Palin and Tokenism

Joe Conasen at Salon:

It is hard to think of a more cynical and contemptuous political act this year than John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Having served as governor of Alaska for less than two years -- and as mayor of a small town before that -- her qualifications for national office are minimal.

Palin is the epitome of tokenism, exactly what conservative Republicans have always claimed to scorn, until today, as the politics of quotas and political correctness.

John Kerry this morning on why women Hillary supporters won't flock to McCain/Palin: [More...]

....how stupid do they think the Clinton supporters are, for Heaven sakes?

Do they think Clinton supporters supported Hillary only because she was a woman. For Heaven sakes, they supported Hillary because of all the things she’s fought for, because she fights for health care, which John McCain doesn’t support; she fights for children and children’s health care, which John McCain voted against; she fights for a windfall profits tax on the oil company, which John McCain opposes.

I mean, for Heaven sakes, the people who supported Hillary Clinton are not going to be seduced just because John McCain has picked a woman. They’re going to look at what she supports.

The fact that she doesn’t even support the notion that climate change is manmade -- she’s back there with the Flat Earth Caucus. And I don’t see how those women are going to be fooled into believing -- I think it’s almost insulting to the Hillary supporters that they believe they would support somebody who is against almost everything that they believe in.

This Hillary supporter agrees with Conasen and Kerry. Aside from a handful of those who don't know how to let go, Palin is not going to sell.

< Are You Experienced? | Convention Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I concur. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Pegasus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    I think "cynical", "contemptuous", and "insulting" are all very good words for it.  I don't know that I would have said "for Heaven's sakes" so much, though.

    LOL, thanks for the great laugh (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    I second that (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    LOL.  As if Kerry and Conason can speak for women, let alone Clinton Dem women.  Please.   I will keep to myself what I thought of Conason's diatribe in that article.  Well, I guess I gave my feelings away by use of the word diatribe.  Heh. I'll leave the rest self-censored because there are just too many expletives and this post will only be deleted. ;)  

    Third (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by otherlisa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:31:34 PM EST
    Conason, Kerry, et al need a big cup of STFU, to quote another poster.

    I'd never vote for McCain/Palin, but the misogyny directed at her is disgusting.

    I've already said this but I am with BTD here: stay far, far away from the "experience" argument. Do not use the word "token." Attack on policies and the consequences of said policies.

    Use Hillary as the model. She did it right.


    They treat Hillary-supporters as all the same (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    There were Republican Hillary supporters, as I've said, and very-conservative Democrats too.  Many from these groups were even against abortion.  Some will move to McCain/Palin, some will move away from him because she doesn't have enough experience.

      But then we have that problem again, since governing even a sparsely populated state like Alaska for 2 years is closer to executive-style governing in the presidency than sitting in the senate for 1.3 years, handling 2-3 issues at a time, before deciding to run for President.  Add that they both had lighter duties earlier (his was part-time for those years and in the first 6 years there was barely anything doable because the Repubs were in control.

      Add the known situation of the 20+ bills that Emil Jones gave him to steer through once there was a Dem senate majority - bills that others had worked on for years but for which I've seen press give him full credit "Would you like to make yourself a U.S.Senator?" Obama said and Jones thought Great Idea and that experience is not convincing to some of us.

    His earlier years were, though, and his basic capabilities are also, and important.  Certainly  his ability to influence Kennedy, Kerry his way were too.  

      Palin's philosophy is totally the opposite of mine so that's a no-go for me, but I still recognize the things she's done, which needed a very assertive, fearless person able to deal with corruption in her own party, get more tax payments from the oil companies, and return $1200 to each family from cutting costs including her own salary and from little things like selling the governor's jet (on EBay) for $2.1 million because it was impractical, and saving ongoing costs there.  She takes commercial airlines.

      As it turns out she did wind up visiting military in Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany (the wounded in the hospital there).  
    Large set of photos in pages around the set at
    which is from the Military and Veterans webpage.
    I didn't have time to check out most of them.

      For me, she's been altogether too uninterested in the rest of the world (on her own), but then so was Obama as far as traveling to learn about other places (not counting Pakistan very early on).  To me, he was given a HUGE pass by the press when he said in San Francisco (yes, that same talk) that he felt he didn't need to choose a VP strong on foreign policy issues because he himself had more foreign affairs experience than either Clinton or McCain because of the time he spent in Indonesia (ages 6-10) and in a couple of weeks travel in the mideast when he finished college.

      There are instances of grandioseness that actually seriously worry me.  More worrying is that the press seems to hope no one notices it so that he might modify that.

      He has a much better schooling in foreign affairs on an academic level, which sure heavily trumps what we have in Bush, while Palin has none at all that I know of.  And her view of world conflicts is, so far, simplistic, from what I can tell.  That's dangerous.  

      Maybe she's a fast learner.  But it's interesting that we're comparing a VP candidate to a Presidential candidate, so as BTD says, best not to go there.  But she will need to show more, at least to us.  Right now Obama didn't get a bump from Biden while McCain did from Palin -- today's Zogby, which shows McCain ahead by two.  Gallup and Rasmussen are better for Obama/Biden but remain the same as yesterday's.

      My sense is that Kerry and Conason, and others, likely underestimate her, if a bit too gleefully, and this can make women give her background a 2nd look, and we know about the underdog syndrome in America.

      Handle with care.  I think if left alone, she could well self-immolate with more exposure.  There's a brouhaha on the Net now that is not helping her, but that's likely a smear based on coincidences (maybe even a trap - as she might come out well even if it's true).  Wishful guessing by the accusers gets treated as fact the more it's discussed and if proved wrong, there'll be a big backlash for Obama, if it goes on.

      Already the information being repeated is filled with errors.  And on The Big Orange, the Obama-aggressives are saying we should do research ourselves and then send the info to Nat'l Enquirer because "We're the ones we've been waiting for."  Also recommended is doing our own digging into ways to get the other team, such as the info that her husband has two jobs and is often away from the house -- someone, they say, should find out where he was in August.  They want to create the 'news' that will down the other team.  This is all in the open, in public threads.  Never mind serious accusations of incest thrown in, which I and others objected to.  Sorry to mention it but it was a real downer to read and it's from OUR side.  It's part of today's election world.

      And there are many threads like this there.  We could self-immolate too.  O'Reilly has been drawing attention to some threads in past weeks (as they realize).  

      My personal Obama friends say, in response to my unhappiness, they feel these new tactics are warranted and must be used since the Republicans use them.  We are to create the 'news' that will down the opponents.  We've been too nice, they say.

      That's the state of Election2008 and the New Politics.


    Not even close to being the same thing... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    Biden is a solid VP pick.  As for Palin, unless you ascribe to that Alaska is close to Russia argument, then she has zero foreign policy experience.

    What does Obama have to do with Palin? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    the connection I draw is (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    he's right on the issues and she's wrong. Even for those who think their experience is comparable or they are both lacking, that should be the determining factor.

    yes! (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    And that should be the discussion. They have about the same lack of experience. The big difference is he's the P pick, she's the VP pick. Not the right road to go down in my opinion.

    But, yet some people cannot (none / 0) (#115)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    seem to stop scratching that experience meme.

    I've been scratching my head since the Palin announcement was made and the inexperience card was being played by many Dems.  Even if the Dem ticket were Clinton/Biden, I could still see the inexperience or not of Palin being a no win line of argument for Dems. So, this line of inexperience argument and who has more of it, Oama or Palin, is fools gold for Dems since we can make a legit comparison.  Why they cannot see this and stop this line of argument is beyond my comprehension at this point.  It's neither reasonable nor productive.


    In an article on the Palin pick, the NY Times (none / 0) (#166)
    by Christy1947 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    reported this morning that the McC team had concluded it had run with the experience meme as far as it could and was casting around for something else. Unfortunately for many (possibly including her) Palin is what she found. I now find myself thinking what she will be like in a few years with some real time under her belt, a few more issues confronted, and that sort of thing. Even her own AK Gov. website said she only had two bills in the legislative term, one an oil and gas industry lobbyist special called AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act) with huge problems and an ethics reform bill the papers didn't even bother to describe. She may be good someday, at least as a skills set, and be really hurt by having been hauled up into this race when she is  so obviously not ready for it.

    Try and defend palin on her merits... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    rather than smearing Obama.

    And now Palin has managed to (none / 0) (#102)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    set a new low. Although I do give Palin credit for getting her first passport in 2006. It's movement in the right direction..no pun intended.

    Kerry's comment (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    This is exactly what I'm talking about in my post in the poll number thread.  Kerry said terrible things about Clinton, then the Democrats spent the entire summer telling Clinton voters that they were just being emotional and couldn't "get over it" if they didn't immediately fall in line behind Obama.  I'm pleased the Democrats now recognize that I have a brain and care about issues, but Kerry and his ilk should STFU when it comes to speaking for Clinton voters.  

    I won't be analyzed by folks who insulted me for six months.

    I agree with this.. (3.60 / 5) (#16)
    by parttime on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    I was a Hillary supporter and I am voting McCain/Palin 08 as a protest vote. The interest these people are showing to Hillary supporters all of a sudden is very disingenuous.

    Palin 2008
    Hillary 2012


    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    Every time I catch myself contemplating the same thing, I remember BTD's frequent refrain on "progressive" blogs: they hate Hillary more than they love Obama. I got so burned by what happened that part of me is looking for something to like in Palin. This is much tougher than I ever thought it would be. And I'm really sorry but I lay the blame at Obama's feet

    Hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    Blame Obama for the sun rising! Blame Obama for traffic!

    It's all Obama's fault for everything!!



    Not everything (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    Only fracturing the party.

    Why? (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    What did you want him to drop out even though he won? I'm sorry but as an Obama supporter who would have been happy with either Hillary or Obama this is just ridiculous.

    Hillary lost this thing back in February.  She basically had a less than 10% chance of becoming the nominee but yet she continued on and ginning up anger against the most likely nominee.

    Let's not talk about who is responsible for fracturing the party.


    Suit yourself then. (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    and godspeed

    that's false and you are warned (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    not to post false information.

    There was just a lot of divisive behavior (none / 0) (#211)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    there behind the scenes that we were too aware of because we were following everything.

      I won't go into it again, of course, but believe me, that some of us take our votes seriously, meaning we need to vote FOR someone.  Because of Palin's mindset, I may mark the rectangle for Obama against my will, but things keep being said that make me think I'd rather not vote that slot and instead work to change the party that now gives me no real party anymore w/the basic standards it had, that didn't respect half its membership, mostly the ones that spent 30-50 years working on elections for the Dems.  So, with me it's a passivity while definitely voting the entire lower Dem ticket.

     I will, at the least, work to have a Congress that thwarts a McCain or Palin if needed and if a Dem Congress has the guts to do it.  Trust is just gone. Maybe it will be revived by something in the next 2 months.


    Go right ahead (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    So why then are you on a blog that supports democrats?

    I hope Jeralyn is keeping track of your comments.


    Because (4.25 / 4) (#24)
    by parttime on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    I have 4 comments to make in 24 hours and I won't let you to tell me to shut up.

    Let's remind ourselves that these folks told us that they wouldn't vote for Hillary themselves:

    Barack: I can get Hillary's supporters, but I don't know if she can get mine.
    Michelle: I am not sure if I can vote for Hillary if she wins.
    Brazile: Democrats do not need working class voters this election, creative class is enough.
    DNC: They'll come around, where else will they go?
    MSM: There will be street riots in Denver if Hillary gets the nomination

    I am not voting for anybody that takes my vote for granted, even flat out doesn't want it.


    I'm not telling you what to do (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    I'm saying that this blog has endorsed the democratic ticket and is a progressive blog. The McCain/Palin ticket is far from it so why bother to post here? To start trouble?

    Just keep in mind that protest votes can backfire. Just sayin'.


    Palin said she couldn't support Hillary (3.66 / 3) (#32)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:48:54 PM EST
    because of Hillary's 'whining' during the primaries.

    You're really going to vote for Palin?


    Its a good thing... (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    the supporters of the dems Bill Clinton defeated in 92 didnt throw a tantrum and do childish protest votes.

    It's a free country (5.00 / 10) (#77)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    I'm baffled as to what this latest round of outraged columns and blog posts by liberal writers hopes to accomplish - calling the voters (and particularly women voters) who are holding out against Obama: childish, emotional, stupid, spiteful, "post-rational," etc.  What good is that?  A childish, tantrum, spite vote (if there are such) counts just as much as an elegant, Ivy League educated, cosmopolitan progressive vote.  

    McCain isn't fit to be president.  There are issues we could talk about to make a case, instead of insulting the voters & especially insulting women voters in ways that we instantly recognize as sexist.


    No where have I said women are those things.... (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    based on their gender.  You can try to hide behind that PC shield, but race, gender, sexual preference, POW experience, etc. doesnt mean youre immune to criticism.

    Do you write a column? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    Or do you have a blog?  If not, why so defensive?  And then offensive?  Those are symptomatic, you know.

    Eh... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    its all a part of the magic that is me.

    Oh, the infantilization! (4.40 / 5) (#53)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    Will it never end?

    As for me, I think dealing with the D leadership is like training a dog: You've got to give the feedback immediately*, or they just don't make the connection and don't learn.

    And in the case of the Ds, when I say "feedback," I mean repeated blows around the head and ears with a blunt instrument.

    This is pro-Democratic, see?

    NOTE * None of this "wait until 2009" nonsense. If you wait until 2009, the line will be "wait until after the midterms." And so on, toward the ever-receding horizon.


    They're not taking it for granted any more ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    Recent events suggest that Team Obama has Gotten The Message, at least rhetorically.  HRC supporters have gone from being taken for granted to being the prize.  It may be hypocritical, but I have to at least give Team Obama credit for recognizing their mistake and changing course.  

    I am keeping track (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    and for the record, comments with "palin '08" are shilling which is prohibited. I routinely deleted comments that said "Obama 08" and "Bob Barr 08" during the primaries.

    You get 4 comments a day that express your support for a non-democratic candidate or your opposition to the Dem ticket, but there can be no shilling -- advocating that others join you.


    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#59)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    The interest these people are showing to Hillary supporters all of a sudden is very disingenuous.

    I suppose one could say the same about the Republicans.


    Yup (none / 0) (#117)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    STFU and let Hillary do it.  She's a zillion times better at it anyway.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by nell on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    I guess I don't see how one can accuse her of being a token unless they are also willing to admit that there were aspects of tokenism to Obama's selection by the superdelegates.

    Before I am attacked for this statement, I am NOT in any way, shape, or form a McCain/Palin supporter because he and she are wrong on the issues.

    But if 2 years in the US Senate before Obama started running for President were enough for superdelegates to back him, how can we say that it is wrong for Sarah Palin to be up there as VP with a similar amount of experience? I mean, I understand everyone may not agree with me, but I believe Hillary's candidacy died the day the media and some prominent democrats (ahem...Clyburn, Jesse Jackson Jr....) began pushing the idea that Hillary Clinton and the super delegates could not take this away from a black man....super delegates were supposed to pick the candidate who was most electable and best prepared to be President. I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that at least some picked Obama as a result of being influenced by this narrative. We know, for example, that JJJr. made the argument to African American super delegates that they would not want to be on the wrong side of history. If the Obama campaign used that argument to get superdelegates, and people view that as legitimate, why do we think the case of Palin is so much worse?

    comments in response to this (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    rehashing the primaries and superdelegates are off topic and have been deleted.

    I think that (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    Joe Conason should be very careful about talking to women using the term tokenism,

    and that

    John Kerry should be very careful talking to womene about Hillary Clinton after the things he said about her before.

    To paraphrase Kerry, do they think they're that stupid?

    Exactly. (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    This is a dangerous, dangerous argument for the Democratic Party as well as Obama/Biden. We're risking downticket votes if we keep this up.

    White middle-aged wealthy men are chosen for political positions for their race, age, class and gender and always have been. Those sitting at the top of Mt. Privilege should be very wary of commenting in this area at all.


    spot on. (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    that the privileged white male class presumes to know what offends ME is offensive on its face. I am far more offended by the reaction of so-called liberals-including women-to this selection than I am by McCain's choosing her in the first place. all the pearl clutching and nasty remarks suggesting that I cannot evaluate this woman's politics and decide for myself, I must accept that THEY reject her.

    if nothing else it is evidence to me that sexism is still alive and very, very strong in this country-even amongst those you thought were your friends and advocates.


    I don't believe this at all (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    Sorry. But to any thinking person it would be immediately obvious that no "serious" Hillary voter would ever accept Sarah Palin. I think this Hillary-hoopla is an intentional attempt to keep the story alive. The real purpose of Palin is white males and evangelical base.

    And possibly to keep Hillary voters home (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    See here (what Zuzu said). I think the "Hillary voters voting for Palin in droves" thing is a straw man. Even on the PUMA sites, the discussion on that option contains widely differing views. For example, voters in swing states have different options than voters in states that are reliably red or blue.

    Yes and no (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    Different people support Hillary for different reasons. I understand very well how the Republicans would keep stirring the pot, just in case. So - rationally I know how I'm supposed to vote. Emotionally, I feel that I've been shoved to the curbside. I was prepared to hold my nose and "fall in line", but with the new round of sexism and misoginy, now against Palin, everything comes rushing back again.

    Are you kidding? from Clinton to Palin?!!!! (2.66 / 3) (#150)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    I'm with Jeralyn.  How can anyone who supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President even consider for a moment voting for the McCain-Palin ticket just because Governor Palin is a woman?  Her views and values are diametrically opposed to everything Senator Clinton stands for. Such a move is simply inexplicable to me.
    If you think that a vote for a woman who is against women's civil rights, who is against a woman exercizing her own moral will when it comes to reproduction, who thinks that women should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term no matter what, who thinks that global warming is not due to human activity at all, who is a truly radical social conservative, and who complained about Senator Clinton as "whining" -- if you think a vote for a person like this is a vote for women's rights and a vote for women's equality and a vote for women's progress -- well then, I cannot imagine having a rational political conversation with such a person.  
    I myself remain convinced that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has a truly significant contribution to make to our public life and I intend to help her in any way I can.  And I am very dismayed by the sexism and misogyny we saw in this campaign, and I wrote about it fiercely.

    But I believe that policies matter.  I know for certain that Republican policies do not advance women's rights nor the economic well-being of all Americans nor the well-being of all living beings on this planet (who are in real danger because of global warming).  Right now, as Senator Clinton herself and President Clinton said so eloquently and masterfully this week, the way to advance the values that Senator Clinton stands for is to vote for the Democrats, not the Republicans.  It doesn't matter how much you preferred Senator Clinton to Senator Obama.  Please, please, please: do not let your disappointment about her loss and your annoyance with sexism lead you to think that a vote for this Republican ticket is a vote for women's rights.  If you didn't think Phyllis Schafley was a champion for women's rights, then don't fall for Trophy Vice-President nominee Palin now.  If you favor right-wing, social conservative policies, then vote for the Republicans.  But not for any other reason.  Figure out another way to combat sexism and misogyny.  Voting for this Republican ticket is simply NOT THE WAY!!
    Voting for this Republican ticket does the cause of women no good whatsoever.  

    For feminists, the goal isn't any woman in high office.  It's highly qualified women  in high office.  Do not give me Governor Palin as a substitute for Senator Clinton! That is a sick joke, and I am insulted.  (BTW, I don't understand how the normally perspicacious, clear-minded BTD doesn't understand the insult of it-see his post yesterday.) Feminists believe in working hard and demonstrating women's competence and mastery.  That's what I see in Senator Clinton, not just a person with a certain set of chromosones.  I do not see her brilliance in every woman and certainly not in Governor Palin.  Sisterhood may be beautiful, but not when rallying around the wrong cause.

    Senator McCain chose Governor Palin because she helps firm up the radical rightwing base that he needs.  He is also hoping that she may appeal to some disgruntled women who supported Senator Clinton.  On the contrary, the tokenism toward women implicit in this choice and his chasing yet another pretty female face (don't forget that this has been his habit over the years) make this strong Clinton supporter disgusted and make me a stronger supporter of the current Democratic ticket, the Obama-Biden ticket.  I don't like much of what happened in this primary campaign, but I know which ticket supports the policies that will improve women's lives.


    Highly qualified women (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by trillian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    Kinda difficult to toot that horn when our very own "highly qualified woman" was passed over for a MAN who's qualifications aren't much stronger than Gov. Palin's.  

    'chasing yet another pretty female face' (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    Um, imo, you're no feminist.

    why no feminist? (none / 0) (#208)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    Why is valuing women for their minds rather than their looks not feminist?
    I respectfully disagree.

    great comment (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:05:47 PM EST

    Jeralyn are you saying you support this (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Rhouse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:54:01 PM EST
    statement from the post you liked :
    On the contrary, the tokenism toward women implicit in this choice and his chasing yet another pretty female face (don't forget that this has been his habit over the years) make this strong Clinton supporter disgusted and make me a stronger supporter of the current Democratic ticket, the Obama-Biden ticket.

    The Lord above, I sure don't want to go there instead of talking about issues.

    thank you (none / 0) (#177)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    I appreciate your compliment!

    who said pandering is good? (none / 0) (#187)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    1. I didn't say that pandering is a good thing.
    2. If you were planning to vote for Senator Clinton as a way of advancing women and if you now plan to vote for Senator McCain/Governor Palin as a way of advancing women or to protest sexism and misogyny, then I see that as substituting Palin for Clinton in the "vote for a woman" box. Vote for a woman, any woman will do?
    3. Given your sensitivity to gender issues, I suggest that you figure out a different expression than "straw men."    

    Some will vote for Palin (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by wasabi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    I can see some Clinton supporters moving their support to Palin.  Clinton was able to attract many conservative Dems, Independents and even some Republican women to support her.  For those women who are less liberal in their general outlook, Palin may get a second look.  Her story of fighting the Republican big boys in her own party portrays her as a strong woman.  I have no idea how large that constituency is, but I don't think hammering on the "they have no where else to go" meme is necessarily helpful at this point in time.

    So long as we focus on the issues (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    I agree with all of this.

    Go with the tokenism and experience attacks, and you are flirting with problems.

    For some reasons, some are insistent on arguing about experience and tokenisms instead of reminding that Bush/Palin are running for a Bush Third Term.

    I do not understand it.

    We have a serious disagreement on tactics here Jeralyn and I hope that you do not see disagreeing with you as an insult. But if you do, let me know. Because if you keep supporting what I see as a bad tactic, I will keep writing that it is a failed tactic.

    I feel very strongly about this. I hope you can respect my views on this and let me express them..

    Reading the entirety of Talk Left (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    this weekend is giving me a serious case of whiplash.  

    it's going to be a bumpy ride (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    so put on your neckbrace.

    Each of you certainly has the (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    courage of your respective convictions.  

    watch out for that exploding head (none / 0) (#96)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    syndrome. OK, I found it. Here is a nice youtube clip that includes that Slim Whitman song in Mars Attacks, about 1/2 way through the clip (it's a best bits clip).

    Thank you (none / 0) (#212)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    lol.  But don't you love it! It's so addictive and

    Disagree with BTD (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    It is tokenism for women when one considers the issues-abortion, equal pay for women, minimum wage (which affects women disproportionately), universal health care, children's health insurance program, women in combat. Some Southern Baptist Convention leaders are thrilled that Palin has been chosen. Does anyone know where Palin stands on the Southern Baptist Convention resolution that women should "submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband"?
    On various issues, IMO, Sarah Palin is to women what Clarence Thomas is to AA.

    How do you know she is subscribes (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    to "women should submit" kind of marriage. I have heard differently. Do you have a link on this statement?

    She should be vetted (none / 0) (#162)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention on this issue. McCain and Palin are touting that they are "mavericks". I would like to hear from both of them in clear unambiguous terms whether they agree or disagree with the Southern Baptist Convention on this subject.

    Do you know that Gov. Palin (none / 0) (#189)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:39:53 PM EST
    is a Southern Baptist? And if she is, so what. Do we have to agree on everything and that we do not agree with or cannot ignore, vote for someone else!

    Are you against vetting of Gov. Palin? (none / 0) (#213)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:13:01 PM EST

    Um, this assumes that women are (4.75 / 4) (#165)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    virtually monolithic on issues the way AAs sometimes seem to be.  If we really were, do you think any of the issues you list above would be controversial anymore?  You do realize, I assume, that women comprise over half of the voting population.  Sorry to inform you of this, despite out numbers, women are not a monolithic voting bloc on issues.  What remains to be seen is if women may turn into something resembling a monlithic voting bloc on the symbolism of a woman VP.  It didn't work for Mondale/Ferraro.  But then again, the GOP wasn't stupid enough to engage in rampant misogynism at every turn.  The Dems?  So far, they are doing just that.

    Neither women nor AA (none / 0) (#188)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    are monolithic voting blocs. AAs did not vote for Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun during their Presidential runs
    in the way they voted for Obama.  
    Ferrarro was patronized by GHW Bush. You seem to have forgotten that or seem very forgiving to Republicans. Arguments like the ones you made really weaken the fight against sexism, IMO.

    of course you can (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    express your views and disagree with me, provided you do it politely. And state them as your view, not fact.

    I will likewise write my views. Readers get both sides and can make up their own minds.

    I feel just as strongly as you do. I don't care about campaign tactics. I care about informing the electorate of the danger of the Republican ticket.


    this is in response to Big Tent Democrats (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    comment addressed to me.

    I don't think Palin (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    is an effective counter to the third term reference.  Rather, she reinforces it.  Her views are right in line with McCain's and therefore Bush's.  Had he picked Lieberman--that would have been an effective counter.  It would have been horrendous for other reasons, but you can't really make the Bush's third term thing stick if McCain picks a former D, current supposedly left-leaning I who ran for the dem VP spot.

    Palin on the ticket (4.66 / 3) (#63)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    has made that approach more difficult, but not impossible.  In order to effectively make it, Team Obama is going to have to regroup, restaff, choose the message and stick to it.

    Palin on the ticket plays up the Maverick angle (which people seem to love), plays up the Fight Corruption angle even if it makes you unpopular in your own Party angle (which voters will probably respond well to as it promises Change in Washington) and strengthens McCain's base with Evangelicals and Republicans.

    I don't know how Team Obama -- other than what I mentioned above -- is going to do it, but, regardless, they're going to have to do whatever it is they do a whole lot better than what they're doing now.


    Kerry is (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    my Senator, but this election cycle I have lost ALL respect for him. he has no right nor any credibility whatsoever to talkl about Clinton supporters after insulting them as a group.

    I am looking into Ed O'Reilly. He doesn't stand a chanve against Kerry in the primary but I like he is for single payer health system. He would be a good ally to Sen. Clinton in teh Senate (unlike Kerry who said universal health care was "a non starter" !).

    it's an incredibly (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    dangerous road for the Dems to travel insisting Gov Palin is solely a "token".  By definition, it demeans her accomplishments and may cause those who may disagree with her to still find themselves rising to her defense.

    It's also boneheaded in that our Pres Nominee, by dint of his relative inexperience, being AA and having been given an obvious assist by the Party Elite against an opponent who was actually winning the States we need to win as well as a majority of the Dem Primary vote, could ALSO be accused of being a "token".

    I don't think it's a door the Democrats necessarily want to open.  There are other things -- issues anyone? -- with which they could have more success.

    Ignore gender, ignore experience and focus on where she stands on the issues.

    For everyone here who (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    apparently hasn't learned anything from what went on during not only the primaries, but through the dem convention as well as far as attacks on women, let me just say I absolutely resent and reject this part of this post with no rebuttal or apology from the poster, and for it to be said on national tv(?)

    "....how stupid do they think the Clinton supporters are, for Heaven sakes?"

    Again, name-calling for no other reason then I'm a woman who supported Hillary, and why, just because she is a woman? Hmmmm. Maybe women of today need a hard lesson in self-respect,name calling and manners. This is appalling!!!

    Clearly, McCain WAS trying to win support among (none / 0) (#146)
    by mmorang on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters with his selection. Palin would fight against virtually everything Hillary has fought her whole life for so the comment was apt and hypocritical.

    Palin just gave a speech and praised Hillary and was booed. Their strategy is clear: Remind Hillary supporters that she got beat, how she got beat, how she was disrespected and that she wasn't even considered for the ticket. Then give them a chance to partially rectify the situation by giving them the option to vote for a woman in 2008 and Hillary again in 2012.


    Hillary would not approve (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    of a female VP running for higher office being dismissed as a token either.

    Hillary was also booed at an (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    Obama (democratic) rally when her name was mentioned by Gov. Selebius. What's your point?

    And this is the problem with ... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    running campaigns based on personality or identity.

    They allow personality and identity to have equal weight to issues.

    Do they have any solid estimates... (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    ... of just how many Republican women crossed over and voted for Clinton?  I doubt if any female Democrats would vote for a Rep. ticket just because Palin is on it, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Rep. crossovers to go back to the Republican side since Clinton isn't around on the Dem. ticket.

    If Clinton had won the primary/caucus stage, would anyone have been surprised if the Republican voters who'd crossed over to vote for Obama would "come home" and vote for McCain?

    I like her and met her for over an hour.. (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Elijah Trotsky on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    What can I say.  I disagree with several of her positions, but she is intelligent and understands both sides of issues.  I met her in Los Angeles, I am an L.M.T. and one of my clients (who grew up with her in AK) set up an appointment when she was in town a couple of years back. I am covered with tatoos and have a Karl Marx quote tatoo she saw and commented on!

    What makes me even like her more is that the smell of the Democratic/Left misogyny scent is back in the air....it smells really bad and I can't vote for it.

    Sorry, she'll make a great Rolling Stone Mag cover and I saw on the Sunday shows the contempt the establishment already has for her.  This plays right into the Rove playbook...our encircled Christian minority fighting the good fight, etc.  This will bring them out "en masse".

    About being the POTUS when JM passes, I thought we were a government run by citizens, not professional hacks?  

    Man, what happened to my side...sad really.

    as I've said elsewhere (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    this weekend, Sarah Palin's power will be on the campaign trail helping to charm voters with her normalcy and intelligencce, continue to strengthen the McCain Maverick brand while putting the lie to the Bush II spin, and shore up rural, blue collar votes in important Swing States which are Leaning Dem, Leaning Republican or Toss-Ups.

    It appears as if you were lucky enough to be the recipient of what voters around the Country are going to get for the next 60-something days from Gov Palin.


    DING, DING, DING (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Lori J on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    As I too have noted elsewhere, her LACK of experience -- in DC -- is exactly why she was chosen.  McCain's going populist here ...the Original Maverick and the Real Woman against the Washington elites. Their own version of the "change we've been waiting for..."  And I think it could prove very effective, especially since Palin's story is one of taking on the entrenched interests in her own party...could be why her selection seems to have so thoroughly freaked out the big dogs of the Beltway political class--Dem and Rep alike: she is not one of them.

    Democrats continuing to harp on experience and tokenism are both totally missing the point and helping to strengthen the McCain/Palin brand.  Not to mention they are risking the alienation of many who, just like Elijah above, are once again smelling the sexism in the air.

    I have no idea of this plays out, but Palin is indeed a very dangerous pick.  


    The 2nd female VP candidate (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST
    for a major US political party is a token hire?

    Yes... (2.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    because her gender is the only reason shes on the ticket.  If he wanted the evangelical vote there are far more experienced people to choose from.  And I guarantee you he wouldnt have picked her if Hillary had been VP.

    you can guarantee that? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    This is a ridiculous argument...and one that'll be tossed back in Dem faces as soon as it hits the waves outside of the blogosphere.

    BTW...before you bring up KB Hutchinson, another woman who was under discussion at one point, she said "no" to any VP choices back in February (I suspect she wants the TX Gov spot).


    I can guarantee that... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    most every gop commercial against Obama was lamenting Hillary not being on the ticket.  This was a set up to the pick of palin, a woman.  Even he wasnt going to go for her, since he wanted lieberman.  But after he got his marching orders the choice was made.

    I've seen a lot of the gop (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    commercials...the ones I've seen have all been aimed at Obama...not lamenting the loss of HRC. Unless there's something involving a decoder ring that I didn't get.

    So he wanted Lieberman and was advised to choose Palin. That's not unheard of when it comes to the choice of the VP candidate.

    Kennedy did not want Johnson, but look who he chose after getting advice.

    Obama wanted several people and, I suspect, was advised to take Biden to cover his FP six.

    I find the "token" argument incredibly problematic...and it will get tossed back at the Dems.

    I can hear the GOP guy at pool--"So...when Dems do it, it's encouraging diversity. But when the GOP does it, it's tokenism."


    Then we've been watching... (2.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:57:08 PM EST
    different commercials. There have been several asking why Obama didnt pick Hillary has VP (which I wish he would have done, but oh well).  So it just is obvious to me that this pick was a political maneuver solely based off of her gender.  And yeah Kennedy did get stuck with him because it was viewed as the politically wise thing to do, which goes back into the token argument.

    As far as your last part, Im quite ok with creating a new mantra: IOKIYAD


    Further (5.00 / 12) (#47)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    I don't know how "stupid" Republicans think I am, but I do recall how stupid John Kerry is.  Didn't he say this:

    "He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."

    Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.

    "Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."

    John Kerry has become a joke this year.

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by nell on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    I cannot believe you reminded me!!!

    I totally forgot. Good lord, could John Kerry be any more foolish???

    PLEASE let the Dems stay away from this argument, and if they are going to use it, please just tell them to make Kerry STFU. Because once the Repubs get going with their defense of Palin, and fighting against Dems suggesting she is a token pick, if Kerry is making attacks, we are going to see that tape played all day long.

    If Obama is qualified to lead foreign policy because he is a black man, then I don't see how the Dems can  argue against Palin's pick just because she is a woman (though I happen to believe there was a lot more to her pick and I haven't yet decided whether it is the Dem's greatest gift or nightmare)...


    I really believe (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:56:46 PM EST
    the Dem Party is allowing the Repub Party suck them into a "my candidate is more experience than yours" while the right wing builds strength.

    I could care less wiether the VP was a women or a man... with those views... I wouldn't like the pick!

    We need to change the direction... my paycheck is not keeping up with inflation.... my energy bills are chewing up my budget... Lets get to that message!!

    You don't think Todd Palin's (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    Native Alaskan grandmother campaigning for the McCain ticket won't be attractive to Native American voters?  Huh.  This whole campaign has been about almost nothing but identity politics.  You know what they say about sowing the whirlwind, well I suspect the Dems are going to learn that lesson.  Just check where Obama needs to win and see if there aren't more moderate to conservative women and NA's there, than AA's.  

    I believe her husband (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    is also Native American.

    Environment (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Gustavion on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    What really worries me most about Palin (and the right in general) is her environmental policies.  Given the state of affairs, it is evermore important for us, as consumers, to support 'green business.'  For example http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.

    Bless you. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    YES! Palin is wrong on the environment, wrong on drilling, wrong on choice, wrong on Iraq, just wrong wrong wrong on so many issues it makes my head hurt. Thanks for the moment of relief and the great link :)

    Iraq? (none / 0) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    What did she say on Iraq? Last thing I read was that she wanted an exit strategy back in 2006.

    Ack, you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    Sorry, I was going by a post on another blog that said she fully supported Bush on the war, should have known better.

    After a bit of googling, Palin seems rather tepid in her support for withdrawal

    ""I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," she said. "I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe." "

    Dropped something (none / 0) (#118)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    tepid in her support and for withdrawal.

    Something I find interesting (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Most folks on the blogs seem to take it as a given that Democrats can win over at least some evangelicals and other members of the GOP base if we play our cards right.  Reach out to them, treat them with respect, find a few issues we have common ground on, and at least some of them will be receptive, the conventional thinking goes.

    That might well be true.  Certainly the Obama campaign has taken a few stabs at this sort of campaigning.  But why do the people who believe this approach is effective never, ever seem to consider the possibility that the other side might be able to do it as well?

    Vert short-sighted (none / 0) (#155)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    and, maybe more importantly, certain to the point of bigotry that their own position is the only true way and the path?  And, of course, everyone will see that if they only look  :-)

    Every time the Dems, the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    campaign, and the media bring up her "tokenism" or lack of experience they invite comparison to the most inexperienced presidential candidate in over 150 years. Not smart. They also seem to be missing how much she will appeal to the "bitter" small town gun owners in places like Ohio, Penn, and Michigan. I think it was, politically, a really smart gamble. Not that I'll vote for them.

    How much do we know about Palin (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST

    I mean outside the smears that are being ginned up by progressives?

    What says "cynical and contemptuous" more than a 44 year old who hasnt bothered to write two autobiographies about herself? And she was so close to appealing to that Salon vote that DLC Obama was only appealing to because of his skin color.

    I said yesterday that I had no intention of voting for either inexperienced candidate. However it does make to allow for the possibility that she might say or do something to earn my vote. Apparently giving a good speech is the only thing necessary to be qualified. So I guess I'll look forward to her interview on 60 Minutes or with Barbara when when she fights the smears.

    This message should not be construed to endorse or denigrate any political candidate.

    McCain is taking advantage of the opening that O (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by mmorang on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:33:52 PM EST
    Obama gave him. Obama could have done what Pres. Kennedy did in 1960 and chosen his toughest critique as his VP. But he was too worried about who-knows-what.

    Now the Republicans have a good shot at electing the first woman as VP. Palin has a very thin record but she is seen as a reformer and she's a young, fresh face at a time when people are looking for something completely new. It's quite a gamble and a trait I find troubling in McCain. Bombing another country is a huge gamble and McCain is not shy about tossing the dice.

    Some what reluctantly, I will vote for Obama.

    Indeed. In fact, I would (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM EST
    suggest that your perceptive sentence about Palin should be read often:

    "Palin has a very thin record but she is seen as a reformer and she's a young, fresh face at a time when people are looking for something completely new."

    IIRC, this neatly sums up the meme on which Obama has run his entire "change" campaign.  It remains to be seen which "fresh face" will reflect the change Americans seem to want.  The young, dynamic, untested guy at the top of the ticket with the experienced old white guy in the VP slot, or the tested and true old white guy marverick, with the young, dynamic, untested gal in the VP slot.

    Face it folks, Palin's selection is a potential game-changer, and it is Obama who opened the door for her by stubbornly refusing to put Hillary on his ticket.


    Big Mistake. So will I. n/t (none / 0) (#175)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    It just turns me off the Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:46:09 PM EST
    Nobody in the Republican Party would accuse the Dem Party and Barack Obama of Tokenism.

    Never thought I'd see the day they compare favorably on something like this.

    True Edgar (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    I've been an Independent for a few years now, but this stuff makes me ashamed I was ever a Democrat.

    Palin is a powerull woman and D/ are freaking out (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by mexboy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    Say what you will about her, just look at the discussion on this and other blogs...it's all about Palin.

    That's power.

    McCain turned the conversation from Obama and his exuberant coronation to issues of sexism, experience and tokenism with one single choice, and he did it while Obama should have been basking in his moment of glory.

    I agree with BTD on this one. The Dems lose if they attack her on the inexperience and gender issues. It keeps all the anger from the primary alive and feeds the divisiveness Obama's team created to win the primary.

    If Obama wants to win the election, he needs to reach out to us, the base of the Democratic Party. Remember us? and he needs to make amends to Hillary supporters and especially women.

    The line of attack they're on only reinforces why I will not be voting for Obama.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by nell on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    she is powerful.

    The McCain/Palin rally has 15,000 people today in Missouri. DO NOT underestimate her, that will be the BIGGEST mistake Democrats can make, brushing her off as some inane Barbie Doll who is nothing more than a token pick (see Taylor Marsh).

    This woman is not experienced and she does not have the right policies, but please do not assume she is a dummy.

    She has obviously given McCain's campaign what they so badly needed - enthusiasm.

    McCain has NEVER had 15,000 people at a rally before!


    yes! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST
    I'm beginning to feel like a political genius here!  I mean, it doesn't take TOO much of a stretch of the imagination to see what a powerful, perhaps even brilliant asset Palin will -- and already does -- bring to the McCain ticket.

    Already she's completely flipped the conversation BACK to McCain when people SHOULD have been discussing Obama's Convention speech.  With one decision McCain sucked all the helium out of Obama's Balloon and is now drawing more media attention and crowds that number close to 15,000 people.

    That's 15,000 people who will possible now see McCain-Palin as truly Maverick and anything but Bush II.

    I suspect her true power will be in the debate (she's evidently a very powerful, talented debater) and on the campaign trail, as she's apparently very good one-on-one with voters.

    She's a game changer.  


    They aren't gonna listen to you BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    While the Obama campaign released a statement Friday saying that Obama and running mate Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) hailed the pick, the internal talking points memo distributed to surrogates made it clear that Democrats plan to portray Palin as inexperienced and a politically expedient pick for McCain to mollify hardcore conservatives in his party.


    Again, yes -- in some tribes (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    but if a tribe doesn't opt to define it, the federal definition is the one by default.  That's what I'm told by my Native American relatives and by my institution, which specializes in Native American studies -- and accepts federal funds to do so.  So the definitions matter as to who is, as my Native American colleagues and students say, "papered.":-)

    Coming Up - The Republicans get dirty with FACTS (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by mmorang on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    The missing ingredient in the Republican's strategy to take advantage of the "once" divided Democratic party is the retelling of the whole race-bating issue in the primary.

    The GOP has been treading very gingerly around the Clinton/Obama discord. They have not gotten into the dirt yet. They will. Were the Clinton's deliberately and unfairly painted as racists or employing racists tactics? There is so much documented material on this that I can't imagine the GOP not going there.

    Obama hit both Clinton's below the belt with a sledgehammer and then got them to throw their full-throated support his way. After all, its only politics.

    I'm voting for Obama, but had he accused me of what he accused the Clinton's of I would take off his head and hand it to him (politically speakig).

    This is when it will get interesting (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    Who would've thought?  Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to become sainted in the eyes of the Republicans (at least for political purposes).

    This might be where Obama made his fatal mistake.  McCain has just shored up the evangelical base with the Palin pick, peeled off a few Hillary supporters, but will cash in when he can show how sympathetic he was to the horrible treatment of the Clintons by their own party.  Especially when there are things out there like the video where McCain talks about the fact that Hillary Clinton would make a good president.

    If the Dems keep up this nonsense attack on Palin, I think the pincers will start to move in from all sides.

    Gonna be like a rollercoaster from now until November.


    Nothing excuses that laughter for that (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    but I was interested later to find out that this opponent is a more vociferous advocate of anti-abortion laws, and Palin gave her a tough time on these.

    In following the dispute this is what I got: After Palin refused to introduce two recently-failed abortion restricting bills to a special session on a natural gas pipeline, she expressed "willingness" to bring the legislation to separate sessions.
    The article said:

    'Senate President Lyda Green called on Palin to incorporate the two bills into the pipeline special session after the bills failed to pass the House.'
    Palin argued that Green should have used her position to support the two bills before they died ... she said she fully supports the bills (forbidding partial-birth abortions and parental consent for abortions for those under 17 yrs of age) but
    '"These issues are so important they shouldn't be diluted with oil and gas deliberations," added Palin.'

    Palin refused to then include these bills during the session put together for other purposes and then asked Senate leaders to examine how best to advance legislation similar to those two failed bills then, suggesting instead
    'the possibility of a separate session'
    for abortion-restricting legislation, provided Green could
    'show a path to success first.'

      In other words, she did not seem ultra bent on making them happen but was willing to 'support' such bills if there was,  first, evidence they'd be successful, meaning they'd have the support of enough people.

      At least, she's not a time-waster.

    Then hit the policies (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by mabelle55 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:46:01 PM EST
    not the fact that she's a woman, for "heaven's sake."  

    This is what has been so depressing -- on nearly every liberal blog!

    Even John Kerry focuses on the issues.

    Feminism isn't about trashing women like Palin and falling into the right-wing language talking traps ABOUT WOMEN. It also doesn't sound too terrific - coming from Democrats - to blather on about "tokenism" because it gives Republicans a delicious "in" to their views of affirmative action. Get it???

    The other piece that really, really bothers me about what the liberal blogs are doing is this: they're acting like women don't get it; like we're a monolithic group of uteruses; like we have to be "told" how to vote, who to support/not support. It's especially galling to women like me (and others I know) who lack the platform (blog, etc.) and who don't have the second and third degrees to read post after post after post about how "bad" this is for women.

    It's what I have always hated about knee-jerk liberals: you can say the right stuff when it's in your own family/hood, but boy, when it hits a nerve from somebody else, you just peel back the cover to see yet another anti-feminist talking-point, strategy.

    Hit McCain/Palin ON THE ISSUES and stop acting like you're dealing with a bunch of bimbos by getting hysterical over Palin's pick!

    Choosing Gov. Palin for VP (3.50 / 2) (#193)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:42:51 PM EST
    is anti-feminist and insulting to Dems and Indies who supported Hillary.  Of course she's a token pick.  You're spot on Jeralyn.  The selection of a relatively unqualified woman as McSame's running mate is OK with conservatives who don't expect women to be as good as men.  As feminists we believe that the best person for the job should be chosen in a manner that is as gender-blind as possible.  McCain's choice is anything but gender-blind.  

    The GOP settled on Palin because their other token strategy of using Lieberman to capture the Jewish vote wasn't panning out.  They're desperate.  Obviously Palin won't help much with disaffected Hillary supporters because most of them are left wing and many are feminists.  They'll see Palin for what she is, which is no comparison to Hillary.  Her ridiculous resume completely eviscerates McSame's claim that our candidate isn't experienced enough to be President.  The GOP has made a gross miscalculation assuming feminists want a woman for Prez regardless of her experience and credentials.  What feminists really want is a level playing field.  

    When the right wing said "Only Nixon could go to China," they meant that Nixon's anti-communist credentials were strong enough to avoid being labeled a "pinko" for meeting with communists.  Most Democrats would not have gotten away with it.  Since that time, the right wing has developed a disingenuous practice of appointing figurehead women and minorities who are willing to sell out their constituencies.  Thus, we have SC Justice Clarence Thomas making activist-judicial decisions against blacks without being accused of racism.  Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell disenfranchised tens of thousands of black voters in 2004.  Sarah Palin is simply another Republican who will sell out women.

    What Palin brings to the ticket is money, energy and down-ticket votes.  She reenergizes their lunatic base.  She'll get gun voters on board and rope in working class voters that weren't connecting with McCain's rich wife and life.  Most importantly, she will inspire Republican women to work for McCain. Women's free labor is what has always carried parties, and the GOP has been hurting without them.  

    The Repubs don't want to lose Congress as well as the presidency.  So they picked an unqualified woman in a desperate attempt to halt the lethargy.  In the end, it won't work because their party stands for divisive politics, bleeding the middle class, ignoring the poor all the other things that destroy our country.  There have always been more of us than them but the they outvote us because they're more motivated about electing their people.  This year we're going to win because our party is finally taking a stand against them.

    But a token that isnt a raging anti-choice, (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    pro-creationism conservative.  Big difference.

    Unfounded rumors and attacks you read (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    elsewhere against Palin may not be republished here. A comment referring to one was deleted.

    But she's such a dangerous trap!!! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM EST
    Or so Tent thinks.  And she may very well be, if the imagination chasm that is the Democratic Party continues unabated.  Obama had more people to represent and answer to as 13th District Illinois State Senator than she will ever have as governor of that entire state.  State these simple demographic truths, then move right into Palin's extremist views.  This ain't rocket science.

    You wouldnt (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    think so, but we've been dealing as much on the symbolic/emotional level as we have on the rational (at least at this site) these last few months.

    You'd also think the "experience" issue vis a vis McCain and his team, would be easily blown out of the water once we get into specifics concerning kind and quality of experience as opposed to keeping things on the level of years of "service" etc


    well said (none / 0) (#14)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST

    Actually... (none / 0) (#41)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    Polls have found that these supporters are not all that moderate but rather pretty liberal. They hate Bush, are pro-choice, working class, rural voters, economic woes, etc. They are upset that Obama won but they aren't flocking to McCain.

    If you arent... (1.20 / 5) (#81)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    pro-choice than youre not a Hillary supporter, and in palins case you possibly pass yourself off as a suitable replacement.

    Wrong (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    I knew quite a few pro-life women who supported Hillary during the primaries.  Some switched parties to vote for her.  Some registered for the first time in their lives to vote for her.

    These aren't the voters the media thinks of when it thinks of Hillary voters but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.


    My mom has (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    several Catholic friends who usually vote R but supported HRC in the primaries. They really liked her "Prevention First" approach to reducing abortion rates and thought the "pro-life" movement should get behind it.

    I am pro choice (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:58:30 PM EST
    but anti abortion personally.

    And I have been fighting this issue for 28 years; almost every election. I'm done. It is time to turn it over to the 20-35 year old women. Give them the voice, let them lead the fight and wish them good luck.

    I am more interested in the economy, health care, education and economic equality.


    You dont get it... (1.33 / 3) (#104)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    If youre anti choice than youre absolutely wrong, period.  And Hillary is very Pro Choice, as all good people are.

    Just because someone disagrees (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    with your views doesn't make them wrong and you right. Choice even means making up your own mind about your own body. If someone like Gov. Palin  "chooses" not to have an abortion, she is still for "choice" except her "choice" is different from yours.  

    Anti choice is just that... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    which is not the pro life stance.  So Im all for women having the CHOICE to do what they thing they should, but the pro life group is against that freedom.  So yes, they are wrong.

    No, they choose not to be for it. (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    Therefore that is their "choice." When I chose to not have an abortion that is my "choice." Same thing! I think in the end we are all pro-life, otherwise, we're pro-death.

    So youre actually saying that... (2.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:41:12 PM EST
    pro life is really about choice?  No, whats really going on is that theyre trying to enforce their own beliefs onto others.  So its fine that anti choice people choose not to have an abortion, but whats not fine is that theyre trying to take away that choice for others.  Thats whats immoral.  

    And Im sorry but being pro choice isnt being pro death.  Thats an anti choice talking point, so I think we might have found the true gop troll.


    choice (none / 0) (#192)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:42:36 PM EST
    Yes, she makes her own choice, but she doesn't want to allow other women to make their own choices.

    P.S. choice = moral decision (none / 0) (#197)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    I meant to write:
    to make her own decision.
    I think that "choice" doesn't adequately convey the moral decision a woman makes when she considers her options with regard to a pregnancy and offspring.

    She hasn't imposed her (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    beliefs on anyone else as far as I can tell, so choice, whether you believe in abortion, or you don't, is still a choice. And, by choosing not to have any, she has decided for herself, not you, not me. It's her view, and she is entitled to her view.

    Youre not seeing the argument... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    you can be pro choice and choose not to have an abortion.  pro life people want to take that choice away from women.  palin is pro life, therefore she wants to take that choice away from other women.

    How offensive (none / 0) (#45)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    As an AA your comment is damn offensive. You are calling a black man who is accomplished a token.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    Your statement was offensive.

    What's extremely dissappointing is the people who can't figure out why Joe Conason's statement is equally offensive.

    These people are really turning into a big dissappointment.


    I think it might be consistent (none / 0) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    Consistently offensive.  Unlike the inconsistent offensiveness of those who have added politically motivated to their offensiveness.

    You might not be politically motivated, but I do side with anyone who says a black person or a woman can aspire to the highest positions in the land without offensive people following them around and calling them "tokens."


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    Joe Conason has now made it acceptable to call Obama a "token" and I think it was extremely offensive and short sighted of him to do that.

    I have often thought the world of him, but he has proved himself to be a huge dissappointment in this case.


    Senator Clinton not a token (none / 0) (#167)
    by noholib on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    Senator Clinton was not a token.  She is simply one of the hardest-working, most brilliant people in public life today.  Tell me who else rivals her in discussing issues and formulating policies that are nuanced and well-thought out?  I don't know why the early stages of her campaign were so poorly managed, but don't demean her by calling her a token.

    Tokenism (none / 0) (#179)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST

    Tokenism doesnt mean that someone took away your favorite shallow talking point and now you are in a huff.

    Tokenism is if you appease a particular demographic group by giving them a visible position without any real power.

    Obama isnt a token, since he was selected for a real position. Likewise Palin is running for a real position and one that set her up to be the front runner in 2012 so that isnt tokenism. Its not possible for McCain to be ready to keel over into his soup at any second like we heard yesterday, and Palin to be a token. If you think McCain has one foot on a banana peel then Palin is playing for all the marbles- ie not a token.


    What writings of Cornell West (none / 0) (#200)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    are you referring to? And what points of his are you referencing in particular?

    I just read Linkins' (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    Sunday morning talk show live blog.  One talking head purportedly sd. the Republicans should no longer speak out about affirmative action, given McCain's choice of Palin for VP.  Of course, I've heard others opine there is no longer any reason for affirmative action now that Obama a party nominee for President.  

    no a token doesn't just mean a first (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    it means one who was chosen because of a specific quality, be it gender, race, age, etc.

    Was Joe Biden picked because (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    he would boost Obama's foreign policy experience, and if so, was he then a "token" pick by your definition?

    Take the politics out of the choice for a moment (none / 0) (#141)
    by zridling on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    Okay, big exception, but take the politics out of the choice for a moment. The experience arguments are a push. Remember the 1993 Ivan Rietman movie, Dave? That's how people will view her, not as a heartbeat away. She can destroy any experience argument by Biden in a debate with one line:

    Well, Mr. Biden, you've been in Washington since I was six years old, and how has that worked out for the rest of us Americans?

    And it will be the 'Sir, you're no Jack Kennedy' line that anyone will ever remember from that debate. Don't underestimate this pick. As an outsider to Washington and obama's corrupt Chicago background, she'll be a breath of fresh air for the next two months.

    Too bad "gun voters" (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    evanglicals, "the working class" and unions? (lol) etc had never heard of her till a few days ago.
    At least half of those special qualifications are a  mischaracterized stretch at best (native americans and unions), while the others could be shared with any number of others with the edge in name appeal AND experience.

    Well (none / 0) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    Maybe that's could be a good thing since polls have shown that people are suffering from "Obama fatigue".

    Maybe they will see her as a breath of fresh air.


    You know... (none / 0) (#164)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    After re-reading this post, my question is, "so what"?  I guess I should feel all outraged that McCain chose her supposedly only because she's a woman, but if they win, she's still going to be Vice President of the United States - not like she's going to be chosen PTA president over a better qualified man.

    Again, even discussing this does more disservice to women.  We should just say no and people who try to engage in this type of talk should be shut down.

    "Don't Know How To Let Go!!!!????" (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    I'm trying to "let it go."

    I don't know why this site is now determined to give me more reasons to keep holding on.

    Conasen is speaking to one of Kanter's (none / 0) (#196)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST
    writings.  Rosabeth Kantor very much supports women and their advancement. In the article referenced she states:

    "The discrimination that token women workers face is the kind that first comes to mind when we consider sexism on the job........ These obstacles come from within the job itself, either from its basic organizational structure or from the people in it."

    Some of the work she does, is like being a psychologist to institutions to see what makes them tick and help them improve relations with their employees.

    Policy? (none / 0) (#215)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    Can anyone tell me from her speech a single policy position that Palin has on national or foreign policy issues.  From McCain's speech.
    A single position she has held on foreign policy?
    Anything we know about her on the issues is only tied to Alaska's ability to develop its natural resources.  Anything outside of Alaska that she has a position on?

    So why would McCain pick a woman who has been a governor of one of the smallest populated states for less than two years.  Obama's represented a district bigger than her state in the Illinois state legislature for 8 years.  Her only other experience is as mayor and on the city council of a town of about 5,000- thats the size of my high school.  Can that really be equated to running the country.
    People keep explaining that this equals executive experience so its has more value that Obama's time in the senate and state legislature.  But McCain has no executive experience either so that would make her more qualified than McCain.
    He only met her once, and talked to her one more time so is it really believable that he senses such a strong intelligence on these issues.
    You can see interviews with her online and I don't see any strong interest in national issues- do you?

    Did anyone else notice all the blatant disgust on (none / 0) (#216)
    by zridling on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:21:26 PM EST
    all the Sunday talk shows? I watched every one of them and even Brit Hume on Fox was spewing his coffee all over the desk on the Palin pick.


    and so on were words used to describe the pick. However, it came off like they were pissed that one of their own backyard Washingtonians wasn't plucked for the job. They're as flummoxed as obama on how to handle this "woman."