Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I don't I respect what Cow stated.
This is a woman that managed to become a governor by being smart enough to plug into what the people wanted.
She managed to move into the power circle in the republican party (You can argue that the party was pretty much in shambles, but she managed to get to the candidacy of the role of VP)
She's made a wack of money, and she's turned her life into something appealing enough to make money on the speakers circuit.
While I don't respect her views, and a lot of her positions (With the exception of one of two rrroooaarrrwwww) she's managed to position herself pretty nicely.
Its the same way that I think that Paris Hilton is a pretty saavy chick while playing a role as a bit of a ditz. But I respect the fact that while she's the heiress to a lot of money, she didn't sit on her a$$ and live off of it.
She's made herself a name brand thats probably thought about more then the original Hilton name. She's created a name empire and gets paid a lot of money to show up at events, and she seems to be smart enough to know when to crank up the PR machineand get her name in the news.
There are a lot of times that we tend to label people as dumb, stupid or clueless because of our perceptions of them, and thats your right, but I view that as equally stunted.
|
I give Paris Hilton far more credit for what she's done than Sarah Palin who has failed at becoming VP and will fail at ever becoming anything important outside of a punch-line.
If you think her ultimate goal was to just be in the news a lot and get paid some money to make bad speeches, than, yes, you could say she is successful; however, that is not what I think her goal was or is.
Is it not as equally silly to label someone as a manipulative genius as it is to label them as dumb-asses? I don't see the difference, only different ends of the spectrum.