MyDD :: Is the Democratic Party Sexist?

by Dari on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST

Give it a rest. This has nothing to do with Hillary. It's insulting to even suggest it does.

Palin will sink McCain. (2.00 / 2)

The Republicans will not be making history this time around.

by sricki on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:10 PM EST

Re: Palin will sink McCain. (2.00 / 1)

Posting diaries to try and divide us are NOT going to work. We're on to you McTrolls. This diary FAILS.

by venician on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The MSM and DKos certainlhy is. We saw it with Hillary Clinton; we are now seeing it with Sarah Palin.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST

If you had everything, where would you put it?

Well the great advantage is that MSNBC, MSM, DKos and many on this site have honed the Sexism to an fine artform from a lot of practice, and experience delivering it onto the back of the Clinton campaign . . .

. . . dust it off and get that Sexism machine ready to go onto Palin with both barrels blazing.

Tweety, KO and many here are drooling at the prospect because they know it works. Creamed Hillary with it and she was the pinnacle of female political prowess. Palin is but a chump wannabee that will succumb easily.

by wasanyonehurt on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (1.25 / 4)

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

easyE
cameoanne

by venician on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (1.00 / 3)

Add me to the list goober.

If you had everything, where would you put it?

by wasanyonehurt on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder

What's a goober list? Can I join?

by Stipes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by venician on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

D'ya notice how cameoanne mojos all the trolls?

I would have rec'd this diary, too, if the diarist would have stuck to facts and limited the emotions.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by venician on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was to be expected.

And so is your contribution to this site!

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Republican Party: Marvelous Apes (2.00 / 7)

You are right. The Republican Party is the party that puts women's rights first! The Party of Women! The Republican Party is a party where sexism does not reside in any way shape or form, neither does racism. Just look at the diversity in their leadership, in the faces at their convention, just look at their policies and their record, just, and here's a good place to start actually, read their goddamn Platform! That should be enough to convince everyone that the Republican Party is the party of marvelous apes.

I will wear my heart upon my sleeve For daws to peck at

by Iago on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 7)

Show some respect to Hillary Clinton. She's more than a political gamble. To even begin to compare her to Sarah Palin is an insult to her.

by BlueGAinDC on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 6)

Now - the Republicans will have the opportunity to be the party to make history with the FIRST WOMAN VICE PRESIDENT in history.

how old are you? The democrats put up a woman as Veep in 1984.

It took the republicans 24 years to pick someone who is obviously a pandering choice.

say what you will, the pick in '84 was not a pander.

by colebiancardi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (1.00 / 1)

Historians disagree with you. . . you must have a different history book than those of us that lived through youngpup.

Reagan coming into the election was one of the most popular presidents of all time. Killing Mondale in the polls.

If those here say Palin is a pander and a "hail mary" . . .

. . . then so was Ferraro

If you had everything, where would you put it?

by wasanyonehurt on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by colebiancardi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

youngpup? lol. That was my first ever presidential election that I could vote for.

Ferraro was not eye-candy and she at least was seriously vetted by Mondale.

Can you say the same about Palin? I doubt Mondale only met with Ferraro onece.

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (none / 0)

Just to keep the playing field level, and I am a HUGE Ferraro supporter:
Ferraro = Husband's finances;
Palin = Sister's (ex)husband.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (2.00 / 2)

Obama had no reason to avoid Clinton as VP other than his own ego. He did not want to be overshadowed. I too find it insulting, but I'm trying to find a way to hold my nose and vote for this guy. I cannot donate or work for the Democratic Party - as I too am disgusted by them on so many levels (and for so many reasons). As far as voting? Well, I will vote Democratic this year because I feel the alternatives are just too awful.

For Obama? I have no love. He could've healed the party- he chose not to.

by easyE on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST

Re: Agreed (none / 0)

Obama had no reason to avoid Clinton as VP other than his own ego.

I think Bill, alone, is a major reason. Bill helped sink Hillary's chances (with his extreme loyalty to Penn, his tendency to micromanage the campaign, his off-the-cuff remarks that enraged millions of Democratic voters, etc) and he hasn't been vetted in the 8 years that he's been reaping the rewards of the post-presidency. If Hillary can't keep Bill in check, how could Obama? Bill has a real to itch to get back into the WH and there is no way that he would have taken a back seat.

"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." -Barack Obama

by blueAZ on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 6)

Obama, whether you would like to admit it or not, is planning beyond this election and has picked a vp that will help him govern and that he can work well with. Even if HRC would have helped him win the election, their tenure in the White House would have suffered from the pick. I do not believe they would work well together as I think Hillary is too much of a leader to be an effective second fiddle.

McCain has picked his VP solely to win this election, and seems to have absolutely no interest in effective governance. This should in no way be viewed through the lenses of sexism as Sam Palin would still be equally unqualified and have never had any foreign policy experience whatsoever.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST

by TCQuad on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only thing that gives me pause is that Hillary ran a primary campaign based on what she would do in the general... and lost.

I agree with Obama on the choice of Biden because he'd be an excellent VP... but that doesn't matter if he doesn't win.

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 1)

Yup. Reagan suffered so much his V.P. became president. Kennedy suffered so much by being elected with Johnson on the ticket. Need more exaqmples?
In a Dem year, I can't think of anything more obscene than that Dems are not running away with the Presidency.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your examples completely prove my point.

GHWB was given no responsibilities as VP other than state funerals and parties. Comedians at the time consistently mocked him.

The Kennedy administration loathed Johnson and also gave him no responsibilities.

When the POTUS and the VP do not work well together, the VP loses. If it turn out that BHO and HRC really wouldn't be an effective team, Hillary would become irrelevant. Is that what you want for her? Or would you prefer her to be an effective Senator and Biden to be an effective VP?

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (none / 0)

"When the POTUS and the VP do not work well together, the VP loses."
Huh? GHWBush!

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GHWB was a pointless and useless VP. Do you deny this?

GHWB became POTUS because people still loved Reagan. Did you want Hillary to sit on her hands for 8 years as VP so she could have a better shot in 2016? I think she doesn't need VP to run again in 2016.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I want Democrats to win the White House. In a Dem year, I find it obscene we are not running away with this pres. election. The reasons for us not doing so are obvious.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What election did Johnson lose?

Not loses elections. Loses stature and responsibility. They become trophy vps.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But both of your examples went on to be President, so you're really not making sense. You don't get to govern at all if you don't win.

Bush won on Reagan's coattails.

Johnson didn't get elected the first time around. He won the second time because of the daisy ad.

The point still stands that they didn't get to do anything as VPs. No one has tried to refute that yet.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Johnson never lost a GE.

Yes. VPs win on coattails. Then they become Presidents and have the power to do things.

So what point are you trying to make? That people have less power when they're VP than when they're President? You're right. No one's that fact.

reposted from below.

Again, I think the Obama/Clinton administration would not be the most effective governance option for our party. In my opinion, Hillary is too strong a leader and too strong willed to play second fiddle to Obama. If they do not work well together, Hillary would be relegated to the funeral and party circuit.

At this point, our best option for effective governance is Obama/Biden with a strong Hillary in the Senate. She has more clout/power in the senate and will be able to get more done than she would if she were VP in an administration that was not functioning properly.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Putting the cart before the horse?

We have to win first. And govern second.

Ha! You mean like Cheney?

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cheney and Bush have a good relationship. And Cheney is the most powerful VP in recent memory.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (none / 0)

And Hillary wouldn't have been? And selecting Hillary wouldn't have unified the party?
AND...McCain hasn't exploited that?!

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, Hillary would have unified the party and guaranteed a win. I don't think I have said anything to suggest that I don't agree with that.

I am talking about governance, not the election.

by CAchemist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It appears not all Democrats subscribe to the fielty you propose; thus, we will have another nail-biter election, hoping to get 50.1%. Lived through two of those since Bill. Lost both times.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Check077 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it fielty (could not find on the internet) or fealty.

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (none / 0)

I'm not a typist, but you're not Einstein, er, Inestine:
http://fielty.com/

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Check077 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Buddy, you could have saved those words, but I believe you conveyed your message.

...and you're neither Einstein nor Isacc Newton.

People, why must we be total jerks? Just answer the question or do nothing...

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's more important? Putting together a ticket that can effectively govern, or putting together a ticket that can win?

Of course, we want all want a team that can effectively govern, but we must learn from our oft-repeated history: Winning is a prerequisite for effective governing. But effective governing is in no way a prerequisite for winning.

Well, both parties are attempting to pursue the latter part of your question.

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You present a false dilemma. We don't have to choose between winning and governing; We have a ticket that can do both.

by LakersFan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure, we can do both. But history tells us that Democrats have an amazing habit of putting together "winning" tickets that manage to lose.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, you've got me there. It's true that only one ticket can win, and Democrats have proven stunningly accurate at picking candidates who lose, in my opinion, because they talk above the intellectual level of the public. And the other side has been incredibly successful at saying whatever the public wants to hear in single-syllable words and then doing whatever they damn well please when they get in office.

If only our problems were less complex and the answers would fit on bumper stickers... If only the citizenry were more informed...

Having said that, though, I do think that Sen. Obama has taken great pains to simplify his language without losing the fundamental truths. That combined with putting a plain-spoken but experienced nominee for VP on the ticket should make the difference this year (she says as she crosses all fingers and toes).

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 5)

Is the Party sexist? No.
Is it possible that some people in the Party are sexist? Yes.

by TCQuad on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST

No (2.00 / 4)

the party IS NOT sexist. Some people who call themselves Democrats can be or are sexist.

The repug party IS sexist and racist!

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 6)

Sing it folks!

"Let's do the time warp again..."

"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder

by Stipes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:59:43 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Sexist? (2.00 / 5)

What a silly diary.

There are far more elected women Democrats than elected women Republicans.

And Democrats pursue policies that are pro-women. Republicans do not.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:06:13 PM EST

by Becky G on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST

Oh, please shut up.

Yeah, well... (2.00 / 3)

I'm sure that as soon as Obama reads this he'll drop Biden and ask Clinton to run with him instead. You'd better send this to him--to him PERSONALLY, not to his campaign--right now.

ÞÞÞ

by Mumphrey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST

Better yet... (2.00 / 2)

Call him.
Or maybe just stalk his campaign until he agrees to hear you out.

ÞÞÞ

by Mumphrey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this Snark? (2.00 / 2)

Seriously,

Is this Snark?

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST

GIMME HILLARY OR GIMME DEATH!!!1!!!1!1!111 (2.00 / 3)

even Hillary disagrees with you.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

Suggesting these two people are equal (Palin/Clinton) due to their internal plumbing is one of the most Misogynistic things I have ever heard. Do you, like McCain think women are interchangeable and disposable?

If your first wife gets banged up in a accident and does not look the same anymore that's OK exchange her for a new, skinny, beauty pageant rich version.

No Hillary, just exchange her for a woman, any woman,they won't care!

I had the pleasure to meet with some Hillary delegates at DFW from IN returning from Denver yesterday, they were appalled McCain thought they were that stupid.

I'm surprised you subscribe to the "anyone with a vagina will do" philosophy.

by nextgen on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:53:41 PM EST

Just how stupid are you? (none / 0)

You are claiming that one of our corporate centrist parties is "sexist." Ask yourself if this makes any sense.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST

by Lettuce on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM EST

Saying women will only vote with their genetalia is sexist. Palin is truly dangerously unqualified. I still can't believe this isn't a joke.

Fight the Smears!

This diary makes me wonder (none / 0)

if the McCain campaign is sexist in its distribution of Action Center points.

by verdastelo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

If Obama chose Hillary as his VP, he could be accused of the same thing we are accusing McCain of:

He chose her to gain votes, but not to govern.

Not that Hillary is not qualified... she is WAAAAAAY more qualified than Palin, but they are very different people who work very differently and do not fit well together...

by LordMike on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST

Some things you could do... (2.00 / 1)

...instead of fighting a battle that's long been over:

See a movie.
Start up a garden.
Go for a hike out in nature.
Learn an instrument.
Read a book.
Play with the popular Nintendo Wii.
Bake cookies.
Support a local democrat.

by Cincinnatus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST

No (2.00 / 1)

The Democratic party is not sexist. The media, their blogospheric acolytes and parts of Obama's coalition are.

McCain did not make this choice to peel off pro-choice Democratic primary voters, though he will pick up some with this choice, he made this choice to both shore up his base and improve his performance among women in the GE electorate.

One way he improves his performance among women with this pick, even pro-choice women, is by exploiting the sexism of the media and some Obama supporters. We have to figure out how to counteract the positive effects of his choice in the GE electorate without indulging the sexism that would defeat our efforts.

by souvarine on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST

by hankg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST

If Obama thought Hillary as VP would win him the presidency he would have picked her in a NY minute. It's simplistic to think that if you add Hillary and Obama together you automatically add the the 2 bases, as if the candidates owned their voters. You will lose voters from both camps as a result of the pairing. Obama after consideration must have figured the negatives outweighed the pluses.

VP is not a consolation prize for coming in second. The winning candidate chooses based on his or her requirements and strategy. Kerry got 59 million votes in 2004 and Gore actually won the 2000 election does that make them more of a must pick then Hillary and her 18 million votes? The fact that Hillary wasn't chosen is no knock on Hillary any more then it is an insult to any of the other potential candidates.

Biden is a perfect partner for Obama and eminently qualified not because there where not other qualified possibilities including Hillary. Had Hillary won she would have been under no obligation to choose Obama. She might have depending on the circumstances but in the end she would have went with the VP that made most sense for her and her campaign.