chicago style club of insider-only thugs who play disenfranchised groups off of each other, working only to keep us divided and hating each other so we’ll be distracted fighting for scraps from a government that no longer guarantees justice for all but instead payback with taxpayer cash for a few (and, yes, the “few” most certainly include the corporate interests that funded his campaign).
But not only did Clinton receive more votes; she also received them in a climate of corruption, intimidation, and blatant favoritism practiced by the media and the party referees; the Dem party leadership and media honchos who had the hots for an obama presidency. In Nevada and Texas, the corruption and illegal activity by the obama campaign against Clinton voters at the polling places was so blatant and out of control that the Clinton Campaign officially registered a complaint with the DNC and requested an investigation into, among other things:”
There are plenty of “other things”which CountUsOut enumerates. There are many of us who will not be silenced. We’ll let Amy Siskind summarize:
“The sexism the 2008 election will forever change the political landscape. Millions of women voters, be they registered Democrats or newly-minted Independents, no longer feel that they have a home in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party does not yet realize this, the Republican Party does!
The next year will be very telling. Women voters have decided every modern day presidential election. If the Democratic Party continues its tone-deafness to women voters, it does so at its own political peril.”
We’re still Democrats and will remain so. We Will Not Be Silenced and we will fight to restore the once great Democratic Party and destroy the root, truck, branches, leaves, and fruit of the Obamination Dimocratic Party. But many Democrats have already left, never to return. Many more leave every day.
The sexism and misogyny unleashed against Hillary Clinton will be marshaled against Sarah Palin. Obama Dimocrats and “intellectuals” had no fear in attacking Hillary Clinton. They will have even less computation in destroying Sarah Palin.