I don't need a B.S. poll to tell me how it's really going.
Republicans are voting for her.
Anti- choicers are voting for her.
They were the same people that would have voted for McCain.

The problem with these polls and other analyses of voter behavior is that people are treated as static blocks. Large groups of people do not move one way or the other in large tides. Both sides underestimate the complexity of people and their political views. Many come out and say one voting block, be they women of color or blue collar males, will decide this election. Issues of race, class, sexual orientation, and religion make this an exceedingly complicated mess. Only time will tell, but to be honest I am extremely fearful that McCain will win.

This poll doesn't say anything. We're these women for Hillary Clinton initially? What are their political views? Why do they support McCain/Palin? That nutty liberal media is making a story out of nothing!

Do these polls survey people who don't have land lines? I haven't had a land line since 2004 and many people of our generation have only had cellular phones for as much as 8 years... hmnnn...

Also, for those of us who are fearful of a McCain win (myself included), the burden rests on us to get out there, talk to friends in or travel to swing states and get the vote out for Obama. This is a really critical situation. Our economy is in shambles, health care is unaffordable for working people. We're at war. Quality of education is on a steady decline. Working people are losing their houses and their jobs.

Even if Obama is not the second coming of Christ, it is crucial that he be the next president and we all need to do all that we can to ensure that happens.

I can't find the original source now after Googling, but I read that the women supporting McCain/Palin in that poll are independent women, married women, and Catholic women. If anyone can find verifiable sources of what I read, I'd love to know more.

Bah, I just read another news story that showed that the majority of women polled -- 55 percent -- disapproved of Palin. And as for polls in general, well, all I have to say is "Dewey Defeats Truman."

>Do these polls survey people who don't have land >lines? I haven't had a land line since 2004 and >many people of our generation have only had >cellular phones for as much as 8 years... >hmnnn...

All the polling agencies are well aware of the cell-phone only households, and are trying to address it in some way or another. They definitely recognize that cell-phone only is a growing segment, that they are demographically different, and that polls need to find a way to capture them.

Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!

Ugh.

~Jen M.

Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!

Ugh.

~Jen M.

I think this shows that there are a lot of women out there that like Palin, and are inspired by her pro life conservative positions. Perhaps there are not as many women out there that share a liberal ideology as some women at this site would like to believe. That may be a tough pill to swallow for some of you. Also, Palin thinks (and perhaps a lot of other women too) that a socially conservative, Christian, heterosexual, white, male should be the leader of this country. Tough pill, indeed.

Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!

Ugh.

~Jen M.

Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!

Ugh.

~Jen M.

Thanks for making me hate my fellow white women, McCain!

/SNARK

These polls just baffle me. How is it possible that Obama is not at least 20 points ahead these two lying crooks? I really really hope the numbers are a reflection of the fact (I think it's a fact) that pollsters typically call land-lines in the middle of the day, which means they miss out on an enormous chunk of the under-30 demographic.

I'm about as white as you can get (well, ok, that's not completely true, I'm 1/32 native American, but it's statistically insignificant) and I wouldn't vote for those McCain Palin wingnuts if you paid me.

I am sorely disappointed in my fellow white women if the polls are true. Sigh.

Once again, my faith in the American electorate is smashed. It's painful.

I have a t-shirts that says "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" and the more I look at polls, the more I think that's true.

Not that alot of Clinton voters are stupid, but there are some people who're really afraid of Barack Obama, and they're using Sarah Palin as a safe answer.

Hopefully they'll realize that she's not that safe, and the honeymoon period will be brief.

Also, Palin thinks (and perhaps a lot of other women too) that a socially conservative, Christian, heterosexual, white, male should be the leader of this country.

yup. every single oppressed group in this country is capable of self-hate... even at the heights of political power. too bad, from your tone, indy, it seems that you think this is a good thing. that so many women have been convinced that a man knows what's better for them and their country than they ever could.

Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!

don't look at it that way, sibling... make it make you want to TRANSFORM the country - and fast! too many of my friends talk about moving to other countries and whatnot, but the power still lies here... and if we, some of the most privileged people on the planet, don't take responsibility for transforming the dialog in the nation that's blessed us with wealth and opportunity, then we're partners in the violent and irresponsible path this great nation has set foot upon.

so stop talking about leaving and start talking about campaigning, okay? this shit is mad important and it's bigger than you just feeling proud of where you live or being comfortable.

to be clear, i totally understand where you're coming from and i don't mean to be too harsh, i just think it's critical this point gets across...

peace and blessings

>> it seems that you think this is a good thing that so many women have been convinced that a man knows what's better for them and their country than they ever could.

Could we not say exactly the same thing about female Obama supporters? As a preface, I am an Obama supporter. But, I do tend to play devil's advocate on blogs because both sides are rarely aired.

In my opinion, progressive and feminist blogs often make the mistake of assuming that all women agree with our political assessment. But, as we often note here, "women" are not a monolithic voting block. There are leftist women, progressive women, independent women, conservative women, and even reactionary women.

The fact that Sarah Palin is a hardline conservative would not necessarily be a problem for many women throughout this country. So I do not find it particularly odd that the addition of a strong, articulate, conservative woman to McCain's ticket would help him among conservative and independent women ... and maybe even women who are slightly progressive, but are put off by Obama. I also have no doubt that her nomination will not help him at all among staunchly progressive women ... but, I don't really think we were the target audience.

I usually try to separate my progressive politics from my feminist advocacy. I do not believe that one must be progressive in order to be a feminist. A feminist can be a corporate stooge, a Christian, a housewife, a warmonger, a conservative, a tax cutter -- a feminist can even be anti-choice. A woman need not share my progressive opinions for her voice to have value.

I support Sarah Palin in her right to run for Vice President, in her right to be spared sexism from political opponents, and in her right to have and voice her own opinion on matters of public policy. She has the right to be conservative. That I disagree with her -- and millions of other women across the country who support her -- does not devalue her opinion.

It means that I won't vote for her -- but I have no doubt that many less-progressive women will. I think Obama made a serious mistake in his choice for VP, and I think John McCain made a selection that will ultimately help his chances of winning.

Honestly, I don't have a good feeling about this election.

kbz

I never take the polls seriously, they're nearly always skewed and tend to oversimplify.

KBZ,

you _did_ read the comment to which i was replying, right? if you didn't, i quoted it right above the sentence to which you responded. context matters and it's pretty clear that neither Obama (who even apologized for calling Michelle "sweetie" on the campaign trail) nor Biden feel that a woman's place is behind a man. it's not so clear that McCain (who suggested his wife compete topless for a prize in a biker rally) has as much respect for women.

if you're going to be a devil's advocate (is that redundant?), at least be a well-informed one.

One thing to keep in mind is that the errors on a subset of polling data are going to be larger than on the polling data as a whole. If women make up half the poll, and white women make up some fraction of total women, you're dealing with a subset of a subset, and the errors get pretty big. So the swing could easily be a lot smaller than the ABC News poll suggests. There is a nice post about this effect on this very poll here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/mommy-quotient.html

I read the comment. I know the context. Some women think a heterosexual white male should be the leader of the country -- some women think a heterosexual black male should be the leader of this country. Both are supporting a man to run the country.

In my opinion, Obama's policies are certainly better than McCain's with regard to women. But, I acknowledge that some women may disagree. Their opinion is no less valid than mine ... such is the nature of democracy.

kbz

Taking polls with a grain of salt, as is wise, Pew has an article up on how cell-phone only respondents appear to be impacting their data. The article is .

In short, their study found:

Including cell-phone only respondents bumped their results a couple of percentage points toward Obama. (Not a huge change, but enough to be relevant in a close election.) Cell-phone only respondents were mostly young (18 to 29, I believe), mostly male, and mostly POC. However, they were also less likely to be registered to vote, and if they were registered, less likely to say that they were "definitely voting."

What they don't say is whether or not they have included cell-phone only respondents in their polling since publication (July 2008), so I don't know if more recent polls reflect the increase of support for Obama or not.

However, what that does tell me, is that voter registration, especially among young people and in communities of color, should be a priority for Democrats; as should voter turnout drives within those same communities.

Sigh. My HTML got screwed up. The period in my previous comment is a link, but so is this:

Link to Pew article on cell phones and polling results

Some women think a heterosexual white male should be the leader of the country -- some women think a heterosexual black male should be the leader of this country.

the difference here is that the commenter to whom i was replying was speaking in general terms, suggesting that a woman should _never_ run the country herself, whereas people who think that Obama should run the country don't think women should not lead or that our only national leaders should be heterosexual black males.

Fellow Feministas,

I am a feminist and pro-life and was not going to vote for Hillary Clinton. However, though I had no personal affinity for Hillary Clinton prior to her race for the nomination for the Democratic ticket... when I saw how reporters and her own party treated her (as well as hecklers in the crowd)... I gained some heartwarming feelings of affinity for Hillary Clinton. I am angry she was treated as she was. I have a sense of "sisterhood" with Hillary I would never have felt had she been treated with the respect she has earned and deserves.

Now, I will tell you this. There are plenty of pro-life women who WERE going to vote for Hillary on the same basis as the "pull" I felt to back her - because I was incensed at how she was treated. But my issue stand was too strong to swing towards support of her personally in my vote. There were PLENTY of women who were going to cross the aisle to vote for a woman candidate - and who didn't really care what her issue stands were - because she was respectable, a woman, and a vote for her was a vote for women like her - us.

Now, you are going to see the same "swing" over to the McCain ticket for Sarah Palin. Numerous, numerous women are going to vote for her because she is respectable - a woman - she's getting treated with disrespect... and she represents us - as feminists... because she is a woman moving to shatter the glass ceiling.

She's going to get the white women vote that Hillary would have gotten... and it's just the reward Mr. Obama has earned for himself by not putting Hillary on the ticket.

Though I wouldn't have voted for Hillary - I can feel the ire with the Hillary supporters that she was not requested to run with Barack Obama.

Why not??

That's what I want to know.

And what exactly qualified Joe Biden more than Hillary Clinton?? I can't see any substantive difference on issues. He certainly doesn't excel against Hillary Clinton. She's extremely intelligent... and she had the support of about half of the Democratic party for President.

Why did Barack Obama choose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton??

I think it was sexist. No possible way do I believe any different - since I see no greater qualification in Joe Biden... and Hillary, in my opinion, really did "earn her spot" with her incredible strong showing against him throughout the national contest for the Democratic ticket.

Mr. Barack Obama made the mistake of a lifetime - I'm hoping.

There's no better victory for Democrat and Republican feminists alike than McCain/Palin.

Our "stock" as women is going to skyrocket.

It's going to be obvious that McCain won by being inclusive towards all women in the person of Sarah Palin.

It's going to be obvious that Obama lost be failing to be inclusive towards all women in the person of Hillary Clinton.

It's our future... and our "stock" needs to RISE!! to the percent we deserve... and it's just about time we got what we really deserve:

"R E S P E C T... find out what it means to me."

Laura D.

>> the difference here is that the commenter to whom i was replying was speaking in general terms, suggesting that a woman should _never_ run the country herself

That's not how I interpreted her comment. I interpreted it to mean in THIS INSTANCE she thinks a heterosexual white male is the right person for the job. Granted, it was poorly phrased -- but voters that think women are simply not qualified to run the country won't be voting for Palin as VP (as there is a legitimate chance that she'll be running the country eventually).

>> whereas people who think that Obama should run the country don't think women should not lead or that our only national leaders should be heterosexual black males.

Some might. Mostly not. But, I didn't interpret her comment to say that only a white male can be qualified -- I interpreted them to say that in this instance the white male is the most qualified.

If your interpretation were correct, why would she support a ticket that left a female (thus, a non-male) only one geriatric breath away from the Presidency?

kbz

Hafta get something off my chest...it sickens me that Sarah Palin wants to count herself amongst those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. It's like the person who takes credit for opening the pickle jar when the 20 women behind her loosened the cap. She is not fit to count herself amongst the ranks of those women who truly rocked that ceiling. Say what you want about Hillary, heck I was never a big fan, but at least she put her crack in through true grit and hard work, and maintains her composure. If I were Hillary I would be fucking furious, and the whole world would know it! But that's why I am a secretary and not a politician.....

If McCain wins, I'm sticking my head in a goddamn woodchipper.

>> Why did Barack Obama choose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton?? I think it was sexist.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was sexist. There are quite a few reasons not to choose Hillary Clinton. He might not have wanted a VP that would compete w/ him for attention -- i.e. he might not want to chance being overshadowed by his running mate (McCain obviously doesn't care that his running-mate CLEARLY overshadows him). He might have preferred Biden's foreign policy experience, his lengthy Washington service, etc.

Ultimately, I think he chose Biden because Biden was a safe pick. He's non-controversial, he's safe, he's an inside-the-beltway type. He doesn't rock the boat, and he's been around Washington FOREVER. He doesn't really change the race at all. He's mainstream -- and he doesn't distract from Barack Obama. He's basically a Democratic version of John McCain.

McCain, on the other hand, took a risk. He nominated a true outsider, an inexperienced fresh face. And, McCain really shook up the campaign in the process. She's invigorated and inspired the right, and made the center sit up and take notice. She completely overshadows McCain ... and he may ride HER coattails to the White House. Ultimately, McCain nominated a conservative version of Obama ... an exciting and engaging candidate with the possibility of making "history".

>> Hillary, in my opinion, really did "earn her spot" with her incredible strong showing against him throughout the national contest for the Democratic ticket.

She lost. He earned the right to choose whomever he wants. Personally, I think he chose poorly. But, Hillary Clinton really didn't earn anything.

klbz

"R E S P E C T... find out what it means to me."

I don't know about you, Laura D, but here's what respect DOESN'T mean to me:

Being charged $1200 for your own rape kit. (See post directly before this one.)

Being blatantly lied to.

Being denied the right to marry the consenting adult you are in love with, if that person should happen to be your own sex.

Being denied access to contraception and proper sexual information, and then denied a home for yourself and your baby.

Shall I go on?

Republicans respect women -- so long as they're willing to throw other women to the hounds.

I think it's a huge mistake to assume that Hillary would have wanted or accepted the VP nomination.

She's far, far more powerful as a Senator, and her ability to get ahead and get things done are far more served in the Senate than as VP. Presidential candidates do not tell us how many people turned them down, they only celebrate the acceptance. I read somewhere, but will offer it only as rumor since I can't remember where to link to it, that Hillary asked to not be vetted.

Sure, if Obama died, then Hillary would be President - but do we want a woman like her sitting around waiting for a mere possibility, or do we want her in a position where she can make things happen? She's her own woman with her own ambitions, and while being President was one of those ambitions, I wouldn't automatically assume that being VP was one, too.

This website is mainly bubble gum to me, fun to read every so often. But this comment strand demonstrates an absolutely startling misunderstanding of feminism and its values. One striking example is how one individual stated that a feminists are so diverse that some could even be labeled 'warmongers' as well as peace advocates.

Now, that's just stupid, really. It doesn't work that way, I'm sorry. Oppression of any kind, be it based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or even based on species in some cases, is unforgivable and unacceptable within the feminist community. You cannot support war and claim to be feminist because you have a vagina. Sorry, doesn't work.

But, line by line, issue by issue, if you are at all dissatisfied with the status quo, just go ahead and vote Obama-Biden. They present a far, far superior ticket. I mean, really, if you were going to gamble on change or some kind of progression, how could you on principle alone gamble with the party already in power who have so magnificently screwed things up? I mean, you really have to be ignorant to vote McCain, or racist perhaps, but mainly ignorant.

I am so freaking tired of hearing about "the black vote" and the "women vote" and so on... don't people (the media) realize how incredibly ridiculous that is to assume that because a large group of people have something in common, such as race or gender, that they would vote the same! It's not one big vote! I heard on CNN today that John McCain had "vowed to pursue the black vote" --- what does that even mean?!?!?
ok, so this is a little off subject, but these polls irritate the crap out of me!

I agree with you for the most part. I am a peace activist, and strongly decry war as a political means. We probably see eye-to-eye with regards to most policy.

But, perhaps your definition of feminism is more narrow than mine. That's fine. To each her own. But, I would define feminism as endeavoring for the betterment of women. Generally, I believe women can define "betterment" however they please (certainly within reason). Allowing and acknowledging this individuality in women is essential for the true achievement of women's liberation. Women must be free to be conservative, progressive, independent or disinterested.

Perhaps "warmonger" was a poor choice of words (it was a progressive epithet for the position I ascribe to conservative "hawks"). But, some women, particularly conservative women, may believe the "betterment" of womankind is achieved by the "defense of liberty". I know women like this -- my sister-in-law, for instance. She truly believes the betterment of life for women worldwide requires the elimination of despotic regimes, through military means if necessary. She believes we're ALL better off with Saddam Hussein dead.

She might be wrong. But, then again, so might I. I am not arrogant enough to deem my political philosophy the only "feminist" philosophy. Women can reasonably disagree. Many do.

kbz

KBZ

Well, what happens when one women decides that the "betterment of women" involves them all having babies. Not a big deal...unless that women attempts to pass laws that ban abortion, restrict access to birth control etc. She would be forcing her policies on other women. That is the issue I have with Palin. If someone doesn't want to have an abortion...don't get one, but don't assume your decision is THE RIGHT decision and take that away from other women...that's not betterment.

Feminists fight for people's rights to vote for who they want, choose to give birth to how many children they want, choose what type of person they marry, choose their birth control/birthing method, choose to say home or go to work. People who aren't feminists fight against having those choices because they have decided what is better for women in all situations.

As a woman of color, I will be voting for Obama-Biden for several reasons:

1. Sarah Palin and I don't share the same beliefs;

2. When John McCain won the Republican nomination, the first thing I thought was my God he's too old;

3. Sarah Palin and John McCain are running a campaign on sound bites; they are using quips and jabs as policy proposals and experience;

4. Since they announced Sarah as the VP pick, almost every word to come out of her mouth has been a lie. I've had enough of government lying to me, I'm looking for a little truth telling;

5. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state and

6. I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that black women or black people in general are voting for Barack just because he's black and that couldn't be further from the truth; he's so much more than just a "black man" and it will be unfortunate if America doesn't see that.

If Barack was as severely pro-choice as Sarah, I wouldn't vote for him. If Barack didn't have a vision for this country that I believed in, I wouldn't vote for him and if Barack came out of the gate lying to the American people, he wouldn't be worth the effort. But thank goodness he is worth the effort and if we don't elect him president, I kinda feel sorry us; we will have missed an opportunity to see this country flourish.

Be well, CF

PS: I think Joe Biden is ready to be president on day one.

Sorry, should have been:

If Barack was as pro-life as Sarah I wouldn't vote for him either. I couldn't see making my Daughter bare her father's child.

That's just me.

Be well, CF

My first reaction to McCain's choice of Palin, and my subsequent research into her political positions, was to immediately say, "Nobody's fooled by this!" Unfortunately, some people actually are more willing to consider the similar genitalia (presumably) of Clinton and Palin over their obvious and distressing gaps in policy. Sigh.

who knows if this is true. it seems like evey poll i read has different results regarding the same thing. and some of these polls seem to be very unprofesional such as college polls.

As an independent, I have yet to decide where to place my support in this election. There are negatives on both tickets. However, I am constantly surprised at the level of prejudice that exists in our country today - even among a progressive group of feminists as on this forum. During this election season, we still see prejudice regarding Obama for being black, for having a Muslim background, for being 'elite'. We see prejudice from media and others on Hillary being a woman -- incredible and shameful! We deplore these instances of prejudice, yet even today we see comments of prejudice against Palin for being conservative, Christian, a mom (!), and a woman. We even see prejudice against McCain for being "old" -- doubtlessly from much younger and wiser individuals. This last one surprises me - though it should not. Age discrimination is rampant in today's workplace. When I was younger we used to say never trust anyone over 30. Today it seems that society does not want to trust or have confidence in anyone over 45. The fact that McCain is 72 should not be an issue. He is sharp minded and intelligent - even if one does not agree with him. Even many Democrats regard him with respect, despite political differences.

I can recall when John Kennedy ran for president -- many people, women especially, voted for him because he was handsome! Please let's focus on the issues and not gender, race, religion, or age.

Childofthesixties, have you read all the posts on Feministing (the main blog, I can't speak for the entire community) about Sarah Palin? The only ones that could count as not being about the issues are the ones castigating the media for focusing too much on superficial things like Palin's appearance.

Seriously, anyone undecided at this point should be embarrassed. What more information do you need that is not out there already? Also, perhaps a little anger from progressives is in order. Screw McCain and, well, screw Palin too! I really do not care if she's a mom and all of that. Holy crap, she had five kids. Wow! Should she get some kind of medal?

The problem with McCain is that, his record notwithstanding, is he's a political joke. The problem with Palin is that she is not just a Christian, but she goes to a church where people speak in tongues, dance with snakes, and advocates for teaching creationism in schools. As an educator myself, these views have no place, no place, in rational public discourse. End of story.

This poll is disturbing but not surprising. People aren't that deep, I saw it coming.

LOL

In America, the majority gets to rule themselves and the minority. 82 million white women are the majority population in America – not men and not racial minorities. Therefore, if a majority of 82 million white women vote and a majority of this percent decide McCain and Palin should be President and VP, then their majority electoral voice rules. It does not matter why they make this decision. It does not matter what policies, programs, values, or things McCain and Palin support or implement. McCain and Palin will not do anything so bad if elected that 303 Americans become extinct. Some of us may not become rich – so what. Some of us may not feel feminist empowered – so what. Some of us may not feel less discriminated-against -- so what! Some of us will have to carry pregnancies to term – so what! Some of us may have to stay poor or get poorer – so what! What matter is, we obey majority-rule, regardless of whether we like it. That is what We The People, Democracy, Majority Rule means. In November, to out and vote – and hope your candidates win. If you do not vote, then shut up, period! If your candidate loses (be it Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin), then you can be bitter and pissed-off. However, just makes sure you submit to the Electoral Will of The Majority – bottom-line. What else you going do, give up your U.S. citizenship and privilege? I doubt it – LOL. You are just going to have to suck it up until the next presidential races in 2012 and 2016. Just be grateful you are an American and not extinct.

shaun,

If everyone was supposed to be decided by this point, what's the purpose in having the debates? I'm not surprised at all if people want to wait until then to make their decisions instead of basing them on media gossip. No one should be embarrassed for feeling like they need more information.

And what do speaking in tongues and dancing with snakes have to do with whether Palin would be a fit leader or not? Wanting to teach creationism - that's a tangible policy concern. Dancing with snakes - so? How is it any stranger than thinking that one is drinking Jesus's blood when taking the Eucharist? If it's not affecting policy choices, attacking mystical aspects of someone's religion just because it's not familiar to you is mean spirited.

Shaun, I am with you 100%.

A privileged woman who works outside the home is not necessarily a feminist. I'd have thought that would be obvious.
There is a difference between thinking that oneself is equal to men and advocating for the rights of ALL women. The first is an example of personal ambition (or merely economic survival) whilst the second is an example of feminism. Palin fails the latter test.

Her Republican puppet-masters are all up in arms about "sexism," which apparently means "any tough questioning of Palin's policy stances or record." If she's such a hard-ass pitbull, put her on Meet The Press; have her explain her beliefs and policy plans to the public without a teleprompter. You know, just like the boys.

It's not sexist to investigate the veracity of her claims - about both her political record AND her circus of a family sitch. If she doesn't want her family to be a part of this race, she should stop using them to demonstrate how capable and Christian she is.

By using Palin as a gimmick to gain votes, the Republicans are the ones who've committed the worst sexism against Palin (not to mention all the references to her hawtness).

This Palin pick has really brought people's misunderstanding of feminism to the forefront, hasn't it? Siding with someone simply because she has the same goods between her legs? That's not feminism; that's myopic and lazy.

OneVoice, please go back to Civics class.

Okay, SarahMC, I can do that. In fact I might even teach that class, LOL. Now, can you let me "dictate" what you should or must do -- go back to the kitchen, stay bare-foot and pregnant, obey your husband (and all men including myself), and don't ever have the audacity to express your "female-voice" again, especially to a male, LOL. Sound like some absurd (or some ad hominem abusive) non-sense? I agree. But that's what happens when YOU act like a pig (whether male or female) and want to play in the insult-mud, LOL. Note, however, if you're one of those 82 million white females (especially a Palin supporter), then I aplogize -- but only cuz I want to kiss your neo-con-ass to get access to some resources and power, just like Palin, LOL. Just call me a male-chauvist-opportunistic pig, not because of my body-parts or biology, but because I learn from the best ... like Palin, LOL.

Actually, I think OneVoice needs to go back to English class, since he's pretty much incomprehensible.

ShifterCat,

If YOU cannot comprehend me, this is why YOU need to let me "dictate" what you think, how you think, and how you behave -- LOL.

Now, let us start with easy instructions to you, baby-cognitive-steps, for I do not want to confuse you or overload your brain:

Step 1: Do whatever I tell you.

Step 2: Do not vote for McCain/Palin.

Step 3: Vote for Obama/Biden.

Step 4: Ask your Mommy how to register to vote.

Step 5: Then go vote per my instructions above.

Did you "comprehend" that, those Anglo-Saxon-American-English-Instructions, LOL? If not, I can translate them into Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Talog, French, German, Italian, or stupid-idiom, LOL. I can even ask Big Bird, or Kermit, or Ms Piggy, or Barney to translate -- LOL.

By the way, how do YOU know I am a "he"? Why do you assume (in "patriarchy" fashion) that GOD is a "he". I could be an "it" or "she" -- LOL. And, yes, I know that word "patriarchy" as a tad bit complex for your brain to process. I am sorry about that. Please ask your Mommy for a dictionary and find that word for you -- LOL.

Feel free to post me another message about any other Learning Disabilities (LDs) you have. I will be happy to help you out.

Much Lub Boo -- LOL.

One Voice:

It has been said, and unfortunately I cannot give credit to the person who did so, that a government's responsibility is to all its people, and not just to those who voted it in. Your claims that if you don't vote then you should "shut up", and if your preferred party does not win, you should submit to the will of the majority, is a complete misinterpretation of what democracy means.

Democracy and freedom of speech means that whoever you vote for and whoever is in power, you still have the right to question government policies and law-making, debate issues and voice an opinion. A government, no matter how big their majority, should never be able to govern without examination, accountability and criticism. That would be a dictatorship!

Sure, a government comes to power by a majority win at an election. However, a government which ignores reaction to laws it passes, basking in its perceived "right to rule", does so at its own peril. Electoral opinion and support can swing dramatically if a government passes laws which disadvantage too many of its citizens. I assume you must be satisfied with your own situation in life when you can dismiss the disadvantage that others may suffer as a result of the election's outcome with, "so what!"

I am confused by your statement: "Just be grateful you are an American and not extinct". Your assumed superiority of the American system is ignorant and offensive. Educate yourself in the ways other western democracies run elections, structure government and represent their people, and you may find a number of questionable aspects with regards to the American system. The context and use of the word "extinct" is not fully explained.

Anyway, I am actually glad that I live in a country where politics and government has not been overtaken by people who are more interested in pushing their religious and moral agenda on others, rather than representing the people and creating policy and laws from the needs of those same people. If I were an American citizen in the climate of the current Presidential election, I would be truly frightened by the possibility of my rights, and the rights of my children and fellow citizens, being taken away, and the notion that a government can see itself as being given a mandate to make decisions for individuals which are of the most personal and private nature.

WOW! AliCat,

All of what you wrote was profound! Shit, you sure you're not related to and a descedant of the colonial, visionary, founding fathers? Your shit is deep and prophetic!

But, I already know all this stuff, LOL. I learned about it in Kidergarden. I don't live in Sesame Street Fantasy. I don't live aboard the Star Ship Interprise. I don't live in a college dorm room, filling my head full of wishful-thinking theories and stuff, that has not "praxis" in the real world, LOL.

So, grow the frak up dammit! Stop being a Pussy-Cat and become a Pitt-Bull-With-Lip-Stick (ROFLMAO) and vote for Obama/Biden, LOL.

P.S. Democracy and freedom of speech means ... nothing in the real world, only in the abstract, vaccum, world of academia -- LOL. You and I, and 301 other million Americans live in a Oligarchy-Capitalist-Nation ... ruled by an Elite ... mostly powerful, affluent, white males ... and their 82 million white females lovers, wives, and mistresses. Jesus Christ, do you need a reality check, LOL. So, get with the program, vote OB1 (Obama/Biden) and let the force keep the neo-con-darkside (MP2 -- the McCain/Palin duo) from conquering and taking over the Cosmos, LOL.

LOL

SarahMC, ShifterCat, AliCat ... I hope yall know I'm just having some fun ... though I do hope most voters elect Obama/Biden. All of that other stuff, that's just me being a prankster:) I have my serious political opinions. But, hey, most of those I've posted in on other topics, even here, and there are few neo-cons blogging on here to really get down and dirty serious. So I hope none of you take my hyperbole, exaggerations, too serious, and just roll with it. And thanks for letting me tease all of you. You're good sports. I respect all the bloggers on here, including the McCain/Palin supporters voicing their opinions. Text-book Democracy does not exist in America or in any nation for that matter. Oligarchy would be a more precise, real-life, description of American politics and Who Rules America. Nonetheless, most American citizens do get to vote, assuming they've registered, LOL. And sure, there are tactics that under-count those votes, whether it is "hang-chads' (LOL) or dubious-redistricting, or 527 tactics, or campaign propaganda (rhetoric). But I love American (and I've lived/worked in many countries/cultures). So, things aren't great for all. And they sure enough may get worse if McCain and Palin are elected. But we're resilient!That much I'm optimistic about:) Again, your three, thanks for letting me tease you, have some fun.

I think it is very sad how rough some people are in answering those who they disagree with.

If you have reason on your side, that should be enough, and you should be able to make your case without insults or snide remarks.

How can you expect to persuade people after you disrespect them? That is ineffective as well as just plain wrong. I honestly thought that the standards here would be consistant - and higher.

One Voice --

You didn't read my post too well or you would have realized that I'm not American, so if I, by coincidence, sounded like one of your founding fathers, maybe there was some substance to what I had to say?

Nor did I feel that I was being teased. You delude yourself. I think the only person who feels that you are in any way clever in your perception of "having fun" is yourself.

What's your agenda? Being a prankster? Having some fun, you say? Perhaps, because you write "lol" countless times. Maybe "troll" is more accurately hitting the mark.

Your attempt in your last posting to come across as actually having some substance doesn't succeed.

And believe me, as a citizen of the rest of the world, ie not American, I am more than aware that democracy is not alive and well in the US. Your fellow American citizens are also aware of the fact in the concern they are demonstrating with regards to the potential loss of individual rights a McCain/Palin win poses, so don't set yourself up as a superior being who is able to see the true state of democracy in your country.

People come to this site to discuss in a serious manner issues which affect them, their fellow citizens and those who live in other countries. No, none of us lives in a perfect world, nor ever expects to, but that doesn't mean we should just "roll with it" and accept things the way they are. As has been illustrated countless times in the history of your country as well as around the world, change is possible if enough people care to make it happen.

So please take your adolescent brand of humour elsewhere where it might be appreciated more and allow others the opportunity to discuss issues, whether in agreement or not, without the intrusion of a time-waster.

Insulting people, and then justifying your actions by saying you are "having fun" and calling those you target "good sports" does in no way excuse your behaviour.

LOL

AliCat, you're not being nice to me. If you keep being mean to me, I'm going to deport you:)

AnnieM, I agree. Can you please make AliCat be nice to me:) I mean this person is insulting me in every post but then trying to justify it, LOL.

One Voice --

I see that your last comment at 6:08 AM September 10 is another well reasoned discussion on the topic...

SAMHITA:

The person identifying himself as OneVoice has deliberately sabotaged any chance of continuing worthwhile discussion on your posting. It is a pity as it is such a great topic.

Maybe some consideration could be given to banning this person, as his behaviour deliberately contradicts the comments policy, and takes away from the integrity of this fantastic website.

I am aware that in posting this comment I will probably encourage yet another response from him, but I'm a big girl and I can take it!!!!

Regards and all the best with your book and move to New York state,

AliCat

This is NOT the first thread OneVoice has done this in. I wouldn't mind reading everyone's opinions, no matter how out-there, but OneVoice seems to just want to say flammatory things for no other purpose than stirring up drama.

AliCat,

How dare you be mean to me, an "American" after claiming you're not an American. Since when do "Non-Americans" get to dictate how Americans blog -- LOL. You're being cry-baby:)

So, guess what, you're deported. Now you can blog on "your nation's" websites, and dictate how all the bloggers there write and think:)

Alixana,

You're deported too. Otherwise stop telling other bloggers how to write, what to write, and projecting your non-sense onto them. If you cannot handle other bloggers opinions then don't comment, just go create your own website, and issue passwords to blogger who you think are your clone:)

AliCat,

How dare you be mean to me, an "American" after claiming you're not an American. Since when do "Non-Americans" get to dictate how Americans blog -- LOL. You're being a cry-baby:)

So, guess what, you're deported. Now you can blog on "your nation's" websites, and dictate how all the bloggers there write and think:)

Alixana,

You're deported too. Otherwise stop telling other bloggers how to write, what to write, and projecting your non-sense onto them. If you cannot handle other bloggers opinions then don't comment, just go create your own website, and issue passwords to blogger who you think are your clone:)

AliCat,

How dare you be mean to me, an "American" after claiming you're not an American. Since when do "Non-Americans" get to dictate how Americans blog -- LOL. You're being a cry-baby:)

So, guess what, you're deported. Now you can blog on "your nation's" websites, and dictate how all the bloggers there write and think:)

Alixana,

You're deported too. Otherwise stop telling other bloggers how to write, what to write, and projecting your non-sense onto them. If you cannot handle other bloggers opinions then don't comment, just go create your own website, and issue passwords to blogger who you think are your clone:)

OneVoice:

Maybe it's just me but I don't recall your original post mentioning the American Citizens being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan or the civilians we are killing in those countries.

John McCain's stance on war is scary and his aggressive reaction during the Russia/Georgia conflict was troubling. All of his chest thumping was so unnecessary and stupid.

So Palin-McCain winning this election would be more that just "So What." And there are plenty of women in this country who don't want to carry a baby to term. There are enough unwanted children in this country already and as I stated before, I wouldn't subject my daughter to having to bare a child from her Father, or Brother, or Uncle, etc.

Be well, CF

ChaoticFat,

I agree with you 100% These consequences are a direct result of public policy decisions and executive decisions. Moreover, such policies and executive decisions cannot be executed without a "majority" or "minority" consense of American citizens -- especially those that support such policies and decisions. This is one of the reasons why Obama/Hillary (and now Obama/Biden) and McCain/Palin have achieve their nominations: each party/candidate-duo is advocating a particular vision, policies, and executive leadership which (aside from spin/rhetoric) claims to address these complex issues and more.

Now, I 100% agree, that my "so what" comment reflects an apathetic, non-partisian, unempathetic, statistical perspective -- probably akin to what some may feel when they turn on the radio or TV and hear about some stranger being murdered or thousands of people dying in a natural disaster. Do I really feel indifference, neutrality, about which party/candidates get elected -- of course not.

I simply wanted to take a break from the cyber-seriousness which all the other bloggers were debating (and fighting) with each other over which party/candidates should be elected. I thought I have some fun, instead of particpating in their passionate efforts to "convert each other" -- or sing to the choir. All of us are going to vote, offline, whatever our politics and values. I plan to vote for Obama/Biden given mine. Does this mean I'm 100% right, and thus I care about people and consquences -- Yes. Does this mean those who vote for McCain/Palin are 100% wrong, and thus dont' care about people and consquences -- No. They care too! They care about people and consquences from their perspectives, values, and politic. Will our votes, and thus the party/candidates elected, mean such was an academic exercise, or a cyberpspace expression of our will, or a vacuum outcome of our opinions -- NO. Real life things are going to happen (some or many terrible and some or many beneficial) whether Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin are elected. Will it be the end of America, where our nation stops being a super-power or our population becomes extinct, I dam sure hope not!

And, yes, I know bloggers can only understand what I literally write and thus will assess (and judge) my cyber-comments on such. So, yes, I understand why some get upset or pissed off, and want to ban or censor me from blogging here. I also understand that some simply get upset and pissed because they don't agree with or like my opinion -- no matter what style or tone of writng I use, no matter what forms or modes of rhetoric or logic or reason I use. Then there are those bloggers here (hopefully only a few) who simply want to dictate what anyone or all posting here write, how they write it, and whether they can have an opinion. These folks have "control-issues" having nothing to do with debate, dialogue, cyberspace codes of conduct, or some form of Robert's Rules, or Freedom of Speech. They simply want others (or a particular person) to think and act like their clone -- to cyber affirm their insecure or power-trip or need to control egos. These are the bloggers who need to create their own websites and issue passwords to bloggers who pass whatever peverted test they would like to administer:)

Moreover, when a fellow bloggers starts talking about how I should be banned or censored, or how I must abide by his or her writing styles, or I must agree or think like them, or I must present my crendentials for an having an opinion, or I must disclose my motivations, interest, or agenda, then I "clown" that person or simply ignore them -- for they have "issues". They cannot simply let all who come here post their opinion -- and then ignore it, debate it, dialogue about it, or disagree with it, or agree with it. These folks must "control" all or some people's thought -- and that is sad/pathetic. No belief, or politic, or opinion I have is that serious that I would become darth-vadar-silly. If my stuff were that serious (beyond cyberspace debate, dialogue, and discussion) then I'd express it offline -- join an organization, movement, campaign, or something 100% harmonious with that need. For example, unless GOD (and I'm Agnostic -- LOL) shows up on this site, and tells me to vote for McCain/Palin (or somebody exposes Obama/Biden at the Anti-Christ/Dictators, then I'm going to vote for OB1 (Obama/Biden), not the Male Patriarchy (MP2) duo -- McCain/Palin. And, yes, I can joke about this stuff, in spite of its seriousness -- for the latter will get express in the form of my November vote. As for "converting" folks online to my "way of thinking, values, and life" -- I'll leave that to the other crusaders. I post my opinion, and if it does such, it is a by-product, not my intent. Merely being able to "voice" my opinion is it -- in and of itself, period, my cyber-stuff:)

Does this put my "stuff" into "helpful-perspective" CF? BTW, I'm sure MP2 (The Honorable Senator McCain and The Honorable Govenor Palin -- if we truly wanted to show them protocol respect -- would not agree with you (or I) given our perspectives. And, guess what, if they get elected, they will be in a powerful-elite position to not "give a dam" about our non-elite perspective ... unless you and I (and others) somehow can get them un-elected:)

Much Love CF -- and I do hope OB1 do get elected:)

OneVoice,

I've been following this strand because it's funny. But, for crying out loud, your comments are a tremendous waste of time. Freaking get off the damn computer and go out and canvass, register voters, volunteer, persuasion knock, something useful. Sheesh!

Shaun,

Take your own advice, LOL, sheesh!

Ugh, I didn't write the essay OneNote, you did!

KBZ has very well reasoned statements, in my opinion.

I would agree that it is the responsibility of law enforcement, thus government, to pay for a rape kit. I really cannot find an excuse for asking for a victim of crime to pay for law enforcement work. But I'm not sure how that works itself out or which government agency funds it. If the buck was supposed to stop with Governor Palin in her position, and her decision was the final domino in the line... I absolutely agree with you on your point KBZ.

I would personally weigh in on spending money on the home for teenage mothers. However, I don't know Governor Palin's line of reasoning on this choice. It's very possible, KBZ, that I would agree with you on this point as well.

The idea that "feminists are pro-choice" as if Palin cannot be a feminist due to her pro-life position, I cannot agree with.

It comes down to the definition of when life begins. If one holds the position that life begins at conception, than all abortion must be outlawed as a constitutional right to life of the baby. Period. There is no room for debate. It's not a matter of women's rights - it's a matter of baby's rights.

If a woman's right conflicts with a baby's right - the right to life is constitutionally protected and legalized abortion via Roe v. Wade was wrongly brought into law in a judicial decision.

It is completely unfair to say that a woman cannot be a feminist because she upholds the constitution.

First of all, feminists support choice, not abortion per se. Second, judicial decisions uphold the Constitution, so, whatever. Third, an unborn baby's rights do not trump the mother's because a fetus or embryo is not a sentient being. If I had a choice between my own mother and some clump of cells, then I would hope that my mother, a woman that I know and love, would be protected first.

Laura,

if a fetus has a consitutional right to life, then does the same consitutional right to life extend to criminals on death roll and soldiers?

in other words, do a criminal on death roll and american soldiers has a consitutional right to life? or does the consitutional right to life end the moment a fetus is born?

what about incest and rape. does the fetus constutional right to life triumphs a the woman consitutional right to liberty by termainating the pregnancy?

what if the fetus is growing inside the tube of the women's body instead of the uterus therefore having no chance of survival and can cause the death of the mother?

does the fetus that will die from growing in the tubal ligation triumphs a women's consitutional right to life (she shall die when her tube burst) and her constitutional right to liberty?

as if a woman denied a fetus the right to life, should she be given the death penalty?

what about the consitutional right to liberty? does a fetus, criminal, and soldiers consitutional right to life overrule a woman consitutional right to liberty?

your arguement just isn't "right"

beside, feminism comes in many form. i have as much consitutional right to critlized palin as she has the right to disagree with me.