the elitists of the right are open about their elitism (think Broder and company....and his comments about Bill Clinton having NO RIGHT to be there.....while never, ever questioning W).
Palin's gender played a part but was not all of it. Quayle was a male dufus who was basically chided by the press but not openly mocked as badly as Palin is. W was ridiculously dull and nonsensical at times and was protected by the press for years.
To this day, the press will openly mock Bill Clinton, but is still afraid to mock W. We will see after W leaves DC if they change. I doubt it. Palin, like Clinton, is an easy target because there is a portion of our society who really do worship the "blue blood" mentality and hold in contempt people who do not learn to be elitist in their attitude. Never mind that Clinton is brilliant and Palin is .....not brilliant. Both are trashed for being "bubbas".....a false generalization for sure.
I resent Palin because McCain's people mocked the importance of gender equality.
Why impossible? Because it's people, not robots. You cannot teach people to be free thinkers and expect they will all think alike or be able to compromise on all issues.
I was a teacher for four decades. Trying to get kids to come to consensus on things they loved (like a class party) was impossible. Finally we would take a vote and I, as the dictator person, would insist on the vote, make it final and still there were whiners. And that was with 25 or 30 kids over a fun thing.
People given freedom will grapple.......and that is not necessarily bad. In the end, they often, but not alway will compromise. When we vote in a president, we are essentially uniting. When we accept the rules of the Constitution we are uniting. When we fight over changing the rules it is because we know that essentially we can only agree to some things, not all things.
But to insist that we will not be a great country unless we are post partisan or bipartisan is essentially wrong. We are a diverse country.....we must always try to go forward and come together but understand this cannot be forced.
You bring to mind the constant battle over the "Melting Pot", i.e. the people who think we should all speak English, act "American" vs those who think cultural pride matters......
Is there a right or a wrong there? And who decides. Should unity dictate language and custom?
It is so complicated. I wish you well, but understand all of us are striving for the best thing for the common good...it's just that we all don't agree how to get there.
understand that there will always be Karl Roves and George W's.
That said, I don't generally agree with kos on most things. He was a Reagan admirer. I was never more depressed than when Reagan won on 1980. I knew then what would happen to this country....and sadly I was right. NOW, that we have allowed it to go so far to the right, we must go back less we lose democracy.
While I would like to see some post partisanship, I think the idea of democracy will die without the constant challenge of pushing and pulling, the constant of swinging back and forth as we strive for the center. It's human nature.
from what Bush has been selling you....a message that has been coming from the right for decades. W didn't start this.....he and his friends just took what started a long time ago and used the power of communication and money and spin to enhance it.
Their message was wrong in the McCarthy era, in the sixties, in the eighties and in the millenium. You seem to want to give as much blame to those of us who fought against the McCarthy types, the Reagan mentality, and the Bush disaster as to them.
Do you honestly think we could have compromised with McCarthy? with Reagan? with W?
I think you are missing a larger point. People my age, the same age as George W and Karl Rove understand that different people have different goals.
Unit or bipartisanship can be a goal but never more important than our progressive ideals.
We, my friends, wanted to end Vietnam. George and Karl just didn't want to serve, didn't care who got killed, or how many countries were destroyed. Decades later do you really think we are teaching non partisanship by telling you not to trust people like W or all the other hordes of self serving plutocrats?
Were we divisive because we chose to tell our parents that we did not accept or believe in segregation? If we had gone along with them then we would have had unity? Would that be what you wanted?
Who gets to decide what moving forward is? The religious right who thinks we should move forward by preparing for Armageddon or the far left who believes we should strive for anarchy against the powers of the one world conspiracy?
Are you that naive that you think people will simply think alike because we all ultimately want the same thing?
but what you are putting forth is the notion that somehow generations before you failed because they were incompetent or lazy or self serving. And that's just not true.
Change takes time....and in their core, people are tribal and self-serving in order to survive. We have been trying to expand the "tribe" but at the same time, one must always be wary of over zealous nationalism. Bi partisanship is not easy. It is a goal and always should be. But not even progressives can agree on everything. Humans, in a free society, have the option to disagree. THAT is what makes democracy hard. It will always be hard. That is what the founding fathers wanted......because too many people thinking the same way can be dangerous.
in their own way are idealistic. I understand that. But how can you say we have made no changes? Are you that ignorant of history? of human nature? Do you think people change their hearts because you say so? I came of age in a time where integration was limited and segregation acceptable. Yet, my children and their friends are comfortable with interracial relationships. We have more than a few biracial grandchildren in our family. My 86 year old Aunt, born at a time when gay people were hidden and condemned has learned to accept gay couples in the family.
While my parents had issues with those things, my kids are OK with them? What do you think happened? Magic? Or perhaps maybe a generation of baby boomers who went on Freedom Rides and were helping to register people to vote who never voted had something to do with it? And maybe my generation learned some tolerance from our parents and expanded on it. People grow and change all the time. Forcing them to do so is not only impossible, it is wrong.
When I was growing up, women could not buy a car without a cosign from a father or a husban, let alone a house. Yet single women of my generation started buying our own houses in the 70s. And then there was Title IX. While some of us graduated in the top five of our classes and got no scholarships, we damn well made sure our daughters and granddaughters could.
How the hell can you say we did nothing? THIS is why some of us have been disgusted. Some of us, MANY of us worked a lifetime for change and some change happened. But you think we should have be able to do it all?
Do you even know what democracy is? Do you understand that, even from the left, autocratic government, or totalitarian government is dangerous?
Sorry your blame game is nonsensical and irritating. Maybe you will get it some day.
Interesting how people get to where they are.
My parents were basically apolitical as far as I knew. My father was a cop in a very republican county but in the only democratic town in the republican county. One of his sisters and one of his brothers worked for the county and thus were active republicans. Many of his other siblings were democratic. But all of them voted for JFK because we were catholic and that was what we did.
My sister and I took different paths. She became a libertarian/republican. We were both raised catholic and while she seemed indifferent to the church when we were kids, she became a staunch catholic as the years went by. She was older than me. I became enamoured by the folk singing, anti war, pro civil rights movements and never looked back.
The older I got the more sure I have been of my leanings. Unlike some, I really liked Bill Clinton. I feel the word "slick" is unfair, and a denigrating put down because he did not come from the rich circles of most presidents. He could spin like heck which served dems well....but I truly believe that trait is often seen in the children of alcoholics. They spin a lot of time "protecting" the family from others....in school, in church.
He represented to me the real thing, the kid who did overcome circumstances (alcoholic/abusive stepfather, poverty) to reach great heights. His flaws made him real to me. I suspect if Bill had been a blue blood like some other presidents, his flaws and indiscretions would have been as covered and hidden as theirs have been.
In the end, I will always vote democratic because I believe in community, in the commons (public education, public safety, public protection (police, fire men and women, national commitment to the environment). I also believe that it does "take a village". Hillary was my first choice, but I am now actively working to get Senator Obama elected.
I don't think you need to be afraid to share your story. A lot of us have stories.
I am a single older woman. Some people think I am gay. I am not. If it was a choice, I would be. My best friend was a woman. We did everything together. We really did love each other. In fact we both wondered if we were supressing our gayness. We talked about it. We loved being together. But neither of us felt the kind of chemistry we felt with men. Finally she ended up in a relationship with a guy and married. Funny thing is he asked me out first. No chemistry but I liked him and I knew he was meant for her. I introduced them.
Head, heart and chemistry just don't always work together for some of us. I am (or was) physically attractive to macho jocks (who often turned out to be jerks). But the chemistry was there....
I don't believe any of us have a choice when it comes to chemistry, to physical attraction. I envy those people who are truly bisexual because they get so many more choice.
My cousin, who happens to be a lesbian, believes it is between our ears.....and somewhat a choice because she is bisexual.
In the end, we are all unique.
My dear friend had a relatively happy marriage albeit short (about ten years)....because she died young. Her husband and I were with her almost daily at the end, and we comforted each other. I think she was hoping we would get together after she was gone. But the chemistry was not there before and was not after....but we liked each other. When he met another woman a year later, he basically asked my permission to go forward. I let him know that she and I always would want him to be happy. And he moved on.
I really believe there are some things we have no control over and one is our innate sexuality. If we had a choice, I think there would be a lot more lesbian couples in later life for women. 8)