NCPR is supported by:
-
The In Box blog is a general news and discussion site for the News Department of North Country Public Radio. In Box contact information 
Latest NCPR News
The In Box blog is a general news and discussion site for the News Department of North Country Public Radio. In Box contact information
Latest NCPR News
Boy, there’s all the proof you need she’s just perfectly qualified. She looks hot in a picture.
Nope, no shallowness on display here.
Wow! Babe-a-licious. She could get a job as a FoxNews anchor.
I want the coat.
Looking good.
Bret4207,
Shame on you!
Must a woman look ugly to be considered good at anything other than a bare foot and pregnant housewife?
Hey, you know the rules. Only dirt-ignorant teabaggers are allowed to also be attractive.
Fortunately there’s much more to Ms. Gillibrand than looking striking in an air brushed photograph. Having said that, the double standards around here are quite comical to read.
She will be the first female President of the USA. I have a strong hunch.
You read it here first.
haha, that coat looks so good I want IT!
Albany Barbie? Actually, she kind of has that slutty stewardess look, don’t you think?
And yes, the double standard IS comical. Consider the scathing attacks on Sarah Palin regarding the fact she is undeniably attractive and contrast it with the glowing revue Kirstin gets.
Bret,
I was referring to the Male/Female double standard, i.e. that men don’t typically receive scathing attacks for looking good or sexy as compared with women.
Maybe I’ve missed them but the only criticisms I’ve heard about Ms. Palin relate to her rather limited intellect and not her appearance. In fact the people I’ve spoken with about Ms. Palin all agree she’s attractive and that there’s nothing wrong with that.
Oh jeesh Palin has nothing to do with this.
This is a good looking set of Photographs and there is nothing wrong with looking good. They are certainly not inappropriate.
The fascinating thing about Senator Gillibrand is how she or her supporters shut down the down state Democratic machine that was set on ousting her with Kennedy. They were pretty ugly about what they said about Gillibrand, but now she is in total control. Good for her.
Good point about the Democratic machine, Mervel. As has been mentioned in this very blog, people seem to underestimate her abilities as a politician. I wonder if she has aspirations beyond the Senate, as in perhaps the oval office?
You really do have to have a huge belly laugh when someone tries to compare Kirsten Gillibrand with Sarah Palin.
Brian, Maybe you should post the Vogue Magazine cover photo of Sarah Palin. That was all the proof we needed that Palin was qualified to be VP of the USA.
Gillibrand as President? Completely unqualified. A pro tobacco political scion with ties to one of the most corrupt men ever to serve as Senator from NY- Alfonse D’Amato. She raised foreign funds for her campaign in England and France. Wait a minute……she lies about her tobacco connections, raises foreign funding, comes from a long line of politicians and has ties to crooks.
I stand corrected, she’s perfectly qualified to run for President.
Yes Brian, please do that and then I can post some of the incredibly harsh things said about that cover on sites like democratunderground, slate, moveon, etc.
Facts are facts people. Like her or not Palin got treated extremely poorly. I can’t recall any other female politician of either party having people accuse her grandchild of being the product of incest! When people stoop to those levels it really bothers me. The sheer hypocrisy displayed by many on the left here and elsewhere regarding Palin is simply appalling.
I will give you this regarding Gillibrand- she’s a lot more qualified than that carpetbagging witch she replaced. When your only qualifications are your husbands last name and your ability to withstand public humiliation time after time after time, well, that’s not being qualified. But, by God, she was a DEMOCRAT, so we’ll ignore her track record, those lost legal documents, the insider trading, the mysterious deaths, the Chinese problems, etc., etc, etc.
And some of you call me blind.
Palin was not treated unfairly. She wilted under the media glare that McCain, Obama and even Biden were able to withstand. This was because the latter three had at least some degree of qualifications for the job and Palin didn’t.
Even Biden, who is gaffe prone, had a 35+ year record as a national figure as experience. The media did us a service to expose the fact that she was completely not up to the job before the election, rather than giving her the free pass until after the election that her supporters wanted. She couldn’t handle it. She didn’t belong.
Though next time, if she doesn’t like it how the poopie-headed meaniefaces in the “lamestream media” cover her, perhaps Palin should insist they instead cover other candidates who actually know what’s going on, like the Green or Libertarian nominee.
That being said, I do have some sympathy for Bret’s double standard contention regarding Gillibrand, believe it or not. I remember liberals making a mountain out of a molehill out of some photos of Scott Brown that surfaced during his campaign for senate.
Just what qualifications did Obama have that Palin didn’t? I’m not saying I would want her to be in the office, my beef is more with the scumbag treatment she got that simply defies anything approaching common decency. I’m asking just what qualified Obama to be President? He had no record, no experience, nothing. His qualifications were that he was an articulate black skinned guy that wasn’t scary like Alan Keyes. That’s his sole qualification. Other than that he had done nothing that made him any more qualified than a great number of other candidates. Bill Richardson of New Mexico for instance has a far more distinguished career than Obama, but who wants a fat Mexican for President? Mike Gravel had better qualifications, even Biden had more qualifications.
I would contend that if Palin had a “D” after her name she would have had overwhelming Democrat support- “The mother of a “special needs” child, whose parents were simple school teachers, a “hockey mom” that refused to stand idly by and see wrongs go unchallenged, an every day citizen who took a stand and will fight for you!” Cripes, sounds like Bidens campaign posters…
Should we compare attacks on Palin to attacks on Pelosi? That seems like a better match to me.
Pelosi has a long track record of saying one thing and doing another. I don’t recall any rumors of incest, but I may have missed it and I don’t recall anyone ever referring to her as a “slutty stewardess”. Now, if you want me to admit I think statements like “unemployment benefits are the biggest boost to our economy…” are dumb and that violating the church/state separation issue by instructing Catholic Priests to support her programs from the pulpit are not very wise, I’ll go for it.
I’m going to let this go because I just get so po’d at the double standard, it makes my blood boil. Just let me say that it’s not so much Gillibrand or Pelosi or Palin or any one person that irritates me so. It’s people having their blinders set so tight they can’t see that despite decades and decades of sending career politicians to Albany and Wash. and having them screw us silly, they still send the SAME TYPE of people back! We scream for someone that’s like us to fill those slots. Well, that’s what Palin was and Palidino, even Ross Perot and Steve Forbes were kind of like that. People that aren’t career politicians, the plastic haired Trent Lotts and robot stiff Al Gores that have to “re-invent”themselves, hire people to do it for them and have their package airbrushed in on the cover of Rolling Stone. And-people-buy-it! THAT”S what gets me. People scream for a public servant and they elect a hologram.
My apologies to Ms Gillibrand, she just happened to be the one on the cover this time.
Bret,
For someone with a background in law enforcement I’m surprised you don’t view holding a Juris Doctorate in law as a qualification for the presidency. While it’s certainly not the only thing to consider, surely you’d agree it’s a qualification on some level, no? Both Obama and Hilary Clinton hold these degrees. Palin? I’m not sure she has any degree, much less a doctorate. And I really don’t see where there’s any double standard with these particular individuals. Hilary Clinton alone has faced more name calling, false accusations, smear campaigns, etc. then Palin ever will. The Right have been blasting her for years. And perhaps some of the criticism is warranted. The difference between her and Palin is evident the moment each responds to such criticisms. One responds with calculating, intelligent, independent thought, the other sounds like an elementary student repeating the notes verbatim from her government and economics class. And my opinions have nothing to do with Palin being attractive, but more from the fact that she clearly isn’t that bright.
Every night before I go to bed, I hit my knees, and say, “Dear Lord, protect me from Alan Keyes. He is so scary. Amen.”
There is a very large difference between having the degree and having the character and vision that are needed for the Presidency. Maybe I’ve spent too much time with lawyers, but they seem to be the problem, not the solution. A law degree means what exactly? That they respect the Constitution, Rule of Law and Bill of Rights? Or does it mean they saw the degree as a means to an end? Most of our Congressmen have law degrees it seems, does that somehow imply they abide by the law? Please, we know better than that.
I’d be far more comfortable with someone in that seat who’s been hungry, maybe lost a business and rebuilt it, that’s there not because they want to be President (I think that should be an automatic disqualifier!) but because they want to serve the people and leave the country in better shape than when they got there. It’s been a long, long time since I saw anyone like that to vote for. Instead we get to choose from a list of lawyers and MBAs for the most part that are there for the power. Any of them are “qualified”, but are any of them good choices? Are any of them the best we can get? We keep sending the most polished one back to office. Whats it get us? Better lies?
Like I said, this stuff just makes my blood boil. We have a Congress full of polished holograms. They sit on one side of the isle or the other, but there isn’t a hairs difference between them. They all follow the same rules and play book and anyone of them that steps out of line is a leper. They have the arrogance to talk about their legacys, as though they matter more than the country. Isn’t it time to start caring less about hair and nice teeth and what sorority or fraternity they belonged to and to start worrying about character and honor and vision?
Brett,
I don’t think anyone would disagree with the points you make in your latter two paragraphs. And of course holding a degree doesn’t mean one necessarily has the other desirable traits to serve as president. Which is why I clarified my statement by saying isn’t it at least one qualifier? You really don’t believe earning a Juris Doctorate at least hints at the character of an individual to say nothing of their expertise as far as how our system of laws works (you know, given part of the job description of president?) Nothing about their motivation, their drive, their intelligence? And I didn’t imply that holding a juris doctorate means you somehow now are supposed to be law abiding. I only asked if that’s even one qualifier for being president.
I’m as frustrated as the next voter when it comes to our choices in elections. A good example of that very frustration would be Mr. McCain putting someone on his ticket as obviously unqualified to be president as Sarah Palin. Was not she merely a slightly polished sex kitten meant to get some votes? In my opinion she was the epitome of the very candidate both you and I appear to disdain. Isn’t that a bit ironic?
You have got to be baiting me.