Palin and the Ascent of Feminism

Jeff Alworth

The GOP's nomination of Sarah Palin as vice-president is a milestone we should not fail to observe.  I've no doubt that for McCain it was merely political maneuvering--he didn't intend to endorse, fully and finally, the objectives of feminism.  But he did. 

It was a Democrat who said the infamous lines in 1963 that the antidote to women “poking around in something she doesn’t know anything about” was to “get her pregnant and keep her barefoot.” But it has been the GOP, as the conservative party, that has always been a refuge for those who find the idea of gender equality offensive.  It is the party that resists change, and holds onto cherished, fixed beliefs. 

In the early days, men really did believe women incompetent to do basic things.  I'm just old enough to remember the jokes about "women drivers."   Women weren't strong enough to do the work of men, of course, but they weren't as smart, either.  And obviously--this hardly needed to be mentioned, it was so obvious--they were emotionally weak.  They lacked judgment and common sense. 

Eventually, as women proved themselves men's equal in matters of the brain, men shifted their vanity to their brawn. Recall the ugly reception women got at construction sites and later, in the military.  I was in Salt Lake City in 1984, when Mondale selected Gerry Ferraro as the first Veep candidate.  At that point, we were forced to seriously discuss whether a woman had the "temperament" to have her finger on the button.  A popular campaign button around town was "T--- and Fritz, the two biggest boobs in Washington."

Feminism, of course, is the rather uncontroversial idea that men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect as well as equal access to jobs and equal pay for them.  The controversy was that anyone ever thought differently.  Sexism hasn't gone away, but it has been debunked, dulled, and diminished.  It reared its head in the primary with Hillary.  Things have changed, though--the current variant really isn't an argument, it's an attitude--certain kinds of strong women are culturally distasteful to certain kinds of social conservatives ("How do we beat the bitch?" and Hillary nutcrackers).

But when they selected Sarah Palin, the GOP finally threw in the towel on all arguments that women are in any way inferior.  This is a woman who could very easily become the leader of their party--and they love the idea.  In the selection of Sarah Palin, they have unwittingly made a huge admission: women are able to do anything men can, including lead the country.  It's not a serious question anymore, and no one will seriously ask it.   BlueOregon readers no doubt oppose Palin over any number of policy disagreements.  But let's not overlook the importance of what her selection represents as a social landmark.  We're all feminists now.

  • genop (unverified)

    Don't bother me now, I'm channeling my inner-feminista and she has little in common with Sarah Palin.

  • genop (unverified)

    Don't bother me now, I'm channeling my inner-feminista and she has little in common with Sarah Palin.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff, It's not a social landmark, it's a joke. The only landmark we've hit is men still think women are stupid and can't tell the difference between two female candidates. Palin should be judged against all other candidates who have run for this office - and she doesn't measure up.

    Republicans did no service to women and still are treating me like breasts that will vote for other breasts. That might have been true if Palin had any skills nearing Hillary Clinton's; but she doesn't. They also assume that women who may vote for Palin have children or a spouse or want that tin can of an American dream. We'll guess what? Five kids sound like a lack of birth control, selfishness and irreparable stretch marks.

    Sadly, not a landmark, but a blemish on their attempt at history.

  • Greg D. (unverified)

    Yes, Palin proven that you don't need a Y Chromosome in order to be a lying right wing Republican "Christian" crackpot. For that, women everywhere are indebted to her.

  • (Show?)

    Sort of feels to me like the inclusion of "sex discrimination" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that case, it was a cynical attempt by Southerners to scuttle the bill - as they thought some of their colleagues would never deign to treat women with equality.

    From Wikipedia:

    The prohibition on sex discrimination was added by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginian Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who had strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. The addition of "sex" to title VII is commonly described as a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by inserting objectionable amendments.[10][11] Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[12] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[13]
  • (Show?)

    I actually think that both Jeff and Karol are right.

    It's true, as Karol says, that Palin's nomination is a silly and cynical ploy - thinking that women will vote for any woman.

    But it's also true, as Jeff says, that this nomination means that the paleo-conservatives have now officially abandoned the argument (whether they know it or not).

  • Enough! (unverified)


    The obsession with identity politics is understanable, yet it diverts us from examining the actual policies those seeking to occupy positions of power wish to implement.

    As long as progressives are talking about identity politics in 2008 they're helping McCain.

    Permit a simple (and perhaps simplistic) analogy that highlights the severe limitations to focusing primarily on race, sex, religion, marital status, children, etc....

    My doctor is a Latina. She was born in the US to parents who grew up in Mexico City. She is married and has two children. She lives in the Pacific Northwest.

    Questions: Is she a good doctor? Does she diagnose illness accurately? Does she have care and concern for her patients? Is knowlegable about the latest research in her field? What do her patients say about her?

    Can I answer intelligently any of the aforementioned questions based on the sex, ethnicity, marital status, or geographical location of my doctor's house?

    NO dumbass!

    Earth to American Voters: Clarence Thomas and Jesse Jackson are both black. Gloria Steinam and Phyllis Schlafly are both women. Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader are both white men. John McCain and Barack Obama are both married and have children.

    I don't care if my doctor has breasts; I don't care if Sarah Palin has breasts. I only care if my doctor practices effective medicine and if Sarah Palin advocates policies that will help our nation and world (ah...she won't).

    Blue Oregon contributors and those seeking to actually help voters make intelligent decisions would do well to have a laser-like focus on the voting records and policy proposals of those seeking power.

  • Douglas K. (unverified)

    This isn't a blow for equality. It's flat-out tokenism. If Palin didn't have breasts, she wouldn't have been in the top hundred names on the short list. When the Republicans chose a woman based on her actual qualifications, without regard to her sex, it'll be a landmark.

  • DanK (unverified)

    Sarah Palin is another Clarance Thomas. She, like Thomas, benefited from decades of hard work by progressives. It is work they would have never undertaken. It's work they now fight against.

    The GOP is full of these sort of sham reformers. They ruthlessly battle equality, but when they finally loose and justice prevails, they proudly take an unearned spot inside the winners circle.

    It's yet another charming quirk of today's GOP. The liar's party.

  • (Show?)

    I don't care if my doctor has breasts; I don't care if Sarah Palin has breasts. I only care if my doctor practices effective medicine and if Sarah Palin advocates policies that will help our nation and world (ah...she won't).

    Personally, I agree. It's actually an easy analogy for me because my very long-time family doctor is a woman. She's no beauty queen by any stretch of the imagination. But then I wasn't looking for a beauty queen, I was looking for a competent doctor and the fact that she hasn't taken any new patients - and indeed had to hire a Nurse Practioner to carry part of the load - speaks to her competence and popularity.

    Be that as it may, McCain is making a naked gender play with the Palin pick. There's just no way to wipe the lipstick off that particulal pig.

  • truffula (unverified)

    Eventually, as women proved themselves men's equal in matters of the brain, men shifted their vanity to their brawn.

    Jeff, I know you are trying to be pro-feminist with this post but take a look at the above statement. Sexism is not about women's capabilities, it's about societal perceptions of women's capabilities. Women don't have anything to prove, men (or more broadly, our society) have attitudes to correct. It's also worth pointing out that we are nowhere near such a state of affairs.

    I'm just old enough to remember the jokes about "women drivers."

    If anybody thinks those days are over, they are living in a bubble. Just last week on the Streetcar I overheard some dude commenting to his friends, in all seriousness, about how women have poor map-reading skills.

    I recommend Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog for some basics.

  • (Show?)

    What Kari said. It is definitely the case that Palin was chosen because she's a woman, and it was definitely a cynical (and probably doomed) attempt to woo female voters. But it's not a choice the Republicans could have considered even a decade ago. Why? Because they were too sexist to have considered it.

    Karol, I don't think you've taken in the significance of what it means that many Republican men have gone crazy for Palin. I don't think they've taken in the significance. A generation ago, a woman on the ticket was a punchline to half the country. There's no way to make a serious argument that we as a country aren't ready for a female pres.

    Yeah, say what you will about Palin. But it says something about America.

  • (Show?)

    The only landmark we've hit is men still think women are stupid and can't tell the difference between two female candidates.


    None of the GOP woman, including Palin herself, think that swing voting woman are that stupid?

  • (Show?)

    I should also add, in response to truffala's comment, that men actually have some special insight into sexism. We hear things that are spoken of only among men. (Race, too, has this dimension.) And I'm hear to tell you, as a man who's heard some pretty nasty asides, that Palin has broken a barrier.

  • Dan Estes. (unverified)

    Inasmuch as I love being typecast as a cynical social troglodyte by people who don't know me, I must take issue with the basic premise that only Democrats can encourage equality, see past race and gender, and promote change...sincerely.

    Could some of the folks from BlueOregon take a moment to explain to me why the Republican base is so excited? McCain has NEVER been the darling of the fact, most of us are rather lukewarm about the man. He has screwed us just as much as he's screwed you. But Palin has been a breath of fresh air for our party. I know many of you will line up to disagree, but we find her intelligent, sincere, well-spoken, and grounded in many of the conservative principles that we felt McCain was just giving lip service to. It's not about her gender.

    Palin isn't going to pull any votes from the Left who just want to see a woman in the VP spot. That's pretty ridiculous, and that line of logic insults everyone, and especially women, by casting them as mercurial opportunists.

    What Palin is going to deliver will be the Republican Base. The previously unmotivated, lukewarm base who were not that excited about voting for McCain. To be sure, Palin was a strategic move...and a very good one. But it's not women that McCain was trying to attract. It was his own base. And he's done it masterfully.

    Sure, it's nice to see my party rally behind a woman. especially when the Left has howled for years that only they are the true standard bearers for gender equality. But I then remember that when black men and women have risen by merit to high positions under Republican administrations...they are castigated as race traitors and are only serving their neocon masters in a veiled attempt to buy votes.

    So really what I hear is that it's great for a woman or a minority to succeed, but only if they toe the line on Democrat talking points and principles. Only then has progress REALLY been made. Anything else is just reprehensibly cynical gamesmanship.

  • Leslie Carlson (unverified)

    My mother--part of that landmark generation of women who juggled work and family in the 60s and 70s and smacked hard into the glass ceiling--was an ardent Hilary supporter. But since the Palin announcement, she's gone from being a mild supporter of Obama to outright activism--registering voters and housing a campaign staffer in her basement.

    I think Sarah Palin's greatest gift to progressives may have been the mobilization of women (and men) who might otherwise have sat out the race until voting time.

  • (Show?)

    Yup, Leslie.

    There's an argument that Sarah Palin is galvanizing progressive women to work for Obama precisely because of the perception that she'd be a failure and an embarrassment, not to mention that her policies are bad for women. I've heard plenty of progressive women worry that if Palin wins the veep job, it'll set women back a generation, not carry them forward.

  • Dan Estes (unverified)

    Well, well, who's being cynical?

  • (Show?)

    I want a woman doctor. It's no fun to have a man looking at my lady parts, I'm not above it. There are some places where gender and racial identity still matter because we still live in a world were we cannot look at each other without some sort of bias. That is not necessarily bad in all situations. I want someone Black to "do" my hair, I want a woman to look at my lady parts, I want someone from Panama (or Cuba or Puerto Rico) to make my Latina favorite meals.

    But in politics, while gender and race identifiers help, it doesn't seal the deal. Yes, Jeff, the R's have come at least a step in admitting that their party would accept a woman. I have a hard time believing they are excited beyond the idea that they assume they have a trump card against the half Black candidate. They are remiss in assuming that women wouldn't look beyond the gender. While Palin is impressive with her charm and obvious political talents (even though her resume is light, sometimes people just have it, and she does) her ideals do not match with mine therefore the R's take me for a fool.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)

    What Douglas K said.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    The Real Sarah Palin:

  • (Show?)

    I am about to go offline, possibly for the evening, so two points and then have at it.

    1. There is a difference between the policies Sarah Palin will deliver and how they affect women and the social phenomenon of a conservative party selecting her as their Veep. I am aware of both issues. Not adroitly, I attempted to ignore the first, which was not the point of this post.

    2. Sarah Palin rightly enrages good lefties. (Let's keep in mind that feminism isn't a philosophy only women embrace.) But that rage is not was causes glee among so many Republicans. That her pick enrages us is only gravy--they actually like her. So now we have examples of all kinds of Americans who would be happy to have women be their leader. Yes, Palin's a disaster, but having all kinds of Americans who would accept women as their leader is no small thing.

  • (Show?)

    Inasmuch as I love being typecast as a cynical social troglodyte by people who don't know me, I must take issue with the basic premise that only Democrats can encourage equality, see past race and gender, and promote change...sincerely.

    First of all, I'd just like to say that we don't use the word "troglodyte" enough in conversation. It trips off the tongue so nicely!

    I'm not sure anyone has said that "only Democrats" can encourage equality...etc. What I'm reading is that Republicans don't do it. As a general rule, that's correct.

    Someone smarter than me once said, "a woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." From my spot in the cheap seats, that seems to be the case. Republicans appear to put corporatism, personal greed and the control of the personal lives of those around them as their highest priority set.

    That's not to say that there aren't outliers in the GOP. I'm sure we could come up with a few exceptions to prove the rule.

    But as Karol said upthread here: I have a hard time believing they are excited beyond the idea that they assume they have a trump card against the half Black candidate. They are remiss in assuming that women wouldn't look beyond the gender.

    Based on the last three decades of GOP ideological history, I don't see how any other logical conclusion can be reached.

  • (Show?)

    Wait for it--after Biden cleans the floor with Palin in their SINGLE scheduled debate, he'll be cruxified by GOP supporters for beating up a girl--and the press will join in saying that "Biden was too tough blah blah blah." Guaranteed--the collective wisdom of the pundits will award the debate to Palin, regardless of her performance. Double-points if Biden attacks her on a "private" issue; triple points if she almost (but not quite) cries.

    Sorry, Jeff, but we'll all be feminists when it's ok for a policy wonk like Biden to hand an ignoramus like Palin her ass without getting penalized for it.

  • LT (unverified)

    This talk ignores history:

    Inasmuch as I love being typecast as a cynical social troglodyte by people who don't know me, I must take issue with the basic premise that only Democrats can encourage equality, see past race and gender, and promote change...sincerely.<<

    John B. Anderson (Republican from Illinois) voted for the Open Housing Bill after Martin Luther King was shot--as a tribute to King.

    In Oregon, Norma Paulus, Nancy Ryles, Mary Alice Ford and other women were heroic figures even to women who normally voted for Democrats.

    It is only in the last few decades that politics has become so polarized.

  • Dan Estes (unverified)

    Carla, you need to get out more. Not just out, but out of the echo chamber. Out of the Groupthink. Out of the bubble that insists that Democrats have absolute monopoly on good ideas, good intentions and good people...any more than the Republicans do.

    We all like to think we are right. We all like to think our friends are right. We all like to believe that we fight for what is right...and our opponents represent what is wrong. That makes it easy - easy to say, easy to explain, and easy to print.

    But it's not. Anyone who tries to make you think it's that simple to pigeonhole people and stereotype them into right and wrong, left and right, conservative and progressive...well, they are selling something. And our citizens have bought it for long enough, and for the wrong reasons. Sooner or later, that hatred we all carry around will burn us out.

  • truffula (unverified)

    Jeff: actually have some special insight into sexism. We hear things that are spoken of only among men. (Race, too, has this dimension.)

    And yet you wrote a patronizing sentence about how we women eventually managed to "prove" our worth, to prove we are just as smart and talented as men. I would suggest that it requires more than recognizing sexism when you hear/see it to be pro-feminist just as it requires more than recognizing racism when you hear/see it to be anti-racist.

  • Karl M. (unverified)

    HAHA - A skinny guy with a beard blogging about "the Ascent of Feminism" on BO! Yeah, Jeff you're the perfect progressive to lecture everyone on that...


    Slow news day?

  • (Show?)
    I must take issue with the basic premise that only Democrats can encourage equality, see past race and gender, and promote change...sincerely.

    Here's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats in 2008:

    Hillary Clinton ran on her own merits and as her own person and she E-A-R-N-E-D a national following on her own merits and as her own person.

    Sarah Palin was utterly off the national GOP radar screen until a man who had ran on his own merits and as his (allegedly) own person plucked her from the hinterlands (both physically and metaphorically) of conservatism.

    But Palin has been a breath of fresh air for our party.

    Perhaps so, but she's been Governor for a couple of years now and you all are just now getting excited about her???

    What was preventing Republicans from swooning over her before McCain picked her???

    Seriously, Dan. Take issue with whatever floats yer boat but it seems to me that you've failed to even make an interesting case much less a compelling one.

  • (Show?)

    And yet you wrote a patronizing sentence about how we women eventually managed to "prove" our worth

    Truffula, I have no control over how you feel, but the sentence wasn't patronizing. Not any more than this one: "They lacked judgment and common sense." The point of the sentence is to highlight the absurdity of the sexist view.

    I'm never sure how to handle charges that I'm sexist from people who've never met me. But perhaps we're still at the stage where those with Y chromosomes need not voice an opinion. I hope not.

  • (Show?)

    Carla, you need to get out more. Not just out, but out of the echo chamber. Out of the Groupthink. Out of the bubble that insists that Democrats have absolute monopoly on good ideas, good intentions and good people...any more than the Republicans do.

    Dan: Seriously dude, lighten the hell up. I didn't say any of that crap you're babbling about--so stop assigning your brain refuse to me.

    Go back, read what I said and when you decide to drop the victimhood and can get real on this, let's talk. There's no sense in even engaging without you laying down your whine and getting serious.

  • (Show?)

    Feminism is not only about promoting individual leaders. In my opinion, that's feminism at its weakest.

    Feminism means embracing a broad spectrum of progressive ideals. It’s about some fundamental policy issues, such as equal pay, freedom of choice, support for working families and women’s education, and providing resources to fight violence against women. It's about tolerance, acceptance, embracing difference.

    Sarah Palin and John McCain, in these terms, are the farthest image of feminism I can imagine.

  • Brian C. (unverified)

    Hat tip to Dan Estes for the most salient post thus far- seriously!

    Fact is, were about to witness the first African-American President or the first female Vice President in U.S. history. Regardless of ones partisan leanings or political ideology, I'd like to think that even the least rational among us can easily see the significance of that.

    Don't like Palin, her politics, think she's under qualified? Fine, and I'd tend to agree. However, relegating her as something less than female because she does not conform to your particular political ideology makes you appear as little more than a partisan hack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it less than 100 years ago when women weren't even allowed to vote?

    Marginalize her based on her record or lack thereof. Scrutinize her views. That's perfectly fair. Suggesting that she's less than female because she doesn't espouse your brand of feminism sounds...well, misogynistic.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)

    Palin will likely be recognized as a genuine social revolutionary. She kicked in the door to the stodgy, tired, lifeless feminist girls club and is single-handedly redefining what had become an irrelevant social philosophy.

    The movement lost any cache when it became hijacked by activists who demanded adherence to a narrow set of political views in order to be considered a true feminist. In doing so they disenfranchised a huge segment of American women who have found a champion in Palin.

    She is showing the old feminist dogma for what it was, an intellectual corset that restricted real advancement in society for women.

    Palin’s candidacy is bringing feminism back to what it was intended to be, a social philosophy that embraced women all across the political spectrum. That explains why dinosaurs like Gloria Steinem have their panties in such a bunch. They see the train roaring out of the station with Palin at the controls and no way to stop it.

    You may not agree with her politics but you have to admire what she has accomplished for women.

  • RW (unverified)

    Let's see if you open that can wide up: men particularly like Sarah and women are not specially caring for her in the polls - from her side of the bed, that is, not "ours".

    This is ALSO about sex as distinct from gender, folks. NOW: anyone want to take a crack, more deeply, at the seedier side of the gender sociology/sexual sexuosociopolital dynamics in full-but-hidden play? I've been WAITING for someone to finally start this conversation, since my few lame attempts for a few weeks simply did not provide spark.

    This is not just about gender, and nobody is really quite uncorking that yet. Jeff, please talk a little more about what men are so anxious to leave behind them -- the asides that are still being spoken and are NOT gone, just because you might be hearing a few more of the other kind of comments?

    I'll take my comments off the air, thanks.

  • (Show?)

    You may not agree with her politics but you have to admire what she has accomplished for women.

    That's the thing, though. She hasn't accomplished anything especially noteworthy. If she had then we would have been having this discussion BEFORE McSame picked her.

    If anyone deserves credit it's McSame and Hillary Clinton, not Palin. She's not in the public eye because of her merits... she's there because of McSame's merits, and that only because of Hillary Clinton's merits.

    If Hillary hadn't run... Actually, if Hillary hadn't come so close to securing the Democratic nomination on her own ability and moxy then we'd be discussing the McSame/Lieberman ticket right now.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    It's about tolerance, acceptance, embracing difference.

    Kirstin - except of course, when that difference is "conservative", then you don't embrace difference at all. Do you? So and alas, this ceases to be about feminism or embracing 'difference' and just becomes merely a political ideology. So much for tolerance.

    Of the things listed by Kirstin list (equal pay, freedom of choice, support for working families and women’s education, and providing resources to fight violence against women) Sarah believes and advocates in those 100% of all of those except "freedom of choice." Which is 100% of what all the opposition is about. Just say it, you know it's true. That one issue trumps everything - right?

    The Progressive Willie Brown was on the FNC today and said that while he disagrees with Palin's personal beliefs he is impressed that she has never governed by pushing her personal belief.

    Unlike "progressives", conservatives govern more like libertarians, letting the people decide.

    The more I listen/read to The Progressive, Willie Brown, the more I think this site has little to nothing in common with being a progressive but more in common with marxism.

    Regarding Palin and Feminism - Educate, learn and understand:

  • (Show?)

    Sarah Palin was the most qualified person in the United States to be John McCain's running mate! It had nothing to do with her gender! Just like Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person in the United States to serve on the Supreme Court! It had nothing to do with his race! What the hell is the MATTER with you people?


  • truffula (unverified)

    charges that I'm sexist

    Jeff, I didn't write that you are sexist. I have no way of knowing and would imagine that you are not. But please, examine the assertion that the way oppression is ended is by the oppressed person proving to their oppressor that they are worthy of equal treatment and liberty (by overcoming the barriers that the oppressor sets before them). This was the subject of my first comment. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and all that.

  • ws (unverified)

    Any chance Sarah Palin might be a secret Osmond love child? This whole hard-core fundamentalism viewpoint on life, cute as a button looks is just to uncannily similar to members of that clan to be a coincidence.

    Never in my wildest imagination did I think the republicans would come up with someone like this person for VP. McCain must have called up some Hollywood sitcom writers and asked them who he could choose, since 'Jessica Rabbit is not a real person'.

    I actually like Ms Palin because she's cute. Hell of a lot better looking than that old dog Biden. Better looking than Obama too.

    She might not yet have developed a clear understanding of what the Bush Doctrine is, but does that really matter? If she ever has a chance to meet Osama...that's right...the guy allegedly hiding out over in the deserts of Mesopotamia somewhere...eyeball to eyeball, she'll slap him upside the head so fast, straightening him out on just who's God is the big guy on this planet. Palin gets in there...Osama's done, yep.

    Should she have occasion to find herself needing a way to deal with a guy like Putin, I'm confident she'll be able to think of something. Seems like Palin knows a little something about improvising when the going gets tough.

  • edison (unverified)

    All this talk about Palin. It only shows how little this country and in particular, both major political parties understand about the role women can play in governance. Both parties remain bastions of maleness. We all suffer the consequences.

  • (Show?)

    I have to agree with Dan here.

    Jeff writes: It is the party that resists change, and holds onto cherished, fixed beliefs.

    and Carla write Someone smarter than me once said, "a woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

    These are awfully comfortable, self-congratulatory positions, but neither have much basis in reality.

    Both parties have their status quo elements. The Democratic Party in the late 1970s and early 1980s in particular was really in a morass, stuck in amber on foreign policy and in many ways on economic policy.

    As to Carla, your retort to Dan really ducked the issue. Check out some polling data on women's attitudes toward abortion just to start. If you think a strong majority of women support choice, you'd better check again.

    If the Democratic Party thinks that the millions of women who vote GOP are just foolish or misguided, we'll lost this election.

    Thomas Frank was wrong about working class whites. Democrats should not make the same mistake about white married women.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    Since you believe that Sarah doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, you must also believe Trig is her grandson and that both the trooper and the commissioner in Tasergate were honorable people.

    There is ALOT of ignorance about Palin at this site.

    Charlie sure goofed the Bush Doctrine:

    Compare her Gibson interview answer side by side with Obama's over the past months and you get about a 95% correlation. The remaining 5% is that she actually answered hypothetical questions and Obama says that he doesn't want to tip his hand or says that answer is above his pay grade.

    If Sarah says it - it's bad and evil. When Obama/Biden say the same thing, is wonderful. Go figure.

    Charlie Gibson is interviewing her, and she says this about terrorists who want to hurt or kill Americans.

    PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink.

    Charlie Gibson went nuts. February 26th, Cincinnati, Ohio, MSNBC, Democrat debate, Tim Russert to Obama. "Is your contention America would be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander-in-chief?"

    OBAMA: If we have actual intelligence against Bin Laden or other key Al-Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should.

    So she's unqualified, she's insane, she's lunatic, she's unprepared, she's ill-equipped. And Obama is qualified to be president. He says, "If Pakistan's unwilling, we'll go in anyway." Now, let's listen to Obama and Palin on Iran nukes, and let's play number three first. This is July 23rd, this year, in Israel, the ill-fated world intern trip for Obama. He said this about a nuclear Iran.

    OBAMA: A nuclear Iran would pose a great threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    And Charlie Gibson talking to Sarah Palin on the same subject.

    PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons.

    You know, she's unqualified, she's the hair trigger risk, she's ill-equipped. Obama's a genius. They're basically saying the same things here. This is Israel, this is June 4th, 2008, Senator Obama at an AIPAC convention.

    OBAMA: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.

    Here's Gibson with Palin last Thursday. "What if Israel decides it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?"

    PALIN: I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

    GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second-guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

    PALIN: I don't think we can second-guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

    GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

    PALIN: We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

    He tried to get her tripped up in every which way. She refused to budge. Obama, "I'll always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel." She's ill-equipped, she's unprepared, she's too risky, she's too dangerous, but Obama is brilliant, he's ready to lead.

    this is Obama in Hawaii while on vacation talking about Georgia and NATO.

    OBAMA: I consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.

    This is after he had a statement making a moral equivalence between Russia and Georgia, they're both responsible for Russia's invasion. Here is Palin answering the question, "Do you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?"

    PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes, yes, and Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.

    GIBSON: And then under the NATO treaty, would we then have to go to war if Russia invaded Georgia?

    PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

    When you actually compare Gibson's questions to Palin vs. Gibson's questions to Obama it's telling:

    Obama interview:
    How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
    How does it feel to “win”?
    How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
    Who will be your VP?
    Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
    Will you accept public finance?
    What issues is your campaign about?
    Will you visit Iraq?
    Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
    What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
    Palin interview:
    Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
    Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
    Questions about foreign policy
    -territorial integrity of Georgia
    -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
    -NATO treaty
    -Iranian nuclear threat
    -what to do if Israel attacks Iran
    -Al Qaeda motivations
    -the Bush Doctrine
    -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
    Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

    Palin's answer's in comparison with Obama's shows that Hatred inhibits a person's ability to think or reason.

  • ryan (unverified)

    The Republicans are throwing this election. They'll be back in 4 to blame Obama for not fixing Bush's mess.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)

    The real effect will only be known after the election.

    If the R's lose, what role will Palin have in the Rep. National party. If the R's win, what role will she have in the adminsitration.

    I suspect when the R's lose, Palin will go back to Alaska and the Republican hierarchy will let her be consumed by troopergate.

  • (Show?)

    As to Carla, your retort to Dan really ducked the issue. Check out some polling data on women's attitudes toward abortion just to start. If you think a strong majority of women support choice, you'd better check again.

    Paul--I'm aware of the polling on abortion. Its about split, as I understand it. But does that make the GOP efforts to restrict it a good thing for women, in general? And what of issues of economics..? Education..?

    There is a definite lack of understanding by progressives as to why some people continue to vote Republican despite GOP policies that undermine their lives. But make no mistake--that's exactly what they're doing.

  • (Show?)


    You have a serious misunderstanding of the Republican platform if you think they are for women's education, equal pay (go Google the Fair Pay Restoration Act and check how McCain voted) and violence against women (again, McCain not only voted against the Violence Against Women Act, but voted against funding for free exams for rape victims).

    This is the ticket that Palin has joined. They are both outstandingly bad for women.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)

    But of course the Hillary-only-lost-because-Obama-and-his-fans-hate-women crowd will read everything here as yet one more confirmation of their thesis....

  • (Show?)

    The Republicans are throwing this election. They'll be back in 4 to blame Obama for not fixing Bush's mess.

    There were folks who made the same argument in 1992. And sure enough, we went into a recession right away. But I think it turned out pretty well in the end.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    K - Well that definition/response is, well ideological and not at all about feminism! Republicans want to pay women less and then beat them, because of two bad pieces of legislation. Classy!

    Your "proof" just proves my point - your beef is with a political ideology and not about feminism, and you still don't embrace difference.

    This makes me sick - I can't stand the swiftboating of Palin:


    Here's how come the Dems are tied in an "unlosable" election:

    "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked today what actions Congress can take, said, bluntly, "No one knows what to do. We are in new territory here. This is a different game. We're not here playing soccer, basketball or football, this is a new game and we're going to have to figure out how to do it."

    Either the Dems are clueless or they don't want to point out they contributed to this mess. The economic turmoil is caused by mortgages which have Dems fingerprints all over them. Can you say Freddie and Fannie.

    Who put a former F/F CEO on their campaign staff?

    Who is the #2 taker of F/F lobbying money over a 10 year period but was only in the Senate for 3 years?

    Tom Delay is envious!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)

    It is significant that most Republicans are alright with a woman VP candidate. On the other hand, she was selected because she is a woman, not in spite of it. That was a cynical ploy on McCain's part. Palin's credentials are quite weak, whatever sex she is.

  • Virginia Harris (unverified)

    Hooray for the suffragettes...

    Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

    Even on the question of whether women should vote!

    Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

    Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as 'anti.'

    The most influential 'anti' lived in the White House -- First Lady Edith Wilson.

    I'd like to share a women's history learning opportunity...

    "The Privilege of Voting" is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

    It's a real-life soap opera about the suffragettes! And it's ALL true!

    Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

    There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

    Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!

    Exciting, sequential episodes with lots of historical photos are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

    Subscribe free at

  • inbf (unverified)

    At the heart of feminism is the right to participate. This is the issue, rather than policies and platforms. The dems did not allow a far more qualified candidate to participate and did allow far flung sexism. This opened up an opportunity for the repubs. Now you say it is cynical for the repubs to take the obvious opportunity, but if that is true then it is equally true that the dems threw the opportunity away.

    I think Palin will indeed draw many women. Many female voters are not our brand of west coast liberal and many are those famed "cross over voters" who crossed over for Clinton. Obama does not automatically get those votes that she worked for, just as she would not have automatically gotten the evangelical vote that Obama has worked so hard for.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    To steal from Tom:

    It is significant that most [Democrats] are alright with a[n] [African American] [Presidential] candidate. On the other hand, [he] was selected because [he] is a[n] [African American], not in spite of it. That was a cynical ploy on [the Democrats] part. [Obama's] credentials are quite weak, whatever [race] [he] is.

    Americans know that Obama "runs" his campaign and Palin runs a state. Most senate staffers have more Senatorial experience than Obama.

    To even think that it's significant that R's are alright with a woman Veep shows that there are those in this world who still believe the stereotypes they create for thier political opponents. Have you ever heard of person named Margaret Thatcher?

    Least you believe the racist stereotype being propogated by the Left, Rassmussen (or Gallup) did a poll prior the R's convention of a head to head Colin Powell or McCain as the Pres Nominee. R's said Powell 66% McCain 33%.

    So much for racism...but don't let facts change your thinking...carry on....

  • Jiang (unverified)

    But "feminism" is an abstract; "the candidate" is a particular. I have nothing against anyone's prejudice if it doesn't control behavior. I think a friend of mine in Texas has the balance right. She announced about 5 years ago that she was never voting for another man, regardless of party. Then, during the primary, she voted for Obama over Clinton.

    Principles are great as long as it doesn't keep you from ignoring the facts. The fact is Sarah Palin is the coming storm, a new dark age, not a particular example of the effect of feminism. My god, she gave her reproductive rights over to the opinions of old men! Is Gordon Smith green because he's an Oregonian?

    McCain does take pains to act inclusive. Maybe this is a good time to remember the TROLL he had espousing his financial policy a while back, a potential Secretary of the Treasury...shudder, cringe and a quick barf...PHIL GRAMM! There. Never say I haven't done my part for turnout. Look no further for disaster scenarios. The likes of Palin and Gramm running your life.

    Dems are doing much better than last time on the "who would Joe Average have to dinner", test. Hasn't failed since before the Great Depression.

  • (Show?)


    You make no sense -- aside from outrageous hyperbole, there is no reasonable feminist alive who would disagree with notion that feminism is essential for making political gains EXACTLY like VAWA and Fair Pay.

    If John McCain, a politician, wants to make a difference in women's lives (a feminist act) he will change how he votes entirely.

  • inbf (unverified)

    OK, "facts" ? Yes Palin is a storm, for the dems. dems are unhinged about her. And it had devolved into personal attacks. I have a picture of the dems as trowing themselves to the ground, screaming, rolling around, crying, in fits of tantrums wailing "Palin! Palin! Be Afraid, -Palin" Frankly, it is embarrassing. This is the dems' version of 'being passionate'. It is destructive to the party and is not political discourse (which hardly seems to exist any more)

    Look, the real dark age is and was Bush. It will not be undone quickly.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    Kristin - you sound like Olberman who said there was nothing critical anyone could say about Obama's convention speech. (Nothing, really?)

    So you are only supporting feminism if and only if a politician supports two pieces of legislation - otherwise, as a politician you "against" equal pay and "for" violence against women.

    Can't one be for equal pay and against a bill that would result in lawyer taking money hard earned money from women?

    Charging rape victims for exams is stupid and cruel. I'll concede the worst, which was that that is an unforgivably stupid policy, and that should have overturned.

    However, I'd like to have Obama fans explain why that error in judgment is superior to voting "present" when dealing with "a bill permitting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information."

    and why rape victims in Illinois are occasionally still charged.

  • (Show?)

    He voted present because he wanted the bill to be stronger and better funded. And as to the second, Barack Obama was not in charge of every policy in Illinois.

    In contrast, John McCain not only offered his wife up for a bikini contest and called her a c..t, but voted against Title X funding for women's health care, voted against the use of federal funds for abortions for military women even if they had been raped, and he voted against funds for the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which, among other things, help children who are the victims of sexual abuse. As for some of the provisions of VAWA (lawyer taking money from women?), McCain voted against counseling programs for children who have witnessed their mother being beaten by a partner.

    He's the farthest thing possible from being a feminist.

  • inbf (unverified)

    Kristin, things are simply not that black and white. Whether you like it or not McCain has been reaching out to women voters. He included a woman on his ticket. His campaign has many high level women advisors and his campaign pays them well. After all the bla bla bla (talk talk talk) is subtracted he does have at least some sort of record. Rothchild, a member of the DNC platform committee came out today and endorsed McCain. Sanford, chair of TN dem women's pac also jumped ship and endorsed McCain. To my knowledge neither has officially left the dem party. I would suspect that the mere inclusion of a woman on a ticket is regarded as positive. Since both were Clinton supporters then the dem party refusal to include her, in any way, on the ticket might be a factor too. Many see that exclusion of Clinton as extremely anti-feminist in the most basic sense.

  • Randy (unverified)

    Palen sure has the feminazi panties in a wad. Did people see what that crazy bitch Wendy Doniger said about Palen? That is some funny stuff when other women are saying that Palen isn't even a woman because of her views. Hey, I don't share many views with Obama but I'm not stupid enough to say he isn't a man. He is just a man with some different beliefs then me. Feminists got a black eye when they took Bill Clinton's side of the Monica deal and now they've really shown how lost they are with their attacks on Palen. Evidently being a feminist isn't about empowerment for women, it has become some sort of narrow minded cult where you have to have certain beliefs or else you can't be in the club. No wonder so many women these days think feminists are idiots and they don't want anything to do with the movement.

  • (Show?)

    While us feminists could get upset at extremely offensive people like yo'selves, Randy, but what we really don't like is the extreme anti-woman agenda of McCain.

    As the minutes pass, Palin becomes more and more irrelevant. Not so much of a big deal to me.

  • (Show?)

    Most senate staffers have more Senatorial experience than Obama.

    That's precisely why Obama is the only one even remotely qualified to bring actual change to Washington DC.

    Set aside for the moment McSame's 26 years of membership in the Good Ol' Boys Club he claims to oppose. In 2000 Tucker Eskew & pals were the braintrust behind the racist whisper campaign against McCain. Later, after having conceded the race to The Shrub, McCain said, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

    I was as staunch a McCain supporter and defender back then as you'd have found anywhere on the planet.

    By fucking HIRING Tucker Eskew a couple weeks ago to work for his campaign McCain proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is, in fact, McSame and utterly unworthy of our respect much less our votes.

    I'm far from the only ex-McCainiac who has realized that either the McSame of 2008 is not the McCain of 2000 or that perhaps McSame is all there's ever been: How John McCain Lost Me

  • joel dan walls (unverified)

    My friends, I just want to say, when Sarah Palin and I are running the US government, my friends, I will help find johnnie a day job so he's no longer at risk of carpal tunnel friends.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Randy, knock off the language. If you haven't the words to express yourself beyond sexist slurs, we can start deleting the Limbaugh boilerplate. I'll leave it there for now as a testament to your erudition.

    As it happens, if this is Wendy Doniger the religion scholar from U Chicago, I missed it. My guess is that she could outwit you in her sleep, though, so I'd be interested to see a link.

  • RebeccaWhetstine (unverified)

    Umm, Tom, that's "gender"; " matter what 'gender' she is...". Sex as a term needs to remain distinct at this time given the undiscussed or joked-at dynamics also now activated in the campaign.

    And: I agree with you. Now - what specifically is the significance of the Repub pash for Palin? Interested in your take.

    Yours for Forward-Working Verbiage, Bex

  • Supremely Amused (unverified)

    Gee,'s a bit late to start sticking up for women now, isn't it?

  • also amused (unverified)

    Those who like to think of themselves and call themselves "liberals" "progressives" and "feminists" are actually extremely sexist. Now everyone can see it and the fake left is in denial. Yeah, temper tantrums and pretending to care about sexism.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)


    Think before you type, man. Obama was chosen by millions of voters. Palin was chosen by John McCain. The millions of voters who chose Obama were looking for a good president. John McCain was looking to revive a moribund campaign.


    It seems the World Health Organization agrees with you.

  • randy (unverified)


    Just do a search on Wendy Doniger and you'll find her feminazi attack on Palin. Can't see how you missed it, everyone has been laughing at it for the last few days. Doniger does a great job of exposing the loonie left for what they are. When middle America reads the stupid stuff that whack jobs like Doniger publish they respond in a rather negative manner.

  • Andy (unverified)


    Interesting thread. Check out this weeks issue of the Economist and you'll find an on Palin titled "The triumph of feminism". Or read Camille Paglia's article over on about Palin. Paglia says Palin is the greatest leap forward for feminism since Madonna.

    Seems the only ones who aren't accepting that Palin is a move forward for feminists are the hard core feminists! That is some funny stuff right there.

  • genop (unverified)

    If you want to tout feminist role models, look no further than Condi Rice. Regardless of whether you agree with her politics, she is accomplished and meaningful to the Administration. Palin is only meaningful to the election. She's a token right wing cheerleader. Do you think McCain would ever seriously seek her counsel? Why hasn't anyone developed the Palin doll, you know the ones which repeat the same phrases over and over when you pull the string? C'mon toy makers Christmas is around the bend.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    Tom, The number of votes a person gets doesn't count toward experience, only that voters want an inexperienced person President.

    So is one McCain vote worth as much as millions of Democrat votes?

    Kristin, McCain voted no on those two pieces of legislation because he wanted those bills to be stronger. Is that how it works? Nice, I like this new progressive logic.

    JDW, my friends....i have an ergonmically safe environment, my friends. Besides, my friends, it won't be you and Palin, it'll be you and the former Freddie and Fannie & Lehman management, as they seem to be on Obama's Economic Advisor Team. With and advisory team like that Obama will make the Great Depression seem like a cakewalk, my friends.

    Today's Democratic funny:

    Chuck Schumer's said this about John McCain's calling for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox.

    “Instead of firing Cox, McCain should explain how his policies differ from President Bush on this issue,” added Sen. Chuck Schumer.

    How does McCain differ from Bush on this issue? Well, for starters, McCain... wants to fire Chris Cox.

    I mean, I realize it's tough to spot that difference.

    What next, instead of privacy rights activists calling for an investigation into the hacking of Palin's email account they'll look the other way? Opps, never mind, privacy right's activist are the ones who are probably calling Bristol's and Todd's cell phones.

  • (Show?)

    Claiming that he'd fire the SEC chief is a "policy" difference between McCain and Bush?

    Here's the thing with McCain and making claims... he lies. Just like when he claimed that he thinks there's a special place in hell for asswipes like Tucker Eskew, who spawned the most viciously biggoted rumors about McCain's adopted daughter, and then McSame turns around and hires Eskew.

    That, my dear johnnie, is the action of a man who has ZERO moral compass.

  • inbf (unverified)

    Andy, That Paglia article was excellent. Appreciated the heads up.

  • (Show?)


    It works well if you don't count for the fact that it's a flat-out lie. Other than that, yeah, good. Lying seems to be the Republican coda these days, so stay the course. It's working so well.

  • (Show?)

    oh and btw, presidents don't have the authority to fire SEC chiefs...considering McCain has been in the Senate for a couple of decades, he might have picked up on that one. Maybe he was busy, maybe there were Andy Griffith reruns on over at the Senate barbershop.....

  • johnnie (unverified)

    Firing Cox is not a policy difference, Obama mocks McCain's firing Cox statement (and still has Fannie, Freddie, and Lehaman executives on his economic advisory team - egads!), hacking into someone's email account is heroic because we can now investigate bogus fraud charges, Garafalo advocates putting conservatives in jail for their philosophy (Bill Mahr), it's patriotic to pay more taxes, taking a 1993 Limbaugh quote completely out of context on NAFTA and putting into your campaign ad regarding immigration policy, and truthfully asking questions about your opponents judgment is now Lies!

    Remember, the stats shown 76% of Team Obama's ads are negative compared to 56% of Team McCain.

    Question: If Team Obama wins will I have to worry about the Thought Police coming to my door and making me a Slave?

  • (Show?)

    Question: If Team Obama wins will I have to worry about the Thought Police coming to my door and making me a Slave?

    Ask Tucker Eskew.

  • inbf (unverified)


    Its obviously over the top to ask if the thought police will make you a slave, but I can tell you, from first hand experience you will be thuggishly harassed. Many dems do not see this, but the dem party is turning into everything it has spent so much time hating for the past 8 years. It is not uplifting. At this point the two parties are the same. Nader is right about this.

  • RebeccaWhetstine (unverified)

    So Thomas, interested in your analysis of Repub useage of Palin. Are they really so stupid as to select a livewire candidate with a high-intensity style only to fantasize they can backburner her successfully if they win? Unpack this one, please. And why do men grin and like her and women are catalyzed to passionately react for and against in identification? On the feminism/suffrage hx thread an otherwise balanced woman poster lost her cool at the mere threat of being broadbrushed in some hue she does not like - something about feminists being racist, though it was not happening. She lost her ability to integrate the valuable HISTORICAL context and use it wisely... why are the polarizations running along such hot lines? The volatility is multifarious and not as subject to management or control as these politicos believe. At least mine ain't.

  • RebeccaWhetstine (unverified)

    INBF! Come to your senses, man. Saying, "reaching out to women" is tokenizing gender. Women are not some amorphous freakin' mass, my friend. He is "reaching out", if at all, to a SPECIFIC part of the base, HIS kind of woman. The early-campaign blather about capturing Hillary supporters via XX was tomfoolery (scuse me Civ') of the worst sort and luckily has fallen out of fashion. I am a raging individualist, and landed in the middle of a terrifically old-school gender-traditional marriage, bicultural, in the hollers and hitches of Oklahoma's Indian Country. IT was an accident, but I got an education. If there is any "reaching out" it's only to that subset of women who do not analyze the record and will accept what McCain/Palin dish as the official cant of who she is supposed to be. THis morning an interview with an anti-abortion, god-fearing, home-schooling, churchified mom showed that some of them notice that she is NOT their kind of woman in deed, and she is damned if she is going to vote for a ticket that contains Palin! That was a pleasant surprise. My disrespect for a certain subset of XX-genetics got a drubbing. THAT is worth living for.

  • rw (unverified)

    ps - oops, got lost in my diatribe. My point was that my blunder in landing in a gender-traditional setting taught me what that subset is about, how they live, how they think. We do indeed rarely ever share the same planet, according to the discoverings of that excursion. But I did find that us women from the divides were more likely to stretch a hand across the gap to each other than were the men to ever bend from their positions of overt dominance, control, strict gender-roles, hence the enforcement of the unfortunate male/female dynamics of the covert power/control women are so often lambasted for exhibiting. It was enforced. And these are the only women this man may "reach out" to. For him to think these women do not have their own thoughts and resentments is a characteristic mistake. I'm tellin' ya - crack the contemporary soc texts - that's where it's at on the deeper levels.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    Didn't anyone see Whoopi on The View ask McCain the same question?

    Kevin - I don't get it. Are you saying Team Obama will not make Tucker Eschew as slave because in 2000 he attacked McCain in similar ways Team Obama is now attacking McCain?

    Rebecca, come on admit it, the reason why you hate Palin is because she lives her Pro-life beliefs and yet doesn't shove her belief down people's throat (Alaskan conservatives are more libertarian than people in the lower 48 give them credit - she has never tried to legislate morality or her faith onto Alaskans). Further, regarding on "creationsim", her father was a Science teacher (public) who taught and believes evolution, as does she. She herself was not only taught evolution by her father (in public school), but knows the difference between science and theology (albiet a bad theology in my opinion).

    Your statement "THis morning an interview with an anti-abortion, god-fearing, home-schooling, churchified mom" is hateful, ignorant, bigoted and couldn't be further from the truth. The bigoted stereotypes that plagued minorities in this country have not died, but has moved to accomplished conservative women who have family's. It's obvious you know not of what you speak.

    I am sure it's ignorance like that which fuels the reaction of who care's when her privacy was hacked - perhaps by a Democrat congressman's son.

    It would be nice if you were to embrace difference.

  • rw (unverified)

    Johnnie: gotcha. You sure are a jumpy feller.

  • rw (unverified)

    sorry, spazzed and hit post. J, those attributes were not created by me. They were introduced by the interviewer talking to the woman and where her OWN references within her interview! I simply enumerated what I heard. The point to the news story was that women are unbelievably all over the map with this turn of events, and it's completely unreliable to go by stereotypes at this time. McCain cannot possibly be in touch with the radicalization he may have set off....

    Please calm yourself down.

    You don't know how god-fearin' I am, nor much of anything else although I am wildly disclosive, probably to the dismay of more than a few here. Your ranting is not very productive, and you do not seem willing to explain your bias and frame of reference. You simple stomp forward proclaiming it as truth, fact, something or other. Myself, I know nearly every belief/opinion espoused up here is connected to some bit of internal and personal storytelling. What's yours? It's not truth, or facts. It's your story.

    Goodness, if you saw the society I keep as a ceremonialist, you'd be having a different conversation with me. I express where I've been pungeantly. And those women from the hollers are my family, my sisters, and I love them like blood in the bone. And still have enough brain cells here to see the unhappy dynamic that existed there.

    As to conservative or liberal... good gawd. I'm not a liberal. I detest anyone who bleeds from the ears in one direction or the other - it interferes with their listening AND their hearing.

    Ask anyone who knows me, I'm a contrarian who is occassionally calm enough to be progressive. But NOT liberal. :)...

    Anyway, you sound awfully upset today/tonight. Try a cup of tea and some salts. It's not good for folks to be angry for hours on end!

    Take care, Bex

  • inbf (unverified)

    The whole thing is stranger and stranger -down another rabbit hole.

    "liberal" women are tripping over themselves to distance themselves from a female vp nominee (as they did for the former democratic presidential primary candidate). High-fiving each other about how oh-so-OMG-very-liberal they really are. Guess this is the "stand by your man" sort of thing. ?????

    Read the Paglia piece - it is good. Women, gays, racial minorities, etc, are inspiration for all of us. We all are invested in it. It is great that a mixed race of AA/ Caucasian is running and it is great that a female is running too. Period. Who cares, rw, what you call yourself - as in your political "label"? Or if you think some commenter should drink some tea or whatever.

    In my personal experience with the self ordained "left" it is a set up. Yes a set up. Idealistic, above it all, hopeful, better than everyone-else, vulnerable. Honestly, Lefties, the left is vulnerable to a "neo" takeover to the party like the right was to the "neo". Neoconservatives started out as the "neoliberals" - did you know that? Leo Strauss was the 'father'. The republican party became (because of a number of reasons and influences) vulnerable to a take over by the "neo"s. Now, if the dems are not SMART AND INTELLIGENT (which I doubt they are!!!) they will be equally vulnerable to a take over. The "neo"s do not care which party they function thru. Let me say that again.... THE "NEO"S DO NOT CARE WHICH PARTY THEY FUNCTION THRU.

    So, sigh, rw, you might be a cool chick and right for the nanosecond, but ......Oh whaaaaaa?

  • (Show?)

    Carla wrote: Paul--I'm aware of the polling on abortion. Its about split, as I understand it. But does that make the GOP efforts to restrict it a good thing for women, in general? And what of issues of economics..? Education..?

    There is a definite lack of understanding by progressives as to why some people continue to vote Republican despite GOP policies that undermine their lives. But make no mistake--that's exactly what they're doing.

    On the first, I don't presume to speak "for women, in general." You are better positioned than I am to understand women's issues, but a few postings above, you asserted that no woman could possibly vote GOP and be voting her self-interest (the Colonel Sanders comment).

    My point here is that you have an excessively narrow definition of what constitutes women's self-interest, I think projecting heavily from your own beliefs and lives. This is what prompted the "bubble" response.

    Yes, I can easily think of women for whom voting for John McCain is in their interest. They attend church every week. They are anti-abortion. They want voucher programs and school choice. They are moderate to conservative on economic policies.

    You may not think they exist, but there are millions and millions of women exactly like that.

    As to the second comment, I urge you and everyone to read Larry Bartels's many rejoinder to Thomas Frank.

    Frank's assertion that working class folks in Kansas were just misled and didn't understand their 'real' self-interest has been strongly disputed and I think basically destroyed.

    What progressives don't understand is that the GOP has had a very compelling appeal to working class voters for the past two decades, one that has systematically undermined the Democratic coalition.

    And if progressives think this is all just smoke and mirrors, and if folks could just see the light, then we'll suddenly have a Democratic majority for decades, then welcome back to minority status.

  • johnnie (unverified)

    RW no anger and I am clam. I did jump at that quote as if you wrote it. my apologies.

  • Jens (unverified)


    Of course. The feminist establishment has been unattractively petulant towards dissident feminist voices. The crackpot spirit of the sixties, a persona we ought to resurrect for feminism's sake, sought to equalize across party lines, which back then, were slightly less polarized. The abortion debate cleaved the feminist party in half, and today anyone that is pro-life couldn't possibly BE a feminist. What a pillow-fort! Are we children?

    Palin's good for feminism if only because she clings so bitterly to guns and religion. She HAS resurrected that radical spirit of the sixties, that can-do, screw-you, spirit, only she dressed the corpse up in Eileen Fisher and gave it a shotgun. It's a darn-tootin-moose-shootin feminism. Fantastic!

connect with blueoregon