Today in fascinating photos

palin signing
Am I the only one who thinks this recent picture of Sarah Palin at a signing event in Alaska is simultaneously hilarious, disturbing, and extremely telling?

Cross-posted at Women’s Glib.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

43 comments for “Today in fascinating photos

  1. Aj
    July 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    wow, your absolutely right. hilarious, and very disturbing.

  2. July 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Wow. That’s really scary. The child is obviously distressed. She appears to be old enough to hold her head up, so it doesn’t look like she’s being dropped. But it looks like the child really wants to get away from Palin. And the people whose faces you can see are smiling! I’d be running over to rescue that poor baby.

  3. gaby arguedas
    July 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    you’re not the only one!! that is quite a scary picture!!!

  4. July 14, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Well seems she is pretty comfortable using babies for political gain.

  5. July 14, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    You mean the fact that a pre-verbal infant has better political judgment than the base of the Republican Party? Yes, that is telling.

  6. megankay
    July 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    The child is obviously distressed.

    I think she looks like she’s throwing her head back and giggling. I mean, she isn’t twisting to get away, she has her arms thrown open and isn’t trying to bat away the pen… I think the kid is into it. So.

  7. debbie
    July 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    I also read the photo as a child laughing, and not distressed and trying to get away.

  8. RainaWeather
    July 14, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    The child looks like she’s just laughing. My adrenaline junkie two year old cousin does that all the time.

  9. Pega
    July 14, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    @megankay and debbie, take another look. Someone is holding the child’s arm down so she can’t flail. She doesn’t look like a happy baby to me. She looks scared to death and wants out of the situation.

  10. Ista
    July 14, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    However, the child’s arm is being held. To me, kind of tightly. So they might have been trying to get away.

  11. debbie
    July 14, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Or she could be holding the child up. Everyone else in the photograph is smiling (including the woman who is presumably the child’s caregiver), so I’m having a little bit of trouble seeing this as disturbing. We can’t see the child’s face, we can’t tell if the child is laughing or crying. Either possibility is reasonable.
    I get this post was supposed to be a cute, funny aside – ha, ha even small children run from Sarah Palin! I just don’t get why it’s cute or funny. To each their own.

  12. Henry
    July 14, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    Obviously Sarah Palin hates children. In the next picture she actually eats the kid. True story.

    Because I can’t imagine a ticklish kid might laugh uncontrollably while being signed with a marker.

  13. Sailorman
    July 14, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Is she laughing or crying? I can’t tell, and I have three young kids of similar age. If I had to bet I’d say she’s upset, because back arches are more often (though by no means always) linked to being upset. I may well be wrong.

    She’s too young to know Palin’s politics, so she can’t be crying for that reason… ;)

  14. July 14, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    I’m not concerned about whether the kid is crying or laughing as much as i about someone offering up their child to be signed.

    Basically this sums up how the republicans feel about children. Good for political clout and nothing else

  15. July 14, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Errr…*I* wouldn’t allow someone to autograph my baby’s garment, especially while on my baby.

  16. Natt
    July 14, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    I think she’s laughing because it tickles. Little kids often react physically when something tickles their belly, and it looks like she threw herself backwards when Palin started signing her shirt. The person to her left probably grabbed her arm to keep her from falling.

    That being said, I think this is a little innapropriate. The first thing the picture made me think of was a rock star signing someone’s boobs. Just seems a little exploitative.

  17. July 14, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    I really didn’t know what to think of this photo when I saw it on a random Palin article! It’s just seems so awkward. And I can’t help think “poor kid” even if she’s not upset…

  18. July 14, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    What kind of wackaloon dumbfucks think it is a good idea to sign a motherfucking baby!?!?

  19. Bitter Scribe
    July 14, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    This brings to mind an old National Lampoon joke about Gerald Ford kissing a snowball and throwing a baby.

  20. July 14, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Everyone else in the photograph is smiling (including the woman who is presumably the child’s caregiver)…

    Isn’t that what most parents do when their children and distressed and crying hysterically in front of Sarah Palin as the paparazzi are snapping pictures to be posted on the internet – try to smile and pretend like everyone is happy?

    I say look at the poor child’s eyes. That’s not a laughing squint.

    And I agree with mzbitca.

  21. July 14, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    If that baby is laughing, I’d hate to see what she looks like when she’s crying.

  22. Harumph
    July 15, 2009 at 12:33 am

    This thread is ra-donkulous. The kid is obviously having fun. What I found creepy/lulz-worthy was that Palin is signing the chest area. It bring to mind rock stars who sign groupy boobs…

  23. July 15, 2009 at 3:45 am

    I’d totally get Sarah Palin to sign MY Boob.

  24. Sophist FCD
    July 15, 2009 at 3:48 am

    Imagine if Obama had signed a baby. Everyone and their dog’s hairstylist would be on tv talking about messiah complexes and delusions of grandeur and narcissistic personality disorder and so on. You wouldn’t be able to swing a cat without hitting a concern trolling news anchor. But when Palin does it? “Ha, funny picture.”

    Fucking liberal media.

  25. July 15, 2009 at 3:58 am

    All I can think of is this: specifically 2:21-2:50


  26. July 15, 2009 at 8:46 am

    What the good comrade said. Most definitely.

  27. July 15, 2009 at 9:28 am

    Why isn’t anyone making sure the baby doesn’t fall backwards onto her head?

  28. July 15, 2009 at 10:03 am

    It’s really creepy whether the kid is flailing ticklish-ly or in distress. I wouldn’t even let David Bowie sign my baby. :P

    That said, my son usually does that arching fling-back thing when he’s really upset and does not want to be held there anymore, and if I had to venture a guess, I’d say that’s what this kid’s doing too.

  29. July 15, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Felt Tip Pen, the 8-month-old next door to me does the flipping backwards thing for fun.

  30. July 15, 2009 at 10:52 am

    I have a hard time imagining that the three other people and Palin would all be smiling if the child were in distress. I think the idea of signing a kid is creepy, but I also think it’s likely she was asked to do it, rather than volunteering. This seems like one more awkward stretch to insult Palin as a person rather than critique her politics.

  31. Ron O.
    July 15, 2009 at 11:23 am

    I think the kid is laughing. My two year old throws herself backwards like that all the time.

    I wouldn’t get my kid signed, but I’ve haven’t asked for an autograph since I was about 10. They just do not interest me. For those that like autographs, this doesn’t seem too bad.

  32. July 15, 2009 at 11:47 am

    My 2 1/2 year old niece throws herself backward for fun – esp. when she is trying to get attention and I truly can’t tell if the kid is laughing or crying. In any case, Palin is a whackjob regardless of what one picture does or does not say.

  33. July 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Faith — and anyone who doesn’t have a problem with #32 — thanks for clarifying when ableist language is allowed — when it’s used for women we don’t like. I was under the impression that when we feminists don’t agree with other women, we should simply articulate those disagreements as vehemently as we wish. But apparently, it’s basically all systems go, including any form of bigotry we feel inspired to spew forth. Taking notes!

  34. Sis
    July 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Of course, Palin being a mother would have done what any obliging person who wasasked to autograph a child’s dress would do: she, the mom and the child would have been cooing, laughing, giggling with each other, tickling her…the head thrown back in ecstasy.

    At this child’s age, with any person whom the mother trusted, and with whom the child had been gleefully interacting seconds before, the child would swoon. Typical child behaviour.

    The question is, why do you, purportedly *not* the child’s age, behave similarly over Obama?

  35. July 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    It doesn’t seem odd to me. I mean, the signing a baby is a little wonky, but everyone, incl the baby, looks happy–and I agree with octo that this seems like a cheap way to attack Palin herself rather than her policies.

  36. pcwhite
    July 15, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    What the…? I don’t know what to think of the kid’s reaction, but I was pretty creeped out. What Comrade said x 1000. Want an autograph, give Palin a piece of fucking paper. Jesus.

  37. james
    July 15, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    It is just me who’s getting the Crucifixion/Passion painting imagery from this?

  38. Bagelsan
    July 15, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Faith — and anyone who doesn’t have a problem with #32 — thanks for clarifying when ableist language is allowed — when it’s used for women we don’t like.

    I don’t personally see “whackjob” as ableist (I assume that’s what you meant?) I think it just means that someone is pretty screwed up (their values, their priorities, their ego, their behavior, whatever) — but then again I don’t have a problem with “crazy” either, so whatev. I got the impression the jury was still out on some of those words.

  39. July 15, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    Bagelsan, having looked it up on several dictionaries, they all say something pretty similar to this: “A crazy, possibly dangerous, person.”

    I think you’re right that the jury’s out on “crazy,” but based on a few threads here and quoted here, it appears many folks here do think it’s problematic. Hopefully, not just when applied to people one likes.

  40. July 15, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    I need to reiterate that I would have Palin sign my boob. Both of them, in fact.

  41. Ursula L
    July 15, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    It’s the objectifying of the child that bugs me. Having a celebrity sign your own body is one thing, but having them sign the body (or clothes) of someone else, even your own child, seems to me like putting the child in the same category as a theater program or baseball.

    If you want to memorialize your child meeting a celebrity, you have the child’s picture taken with the celebrity, perhaps with the celebrity holding the child. (Such as the “Obama and Babies” videos that went around during the election.) Politician/celebrity and child interact as one human to another – not as one human signing an autograph.

  42. BarbN
    July 15, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Is ‘whackjob” an acceptable term to describe a woman when she is just doing what male politicians have been doing for ages? Why single the Governor out here? A woman probably made a joke, dared the Governor and Palin joined in. Is this really something to post about? Maybe posting her Op-Ed on the cap and Trade bill would be more interesting.
    I see nothing wrong with hanging with women on the campaign trail and having fun.

  43. Mikey
    July 16, 2009 at 3:43 am

    Drill, baby?

    The baby is laughing about tax cuts, torture, and tort reform.

Comments are closed.