My interpretation is a little different:  I think the message is more “scary animalistic black dude going after white woman.”

linnaeus… yes.  that, and it goes to illustrate the notion that they have been waiting for the right moment to paint palin as the helpless victim of attacks.

it goes to illustrate the notion that they have been waiting for the right moment to paint palin as the helpless victim of attacks

Apparently, their notion of ‘the right moment’ is ‘every damn moment of every damn day until Nov. 4.’  That woman is a professional victim and pearl clutcher.  For all the talk about how tough she is, she’s the whiniest crybaby to ever walk the earth, and if someone doesn’t insult her, she’ll just make something up.  To be fair, all of this victimology is coming from the McCain campaign mouthpieces, since they won’t let her speak for herself, except to read canned speeches, but WTF!!  If she didn’t want people to look at her record and her penchant for screwing with other people’s lives, she didn’t have to run for national office.

that, and it goes to illustrate the notion that they have been waiting for the right moment to paint palin as the helpless victim of attacks.

Which is why she has to shoot wolves from an airplane in wilderness areas—otherwise, they’ll track her down and find her in Anchorage!  Why do you want Baby Trig to be eaten by wolves in his own home, you evil liberal?!?!?

Truthfully, I’m taking a somewhat perverse interest in watching the McCain campaign sink lower and lower into the campaign depths. I don’t want them to win, but since I find the Republicans disgusting and I find their media enablers equally disgusting, it’s almost beautiful to watch them do what comes naturally: being sick, perverse people.

Wasn’t Palin the one who said that Clinton should basically grow a pair when sexist comments were being made about her?

I voted for Obama in the primary on the basis that his mind control of wolves was a net positive he could use. No you’re telling me it’s bad when he uses those wolves? I’ll never understand politics.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

Isn’t wolf imagery also a hallmark of white supremacist groups?

Yeah, totally. There’s obviously a continuum in the branding and semiotics of the Republican Machine. That there wolf ad that ran over three years ago was obviously created using CIA mind control technology to implant itself permanently in the TV viewing populations, a sort of Manchurian Advertising if you will. The wolf images from the original advertisement were so memorable, almost to the point of a brain rape,  that the connection: OBAMA = TERRORIST will be impossible for people to miss, especially at a deep psychological level.

However, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that Obama, with his lipstick joke, could possibly have been referring to (either consciously or subconsciously, I might ad) the most memorable and talked about quip from either of the political conventions, which happened WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back two weeks ago.

Yes, unlike Obama’s completly innocent and disconnected lipstick simile, which was merely a good natured, if biting, reappropriation of a cherished colloquialism, never in the history of all mankind have lawyers been compared to wolves, and certainly there are no wolves in Alaska, and if you even think about the potentially SEXIST overtones of this ad (Big Bad Wolf, etc) instead of the OBVIOUS BRAIN FUCKING CONTINUUM WITH AN AD MORE THAN 4 YEARS OLD then you are an agent of anti-change and must be purged!!!!!

Don’t you people understand that we need a president willing to stand up to the international lupinofascist conspiracy?

...and by using the phrase “hard to pin down”, I’m being sexist by implying that…hard…pin…down…which is a veiled reference to…something and therefore bad…

Well, pin is obviously a rolling pin, which is a reference to the kitchen, which usually have hard floors, which make it difficult on the barefeet, which are down at the bottom of the body, so it’s obviously a reference on your part to the thought that women need to stay barefoot in the kitchen.

I don’t know what role the word “to” plays, though.

Hey, Margaret?  This is what I was talking about when I said that Palin’s personal story was all all the McCain campaign was open to Obama talking about.  The idea that anyone should have access to information about her experience and policies is seen as some sort of vile attack. 

They’re not allowed to talk about Palin’s record, they’re not allowed to talk about Palin’s politics, so what does that leave them?  The one thing that the Republicans have allowed on the table re Palin: her personal back story.

“scary animalistic black dude going after white woman.”

“Me LeBron, me King Kong! You Gisele, you Kay Wray!” (Actually, that cover WAS used in place of a photo that of them that had no offensive interpretation, so at best, it’s sort of like running around saying “niggardly” when you can say “stingy.”)

They’re not allowed to talk about Palin’s record, they’re not allowed to talk about Palin’s politics, so what does that leave them?  The one thing that the Republicans have allowed on the table re Palin: her personal back story.

But they’re only allowed to say nice things about it.  Otherwise, they’re MEAN OLD SEXISTS.

Why are they doing it?

Because it worked last time, and they have fuck-all else, that’s why.

They had a good shot of at least getting a reform theme going and drafting off of Obama’s “Change” message, but then they built Palin’s maverickiness on a bunch of stupid, easily checked lies and turned it into another media squabble where who the hell knows what’s going on. Democrats are so used to seeing their candidates damaged by those squabbles that I think a lot of us are missing that this damages Palin, not Obama.

The “sequestering” of Palin to avoid the press until they show appropriate deference almost seems like the first step in establishing the overall Fairy Tale Theater production culminating in the most recent act of the Big Bad Wolf.

Princess Palin, sent off to her “tower” to wait until one of her media “suitors” completes the assigned task…how does this jibe with being a pit bull?

Welcome to the Republican Party. Here’s your sign.

If the McShame camp is going to talk wolves, then they deserve to be called on Palin’s wolf-killing policies.  Someone needs to take advantage.

“A whole “Palin likes her wolves dead - shot from planes in an unsportsmanlike way” and go from there to the canned hunts of rich guys like Cheney”

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people in the midwest who hate wolves and have no issue with them being killed off.

But I like the way your mind works, Ms. Kate.  You come up with a lot of devious and clever ways to attack the Repubs.

Fact check wasn’t happy about the add either:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html

Ms. Kate, you forget that she is a Creationist. Of course she’s ignoring biology.

It amazes (but does not surprise) me how McCain and Palin have made their Christian faith the underpinning of their campaign and yet their campaigning is decidedly un-Christian-like.  I’m glad at least one Christian group has spoken out on this, even if they are a partisan PAC.

The difference is Bush waited until the last week of October to release his scare-ad. That’s what your supposed to do.

Again, his desperation is showing.

I thought the same thing as Linnaeus. This is a much simpler and more conventional appeal to racism than you’re making it out to be; perhaps the Muslim thing is actually losing traction?

I’m John McCain and I’m a shameless, disgusting liar with no honor.

All I can think of when looking at those wolves is “I CAN HAS MOOZEBURGER?”

Wait, I’m confused. I thought the whole point of a presidential campaign was that the candidates were supposed to “dig dirt” on their opposition? I mean, otherwise, there wouldn’t really be a campaign at all, would there?

It amazes (but does not surprise) me how McCain and Palin have made their Christian faith the underpinning of their campaign and yet their campaigning is decidedly un-Christian-like.

As always, Fred Clark at Slacktivist has an awesome breakdown of how politics pollutes Republicans’ stated religious beliefs.  Apparently, it’s morally problematic to lie to the Antichrist, but there’s no moral problem in lying to the electorate.

Completely off-topic, but holy crap:

WASHINGTON (AP)—Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties improperly engaged in sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said Wednesday.

“Drill, baby, drill” takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?

(Stolen from Atrios, of course.)

Anne Kilkenny, the Wasilla native who wrote that much-linked essay about Palin, is on CFRB radio in Toronto now. The link includes a listen live link in the top left.

Oops “great ass-” is probably sexist.

From here:

The best line I heard about Sarah Palin during the frenzied orgy of chauvinist condescension and gutter-crawling journalistic intrusion that greeted her nomination for vice-president a week ago came from a correspondent who knows a thing or two about Alaska.

“What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let’s be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Why is John McCain comparing Barack Obama, a man who has patriotically served his country in the U.S. Senate and who has run an honorable campaign for president, to Islamic terrorists who have slaughtered thousands of Americans?

Because John McCain is an asshole, Jesse.

Next question?

You’d think McCain would be grateful that Obama was doing the vetting job that he half-assed.

Don’t really think you got the point that I’m going for here.
If you look at the two ads, by the very standard that McCain’s campaign is using, they’re not only wholeheartedly embracing Bush’s campaign, but also transferring his message to this one.

You’re right—I missed the bolded part. In my defense, I’m sick and thus more dumb than usual.

I still can’t get over the fact that we have a “scary animalistic black dude going after white woman” ad in 2008. I mean, really? I guess Republicans don’t have to worry about alienating black voters, but wow.

Wait, I’m confused. I thought the whole point of a presidential campaign was that the candidates were supposed to “dig dirt” on their opposition? I mean, otherwise, there wouldn’t really be a campaign at all, would there?

Well, they could try talking about policy or something…

Sorry, I don’t know what came over me there.

Also, what’s up with the idea that the 9/11 attack was the “first terrorist attack on America”.  Semantic shenanigans reclassifying everything from the Unabomber to the KKK as just “terrorist attacks in America” aside, what about, say, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993?