For Shame.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg)

It's been roughly 10 hours and 30 minutes since John McCain announced his VP pick Sarah Palin.  Since that time - I think its safe to say that the American public and particularly the media and blogosphere have been chomping at the bit to get their sexist rocks off.

As shakesville says:

We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.  For the record, there is plenty about which to criticize Palin that has absolutely fuck-all to do with her sex. She's anti-choice, against marriage equality, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, and loves Big Business. (In other words, she's a Republican.) There's no goddamned reason to criticize her for anything but her policies.

And as DoctorScience says - The biggest single danger of Palin's candidacy is that it will bring enough foaming misogyny out of the Democratic side to repel some female voters over to McCain.

Let's take a look at a few examples from the last 10 hours, shall we?  

A clever blogger started the website VPILF, and I think it speaks for itself.

Progressive sites like KOS, commenters post lovely pictures like this.  Or declare Link To Sarah Palin Nude?

Suggestions that Palin is a puppet and her husband is really the Governor of Alaska.

And while the media has too many examples to being up - one comes to mind...

Palin has been the VP pick for all of five minutes, and already one of the (male) reporters on CNN just asked another reporter something along the lines of, "Now, Palin also has a baby with Down's Syndrome. Those children require an awful lot of care. Do you think she'll be able to balance taking care of that baby with being Vice President? I mean, having a Down's Syndrome baby takes up a lot of time and energy.

I guess the lessons from the Democratic primary didn't catch.

Tags: Palin, sexism (all tags)

Comments

224 Comments

sigh.

wish i could say my mydd colleagues have been immune too.....

by canadian gal 2008-08-29 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: sigh.

agreed. it's been gross here tonight on this topic.

by swissffun 2008-08-29 06:45PM | 0 recs
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I hadn't heard.

She deserves to be attacked on the issues, not her sex.

by sricki 2008-08-29 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

...and there is so much to attack her for on those.  

But, how do you describe what is clearly sexisim on McCain's part in choosing her.  The message is, women are all the same, I got me one, I'll get me their votes.  That is where the worst sexist behavior lives.

by mady 2008-08-29 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

agreed...

by JenKinFLA 2008-08-29 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

You confuse sexism with demographics.  To illustrate, is NOT voting for Obama racism?  The simple fact of gender or race is demographics.  Hatred of the demographic is the "ism" you should be addressing.

by ChitownDenny 2008-08-30 07:42AM | 0 recs
It is sexism at its worst

but it's no surprise.  The majority of women chose to be democrats because we KNOW the republican party is sexist, and is not above exploiting gender or race to get what they want.  

But what REALLY HURT DEEPLY and some are having a hard time getting past is that THE DEMOCRATIC party used sexism and allowed sexism to be used against one of its own.

You know how it is in your own family. It hurts more when someone you care about, someone with your same interests betrays you.  

Everyone wants the UNITY thing to have happened...but when just after the dem convention misogyny from dems is all over the blogs, it's like rubbing salt in fresh wounds.  JUST BAD all around.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Wander onto the regular Internet tubes (not strictly political ones) and watch it go even faster downhill.

The nomination is the top story on Digg. The fourth ranked comment was "McCain/MILF 2008" at +941. It got 996 uprates and 55 downrates.

by TCQuad 2008-08-29 07:07PM | 0 recs
as we discussed earlier...

this has been a v. sad day for me.  particularly seeing people i respect saying brutal things.

by canadian gal 2008-08-29 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: as we discussed earlier...

Sorry CG.

This is how I feel.

She is the new "Dan Quayle."  

I'm sorry that you are distressed.  I find her policies repellent, so my personal disgust in her political philosophy does color my willingness to attack her.

by Stipes 2008-08-29 07:37PM | 0 recs
I'm with you Stipes

The choice is pathetic b/c of the person.

I don't understand really. She was mayor of a town of barely 9,000 people just 2 years ago. Now she is a heartbeat away from being POTUS, and she is VP to the oldest candidate in US political history.

McCain can technically win this thing. And we'll left with a person who will be leading the country with a paper thin resume and who " doesn't know what's going on in Iraq". Her words.

A GOP male wouldn't of even been considered for the spot.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-29 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you Stipes
McCain can technically win this thing. And we'll left with a person  who will be leading the country with a paper thin resume and who " doesn't know what's going on in Iraq". Her words.

The last sentence that I didn't quote does you no good, but you are right on. We HAVE to raise these issues, because it is too important not to.
by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:52PM | 0 recs
are you sure about last sentence?

I seem to remember names like Dan Quayle or GWBush....

by louisprandtl 2008-08-29 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: are you sure about last sentence?

Even the wretched Dan Quayle had been in Congress for 14 years before being selected as VP.

And to add to the other statements in this thread it's not just that it's sexist for McCain to assume all women are basically the same ("I got me one," as it was succinctly phrased above).

It's that he picked a young beauty queen with barely any experience at all. In other words, McCain is no different from all the sleazoid bosses in America who fast-track promotions for the "office babe" over women who've been there far longer and accomplished far more.

Sadly, McCain wants to turn this into a People Magazine election, thinking that low-info voters will coo over her "adorable" family and unique sporting hobbies and forget all that actual "governance" stuff. Pathetic.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-08-30 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: are you sure about last sentence?

And by the way, Canadian Gal, although I do agree that there's a danger to cross over into sexist or misogynist territory while criticizing Palin, let's at least cut dKos some slack...on a site of 160,000+ people (or whatever it is these days), it's way too easy to find comments that support any given thesis.

Now, if you see a top-recommended diary or a front-pager making sexist or misogynist remarks, that would be a different story.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-08-30 10:06AM | 0 recs
I had no problems with what Space wrote

or you wrote above. I was just pointing out his last statement..I don't remember anything that jumped right out to my mind that Mr. Quayle did in Congress that justified his "promotion" to the VP position. Excepting that he looked young and good on TV..I was not sure his 14 years in Congress really justify that choice of Bush Sr..John McCain actually is quoted to say "Senator John McCain, who said "I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't have some impact." (Check Wikipedia)

by louisprandtl 2008-08-30 07:56PM | 0 recs
sorry, the John McCain quote is

'"I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't have some impact." Maybe that's an insight to his thought process in choosing Palin..

by louisprandtl 2008-08-30 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you Stipes

I still don't know why had didn't pick Olympia Snow or KBH.

KBH, especially, would have been pretty scary.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you Stipes
I'm sorry, Rocketman, to have to refute your argument:  "A GOP male wouldn't of even been considered for the spot."
That is Geraldine Ferrare-speak re: Obama.  Can't have it both ways.
by ChitownDenny 2008-08-30 07:47AM | 0 recs
Probably a misstatement

I'm not the spaceman (or bill lee), but my guess is he meant no male with her credentials would have been chosen.  Which, in this rare case, is likely true.

It's not the same as Ferraro's statement since I'd say pretty much anyone of any color or gender who is the orator Obama is would have been at least considered.  He made Pat Buchanan blush.  And his experience is not that far behind JFK's (and he didn't have the same family apparatus supporting him).  

Time will tell if she has the same magnetism and agile mind...from the clips I've seen, she's no slouch, but she's nothing special either...and she's certainly no Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden for that matter).  My guess is this will prove to be a Quayle-esque choice, and certainly hope she does.

by thurst 2008-08-30 08:46AM | 0 recs
Palin's Extreme Pro-Life Positions...

...are very scary, indeed.

Pro-Life in all instances involving incest and rape?

Imagine how that would affect her choices if she ended up in the role of being tasked with selecting Supreme Court Justices?!?!

Now, that's a scary thought.

by bobswern 2008-08-29 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Being chosen for VP solely because she's female is an issue. She certainly has no material or personal qualifications to be next in line to an old man with cancer.

by Obama44 2008-08-30 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I'm always amazed here about the ignorance on skin cancer.  McCain will die of something - some day - but it's won't be skin cancer.  

by cameoanne 2008-08-30 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

McCain suffered from Melanoma. 48,000 people die of it every year. Will he die of it I hope not. But he wants to be our President he should show better judgment in many areas including his health.

by canadian 2008-08-30 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I don't think you understand.  Have you had skin cancer?  Did you know there are 3 types of skin cancer - not all deadly?  I've had melanoma and basel cell carcinoma myself.

It's not a disease like diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.  It's treatable and curable.  People who die of skin cancer have normally walked around with that suspicious mole for a long time - perhaps years.  By the time they get alarmed enough to get to a Doctor, it may have gone to a stage 3 or 4.  Skin cancers grow predominently down and not out.

McCain does show good judgment with regard to his health.  He has quarterly check-ups with a Dermatologist.  This keeps any future skin cancer he may - or may never again - get from getting out of control.

by cameoanne 2008-08-30 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Okay, but what do we do about the fact that McCain is exhibiting signs of early stage dementia?

by Stipes 2008-08-30 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I don't know about that - he may be.  I haven't been listening to McCain.  I'm just trying to educate people here that skin cancer is different from other cancers and is not a death sentence.

by cameoanne 2008-08-30 09:16AM | 0 recs
And it's gonna get worse

I really don't comment much any more....but I had to take note of this.  Go look at HuffPost.  The sexism's so thick over there you could spread it like jam.  I thought about commenting - but where?  There have to be fully one dozen separate threads all addressing Palin's resume in as offensive a manner as possible.  And it's not just the blogs.  The MSM's calling her the Alaska 'Barbie'.  

All I can do is shake my head in disgust.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-08-29 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: And it's gonna get worse

Well, shoot, tho.

She's a former Beauty Queen and did a flattering and inappropriate Vogue cover not too long ago.

Why does she get a pass for exploiting her looks?

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:09AM | 0 recs
For the same reason

the right gets away with framing everything by letting democrats be stupid!
What the hell is it that keeps dem bloggers so clueless.

We just came off a primary where ageism and sexism toward a beloved female role model candidate was trashed by the party she worked for all her life with crap right out of the neocons CDS.  Women are ANGRY as hell at the sexism of the media, condoned by the silence of the DNC.  
A woman who worked four decades for liberal causes was trashed for the sake of a younger, male candidate.  It is the story  of many of our lives.
Rubbing salt in those wounds is what the sexism against Palin does.  Wake up.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: For the same reason

Well, OK, what about exposing Palin's own sexism?

Calling Hillary a whiner, laughing uproariously when a couple radio guys call one of Palin's colleagues a b*tch and making fun of her because she's a cancer survivor (who earned thier wrath by blocking two anti-abortion bills).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Nt5ADY7 ug

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 06:22AM | 0 recs
Palin is a republican

whose stance on the issues is totally against everything I believe in.

But the point that you are missing is this:  MOST of us know that many rethugs could care less if they are exploiting sexism.  MOST of us know that republicans, especially in the age of ROVE will exploit any and everything.
Those fact do not ease the pain of OUR OWN party, the one that the majority of women worked for, knocked on doors for, played the role of worker bees while the queen bee men got all the leadership roles, has been just as bad in its public sexism.  The DNC did NOTHING, said NOTHING while a long time democratic woman was publicly attacked.  DO YOU NOT GET HOW MUCH ANGRIER THAT MADE US THAN ANYTHING KNUCKLE DRAGGING RIGHT WINGERS SAY?

I don't know how to say it but the betrayal of OUR OWN PARTY has left deep wounds.  NOW that same party is trying to use sexism against a republican women and think feminists should JOIN in because they (the rethugs) are exploiting feminists.  Women are not stupid, or clueless.  We KNOW what is happening.  Some are too angry to do anything but say "how's it feel dems to be betrayed by your own?"  

As long as the liberal bloggers who were so willing to tolerate ANYTHING hurled at Hillary, including sexism, women, MANY OF US, are now just saying "oh well, what goes around...."
Maybe some admissions and apologies (sincere ones) are in order.  But I won't hold my breath.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin is a republican
Excuse me, but how is it the DNC's place to get in the middle of a primary and attack the media for sexist comments about Hillary (or racist comments about Obama), when sexist comments have been going around about her since 1992?
Where were you before she started running for president?
Calling out the McCain campaign for picking an inexperienced VP choice simply because she's a woman is not sexist.
They have now presented a definite statement to the public (in the form of Palin) that the main argument they've been using against Obama all along (inexperience) is completely invalid.
And why on earth would we need to apologize to you?
by skohayes 2008-08-30 08:21AM | 0 recs
You do not even make sense

Democrats have proudly railed against racism always....as we should.

How the hell was it racist to call Obama inexperienced but not sexist to do the same.

Go back to your cave.  You clearly do not get, nor, sadly, will you ever!

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You do not even make sense
Not only do I get it, you moron, I've been getting it for about 30 years, the length of time I have worked in a male dominated field.
As a 50 year old former supporter of Hillary who has been advocating equal rights since the early 1980's, I get it a lot better than you do.
And please find one post on this blog that said calling Obama "inexperiencd" is racist.
It's not sexist to call the woman out on her very thin resume. She's not qualified.
Several more experienced, better qualified women and men were passed over for this young Republican female. How is that not sexism?
by skohayes 2008-08-30 08:58AM | 0 recs
the referee

As Howard Dean was fond of saying, the DNC has to be the referee:

Dean on Meet the Press: I will have to be the referee.

Dean on Fox News Sunday: I really do have to be the referee and have to be entirely neutral

by souvarine 2008-08-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Only he wasn't

he took sides.

He and Kerry and Kennedy weren't going to let some woman do what they failed at doing....especially not some woman who had been married to some big old Bubba from Arkansas, of all places, that showed them up.

Classism and sexism all over the place from Dean and friends.

And it seems many dems, like the poster who rudely replied to me, refuse to deal with the disunity, and want to play "hey, get over it woman, shut up and get on board" our party has a problem.  
I don't think some of them understand at all how women resent being told to "get over it" because much of our lives we have been told what we think, what we feel is secondary to what the men want to happen.  

We've come a long way baby...NOT!!!

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Only he wasn't
Please feel free to find a link to an article where he took sides during the primary?
And in case you forgot, the "old Bubba" you refer to was the only Democratic president to serve two terms in decades.
The disunity you speak of are a few very unhappy people that cannot come to terms with their hatred and anger over the primaries.
Now these unhappy people are ecstatic that an anti-choice, anti-science female has been appointed to the spot on the ticket as if it's some big deal. Excuse me, but the Dems did it 24 years ago.
I am so over PUMA and their embarassing ignorance, it's just not even funny.
by skohayes 2008-08-30 09:07AM | 0 recs
And a lot of us

are over false progressives like you and your ignorant false generalizations.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: And a lot of us
"False" progressives? LOL!
I gather by your lack of response to my question that you cannot come up with any documented incidences of Howard Dean taking sides during the primary?
Go play over at Alegre's, that's more your speed, and she doesn't allow dissent to bother your tiny minds.
by skohayes 2008-08-30 02:24PM | 0 recs
Wonderful diary!

I could not have said it better myself.  Sarah Palin is just wrong on so many levels.  McCain could have picked James Dobson himself for VP and it would have been no different.  We have to spread the word about her.  She is bad news for this country and would turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights.  

However, we need to do it without falling into sexist stereotypes and without degrading her FOR HER GENDER.  Many people find that a daunting task, because the thought of labelling a young inexperienced woman with all kinds of labels is too irresistable for them.  

This truly is a job for Hillary Clinton, imo.  If Barrack Obama wants to show America exactly how bad she would be for this country,  he should utilize her abilities on this.  

Hillary nailed it today in her statement.  She congratulated Sarah for being the first GOP female candidate, aknowledged that it was historic and that it was great to have her in the field of players,  but that she was wrong for this country.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-30 01:56AM | 0 recs
Re: sigh.

I have seen the worst racist/sexist comments against Michelle Obama on this website in the past week. There was a whole thread were people were saying how angry she looked and criticized her for not smiling during Hillary Clinton's speech. I saw people here attacking her for "acting" like she was a housewife who put her kids above everything else. Sorry, but where was canadian gal when this abuse was going on?

I seemed to be the only one who was deeply offended.

by Lolis 2008-08-30 07:28AM | 0 recs
really lolis....

it seems to me as a fairly new user and that this is a highly misguided comment.  check my diary history - or better yet - since you suggest you were the only one calling it out - why not take a look at CAchemists diary on this topic.

and btw - i think you are mixing up your websites - i dont recall seeing the vile things here on mydd, but rather someone reposting hate filled bile from somewehere else calling it out.  and as to sexism being thrown at MO for being a housewife, hey why not check out my diary on this v. topic.  its a bit old, but still applies.

but a nice bait and switch lolis - well done.

by canadian gal 2008-08-30 07:51AM | 0 recs
So saying someone looked

unhappy, looked upset is not racist????

Explain please.

Is that like saying someone is inexperienced is racist???

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: sigh.

Canadian Gal, the ridiculous replies to this diary have convinced me once and for all to leave.  The mods do their best to keep this site venom free, but I'm afraid the problem is not limited to any one site or person.  The venom itself is within the hearts and minds of those who believe so strongly in one narrative - Democratic victory, Obama's victory, whatever - that they will disparage not only the antithesis of their narrative but anyone who diverges only slightly from their narrative.  I'm afraid I fall into that camp, and I simply refuse to be associated with any group of people that will say and do anything like this anymore.

So, my last stand will be like my presence has been over the last few months - subtle and observant more so than the dramatics other have resorted to.  Obama/Biden '08 is fine by me and they'll get my vote, but I cannot participate here any longer.

I guarantee this post will result in troll and hide-ratings as well.  So be it.

by ejintx 2008-08-30 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: sigh.

i may be joining you.

by canadian gal 2008-08-30 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: sigh.

CG, you personally enabled the rampant sexism on MYDD.  You joined in on the HRing and TRing of those calling out the Obama campaign for it's treatment of Hillary.  You were not only part of, but LED the effort to silence us

While I'm gratified to see you now coming to your senses, I'm still somewhat smiling to see you get your comeuppance.

HR away, fools.

by switching sides2 2008-08-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I've attacked her for her stance on issues.  I have not attacked her on her looks, her cleavage or her intelligence.

I've attacked McCain for complete and total pandering, thinking women are stupid or something.

by colebiancardi 2008-08-29 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Except you have already made the assumption that McCain only chose Palin because she was woman so that is balony. McCain's campaign was labeled tired and too old and not exciting-couldn't those be the reasons he chose her. Or because she went after corruption in her own party and more importantly won -a topic near and dear. Or he chose her because he knew it woudl motivate the conservative wing of his party people he needs but hasn't sold himself too. Or he chose here to boost his maverick credentials and appeal to independents. Nope it is all about thinking women are stupid as far as you are concerned.

by Bornagaindem 2008-08-29 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Because he did! Where did you ever see an argument made ANYWHERE for Sarah Palin that didn't start out with the pros by saying something like "Well, obviously, she's female, so that helps."

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Plus, that's the angle she pushed during her speech--Geraldine, Hillary, glass ceiling and all that.

It wasn't like McCain is exactly hiding his strategy.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Oh, dear lord.  Don't be so flapping clueless, or intellectually dishonest, whichever it is.

No man with this woman's resume would be considered a viable VP candidate.  None.  To suggest otherwise is the height of folly.

by Dreorg 2008-08-29 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Sounds awfully like a similar comment (on a different candidate) that Geraldine Ferraro made and was pilloried for.

by cuppajoe 2008-08-29 09:08PM | 0 recs
uprated

to cancel an inappropriate HR. The comment may be trollish, but it has a point to make; it is not simply a personal insult.

If you did not like the comment or you think cuppajoe was a jerk to say that, you can troll rate.

by itsthemedia 2008-08-30 01:06AM | 0 recs
Cupajoe has no other purpose other

than to see the Democratic ticket lose in Nov.

S/he would say "the sky is green" if that would work.

by chrisblask 2008-08-30 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Cupajoe has no other purpose other

I probably was a Democrat before you were born. And a very loyal one at that. You have no idea whereof you speak. I was just pointing out that someone made a similar comment to one that Ferraro made.

If you think that means I want the ticket to lose, then you are simply not paying attention.

You know nothing about me. Please don't attempt to read my mind or interpret my intentions. Your comment was immature and lacks understanding of what was said.

I don't think that pointing out the truth is trollish.

Or, are we now not allowed any critique or the ability to point out blatant injustice?

by cuppajoe 2008-08-30 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Cupajoe has no other purpose other

Ignore Chrisblask, it is one of those you-know-whats who hysterically run around HRing any comment not praising Obama's sexy nature.

by switching sides2 2008-08-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Cupajoe has no other purpose other

My point wasn't to agree or disagree with cuppajoe, or cuppajoe's mission in life, whatever it may be. My point is that in a rational debate, one should address the argument being made, and not "dissapear" it just because you think the person making it is a bad guy or stupid or whatever. If we are liberals, let us act like it.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

by itsthemedia 2008-08-30 09:42PM | 0 recs
I allow myself crankiness

from time to time, and when a commentor restrains themselves to commentary consiting of "I will try to defeat the Dem ticket this year" I permit myself to exercise it.

I would (and do) debate issues with Nazis, but there is a difference between any sort of debate and Trolling.  Cupajoe is a troll, there is no desire to debate anything, there, just to waste time and insert random attacks.

More power to you, but I'm not joining in this particular Intervention.

by chrisblask 2008-08-31 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

But there is a difference. Obama actually has a resume. It may be thin, but first in your class at Harvard Law is nothing to shake a stick at. I truly believe that a white man with his rhetorical ability and resume would have been exactly where Obama was. Palin was a journalism major from the University of Iowa, and was mayor of Podunk, AK. I am absolutely positive that McCain could have found a socially conservative man without a record to attack to run with.

So yes, Ferraro made a similar comment. But she was wrong. We're right.

by pneuma 2008-08-30 07:07AM | 0 recs
Mojo

for addressing the substance of the argument. To the people who chose to HR cuppajoe's comment instead of rebutting it, don't you think pneuma's approach is more in keeping with liberal values, and in the long run, more effective?

by itsthemedia 2008-08-30 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Heard of Dan Quale?

by ChitownDenny 2008-08-30 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

If by "went after corruption," you mean, "created even more of it," then yes, I agree.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-29 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

So many "reformers" are like that--I see it in Chicago all the time.

When voters are sick of corruption, politicians will run against "corruption" to win, whether or not they really are reformers.

They put a few people in jail--though I'm not even sure she did that--then it's business as usual.

Oldest political game in the book.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:16AM | 0 recs
How do you know what ColeB is thinking?

Nope it is all about thinking women are stupid as far as you are concerned

Is it, perhaps, that all about thinking men are stupid as far as you are concerned?  Or are you just still bound and determined to destroy Sen. Obama by any means that you can?

by chrisblask 2008-08-30 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I read the conservative blogs periodically to see what the other side's talking about and while I don't think Palin's candidacy a sign that the GOP is anymore friendly to the feminist cause, I do note that a few conservative bloggers have already noted how Kos in particular has gone out of its way to attack her with whatever they have - be it relevant or not.

Sure, she should not be off limits to criticism, but  criticism can and should remain civil.  Don't like what she did as governor?  Fine, but the fact that she's a woman should not play a part in that.

by ejintx 2008-08-29 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.
Except that the only reason she was chosen was because she was female.
That's sexist in itself, but it's easier to attack Democrats for pointing that out, I guess.
by skohayes 2008-08-30 03:04AM | 0 recs
Yes and no.

There is no doubt McCain picked Palin in part because she is female. Both McCain & Palin have made this clear and pointing this out is NOT sexist. However, if McCain's only intent in picking his VP candidate was his gender, he passed over much more qualified women in the GOP: KBH, Whitman, Snowe, Dole. The question is why and what does this tell us about his campaign?

I think he ultimately went with Palin because (1) she is a woman, (2) she has the conservative Christian wing of the party going batshit crazy about her -- this pick is also for them, (3) by picking a relatively unknown outside Washington he has driven the media narrative crazy, and (4) its not about actual qualifications but about story -- think GWB, the everyman Cowboy not matter how false it was -- Palin is a gun-toting, moose eating, hocky mom, everywoman.

On top of this they know HRC supporters went nuts over real and/or perceived sexism against Hillary and believe they can use this to their advantage. Interestingly enough, Palin basically accused Hillary of misusing the sexism charge, a strategy that the GOP is now happy to embrace.

Unfortunately, some of the attacks against Palin come off as quite sexist and this really doesn't help. At the same time I agree with those that argue that McCain's pick of Palin is a display of sexism in of itself and his choice does insult me as a woman.

The best way to attack this is to attack McCain and his judgment and decision making processes. Do we really want this man leading this country? What does this first major decision tell us about that choice? Forget she is a woman -- do think Dan Quayle -- he picked an unqualified person for political gain not because it was the best choice for this country.

by batgirl71 2008-08-30 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes and no.

excellent comment, this is the most reasoned read on the situation, explaining the nuances of attacking a candidate with and without the use of sexism.  

by KLRinLA 2008-08-30 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She is a piece of laughable crappiness completely independent and without any reliance on or connection with her gender. Mojo and rec'd for defending women in general while remqaining able to understand that Palin is not VP material.

by QTG 2008-08-29 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I mean, come on, even calling her "a piece of laughable crappiness" is going way too far.  I disagree with her on a number of issues, but still acknowledge her to be a smart, decent woman with a meteoric rise in Alaskan and, now national, politics.

It hardly makes sense, either, to denigrate her as non-VP material on the basis of experience, while refusing to deny the lack of experience of our own candidate.  We ought to at least be consistent--and attacking the Republicans' #2 on the basis of who she is does us little overall good.  Do you want to keep the opening for Republican attacks on who our#1 is?  I would hope not.

My vote for Obama has nothing to do with how many years he has spent in Washington.  And my vote against McCain has nothing to do with how little experience his #2 has.  

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Nonononononoononono......

Experience is not just something that happens to you, it is what you DO. Obama chose to learn as much as he could as fast as he could, and as a result, he has the knowledge of a man twice his age.

She doesn't have that in her. It's nowhere near sexist. She doesn't know about almost anything else outside Alaskan politics. Some governors are local dogs. They get in office and people love them because they know and love their state. Now sometimes those governors burnish their credentials to shore up a run. That comes over time towards the end of their term. Sebelius did just that. But Palin has NOT gotten there yet. It is toooooo early.

There's nothing sexist about this, it's like bringing someone up to the major leagues when they've been doing well in AA ball. It's just not a good idea, and it actually diminishes their own abilities.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

it was the complete denigration of a person mmr2 seemed to object to. it's that that type of attack opens the door for similar attacks on Obama. you cannot honestly claim any moral superiority if you are using the same tactics as the repukes.

by zerosumgame 2008-08-29 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

No, I get it. I keep saying fight on experience, but my argument leans towards fighting on knowledge. If she were governor of Alaska but her policies were solely Alaska-based, she'd be more qualified. But she just hasn't been running for office, and her statements only lead one to conclude that she hasn't been paying enough attention to start.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 08:06PM | 0 recs
No, it's not.

I mean, come on, even calling her "a piece of laughable crappiness" is going way too far.

That might be too extreme for a debate, but let's not go so far as to call that sexist, but it's not.

Look.  McCain made a pledge that he wasn't going to choose a Dan Quayle type running mate, as George H. W. Bush did back in 1988.  If you want to see how a male pretty-boy running-mate would be attacked, you need go back no further than that.  The Republicans still complain, to this day, about the awful denigrating treatment that he received.  And when I say, to this day, I mean, like today, on CNN.

We can't go after her the way we did Dan Quayle because the Republicans WILL claim that it is sexist.  In fact, we should assume they will characterize any attacks on her as sexist, whether they are or aren't.

The best strategy is just to ignore her.  

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not.

There are lots of sound ways to turn her into a big negative, but your instincts are in the right place.  Even if we manage to correct our unconsciously misogynist fellow-democrats, the biggest danger here is overreaching.

by Jess81 2008-08-29 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not.

mmr2 did NOT call it sexist. he/she did point out it was a meaningless unsupportable personal attack, just like a McCainiac would use agaist BHO

by zerosumgame 2008-08-29 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not.

Ha!

I never actually understood the attacks on Quayle.

I mean, I know he was a dim bulb, but his resume looked solid to me.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Barack Obama sponsered 820 bills in the Illinois State legislature.  Since being a US Senator, he's authored 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

He's been in national office more the double the amount of time Sarah Palin is, and serves a constituency roughly 25 times the size of Governor Palin's.

And, most importantly, roughly 18 million Americans voted for him to be Commander-in-Chief.  Population of Alaska?  600,000.

On his own he's no slouch.  Compared to Sarah Palin he's John Quincy Adams.

This isn't meant as an insult, but the sooner you drop the Democratic primary talking points, the better.  They weren't true in the first place, and now they serve no purpose at all.





Great diary, CG.  Democrats should be treading carefully here, and they're not.  For moral and tactical reasons, we need to lock it up fast.

by Jess81 2008-08-29 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Surely there is some kind of numbers game being played with the claim that Obama has authored 890 bills in the Senate.  That can't possibly be an accurate claim.

by Steve M 2008-08-29 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

You're probably right.  I'm thinking amendments count, so that increases the number, but bills are bills, so this isn't a like counting "motion on the motion to suspend the rules for cloture" type stuff.  Parliamentary procedures don't count.  It has to be either a law or an allocation of the budget, or a line in the tax code.

The thing is, and I'm treading lightly here, I'm pulling that from the left side of an old list where Hillary Clinton was on the right side, and the bills she authored and cosponsored were numbered there.  He compared favorably with her.  And I really don't want to get into it further than that.

by Jess81 2008-08-29 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

For shame that you still tout these silly numbers - Obama is no where near a powerhouse legislator

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ substance_abuse.html

by Bornagaindem 2008-08-29 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Nor was he even the real sponsor of most of those bills he was "given" in Illinois

http://www.houston-press.com/2008-02-28/ news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

by Bornagaindem 2008-08-29 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

According to David Frum - yes, David Frum!

Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall.

Frum also makes it clear that, in his view, Palin was strategic targeting at Clinton women:

Most significantly of all, Ms. Palin reaches out to those working-class women who supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy - and who may not be reconciled to Barack Obama. In her statement on Friday in Ohio, she thanked Hillary Clinton for putting 18 million cracks in the hardest of all glass ceilings - and then pointedly argued that a vote for Mr. McCain was the surest way to smash that ceiling once and for all.

Sure he's an obnoxious self-righteous, right-wing prick who most likely has a terrible record of sexism.  I'm pointing to his take to say that it's evident within the GOP that Palin was tapped, at least in part, because of her gender.

by January 20 2008-08-30 02:32AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Plus he went to two of the finest schools in the country and excelled in probably the best law school in the country.

While Sarah....didn't.

BTW:

I read on one of the blogs that Obama's old state senate district has the population size of alaska, but I'm having trouble confirming that.

Let me know if you have it.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

No, it's about 1/3rd the size of Alaska. Alaska's around 660,000, Obama's district at 220,000, roughly.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-08-30 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Are you saying that the suggestion that McCain picked Palin over other Republican women because she's prettier is sexist?  Because if you are, then I respectfully disagree.  It's a criticism that Palin is comparatively inexperienced and also sort of a backhanded compliment, but it's more of a critcism that McCain is a shallow, old man more out for looks than anything.

And are you saying that the the suggestion that McCain picked Palin because she's a woman is sexist?  Again, I would have to disagree.  That would be like suggestion Kerry's pick of Edwards wasn't obviously an attempt to win the South.  While both nominees had other factors going in their favor, I would imagine, you would have to be in denial not to see the obvious reasoning.

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-29 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I am very happy with McCain's pick. I couldn't be happier. I'm a little surprised that some of my fellow Democrats can't see the transparently obvious motivation for the choice.... or could it be that

they aren't Democrats? They aren't feminists?

by QTG 2008-08-29 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

As I said above, she was a beauty queen, so it's not like she hasn't exploited her looks herself.

But, beyond that, I remember very specifically reading that one of the reasons Quayle was picked by Bush was because he was judged to be a young, good looking guy who would add some pizazz to the ticket.

I don't see this as sexist.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:27AM | 0 recs
Being a young attractive male

has not been a detriment to most men when it came to careers.  Nor has it been a detriment to be an old average male.
FACT: for women looks have been an issue. It was for Hillary, it is for Palin.  
For Hillary she was attacked for her ankles, her face, her post menopausal age.  Her supporters were often denigrated on so called liberal blogs for being post menopausal b*tches.  
Palin's youth and looks are now being used to denigrate her...she exploited them according to people on this blog.  
As well, she has been labeled a front for her husband (he's really running the show).  She's being trashed for her choice to be a working mom.

Reagan exploited being a movie star.
Kennedy exploited being better looking than Nixon, especially on television.
But no one talked about it.  
Yesterday I heard a young man on a talk show mention how FINALLY we WILL have two women, first lady and first vice lady, worth looking at because they are HOT.   And the audience clapped.

THIS is the world women live in.  When we are young and if fortunate to be "up to the male standard of "hot" we are not taken seriously, and if we do get ahead,  we exploited our looks.  If we are "post menopausal" we are looked at as non-persons, hardly worthy of doing anything but appeasing the children and grandchildren....and oh yea, we would never have achieved anything if we had not married so and so.

SOME democratic folks seem to be clueless.  Republicans are quite willing to exploit the clueless dems who still do not get it.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:25AM | 0 recs
AGREED!!!

This is exactly why the choice of Palin will bring over some women to McCain.  

by easyE 2008-08-29 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: AGREED!!!

Until they realize that Sarah Palin and John McCain are anti-choice.  Until they remember that McCain divorced his first wife after she was in an auto accident and married a young, blonde beer heiress.  Until they remember that he offered his wife for some topless beauty pageant called Miss Buffalo Chip.  Oh, and a buffalo chip is literally a piece of shit you burn for heat.  The pageant could have been called "Miss Piece of Shit You Burn for Heat."

If they didn't know, let's enlighten them.  If they forgot, let's remind them.

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-29 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: AGREED!!!

But do you realize that women don't vote in lockstep?  Roughly half of women are pro-life.  55% of married women voted for Bush in 2004.  Knowing Bush's positions on women's right to choose, that last statistic should say something loud and clear.  "Enlightening" all women, as much as I would like to see it done, just won't happen.  

Some women are indeed attracted to the ticket simply because there is a woman on it.  Other women are attracted to the ticket because they agree with Republican ideology.  Should we work to persuade them otherwise?  Sure.  But we must understand that getting even a bare majority of the female vote in 2008 will be no cakewalk.

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: AGREED!!!

Yes, I do realize that.  I was referring to female Hillary supporters being drawn in by Palin.  And besides, an across the board ban on abortion, even for rape would be opposed by even many pro-life people.

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-29 07:27PM | 0 recs
Here's what you are missing

Most democratic women, especially those of us who have been politically active for decades, KNOW rethugs are sexist and exploit sex and race.  It's a given.

But what we did not know, did not expect is that OUR party, the one we worked for all our lives, would used sexism against one of our own, allow sexism against one of our own.

But many of you on this blog refuse to acknowledge that then and refuse to acknowledge it now.

You think that it was OK that the democratic leadership remained silent while one of our was trashed publicly with sexism. Some will trash Palin for saying "Hillary/her supporters just whine too much." You want us to condemn her for that when it was said here and on many so called liberal/progressive blogs by more than a few.

Most of the same people here continue to trash those of us who were offended by how the DNC treated women, especially older women.  Sexism and ageism (used more against females than males) in our ranks stinks and hurts much worse than what comes from the republicans.  Many of us are dems because we could never be a party of a group who used sexism, racism as tools.  So when dem blogs use those things, the pain is much deeper.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.
Well, the Kos diary about the husband as the "shadow governor" was a link to another site that said that. I couldn't find the date on the article but assume it was before she was named McCain's running mate. So that's out there.


She really did enter beauty contests which most feminists frown on. I think pointing that sort of thing out is quite legitimate and I plan to do it myself whenever I get the opportunity because it's very relevant to someone who we are picking to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. If a nude photo of her (or McCain, too, I guess - yuuccchhh) is found it will also be very important to make sure everyone knows about it. I sure will do my part. That would pretty much finish McCain's bid for the presidency and it can't be too soon.

Other than those, though, you're right, there will be plenty of sexism directed at her. No question. That Nicole Smith photo is especially tasteless.

by Becky G 2008-08-29 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Other than those, though, you're right, there will be plenty of sexism directed at her. No question. That Nicole Smith photo is especially tasteless

Agreed (not to mention just damn scary), but we can make too much of stuff like that in a heartbeat.  Political satire is brutal, and makes blogging-level commentary look like Queensbury Rules.  I shudder to think what the worst Obama/Larry Sinclair images out there look like, but I've seen a lot of anti-Obama images that would make Hitler blush.

We're not children, this isn't Dorset Town Council.  She's going to get creamed like anyone and while I don't commend any unwarranted or tasteless attacks, we shouldn't lose our minds when they happen.  Because they will.

Just like they happen to every other person running for any offices like these...

by chrisblask 2008-08-29 07:03PM | 0 recs
I dunno

but it would not be a stretch to expect that women will be at least as harsh as men towards her.

And that, too, will be overlooked by the GOP and used to feed the "Look!  The Democrats are sexist hypocrites!!" meme.

by chrisblask 2008-08-29 07:11PM | 0 recs
Btw

Dorset Town council is a well known hotbed of Russian mafiosi posing as septuagenarians. You have been warned.

by duende 2008-08-30 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I saw a diary on Kos where someone said he couldn't vote for Obama because of his deep connections with Bilderburg and Bohemian Grove. There are LOTS of profoundly stupid diaries on Kos. Not representative of most progressives, but it's why I come here and not there.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Where there is a smaller percentage of idiotic diaries?  LOL!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-29 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

But more comments and less dissent. What you see as annoying, I see as discussion.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

What I and everyone else sees here is an ongoing trollfest from which no one can be banned, with some good diaries here and there.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-29 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She really did enter beauty contests which most feminists frown on.

She entered beauty contests for the scholarship money. You know, like, for college.

Man, this is just depressing. I felt so hopeful and energized Thursday. Now I just feel sleazy. I thought we were better than this sort of stuff.

by blueflorida 2008-08-29 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She chose that route, and it's one that many women don't choose either because they don't have the option or they don't want to.  There are lots of ways to get scholarship money besides beauty contests.  It's a double standard to be in the Miss Alaska pagent, and pose in Vogue, and then cry foul when someone points it out.

by trustno1 2008-08-30 06:08AM | 0 recs
As I recall the governor of CA

posed in body building magazines, which was exploiting his body for gain.

Oh but with men, it's cool.
With women, condemn them.

Even feminists are not monoliths.  Women KNOW this fact.  Scholarships, non academic ones, for women were few and far between before Title IX and even since are not nearly as plentiful.
Beauty contests were a a way to make money for college.   Posing in magazines is a way to make money.  It may not thrill us but we do not have the amount of scholarship money available that are there for men in football, basketball, hockey etc etc etc.

No one takes men to task for being handsome...it enhances their popularity (see Kennedy)......but an attractive female is denigrated, an unattractive female is denigrated.  Sixty year old men are at the PEAK when it comes to politics.  Women over 40 are menopausal, women over 55 are post menopausal.  
I still remember, when I was in my twenties, being told women would not make good leaders because who knows what they would do at that "time of the month."  Now we are told that after that "time of the month" ceases to be an issue we are no longer viable.  Sheesh...

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: As I recall the governor of CA

I am a woman, and teach science at the college level, and have done so for over ten years.  Most of my students (about 70%) are women.  Most of that 70% are serious about medical school, research, or teaching.  Most of them are in sororities, lacrosse, swimming, cheerleading, music, activism, and any other activity the campus has to offer.  Most of them are getting loans, scholarships, and working 1 or 2 jobs, as well as volunteering to be competitive for professions, and professional schools.  

I am most certainly NOT condemning women for choosing a pageant to get money for college.  I am saying that doing so, and then crying sexism when someone points that out as part of a bio ("What's that have to do with my career?") is being more than disingenuous.  Posing (even tastefully) in a fashion magazine as a sitting governor, and appearing on a cover of a magazine as "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" is a fair thing to point out, since she made the decision to be there.  

by trustno1 2008-08-30 07:23AM | 0 recs
Whatever

What you are saying to me is that you get to judge how some women act, but all men get a pass....

do you rag on the guys whose academics are questionable but get a pass for their athletic abilities.

I know there are many women who work hard to get whatever scraps are left over for women. I was one of them and taught many of them.
And I know many men who were not athletic and who fought for the scraps.........

But the males who exploit their physicality get a pass ....the women do not.

And by the way, Arnold used his body to become a millionaire, marry into the right family and had his fame for being a movie star get him elected.
But Palin is condemned, Arnold is a popular governor.  

You want to tell me there is an equal playing field????

by Jjc2008 2008-08-30 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever

She didn't say anything about men getting a pass, she was talking about her female students. And I would guess that men getting big athletic scholarships is also a sore point with her, but you'd have to ask her rather than putting words in her mouth.

But the males who exploit their physicality get a pass ....the women do not.

Excuse me, but I heard quite a bit of panning from Democrats over Arnold and Jesse Ventura as not serious candidates because of their pasts, and rightfully so.

No, there's not an equal playing field, but there's no reason to reward Republicans for waiting 24 years after the Dems had a woman on the presidential ticket.

by skohayes 2008-08-30 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever

I never once mentioned my male students.  To be a fair teacher, I don't factor that into my decision.  I treat my students based on their professionalism and their academic performance in class.  I've failed football players on scholarships, if that's what you are insinuating.  I would get fired from my job if I didn't, and that's an insulting thing to say.  

You say this:

Arnold used his body to become a millionaire, marry into the right family...

I'm sure that Maria Shriver married  her husband based on his body.  Wow, really, is that what you think?  I thought she was a smart, independent woman.

And while we're on the subject of being insulting...

Before you ask, no, I'm not someone who had to fight on the front lines of feminism, but I get to see the results every day.  I see more women than men in my science classes going on to high powered careers.  I see students treating each other with respect.  Sexism still exists, but you're badly mistaken if you think it's no better than it was even 20 years ago.  Young people just tend to thing that sexists and racists are irrelevant dinosaurs who need to die off.

by trustno1 2008-08-30 08:53AM | 0 recs
I'll take my guidance from the basic forumula:

equality=equality

in the way I treat Ms. Palin, or anyone else.

Would I hold back a comment because of someone's gender?

Would I make a comment because of someone's gender?

It's easy to test by switching the gender pro-nouns when you think about things.

He was mayor of a town of 5,500 and a state of 687,000.

He was a beauty pageant winner (or male model) and runner up for Mr. Alaska.

He posed naked for pictures.

These things are wide open for commentary, no holds barred.  Personally I don't give a crap who poses naked for pictures, but the political reality is that if an American (or Canadian) politician (particularly a Conservative) were found to have naked photos floating around, it would cause an uproar (and if it were a Liberal politician, conservatives would post them everywhere).

Parenting?  Joe Biden became a Senator while taking care of his injured sons.  Ms. Palin has children, the youngest with special needs.  Good for them both, I wish them and all parents luck with those things.

But Sean Hannity is already playing the sexism card ("hatred of women", if we insist on continuing to use the "misogyny" meme) and the GOP is stuffing their cannon with it.

On the Hannity Show tonight: "How can the liberals denigrate her accomplishment as a woman of becoming Governor of Alaska???"  Karl Rove: "I know, Sean.  They are already doing what they did to the honorable Senator Clinton."  Horsecrap, I say, and lying insincere horsecrap at that (Karl Rove is concerned for Hillary, now?  Riiight...).  How can Hannity denigrate her by treating her as some wilting lily who needs protection from people who question her political credentials exactly as they would if she were male?  What condescending hooey is it to expect she needs defense from the Bad Men of the Democratic Party (and if she did, that she could still be Commander in Chief)?

The GOP and its bloodhounds are now using - and will only increasingly use - the gender tensions of the Dem Primaries against us (go figure).  Gov. Palin is not a wilting lily.  She doesn't deserve any special treatment, and she doesn't need it.  And the GOP should not be allowed to tie our hands and kick us.

by chrisblask 2008-08-29 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll take my guidance from the basic forumula:

The republicans have been deftly using the moral contradictions of identity politics against the democrats for the last three decades. Once politics is based on race or gender or indeed religion, it's easy to make fatuous plays like this. We have a female VP - ergo we care about equality. It's all bad faith gamesmanship, and I'm afraid, in this rare instance, this diary loses the bigger picture in mirror maze of identity politics.

Palin is a terrible, cynical weak choice. When I heard her talking on British radio the other day, I wondered whether the BBC had taken the feed from some town hall discussion about the democratic convention.

Sorry. Palin is weak because she's weak, not because she's a woman.

by duende 2008-08-30 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I agree-every attack on Palin just reinforces the wounds of the Hillary campaign and rubs our faces in the fact that the repugs can choose a woman for VP but the democrats cannot -even when she won half of the party's votes.

by Bornagaindem 2008-08-29 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Ummm... real quick history lesson for you...  The Democrats DID pick a female veep candidate... Geraldine Ferraro... maybe that slipped your mind?

by JenKinFLA 2008-08-29 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Every attack?  Get real.  

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-29 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

more irony here, apparently we are not allowed to attack this candidate solely because she is a woman, umm that sounds pretty sexist to me.   sometimes people get confused with what sexsim means. saying she cannot hold this position because she is a woman is sexist.  no one is saying that and Obama didnt say that about hillary either.  Hillary and Obama are both experienced enough to be on the top ticket.  It doesnt appear to me that Palin has the requisite national experience to lead our country if something happened to mccain.  that could be arguable, but I can say her policies, along with mccain's,  would not represent my views or most of the views of dems/liberals, which is why I would not choose her and why I will work against that ticket.

by KLRinLA 2008-08-30 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hello

Good book.

by TCQuad 2008-08-29 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello

Hello?

The commenter was clearly talking about our inability to choose a female candidate (see: Hillary Clinton) as VP in 2008.

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:12PM | 0 recs
Yes, we caught the troll reference

but thanks for coming out.

by chrisblask 2008-08-29 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, we caught the troll reference

Don't degrade and diminish this site with that.  Resorting to calling people trolls for no reason (other than that you can't/don't know how to respond legitimately) does nothing to further the aims of this site, or any sort of democratic discourse.  

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

But there have to be attacks on her. Are females perceived as wilting lilies who can't take the heat - we need to give them special treatment? That's the worst thing you can say about women in any profession - that they have to be treated more gently than the men. Why would anyone want to hire a woman or have one on their team? She needs to be attacked in the same way a man would be attacked. Talking about her lack of experience is totally legitimate. I don't care if the Repubs say Obama doesn't have experience either - he has more than she does. We can go there.

by Becky G 2008-08-29 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

That's debatable.  She does literally have more executive experience than both Obama AND Biden.

I'm sorry, but the whole experience debate is one that we ought to avoid.  Seriously.  It doesn't help us to deride her lack of experience, and thereby help perpetuate the lines of attacks on our #1's lack thereof.  

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She does literally have more executive experience than both Obama AND Biden.

and GWB has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin

and look where that got us....

by colebiancardi 2008-08-29 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Shoot, Jesse Ventura was governor! Zell Miller was a very beloved governor. It's an absurd argument.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Right......experience, or inexperience, doesn't actually matter.  Meaning, this exactly fits my point: Why are we talking about PALIN'S inexperience?  What does that have to do with anything?  That is not why we are truly against a McCain ticket.

The McCain camp has set a trap, and we are falling for it.

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

WE are falling for it, Obama is not. Not yet. The correct tactic is to allow people like Paul Begala and Jack Cafferty to make this case for us (and they have been) and leave it alone. Fortunately for me, I'm not a part of the decision making process.

But I think Obama has a team of people that must actively participate on these forums, synthesize the ideas and bring them to the campaign. I don't know why else he would have summed up so many of the attacks we kept calling for last night.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Because at any moment if John McCain wins the GE, and God forbid something happens to him,  a person who has no foreign policy experience whatsoever will be in control of how we defend our country and how and when we engage across the world.  Like it or not, this is a legitimate concern...I have already heard many McCain voters in my local diner expressing their concern on this point.

If anyone of you truly believe that John McCain chose this person as  the United States' second leader after meeting with her only one time and following her 18 month career as an Alaskan Governor. And then came to the conclusion that he truly believes she could run and protect our country should something happen to him and it had nothing whatsoever to do with her gender, I have some land I'd love to sell ya.

This is a slap in HRC's face, to try and compare her accomplishments with those of HRC is ludicrous.  I don't blame Gov Palin, but she is being used by the GOP for political means.

by hootie4170 2008-08-29 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Yeah, and it's kind of hard to judge her effectiveness, too, with only two years in the governor's office, though I read she left a fiscal disaster behind in that little town where she was mayor because of some sports arena debacle.

In any case, Alaska isn't much of a proving ground for anything--it's a unique state unlike, say, Illinois where you have urban issues and rural issues and a diverse population and economy.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

NO! Do you not understand? There is NO door we should not open first, because the Republicans take a shotgun and blow them all off anyway! We have to keep moving or else they catch up. EVERY narrative, we float test balloons until something catches a wind current. but we HAVE TO ATTACK.

Do you not get that part of the rationale for this was that the Democrats would feel too guilty to attack? They never had any problems attacking Hillary, Pelosi or Michelle Obama, did they? HELL NO. They never suffered repercussions, did they? HELL NO. In fact, now some feminists are actually REWARDING them just because they're being nicer now.

WE FIGHT OR WE DIE. End of story.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Anything is game as long as it is offense and we frame it first.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Yes, we have to attack.  But it it totally nonsensical to attack a McCain-Palin ticket on the basis of her 'inexperience'.  It does us no good whatsoever.  We attack on VALUES and IDEOLOGY.  

We fight the right way or we die.  I will say this again, in especially in light of your response to my other post:  Obama too has a scant record in regard to his experience.  It's just a fact we've had to deal with, and we nominated him anyway.  Yes, experience IS about what you do--and many Republicans are arguing that Palin has done more in her two years as Governor than Obama ever has.  Is it debatable?  ABSOLUTELY.  But is it a debate that we want to be in?  Absolutely not.

Any debate about the lack of experience of McCain's #2 will inevitably bring the focus back to the lack of experience of OUR #1.

Yes, we attack.  But we attack the right way to win--not a way that threatens to return the focus to Obama, as well as risks a backlash among select groups of female voters demanding respect even for what Palin has accomplished.

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Fair enough. I think despite knowing better, I am tending to conflate experience with knowledge/judgment, and I mean to say we have to fight on the latter.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

By that Argument, she has more executive experience than McCain, too... since, he's been in the senate all his life...

by LordMike 2008-08-30 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

God, what useless memories you guys have. You call yourselves feminists, and now you're wrecking your own cause for the sake of some nebulous principle.

I remember the attacks on Hillary even if you don't. I remember reading about the attacks on Ferraro even if you don't. I remember the movements to keep women at home and out of the workplace in my church even if you don't.

I am not a part of the feminist movement, I do not follow it as an issue, and yet I remember all these things. Where were you?

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She's so bad on the issues, I can't imagine why, over the next two months, we'd ever exhaust all the reasons to call her out on those.

Her sex?  Some people are just children in grown ups' bodies.  Her appointment is a clear pander, but that's not HER fault...it's McCain's!  

by freedom78 2008-08-29 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Her appointment is a clear pander, but that's not HER fault...it's McCain's!  

she accepted it, knowing that.  and she also pandered with her blatant rip of Hillary's line of 18 million cracks.

So, she is also to blame with the pandering, because she is a willing participate in it.

by colebiancardi 2008-08-29 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I don't blame her. She is trying to advance her career and advance the plight of women. Good for her. I blame McCain for engaging in the most blatant example of tokenism I have ever witnessed.

by LandStander 2008-08-29 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

She is trying to advance her career and advance the plight of women.

plight of women?  Like forcing them to have a child when it is a result of incest or rape?

that advancement?

sorry, I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would think that is an advancement.

by colebiancardi 2008-08-29 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

No - in her mind I imagine she thinks she is doing great things for women. That's why I say I don't blame her for accepting the VP slot even though she is clearly inexperienced and a token choice. I do, indeed, blame her for having the wrong stance on virtually every issue important to women and men.

by LandStander 2008-08-29 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I wouldn't give her a feminist trophy just yet.

Here's an audio recording of her laughing uproariously as some Radio Guy calls one of her female colleagues a "b*tch."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnB ZE

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Just read more on this.

Apparently, the female legislator they were excoriating is also a cancer survivor--which they also ridiculed--and earned their wrath by blocking two anti-abortion bills.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 06:27AM | 0 recs
For Shame of your examples

On a blogs you'll find all types of outrageous crap because any schmuck can post on them. Those are irrelevant.

I find it curious you searched and posted four examples from DKos. But there were "so many" from the MSM that you could only be bothered to post ONE. Yet you chose a weak one.

Imagine if she was a HE and he had a child with Down's Syndrome. Would that be a sexist comment against men? Clearly you're grasping at straws.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-29 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

Imagine if she was a HE and he had a child with Down's Syndrome. Would that be a sexist comment against men?

yes.  the difference it would never be mentioned about a man.

by canadian gal 2008-08-29 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

And you know this, how?

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-29 07:28PM | 0 recs
because i am a human being.

and a proudly liberal one at that.

by canadian gal 2008-08-29 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

CG,

If I, as a father, decided to run for political office four months after my CHILD was born with Downs Syndrome, I'd quit my job if I needed to, to stay home with my child.

That's how I, as a father, would feel.  How would you feel, as a parent?

This doesn't mean that she is a bad mother.  I just question the decision to run for higher office, for BOTH parents of that child.  But that is just me.

(BTW, my daughter was born when my ex-wife was 40 years old, so Downs Syndrome was a big concern for us.  Because we had to think about the possibility ahead of time, we knew what we would do for our child.  I would have moved mountains for my child.)

by Stipes 2008-08-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

So do you have a problem with Elizabeth Edwards hitting the campaign trail with her husband after her cancer diagnosis?

by psychodrew 2008-08-29 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Actually, I did feel a little uncomfortable about John's decision, but that has nothing to do with Elizabeth going out on the campaign trail.

She's a fully grown human, and can make her own decisions.  

Drew, you're confusing the two situations.  The child is not the same as Elizabeth.  Completely different, as Elizabeth consulted on that decision.

I don't believe that the child was asked for input.

by Stipes 2008-08-29 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Consulting the children?  Emma Claire is ten and Jack is eight.  I don't think they're capable of making that kind of informed decision (bear in mind this discussion would have happened in 2006 as Edwards was preparing to enter the race).

by psychodrew 2008-08-30 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Drew,

I already said that I was uncomfortable with John's decision, and yet you are trying to hold me accountable for it.

Calm down.

I have different priorities, and children always come before politics, in my book.

All I have to do is look right at my daughter, right at this exact moment, and I know this is true.  

I'm looking at her right now, Drew.  I feel this deep in my gut.

What are you looking for, from me?

by Stipes 2008-08-30 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Last time I checked Elizabeth Edwards was an adult capable of giving her own consent, whereas an infant is not.

I don't see how the two are remotely comparable.

by Dreorg 2008-08-30 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Joe Biden lost his wife and young daughter in a car accident, leaving him alone with two young sons in the hospital. Did he quit his new career as a Senator?

No, he took care of his sons and represented the citizens of Delaware, and we honor him for that.

by souvarine 2008-08-29 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Actually, I don't honor him for that.  I would have made a different decision.

In fact, that was one of the reasons that I left the Navy.  So that my child could grow up in household that wasn't moving every three years.

Everyone has different priorities.  

I apply this rule to both sexes, equally.

by Stipes 2008-08-29 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

That is fine for you. But if any Republican tried to attack Joe Biden for it they would be immediately pilloried by the media and the public.

Yes, some set of people are thinking "she should stay home with her disabled child," but if the Democratic nominee does not fight that attitude then he will rightfully be thought to have betrayed Democratic principles, and much of the public would turn against him. It is wrong and a politically stupid attack.

by souvarine 2008-08-29 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

I'm not making the attack, nor should the campaign.

It's a meme that makes itself, as you've already stated.

What do you want?  Do you want Obama to speak up for Palin, if she is attacked by someone outside the campaign.

She's a grown woman.  She can defend herself, if and when the time comes.

by Stipes 2008-08-29 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

John McCain came to Hillary Clinton's defence a number of times when she was subject to sexist attacks by the media. He would no doubt condemn anyone who made a racist attack against Barack Obama.

There is no way I would vote for McCain, but I hold our nominee to at least that standard.

by souvarine 2008-08-29 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Oh, yeah, and McCain didn't have ANY sort of agenda, when he was doing that.  Right?

Please do not insult my intelligence.  I know that you're better than that, based I what I read last night.

by Stipes 2008-08-29 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Sure McCain has an agenda, but it was the right thing to do regardless. Obama better have an agenda too.

by souvarine 2008-08-29 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

that is a fair point, but I would suggest many thought mccain's agenda was disingenious when defending Hillary,  like I did.  then again if Obama said it, it would come off better because he does not have a history of being a philanderer and overall belligerent bully.  and that could help Obama, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt hold back on legtmate attacks.  

by KLRinLA 2008-08-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

This whole Down Syndrome issue makes me queasy.

There's plenty of things to nail her on, and I think some of thinks being called "sexist" here are nothing of the sort.

But this one should really be off limits. I have a ton of reasons why--politically stupid, how she raises her child is her business, the sexist presumption that her husband "Todd" shouldn't be doing it, etc.--but my gut just tells me over and over "don't go there."

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

You'd be surprised at how much shit I take for being a single father of two boys....And it's not all from men...

by hootie4170 2008-08-29 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am a human being.

Hey, what a coincidence! So am I and I disagree with you.

If I had five kids, one of them special needs and I was running for President... someone in the media would bring it up. I have no doubt about that.

Sexism does exist, as does racism and every kind of "ism" out there. But oversensitivity also exists and I don't believe people should have to walk on egg shells to bring up issues.

For me her situation is not an issue at all. But I don't consider it 'sexist' to bring it up. I just consider it a stupid non-issue, as are many things brought up in the media.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-29 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

I cannot remember, in the history of politics, someone questioning whether a man would be able to serve because he had a special-needs baby at home.  That's kinda the thing.

by Steve M 2008-08-29 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

Um... yeah with all those examples of men with special needs children at home running for Executive office... I'm surprised at that one.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-29 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

Yes, you're right, maybe it has never, ever happened.

by Steve M 2008-08-29 07:47PM | 0 recs
That's true, but,

I can recall instances of someone questioning whether a man would be able to serve because he had a sick wife at home.

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

If she were a "he", then that journalist would never have thought to make that comment.  He only asked about whether she would be able to balance her family life with her job because she is a woman; that is clear.

by MMR2 2008-08-29 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples
A bit of a reminder, we do not talk about
balance, or taking care of a two year old.
At 4 months babies are still breastfed...and
husbands usually can't do this :).
by lolo08 2008-08-29 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame of your examples

If Palin brings up her children and her youngest as reasons for her qualifications, yes, that is fair game.

Her being a woman has nothing to do with it.  She already mentions that her being a mom of 5 kids as her experience, which is fine.  But don't expect people to hold back from criticizing her on that front

she opened that can of worms, no one else.

by colebiancardi 2008-08-30 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Kind of saw this one coming.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-29 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Sometimes I'm amazed...I see so much horrendous things being written about Michelle Obama that I don't even want to repeat them, on so-called liberal blogs and GOP blogs...sexist and racist...for the last 18 months...and here we talk about Palin more.

by hootie4170 2008-08-29 08:53PM | 0 recs
I can now see how the next two months

on MyDD are going to play out, even if I can't see how the campaign will play out.  Always the same.

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I can now see how the next two months

I suspect you may be too young to remember a time when liberals used to discuss things like sexism.  Pity, that.

by Steve M 2008-08-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
52 this November. You?

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 08:17PM | 0 recs
I know why I rarely visit that famed
blog anymore..
There's so much to criticize Palin for her bat-crazy policies and principles, I hardly find any sane reason to make personal attacks.
by louisprandtl 2008-08-29 07:48PM | 0 recs
Did we learn nothing from the racism debacle?

I agree on several counts. The MILF/GILF/whatever shit is offensive and damaging to our cause.

But we have to fight back against that angle hard and fast. Rather than allow the PUMAS to claim we're being sexist (because by God, they'll be the first in line), we have to do what the GOP did, say that we never used it, we never started to, and that we find it offensive for a father of two little girls and a long-time champion of women's issues to get nailed to that cross.

Then we don't have to worry about it from anyone except the nutjobs.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I agree that part of the GOP's strategy must be to draw enough attacks out of the Democrats to push some people still on the fence into siding with Palin, no matter how offensive her views are to us.

However, I would point out that certain lines of attack are not inherently sexist.  Palin's experience is very relevant - not with regards to her per se, but because McCain has been hammering the experience meme for months now.  For him to select a nominee who has less than or roughly equal (depending on how one wants to view it) "experience" as Obama shows that McCain is an utter hypocrite.  Also, the very real issue of his health may require her to actually step into the presidency at some point.  Anyway, I just want to make clear that certain arguments may legitimately be used against her.

by rfahey22 2008-08-29 07:59PM | 0 recs
McCain / Vagina 08 !

CG, your ire is misdirected.  McCain is making a mockery of a female as President.  Hillary was ready on day one.  Palin has been a governer 68 days more than Obama started running.  If she becomes President from an early demise of John, no woman will ever become President again.  She's an absolute disaster.

She's a token.  McCain took her because of her vagina, not her skills.  That is FAR worse than anything you've posted above.  Get your priorities straight, and help the cause of women by deleting this diversion of a diary.

by Hill4Life 2008-08-29 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain / Vagina 08 !

I don't think that language was necessary.

by rfahey22 2008-08-29 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain / Vagina 08 !

Vagina is potty language?  

You know that women have vaginas, right?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina

by Hill4Life 2008-08-29 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain / Vagina 08 !

I was thinking mostly of the last sentence, which I thought was needlessly provocative.

by rfahey22 2008-08-29 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-08-29 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Sorry for that. I have a habit occasionally of hitting post instead of rate all.

Great diary canadian gal. Someone needs to put sites like DK on notice that we will lose this election if we allow those kind of sexist comments to continue.

The last thing we need to do is turn off independent women by attacking Palin in any sexist manner. After this primary, it will jump out at them and drive them right to McCain. If they'll vote for anti-choice Bush twice, they'll vote for McCain.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-08-29 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I, unfortunately, just spend some time on the big Orange reading some Palin diaries.  The misogyny is so thick that I practically vomited.  Much of it having to do with the fact that she has a young son with special needs and how dare she seek national office.

As the parent of a son with Down syndrome -- who, yes, has worked full-time since he was born (and nobody ever questioned my right to do so) -- I can't even get into the ways that these statements nauseate me.

by markjay 2008-08-29 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I believe you may have been the one who originally dissuaded me of that notion. It still seems like being governor is less intense than running for national office, but Obama seems to still be a good enough dad with his girls.

by vcalzone 2008-08-29 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I'm sorry, why exactly is this misogyny?  It may be inappropriate for them to question someone else's personal decisions on how to best care for their child, but questioning why a parent wouldn't quit their job to spend full-time with their child with special needs isn't necessarily misogyny.  It seems like you may be projecting a little bit.

by ThinkerT 2008-08-29 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Why?  Because nobody ever questions a man who goes to work rather than stays home to take care of his kids.

Remember when Joe Biden's wife and daughter died?  In spite of that, Joe entered the Senate the next month anyway.  People treat him like a hero for taking the train home to Delaware every night so he could be with his two sons instead of staying in Washington.  And you know what?  Maybe that was heroic.  But NOBODY is saying that Joe Biden was irresponsible for entering such an intense job as being a U.S. Senator when he had two young boys at home without a mother.

When people criticize Biden for that, I'll take seriously their criticisms of Palin for becoming a VP candidate.

by markjay 2008-08-29 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Biden's kids were a lot older. Any parent will tell you there is a major difference between a 4 year old and a 4 month old.

by pneuma 2008-08-30 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Does your job have you out of town overnight six days per week?

by Dreorg 2008-08-29 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

No, it doesn't.  Does being VP have you out of town overnight six days per week?  I wasn't aware that it did.

by markjay 2008-08-29 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Campaigning does.

by Dreorg 2008-08-29 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Maybe, but Chris Spielman gained my respect when he stated he was retiring from the NFL because his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.  And I lost respect for John Edwards for running when he knew his wife had cancer.   If you have to work it is one thing, but taking on the travel requirements of VP when you don't have to...if it was her husband abandoning the family like that I would think it is just as bad.

A number of people thought John Edwards wouldn't accept VP because of his wifes cancer.  Would it have nauseated you if he accepted VP and people bashed him for abandoning his wife?

by Tumult 2008-08-29 11:02PM | 0 recs
Many women ARE bothered by the baby thing

I've talked to three different women today who each said Palin's willingness to go on the VP trail while her 4-month old Down's Syndrome child is left at home (with dad, presumably) is unseemly. Maybe only a woman can raise that point without seeming sexist. But this is a woman who went back to work 3 days after giving birth. Is that what she imagines most women should do?

These same women, by the way, saw this pick as a patronizing and insulting mockery of Hillary Clinton's campaign, considering how unqualified Palin is to step in to the White House. It isn't just inexperience at issue. It's her complete ignorance of national and international affairs and lack of any kind of vision for the country that makes her such a dubious pick.

Yes, it's wrong when people use sexism to attack her.

But don't use the charge of sexism to defend her from legitimate criticism.

by elrod 2008-08-29 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Many women ARE bothered by the baby thing

If you don't mind me asking, what was the approximate age of those individuals?  I wonder if there are generational forces at work here with regards to her child.  My grandmother raised the issue of her child tonight, and so I suspect that people of a certain age, and with certain views of parental roles, might view the issue differently.

by rfahey22 2008-08-29 08:49PM | 0 recs
Canadian Gal, not EVERYTHING is sexism

The picture on KOS may not be the best way to oppose a VP candidate, but it isn't anymore sexist against the woman as it is the man. Its painting McCain as the dirty old many with the prostitute, is that not just as sexist as calling her a prostitute?

The story about Palin being a puppet may ACTUALLY be true. Basically, the argument is that because she is a woman you cannot attack her on that issue because the nature of her being a woman makes it sexist. I have no idea to what extent the story is true, but it is based on actual events that occurred, not some random thought "hey, shes a women, her husband probably is her puppet master"

And the last point is the most laughable. The fact that she is a mother to a newborn child, especially one with down syndrome IS RELEVANT. First of all, there happens to be a biological difference between men and women. Women give birth to children, and are the only ones who can breast feed. This is a REAL issue of family values, not that shit Republicans pass off as values.  Second of all, I would say the same thing, as many would about a man in the same situation. NO, I do not think a father of a 4 month old with down syndrome should be turning their life upside-down, either leaving their family to campaign full time or worse, bringing a young child like that around on the campaign trail.

Canadian Gal, when I first saw your diary on the rec list, I was interested to read it because I thought it might be the first one I agree with. I thought it might be about how insulting the selection was to Hillary Clinton and what she's done. I thought it would be a moment when suddenly I understand what you are feeling. Clinton put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, and this woman thinks she's going to be the one to break it. I sure hope not.

But no, instead you call everyone out for prob a few things that could be sexism and some very legitimate arguments that you rule out because you think its sexism.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-08-29 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Canadian Gal, not EVERYTHING is sexism

Yes, the picture in context is sexist to men and women. So it is doubly wrong.

Yes, disqualifying a woman from office for "a biological difference between men and women" is sexist. And one wonders what you think of our VP nominee's behaviour when he was left alone with two sons in the hospital.

There are four solid attacks on Palin on the front page right now, none of them rely on sexism or prejudice against disabled people. We are a better party than that.

by souvarine 2008-08-29 09:38PM | 0 recs
I have said it before

we have to get away from personality based ad hominem attacks lest we get labeled as the party of misogynists (yes we are this close to it now). There are multiple reasons for not liking Sarah Palin based on her ideology and positions and neither sex nor experience feature among them. We make sexist and misogynist remarks at our own peril.

by tarheel74 2008-08-29 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

I appreciate the intent of this article and I think it highlights a real problem that Obama may have to face. But lets be clear: the Obama campaign did not do any of the things critisized in this diary. So it would be unfair to suggest that he has not learned any lessons from the primary, rather, some blog commenters have not (which is frankly, not surprising).

Secondarily, I think Sen. McCain has done a great disservice to Hillary and millions of women by selecting his running mate on what appears to be superficial grounds. Let's be clear: Hillary ran on her 35 years of experience, her tested leadership, and her policies. What on earth does Sarah Palin bring to the table? It is painstakingly obvious she was selected to "tap into" disaffected Hillary voters.

But a vote for McCain (who once called his wife a c*nt in public) and a vote for Sarah Palin will go against everything Hillary stands for (in particular, reproductive rights and the Progressive dream). The only thing Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have in common is their gender, that's it. And pretending like this shared characteristic means there's a real risk that thousands or millions of women in swing states will vote on that characteristic alone, rather than voting on the issues Hillary stands for, I think is sexist in presuming that female voters lack the political maturity to vote for their self interest.

"Breaking the glass ceiling" is a wonderful reason to vote for someone I suppose, but breaking the Supreme Court, our military, and neglecting the poor in the process, is not.

by washingtoncritic 2008-08-29 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

what is the real reason that McSame picked this individual to be his VP?

He felt the most comfortable with her? He met her once before.

She was the best person to be the Pres? There are a ton of people, men and women,  with more popular support and experience in his party that arguably would be more qualified.

I think we all know it was because she was the only pro-life WOMAN he could find.

That being said, we should just ignore her, let the press vett her (this may be the fun part) and focus our attacks on McSame!

by IowaMike 2008-08-29 10:13PM | 0 recs
It is a danger for us.

We need this election to be about issues more than ever.

I don't find the attacks you mention more insulting then similar suggestions that Obama is an "mpty suit" or "just a speech".  But when dealing with a female candidate it is very easy to run into a feeling of gender victimization from women.  And now we have to worry about looking like a bully, as well as worrying about comming off as "angry black man".

Once I heard the announcement of Palin I expected a diary of some sort about this to show up on the rec list by cg, I see it happened before I made it home.  It will be interesting to see how many so called liberals on this site think glass ceilings matter more than the country, or liberal issues.

With Bush/Cheney the question was incompetent or criminal, with McCain/Palin the question will be incompetent or insane.

by Tumult 2008-08-29 10:44PM | 0 recs
You mean shame on the McCain Campaign

It was clear from her acceptance speech that Palin intends to run on a platform of "vote for the ticket because I'm a woman."  She's there to sow discord among disaffected Democrats.  It is simply naive to think that her sex was not a major factor in McCain's decision.

Now that in itself doesn't excuse sexism, nor am I saying there isn't some sexism going on.  But when his campaign chooses to use "making history" as a tactic, you're going to get responses that taken out of context will appear to be borderline sexist.

In addition, no one calls out the character assassination that goes on in left leaning websites when it comes to McCain.  His philandering ways earlier in his life have absolutely nothing to do with his policy positions, but it's constantly brought up and recced even here at MyDD.  His age is constantly a butt of some joke.  I disagree with it, but realize that it's par for the course.  Similar attacks will be made on Palin and most of them will not be sexist in intent.

by shalca 2008-08-29 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean shame on the McCain Campaign

Barack Obama, Aug 28, 2008:

And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back...

Part of Obama's platform is "make history and vote for me because I am a black man." That in no way justifies racism, borderline or not, and I will call out any racist attacks on Obama, intended or not. Palin is a woman and has every right to point out what it means to vote for her. If we permit sexism to bring her down, through dismissive and denigrating words, we only hurt ourselves. Sure, gender was a factor in McCain's decision, but this idea that the office of Vice President is a token is brain dead. If she were Vice President she would be very likely to become the first woman president.

Let's avoid tearing the Democratic coalition apart and keep everyone's focus, including the media's, on legitimate problems with John McCain and his decisions.

by souvarine 2008-08-30 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You mean shame on the McCain Campaign

If you want to be so intellectually dishonest as to say that Obama's echoing of King's call for UNITY (a major campaign theme) is the same as stating, "It turns out the women of America aren't finished yet!" that's your choice.  

While two women in this race so far have blatantly said that it would be a good idea to put them in office based solely on their sex, no candidate has said that it would be a good idea to put them in office based solely on their race.

by shalca 2008-08-30 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You mean shame on the McCain Campaign

You're statement:

While two women in this race so far have blatantly said that it would be a good idea to put them in office based solely on their sex
demonstrates who is for unity here, and who is still blind to sexism.

by souvarine 2008-08-30 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean shame on the McCain Campaign

souvarine, if you were in anyway open to discussion based on facts rather than feelings I'd be happy to have that argument with you.  However, you've proven time and time again that your responses are based less on reason and more on bitterness and anger.  No where in my statement did I say that I was for or against unity so your response makes little sense in any context except to judge my character.

by shalca 2008-08-30 01:20PM | 0 recs
You are correct

but the diary at Kos is being trashed by others asking to have it deleted, this is good.

The comment at Kos is being trashed.

That website is crap. Almost seems more like a rightie site trying to make Democrats look bad. Or it is just another asshole.

Sexism needs to stay out of this. Other then that, she is a joke for a VP pick.

There is something odd how she seems to relate to her husband. This is a comment I made at dkos.

My g/f was stunned
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/8/ 29/155145/681/183#c183

this morning when palin gave an interview (I believe) to cnn and she was asked something along the lines of "tell us something about yourself that others don't know", she supposedly answered with "what do you mean", the question was repeated and she answered with something about her husband.

Now I did not see or hear this interview. I got it second hand over the phone while driving.

My g/f was stunned because she was asked about herself and all she could do was talk about her husband.

What a good "little woman" some of the rpub wives can be. - so sad.

Did anybody else catch this? If so, could you fill us in on this? Is there video?

My g/f is an old school feminist. She hates sexism in all its forms, no matter who or where it comes from, be it a man or a woman.

Now don't take my "little woman" comment like I believe in that line of thinking. It comes from watching the wives of some of the repubs, like the wives of mccain, bush, romney, reagan, etc.

It is like they want their wives to live a 1950's life.

Sorry if I am not making this clear. I do not want you, CG, to think badly of me.

by kevin22262 2008-08-29 10:55PM | 0 recs
Teaching creationism in school

Palin supporting the above is a scary thing.  Watch the anti-science movement here in the US get stronger once McSame gets voted in.  

I'm happy to live in a progressive blue state, done the red state route for too many years.

by Regenman 2008-08-30 12:30AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.
I'm sorry, but pointing out that she was picked simply because of her gender to appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters is not sexist.
The fact that she is going to be subjected to sexism is not a big surprise, considering what Hillary has been through in the last 16 years.
We already know that there are sexists in the Democratic fold, but the outrage expressed by PUMAs while they ignore the reason for the pick is simply ridiculous.
by skohayes 2008-08-30 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Honestly.

There are already tons of Hillary supporters who were going to vote against Obama regardless.

They're just using these reasons to reinforce their decisions and bring others over.

This Kabuki dance, where they pretend to be offended because of a latest "last straw" is getting kind of old.

Just go vote for McCain already.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:34AM | 0 recs
Be careful with the...

"Just go vote for McCain already"...it's gratuitous.  I have yet to read a diary (or comment) by CG, post-Primary, that wasn't thoughtful and sincere.  I do agree that Palin's choice was a blatant pander; the pick itself that was sexist and insulting...to point this out should not be considered sexist...and if we cut off that avenue of criticism, we're playing right into their hands (similarly, if we attack HER for being a woman, we play right into her hands...it's a crafty choice, but will probably blow up in their face, particularly if she wasn't vetted).  However, CG's concern isn't remotely trollish...(she can say if i'm wrong here but it seems) it's meant to be constructive and to help Obama get elected, even if he wasn't her FIRST choice, and to make sure we don't get stuck with McCain.

by thurst 2008-08-30 08:26AM | 0 recs
One thing she has in common with McCain

They both seem to enjoy it when their female political colleagues are called b*tches.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/ 82113/4808/746/579971

by Bush Bites 2008-08-30 05:39AM | 0 recs
It's just too blatant...

First of all, there is a small element of sexist language in the way some of the men are talking about this, as opposed to the women.  I can't argue with that at all.

However, this is the thing.  I am a middle aged verging on old woman who has worked very hard to get whatever I've gotten.  I grew up at a time when women's roles were confining and women's minds were not trusted.  This is true to some extent today, but the difference is pretty vast.

My take on this is that some of the people who will react the worst to this travesty of a selection are women like me who find Palin, both for reasons of policy and reasons of why she was chosen, emblematic of everything that has gone wrong in the war for equality.

Palin in a few years, given that she seems to have reasonable intellect and curiosity would have been a safe, if policy-wise repulsive choice.  Palin of today offers nothing except her gender.  Nothing.  I've been listening to interviews with her.  She does not seem to have developed a world view, she seems singularly unfamiliar with federal institutions.  There are so many intelligent women around who also have the wisdom to step into the shoes of the POTUS if called upon to.  Palin may be smart but she is too new, too youthful in her vision, and I do believe that McCain, with his absolute inability to distinguish one woman from another on any basis but looks, chose her for that very quality.  I repeat, this is ALL McCain sees when he sees a female.  

So, yes, there has been some sexist language, but mostly that has been a way of trying to put into words the utter folly of this choice, and McCain's sexism which runs so deep that he is simply blind to the qualities of any woman in middle age or older.

I think, by the way, to get back to my take on my generation and the one above me, that this is going to have some unexpected repercussions for  him as older women feel again slighted by a man who looked at boobs before any more appropriate qualities.  Again.

by mady 2008-08-30 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: It's just too blatant...

"Palin may be smart but she is too new, too youthful in her vision, and I do believe that McCain, with his absolute inability to distinguish one woman from another on any basis but looks, chose her for that very quality.  I repeat, this is ALL McCain sees when he sees a female."

You absolutely nailed it with this one. And for those of us who are smarter than that, we see right through it. Bad choice McCain.

by Dari 2008-08-30 08:06AM | 0 recs
I'm confused

Feminists don't need to take care of their infant special needs children? How is that not a legitimate question?

by GWBblows 2008-08-30 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm confused

I assume that whatever her family does, they will provide the best of care to their children.  If you see signs of neglect or abuse report it, you know?  Otherwise is none of our business.

by mady 2008-08-30 07:29AM | 0 recs
Of course it is

It is absolutely relevant how a VP plans to spend their time on a day-to-day basis.

by GWBblows 2008-08-30 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Yeah, I agree we have to be careful....

But, is it sexist to point out that McSame passed over dozens of more qualified republican women for this lightweight?

Is it sexist to point out that the McSame strategy here is to try and woo disaffected Hillary supporters over to her side?

Is it sexist to point out that Palin has little experience, but more importantly, has shown no gravitas on national affairs like Obama has?

Is it sexist to point out that Palin has done nothing to advance the cause of women and, in fact, has fought against it?

Is it sexist to point out that she hasn't exactly fought her way tot he top and was not picket by 18 million voters, but by a man looking to use her to score some points?

I don't know... maybe it is... I found during the primary that what defines "sexism" is quite broad and fluid...  so, I think it is important to know where the boundary is drawn....

Regardless, expect McSame to be whining about sexist attacks on his running mate...  who, by the way, is going to be marketed as kind of a second first lady, just so you know...  I don't think it is sexist to point that out!  Is it?

by LordMike 2008-08-30 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

As an ardent feminist who supported Hillary and now supports Obama, I find the choice of Palin offensive. As a Republican, she has chosen a party that still believes women do not deserve equal rights - whether that is regarding her body or her pay.

She is nowhere near qualified to become President should McCain kick the bucket and I would say the same if she had something hanging between her legs. Choosing a candidate solely because of her sex - and let's not kid ourselves, that IS what happened here - is pandering and I don't like it one bit.

Personal attacks happen on both sides. We call McCain old and comment on his stiff smile. I said Palin needs to lose that silly ponytail. There's a difference between critiquing a public figure and sexism, in my opinion.

Palin just makes no sense. If this is the best the Republican's can do to energize their party, then I feel very, very sorry for them.

by Dari 2008-08-30 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

Bill Maher made a bunch of horribly misogynistic "jokes" about her on his show last night too. NPR's Michel Martin was one of his panelists. She was not amused one bit either.

There are plenty of things to criticize Palin about, and none of them have anything to do with being a woman.

by LakersFan 2008-08-30 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

As a Democrat I'm delighted; as an American and mother of a serviceperson I'm outraged and as a feminist since before there was NOW I won't be bullied into not stating the obvious.

Palin was picked first for her gender and the assumption she could somehow attract disaffected female Clinton supporters and Reagan Democrat "soccer moms".   She was not chosen for how she could one day lead the country or how she could inform the president (like Biden).  Among female potential VPs, she was chosen for her personal story and her personality and how that would influence "low information" female voters.  she was also picked to energize the Evangelical base.

I've been in plenty of situations in 30 years where a female was promoted solely because she was the right kind of female -- grossly underqualified thus fawning and easily tractable, "appealing" in ways that made criticism of her seem brutish, big on "personality" light on credentials, intellect and grasp of the issues.  And in my experience the men that make these sorts of token promotions of women are the worst sexists out there.

FYI -- to most women over fifty pointing out Palin's beauty queen status and laughable resume is going to be painfully resonate and galvanizing as so many of us have worked our tails off to be passed over for a looker with a perky personality.  In other words, McCain could have not made a worse pick to appeal to centrist and liberal women over fifty.  But then, as he seems utterly incapable of recognizing women as rational beings, no surprises there.

The truly non-sexist playing field would have men and women judged on the same criteria -- ability, knowledge, experience and "fit" -- not gender specific intagibles like "fiestiness," "energy" and a compelling fuzzy/fluffy personal narrative.  

It strikes me that the Republicans are putting together the ideal "personal narrative" sundae to run on with some empty sound bites sprinkled on top.  It's going to be all about putting The POW and "Every Mom" in the Whitehouse (who's just like you!) and the notion that somehow just having a Mom with a title around will make the Whitehouse all family friendly and soccer mom sensible.  I expect a raft of bullshit about how Palin will bring a "mom's compassionate common sense" to a McCain adminstration, as if all  Ahmadinejad needs is a time-out and a damp washcloth on his forehead.

And I get to say that because I doled out my share of damp washcloths and motherly wisdom and would never confuse those critical skills for those required by a vice president.  

by GRO 2008-08-30 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

GRO,

Thank you for expressing my thoughts exactly.  I have seen exactly this type of thing, going both directions in my career.

I have also seen vacuous men, with good looks, get ahead when there was no merit in it.  It made me very angry, so I can relate...just a little.

This is just like that, and I don't think it's sexist to point it out.

I think that she was picked, because she was a very pretty, tractable selection.  Why should women celebrate this pick?

by Stipes 2008-08-30 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

there is no reason for women to celebrate this pick unless they are single-issue pro-life voters with no concern for competence.  

The choice could not possibly be more insulting and dismissive to women -- that a significant number of women will be influenced only by her gender and their ability to identify with her.  I realize that WILL happen perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less of an insult.

Myself I would not use gender-loaded adjectives like "pretty" or "attractive" -- I'd stick to the obvious and relatively gender-neutral -- she was picked for the "appeal" of her personality and personal narrative.  

On a somewhat unrelated tangent -- I wonder how all those pictures of her posing with dead bears and draped in dead animals is going to fly with the five cats and six bird feeders crowd.  she seems downright Neanderthal in some of those snapshots which could make the NRA folks swoon but seems a little off-putting even for the run of the mill sportsperson, at least east of the Mississippi.  She wants to hunt wolves by plane to improve hunting?  She looks at polar bears as something you mount on your wall?  Holy sheist!  How's that going to play with the Ranger Rick soccer moms?

by GRO 2008-08-30 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.

GRO,

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll use more gender neutral descriptors in the future.

The hard-core hunter thing will not play well among most of Hillary's base...probably almost all of it.

I wish that she were a man with the same resume.  I'd feel much more free to go "whole hog" on the attack.

It's an insulting pick, regardless of gender.

by Stipes 2008-08-30 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: For Shame.
yeah canada things got messy here earlier, well everywhere actually. old habits die hard.
the primaries have come and gone, and lessons we learned just flew out the window. my favorite line of the whole day was: "omg how is Biden going to debate a woman???" hah. couldn't warp my head around that stupid comment. [which started on MSNBC] hilarious. how ever will Biden train for such a task!?
by alyssa chaos 2008-08-30 11:35AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads