What Palin Said About Clinton

There has been a lot of coverage in the Left blogs about comments made by Sarah Palin about Hillary Clinton. And let me be clear, the comments are bad. But I think it is important to state precisely what the comments were. Too often the Left screams about deceptive misquotations (See Milbank, Dana), so I think it is important not to live in a glass house. So here is what Palin said, in pertinent part:

PALIN: . . . [F]air or unfair and I do think it is a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts, and I think that is unfortunate, she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You have to plow through that and you have to know what you are getting into - I say that with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo - when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, you know a sharper microscope put on her, I think that doesn't do us any good - women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I do not think it bodes well for her a statement like that because, again, fair or unfair, it is there that's reality I think it is a given - people can just accept the she is going to be under that sharper microscope So be it. Work harder prove yourself to an even greater degree that you are capable that you are going to be the best candidate and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.

Palin accepts that Hillary Clinton suffered from sexist coverage (something the Left blogs have NOT accepted. See John Aravosis for instance) but that Hillary should have sucked it up. Pretty bad stuff. But she did not call Hillary a whiner or deny that Hillary faced sexism.

Her attitude was similar to that exhibited by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Yes, there was sexism," Pelosi told a group of reporters over breakfast this morning. . . . Pelosi said Clinton had benefited from the excitement that was generated among women by her candidacy. But that was offset by sexism, she added, stopping short of pinning Clinton's defeat on gender bias. Pelosi said she hadn't studied the question in detail but was merely speaking "instinctively."

Pelosi also said that she has been a victim of sexism, "all the time. But I just think it goes with the territory."

Here is the video:

Similarly, Pelosi urged female Clinton supporters to avoid an attitude of victimization:

"I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight," she said. "I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women."

I found Pelosi's statements to be bad too. I found the denials of sexism, and the ignoring of sexism to be incredibly bad on the Left, particularly in the blogs.

Let me put it this way, most of the Left blogs are the wrong messengers for attacking Sarah Palin on this statement.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Palin Trap | What Clinton Said About Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton's comments about (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    Palin today were respectful and gracious, and at the same time she made it clear Palin is wrong on the issues.  This is where the dems need to be coming from.  So what if Palin was a small town mayor.  Does Obama think that mocking her for that is going to make him look less elitist?  Come on people we have them beat on the issues already, we just have to stay focused on that!

    Tell it to the Obama Campaign (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    they are the ones demeaning her because she was the mayor of a town of 6500.  If Axelrod and company haven't figured out how much they screwed up against HRC they deserve to lose.

    Not ready for prime time tone deafness (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ellie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:17:09 PM EST
    Let's go to the tape.

    "Today, John McCain put the  former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade [...]" (Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.)

    I wouldn't be dismissive of the mayoral record regardless of the size of the town. It outshines Obama's "community organizing", she didn't quit cause she was bored and -- just assuming here -- I'll bet she turned up at the meetings.

    Besides, bringing that up before referring to her current honorific (Governor) is disdainful, with the intent to demean as clear as referring to her as a "hockey mom" (as some of the Fauxgressives are spinning hard).

    Obama and the Oboiz can't seem to help indulging this deep misogynistic streak. It spills over hot and with enthusiasm and the only coolant is the complaint that women are being pandered to -- as if a clear pitch to women while Obama's chasing, um, other misogynists is the greatest cardinal sin in politics.

    Obama or his campaign wore out the outrage over the outrage on Roe vs. Wade long ago so I won't even bother. They can ask Casey Jr or the RW pals they've been making for a clue on that one.

    Women see through it all I think, and I haven't heard much stomping around complaining about Obama playing to African Americans or suggesting that THAT particular votership is too stoopid to discern and weigh how much the overt pandering matters in their support. (And even if it did, so what? Their vote, their choice.)


    A pitch to women? (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    More like the grossest kind of insult to women.

    As if they dont have the intellectual capacity to see beyond gender symbolism and grasp that what a person thinks and who they align themselves is of slightly more consequence than whether they keep the toilet seat up or down.

    You seriously think Obama was ever concerned about "playing to African Americans", as if there were ever a danger of them going en masse to the Rethugs?


    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    See Primary Season, January 2008.

    LOL -- surely Obama fans can't be serious with (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ellie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:01:06 PM EST
    ... this line of "attack".

    Apart from no party or candidate being entitled to anyone's vote, Dems and Sen Obama's have some nerve getting stompy about loyalty after their shameful treatment of women generally and Sen Clinton in particular.

    Besides, these Veep considerations have come up frequently about AAs, men, vets, religious groups.

    Things just got really interesting. Dem leadership was wrong in thinking women had nowhere else to go.

    UP beyond the glass ceiling appeals to me.


    the campaign? (none / 0) (#17)
    by borisbor on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    did you read the statement from Obama-Biden?

    the surrogates should be ripping into her just as the GOP ripped into Biden when he was picked. Or should they not because she's a woman?


    rip away on the issues (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    otherwise we lose the high ground, if we ever had it.

    Rip into her (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    on the issues - but don't demean her as the mayor of a small town as if all she has done is get elected mayor of Mayberry.  People aren't stupid and either know or will know what she did to upset her own party to fight the corruption in Alaska.  Contrast to the fleas Obama has from hopping in bed with the corruption in Chicago.

    Fought corruption? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    I keep hearing this without any sources cited.

    Senator Stevens campaigned for her and even appeared in a commercial for her during her election. Now, she has been campaigning for Stevens, even AFTER he was indited.
    Not to mention the whole power-abuse scandal she's embroiled in.


    You don't (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST
    want to go there with the power abuse scandal. BTD has posted on it today. It's about her firing an ex or current brother in law who was abusing her sister and their children. You don't want to be put in the position of defending an abuser do you?

    Actually (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    she is being investigated for firing a popular state official because he DIDN'T fire the brother-in-law in question.  It is a less cut and dried situation than you make it out to be.

    Yes but this is what the Republicans do so well (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    even though most people think that an abuse of power is wrong under the alleged circumstances you might feel it's not so bad (it's that head/heart thing they do so well).

    Oh, a reminder:  Innocent until proved guilty.

    She's denied any wrong-doing and has supported the investigation.  So far what looked bad doesn't look so bad.


    Another couple have come up. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    1. When she fired the State Police chief, she put a man named Frank Kopp in his place. It seems that Mr. Kopp had outstanding sexual harassment complaints against him for involuntary hugging and kissing in the office. He has said that people knew about it but he was never asked about it until after he was appointed. Never vetted at all although the accusation was well known.

    2. Another employee in the Governor's office was fired for dating the soon to be ex wife of Mr. Palin. A compromise was worked out to move the man out of the Governor's office, but was supposedly rejected by the Governor specifically. Now two claims of misuse of Gubernatorial power for personal purposes.

    A large paper in Fairbanks has  today responded to her nomination by saying she is not qualified to be Vice President, no matter how much Alaskans like her as Alaska Governor.

    More about the gas pipeline. One of the issues was that the jobs for building and maintaining were being sent to Canada rather than kept in Alaska. Murmurs are beginning to appear as to what her connection to the oil and gas companies actually is. A question of excessive closeness, which might be dealt with one way in Alaska, but not be as acceptable in the rest of the country.  

    More  fact checking and vetting ahead if anyone cares to do so.


    SP was (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    appointed ethics ommissioner of the oil and gas commission until she resigned in protest over what she called the lack of ethics of other Republican leaders. She exposed the Republican's chairman who she accused of doing work for the party on public time as well as supplying a lobbyist with an e-mail he wasn't supposed to have.  She filed complaints against both the chairman as well as a former state attorney general who both resigned after the complaints were filed.

    She also ran against Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and beat him, partly because he appointed his daughter to replace him in the Senate.  She has supported Republican challengers to both Don Young and Ted Stevens.

    She's cut spending everywhere she has served as well as turning more money over to taxpayers.  In short, she's fought the party in Alaska as opposed to Obama in Chicago.


    And do you think... (none / 0) (#98)
    by pettyfog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:05:00 PM EST
    .. there's no chainsaw at the knees politics in a small Alaskan town?

    As much as, say, a 'Schools Reform Grant project'?

    And anypone who tries to link her to the schmuck Stevens, is dreaming... he was scared to death of her.
    So far the only skeleton in her closet MIGHT be that she claimed her duaghter's child as her own.  Kos has that up and is polling on whether to delete it.

    But... then, havent a lot of OTHER women who identify with working class done that?


    Wikipedia is just a click away! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    The Obama-Biden statement (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    was good:

    "We send our congratulations to Governor Sarah Palin and her family on her designation as the republican nominee for Vice President.  It is yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics.  While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward Governor Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign,

    The Bill Burton, campaign spokesperson, statement was not as smart, to say the least:

    "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    Yep it's a bit too close to (none / 0) (#24)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    the "bitter" comment and looking down on people who don't live in cities.  Makes him seem to be dissing people from small towns and rural areas.  Just adds to the elitist label.

    Au contraire, it adds to the evidence that (none / 0) (#103)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    the experience issue was and always has been a false one, a straw.

    I find an extraordinary effort to ignore reality in some of these comments to make Palin more than she is, so you can justify more abuse of Obama instead of addressing the question of what makes you think Gov. Palin could pass the 3 Am phone call test, be commander in chief on day one, or deal with a single one of the domestic or foreign problems which the new President will face and the new VP will be on the hook for the moment something happens to the President, from day one. And do you want someone who uses the Gubernatorial office for personal grudges to have in her hands the suspension of probable cause against citizens located at home so the FBI can search your house, tap your phone, put you under surveillance, and so on specifically without even a suspicion that you have committed a crime of any kind, ability to seize people without warrants and imprison them indefinitely or send them to foreign countries to be tortured,  order government employees to torture people, run Guantanamo, and the like?  these are all problems which require a certain sort of character in a POTUS and in a VPOTUS. None of those last are proposed to be abolished by McCain.

    Or is your enthusiasm caused principally that you see this as a way of getting back at Obama, no matter what it does to the country.


    What you should be thining about (none / 0) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:49:14 PM EST
    Or is your enthusiasm caused principally that you see this as a way of getting back at Obama, no matter what it does to the country.

    Is who is to blame for the animosity against Obama. It wasn't created out of thin air - he inspired it.

    Obama will reap what he sowed.


    Nope. The DNC fell into Rove's trap (none / 0) (#151)
    by rottodamn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:19:59 AM EST
    They knew Hillary was the stronger candidate, but they sold them on Obama. Same as it ever was. Rove was on the news today saying Palin will provide enthusiasm and get people to take another look at McCain.

    He is right. I won't vote for McCain. My state is red anyway. Still I would vote for Obama or Cynthia McKinney.


    The issues win this year (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    What Palin said (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    is no different from what 99.9% of the left said about sexism and Hillary. In fact, it's a little better. At least she acknowledged that it occurred.

    Today on Air America (4.66 / 3) (#9)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    Ed Shulz referred to "wonderful women voters' and pleaded with them not to be fooled by Palin.  He mixed this in with some words of praise for Hillary (yes, he did!). Now who is pandering?  Suddenly he discovered this block of voters that sure hasn't been on his radar for the past year.

    Ed Schulz can kiss every woman's @ss IMO (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM EST
    I know, I stopped listening (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    to the bloviation-fest on that station a few months ago, but was driving around today and was curious how they were taking it.  Yepper, they've discovered this whole new block of voters that didn't seem very important until today!

    Palin's nomination is really tough for (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    the O campaign no matter what they say.  McCain was willing to take a woman for various (and nefarious) reasons, but he wasn't too egotistical to do so.  The O camp wouldn't even vet Hillary, showing utter lack of common sense. That looks awful to those who don't care much about social issues like some of the indys and almost all of the Republicans.  This is pure genius for the GOP and while I won't vote for McCain it delights me that the boys that were so clever as to game the caucuses and put forth a candidate with a paper thin resume are now in a panic.

    Hillary was vetted by the Campaign! (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cugel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM EST
    Why would he need to further vet her?

    It was BILL who stopped Hillary from being seriously considered, when he refused to release any documents.

    I'm not saying Obama would have picked her. He almost certainly told her back in their private conversation in June that he wouldn't. But, Bill is what stopped her from being vetted.


    Bull (none / 0) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    That's just a bloggerboyz falsehood that has been circulating forever with no evidence to support it.

    You have documentation to prove that? (none / 0) (#132)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    I would just as soon not have that (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    man's lips anywhere near any part of my anatomy...

    I think Shulz and the others (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    are thinking - not another woman.  Sooner or later we're going to get killed for treating them so crappy.

    He was so obnoxious that I stopped (none / 0) (#71)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    listening to him a long time ago. He sounds just like Olbermann, another  former sportscaster.

    I think is fair for US to point this out (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    Certainly not Americablog, though .

    You think TPM (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    is interested in the female vote now?

    This site has plenty of neanderthals (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    they're just kept restrained most of the time. But they sure pop up handily when they're allowed back in.

    The FP (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
    posters are no such thing though.  

    Of course (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    I don't understand some of these (none / 0) (#135)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    abbreviations. FP now and GF a while ago.  Some of us are not up to date on the latest.

    FP (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    means front pagers (TChris, Jeralyn, and BTD).  As far as GF I only ever thought that meant girlfriend!

    Coming from 'multimillionheiress' Pelosi (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    daughter of privilege, it stings a little more. Both are bad.

    You mean the one who invested with T Boone Pickens (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    when he wants legislation to make those investments more money.  Yeah, that's change we can believe in.

    This tack is not umyuartuluni (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    of lefty blogs at all.  Pot, meet kettle.  Waqaa with them?  Shall we really run all the quotes from the lefty blogs about women and whining?

    (I'm learning Yupik now.  Yikes, Palin also is married to a minority -- one of the First People.  The GOP couldn't have invented a better ploy.)

    And (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    Yikes, Palin also is married to a minority -- one of the First People.  The GOP couldn't have invented a better ploy

    For the record, he's hot.  (Yes, I know that has nothing to do with anything, and won't sway voters, but....I'm just sayin'....)


    omg (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    so sexist.



    I can live with that! :) (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    This is insulting and untrue (none / 0) (#123)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    and a Republican talking point.  Besides, Michelle's speech has been very well received.

    Michelle Obama now has a 55%/36% favorable/unfavorable rating, compared to 48%/43% just two weeks ago.  Cindy McCain scores 50%/31%.


    Cindy McCain hasn't had her turn on (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST
    a national stage at a well-orchestrated convention yet.

    On the other hand, watching the convention on cspan, I can tell you that Michelle does not have a good political spouse 'game face' at all.

    Now, I have to say, I don't care about Michelle one way or another, but I did feel a certain bit of sympathy for her last week, having to spend long, long hours sitting through boring speeches with the cameras turning to her every few minutes.  I wouldn't have held up either.

    But fact is, she looked pretty unhappy through much of it, and the only time we saw her smile was when Obama's name was mentioned.  Just because the Republicans are the ones calling attention to it does not make it untrue.


    So is she.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    this didn't take long did it...vpilf

    Like I'm always saying...it's pro wrestling:)


    As long as... (none / 0) (#51)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:55 PM EST
    Biden's picture doesn't go up there.

    LOL (none / 0) (#21)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    I think there should be a list

    Sounds like a pretty typical Republican (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    response to Dems calling attention to any form of discrimination. In fact, the way she couches it so diplomatically, it is kinder than most.

    You hit the nail on the head with the comparison to the Pelosi response. We could also go back and find tons of examples in the blogosphere.

    Dems need to stick to the issues.  We can beat them on the issues. Do we want to argue over who called who a whiner, or talk about getting health care for everyone?

    Now just imagine... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Susie from Philly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:23:57 PM EST
    If someone said that about a black candidate.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    They wouldn't of course.

    Which is your point.


    eeeeeeeyep (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    and that doesn't mean we should roll back progress on race issues just to create an artificial fairness.  It means we should speak out against the people who seem to forget that these kinds of discussions are still considered appropriate regarding woman candidate for any party.

    It's not appropriate.


    Her comments are less bad than Obama's (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    who said those attacks were not Clinton's fault but it's why she won't be able to unite the country the way he can.

    Nope.  Not gonna let that one go.  It's on record.

    Obama himself has said worse.

    Oh and yeah.  Pelosi too.

    They all exploited sexism for political gain.

    Nothing is fair in politics but people can speak out against the things they think are wrong.  That is IF they think it is wrong.

    I don't think that statement was sexist (none / 0) (#100)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:12:00 PM EST
    Again, I am a staunch Hillary supporter, but I feel that statement refers to the partisan target on Hillary's back because well she's Hillary Clinton, not because she is a woman. If Bill could run again Obama would still use the same tactic because the right wing has put much effort in vilifying the Clintons. In other words everyone CLAIMS (I don't believe it) she is the most polarizing figure in politics. How can a polarizing figure unite the country? Get it?

    Barack ran as a uniter. Hillary has been carrying the burden of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy on her back since 1992.

    I don't understand how you people see sexism everywhere. Do you even know what sexism is?

    Personally, I have yet to hear Obama say anything sexist. His supporters and cheerleaders are another matter.


    If you think she's been carrying the vast (none / 0) (#105)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST
    rightwing conspiracy for so long and so wrongfully, exactly why now are you sitting here hooting in happiness at the success of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy?

    I'm not happy about the VRWC (none / 0) (#116)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:55:06 PM EST
    I am a realist. I try not to let my personal politics taint my objective opinion. I already stated as a staunch Hillary supporter I did not want her to take the VP spot if Obama had offered because I felt the Obamabots had been very cruel to Hillary.

    Likewise, I do not want her putting in a superhuman effort to campaign for Obama. Should she campaign for him should he ask, yes. But I don't think she should try to take on Palin toe to toe. She should only deal with the issues and speak to why Obama is the person to elect. Personality clashes should be off the table and she should have the courage to say no.

    I do think McCain picked well though. But I'm not like many here who are absolutely giddy about the prospect of Obama losing.


    One way of dealing with sexism (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    in a work setting is to ignore it, thinking that to acknowledge it gives the perp. the attention he seeks.  This is not the "modern" approach, however.  Many of us were wishing Hillary Clinton had made more of an issue of the way she was treated during her campaign.  Different viewpoints.  

    Clinton didn't want to (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    win just cause she is a woman.

    Politically speaking, in terms of doing and saying anything to win, it's a very debatable strategic point for us monday morning quarterbacks.

    I'm not saying I disagree.


    The Really Disgusting Thing (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    is that as unpleasant as Sarah Palin's comments are, they are better than Nancy Pelosi's and Pelosi supposedly leads Clinton's party.  At least Palin is talking about the other party.  Plenty of Democrats said worse things about Clinton or sat silently while others did.

    I suspect the Obama folks trying to make some outrage over this will backfire in their faces.  You can't sit silent in the face of sexism for months (much of it much worse than this and from Democrats) and now feign outrage at something that comparatively speaking isn't even all that bad.  It isn't going to work.

    Well said, BTD (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by mg7505 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    It's a bad sign when our Speaker of the House is as bad or worse than a far-Right wing member of the McCain/Bush camp.

    I wish folks would stop attacking Palin; it's not going to deprive McCain of a single vote. And if they are going to attack her, they should do it on the issues.

    That's what I love about this (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    Obama will win this election, and that's great. But what I love about the Palin situation is that it outs the democracts for what they did. No going back and disappearing it now.

    It's a Win/Win (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    I know a lot of us have wanted a Dem president, but also wanted to see the sexists in the party and blogosphere pay a price for what they did. Until today I did not think I could have both. Love it.

    When you are right, BTD, you are right... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    ...but you were even more correct earlier when you wrote that Obama made a colossal mistake by not picking Hillary. I think that is a very astute statement, particularly since McCain has now very skilfully capitalized on that mistake by picking Sarah Palin.

    So now we have a spectacle of Obama letting his pride, ego, and pettiness getting in the way, while McCain sets his aside to seize on the opportunity. And notice how easily this eclipsed whatever platitudes Obama mouthed at that silly stadium on Thursday? Who is talking about that anymore?

    And, yes, it is a trap. Does anyone really think Palin was not vetted? Please, by all means, let's have a few more months of the so-called progressives attacking a woman running for elected office. The Kossacks, the TPMers, and their ilk at MSNBC simply will not be able to help themselves. By November McCain will be seen as a champion of women's lib.

    McCain has also secured my vote for good. The Democrats and Obama had their chance to win it but they blew it, first by nominating Obama, and then allowing Obama to pick someone other than Clinton. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, to pick someone who was a vocal advocate of invading Iraq. So all that stuff about showing judgment and being against the way was just empty rhetoric.

    So, fare thee well, my friends. I understand that your policy is to limit the posts of those who do not support Obama's candidacy. You have declared your unconditional support for Obama and don't want to be exposed to alternative views. That is your prerogative and I respect it. So let me make it easy for you. Please delete my account at your earliest convenience.  

    Why would you.. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by pettyfog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    .. quit this site?

    If they'll accept my {conservative} posts, they sure should yours.  Just dont bash Obama, instead contrast him with McCain.  That's what it's about.


    Yes it's the double standard (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    with regard to Iraq that really infuriates me.  The Nation and all the blogs just ripped into Hillary for her vote. But now that Biden is the VP pick, suddenly it's OK that he voted for it, too. (I mean have they even mentioned it??)  Hmmm, perhaps now the Nation is going to rescind their endorsement of the ticket because they said they could not support anyone who voted for it. And the little things like Biden tearing up is "endearing" and "shows his human side."  When Hillary did it, not so much.

    Palin was being a realist-- and Clinton agreed (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Exeter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    Sexism in this culture is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and REWARDED. Complaining about it will get you nowhere and only get you attacked. That is why Clinton did not complain about it (for the most part) until after the campaign was over.

    I also, have to say, I love the righteousness of the left blogs, considering they were the ones responsible for the sexism against Clinton and are starting anew with Palin.

    By any metric (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by mg7505 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    Clinton did not complain about it. Compare the amount she endured to the amount she "complained." The latter is virtually nil.

    However, I still disagree with Pelosi and Palin's views. There is a forceful but civilized and diplomatic way to air these grievances. In fact, the victims should be commended for enduring it and speaking out. It takes courage to tell people something you know they don't want to hear.


    My guess is ... (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Inky on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    that Palin was referring to when Clinton (taking a cue from Tina Fey's SNL routine) pointed out in the Ohio debate that she always got the first question in debates. I base this guess on when Palin made the comment. But I bet you anything that Palin wouldn't call Hillary "whiny" anymore--the way Hillary conducted herself in those final months of the primary was nothing less than extraordinary--the way she faced down her fiercest critics, walked in to any number of lion's dens to go toe to toe with the most hostile elements, be they Richard Scaife, Bill O'Reilly, Kieth Olbermann, etc. It takes real courage and character to face down hatred in an attempt to win over your enemies, and Hillary earned my undying respect as I watched her do that over and over again during the primary season.

    IAWTC so much. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    Every single day, Senator Clinton just made me more proud to support her.

    Let's be real those chanting sexism (none / 0) (#104)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:27:53 PM EST
    Where are the WASP women in the fight against sexism? They've been conspicuously absent because they don't want to be labeled man-hating feminists, especially the younger ones. Largely this fight is being fought by Jewish and black women.

    The problem in this country, no matter the ism (racism, sexism) is that we have allowed the people who don't want progress (mainly white and Jewish conservative men) to label themselves experts in these areas and dictate the definition of these things.

    In addition, they tell us what is ok to discuss and what is not. I was proud of the old WASP women who questioned the mettle of the younger WASP women when they wouldn't even give Hillary a look. I'm not advocating voting for someone because of gender, but most of these younger women were not open minded.

    That tells me there is a disconnect there. WASP Women and men are not telling their sons and daughters the struggles of women. Many white women don't realize that women did not always have the right to vote. Sad!


    There is a disconnect on both isms that is (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    generational. My children are of mixed race and appear to be principally African American. My husband and I came up in the 60's and we would tell them the stories of how it was then. The way the world has changed in those forty years is so great that they have a hard time believing events like Selma ever happened, ever could have happened, and stare at the old Klan pictures with an incomprehension that is bottomless,  much less what happened to us personally. Their world is, by reason of intervening work, so very, very different. I was fired for having a second child, 'disloyalty to the firm' in 1979,  but that was legal then and would not happen now. There is both racism and sexism but it is different and less spectacular, except for the occasional incident like the dragging death in texas a few years back. It has changed so much, that it is merely a correct observation that the two generations literally don't understand one another, because the older world has demons in it which the younger have never, ever encountered and don't really believe existed, because it sounds now so silly to them. My two uncomprehendings are 29 and 30.

    I think you have a point (none / 0) (#122)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    But let me state institutionalized racism and sexism is very much alive and well and in some ways much more insidious than physical violence. I am black.

    The reason I think there is such a disconnect is because we have allowed rightwingers to bring our public education system down. We no longer teach to stimulate one's curiosity and critical thinking. It is all about memorizing with these god awful test.

    My question is why if most rightwingers send their children to private school or home school them, then why do they care so much about what goes on in the public school system? The answer is they want to dumb down each subsequent generation so they will continue to take abuse and not rise up.

    I thought he was crazy when he said this but Dick Gregory came to my college and performed. one thing he said was that 100 years from now, when the history books have been rewritten, MLK will be white according to the books.

    Back on topic. I understand the precarious position most WASP women are in when attempting to discuss sexism in person with WASP men, but guess what fighting for rights is hard work. Then they also have to look in the eyeballs of women like Palin and say you made your choice, other women deserve the right to make theirs. I mean this woman's husband is pretty much a stay at home dad while she is governor while she espouses the virtues of the old ways.  


    It's not just WASPS. n.t (none / 0) (#145)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:43 PM EST
    Christy1947 I'm not saying (none / 0) (#153)
    by rottodamn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:55:15 AM EST
    it is just WASPS. I was trying to make a point on here to the most vocal cat callers about sexism and I stand by what I said.

    It is easy to come on a blog or message board and say sexism, sexism, sexism, but it is a lot tougher to go face to face with people in your personal life and call them on it. And every time a man makes an honest statement about a women does not mean it is sexism. Honest does not mean it is true. It just means it is his honest opinion.

    The problem with liberalism and progressives is that they want to blanket everyone as the same and not acknowledge the truth about history. For example, being insanely upset because Alicia Keys or Halle Berry considers themselves black more so than biracial and then taking this a step further by saying they hate their whitenes. This is ridiculous.

    They exclaim well why don't they call themselves multiracial like Wentworth Miller or Vin Diesel. Wentworth tries to passant blanc and Vin keeps his head bald as to create more opportunities for himself and not show his black hair. I'm not knocking these guys at all. The point that most people don't understand is in America, black people are inherently mixed race. I am too though not from parentage but from my grandparents, etc. This may seem like a little thing, but it is not when leftist try to dictate how people should identify themselves.

    My politics are left, but I am not an ideologue. I let my brain solve problems not an ideology. Most people will not acknowledge that most of the ire Hillary received was because she was a formidable Clinton and not a woman. Palin is an unknown. She will get the brunt of what she gets because of sexism but it won't be to the magnitude of what Hillary received. It won't be even close.


    Rubbish so you say (none / 0) (#118)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    I went to a women's college  and I know how those women are. In addition, I'm from the south and I know how those party girls and sorority girls are too. I did forget another group which also fights against sexism and that is lesbian and bisexual women.

    I don't know how old you are but ask a group WASP like women if they are feminists and watch their eyeballs.

    I'm not saying all young women aren't willing to fight and stand up but many aren't and that is because the right have labeled feminists as man-hating beasts or lesbians.


    Well (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    What Pelosi said was worse than what Palin said IMO.

    Once you acknowledge that Hillary was taking some unfair knocks because of her gender, as Palin did, everything after that point is basically a strategy decision.  When I hear a woman say, "don't bother trying to complain, your only choice is to work twice as hard," that strikes me as a legitimate recommendation, albeit not the only reasonable recommendation.  I'd imagine a lot of mothers have told their daughters something quite similar over the years.

    To me, there is a big difference between telling someone "it's not so bad, just suck it up" and telling them "complaining will do you no good, so just suck it up."  Maybe I'm creating distinctions that don't exist.

    Those are real distinctions (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    reflecting decisions we make everyday - and each strategy has its place.  I bet Palin does not react the same way all the time herself, and neither does Hillary.

    Dems trying to make an issue out of this are barking up the wrong tree.


    In a sense (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    well... I was going to draw a distinction between the workplace and politics but I'm not sure if there actually is a distinction.  Let me talk it out.

    Let's say in the workplace, you're being harassed or otherwise discriminated against.  Now, you can be a good soldier and suck it up, and maybe you'll get ahead.  Or you can complain, and maybe ruin your career because no one likes complainers.

    So if I'm giving you advice, maybe I say "Look, the best thing for your personal advancement is to suck it up, no question.  But you have a responsibility to all the other women in your position too, and if you say nothing, then nothing ever changes and more people than just you will suffer from discrimination.  So you should consider doing the right thing and speaking out, even though it poses a risk to you."

    Now, let's talk politics.  In politics, what matters is not whether you have a legitimate complaint of racism or sexism or whatever, but whether people in general will think you have a legitimate complaint.  So if you're Hillary, and you're trying to decide whether you should say something about sexism, the question is not whether the sexism is there but whether it's politically wise to say so.

    We know that in some contexts, with some types of discrimination, complaining - or what others might call "playing the victim card" - can work to your advantage.  With sexism, not so much.  Heck, I'm not sure Hillary could have even complained about something as blatant as the Hillary nutcracker without being seen as just another humorless feminist.

    So it's probably the right decision not to say much.  The question I have is, is this just like the workplace situation, where you should say something anyway because it may help avoid sexism against others, while if you say nothing then nothing ever changes?  Maybe.  One problem is, if no one is going to see your complaints as legitimate even if you take the risk of speaking out, then nothing will ever change anyway.

    I don't know the answer.  The process of having a real conversation about sexism, the kind where we actually sort out which complaints are valid and which ones aren't, is long and we really don't seem to be there yet.  And you can't even expand the definition of "what is sexist" until people are willing to go through the process of calling things sexist or non-sexist in the first place.  Right now, as a society, we're mostly still at the point of dismissing complaints out of hand without really considering the merits, or at least that's how I see it.


    there was an article a while back about how (none / 0) (#113)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee urged HRC to give a speech on sexism like the one O gave on racism, but she declined to do so. This is one of those times that I really wish she had done it, early on, as it would have made things come out so much differently.

    No, she would have been excoriated for it (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:48:34 PM EST
    Just pointing out that she was always required to g first in the debates created massive backlash.  



    Don't think she would have been excoriated at all. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:19:18 PM EST
    If she had done it shortly after the first speech was give, she would have put the two issues on the same basic footing formally in the campaign. Something a "Two Firsts" year could certainly have borne. And that would have taken the arc of the rest of the campaign somewhere different.

    And I don't know of my own knowledge that she was always required to go first. I do know that he was criticized for doing what in my culture is a required courtesy, helping with her chair, as if he were some terrible patronizing monster. There were posts on this site to that effect shortly after it happened. . And oh, what happened when she complained that people said she was not likeable, and he said she was likeable enough.  We did not need to go to all those places that we have since gone to, which have caused so much difficulty for so many on both sides.  


    No, you're not (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    creating distinctions that don't exist.  You're exactly right.  I've enjoyed your posts on this subject (Palin) quite a lot.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    those distinctions do exist, at least I see them. The "it's not so bad" comment is worse because you are denying that the situation exists. Your second comment acknowledges that sexism exists but that complaining about it won't help. My .02 anyway.

    FWIW the best response is (none / 0) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    yes it exists; and while complaining about it directly may hurt your career/politically, let's figure out the best way to bring people to the next step, which is being able to even talk about it in a reasonable fashion.

    Sometimes, that is doing what Hillary did do, which is just keep going; keep walking into the lion dens (as someone else said this thread), keep your head high, and show them your strength.

    Sometimes it may be giving a speech, or donating money to women's causes, or making d*mn sure you teach your kids differently, or 1000 other ways.

    To me, talking about having to just power through it without also offering hope or some other strategy or action for the next woman or group of women to have an easier time, is a deficit in what Palin said.  But Pelosi's statement, along with others I've seen her make (and btw what's with this I haven't studied it thing?), that it's not so bad, is an even greater deficit.


    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    I pretty much agree with you. Palin's statements are no better nor worse than anything that's come out of the DNC, Obama campaign or others. It's not even as bad as what some others have said like the Rep from TN. That was one of the worse. And even the Obama campaign saying that they would need a food tester was worse than these.

    Hillary said (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    In an interview with The Atlantic, Hillary said:

    "Everything I do carries political risk because nobody gets the scrutiny that I get," she said finally. "It's not like I have any margin for error whatsoever. I don't. Everybody else does, and I don't. And that's fine. That's just who I am, and that's what I live with."

    It's not about sexism, but I think it's true.

    And Palin sort of says it here:

    [F]air or unfair and I do think it is a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts, and I think that is unfortunate, she does herself a disservice to even mention it.

    And, as we saw during the primaries, any time Hillary mentioned this unfair treatment, she got pilloried for "playing the gender card".

    Look (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    If we acknowledged Hillary's complaints as legitimate, we would have to acknowledge the same complaints from any other woman.

    You guys are half the population.  We would be at it all day.

    That is why, even if your point is fair, we must shout you down every time.  We are bravely holding the line against the threat of a whole new category of grievances that would have to be redressed.

    (I hope it goes without saying that I am characterizing the world as it is, not the world as I want it to be.)


    I thought you were a lawyer (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    This sounds like the hostile environment argument.  And it has been upheld for some of us "guys" in workplaces.  Just not in politics.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:27 PM EST
    The law has often proven to be a step ahead of public opinion in redressing grievances.  Unfortunately, as you say, the law has its limits.

    The question is, even though the law grants a remedy for something, has that had any effect on moving public opinion towards the direction of realizing that discrimination and harassment in the workplace are wrong?  In my experience, people seem to refrain from harassing behavior more to avoid being sued than because they realize it is simply wrong.


    Folks should watch (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by mg7505 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    the video of Palin making this statement. It's obvious that this is a tough topic for her to discuss; she was clearly not ready with a prepared statement, which is why her response is so verbose. I'd be willing to believe that this was an unintended gaffe. But regardless, her views are still less off-putting than Pelosi's and the "Left" blogospehre.

    With Democrats like these...


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:03:48 PM EST
    Well, I was at a Hillary fundraiser and some of her advisers spoke and said much the same thing and that Hillary's attitude towards it is that it doesn't help to "whine" about it and that word was actually used. They said they only even started mentioning the media bias when it became overtly sexist (with the pimping comment) because that was offensive to all women...so Hillary has said much the same thing.

    Also, watch video 7 of palin posted there. She talks about how Hillary is tough and just seems like she wants to get stuff done, she is impatient. She was no Clinton supporter, but I did not get the impression that she disrespected her.


    For the record (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    As a woman, I always look to Kos and John Avarois for guidance on what is or is not sexist.  So I am pleased they have been so free with their advice today. /snark

    Hardball has two men!! debating (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    whether Sarah Palin on John McCain's ticket will attract "disaffected" Clinton supporters.  One of the men is Harris, the former McCain campaign strategist.

    MSNBC poll: (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    67% say Palin on the ticket hurts McCain's chances.  

    I don't believe it, though.


    Online poll (none / 0) (#93)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    No way they actually fielded a real poll in the last few hours.  This is definitely an online poll.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    And remember this (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    when the blogger boyz were so vile to Hillary, they claimed it wasn't all women they were dissing, ONLY HILLARY, because she was somehow different than those other women politicians.  But now that they are doing it to Palin too, then we know that was a lie and it must be how they feel about ALL women.  My eyes have been opened forever about this party.

    The first thing I thought (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    when I read Palin's quote earlier today was 'Wow, she sounds like Nancy Pelosi'.

    I deplore both statements but I think it's going to be hard for the campaign to make anything out of it because of their prior non-reactions to Hillary's treatment. Physician, heal thyself.

    the first thing I thought was (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by frenly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    how sad but true her comments are.  As she said, "fair or unfair."  She simply acknowledged what many women live with all the time.

    Great comment. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    And I understand exactly where you are coming from. What the h*ll happened? I can only figure it's mainly Obama and his chicago politics with a dose of having to deal with W. for eight years. W. for eight years is enough to make any political junkie need some heavy meds.

    We've become what we despised.

    I give Palin credit. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:59:33 PM EST
    She obviously is smart and is at least making a very sensitive argument here.  Note the phrase "perceived whine."

    But I think she is wrong and that is important to raise awareness of the sexism as you go along.  You can't just get to the end and hope that by the end, things will have changed and you can say "hooray!"  So I think it was good that Hillary herself called it out and of course that many of us, including Melissa McEwan.

    This is just one of many philosophical disagreements I have with Republicans. ;)

    What Pelosi is saying is rather incoherent.  Politics of the victim?  Huh?

    The most awesome rant ever (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:10:11 PM EST

    Thanks Dr. Molly (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:16:35 PM EST
    and abfab and Ga6th, it's easy to hit the ball when it's on a tee however.  ;)



    Clyburn strikes again. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    I'm beginning to think he wants Obama to lose.
    I think (her selection) would be something similar to Dan Quayle.Dan Quayle proved to be sort of an embarrassment as a campaigner. Being thrust on a national stage like that could be very tough. Now Mondale tried to shake things up by going with Geraldine Ferraro.she proved to be a disaster as a running mate. And as a campaigner, she was absolutely awful. And so I just think that it is very risky for McCain to do this, but it may be all he has left.

    Geraldine Ferraro was a disaster? What does she have to do with any of this? Is the fact that both she and Palin have ovaries enough to make a connection? These people just cannot let it go, but Clyburn is the one to hold a grudge?

    Sexism reigns (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:13:27 PM EST
    in the Democratic Party.  Who knew??

    Shocking, I know. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    But what does surprise me is how open they're willing to be about it. 'Cause you know, we don't have any other choice -- well, at least that's what they keep telling me.

    I see some of where Clyburn's coming from... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    ...even though I don't agree. Ferraro's husband had business dealings that raised ethical issues, and it created an unwanted distraction. Regardless, Ferraro was a good campaigner, and she more than held her own with Bush the Elder in their debate. No one could have helped Mondale, anyway.

    Palin's no Dan Quayle. McCain didn't pick her because he wanted a bootlicker; he picked her largely for her anti-corruption record against members of their party.



    Um, 'scuse me, but the Dems have plenty of (none / 0) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    loser desperation picks to choose from if this is the spin they are trying to push; the fact that his only Democratic example was the first female VP candidate of a major party in the history of this country, is just more cr*p.  

    SAT question (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    This is for Clyburn:

    Is Ferraro to Palin as Jackson is to Obama?  


    I'm going to remember that one (none / 0) (#149)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:05:35 PM EST
    something tells me the comparison will be made again.

    And of course, Ferraro is a racist (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    according to the Clyburns.

    And that burned me no end.  It's one of the big things that still stops me from being a Dem again.  So keep it up, you guys.  And somehow, I know you will.


    One more time Axelrod will have to apologize (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    it he expects Geraldine Ferraro to raise money

    Jessie ran a good campaign (none / 0) (#147)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    Of course he wasn't going to win but he did well. In this day and age of instant gratification, many people forget (especially the youth) that progress often comes in the form of increments.

    I hate our media because instead of reporting the news objectively, they create news with their conjecture and such.

    Nonetheless, they squashed what they thought could link Obama's campaign negatively to Jessie's.


    What I've learned from "progressives"... (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST

    1. That no woman with a disabled child should be on the campaign trail.

    2. That Palin only got where she is because she's a former beauty queen.

    3. That every woman voter in America is pro-choice, and once they learn that Palin is pro-life, they'll come-a-running to Obama.

    4. That Hillary, the same woman who was going to trigger Republicans, independents and conservative Dems to vote en masse for McCain, "needs to" get out there and talk these same groups into voting for Obama.

    Inorite? (none / 0) (#99)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST
    The "progressive" comment that made my head spin was, "McCain needed a skirt, and he got one." Governor Palin isn't even a human being, just an object that McCain is using to hide behind. Can you believe this year? I truly never ever expected it to be this bad.

    The next few weeks will tell on McCain and Palin (none / 0) (#115)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    You and I will both see whether she has genuine participation in the campaign  and in policy, or whether she is treated as something to trot out. Not clear yet. it's only been eight hours on this road.

    I see left blogs saying Palin is no Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    and she supports the antithesis of Hillary's progressive and liberal views. I laughed. According to them, I thought Hillary was "Bush lit" or "Republican Lite" or "a Corporate Candidate". LOL! That's what they said before.

    Gee, well too bad they drove off the (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:04:59 PM EST
    entire audience of people with whom that argument might have carried some weight from their sites.

    Every day, just a little echoier.


    Democrats' Own Minefield (4.85 / 13) (#6)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    I said it before but part of the brilliance of this pick is that it sets Obama, Pelosi, Dean, et al, right down in the middle of the minefield they created by sitting silent in the face of bigotry and hatred.  It could happen to a nicer or more deserving group of people, IMO.

    Which is not to say that I want McCain to win or that I'm going to vote for him, just that the Democrats, the media (especially MSNBC) and Blogger Boiz are going to reap what they've sewn on this one and I'm going to enjoy watching it.  Let them work on trying to undo some of the damage they did during the primary, it's the least they can do.  

    Could Not (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    It could not happen to a nicer or more deserving group of people, not it could happen.  Argh!

    This is the only way (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    they would have ever worked on undoing that damage. They thought they got away with something.  I won't vote for McCain, but I will thank him for this selection.

    I think it's something (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    about having to sleep in the bed you made.

    That's why this site is the only Dem blog I read.. (4.50 / 2) (#30)
    by pettyfog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    .. as a conservative, pretty much against everything you guys stand for, yet I read you every day because you are honest and dont put out the self-delusional BS other sites are prone to.

    Believe me, you more represent the REAL heartland democrats I know than any of the others.  I never liked Hillary {still didnt like her program proposals, I mean PERSONALLY} at all until she finally got her sea legs in the primary campaign. Unfortunately for her, it came too late.

    You're and many of your commenters are right about Palin... Biden challenges her at his own risk.

    it's BTD (none / 0) (#101)
    by indie in CA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    I'm new to this site and each time I come here to check out how the day's news is being discussed I'm impressed. The quality of BTD's posts seems to have attracted some of the best (as in thoughtful) commenters. I'm really impressed and grateful to participate.

    Thanks for linking to Palin's interview.


    So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring (none / 0) (#58)
    by Todd on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    If this isn't sayin that Hillary was whining..... well we live in different dimensions.
    And I am really annoyed that you say that people can't say or don't have the power to say that Palin is anti feminist because we have people in our party that have said things you don't agree with. I'm not making my decisions based on Pelosi. And why you have to always equate that is mind boggling to me.

    Do you understand adjectives? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:41:46 PM EST
    As in that she said "perceived whine"?  See, that requires you to think through what she is saying -- and who she is saying perceived it as whining.

    See the post as to the so-called Dem leadership who perceived it as whining -- and keep in mind that this came up in the tape, if you check the timing, because Clinton finally spoke up about MSNBC calling the Clintons pimps and thus Chelsea Clinton a whore.

    Context in wording, context in timing, matters.  

    So does the fact that Pelosi is the highest-ranking Democrat now, and chaired the party convention -- the one that was rigged right down to the end.

    Or you could ignore all that, sure.


    Palin's point... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:53:19 PM EST
    ...is that if you're strong enough, you can beat the adversity that faces you, and trying to beat it by complaining about it is the wrong approach. It doesn't make you look strong; it makes you look weak. Getting through the barrage with your head up at the end of it is the true test of strength. I bow to no one in my revulsion towards the conduct of Matthews, Olbermann, et al., but I see no evidence that their crap did anything other than make them look bad. While the worst of it was going on, Hillary was regularly cleaning Obama's clock. I'm convinced that Obama lost the NH primary because of the "You're likable enough" comment, and if Biden or whomever tries that crap with Palin, he's going to suffer for it, not her. Ideally, we should be past this garbage, but we're far enough along that it makes the one spewing it look like a jerk. Anyone opposed to Clinton or Palin for sexist reasons doesn't need outside convincing.


    Please (none / 0) (#67)
    by Todd on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    Please. that is such a weak argument, We're not talking about being Class President, this is so much more. And misogony cannot be tolerated on this level. We are all equal, no?

    Funny (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:39:37 PM EST
    There is something funny about McCain standing next to an energetic woman - and Obama, the man of change, standing next to grumpy grampa.

    It's no surprise whatsoever to those of us (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    attacked as the "women's studies set" by Markos years ago.  You must have missed that.

    I swear some of them must stand at the keyboard to type just like they stand at the toilet.  And they still think that makes them special.

    So if your daughter is called (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:44:25 PM EST
    a whore, because you are called a pimp, you're being the victim?  Do think through the context here.

    I never was prouder of Clinton than when she finally spoke up about it -- only because it was about her daughter, and that crossed a line, once and for all.

    Or maybe you think it's okay to say that the Obamas are pimping their daughters by putting them on TV interviews?  I don't.  And to speak up against it would not be the Obamas "playing victims."  

    That Was EVEN MORE Outrageous (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cugel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    than "Clevage-Gate"

    NOBODY is defending the media over that one.
    If you want to accomplish something, organize a campaign against media misogyny and DO organize a boycott of advertisers who support bigoted broadcasters.

    You all keep saying that left-wing blogs were condoning Hillary bashing of the most outrageous kind. But, nobody I know was talking like that.

    It's beyond denying that Hillary was crucified by the media. That was NOT Obama's fault.

    Anymore than it was Obama's fault that Chris Mathews STILL can't get over his Hillary-hate long enough to stop giggling every time he thinks she might have said something embarrassing to herself.


    You don't know me and what I'm doing (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    about this.  I am me.  I am not "me-all."  

    And I don't know who the heck you are, but I do know from this that you are new to blogs, if you claim  to be unaware of just how many defended the media on exactly that instance of media a**holery, and even on this blog.  


    You're hitting a straw man (none / 0) (#125)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    I was talking about the nightly obnoxiousness that was being levelled at Hillary directly, as well as such crap as Obama's "You're likeable enough" and "Periodically, when she's feeling down" comments. I can't speak for Palin, but I think that's what she was referring to as well.

    David Shuster took that ugly swipe at Hillary Clinton's relationship with her daughter because Chelsea refused to grant him or anyone else in the press an interview. You attack somebody's kids, the gloves are going to come off, no matter who they are. Only the most deranged CDS sufferers weren't backing Hillary up on that one.

    For the most part, though, public figures need to let the name-calling roll off their back. It's up to us, their supporters, to go after jerks like Matthews and Olbermann when they step out of line, and I gladly take up the responisibility. Phil Griffin, Steve Capus, and other MSNBC honchos were getting e-mails from me every couple of days while the worst of the Hillary hate was going on.


    No, I'm not. I really don't get (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    what the heck you're saying here, twisting and turning.  But it's okay, as after all that pretzeling, I don't care.

    experience trap (none / 0) (#117)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    I think the dems are making a big mistake attacking Palin's experience. It's a great trap, and they're falling right into it. If they make the election about experience, they lose. Simple as that. When will these idiots every learn. Of course all of this could have been avoided by picking Hillary... just saying.

    So on experience, Palin was mayer of a small town, then govener for a bit less than two years. But in those two years she actually got a lot done from what I'm readying. So when you put up a list of her accomplishments for those two years vs. Obama's accomplishments for a number of years in the state senate and 3 years in the senate, the comparison doesn't add up so well for Obama. And besides, he's the top of the ticket, she's the bottom of her ticket.

    And of course the whole change idea is gone. We've got (perception-wise) an old maverick and a young woman maverick vs. a young new guy and an old insider. So the change message is  wash. And I think tie-ing to Bush may be lost. After all, when the average joe looks at her and hear she's the same as Bush, they're going to say, what, really?

    And did I mention her husband is a steel workers union member who will be covering the rust belt?

    McCain Made "Experience" The BE All! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cugel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:23:55 PM EST
    And End All of Campaigns! NOT Obama!

    So it is flat hypocritical for him to pick a woman who has ZERO foreign policy experience. Was the governor of a state with more Elk than people for 1 year and before that was a small-town mayor.

    She flat does NOT have the experience to be President.

    And worse, she was picked ahead of other Republican women who actually HAVE got experience like Elizabeth Dole. So what's McCain's excuse other than that he wanted a partner so junior that she wouldn't be able to demand a role in governing and he could run everything himself without interference?

    Can he seriously claim Palin was the best WOMAN he could have picked? Because she clearly wasn't.

    And it's no distortion to say that she's an extremist who is wrong on every issue and isn't within 100 miles of Hillary,


    sexism (none / 0) (#120)
    by diogenes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:15:35 PM EST
    Of course, British conservatives (Thatcher) and German conservatives (Merkel) aren't sexist at all. The machismo Latino Argentinians and Chileans have women presidents. No white skinned country has ever elected a dark-skinned person.  Heck, the northern european-oriented US couldn't even elect a southern Mediterranian person (Dukakis, Cuomo).
    It's fine to say that there is some amount of sexism, but being a black guy with the middle name of Hussein will turn off a lot more people.

    There is not a competition between (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by rottodamn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    sexism & racism and which is more prevalent. I hate that politics have become like a sporting event. One just picks a side and lose all objectivity.

    Based on what evidence? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    And just how do you calculate the level of difficulties dealt with by women of color?  Or did it not occur to you that 6% of Americans deal with both gender and race issues?

    That is just one of many reasons why this is not a contest to see who gets treated worse.   And one of the many reasons why this tends to be a line from white guys, who have used this throughout our history to divide and conquer.

    And no, I don't want to know if you're a white guy.