Palin a Turn-Off to Many Working Class Women

The LA Times reports today that McCain's blatant attempt to target working class women voters with his choice of Sarah Palin to be vice president isn't convincing many of them.

For many of these critical swing voters, economic interests trump any admiration of the Alaska governor's maternal grit, and some are repelled by her sarcastic jabs at Obama.

As one woman put it:

"I wanted Hillary to win so bad, but I saw Sarah, and it just didn't work for me," said Heckman, taking a break in the empty courtyard of J. Paul's restaurant in a downtown struggling to revive. "I have no retirement. Obama understands it's the economy. He knows how we live."


She wasn't alone.

Interviews with some two dozen women here after Palin's convention speech found that these voters were not swayed by the fiery dramatic speeches or compelling personal biographies that marked both the Republican and Democratic conventions. Instead, they were thinking about the price of milk -- nearly $5 a gallon -- or the healthcare coverage that many working families here cannot afford.

Another tack that didn't work:

Republican delegates and activists in the convention hall delighted in Palin's jabs at the Illinois senator, such as when she poked fun at the columned backdrop for Obama's stadium acceptance speech or mocked him as intent on "turning back the waters and healing the planet."

For many women here watching closely, though, that portion of Palin's speech was all they needed to hear.

....When Palin belittled Obama's history as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side -- suggesting he was a do-little activist while she, as the former mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, had "actual responsibilities" -- Sandy Ryan, 59, clicked the remote.

Women aren't stupid. Except for right wing fundamentalists, they get it. McCain/Palin isn't right for the economy, the country or for us.

< McCain Jumps Ahead In Gallup Tracker | Newsweek's Profile of Sarah Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, some women don't like Palin. But going (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    by Rasmussen, some do. And Evangelicals lover her. And gun owners love her. The Republican base, by and large, loves her. The Palin choice has clearly not sunk the McCain campaign. The kitchen sink has been thrown at her and the people have basically shrugged. Going after her isn't working.

    It's a little early to start celebrating.... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    Let's see what happens a couple weeks down the road...first impressions have a way of changing.

    Our goal should be creating an unfavorable (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    impression of McCain, not an unfavorable impression of his flunky.

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    and will continue to attack Palin on the issues, her record, her lack of record, and McCain's poor judgment in picking her.

    Your disagreement has been noted. It's not the topic of this thread. Sarah Palin's appeal and lack of it to working women voters is the topic.


    Over at the blogs filled with working women (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is very popular

    The Confluence, for example


    Well in my sphere (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    which consists of working women across the board (from college educated to blue collar to retired women) it is pretty unanimous....we do not like this candidate and would not like her if she was male, if she was Hispanic or African American, if she was anything because her stance on the issues goes against what we believe in.  She supports taking away choice for women when it comes to their own bodies.  She pushes religion too much and is all about Bush policies.

    Every one of my friends, acquaintances, relatives who were diehard Hillary supporters are absolutely astounded as well as insulted that any one believes a) one woman can substitute for another woman as if there are no differences b) any woman will do regardless of the issues.

    Sorry, I have seen very little support from former Hillary supporters for this women.  However I have seen women acknowledging that using sexism against ANY woman is just wrong.


    how do you know they are (4.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    blue collar working class women? I highly doubt they are. Most of the "working class women" demographic described in the article -- important swing voters-- are too busy struggling with making ends meet to spend time on blogs.

    They seem to think they are working women (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    But if you don't believe me, why not ask them?

    you miss the "blue collar" (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    and again divert attention from the topic of the article and the post. Please stop.

    There are lots of currently non-blue collar (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    women who began their working lives as blue-collar workers, and/or who come from working class roots. Just because you work your way up to a white-collar job doesn't mean you forget where you came from or forget what it's like.

    I think the term of blue collar worker (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    has expanded a bit to include jobs that aren't factory or physical laborists. I would include a variety of repetitive administrative workers (order processors, claims processors, call center reps, etc.) in that classification.

    I agree.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    the definition of blue collar has changed with the job market.  As manufacturing jobs are replaced with clerical paper-pushing work, these desk jockey type jobs can and should be considered blue collar.

    I sit on my arse all day jockeying the desk and consider my collar as blue as when I was digging ditches.


    The words used in both the article (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    and your post are "working class women", neither the term "blue collar" nor "working women" was used . If you are going to parse words, then I think it should be noted that your post's title says that working class women are "turned-off" while the LA Times  article title is that her appeal to working class women is "limited".

     Seems like this is also an important point in the LA times article:

    If these women are any indication, the threat to Obama's camp is not that they will side with McCain but that they will stay home, as Heckman, the restaurant chef and single mother of two, says many people on her block plan to do.

      I don't think Palin has an appeal to those who are die-hard Dems, or left leaning Hilary supporers, but she does have an appeal to those Hillary supporters who were disaffected Republicans and/or conservatives, and those working class women who are also evangelicals. She wasn't picked in order to grab all the Hilary supporters, she was picked to secure the evangelical base, firm up McCain's maverick image, and, perhaps, tweak the idiotic misogynists in the Democratic party. So far she's been a success at all three.  


    Agreed (none / 0) (#38)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    The computer is used for the kids playing comp games while mom and dad work weekends after the five days are put in to make ends meet. Especially true of single working women. . .

    Evangelicals and Gun Owners Love Palin (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    Not exactly a surprise and not exactly a loss of their votes for Obama who was never going to win most of them anyway.

    Sure, it look like McCain is exciting his base, finally. But the Dem registration/ identification/ ticket enthusiasm nationwide is way ahead of the Republicans.


    Anecdotal evidence here (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    ..but my ex, who went evangelical, and his new wife, were very gung-ho for Palin and are now both planning on voting McCain. He had sworn earlier that he would not vote at all, because he didn't like McCain on some issues. They were both positively thrilled with the Palin choice. I disagree with them vehemently or a lot of issues but they aren't dumb and they aren't monsters.

    McCain secured his base with his VP pick and ensured that most of those voters won't sit out the Presidential race this year. Obama didn't do that, and thus he is still dealing (or not dealing) with a significant percentage of his base that is planning on sitting out the race.


    But I Said That (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    that now McCain is finally exciting his base.

    Would your ex have ever voted for Obama? No, right? So, yes, McCain, by picking Palin, has wooed many (most?) of his fence sitters back.

    As has Obama.

    Post convention Gallup Polling

    "The new polling shows that many of these disaffected Clinton voters have now returned to the loyal Democratic fold. The percentage of former Clinton voters who say they are certain to vote for Obama has now jumped to 65%. Although 12% of former Clinton voters persist in saying that they are going to vote for McCain, that's down from 16%, and the percentage who are undecided has dropped in half.

    "Overall, support for Obama among this group has moved from 70% pre-convention to 81% post-convention."

    And, by the way, I don't view people whose lifestyles are different from mine as 'dumb' or 'monsters', not until I get to know them face to face and find out.

    I have friends and family members who own guns and most of my family and many of my friends are devoutly religious too. The fact that I support Obama doesn't mean I've never had a Republican loved one or one with more traditional values or lifestyle than mine. Some of them even support him too. Go figure.


    No, its not a loss of their votes for (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    Obama, but it is a gain of their votes for McCain, which is significant. My point still stands that McCain secured his base with his VP pick, Obama didn't.

    Polling Shows You're Right (none / 0) (#106)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    Biden didn't excite the Dems the way Palin excited and energized the Republicans. But it remains to be seen how they do head to head in the states.

    At the moment, and this could change, there's ample evidence that Palin is not winning enthusiasm among Indie and Dem women, and that (again, at the moment) they're moving toward Obama. I've also seen accounts (and heard them anecdotally among family and neighbors) that seniors are very energized by Biden (Go figure, huh?). He apparently plays well in Florida where Palin may have more problems.

    Time will tell. So many things can swing this one way or another including Palin making an impressive performance in her first media interview as VP later this week.


    We're talking about the (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    swing voters, the working women voters. Of course she has their base, but without this additonal group which is not their extremist base, they have a very uphill battle.

    Evangelicals and Gun rights activists (also their base) are not enough.

    Move past their base to the remainder of the voters, that's the issue, and I think the attacks on her position on issues and lack of relevant experience are having an effect and it's one of refusal to support the Republican ticket.


    How can you tell is there is a positive (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    effect? McCain/Palin are currently polling better then McCain ever has. That's because of a convention bounce, but I think it makes it difficult to argue that attacks on Palin are hurting McCain.

    reading interviews like those in the LA Times (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    and elsewhere are indicative to me. I agree, polling this week and last week is irrlevant due to the convention bounces. I'm looking at what those outside the right wing fundamentalist base of the Republican party are saying in media reports.

    It's just my impression.


    Doesn't it depend on (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Jeannie on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    the opinions of the interviewer? Perhaps there were 10 interviews - 5 positive to Palin and 5 negative. But if the writer only used the 5 negative ones, the whole article is skewed and useless except as propaganda.
    I have also read supposed interviews or letters on-line that seemed to be fabricated - on both sides of the political spectrum. This is all meaningless.
    That being said, polls can be skewed, too, depending on the bias of the pollster.
    I said, perhaps two years ago, that there was no way the Republicans were going to let this election go to the Democrats. There is too much riding on it for them - and not only power and money. I think, and this is, of course, just my opinion, that they funded a lot of Obama's campaign through third parties, and did what they could to get him to be the nominee - because there are so many skeletons in his closet that he will be easy to beat. Now that the conventions are over, the stuff is going to hit the fan.
    Also, Obama hasn't helped with the nasty sexist stuff towards Hillary and her supporters and racist slurs that have turned off many women, some who will be going to McCain/Palin.

    Yes indeed (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by stillife on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    I always take "man on the street" interviews with a huge grain of salt.  The journalist starts out with an axe to grind and cherry-picks the interviewees to support the story.  It's yet another example of how our lovely "unbiased" media manufactures news, as opposed to reporting it.

    That interview by the LA times (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    falls into the category of selected anecdotal evidence.

    This just goes to prove (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    That some women, just like some men, are indeed stupid.  Does Ms. Heckman really believe Obama knows or really cares how she lives.  Obama cares about Obama and winning.  Anyone with half a brain would question his stint as a "community organizer" when he was not demanding his good friend Resko put heat into the slums he owned. He was on a quest for a political career and that was one rung on the ladder.  Palin was a council member, then the mayor and then the Gov. of AK with an 80% approval rating.  I don't agree with her or McCain on many issues but I have no idea what a flip-flopping, pliable Obama might do as president with a weak-spined pliable Democratic Congress.  That seems a lot more likely at this point to give us another four years of Bush.  Weak, pliable, arrogant and inexperienced sure sounds like the second coming of Bush to me.

    If they keep her on attack (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    I don't think she will be as effective. Some women do not like women who attack in politics (my mother is one of them). If the McCain camp pays attention, like they did to the primaries, and switch up how they use her, I can see her pulling in some of the working class conservative women. Short term memories and such . . .

    If this were true:

    Obama understands it's the economy. He knows how we live.

    it seems Obama would have done better in some of the primary states connecting with voters.

    I'm not convinced that McCain (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Mshepnj on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    chose Palin to try to appeal to working class female (i.e.: Hillary) voters, primarily. He needed to convince the GOP evangelical base to support him and Palin did that for him.  I think it's the media who thought Hillary voters would automatically be energized by another female candidate, because they have a simplistic view of Hillary's base and are, at least in part, responsible for the narrative about what allegedly motivates Hillary voters.

    Nobody who has been paying attention to what's really going on in this recessionary economy should be surprised that working class women and Hillary voters more generally, are unconvinced by Palin because we're not stupid. Having said that, I'm sure McCain thought that he could pick off a small number of Hillary voters in addition to energizing his base - icing on the cake for him.

    With her securing the base (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    she gives McCain more freedom to run to the middle.

    That's all Palin is (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    a crumb to the far right.  I loved how they were crowing back in 2006 that they (evangelicals) were not going to be like the blacks were with the Democrats:  taken for granted by the republicans.  They're getting played like a cheap fiddle.

    Palin is just pandering for them.  She absolutely gives McCain the go-ahead to move on that "maverik" image.


    I agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    And that's what he is doing. It needs to be pointed out more.

    Since I'm watching football . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    The McCain team def reviewed the tapes from the previous game on their opponent. While they had/have Obama on the defense this past week, he's doing a Hillary morph with the fight theme. "On your side, not in your way" could work especially if they have Palin stump more to some issues also, and not just be an attack dog. There's a check list of things she can talk about that counter Obama/Biden and parts of their strategy. And avoid the obvious about her.

    I really wish Obama would trim some of the McCain talk from his stump. It's what hits the airwaves and doesn't give his offensive moves any play. (yes, I really am watching football, OY!) I understand from what I've heard that he's talking about the economy these days, but unless I sit and watch his speeches in full, I'm not hearing it. And I haven't watched his speeches in full, so I haven't heard it. I'm sure I'm not alone.


    Just words (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    Conversely, Obama could use Hillary's just words strategy over the vagueness of Obama's hope/change theme  during the latter half of the primary against McCain.

    The Republicans can tinker with the words "fighting for you" or "not getting in your way."  But their still offering the same Republican policies they've been destroying the country with for the past eight years.  

    Hillary's fighter theme worked so well because you really believed that she would fight for policies that will help regular people.  The Republicans can't duplicate that.  Its up to Obama to make his case against the Republicans though.  


    One big difference. (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    When Hillary speaks to policy positions she actually understands the policy and has positions.  There is clarity and you have no doubt that she knows exactly what she's talking about.  She gives specifics.

    Obama cannot and will not do that.  He uses many words but never with clarity and never really seems to understand the particulars of any policy or have a clear position.  

    That is the problem he will have now until Nov. unless he puts in the work to change that.  There is nothing to indicate that he will do that.  He's the one who said "Words Matter" but maybe he only meant if you use them in bulk.


    You're completely right... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    and I might add that the DNC, SDs, media and Obama himself because of their arrogance, disdain for the 18 million and their choice, and taking for granted that "we would come to our senses", has resulted in too many dissaffected (and now former die-hard)Dems to try to convince into the fold imo. This will have them struggling to the end, and am afraid they have opened a Pandora's Box that may be too difficult to control.

    Nah (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    Nah, he can elucidate Democratic positions and he did it during his acceptance speech.  He can't do it as well as Hillary, but give Obama some credit.  

    WS - I listened to the acceptance speech twice. (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    He touched on many topics but he spoke in platitudes and not specifics.  He seems to be floundering and taken completely aback and losing some of his "sparkle" now that the fairy dust is settling.  As a rock star in front of huge star-struck crowds he was at his best but that does not a candidate for president make.  Over this week-end I have forced myself to watch some of the election coverage on both sides.  I listened to Obama give a speech to a much smaller crowd and he looked like a deflated balloon.  I've watched him change positions on FISA, drilling, faith-based initiatives and speak without conviction on things like abortion and I really don't see core principles and committed positions.  That is why Palin is taking the spotlight and Biden is not helping with most people.  

    A word from small town working class (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    Rock on on this Jeralyn. You are absolutely right about focusing on the repubs having no economic message. If you (Obama) want the working class focus on the economy, and cut the snide remarks and insults toward the stupidity of the working class.
     Listening to McCain, he's got nothing for me or other working class. You'll win by just showing what you got.
      Though I'm spitting nails over how Obama won and many statements that have made me feel alienated and not wanted by the Democratic party, that takes a far second seat now to the real, for me, life threatening effects of this recession. Food, heat, jobs, healthcare-- those are the primordial issues we need focused on for survival, not hopey changey fluff or beauty queens.
      Summer tourism was abysmal,Christmas sales look like they are going to be a weak swimmer caught in an undertow, construction is dead, and the American consumer has gone to sleep. No jobs means no money. No money means no food. Winter looks to be very cold. Hmmm. . . how will I pay for the heat?

    Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    once said that you could put on a sweater.

    Actually a lot of what you say is spot on.  But the condition(s) you speak of are not indicative of all the country.

    Where I live, unemployment is under 4%, there is a TON of construction going on in our downtown, lots of urban development and renewal.

    I work in the staffing industry and am set to break a company record this year in sales.  I am sorry that where you may be that the economy sux.  I have a very good friend that lives in Perry, Michigan and it sounds HORRIBLE there.  I urge him to relocate to TX because there is so much opportunity right now.


    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    Palin is not there to appeal to just women.  She and McCain were in Sterling Heights, Michigan on Friday in Macomb County, Michigan.  Sound familiar to anyone?  It should - it's the epicenter of Reagan Democrats (and a suburb of Detroit, aka "Hockeytown"). Michigan is hurting - highest unemployment rate in the country (around 8%).  Macomb County is in southeastern Michigan - usually a good placed for Dems, but maybe not this year.  

    With the blue-collar workers hurting, and putting all issues aside, who do you think those people in Macomb County are going to identify with -  a Harvard educated lawyer who'se lived in exotic places and who sometimes comes off as elitist and his running mate, whose been in DC forever, or a war hero who has the reputation of being a straight shooter and a "hockey mom" who is plain-spoken and has strong union ties? Who is going to get the most favorable initial response?  From there, people will look at the issues, but once you've lost voters, it's hard to get them back.

    The western part of Michigan is full of evangelicals, so McCain will not have to work nearly as hard to get them on board, and the Upper Penninsula, while represented by a Dem Congressman, is full of people who "cling to their guns and religion".

    This kind of thing will play well in PA and OH - that's three states that Obama absolutely cannot afford to lose, so while some blue-collar women who were interviewed for this article don't like her, I think there are many other women (and men) who might get on board with McCain because of her.

    Obama needs to keep harping on this only at his peril. He needs a message that speaks to blue-collar workers, and so far he has not been able to do that. (And there are more "blue-collar" types than "white-collar" types in this country - you do the math).


    Oh goody! (none / 0) (#84)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    Let's see if we can get Obama to tell people to put on a sweater when they tell you they are facing life threatening conditions. Yeah, he's trailing in the polls and I'm sure that will help.
      Actually, I've already made the sweaters but that won't keep the pipes from freezing. Maybe I should drink water from the sewers as well? 'course that leads to dysentary and health problems and the need for the ever increasing costs of health care. You really ought to not snark about this as it will cost obama votes.

    I hardly doubt (none / 0) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    my "snarkiness" would cost Obama votes.  Obama costs Obama votes.  Plain and simple.

    It's been since the primaries and I am still waiting for one of Obama's supporters to assign voter gain or loss to OBAMA!!!!


    Okay (none / 0) (#101)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:47:46 PM EST
    how does your snarkiness help obama retain or gain working class votes? And when do people who make statements that wont help take responsibility for the effect of their statements, when it has often been stated here and on other blogs that it is the perceived attitudes of supporters of obama that turn people away?
      If you are not a supporter please state so so you can be declared a troll and sent away.

    Okay, hookfan (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    Let me see if I understand what you are saying.  Anyone who thinks Obama should take some responsibility for the failings of his campaign  and would rather consider the realities and have an intelligent discussion of the facts is considered a non-supporter and will be "sent away".  LOL

    Have you ever considered that those who think like you may one of Obama's biggest problems?  


    whoa (none / 0) (#105)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:08:58 PM EST
    I am more than welcomed here by Jeralyn.  This isn't YOUR blog to tell me to leave!!

    For the record Jeralyn (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    I disagree with you. I am as working class as you can get. I got my first job at 15 spent 12 years as an enlisted person, spent 1 year working at a hospital and Kroger while my husband went to college. Then picked up a job as a night cashier and then CSM at Walmart for three years. When my husband's hours at Danaher got cut I picked up a part time job in the evening at the local Taco Bell 5 hours an evening while using my GI Bill. My husband now works for the railroad and I am at home but I remeber my roots. I don't think Palin is a turnoff at all. I won't go further out of respect for your rules but I thought you should know.....

    My early history is similar to yours (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by nellre on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    Palin turns me off because of her positions.
    I respect her accomplishments however.

    I disagree with her on many things (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    I disagreed with Hillary too from time to time. I do respect some of the legislation that the group she belongs to has helped pass and continues to work toward even if I disagree with them on the issue of choice. I think I can work with her in areas where we agree and fight her relentlessly where we disagree. In short, I'm not expecting a cakewalk no matter who wins.

    And clearly not of us with (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    working class roots are the same.

    I come from blue collar, watched my mother toil in factories like Norma Rae; watched women take a back seat to men all my life.  And there is no way in h*ll I would ever vote for someone like Palin, who mocked people like me (feminists older than her) for working hard so she could do what she is doing.
    She's on the wrong side of women's issues and the wrong side of working people.

    She TOTALLY turns me off.


    Again (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    I have to wonder if you are aware of what the group she is a part of have worked on that is positive and a step in the right direction.

    I'm at my four I think so I can't continue the conversation but I implore you to not just look at broad positions and get down to specifics. I find much to admire about The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that I do see as pro women.


    I am quite aware (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    thank you very much.

    She is against women having a choice or having power over their own bodies.  THAT is a biggie fo me.  
    She seems to believe we all should believe that life begins at conception. I DON'T and shoving religious mythology down my throat is NOT acceptable.

    She supports keeping the war in Iraq going as her running mate does.
    She supports the notion of drilling for oil. I don't.
    She supports religious mythology being discussed in science classes. I DO NOT....no not even as a comparative discussion.  Comparative religious studies is fine..NOT in science.

    Anyone on the republican ticket is supporting the republican platform. I have read it. Have you?  
    It disgusts me on so many levels I cannot tell you.
    She represents the party that has gotten this country to where it is.  She supports her own party or she would be running as an independent.  Her party's policies HURT working people so how can you say she appeals to working people?

    No way, no how, no McCain and no Palin.


    Nurture (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by nellre on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    Hillary's nurturing character went beyond her immediate family. She loved the people and the planet.
    Palin does love her family, obviously, but it does not seem to extend to we the people of the world, and to Mother Earth.

    Palin is no Hillary.

    I put Hillary in the past tense. (none / 0) (#48)
    by nellre on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:54:58 PM EST
     My bad

    She is in the past.... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jeannie on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    for now - thanks to the DNC. The actual 'change' she would have brought to Washington will not happen now - from either party. There was a reason the old Washington guard didn't want her as president.

    Anecdotal. Polling suggests opposite true (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Exeter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    Specifically, Rasmussen has found that since Palin's speech, McCain deficit among women has been cut in half from 14 points to six points and the race is now tied b/c of the Palin bounce.

    Dueling Polls (none / 0) (#71)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    And Gallup says all McCain's gains among women have come from Republicans, not a demographic Obama ever had much hope with.

    But Obama, in the same period, increased his support among white indie women (5%) and Dem women (by 8%), non white Latino women and African American women voters being a fairly stable group in terms of preference (pro Obama).

    This was after the Palin announcement and ensuing hoopla but before the convention speeches. But this AM one of the morning news programs talked about how it is white working class men who are flocking to McCain/Palin more than the women.  


    There are some women (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    who will vote for Palin because she is a woman. Just as there are AA's who have said that they want to vote for "someone who looks like them'. When a group is under-represented in the power structure, adding to its numbers, whether the people added agree with you or not, gives your group a larger voice. To keep women from choosing to vote for McCain because they get the first female VP as part of the deal, Obama needs to convince women that they will have a larger voice in his administration than in McCain's. He lost the opportunity to have a female VP, but it's not too late to bandy some women's names around for important positions in his administration. He needs to put a more female-friendly face on his campaign, too, and not just when he needs someone to go after Palin. Samantha Powers and Patti Solis-Doyle are the only two whose names I know, and neither one in a positive way. He needs his own Carly, and he needs her fast.

    You could be right (none / 0) (#76)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    But GWB had more females in his cabinet than anyone, except Bill Clinton.  Do voters really care who a nominee says s/he will put in the cabinet?  I really don't know.  

    When the expectation is that (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    the cabinet will be dominated by white males no matter which candidate is elected, then no, but when one candidate chooses a woman as his VP, and the other one blatantly refuses to consider one, women will be paying attention to the possible cabinet picks. McCain has had Carly out there asking women what they want, and so far it appears that he's listening. On the other hand, the message that Obama is sending out is "vote for me or to the coat hanger and the back alley for you". Only a small percentage of women are one issue, reproductive rights voters. They seem to be the only ones that Obama is targeting, and then not in a very positive way. This election is most likely going to be decided by the white male vote, not by women, but the race is too close for Obama to write women off this way. "Vote for me and I'll take care of you" is not as strong a message to women as "vote for me and I'll make you a partner".

    A turnoff to "many"? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    How many? Apparently not too many because according to Rasmussen Obama has lost support among women.

    And that, my friends, is what everyone should have expected when the DNC carried Obama over the threshold because Hillary was too "polarizing" and "would do anything to win".  Democrats wanted a candidate who would talk about "change, unity and hope" with nothing to back it up, instead of the candidate that carried states like CA, WV, KY, AR, PA, OH, and TX.

    Now the same supporters that trashed Bill and Hillary with racism and demanded she quit after the big super Tuesday primaries wish their candidate was more polarizing and would do anything to win.

    The animal is wounded, the kill is imminent.

    Hillary is not the topic (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    Please don't hijack the thread.

    More anecdotal evidence (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    My sister works in state government.  Many of the women who work with her are blue collar of the clerical type - they may have a high school diploma but that's about it.  They are primarily in their late 30s or 40s.

    She was listening carefully to their conversations after the Palin speech - they LOVE Sarah Palin.  It has little to do with her positions and almost everything to do with the idea that she is just like them.  They think her family is beautiful and she is so attractive.  Many of them had children when they were teens or have teenagers with children.  It's not something they're proud of but it's part of life.

    My sister said the most commonly used expression about Palin was, "she's good people."

    These are union folks, Reagan Democrats but they don't care much for Obama.  Many of Palin's attack lines were repeated with undiminished enthusiam.  

    These women were solidly Hillary for economic reasons.  They should go to Obama for the same reasons but are not.  (Note that they disagreed with Hillary on choice but thoughts she understood where they came from).

    I'm not sure these women are reachable - they have found a heroine in Palin and she's now someone they look up to and admire.  I think it might have been possible if the Obama camp had done a more sustained argument on the economy over the summer.  It still might be possible to reach them but I'm not sure an attack directly on Palin is the way to go.

    What needs to happen is to find someone they admire just as much, relate to just as much and get that person to explain why the Democrats are a better choice.  

    (Please note:  while these women don't life in small towns they most definitely see themselves as having "small town values".  I think that might be common in white working class enclaves even in big cities.)

    This is a perfect (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    example of why bashing Palin is such a big mistake, especially on the personal stuff, and also on the the non-personal when it overstates the case, or leaves out important information, or  even when it just seems to be gratuitous piling on, like the kerfluffle over "put it on Ebay".

    If people are relating to Palin on a personal level then a personal attack on her will seem to them to be an attack on themselves. You don't convince people that it is in their interest to vote for you by attacking them. Obama needs to be talking issues and what HE is going to do to make those voters lives better. And left leaning bloggers need to stop seeing themselves as Democratic swift-boaters and start talking up Democratic values and policy, if there are such  things anymore.

    This is a primary failing of the "post-partisan" shtick.   Instead of promoting the idea that everyone wants what is best of the country, but some ideas are just bad and others are superior, "post-partisanship", as its been practiced this year,  has promoted the idea that all ideas are worthy no matter whether they are Democratic or Republican, but some people are just bad and others are superior. This is bad politics and even worse governance.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#98)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    I don't mind going after Palin's record in cases where there is clearly something wrong (the recreational/atheltic venue seems to be a perfect thing to go after because it also goes back to the larger narrative of Republican incompetence).

    But too much of the reaction to her this last week has been either overblown or just wrong or focused on her identity (I'm not sure how we're going to reach out to white working class votes when we start derisively calling them "rednecks").  it's hurts the credibility of the attacker more than it hurts Palin.

    Post-partisanship has gotten us to the point where we have a campaign that's not about issues or ideas in a year when one party's ideas have been totally discredited.

    We need to focus on why Republicanism is wrong and Democrats are right pointing out to people the evidence - who did you do better with?  

    The answer to that is simple.  But going after someone who people are invested in emotionally is not going to get us the reaction we want.


    I'm not sure the sports center is a good (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    case in point. There are positives and negatives in it, and I'm not sure whether the incompetence can be laid to the mayor in particular in that case. I think the city attorney is more likely the responsible party for the failure to get a signed agreement. And the real estate investor looks like he took advantage to make a big unearned profit.

     Certainly, the way it has been brought up on the blogs has been counter-productive to their own image as honest reporters of fact. They seem to focus on small portions of the story without going into any detail at all. If they keep this kind of "reporting" up, they will lose all credibility.

     The first mention from the blogs was the oft-repeated "she left the city with 20 million dollars in debt" and "raised the sales tax" when both of those things were done in order to pay for the capital expenditure of the Sport Center, which is apparently widely popular there and appears to have been a good investment that was undertaken with the approval of most of the town's citizens. It was also completed under budget and the town is ahead of  its scheduled payoff of the debt incurred.

    Frankly, if its considered necessary to report on these kind of things, then they shouldn't go off half-cocked. Its "gotcha" blogging, and more often then not, the one that gets "got" is the one that jumps on the slightest apparent error without really going into depth to get the whole story.

      I still think that focusing on positive issues is the best way for the Dems to engender more support. Sadly, I'm not sure that anyone but the Clintons really know how to do that anymore.  


    Well crap (none / 0) (#103)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:01:23 PM EST
    Now the Sports Center seems reasonable.  I'm sure, however, there is another example of government incompetence somewhere in Palin's past that can be reported accurately.  It is in Republicans' natures.

    I agree though that we should focus on the positive of the Democratic record.  Really, it's simple:  Democratic policies work, Republicans don't.  Easy peasy.  Yet the Clintons seem to be the only ones who can do this well.  Bizarre.


    My prediction is (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    that Sarah Palin will swing working class women eventually.

    Here's why:

    • Hillary was most successful when she campaign as a champion, pioneer and fighter. It took her several months to get there, but when she did, she gave Obama a run for this money.

    • Palin has been on the ticket for two weeks now. She hasn't talked to the media yet, but she already shares a "fighter" meme with Hillary.

    • Her media interviews will be carefull orchestrated to portrait her as a champion of mothers (special needs child).

    • Her abortion position will be as nuanced as Obama's, and we are fools to think that she will come out to the nation waving the "baby killers" mantra against the Democrats.

    Hillary voters have an issue with her because she's such a new person on the scene and her style is so different from Hillary - they basically don't know her yet. But when they find out what the campaign feeds them, they will see how much Sarah Palin has in common with Hillary.

    I support Hillary to the end, but if McCain wins, Hillary will never run for President again. She just won't do it.

    I don't know about that Polkan. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    If McCain/Palin win in Nov. we could be looking at two women competing for the job in 2012.  Now that would be history making and my money would be on Hillary.  If the DNC and the media had not set out to destroy her in the primary and it had been a fair fight, McCain/Palin would not even be a consideration this year.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    but I think Hillary is much smarter than that.

    She won't get herself involved into a "Dynasty"-style catfight only to give the media a ratings smash.

    This is a really big hypothetical, of course, but if my prediction is true about Sarah Palin swining the working class women voters, then Hillary's base will be significantly reduced.

    Secondly, if the McCain/Palin administration does indeed prove itself to be moderate centrist Republicans, then the fight on the issues will instantly put Hillary into an extreme liberal corner.

    And again, I believe she's a sharp cookie and she knows how things work.


    It's not just her style (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by rdandrea on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    that's different from Sen. Clinton.  It's most of what she stands for.

    That's true (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    from the point of view of party affiliation. One is a Democrat, another a Republican.

    But if you look at it from the point of view of "identity" and especially character, then they really do have a lot in common.

    Unapologetic, tough, proud fighting women.


    Ummm No (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    Don't insult Hillary like that.  

    Palin and Hillary have NOTHING (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:52:01 PM EST
    in common, except that they are both women.  Their political views are as diametrically opposed as two politicians could possibly be.

    That's as offensive as when BTD said Palin's speech this year at the RNC was akin to Ann Richard's speech at the DNC back in 1988.  Ann Richards was a beacon of great liberalism and we all benefited greatly when she served as governor here in Texas.  I take HUGE exception comparing Palin anywhere NEAR Ann Richards.  

    Ann Richards, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin?

    Strong women yes.  THAT'S where the similarities end.  


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    I would be surprised if Hillary did not support stuff such as Child Support Enforcement Act or if she wouldn't jump all over the opportunity to be part of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Support Act. Hillary is smart enough to look for and find common ground. Advancing women's causes means you work together where the divide is narrow and fight like heck where it isn't so narrow.

    You're right cawaltz (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    HRC would support the efforts you mentioned.

    If you read my post again (none / 0) (#80)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    you will see that I wasn't talking about political positions.

    I think Hillary is more than a summary of talking points for any party.

    That's why I disagree with Steinem, whose point you bring up, because that's how she identifies "the right woman" - ideology alone.


    and you think Sarah Palin is? (none / 0) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    I think Sarah and Hillary have plenty in common. They are both strong women with mates that take pride in their ability and strength. They are both mothers. They are both feminists and have worked to improve the situation for females in their own way(even if their approaches are different). They both sought to improve things and sought out positions in government.

    I can easily see why Hillary chooses not to attack Sarah Palin. They are probably more alike when you set aside political issues then they are different. Hillary is nothing, if not astute.


    Stop Projecting (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    Stop Projecting your feelings for Palin onto Hillary.  

    I totally disagree (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    as a Hillary supporter I see Palin as a slap in the face, even more than I saw Sebelius as a slap in the face had Obama chosen her.

    First of all Hillary has put in four decades of working for liberal causes, things like civil rights and getting more opportunity for minorities to gain entrance to prestigious schools; things like equal pay for equal work; things like bringing down corrupt government (watergate); things like getting better health care for poor women and their children (clinics in Arkansas as well as Schip); things like supporting public education.
    FOUR DECADES worth so what angered women like me (Hillary's age) is we relived the same old, same old; do the hard work, put in the time and see a younger, less experienced person (male and in some cases female) get the job over you.  

    And now it angers me for the press or bloggers to be intimating that all I cared about was that Hillary was a woman and therefore any woman will do.  Hillary was my choice because I believed she was the BEST person for the job.  The fact that she happened to be female was a bonus for me....but the fact that she worked for issues I believe in are why I supported her.  Palin does not believe in those things like I do, and has not only NOT worked for those issues, she has worked against them. MOST women see thru the bs and will not buy into the spin.


    Typos! Sorry! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    I disagree with your last sentence. I can see (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    Hillary running of Obama loses.  She would immediately be the frontrunner.

    I believe ur right Angel (none / 0) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    Happened with Ford and Reagan:  Ford beat Reagan in 76 to lose to Carter.  Reagan came back in 80 and, well, you know the rest...unfortunately.

    But Hillary would have to run against (none / 0) (#96)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:56:37 PM EST
    an incumbent VP.  Four more years of GOP rule. Who would want that job at 65?

    Comment deleted (3.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    and JimWash08, who said he didn't bother to read the article and didn't intend to but listed why it was false, giving a specious reason that the LATimes is a liberal newspapter, your bias is clearly showing. Four comments a day is the limit for those who oppose the Democratic ticket or support McCain/Palin. You've joined that group.

    Anecdotal (1.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    And honestly, I'd say that the American people are pretty stupid on the whole. They did re-elect W, after all.

    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    for making my point, which Jeralyn failed to see and merely brushed it off as a slam against Obama before deleting it.

    Could you be any more offensive (none / 0) (#47)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    I voted Gore in 2000 and Kerry 2004.  Watch that broad brush.  I am "an American people".

    I said nothing about you in particular (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    Unless you have a different understanding of the meaning of "on the whole" than I do.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    I think he demonstrated your point actually.

    This is good news n/t (none / 0) (#11)
    by Coral on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM EST

    In California (none / 0) (#100)
    by DaleA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    unemployment is heading towards 8%, admitted unemployment that is. In some parts of metro LA, homes are off 50% or more in selling price. We are in the midst of crisis. I notice the Dem ads here are all on economic themes. Which seem to be working. It may not matter what Obama does; the whole Democratic family will pull together as a team. In hard times, don't the Reagan Dems come home to candidates who preach old time religion. IE the New Deal? Obama here looks to be doing that.

    A signifigant part of Hillary's coalition were gays and lesbians. Some I know who were beginning to be intrigued by McCains's kinder, gentler rhetoric are genuinely scared by Palin. She is a hard core, crazy wingnut. It's just she doesn't have a lot of LG record. But what little there is, sends us back to Obama.

    McCain and Palin (none / 0) (#109)
    by jellen on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    This campaign is being run exactly like the Bush campaign - since Rove's people are running it they again have found a tool in Palin to get the right wing to wake up - again it is all smoke and mirrors - what you see is not really what you get but the right wing crazies don't care - all they care about is prolife - they could care less if they are living on the street or losing their home - all they care about is doing away with Rove V.Wade-Palin will tell them what they want to hear - these people listen to soundbites - don't read newspapers and don't listen to political programs but they do go to church - I wonder if anyone has ever told them that Abortion was outlawed at one time and it didn't work - on the otherhand you have many wealthy people who will vote for Cain because they are afraid the Capital Gains rate is going up; bottomline is that the upper 1% want to continue to layoff the middleclass - it is all about money and they will use whatever means to continue the transference of wealth in this country - the Republican Agenda has woven its spell on this country - their politics are all about "you're on your own" -