Overthinking Hillary vs. Sarah

Nah:

So, why the hell is Palin on this list and not Clinton? It is, put
frankly, the difference between the popular girl and the girl who ran
the high school volunteer program. Sarah Palin’s the popular girl —
there are people that adore her, people that want to be like her and
people that hang on her every word because of some ephemeral quality
(looks, money, ability to be cutting to those she doesn’t like, all of
the above) that makes her popular in a certain crowd for a certain
period of time. Clinton’s the volunteer leader — it’s an often
thankless job, with students who join just to pad their resumés and the
kind of work that inevitably exposes you at an early age to life’s
sadnesses.

What is more likely to have happened here is that at some point Time’s writers added up the liberals, added up the conservatives, and bet they’d get far more angry irate calls from lunatics if they left Palin off the list than if they left Clinton off. How many screaming spitting freakjobs do our receptionists really need to deal with today?

Never attribute to bias (or to some hideously complicated Mean Girls scenario) what cowardice will explain nicely.

A.

8 thoughts on “Overthinking Hillary vs. Sarah

  1. whet moser says:

    Given that they also included one of the head Tea Party organizers, who is even more like the “volunteer leader” than Clinton, I think you’re right.

  2. MapleStreet says:

    I can’t get the image out of my head of Sarah Palin as being the sorority sister who to the outside talks all cutesy-wootsy, but has everyone in the sorority scared to death of her and is willing to amputate anatomical parts of anyone who doesn’t fall in line with her whims.

  3. montag says:

    Ah, well, Clinton’s a classic empire-minded neoliberal. Palin’s an empire-minded neofascist.Time probably figured that having one empire-minded person on the list would appease the ghost of Clare Booth Luce, and that naming Palin might increase the readership of their dumbed-down prose. Never attribute to bias, or cowardice, what greed for profit can explain. 🙂

  4. hoppy says:

    Time knows which side of the bread is buttered. That is Palin’s side.

  5. pansypoo says:

    bending over backwards to prove they are NOT LIBERAL. if they ever were.
    plus, palin and starbursts.

  6. soullite says:

    Call me crazy, but shouldn’t a leader actually have to lead something? Sarah Palin isn’t a leader, she’s a mouthpiece. Hillary Clinton runs the State Department, so that is a bit closer to actual “leadership”.
    These people are both evil bastards as far as I’m convinced. Palin is the world’s greatest scammer and Hillary is a psychopathic war-monger. They both hate the lower and middle class. To be honest, I don’t understand how a sane person gives either of their opinions much weight.
    I wish I didn’t live in a country where “gaining power” was considered admirable regardless of the purpose. The Washingtonians would worship Hitler if he were alive today.

  7. pansypoo says:

    what do you expect from GNEWS?

  8. al-Fubar says:

    An even simpler theory:
    Time writers think like cable TV bookers, and Palin is a better ratings draw – pulling in not just her fans but all the car wreck rubberneckers. Hillary? She’s SecState at a time when foreign policy is off the media radar, and hating on her is passé in the Obama age. Ratings snooze.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: