by Ruth Haworth
Which attacks against Palin are somehow influenced by gender bias? The ones about her being associated with a separatist party? The ones about the possibility that she lied about the parentage of "her" most recent child? The failure of abstinence education with respect to her own daughter?Except perhaps for a few fringe comments every attack that has been launched at Palin could and would be launched against a man. I have yet to see any evidence of substantial sexism against Sarah Palin.
Please withdraw form LiblogsI am sick of seeing your nonsense among the reasonable commentary hereas to today's drivel ... kc is correct
Yup.. this is just more complaining by a disgruntled Hillary Clinton voter. Sexism has nothing to do with it. The fact that she is so far right wing and so under-qualified and so not vetted by Mccain (which is more of an indictment on him in failure to do so rather then on her)is the reason why Obama has jumped out to the lead - NOT sexism.
Let's see... there were two women in this race (and that's two more than usual). There were two people in this race who the left screamed and yelled at to quit. And the two who were told they weren't wanted were... the two women. Not seeing a pattern yet?I didn't say the attacks were sexist. I think I could make a case for there being some sexism, but I chronicled the sexism in the Hillary campaign and (1) I don't want to go through that again; and (2) despite overwhelming proof, there is widespread denial that it happened or was important.I said there was a ganging up on women. Here we have a grossly under-represented demographic that finally tried to make some headway in this territory. There has only been one female on the presidential ticket before now, and it was 25 years ago. Finally we have two more attempts, and the attacks against them are bitterly personal character assassinations. Plus, both sets of attacks have come from the left. It is a really, really unfortunate development.As I've said before, there's lots of good meaty policy to attack Palin on. But the two attacks you mention are bizarre and untrue. Saying she's a secessionist is ridiculous - I have watched that video she made for the Alaskan Freedom party or whatever it's called; I have heard her talk about Alaska's place in the US. The woman is no secessionist. The rumors that her daughter was the real mother of her latest child have been completely debunked: the daughter is currently 5 months pregnant; plus, 17-year-olds rarely have Downs Syndrome babies.
>>The ones about the possibility that she lied about the parentage of "her" most recent child?<<Just to bring "kc" up to speed, the originators of this sexist slag, the Daily Kos, has now withdrawn its ridiculous charge saying "we look stupid pushing this rumor."http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/234157/516/1017/581734
To anonymous at 4:13 -Thanks for sending the link. I am impressed that they admitted their mistake. That's something we don't see enough of from any side.
There were two people in this race who the left screamed and yelled at to quit.People yelled at Hillary Clinton to leave the race WHEN it had reached a point where it was highly unlikely that she would win and the race was dividing the party. Prior to that no one was saying that. It had nothing to do with her gender. It had to do with people trying to preserve intra-party comity. I had a friend tell me early in the evening on Super Tuesday (before the total results were in) that BARACK OBAMA had to leave the race.No one on the "left" is demanding that Sarah Palin leave the race at this point. They are merely pointing out her weaknesses just like the Republicans did with Joe Biden just a week ago. Thats the way politics works. Do you want them to give her a free ride? Imagine the "sexism" of treating Palin with gloved hands, and giving her a free ride.But the two attacks you mention are bizarre and untrue. Saying she's a secessionist is ridiculous - I have watched that video she made for the Alaskan Freedom party or whatever it's called; I have heard her talk about Alaska's place in the US. That doesn't wholly neutralize the issue. The party chairman is saying that she was a member at one point, and can you imagine if Stephen Harper gave a greeting at the PQ convention? Association with a separatist movement, even tenuous association, is going to be an issue with a LOT of people.The woman is no secessionist. She doesnt have to be. Her affiliation with the party will raise eyebrows.The rumors that her daughter was the real mother of her latest child have been completely debunked: the daughter is currently 5 months pregnant; plus, 17-year-olds rarely have Downs Syndrome babies.I had thought there was nothing to it too until Neil MacDonald's report on the National last night. Her story is that after her water broke she, made a speech and then got on a commercial aircraft and made the 6-7-8 hour flight to Alaska. My understanding is that is odd behaviour for a woman in her forties in a high risk pregnancy but it is not proof. MacDonald also said there is no birth record for the child which would be VERY odd. Jonathan Kay said that that MacDonald is full of it so I dont know what to believe. I also read somewhere that Bristol was pulled out of school for 5 months with mono (odd coincidence, but not proof), and that Sarah Palin didn't look pregnant (once again not proof).Down syndrome occurs in 1 in 2000 live births for mothers under 25 which is somewhat rare but not unheard of. 51% of down syndrome babies are born to mothers under 30. The fact that her daughter is purportedly 5 months pregnant goes some way to dispel it but given error in determining the exact stage of development that isnt proof either.Even if these stories turn out to be bogus (which they very well may) they are the same kind of thing you see in politics all the time. The opposition pulls at a thread and sees where it goes. If Democrats were holding back on these questions because Palin is a woman that would be just as sexist as what you call "ganging up"
You're right Yappa The loons on this Liblogs.ca deal have yet to criticize Obama or Baden.Obama has NO executive experience yet you wouldn't know that from all the far left loons on this site.Joe Biden agreed with the Iraq war, yet he gets a free pass from all the far left loons on this propaganda site called liblogs.ca.The far left loons don't like Sarah Palin because she made the choice to keep her down syndrome child rather than aborting it like all the selfish killers would have done like Scott Tribe and Red Tory.They also don't like her because she is pro- military while again, the far left loons on liblogs.ca hate the military.They also don't like the fact that she is a Republican women.For some strange reason, the far left kooks on liblogs.ca think that all women should be leftists and should abort every child until they are ready to have one on their time.Yappa, you're pretty courageous for this post and I'm sure the far left kooks like Scott Tribe and Martin Rayner are pretty disgusted with you.But who gives a shit about those kooks.
I may have been incorrect about the calls to quit. I thought I saw a bunch of articles calling on Palin to get out of the race, but now I can't find them. All I can find is a whole lot of articles speculating on whether McCain will dump her. eg http://tinyurl.com/6zt9t3 or the first item here: http://www.intrade.com/.
You should head on over to www.talkingpointsmemo.com and catch up on Palin (because it is obvious you don't know much about her).McCain co-chair Meg Whitman says media vetting of Palin completely fair.An open mike caught Republicans Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan in a candid conversation with Chuck Todd:CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives ...Anyway, I'll let you explore, but you should really do more reading. The choice of Palin is an insult to women.
Don't worry... I've read it. I wouldn't call it "media vetting" so much as "salacious gossip" or "muck racking" (raking?) but I've read it.And one more time: I didn't use the word sexist. Not that I care whether a Republican categorizes something as sexist; I don't think we look to Republicans for feminist sensibilities. ;-)But this Peggy Noonan thing - whooeee, that's damaging. I just listened to it.
FWIW... An interesting article on sexism in the Palin coverage (from Politico):http://tinyurl.com/6zy6bk
KC is correct? KC lives in a paranoid world where Roe v. Wade is always in jeopardy.Oh Please. Some of you guys should really do some research... I am so tired of Roe v. Wade being used as a single defining issue to hold women voters hostage.First of all, any supreme court nomination has to go past the Senate so it won't matter as the Senate is democrat heavy, which means that no far-right nominees will ever be passed. So stop freaking people out please.Second, Roe v. Wade could be challenged by the supreme court right now (RIGHT NOW) because right now there is a conservative majority in the supreme court... yet it sits safe. So please people...stop it. Stop trying to freak women out with some paranoid rumor that our uterus is somehow under attack. There are many reasons to vote for whatever ticket you want, but don't let some person who heard something from some other person, who heard it from their hair dresser's babysitter that you can't vote for whoever you want because of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is fine. Regan couldn't change it.... Bush Snr. couldn't change it.... George W. couldn't change it.... Give Me A Break. And just in case you think I'm some troll from the GOP. I am an African American registered Democrat (about to become a registered Independent) who has posted here more than once. Do your homework.Let me put it this way: Some body... Any body... I dare you: get me one (just one) piece of evidence where Obama has actually done just one of the things he promises to do for Americans if he is elected president, and I will vote for him. I have thrown this challenge to many people I know....and nothing. See, I research everything, everything, and after 6 weeks even I can't find one thing Obama did that tells me he'll deliver on those promises. Maybe you can find something.
Pithy line about picking on girls. Unsubstantiated and unfair - but pithy. Some of the coverage of Palin has been over the top, but since when has it been the job of politicians to protect their opponents? If McCain had picked Romney or Giuliani for his running mate, I doubt subsequent criticism of them would have offended your sensibilities. Talk about double standards.
Post a Comment