I have a piece up at TAP:
Palin's addition to the ticket takes Republican faux-feminism to a whole new level. As Adam Serwer pointed out on TAPPED, this is in fact a condescending move by the GOP. It plays to the assumption that disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters did not care about her politics -- only her gender. In picking Palin, Republicans are lending credence to the sexist assumption that women voters are too stupid to investigate or care about the issues, and merely want to vote for someone who looks like them. As Serwer noted, it's akin to choosing Alan Keyes in an attempt to compete with Obama for votes from black Americans.[...]
It's clear that Republicans believe that what made Hillary Clinton such a good candidate was her gender, not her political experience or positions on the issues. And McCain's decision to pick Palin shows he took this message to heart and chose to add her to the ticket primarily because of her gender. In so doing, McCain has turned the idea of the first woman in the White House from a true moment of change to an empty pander.
Why is this a pander? Because Palin is not a woman who has a record of representing women's interests. She is beloved by extremely right-wing conservatives for her anti-choice record (fittingly, she's a member of the faux-feminist anti-choice group Feminists for Life). Palin supports federal anti-gay marriage legislation. She believes schools should teach creationism. Alaska is currently considering spending more on abstinence-only sex education. And when it comes to a slew of other issues of importance to women, such as equal pay, she's not on the record.
Read the rest here. I'll be discussing the article (and debating this woman) on CNN tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern.
More from other bloggers after the jump...
Gina at What About Our Daughters:
McCain is doing what Obama supporters should have done this week in Denver at the Democratic National Convention. The Republicans are doing what Republicans do... whatever it takes to win the White House. Its cynically pitting the hopes and aspirations of Black folks against those of White women who vote... here is an FYI, White women voters outnumber us! [...]Why do I place the onus on Obama supporters and not Clinton supporters to make the overtures to mend the rift? A) Because as the winner, it didn't cost you anything to be kind to those who lost, even if you thought they were sore losers and B) You need the PUMAS, the PUMAS don't need the Obama acolytes. As far as some of the Clinton supporters are concerned, their election is over.
Simply put, this cynical, calculated choice by the McCain camp -- she's a woman, so she'll get the votes of all those cranky old bags who were pulling for Hillary! -- is going to mean another round of headaches and frustration for feminists. Yes, many of us were excited at the prospect of a woman in the White House; no, not any woman will do. And, unfortunately, the folks who are supposedly on "our" side who want to drive home how bad a choice Palin is will do so with sexist commentary about her beauty-queen past, her smarts, her lack of any sort of foreign-policy experience, and, undoubtedly, her hair and wardrobe. And women who find Palin's politics odious, but who are equally offended by the media's treatment of her, will be in the always-awesome position of hearing from all corners how unfeminist they are for not supporting the sisterhood.
Rebecca Traister at Broadsheet:
But even among more reasonable Democrats, the Palin pick does create worries for the still-tender party, not the least of which is that it will reopen a debate about whether Barack Obama should have picked a female vice president, or more specifically, Hillary Clinton.Biden is a strong candidate for Democratic women, with a good record of supporting reproductive rights and opposing antichoice nominees to the Supreme Court. Biden also wrote the groundbreaking Violence Against Women Act, and is great on the lunch-bucket economic issues so vital to so many American women.
But there was pressure on Obama, especially after the energy (and votes) generated by Clinton's run, to consider as a running mate Clinton herself, or women like Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano. He reportedly did not formally vet Clinton, and none of his final top three candidates for the job were female.
I have no problem with Palin being McCain's VP. More women should be nominated for big national offices. I don't think she's going to fare well in debates with Joe Biden -- who has an ability to tear someone to shreds without insulting their honor, as we saw in his speech on Wednesday -- and I'm not totally convinced that she's going to do a whole lot to help the McCain ticket. That is, unless those PUMAs really are stupid, which I'm pretty sure they're not (oh, and they don't really exist anyway).
Also, if you're making a play for Hillary voters---older, middle-aged white women in rust-belt states--is the way to get it done by bypassing, say, Carly Fiorina and Kay Bailey Hutchison, to pick a former Ms. Alaska who's only been governor for two years? There's a meme about Barack Obama reminding older women of the slick, handsome guy who beat them out for a big promotion, even though they were more qualified. But here's another very likely meme--Sarah Palin as the inexperienced, younger, attractive woman who beats them out for a promotion, even though they were more qualified.
Christian Progressive Liberal at Jack and Jill Politics:
Yeah, McCain's trying to make a little history of his own, but considering the crowd he has to play to in order to win, his choice of Sarah Palin, while it would play under the big ticket Democratic party, the GOP continues to believe that a woman's place is in the home (there's those "family values" again), and it may not save him.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: More on Palin.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8971
Sorry for having to ask, but what's a PUMA? Wikipedia said it was a woman who dates younger men, so that wasn't very helpful :)
I think it's "Party Unity My Ass" or something like that.
I am happy about Palin. I am not going to even consider voting for her ticket, but it makes me very happy to see her in this position.
So many democrats are bashing her for being conservative, and using all kinds of demeaning and sexist language and that is really terrible.
It's not like John McCain was going to choose a VP that would appeal to democratic values and make us want to support him.
For a conservative, I give her props for being intelligent, articulate and CONSISTENT.
The only pro-life arguments that have any respectability are the ones that are consistent.
I think it's good that McCain chose a woman as a running mate, but I think the justification for his choice does a disservice to Palin and all women. I think it's unfortunate that Palin doesn't realize this, but don't really expect that of someone with her views.
For a conservative, I give her props for being intelligent, articulate and CONSISTENT.
The only pro-life arguments that have any respectability are the ones that are consistent.
From what I understand she supports the death penalty, so she's automatically NOT consistent with her "pro-life" beliefs.
And it's pandering, plain and simple.
I am happy that Palin has been chosen for the vp candidate. It is good that there is a woman for the first time on the republican ticket. She is a conservative, she subscribes to conservative politics and I think it was a good choice. She is good at what she does and represents her party well. She isn't afraid to go after the big guns and is well liked in her state.
I don't think that she was chosen because John McCain thinks that women will just see her as another H. Clinton and will vote for him. It is very presumptuous and attacking for people to think so. I don't think that people who are considering voting for McCain would even think about considering voting for H. Clinton and if that is what he was going after it wouldn't have been a smart decision.
I personally am excited and happy about this and i am looking forward to the vp debate.
As a Hillary supporter that may support McCain in November. I don't think you all get it.
Obama's campaign is not one of gender equality. Hillary was never on the short list and his is the only presidential campaign staff in which men and women are NOT paid equally.
I have never voted Republican but the Democratic party is no longer representing me. I recommend you read Riverdaughter before speaking for Hillary supporters http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-obama-you-got-served/
I don't think that she was chosen because John McCain thinks that women will just see her as another H. Clinton and will vote for him. It is very presumptuous and attacking for people to think so. I don't think that people who are considering voting for McCain would even think about considering voting for H. Clinton and if that is what he was going after it wouldn't have been a smart decision.
From what I understand about her views and experience (or lack of it), she essentially brings nothing to the table that McCain didn't already have aside from her gender and her stance on ANWR.
I don't think it's presumptuous or an attack for anyone to think that. I'm basing my opinions on what I know of her and McCain.
I have never voted Republican but the Democratic party is no longer representing me.
So rather than vote for a candidate who actually does support many of the ideals for which we strive, you would consider voting for someone who has nothing but contempt for women's rights?
You're right. I don't get it. But I do understand that I'm not always going to agree with a political candidate on all issues. I wasn't ever a big fan of Clinton, though I most definitely would've voted for her had she been the nominee, even though I don't agree with all of her positions.
But voting for someone who is diametrically opposed to all of Clinton's positions? That sounds to me like cutting of your nose to spite your face.
I liked what Bill Clinton said on Tuesday
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y," Bill Clinton said Tuesday at a Democratic event in Denver that featured his first public remarks since his wife Hillary Clinton was officially informed she would not be vice president.
"Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/bill-clinton-takes-a-dig-at-obama/
Like I said, I don't know what I will do in November.
But I do believe that despite the pro-choice problem John McCain subscribes to less boy club politics than Obama.
I suppose we'll just have to disagree.
The Republican Party isn't representing you either. McCain votes no on pretty much any issue that effects women. Obama isn't a perfect candidate, and he isn't Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't make sense to vote for McCain instead of Obama. A third party candidate, or heck, even a write-in of Hillary Clinton's name, but actually casting a vote for John McCain, the epitome of an anti-women voting record?
I was never particularly jazzed about either candidate. I loved Dennis Kucinich's open views on gay rights and gay equality, and neither Hillary nor Obama came out in full support of gay marriage. However, not a single GOP candidate (Romney, McCain, Huckabee ::shudder::) came anywhere near my positions or point of view. McCain is the last thing America needs. I think Hillary would have been an amazing president, and I loved seeing a woman with such presence, intelligence, and oratory ability campaigning. I think Hillary deserved the VP spot, because of how close the primary race was. I think sexism in the media was probably an important factor in her not obtaining the candidacy. But the process went the way it did, and even if the Democrats aren't 100% in line with how I feel, they will still pay more attention to women's issues that are important to me than any McCain ticket, even one with a woman. Especially considering that woman is anti-choice, and pro teaching creationism in schools.
Yoshimi,
PUMA does stand for Party Unity, My Ass, and represents Hillary supporters unwilling to unite behind Obama. A "cougar" is the lovely term referring to an older woman dating a younger man. Men who date younger women are called "men".
Alaskan here. Been trying to get in a word most of the day but could not get the site to open up all the way. Good to see the traffic here.
I did not vote for her in 2006 mainly due to the right to life and then all the other conservative stuff. The dem she was running against was a much better candidate. I hunt and fish, but that is were our commonality ends. Went to college with kids that went to high school with her. Worked with people that went to high school with her. Some loved her and some hated her. The guys just liked to watch her cheerlead. Blah Blah Blah
All I can think of is that McCain picked Palin as a chess piece in a game he is playing. If he really knew her and if he really understood how much he himself hates women he would not put Sara on the stage with him. Palin and Cindy may share anatomy but Palin is not a wall flower. She will kick his ass in public if he talks down to her. She will turn DC upside down if the GOP pulls this off. The day that McCain drops the C-word on Palin is the last day he will be president.
But the GOP will have to overcome the Stevens and Young FBI investigations and trials. Palin will have to overcome "tooper gate" with her ex bro-in-law Wooten. As an ethical hunter that double standard has me really upset with her and her do gooder family. I would have been fined and lost my hunting privleges for a year, but nothing happened to the ex-bro-in-law other than a change in job duties. The Palins never complained about the hunting violation until the divorce started. And her sister was part of the hunting violation, but nothing happend to her. Total BS.
The positive insight I guess I can offer is that Palin does understand that there is middle ground. Her personal stance is toes over the right edge of the board, but in government she has shown a surprising amount of "lets get this done for the people" type of positions. The gas line, same sex benefits, oil tax surplus refund.
You see this in the same sex benefits thing. The court said the state had to do it so she said I don't personally agree, but the law is the law so I'll sign it. She just pushed through a oil tax surplus funded plan to pay all residents $1,200 to off-set the high cost of fuel up here. This is far from conservative and she has been called a socialist many times over this. (Don't get started on the irony. Its pumped out of our ground and then shipped to California, turned into gasoline and shipped back and sold for the highest per gallon prices in the nation. Stupid.)
The funny thing about the pro gun thing is that Palin is more pro gun than McCain. He has voted for some things like registration at gun shows that the NRA has fought against for years.
Something that Palin has going for/against her and that is something for discussion here is that her state leads the nation in crime against women and crime against native women in particular. What is she doing about that? Will save-it-for-later sex-ed work for the native villages where many women are assualted before they are twenty? In a village of 800 with no store or pharmacy how does a girl get condoms or the morning after pill? I have been in a few villages and there are no condoms for sale in the village co-op stores. Lots of pregnant teen girls around. Sad.
On a voting note. The nation needs to consider that only about 40% of the registered voters in Alaska actually show up to the poles. Palin has a high approval rating tallied just before "trooper gate" happened in July and after today it is sky high again I would think. So 40% of those that could actually do, but the popularity polls are collected from everyone voting or not. I would say that the three little electorial votes for us are all going to the McCain/Palin ticket just because Alaska typically votes how ever the NRA tells them to.
Agreed wholeheartedly, AgnesScottie.
ostracizer, here is what you perhaps have failed to consider:
the liberal wing of the supreme court (ginsburg, stevens, souter, breyer and sometimes kennedy)has a median age of 80, and ginsburg and stevens are fast approaching their 90s.
if mccain is elected president this fall, he will have the opportunity to elect 1 if not 2 conservative justices, ensuring not only that Roe v. Wade Falls, but that the Supreme Court is conservative for the next 20 years.
if you're willing to vote mccain without considering the repercussions to the gains of women over the past 40 years, i'm sorry -- that's nothing short of irresponsible.
northray, I don't really have much to say about the other statements in your post, but this one struck me as odd:
You see this in the same sex benefits thing. The court said the state had to do it so she said I don't personally agree, but the law is the law so I'll sign it.
Are you saying that she should be applauded for following the law, rather than expected to follow it?
This woman's youngest child has Down Syndrome, which she knew about before birth, and she still had the baby. And her son is gonna be in the shit very soon. Regardless of how feministing percieves this move, this is a woman who has the courage of her convictions.
Wether you agree with her viewpoints or not I don't see how this could be spun in a negative way by readers here.
This woman's youngest child has Down Syndrome, which she knew about before birth, and she still had the baby. And her son is gonna be in the shit very soon. Regardless of how feministing percieves this move, this is a woman who has the courage of her convictions.
Wether you agree with her viewpoints or not I don't see how this could be spun in a negative way by readers here.
Who is attempting to spin that she chose to have a child with Down Syndrome? I think it's great that she made the choice she made, but I also think it's great that she had a choice. Considering her anti-choice views, it is somewhat ironic.
How can any Clinton supporter vote for McCain...Im still trying to rap my head around that one. Truly. I don't even know how sarcastic I am being. I mean is it a "Ill show you democrats!" *waving finger* kind of thing? Because...I am PRREEETTTYYY sure Obama cares more about women's issues than McCain...
And yes, I am happy that were going to have a historical presidential election. Whoopie Fucking Doo. Honestly I care, but I dont. Wheres my needs being met? The country's need. I dont have time for the parties to be arguing over who has the best minority. I dont care if they have vaginas or their Black or White. You can be a racist Black and a sexist woman. So thats not at issue for me. But we doooo obviously have a sexist women running. I mean..how can she stand by the same man that wont support equal pay for equal work? besides that they agree on abstinant only and prolife bullshit. I mean...I just dont get it. And all the hypocricy (spelled wrong?) from the McCain camp. I mean...age this, experience that...realllllllyyy? Palin???
And you know what really pissed me off, when she accepted her speech and gave thanks to the women before her (not that part) and THEN said that she was going to smash the glass ceiling...WHAT! Arent you sealing the cracks you just said Clinton made? Cause I dont know about you but...not supporting equal pay for equal work is a big problem...BIG...
Ok so I have a lot of typos in that. But I am just irritated. lol
yeah osterizer, count me among those who don't get it.
what stances made you support hillary?
which of those stances are reflected in the mccain campaign?
seriously. i'm not asking to be a jerk, i really honestly want to know because i just don't see much overlap. if any.
moglidabear,
No applause for her on any issue. A politian that seeks and accepts applause is a snake oil salesman and needs to be ran out of town.
In todays political rings of death any far right conservative faced with a decision that is 180 degres out from how they see the world, but goes ahead and does the right thing by society and the law should be acknowledged as "not too bad". But applauded? No. Kids should be applauded for their achievements, but after the age of 16 you need to stand on your own.
And for you folks that want to meet someone that really hates Palin check out Andrew Halcro. He must really be down in the dumps today.
http://www.andrewhalcro.com/
There is no question that it is amazing that a woman is VP candidate, but I sincerely hope that all the undecided women out there think about WHY they are voting for either party.
I can appreciate Palin's work as a mother of five, former union leader, mayor and of course governor.
but when I hear pundits touting her experience as the head of the PTA as a qualification for VP - made my skin crawl. whether you agree or disagree with her policy, bottom line - this is not about her being a woman - its about who could potentially be President should something happen.
What gets me more though is McCain only having met her twice before
Are you listening to yourselves here? Truly? This is exactly what the McCain camp wanted. A distraction. As we sit here and debate Palin's legitimacy, we forget what we're really voting for here. Women's rights? Who's been fighting for equal pay for women? Biden! Who's been fighting for pro-choice ideals? Obama/Biden? Who's not? Bush/McCain/Obama?
Vote for McCain if you love to pay $5 a gallon in gas, you make more than $250,000 a year, want to watch our reputation as a country go to shit, watch Roe vs. Wade reversed, and you'd like to see our troops fight in Iraq for the next 100 years.
I live in NYC. I don't have a friggin car. McCain has voted against Amtrak funding. So when they go under, and we're struggling for a way to get from A to B, I'd love all the McCain supporters to chauffer my ass around.
Are you freaking kidding me?
I thought of something earlier this evening -- maybe it IS pandering, but NOT to former Clinton supporters. Maybe, just maybe, it's slightly more insidious (and potentially effective) pandering -- pandering to (white, male, and influential) voters who want to appear "moderate" and "sympathetic" to women, without having to actually compromise any of their politics to be more pro-woman.
I like all of your thoughtful reactions.
I do not trust Obama and I believe him on nothing. I found him to be extremely disrespectful towards women, mainly Hillary. I wrote up several examples of it in my blog.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2123550&blogID=394509327&Mytoken=F302830F-335C-4192-877B3E11B51C68E56732340
I find it insane that he didn't even put Hillary, a woman who received 18 million votes (more than anyone in any Presidential primary), on the short list for VP. That is his choice. It would've been fine if he chose a running mate that represented "change" and not the all mighty experience but he chose Joe Biden someone with more congressional experience than McCain. That makes no sense to me. I like Biden but where is Obama's head at?
I think Hillary and McCain have integrity that Obama is seriously lacking. They also both offer a judge me kind of attitude. Hillary repeatedly said, "I am applying for the toughest job in the world please hold me accountable"and McCain has constant Toen Hall meetings. Obama has a don't ask don't question attitude. I am not one for blind faith.
I care about the democratic party and I truly believe that if Obama is somehow elected he will be such a failure that we will not see a democrat in office for 8,12, or 16 years. I love Jimmy Carter (he is my favorite president) but Obama's legacy will be some much worse.
Do you really think the candidates are that different? McCain voted No to the Bush Energy Bill that Obama voted yes to. Do you really think that Obama will be able to end the war?
I was just in Denver and didn't leave feeling energized or inspired http://carinaost.blogspot.com/2008/08/den-puma-and-gd-dnc.html
Like I said, I do not know what I will do in November but I don't think my conscience can vote for Obama and it probably won't be able to vote for McCain either.
I have always been a passionate democrat and I feel completely ignored by the DNC. I am young, educated, and Obama is NOT my candidate.
ZacRfron: As far as I have read, the only criticism about her child with Down's Syndrome I have read is not in reference to her choosing to keep it. It was something about how the kid is 4 months old, and she will be doing extensive campaigning as VP with a 4 month old child with Down Syndrome either staying at home or coming with her. Still not very feminist to be questioning her commitment to taking care of her child, but a potentially valid concern. Not like "She should have aborted her baby" or any of that nonsense.
I think it was also brought up because she talks about knowing he had Down's and never even thinking about abortion as part of her pro-life cred. Spinning the story for the news, sort of, though I imagine she has nothing but good intentions and love for her child.
"Do you really think the candidates are that different? McCain voted No to the Bush Energy Bill that Obama voted yes to. Do you really think that Obama will be able to end the war?"
yes, on both counts.
as to the first, look at the whole of their voting records, including obama's from the IL state senate. choosing one bill is not representative of their respective records as a whole. i point you alone to their stances on reproductive rights and contraception. john mccain couldn't even say whether he thought condoms could prevent the spread if HIV. seriously.
as to the second, yes, but even if it isn't as fast as i would like, i pose another question to you: do you really think mccain will even TRY? he's plainly said he's against it. is it worse to try and not get it perfect than to give up and pour billions more dollars into a fraudulent, pointless conflict?
"I have always been a passionate democrat and I feel completely ignored by the DNC. I am young, educated, and Obama is NOT my candidate."
i respect your choice, but i'm sorry to hear it. i really do think that if you look at mccain's record and his policies, that you could perhaps find a third-party candidate who you would feel better about voting for than mccain, for sure and maybe even obama.
McCain's veep choice is like when Bush didn't appoint an all-white cabinet - a sign that it's getting harder for either heavyweight political party in the U.S. to focus on rich white men alone.
AgnesScottie commented at August 29, 2008 8:47 PM: "Obama isn't a perfect candidate, and he isn't Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't make sense to vote for McCain instead of Obama."
Very good point.
AgnesScottie commented at August 29, 2008 8:47 PM: "A third party candidate, or heck, even a write-in of Hillary Clinton's name, but actually casting a vote for John McCain, the epitome of an anti-women voting record?"
...but it's a pretty consistent anti-women voting record, and some people really like consistency...
Allie commented at August 29, 2008 10:08 PM: "I think it's great that she made the choice she made, but I also think it's great that she had a choice. Considering her anti-choice views, it is somewhat ironic."
Exactly.
xtine commented at August 29, 2008 11:29 PM: "Are you listening to yourselves here? Truly? This is exactly what the McCain camp wanted. A distraction. As we sit here and debate Palin's legitimacy, we forget what we're really voting for here. Women's rights? Who's been fighting for equal pay for women? Biden! Who's been fighting for pro-choice ideals? Obama/Biden? Who's not? Bush/McCain/Obama?"
Great questions!
osterizer: You're obviously entitled to your own opinions, and I think we just won't be able to agree on this. But, I don't feel you're applying the same scrutiny to McCain as you are to Obama, and in the end, McCain is still anti-choice, anti-equal-pay, anti-gay-marriage and a host of other anti-stances.
I personally feel the idea of NOT voting at all because you don't fully support someone is just silly. Obama may be a bit of a toss up on some issues, but we know where McCain stands when it comes to women, and allowing him to get elected through frustration is as bad as voting for him in my book.
Not pleased enough to see her in particular here to feel happy for "A Woman" here.
I think that McCain eight years ago had integrity and wanted people to question him, but I don't think that is his policy now. His "straight talk express" has been derailed. He doesn't allow open access to the press like he did before. Probably due to campaign pressure more than personal decisions, but press don't have nearly the same access. McCain has said some very nasty things to people asking him questions at town hall meetings (I could provide some youtube links), and the audiences at "town halls" are often quite orchestrated. He used to denounce religious idiots like Falwell and Pat Robertson, and then he goes to speak at Liberty University? I used to have a modicum of respect for McCain, but over the Bush administration and especially during this campaign I have lost all respect for him as a politician. That and, when I had respect for him, I was 18 and didn't know as much about his record as I know now.
Not to mention his mix-ups between Sunni Iraqis and Shia Iranians, and the "Iraq-Afghanistan border" And his support of offshore drilling as something which will lower gas prices now, contrary to the statements of experts in oil drilling/refining.
I think Obama will be able to end the war, because Bush has already agreed to a timetable. Bush...agreed to a timetable. Who would have ever thought they would see those words together? It will be pretty easy for Obama to cooperate with the current time table and the will of the Iraqi prime minister. At this point, I don't see ending the war in Iraq as that difficult, considering Bush has actually acquiesced to a time table and it is clear that the Iraqi government wants us out. Even the repubs have tended to always say that we should leave when the Iraqi government feels ready.
Obama isn't who I wanted to be president, but I think that McCain's performance over the campaign, forgetting and mixing up extremely significant details, is extremely worrisome. Not to mention his 0% NARAL rating. There is absolutely no way that Obama can be worse than McCain, if only for the Supreme Court justice nominations. Even if he is an abysmal failure (which I don't think will happen, with Biden as VP, and he will probably choose an excellent cabinet, whether by his own decision or those assisting him), then he will still put non-conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and I think that is one of the most important things about this upcoming election.
"I used to have a modicum of respect for McCain, but over the Bush administration and especially during this campaign I have lost all respect for him as a politician. That and, when I had respect for him, I was 18 and didn't know as much about his record as I know now."
that's how i feel as well. when he ran in 2000, i still didn't agree with him, but i did think he possessed more integrity than most republicans and i did like his openness with the press. i at least felt that he had something distinct to offer from bush and now that is no longer the case.
this is really tangential and it's anecdotal, so i don't expect anyone to really base their judgment of mccain on it, but i will say that i was an intern on capitol hill in 2002 and a friend was an intern for john mccain. i spent a lot of time with mccain's interns that summer and i was told many stories of how outright mean and insulting he was to his staffers. i'm not saying politicians i agree with are necessarily not jerks either, but the rep i worked for was incredibly nice and sincere and mccain's was the only office whose interns i interacted with who had bad things to say about the elected official on such a personal level. that started to change my opinion of him, and i can't say that hearing things like the "cunt" comment to his wife, that i'm surprised, based on what i heard that summer. i believe that personally, he's kind of an asshole and that's just one more count against him in my book. hill staffers work very hard and are the lifeblood of every politician there, so when i hear someone who frequently mistreats his or her staffers, it makes me sad.
anyway, like i said, unsubstantiated hearsay coming from a stranger on the internet, so take it for what you will, but i just wanted to share it.
Maybe I'm alone here, but I have a big problem with anyone here holding Obama's VP choice against him...in terms of him not picking Hillary. I don't think that this is evidence of him being "disrespectful towards women." (esp. Hillary?)
I don't think Obama's VP choice had anything to do with Hillary's vagina...just sayin'.
I like Obama's VP choice if I do end up voting for him it will be solely because of Biden.
I think for him not to consider Hillary was a big slap in the face for her supporters (myself included)
My problem is with the person on top of the ticket.
I would say, vote for Obama, for the country's sake and all that, but California is probably going to be solidly Democrat, and my state (GA) is probably going to be solidly Republican. It feels kind of sad to think that no matter which way you vote it won't really count for anything if you don't live in Ohio...
osterizer: If your issues with Obama stem from the primaries, and as such, you would like to show the democratic party that your vote should not be taken for granted, I would strongly urge you to vote for Cynthia McKinney, a strong female candidate for President, as opposed to voting for McCain, a candidate with an abysmal record on women's issues, especially issues of reproductive rights (a record which Sarah Palin shares).
In fact, I would urge all Hillary supporters considering voting McCain as a protest vote to vote for Cynthia McKinney (and Rosa Clemente for VP) instead, a strong, progressive woman candidate who has much more in common with Hillary's positions than McCain ever will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#2008_Green_Party_presidential_candidacy
Ostercizer,
I know that you are likely sick of people trying to convince you, but in response to your question "are the candidates even that different," I would argue that the far more relevant question is "is the country that different under a supreme court with 2 justices appointed by McCain versus Obama?" Because in that a country with two more justices appointed by McCain, we can not only kiss Roe goodbye, but would probably see the most anti-woman, anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-civil rights court since the Berger years, and because of the younge age of the republican justices, it would stay that way for a MINIMUM of 20-30 years. I would also say that from the perspective of a woman overseas who needs an abortion or contraception but can't get them because of McCain foregin policy, yes, the candidates are vastly different.
I understand your frustration about the VP thing, but I would offer the following thoughts: When Obama became the democratic nominee, I would argue that he had an obligation to pick a VP who would maximize his chances of winning. To his supporters and to most Hillary supporters, the most important thing after the primary is him winning in November, and that was the goal to be served by his VP pick. Given that, from what I have seen in DC, the entire idea of a Hillary VP nomination was a ficticious idea created by the media. No one in national politics thought that was going to happen, including the Hillary people. When they talk to HIllary supporters on the news who wanted her to be VP, those were not her political advisors, and there is a reason for that. If Hillary really wanted to be VP, she could have made some noise to that effect, but neither she nor her political advisors did, cause they knew it would not make sense.
I guess it is wierd to me when people say it is a slap in the face for him to not consider Hillary, even when acknowledging that he likely made a good choice. Hillary Clinton is one of the most formidable women in America, a United States Senator, and I am guessing on her way to becoming the most powerful person in the senate. In my mind, the idea that she would feel snubbed is kind of belittling to her.
Michael, thank you for the suggestion. A lot of people mentioned her in Denever. I will definitely look in to it.
I would love to have some confidence and pride in my decision when pulling the lever.
I am probably going to vote for Cynthia McKinney, Michael. I am a MA voter, and it's pretty obvious that my vote doesn't count for anything; MA will be solidly blue, as usual, and our electoral votes will go to Obama. If I lived somewhere else I might second guess that. For a long time I bought on to the idea that votes for 3rd party candidates "lost" elections for Democrats, but I really don't think that holds up unless the state you vote in is a contested state.
Not that the Democratic party really cares, but I am fucking SICK of having them take my vote for granted just because they are better on the issues I support than the Republican party. Being a more progressive candidate than McCain isn't exactly a huge accomplishment.
The Democratic party has shown time and time again that they have no problem distancing themselves from the barely-tolerated LGBT community because it alienates swing votes and the religious right [who likely won't vote for him anyways- I consider that a pretty lost cause]. Well, guess what? It alienates ME, too. I won't stand for being treated like a 2nd class citizen, and while obviously I will be happy to see Obama take the White House, I can't feel good about my vote if I vote for him.
I should have phrased that last part better: the Hillary Clinton that I admire would want Obama to pick the VP that would help him win, so that they could advance the causes that Hillary has fought for all of her life. The Hillary Clinton that I admire would not want to be selected if it meant a McCain White House, 2 more conservative justices on the court, and the erosion of women's rights continuing for 8 more years. The Hillary Clinton I admire is a seasoned politician who recognizes the political realities which make Joe Biden a better VP pick against John McCain. When people say Hillary was snubbed I feel like they are treating her like a child who did not get her way, rather than a kick-ass US Senator who cares more about the issues then whether she is selected or not. I think that better explains what I was trying to say before.
MM: I think I would much rather have Hillary Clinton stay in the Senate than become VP. I think that she would actually have more power there, and there wouldn't be the chance of losing her seat to a Republican. Losing Biden is bad, but I would hate to lost Hillary in the Senate.
(Just thinking about this now*** Thanks for bringing it up MM!)
I have read several accounts from credible sources that say that Hillary Clinton herself told Obama "Don't vet me unless you are going to pick me". She took herself out of the running this way, because I don't think there was a guarantee given to anyone who was vetted.
Hillary ran a historic, groundbreaking campaign and has my deep respect for doing so. But if she didn't want to be vetted without a guarantee, then Obama did the right thing in respecting her wishes.
I have read several accounts from credible sources that say that Hillary Clinton herself told Obama "Don't vet me unless you are going to pick me". She took herself out of the running this way, because I don't think there was a guarantee given to anyone who was vetted.
Hillary ran a historic, groundbreaking campaign and has my deep respect for doing so. But if she didn't want to be vetted without a guarantee, then Obama did the right thing in respecting her wishes.
This actually makes me really angry. No, I do not think it is good to have THIS female VP on a Republican ticket. I do NOT think this is progress. She is being used as a symbol, pure and simple. Used as a symbol = no progress. More of the same.
When Clinton ran for the nomination, she was 100% qualified. She didn't run as some sort of symbol. She didn't run because any one person asked her to. She didn't run to appeal to one kind of demographic. She ran because she felt she was the most capable and qualified to run the country for all Americans. She wasn't running as "I'm Hillary Clinton, Symbol of Feminism and Diversity." She was running as "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I've got some serious credibility to back up this campaign." And she proved it - by debating the issues furiously, and earning millions of votes along with the respect of Americans of all political creeds.
Now, THAT was real progress for women in politics. No doubt Senator Clinton will continue to create progress for women in government. But Sarah Palin? Perhaps one day. Today, however, in this election, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.
The day that Republicans choose a woman to run on the ticket NOT primarily because she's a woman - that will be a happy day for feminism. Or the day that a woman REFUSES to run on a ticket BECAUSE she knows she is being used as a symbol - that will also be a great day for feminism. But until then, sadly, the men and women who make up the Grand Old Party are up to the Same Old Tricks.
This actually makes me really angry. No, I do not think it is good to have THIS female VP on a Republican ticket. I do NOT think this is progress. She is being used as a symbol, pure and simple. Used as a symbol = no progress. More of the same.
When Clinton ran for the nomination, she was 100% qualified. She didn't run as some sort of symbol. She didn't run because any one person asked her to. She didn't run to appeal to one kind of demographic. She ran because she felt she was the most capable and qualified to run the country for all Americans. She wasn't running as "I'm Hillary Clinton, Symbol of Feminism and Diversity." She was running as "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I've got some serious credibility to back up this campaign." And she proved it - by debating the issues furiously, and earning millions of votes along with the respect of Americans of all political creeds.
Now, THAT was real progress for women in politics. No doubt Senator Clinton will continue to create progress for women in government. But Sarah Palin? Perhaps one day. Today, however, in this election, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.
The day that Republicans choose a woman to run on the ticket NOT primarily because she's a woman - that will be a happy day for feminism. Or the day that a woman REFUSES to run on a ticket BECAUSE she knows she is being used as a symbol - that will also be a great day for feminism. But until then, sadly, the men and women who make up the Grand Old Party are up to the Same Old Tricks.
sorry, i didn't mean to post that twice!
osterizer: my apologies for perhaps misunderstanding your argument. For the sake of understanding, I would like to ask a question: if Obama had chosen Hillary as his VP, would your feeling be different? Would you feel like his "head" as you called it was in the right place? (I know you're probably tired of being on the defensive, but I think your insight is important.)
One point I would like to make about Palin. My initial reaction was that this was a clear move by the McCain camp to replace Hillary's ovaries with another set. But now I'm not so sure. If this were the case, don't you think that McCain would have announced his decison before the DNC? and don't you think he's aware that Hillary supporters probably don't align themselves with most of what Palin stands for?...I guess my point is...I'm really clueless about why he chose Palin in the first place. If he wanted a woman just for womens' sake, there are clearly more *experienced* Republican women he could have chosen as his running mate. Any thoughts?
I wrote about Palin on my blog @ http://didntaskme.blogspot.com/
and quoted my friend Tanya Melich's article in her Women's Media Center Commentary..."John McCain may think he can seduce American voters by having Sarah Palin by his side, but when the majority of Americans learn the Republican platform does not bring health care to Americans, will not protect woman to make their own reproductive choices, does not bring legal protection for equal pay for equal work, Sarah Palin, the McCain Trojan filly, will not fool American women."
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/082908_c.html
The trick will be to inform what appears to be an ineducable American public on these facts - a public that appears to still believe that McCain is a moderate on reproductive choice.
I'm from the UK and am finding this whole thing very interesting. Two words: Margaret Thatcher. She was Prime Minister of the UK for about 10 years in the 80s, as leader of the Tory party (equivalent of the Republicans for those uninitiated into British politics!). During that time she did so much damage to the country that most people, male and female, now hate her guts and can't wait for her to finally croak so that they can dance on her grave while singing 'hallelujah'. Honestly, you would have to live here to realise the levels of hate British people feel for this woman.
Why? Well, she was ultra-right-wing, initiated economic policies that crippled poor working families, smashed the unions, took away free milk from school children, allowed the police to beat people up who were on strike, went to war in the Falklands, spearheaded the decline of British industry - 3 million were unemployed under her govt - and so much more that there isn't space to write it all here. She caused a recession, untold alienation, disaffection and poverty, and the UK still hasn't recovered from her free market-worshipping economic policies (mainly because Tony Blair continued them, but that's another story).
The 80s was a time of great backlash against feminism and she was a big part of this. She created an all-male cabinet and kept other women down while she enjoyed the top job.
My point is this: vote for the Republicans at your peril! Just because there is a woman on the ticket, doesn't mean that good things will follow for society. It would be great to have a woman in the White House but it has to be the right woman. The party will always be the party, it doesn't matter who leads it. Republicans are still Republicans and if I were American I would be doing ANYTHING I could to stop them getting into power for another four years. I would vote for Obama despite whether or not I happened to agree with everything he said and despite the fact that I would've preferred Hillary.
Just as Biden filled holes in Obama's ticket (foriegn policy, experience, etc.), Palin fills the more obvious ones in McCains: young, female, staunch conservative. (Some ultra-conservatives have taken their time warming to McCain.)
Hearing the news yesterday, I was immediately encouraged for an Obama win. Because not only does she make Obama look ultra-experienced, she's also in bed with Big Oil. I will put my faith in the American people to ensure that we will not see another term with oil cronies in the White House.
The Republican Party represents misogyny and racism. It is the KKK of American politics. The new Republican Party grew out of the racism that opposed the Civil Rights Movements.
I is anti-union, anti-poor, anti-woman, anti-people of color, anti-abortion, anti, anti-equality, anti-LGBT.
It is truly Anti-American.
I was a Clinton supporter. But when Obama narrowly beat her in the primaries, I became an Obama supporter although I took it easy for a few weeks before doing so.
I am not about to engage in horizontal arguments over which is the greater oppression factor. All are oppressive and we all win when a member of the oppressed classes wins. Misogyny and racism are both bad.
I might have thought more highly of McCain (although I doubt it) had he chosen some one with the status of Condi Rice. As it is his move comes off as misogynistic, sleazy and cynical as well as insulting.
http://womanrebel.blogspot.com
SuzyQ: you do not think that picking a black woman as VP would be more cynical. People would have the same complaints. I would have liked Rice, but I think he could not do that strictly for the cynicism factor.
And, I agree with earthling: it would be great to have a woman in the White House, but it has to be the right woman. But there is no way I would have voted for Hillary.
Palin was a great choice for McCain. Between the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy bills, the Republican base saw someone who was not really conservative. Whatever her lack of experience (and I think it matches up with Obama), she is a solid conservative pick that will really energize the party.
So, I do not think it is a cynical pick. He picked an outsider, one he did not have to beat up on in the primary (unlike Obama-Biden), and gives him conservative credibility with the party.
Whatever your thought on her, his pick will certainly make this race far more interesting.
-Jut
GO, ANNIE!
Great job on CNN today when the anchor tried to dismiss your valid point that experience is less the issue than conduct. She tried to suggest that because the investigation is on-going that we cannot consider it, and you reminded her that Palin is currently under investigation by her own legislature after only 18 months in office. The matter of character was what Republicans used to attack Gore, by linking him with Clinton.
I guess for the Republicans, if a candidate wants to cut off a woman's right to choose, then that is the sole factor in determining his or her "character," and officials can then go on to wage illegal wars, strip the Constitution of its meaning, and lie-- all while still being considered to have a good character.
Yours is the kind of debate we should be having. You stayed focused and went for the best point that did not bring gender or non-issue vagaries, like "experience" into it.
Rather than use the stupid Republican "character" language, though, I liked how you used more specific language-- corruption! This is exactly small-town politics that brought us Jack Abramoff
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/an-abramoff-connection and Tom "The Bug Man" Delay.
The coverage of this announcement has seemed like an excuse for the news media to be pitting women against each other. Tearing other women down is never feminist. It confuses me why so many women labeling themselves as feminists seem to be going after Palin more veraciously than they would have attacked a male running-mate.
She disagrees with me on many important issues, and I don't plan to vote for her; but it seems like she did a great job as governor, at least by conservative standards. And her conservative beliefs seem to echo those of her constituency. She also has a great record of fighting corruption, and even asked to be investigated by her own attorney general, when accusations of corruption where leveled against her.
As Republicans go, she seems pretty great and I am always happy to see another woman running for office, no matter her political positions. But that still does not mean I will vote for her.
VERY well-put, Friedman! Thank you for making sure that those of us who perceive McCain's choice to be a sexist gesture to get more votes are able to have their voices heard...keep writing!
Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.
The 'women's vote' is a myth!
Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as 'anti.'
They believed women were incapable of selecting or becoming political leaders, even as they themselves took leadership roles against votes for women!
The most influential 'anti' lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915, six months after the death of his pro-suffrage wife Ellen.
She endeared herself to her future husband, who had consistently opposed votes for women, when she declared at their first meeeting that she didn't even know who the candidates were in the 1912 election, and felt that women had no business whatsoever in politics.
Her precise role in the jailing and torture of Alice Paul and hundreds of suffragettes will never be known for certain, but she was outraged that they picketed her husband's White House.
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won, and what life was REALLY like before they did.
"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 finally win the vote.
It's a real-life soap opera!
Extremely powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt, presidential mistresses and First Lady Edith Wilson.
There are tons of heartache for these heroines on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, they WIN!
Exciting, sequential e-mail episodes are perfect to read during coffeebreaks!
Subscribe free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
Can y'all weigh in on the rumor about the parentage of Palin's youngest child? I am seeing these circulated a lot online and I am feeling very conflicted--on the one hand, I think if they are true it says a lot about the hypocrisy of the abstinence only, "family values" crowd she is a part of and are therefore have a valid part in the debate; on the other hand, regardless of whether or not they are true, they drag the sexual history of a minor who has not consented to being a public figure into the open in a way that is so, so horrible and shaming. I am trying to be as oblique about this as possible (which is not very, apparently) because of the privacy issues involved. The frat dudes that have taken over Kos are of course completely uninterested in discussing this aspect, and I would love to see some thoughtful commentary on it.
Suzy Q - Condi Rice does something that the McCain camp is trying to avoid. The dem line right now is to try and paint McCain as being exactly like Bush. If he picked Condaleeza as his VP then he gives himself a connection to Bush, and no one really wants to be connected to Bush right now. That and the American public probably doesn't like Ms. Rice very much right now because of her connection to the shady goings on in the Bush administration.
(However, there was a comment on one of the Palin threads which listed 5 more experienced Republican women who would have made better female pics. But they were older and less attractive...)
See what Ann Coulter has to say:
http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com/
It confuses me why so many women labeling themselves as feminists seem to be going after Palin more veraciously than they would have attacked a male running-mate.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I'm offended that McCain and his advisors apparently think that as a feminist, I'll vote for anybody with a vagina, rather than having the presence of mind to recognize that exactly zero of the beliefs that make me a feminist are reflected in her policies.
And I'm concerned that there are people who actually are falling for this idiotic gimmick, and I'd like to do what I can to make them see how self-destructive it would be to vote for McCain.
A male running mate would pose less of a threat. As things are, there are people seeing this as McCain picking up the baton Obama "dropped." I'd like for that to get nipped in the bud. So yeah, I think Palin would suck as VP, and I'm telling my friends.
Not that the Democratic party really cares, but I am fucking SICK of having them take my vote for granted just because they are better on the issues I support than the Republican party.
Seriously? How is supporting universal health care, equal pay, Roe, and the VAWA taking anyone's vote for granted? Is it the DNC's job to check up on the feelings of every party member, or to put forth the candidates who support the platform and can win. I don't give a damn whether they chose my candidate in the primary as long as they choose a ticket who can beat McCain and thus assure that if my kid gets sick, I don't have to let him suffer - that if I get pregnant, I don't have to go through another debilitating pregnancy to have a kid I can't afford, that if my high school best friend wants to marry his boyfriend, he can, that if I'm getting paid less that Mark just 'cause he's not a Martha, I have some recourse . . .
That's not taking my vote for granted. That's making sure I can survive.
I’ll just start off by saying that I am an adamant supporter of Hillary Clinton.
I know a lot of Hillary supporters, like me, are distraught and disappointed that she lost the nomination. It’s OK to be disappointed! But it is not OK to jeopardize everything women have worked so hard for!
I am truly disheartened and crushed to see us fighting so much. It is disappointing, but we can’t let ourselves throw away all we have gained! Voting for McCain would be detrimental to everything we, as women, have won and are still fighting for in this country. We are all on this website because we share something in common. We want to stop the persecution we face daily and we want to stop being treated as less-than-equals. We need to look at each other and remember that we are joined together in fighting for the same thing.
Also, I feel that I need to speak out for minorities for just a moment:
Do we honestly think that Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to be part of a society whose power structure wasn’t designed for him? This country was originally set up for a certain group of people to be in charge and it wasn’t women and it wasn’t African Americans either. Obama had and has to fight to be recognized as equal just like we do. I think that should grant him at least a little bit of our empathy.
“Because Palin is not a woman who has a record of representing women's interests. She is beloved by extremely right-wing conservatives for her anti-choice record (fittingly, she's a member of the faux-feminist anti-choice group Feminists for Life).”
While I agree that McCain’s choice is pandering, it is because he thinks that Palin can get Clinton voters and not because of her record on liberal feminist issues. What I mean to say is that while I believe in a woman’s right to choose, equal pay, and all those issues; I know many women who do not. The reason they do not is because woman are HUMAN and just as diverse and complicated as the male species. A person of any gender who agrees with Senator Clinton’s issues is not going to just vote for Palin just because she is a woman. That is why this candidate selection is so insulting.
“That is why this candidate selection is so insulting. “
You know I should rephrase that, it is why anyone thinking that female Clinton voters would vote for Palin is so insulting. Obviously, she has every right to represent her interest and run as a VP candidate and there is nothing insulting about that.
We need to denounce her anti-choice, anti-feminist records while also criticising sexist attacks against her; a hard task, but not impossible.
I've created a new Facebook group, "Feminists United Against Sarah Palin"; please check out and join, we need to beat those sexist anti-Palin groups in terms of membership!
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24740864052
The way I see it the Palin pick could either blow up in McCain's face because of her total lack of significant experience and possible scandals, or it could be a huge payoff because of her immense personal appeal (the woman was, literally, Miss Congeniality and her oldest son is leaving for Iraq--on 9/11 of this year, no less).
As a Democrat and feminist, I sincerely hope it's the former and not the latter. But as a Hillary supporter (who will vote for Obama), I have to say that Obama could have avoided the latter if he had done the right thing and picked Hillary. Why are we so pissed that he didn't, asks merfyt?
Because she got 18 million votes. Because she had as much support in the party as he did. Because she was incredibly gracious in conceding to him and has done more than could ever have been expected in campaigning for him. Because no one--NO ONE--in the Democratic party has both the experience and skill as well as the support and following that she does. Because, frankly, it's the right thing to do.
And here's another reason: because every time Barack Obama stands up and talks about the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, and about what Hillary has done for his daughters, it makes me want to throw something at my television. If you really thought that, Senator Obama--if you really, truly did--then why did you not pick her? Why did you not even consider her? Why would you not want your daughters' great role model on the ticket with you, continuing to provide great leadership and service to this country with you? Why would you not want to do your part in actually shattering that ceiling, not just admiring its cracks, by making the first female VP be YOUR VP--not John McCain's?
The morning after Hillary's speech at the convention, I heard Chuck Todd on MSNBC say this about Hillary supporters: "I think we've all underestimated why these women are still so angry. It has been twenty-four years since Geraldine Ferraro was on the Democratic ticket. Unless John McCain picks a woman, which is unlikely, that is an entire generation that has watched the glass ceiling turn to cement instead of cracking."
Unlikely indeed. I wonder if John McCain was watching that morning too.
"If you really thought that, Senator Obama--if you really, truly did--then why did you not pick her?"
Because she would have way more power as Senate Majority Leader than she ever would as Vice President?
I feel that people who insist on Hillary as VP severely overestimate the significance of the Vice President position. The purpose of the VP slot is, effectively (barring Cheney), solely for the election. Anybody hear the old joke, "I have two sons, one joined the navy, and the other became vice president, and I haven't heard from either one since"?
I didn't support Hillary for president, but I can admit that she's one powerful and connected woman. To waste that position on the vice presidency would have been a blunder for the democratic party.
If people want the democratic party to recognize Hillary's accomplishments, push for her to be put in a real position of power, not in the vice presidency.
(BTW, this is why, ultimately, Palin's selection is not going to affect the election *that* much. Nobody votes for the VP. The only exception is when things completely implode, ala Eagleton).
Obama must be our candidate. To those who say there is no difference between the two parties, one need only look at the last eight years to tell the difference. Osterizer, you aren't old enough (your myspace page says you're 21) to remember what it really means to have a Democratic President. Even Clinton had it rough - the Repubs controlled both the House and the Senate. We really, really need a clean sweep of all three (Pres, House, Senate) to clean up the mess that Bush & Co. have made. And that means we need all hands on deck working together.
Something to consider: most polls say that the race between Obama and McCain is close, within a few percentage points (see the NYTimes for a collection of different polls' results). And yet Obama is leading McCain in fundraising by more than 2:1. He's raised almost $390 million, whereas McCain has raised about $174 million (source: opensecrets.org). What this means is that the corruption and gerrymandering is so bad that one Democratic dollar does not guarantee one Democratic vote. So we must work extra-hard to overcome the Republicans' efforts to ensure that most districts have been redrawn to favor Republican victories. This is not a time for squabbling about Clinton or Palin (as Clinton herself has emphatically pointed out).
Another four (or eight) years of Republican control will be devastating to our economy, environment, civil and human rights, and international security. There is too much at stake for personal grudges. Those of us who remember a different time than the rule of Bush II know the difference between Democrat and Republican, and it is imperative that we transmit this knowledge to younger folks.
Michael,
Everything you said about the vice presidency is basically true. And if Hillary ever gets to be Senate Majority Leader, she will have more power than she would have had as Vice President. For that reason, if Obama had offered her the VP slot, it's possible Hillary would have considered turning it down. But that doesn't mean she didn't deserve to be asked.
And I'd bet almost anything that if she had been asked, she would NOT have turned it down. The thing about vice presidents is, sometimes they wind up being presidents.
This actually makes me really angry. No, I do not think it is good to have THIS female VP on a Republican ticket. I do NOT think this is progress. She is being used as a symbol, pure and simple. Used as a symbol = no progress. More of the same.
Please, no more of "not THIS female" from either side (how about, "not THIS human?"). The choice of any VP is symbolic, because it represents what the primary candidate might be lacking. But yes, I think Clinton and Rice would have made much better VP choices, in terms of experience.
To Northray, thank you for your perspective. I've been looking for this since the announcement. Ladybug: I completely agree.
Facts:
1. She does have a respectable resume (tho it doesn't entirely pertain to the responsibilities of VP), and some interesting hobbies.
2. She does not represent my views, so I would never vote for her.
3. McCain's strategy is painfully obvious, but I think she's in on the joke.
4. The choice could have been much worse.
I do think a lot of liberal urban dwellers just don't understand that she may represent another kind of connection besides gender; it's the combination of her gender, beliefs, background, and lifestyle that has been unprecedented in a VP nomination, and therefore it will be very difficult to determine her appeal. While I hate having to pander to the interests of some flyover state idiots, Palin will definitely pique the curiosity of many reasonable people. Many of us know and love (but vehemently disagree) with someone like Palin, perhaps a relative or family friend.
Don't get me wrong - I'm really excited about the Obama-Biden team. However, in the closing scenes after Obama's speech the other night, I was briefly annoyed when the candidates were on stage with "the wives and kids." Isn't it always the candidates, supported by a wife in a skirt and their offspring? When the Republican convention rolls around, are we underestimating the potential impact of some younger (those who don't remember 1984) undecided voters witnessing a woman VP candidate on stage, accompanied by not only her kids, but a possible First Man? My personal beliefs and November vote notwithstanding, I'm not ashamed to admit this will be awesome to see once again.
All the people who claim that she should be, or should have been offered, the VP slot piss me off. Because no, you wouldn't have been satisfied with her being VP. You would have complained that Obama was being sexist and that the Democratic Party thinks women should always come second.
Does it every occur to you that there are other positions she could get? As Michael said, she could become Senate Majority Leader. She could be appointed to a Cabinet position.
It pisses me off, too, that so many people are so gleefully riding their privilege by saying they will throw their vote to someone other than Obama. I don't have the luxury of voting for who my conscience would like, being a poor female in a red state. Hey, there's this thing called "compromise", which has to be made in a system like ours that makes only two parties viable. If you don't like it, change the system, but for fuck's sake, don't throw women like me to the wolves.
"She" in my last post being Hillary Clinton.
is anyone following the rumor that her last child may actually be her daughter's child?
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-69834
a rumor, but pretty compelling
In this year of identity politics, if former Hillary Clinton voters want to combat the idea that they cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton simply because of her gender, this is a prime opportunity.
I think this selection will be a positive for feminism because it will force it to confront the most pervasive myth circulated about the movement---that it advances the rights of only women while casting a callous eye towards men. As I understand it, feminism is really humanism, and this is an excellent opportunity to advance that dialogue by confronting pseudo-feminist rhetoric.
"And I'd bet almost anything that if she had been asked, she would NOT have turned it down."
I don't know if we can say that for sure. She may have been asked, and she may have turned it down because she'd rather a real position of power.
One thing about VP selections, they don't ask publicly, for fear of being turned down publicly. They ask privately, so that all the public sees is acceptance.
If I were Hillary Clinton, I would have turned down the vice president position in favor of a much more powerful and significant position in the Obama whitehouse.
First of all, I'd like to say to all the "Hillary Supporters" -- that's fantastic that your devotion to her is so enduring, but at this point in the election, my question about your support is this: Are you a "McCain Supporter" or an "Obama Supporter?" Those are our major party candidates, and the ones whose politics we need to examine now.
I feel that people who insist on Hillary as VP severely overestimate the significance of the Vice President position. The purpose of the VP slot is, effectively (barring Cheney), solely for the election. Anybody hear the old joke, "I have two sons, one joined the navy, and the other became vice president, and I haven't heard from either one since"?
Regarding this particular VP choice, I have to disagree with this statement. Senator McCain is not a young man, as the press has reminded us time and time again. Say McCain becomes President, and he's doing a decent job -- not so conservative that Democrats hate him, and not so liberal that his own party resents him. He's been working both sides of the aisle to enact policy that everyone can be happy with. Those of us who voted for Obama are thinking, "This is so much better than the W administration."
And then, a year and a half into his presidency, McCain has a heart attack, or a stroke, or is diagnosed with terminal cancer, or any number of the things that can happen to a man in his 70's. Good-bye, President McCain, hello, President Palin. Instead of the mildly conservative president who was miles better than his predecessor, our new leader is a full-blown conservative who is less concerned with uniting her people than forcing her conservative agenda on us. For anyone who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, environmentally conscious, Hindu, or atheist, that scenario should be one of the scariest things you've heard all day. Personally, I'm terrified that second in line could be a person with whom I disagree on almost every issue.
I think McCain's choice is two-fold. The fact that Sarah Palin is a woman IS important. It is a patronizing attempt by the Republican party to sway women voters away from Obama. Even if it doesn't work, the fact that they would even attempt it is insulting to me. It's hard to deny that they are trying to install Palin as a Hillary substitute when Palin herself said in her acceptance speech, “Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” The fact that she would compare herself to Hillary Clinton is laughable to me -- I imagine that if these two women met, they would be arguing about every political issue in the book within two minutes. Which brings me to the other major reason McCain picked her, and one that should matter most to voters regardless of gender (ours AND hers): She is hugely conservative. She believes that creationism should be taught in science class, that abortion even for rape victims should be illegal, that drilling anywhere and everywhere will solve the world's ills. If she were a man I would feel exactly the same way.
I will not vote for McCain because of his condescension; I will not vote for a McCain/Palin ticket because of her political views.
Allie Wrote: "But I do believe that despite the pro-choice problem John McCain subscribes to less boy club politics than Obama."
It's not just McCains' anti-choice problem, it's his anti-equal pay for equal work problem, his pro-killing innocent women and children in other countries problem, and his anti-health care problem.
The Republican Party has NEVER run a woman as a major candidate and it's now 2008. The Dems have. To think that McCain's choice of Palin now is proof of his commitment to women is shockingly naive.
I'm a NYer and I voted for Obama so I could give a damn about this Palin person. This she a woman stuff is absurd to me. So damn what?
...and Melissa Harris-Lacewell take on it was spot on as usual.
"SuzyQ: you do not think that picking a black woman as VP would be more cynical."
I actually did not suggest he should have picked Condi Rice. I said someone of the stature of Condi Rice. I was on my way to work and there aren't a lot of Republican women of national stature and Condi's name was the only one that popped into my head as I was posting.
Once upon a time before Bush and the last 8 years I thought highly of Rice. Too bad her role with this administration means I will never again hold those feelings.
He could have picked Linda Chavez who was also in the administration.
There really aren't whole lots of Republican women are there?
http://womanrebel.blogspot.com
wax ghost posted:
is anyone following the rumor that her last child may actually be her daughter's child?
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-69834
a rumor, but pretty compelling
==========================================
Hmmm, I am a local and was not aware of this, but then I was wandering around bear country all spring and not keeping up with the happenings back in what passes for civilization up here.
A quick review of the link and the first family photo posted in an update is 1.5 months before Trig was born. Bristol has a normal Valley Girl (the Mat-Su Valley, that is) tummy and is not even close to appearing nearly 8 months pregnant. Palin is standing behind a child hiding her front like quite a few moms do that don't want people to know whats up.
The other family photo from "2007" has Bristol with the exact Valley Girl tummy that she has in the photo from just before Trig was born.
Bristol's tummy shows no change between the two photos in what could be a trimester of growth for the baby. So no baby on board for Bristol.
In all the other photos from around the 7 to 8 month time Palin is wearing clothes that purposly make her the same diameter from the chest to the hips. Perfectly hiding any evidence of any swelling of the mid section. Just like many moms that don't want you to know they are with child.
As for the 8 to 9 hours of labor on the plane ride home from Texas. My mom kept me in for over 12 hours so that I would not be born on April 1st. In labor for almost two days on purpose. She was not an athlete either. So if my couch potato mom could control her labor for two days then a fit women such as Palin could do it while flying for 9 hours.
And there is something not on there that may not appear anywhere in print. A day or two before Trig was born a local radio DJ that is in tight with the family announced the pregancy after meeting with them. That man can not keep anything under his hat so if Palin was not pregnant he would have spilt it by now.
"The Republican Party has NEVER run a woman as a major candidate and it's now 2008. The Dems have. To think that McCain's choice of Palin now is proof of his commitment to women is shockingly naive."
I don't question that, but taking the nomination, as TAP did, as proof of Republicans' anti-woman stance is sheer lunacy.
I followed that link jaja posted, and got hit with a bunch of lovely comments that tether women to their reproductive faculties once again.
Here's "lawyermomof3" holding forth on why Sarah Palin shouldn't have gone on a long airplane flight while nearing her due date:
"lawyermomof3 // 12 hours ago
I have a strong suspicion the story is true because a mother, especially one with four other children, would not put herself or her unborn child in serious danger by flying for any period of time if in labor, let alone, premature labor. If she were, in fact, pregnant, then she exercised the poorest of judgment. This tremendous lapse in judgment is reason enough to keep her out of the Oval Office."
REASON ENOUGH to keep her out of the Oval Office? Indeed? A person's choice about their health and the health of their soon-to-be born baby is really none of our business and absolutely NOT INDICATIVE of being qualified for an office.
Same with McCain--his cunt and rape jokes are reprehensible. But should they disqualify him from seeking and gaining the Oval Office? Unfortunately, to be fair, the answer is "no."
I just can't go that far in conflating the personal with the political.
Now, talk to me about Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas, and I think you might have case there--sex with prostitutes and sexual harassment both being illegal.
As well as illegal, add "an abuse of public power."
Bill clinton did nothing illegal or unlawful. His partner was willing. Clarence hasn't been proven to have done anything. Spitzer is a different story.
anyway it isnt about legality. if she is intentionally misrepresenting herself and facts to the public, it becomes relevant in judging her character. doesn't that point to a liar?
I disagree with you that McCain's jokes are not to be taken into account when judging his capacity to lead. If they express a bias that the country has or should move away from, then it's best to find a leader that doesn't have those sorts of hangups.
Jaja, I didn't comment on whether or not Palin has lied or misrepresented herself. I have no thoughts on that, either way; if she lied about the baby's parentage, well, then, that's not going to be good for either her or McCain.
My comment deals exclusively with other peoples' insisting on judging her fitness as a mother and then suggesting that she is not fit to be Vice-President because of her alleged parenting gaffes.
I think "character" issues are important when deciding whether or not to cast one's VOTE for a candidate. I believe, however, that they should not be a complete bar to *running* for office, unless, as I pointed out, they deal with legal issues or abuse of public power.
Re Clinton: I'm talking about his various alleged sexual harassment and assaults. Ditto Thomas. I should have put in "alleged" for both, and clarified "if these allegations are true."
What are you talking about--Lewinsky? I don't care about that mess except that he later lied about it.
For goodness sakes, Palin was the mayor of a town (more like a hamlet), then governor of a state with less people than darn near every congressional district in California. Alaska has no state sales tax or state income tax....Alaska has no budgeting issues!...DUH....the state government is a fraction of most of the other state governments in the "lower 48". For all the "he's not experienced" talk of Barack Obama, last I checked the former editor of Harvard Law Review and constitutional scholar ran a successful $300 million dollar grassroots campaign against the old guard of the Democratic party. Nuff said...oh well there is that one other nice thing about Barack. He is clearly not afraid of a smart, strong woman, in fact he loves those traits, hence, Michelle.
northray, I did not post that and would rather not be associated with spreading such gross rumors.
We supported Hillary not because she is a woman, but because she is competent, smart, and a strong leader; and she challenged the notion that women cannot do this job or have these qualities. The focus on her historical campaign has been slightly skewed in this respect, I think. But not all women, any more than all men, can do the job of the presidency. That's why McCain's pick is insulting and sexist, as well as cynical.
Liza
(I hope we see more about Palin's corruption and small-time political hustling as the days go on, btw. Just sayin'. Some good posting from Alaskans in the know is becoming available.)
you people are sick and cynical. and ironically, about the most anti-feminist group of bloggers i've seen. so, let's see
1. mccain picked palin because she has a vagina?
2. being pro-choice equates her to be anti-woman rights? didn't she exercise her pro-choice right by having her last child?
3. a young woman who had the courage to take on old-school GOP cronies and won back to back?
4. the fact that she is Governor in the most hotly political energy state in the U.S.?
5. that she is a blue-collar, principled mother of five who just got the calling of her life?
What on earth makes you believe that this woman is a shrinking violet?
you have no leg to stand on. be prepared for a very painful Fall election, but this woman from nowhere is going to be the vice president of the united states, a woman with more credentials to be president than barack obama. those of you who are so soured by hillary's defeat must attack this remarkable woman should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.
i support sarah palin 100!
Palin was a good choice for McCain because she is a woman and because she will be adored by the Christian base: stridently anti-choice and wants Christian religious mythology to be taught in public school science classes. I find it rather amusing the number of women who supported Hillary Clinton and are now considering voting for McCain because Palin is his vice presidential choice. They appear to be complete unaware of the issues or the political stands of the candidates.
Someone mentioned Linda Chavez and she would have at least been a more qualified pick and though I am Hispanic that still wouldn't mean anything to me cuz I don't like her politics either.
I say screw it all and vote for Nader! He's been trying at it for so long. Plus he's actually on the ballot...at least in Missouri.
Puma's are living in a fantasy world created because the Republicans haven't run against a woman. The idea that Dean, the democratic party, Obama are anti-woman or more so than the R's or McCain is not supported.
That would be like me (black male) assuming that because of the pain and bitterness of the primary that Democratic white women are more likely to be racists than republicans.
In more detail, has everyone visited osterizer's blog post and looked at her evidence? That's where she addresses the key issue: is Obama anti-woman. Where's the beef?
You seriously posted a picture of him with his back to Clinton in a crowded room with a bunch of other people in the shot? That sort of true believer stuff undercuts your credibility. On the other side is "periodically down" and "claws" the best you can do? I guess so.
If you want to lay your anger at a "Bros before Hos" cafepress shirt at Obama's feet please go ahead.
I will continue to work on my own issues regarding the grouping of nominally liberal women into the category of people who have some undefinable dislike for Obama's style. This is of course the exact same thing that a woman like Clinton suffers from. Some people know enough to watch their mouths but they "just don't like her".
I can't read other people's minds, so I have to take that at face value whoever it's directed against. It's hard though. I'm sure many Clinton supporters her also know this difficulty.