|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 8, 2009 9:03:45 GMT -5
Holiday...you can't compare Obama's children with Palin's...His are much younger..did not have a child out of wedlock at a young age...or make any public speeches. However, he has been hounded about going out on dates with his wife...as well as being questioned and trashed for having "1 beer". If you flip through a lot of the different networks a groups you'll easily find a lot of trashing of Obama...heck..you can balance all the trashing of Palin on this site with just posts from Bill. So...when the Obama children turn 16 are they fair game? I don't think age has a limit on respect toward minors of any kind. If the situations were reversed with the Obama's and Palins I would still find it offensive and pitiful and I hope...so would you. Minors and children should be off limits....period. The date thing and a beer. Come on....not even the same thing. The networks crowed how sweet it was about the date situation. How is that critical? I don't agree with making public issue out of a politician's minor dependents, but I think the underlying reality is that Palin's children have received more press attention because they are older -- not because they are "fair game", but because it's difficult to find a kid between the age of 15-24 who doesn't have at least one personal drama/screwup that can be blown out of proportion by opportunists. The lives of former president George W. Bush's twin daughters was subject to much more press attention, because they were seen as hard-partying spoiled college rich kids; the same situation was true for the children of former vice president George HW Bush. Chelsea Clinton was, by most accounts, kind of a history/science nerd, so mostly people just made the predictable chauvinist jokes about her perceived sexual undesirability, (although she has had her own tabloid "OMG CHELSEA CAUGHT DRINKING!" moments). I have no doubt that when the Obama children are in their late teens and seeking to establish their independence, tabloid journalists will be swarming like ants at a Sunday picnic. So what may look like "softer" treatment from the media, is, I think, just a meaningless consequence of the age of the Obama children.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 8, 2009 9:05:15 GMT -5
and my link shows that the major news organisations later had to retract some of this stuff ..and didn't until the damage was done.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 8, 2009 20:02:53 GMT -5
I'll agree to a point...for every politician in the big spotlight you can find 20 webpages recounting their lies...and another 20pages defending them...the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 8, 2009 20:13:36 GMT -5
So...when the Obama children turn 16 are they fair game? I don't think age has a limit on respect toward minors of any kind. If the situations were reversed with the Obama's and Palins I would still find it offensive and pitiful and I hope...so would you. Minors and children should be off limits....period. As others pointed out...Bristol has been the target, not Willow. And yes, it may be offensive, but comparing the media's treatment of a 6 & 10 year old to Bristol is not the same thing. O&U also makes other points so I don't have to repeat them/ If that's all you saw/heard, then you weren't paying attention..just as you missed all the trashing of Obama that O&U has pointed out. Many conservative religious personnel slammed Obama across different mediums for the beer. And for every show/person that made a report on how cute the date was...there was at least one right wing source (e.g. O'Reily) saying how he was wasting time, money, and shirking his duties in a time of crisis.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jul 10, 2009 11:47:53 GMT -5
Wouldn't you know, it probably wasn't anything high-minded. Her family was awash in debt and getting out of politics meant she could go on the public speaking circuit and write books without all those pesky details about conflicts of interest or public responsibility. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignationLevi Johnston is also going to try and cash in too. Not sure who would want to read fiction penned by him. If he can get an advance, then more power to him.
|
|
|
Post by Tiruray2004 on Jul 10, 2009 18:47:04 GMT -5
What if the books won't sell? Does Palin have to re-pay the publisher?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 10, 2009 19:01:08 GMT -5
What if the books won't sell? Does Palin have to re-pay the publisher? No, if a publisher pays you an advance on royalties, they then accept the risk that the book does not sell and the royalties are never earned.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 10, 2009 20:29:55 GMT -5
What if the books won't sell? Does Palin have to re-pay the publisher? No, if a publisher pays you an advance on royalties, they then accept the risk that the book does not sell and the royalties are never earned. I think where Palin really scores is on the lecture circuit. Probably a minimum of $10K per talk. She can pack them in and promoters know it. Of course, we won't find (R) at any of her talks, but good conservatives like GGB will attend in droves.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 12, 2009 17:43:02 GMT -5
No, if a publisher pays you an advance on royalties, they then accept the risk that the book does not sell and the royalties are never earned. I think where Palin really scores is on the lecture circuit. Probably a minimum of $10K per talk. She can pack them in and promoters know it. Of course, we won't find (R) at any of her talks, but good conservatives like GGB will attend in droves. Agreed...she has enough followers to make a decent chunk of change giving lectures and speeches.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 13, 2009 20:21:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 13, 2009 20:31:46 GMT -5
|
|