The-F-Word.org

Open thread: Sarah Palin

29th August 2008

Open thread: Sarah Palin

posted in Eating Disorders, Feminist Topics, Politics |

Okay, so I mentioned this in the news roundup earlier this morning and I’m loathe to detract even an iota of attention away from Sen. Barack Obama’s historic and stirring acceptance speech last night, but I thought McCain’s decision to name little-known Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who’s a mother of five! as the media continually introduces her) as his vice presidential running mate deserves its own open thread. I usually don’t discuss politics here, but McCain’s choice not only raises questions important to feminism (see tagline above), who we vote for also has implications on the direction of national health care, an especially pressing and crucial issue for anyone battling an eating disorder or other mental health issues.

While Palin has fallopian tubes, the staunch pro-life, anti-gay governor — like her running mate — is no friend to feminism. Read more about Palin on the issues here and here. Many see McCain’s move both as a move to pander to disaffected Hillary supporters and as a way to balance out what McCain calls Sen Barack Obama’s “race card” (I agree on both counts). While I think it’s certainly progressive of a party that has its head lodged perpetually in the shifting sands of time to put forth a woman candidate, frankly, I’m more insulted by the blatant pandering and tokenism motivating the decision. As Adam at TAP writes:

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it’s equally sexist… The conservative media reaction has already engaged in paternalistic language, with FOX News reporting on television that “McCain broke the glass ceiling,” implying in fact, that the pick had nothing to do with Palin or her qualifications, but merely her gender. It’s fitting that the party positing affirmative action as a program that picks people exclusively based on race or gender rather than qualification should do something similar given an opportunity for political advancement.

McCain has made issue of what he says is Obama’s inexperience, yet Palin has been governor for less than two years and is three years Obama’s junior. Keep in mind: McCain is no spring chicken. In fact, he’d be the oldest presidential candidate to be elected to his first term. Should McCain die while in office, is Palin prepared and experienced enough to take on the role of commander-in-chief? As the blog Feministing succinctly notes, “Palin’s political views suck.” She’s ardently pro-life, staunchly anti-gay, supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and is currently embroiled in a political scandal.

Most pertinent here, Palin also supports McCain’s deeply flawed health care plan, which refuses to prevent health insurance companies from cherry-picking healthier customers and denying coverage to people people with preexisting health conditions. His plan has no guarantee that Americans will get health insurance coverage nor does it require them to do so. McCain supports eliminating government subsidies to employers who offer health insurance plans and instead giving each single person a $2,500 tax credit and a $5,000 tax credit for a family. Considering that the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance is $12,000 a year, a $5,000 tax credit will come up far short — especially for older people and those who don’t have the benefit of an employer contribution. Nor will this help the 47 million Americans who lack health care, a statistic McCain repeatedly downplays the gravity of by insisting that a very large portion of these people are healthy young Americans who simply choose not to get insurance (the American Medical Association has said that only 8.3 million of the 47 million are between ages 18 and 24). He’s also compared health insurance to buying a home, saying it was desirable but not necessary — this coming from a man who owns at least seven homes. Like many of the issues, McCain is vastly out of touch with health care concerns of average Americans who, if they’re lucky, own only the home in which they live.

Feminism is not advanced on the basis of gender alone; simply electing a woman candidate does not advance the plight of women or feminism when that candidate supports — and more importantly, legislates — measures that are anti-feminist.

Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts below.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Friday, August 29th, 2008 at 2:11 pm and is filed under Eating Disorders, Feminist Topics, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 104 responses to “Open thread: Sarah Palin”

Join the conversation! Post your comment below.

1 On August 29th, 2008, Amy said:
I love how FOX News considers it “breaking the glass ceiling” that the Republicans have done something that the Dems did 24 years ago. Only a quarter century behind.

I worry that Palin will not only try to foist her view of abortion on all women but her idea of maternity leave. Palin returned to work about 3 days after having her last child. And while I completely support her right to do that, I truly am concerned that this will be a rallying cry to cut the FMLA and other maternity / paternity leave protections.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
2 On August 29th, 2008, SilverSeraphim said:
I’m not surprised. I knew as soon as I read that McCain hadn’t announced a VP pick yet that his camp was waiting to see who Obama was going with. I knew they were going to pick someone who would make McCain look better. And if they think Hillary supporters are going to come to McCain because of Palin, then they’ve missed the “McCain is four more years of Bush” memo that’s circling the leftie circles.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
3 On August 29th, 2008, Andy said:
So I was planning on voting 3rd party. But I may just swallow my pride and vote for Obama just to keep Sarah Palin out of the White House. Her stances are horrific.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
4 On August 29th, 2008, DollyAnn said:
I was pretty disgusted with Obama’s pick in Biden, so I guess this just evens out the playing field for me again. The Republican VP pick is, as the article above states, a choice “dripping in transparent condescension.” I mean, yeah, women are underrepresented in government and I want to see more gals in politics, but I’m still not going to support a woman if she plans on advocating what I consider anti-woman legislation. And if I hear Palin introduced as the “mother of five” one more time, I’m going to puke…

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
5 On August 29th, 2008, Melissa said:
Of course Fox considers it breaking the glass!

I think for alot of voters they don’t look at policies when voting, they vote on very simplistic things like, is the person a family person, their gender etc.
That must be what they’re counting on!

But I coudln’t agree more Racheal, that being a woman certainly does not make you into feminist issues. Nor does it make you empathetic to the average americans daily plight, especially concerning medicare!

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
6 On August 29th, 2008, Misty said:
Mixed feelings about this. I very much support Palin’s political positions, and was surprised to find that she is so close to me in political alignment, at least on social matters. (I am undecided about the drilling issue.) But I AM rather dismayed that McCain engaged in this political pandering. If nothing else, the selection should point out the absurdity of identity politics and affirmative action as concepts, since this can be considered an affirmative-action political choice (as were both Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s candidacies).

The parties should simply pick the most qualified candidates that best represent their respective political views, and if that means white men on both sides, there’s nothing wrong with that.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
7 On August 29th, 2008, Mary said:
McCain’s choice immediately reminded me of Bush trying to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Like Miers, Palin is far to the right of the American public on social issues and grossly underqualified for the office she’s been tapped for, and like in the Miers case, the choice of Palin smacks of gender tokenism.

That said, I’m pretty happy, because I think the choice will hurt McCain’s candidacy. Not only does Palin bring some baggage in the form of an ongoing political scandal in Alaska, but she also neutralizes the McCain campaign’s claim that Obama is too inexperienced for office. Granted, she’s not at the top of the ticket, but one also has to factor in McCain’s age (as crass as it sounds) and consider the very real possibility that Palin could become President at some point if elected as VP.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
8 On August 29th, 2008, Meowser said:
Well, if McBush wanted to steal Obama’s thunder after last night’s speech, he did that.

But he also knocked a couple of bats out of his hands doing so. The “no experience” thing is not something that’s going to sound very credible coming out of McBush when his running-mate has only been in the governor’s office for about five minutes, and with a running mate with that little experience, McBush figures to be questioned much harder about the state of his health.

And I have to wonder how her having a Down’s baby, and being out on the road campaigning rather than attending to the baby, is going to go over with the fundie crowd Palin most obviously appeals to. (If it were a man with a Down’s baby it would be fine with them, of course. They’d have THE LITTLE WOMAN at home taking care of the bebeh!)

Other than that, I’m really not surprised he picked a woman at all, and certainly not surprised that he picked a fundie woman. But no, having an antifeminist, antigay, antiabortion woman within a heartbeat of the White House does not give me the warm fuzzies at all. Nor is it meant to, as I’m not in his target demo.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
9 On August 29th, 2008, Bree said:
Regardless of who he picked, he wouldn’t have gotten my vote anyway. While I’m not comfortable with some of the plans Obama has, his choice in Biden as VP (a man who said that Obama was well-dressed and smart for a black man) and his comment about wanting obesity rates to be like 1980’s (in 1980 I very skinny, but I was also four years old) are not comforting, Obama’s stand on issues that freak out conservatives are more in tune with mine. McCain is Bush Lite. That’s the last thing the US needs. And as a woman, I do not want a misogynist who has no concept of reproductive rights or health care rights making decisions for me.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
10 On August 29th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
“I think for alot of voters they don’t look at policies when voting, they vote on very simplistic things like, is the person a family person, their gender etc.
That must be what they’re counting on!”

I really don’t think so. For conservatives, McCain was a very disappointing choice which alienated the base. Picking a very conservative VP was necessary in order to have a chance. It is because of her politics that she was picked, not in spite of them.

“a choice “dripping in transparent condescension.”

I think that says a lot more about the person writing it, if that’s how they think. The conservatives I know don’t care what sex the person is, so long as they are actually conservative. And I’m not talking about anomalies here, but the general thinking among conservatives. No, I’m not one, but I do know them, and they really don’t think like that. And I know conservative feminists too. Not everyone who isn’t a feminist is a misogynist either.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
11 On August 29th, 2008, Joanne said:
This is a woman who gets her kicks shooting wolves from an airplane. That isn’t “pro-life” in my book. Let’s just call her “pro-forced birth.” I hope PETA follows her around like a trail of mucous. I’m completely disgusted by this choice.

Oh, and she’s under investigation for witness tampering. Cruel and crooked. She’ll fit right in.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
12 On August 29th, 2008, BigLiberty said:
I agree with Annie. I think that McCain is playing the political game as much as Obama – Obama chose someone who could balance what he considered his weak points, so did McCain. I do think that McCain chose Palin because she was a woman conservative. I think he was planning on going with someone who is more conservative than himself in order to speak to the base that he has disappointed (not just Reps, but libbies like myself) with some of his stances on the economy, immigration, and so forth; but he decided to go with a female conservative when he found out Obama wasn’t going to put a woman on his ticket.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
13 On August 29th, 2008, Marcia said:
Personally, I’m disgusted. McCain was bad enough — now we’re adding a pro-life, pro-drilling, pro-hunting homophobe? The best was her line about “staunchly opposing same-sex marriage” though she has “a lot of gay friends.”

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
14 On August 29th, 2008, keshmeshi said:
Whether it’s tokenism or not, it appears so. There are more qualified Republican female politicians. I think it’s similar to Clarence Thomas’ nomination. He was grossly underqualified, which is all that more ironic considering Republicans’ and Thomas’ own opposition to affirmative action.

posted on August 29th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
15 On August 30th, 2008, Barbara said:
I wouldn’t have voted for McCain no matter whom he picked, but Palin is the kiss of death for that ticket as far as I’m concerned. She will aid and abet the right wing efforts to put women back “in their proper place.” Younger female voters will not remember when women were told to their face that the man who sat at the next desk and did the same work should make more money because he was a man and had responsibilities. I had rent, insurance, car payments, groceries and all that, but evidently they weren’t as heavy as his responsibilities for the same things. Palin will see no reason to fight for women; she thinks we all should be “just a hockey mom.”

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 12:34 am
16 On August 30th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Whether or not there are “more qualified” Republican women isn’t really the issue. The qualifications were that the person had to be *really* conservative, because McCain isn’t. Most of their base was very unhappy to have to vote for him; now they are thrilled because they feel the issues they care about will at least get a fair shake now. She’s got more “experience” than Obama and he’s not going for mere VP; he was trying for demi-God or something. But anyway, it is not something conservatives generally approve of to be a career politician, and that is one reason they are focusing on her being a mother and all the other stuff she does.

Also, whoever was a more qualified “Republican” (who probably wasn’t very conservative and thus would not have been right for this race) it would have been hard to find one as bad-ass as this woman. To sell that plane and give the money back to the people? To keep refusing to spend the people’s money and keep giving it back to them? To refuse the governor’s mansion? And she hunts bears? And fishes? All while having children? Like I say, what she has done is totally bad-ass, and that’s what’s got people excited – even jaded libertarians are getting a little stoked. I’ve seen people throughout this day who I didn’t even know HAD political opinions with smiles on their faces and saying how happy they are – and it ain’t about McCain, believe me.

I read somewhere today where a nurse said that a high percentage of Downs babies are now aborted, that you seldom see them anymore. The percentage she said was something like 40%; I hope that’s incorrect. But a lot of people are also impressed that she did not choose to abort her Downs baby; I’m not saying you should be, but I’m saying that this is one reason the Repub base is excited. It was a brilliant choice, I can’t imagine how he could possibly have a chance to win without her. So if he does, just know that it was because of her and her alone. (Ok, his military experience is the one thing they’re willing to give him, so that too. But it wasn’t enough.)

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 12:41 am
17 On August 30th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Rachel, if I can ask, you didn’t give a link to the political scandal she is involved in right now. It sounds odd considering her 80-90% approval rating in her state, but I would like to know what it is.

And also I won’t keep commenting if you’d rather I shut up; it’s just that it was an open thread and you said disagreement was OK or I wouldn’t have said anything. You can email me if you’d rather I bow out. Thanks.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
18 On August 30th, 2008, AudaciousAria said:
I followed your link to her “anti-gayness” only to find that it was a link to an article where she had actually vetoed a “Anti-gay” bill.

The bill passed by Republican state senate & legislature in Alaska was vetoed by Governor Palin, was a bill that would have prohibited same sex couples from receiving health benefits.

So, since she’s decided to not prohibit same sex couples from gaining health benefits….how exactly does that make her “anti-gay”?

Please provide examples that actually show she’s anti gay if you’re going to assign her such a label.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 1:57 am
19 On August 30th, 2008, gillian said:
Annie – I’m guessing the scandal being referenced is Palin’s decision to fire the state police commissioner after he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law. Mind you, everything is still being considered an allegation, though there is a bipartisan investigation being opened up, and should be released in, I believe, October.

Her sister was going through a nasty divorce and custody battle, and there are allegations that Palin’s husband made about two dozen harassing phone calls to the ex-BIL, who reportedly beat and tazed his wife and son. Naturally, the adult thing to do was make him lose his job, which the police commissioner refused to play along with because the guy didn’t seem to have any professional strikes against him, so her firing of the commish is being investigated as an abuse of power.

Of course, I’m sure it doesn’t help that 3 Republican state legislators are in jail for bribery and the state’s senior US Senator (Ted Stevens, R) is awaiting trial on federal charges for undisclosed cash and gifts from oil lobbyists.

I really don’t think she was vetted all that well, if at all. McCain said he hadn’t even met her until just recently, and was probably so desperate for pro-life, pro-drilling candidate he took the first one who came along.

Either that or they are taking the Harriet Miers approach and looking for the lowest national profile with no known enemies or major scandals (ha!), the blankest slate possible.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am
20 On August 30th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Ah thank you gillian. I guess it won’t have quite the effect the coverup surrounding the firing of the travel office (Clinton) will but it might do something. Except probably not. She was likely vetted for her *really conservative* credentials and she wins in spades there.

I doubt anyone wants the Hillary vote, considering the whole Waco mass murder scandal and Hillary’s involvement in it (stealing files the night of VF’s death, especially the Waco files which were the reason VF committed suicide. Not surprisingly, those files have never resurfaced.) Filegate was exactly the reason Nixon was impeached, though he had the decency to resign. Four years of Carter “conserve” and financial ruin was enough to lead to the Reagan revolution and one hell of a boom. IF McCain is smart enough to defer to his VP (should he be elected, which now seems promising) about economic policy and oil policy, and actually even now that she’s on the table, you should see gas prices fall. Just a likelihood. Nothing’s written in stone and economics are dependent upon people. But people aren’t as unpredictable as you might think.

So…out of curiosity does anyone know WHY she wanted her BIL fired? What was his deal? Did he beat her sister or something? I mean, seriously, scumbag cops are NOT exactly uncommon; often they are just separated from gangster murderers by their badges and nothing else. I don’t trust cops. Do you?

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 2:51 am
21 On August 30th, 2008, gillian said:
The only thing I’ve heard is some rumors that the only way the sister was going to keep custody of her son was if her husband was unemployed, otherwise she’d be the one getting cleaned out in divorce court. This was just a rumor I heard in passing, with no source given, so I can’t vouch for the truth of it.

But what a few news sources have reported is that Palin made up something about the BIL beating the sister and taking a Tazer to his son to prove that he was unstable and unworthy of his job and his custody rights.

The whole thing boils down to the abuse of power in firing the commish, and the apparent cover-up of the whole firing procedure. It sounds like she’s claiming she didn’t do it, someone else in her office must have (but that command had to come from somewhere). The details of the investigation are supposed to be released in late October, which will either blow up in her face right before the election, or totally clear her name right before the election.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 3:04 am
22 On August 30th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Considering her record of NON involvement of government, I have to applaud her if she had such a fucktard fired. Cops very often abuse their power and she knows that. If he was a SOB who hid behind his badge in order to beat his wife, then GOOD. Firing is too good for him. But firing might be good enough. Goddamn cop wife-beaters and otherwise abusers, I harbor NO respect for them – if she got rid of one of the sonsabitches, good. Fucking cops. Oh yeah I hate them; power-hungry sickos almost all. IMO that’s not a political scandal that’s a triumph.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 3:40 am
23 On August 30th, 2008, BlueSphere52 said:
Hey all,

A few points. First, to those who are saying that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was a condescending move to pick up Hillary Clinton voters, I think that that is exaggerating that facet of the rationale for picking her. Look at this way–McCain is picking her, in part, because she is more socially conservative than he is. He will probably be stressing her pro-life stance, and knows that Hillary Clinton supporters who are staunchly pro-choice will not vote for him. Thus, I think these aren’t the voters he is trying to attract by picking Palin.

Another question is this–although Palin’s pro-life stance precludes her receiving some votes from pro-choice supporters, it may not dissuade them all. Why? Mainly because, it is unclear what the implications of her being elected as VP will have on the availability of abortions in the US. As someone I know mentioned, abortion under a McCain-Palin administration would be, at most, de-federalized. This would be a significant setback for the availability of abortions, but I believe that the fact that abortions have been available throughout the country for so long has changed the situation from the last time abortion was outlawed. I imagine abortion machinery has become more sophisticated, and that there are more people trained to perform abortions safely and effectively now than there were 25 years ago. Thus, even if abortion procedures were relegated to the black market in some states, they would still be available.

Another quality she adds to the ticket is charisma, vitality, and a sort of vigor that appeals to conservatives and liberals alike. She is a mother of 5, a hunter, an outdoorswoman, and the governor of a small state. I don’t know much about her yet, but she conveys a certain robustness that I find appealing. In the end, she may attract independent voters who were upset that Hillary Clinton didn’t receive the democratic nomination, and that believe that her pro-life stance, while undesirable, will not significantly curtail the availability of abortion.

Another issue is her inexperience. Concerning this, I feel that she does have some executive experience, but not as much executive experience as Obama has legislative experience. That having been said, she is running for VP, and Obama is running for president. Nonetheless, there is the issue of the prospect of McCain having to leave office, leaving her to guide the country with little experience (more on this later). How important her lack of experience to a voter depends on:

–how legislative experience compares to executive experience in the ability to lead effectively

–the likelihood of her having to assume the position of president. I feel like, just as Obama will probably be able to realize his potential and gain adequate experience soon after he is elected, Palin would also be able to gain experience fairly quickly.

What does concern me is that, if McCain becomes unable to remain in office soon after he is elected, she will not be ready. However, as someone suggested to me, if he is able to govern for a few years, Palin will have the experience necessary to lead the nation by then.

The final issue I want to discuss (briefly) is her position on health care. I think that some basic level of coverage should probably be extended to everyone. However, as people are aware, health insurance is a very complicated issue. Tradeoffs must be considered. If healthcare were nationalized, would it be worthwhile to invest in innovative, revolutionary, but expensive experiments when the same resources could be used to address conditions that are inexpensive to treat in many people? Perhaps. However, the expensive treatments of today become less expensive over time, and that is how progress in medicine is made. There is more I could say on this issue, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

Anyway, that’s why I think McCain’s choice of Palin was a good idea. He isn’t going to win over staunch Democratic supporters, or Hillary Clinton supporters who are concerned that the election of McCain could seriously curtail the availability of abortion. However, there are probably many swing voters that will be intrigued by the prospect of electing this candidate as the first female vice president.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 6:47 am
24 On August 30th, 2008, Jackie said:
I agree. I don’t respect a woman who acts as if being able to reproduce is some sort of major accomplishment. It seems for a lot of people, including her. A major accomplishment would be knowing when and how to stop making babies. I don’t mean this at all in reference to her Down’s Syndrome child, as in she shouldn’t have had him cause he’s disabled. Just so that’s clear.

She has 5 children, and wants to neglect them now for being a govenor? After you’ve had more than 3 children, it’s not rediculous to suggest that you stay home and take care of them. Not put on this, “but I want to do what I want for me!” or “I get no time off from being mommy!” victimization BS. Her children are the ones who will suffer, cause she wants to spread herself too thin.

Sorry if this is coming off like a rant. There has to be a point when one has children, that the children come first. It seems these days from the media, everyone is saying you can take time off of being a mommy, as if it’s the same as taking time off from caring for your Tamagotchi, there is much more involved.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
25 On August 30th, 2008, MrsDrC said:
Jackie, I gotta say I kinda see your point on her neglecting her children, but how is it all her job? I’m a stay at home Mom of two and get fed up with the feeling that comes along every so often of it’s ALL on me. It’s something I think gets thrown to women all too often. When a child fails it’s never because Daddy wasnt there, it’s because Mom wasnt.

I totally agree with Rachel on the pick of Palin. As soon as I saw who he picked I rolled my eye’s. It’s so transparent. I truely hope it back fires right in his face.

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
26 On August 30th, 2008, Sherie S said:
It disgusts me, but I am also very weary. I NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. The average person out there votes candidates they like; they are simply too lazy to research the issues. That is how Reagan, Bush, and the healthier-than-thou hick Huckabee all become popular. It is for the same reason people still think diets work, even though anyone with a brain should know they backfire in the long run. People allow themselves to be manipulated against their best interests by those who know even the basics of propaganda techniques. Heaven help us if this antienvironmental, inexperienced atavistic bimpo ever becomes president!

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
27 On August 30th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
You’re forgetting, though, that many people who *do* research the issues actually believe in what those candidates stood for. And Reagan gave us the longest sustained economic boom in history – I was there, and believe me, if you wanted a job, it was yours for the taking. Companies were so desperate that you could literally walk off a job (with nothing more than a little intelligence and an ability to type) because you didn’t like it, and have companies calling the next day begging you to come work for them. So.

Here is a timeline on the alleged scandal – I figured abuse was at issue there, and it was. DV abusers are overrepresented in police forces. http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/#more-7482

posted on August 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
28 On August 31st, 2008, Sarah said:
“The average person out there votes candidates they like; they are simply too lazy to research the issues.”

Uh, you mean like the momentum behind Obama? I’m sure it has everything to do with his record and experience… Oh, wait.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 4:08 am
29 On August 31st, 2008, Sarah said:
“A major accomplishment would be knowing when and how to stop making babies.”

Jackie, did it ever occur to you that some women LIKE having children?

How exactly is Palin neglecting her children in ANY way? Children with working mothers are better off than those with stay-at-home moms in the long run.

Go back to the “olden” days. Women with nine to ten children were usually working moms. These women were usually head of a farm or household, and probably didn’t dote on their children 24/7.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 4:13 am
30 On August 31st, 2008, Liza said:
I voted for Clinton in the primaries. Apparently I’m one of the people Palin was selected to sway.

Which I find incredibly insulting.

I did not vote for Clinton because she was a woman. That was simply a bonus. I agreed with nearly all of her positions (no one’s perfect) and I felt her experience and the fact that she doesn’t put up with the right-wing bullshit would have been exactly what we needed to dig ourselves out of the craphole that Bush has plummeted this country into.

Until the acceptance speech the other night, I was not completely thrilled with Obama, but I was still going to vote for him. Fuck, John Kerry wasn’t my first choice in 2004 but I voted for him because it was a better choice than Bush. Fortunately, Obama’s speech the other night has restored my confidence in him, and I hope he can live up to how great he sounds like he’ll be.

Anyhoo, I find it insulting and offensive that McCain would pick her to pander to Clinton supporters. It insinuates that the only reason we wanted her was to have a woman in office. Which diminishes our opinions on actual political issues. While it would be great to have a woman in office (I was hoping Obama would select Clinton for his veep), any rational thinking adult is not going to vote for someone with views that are 180 degrees opposite their simply because she has a vajayjay.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 9:00 am
31 On August 31st, 2008, Liza said:
P.S. I’m talking about the content of Obama’s speech, not the charisma. Though it was nice to see a potential president that knows how to use the language and can get through a speech without making up new words.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 9:02 am
32 On August 31st, 2008, Janey said:
What was Obama thinking when he picked Joe “Obama’s clean and articulate!” Biden as his running mate?

Presidential candidates try to balance the ticket. Obama has virtually no experience in national politics and foreign affairs, so he picked someone – no matter how obnoxious – with the credentials he lacks. Palin has the conservative creds McCain lacks. She’s also young and dynamic and can breathe some life into his campaign. I can’t believe it’s so difficult for feminists to get past the fact that she’s a woman. Someone said, above, (Annie?) that conservatives vote issues, not gender, and I agree. If McCain’s choice of a female running mate makes Obama look bad, that’s Obama’s fault, not McCain’s.

(And I have to add that I’m astounded at the comments implying Governor Palin should be home taking care of her children! Those children have a father as well as a mother.)

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 9:39 am
33 On August 31st, 2008, Rachel said:

Keep in mind, folks: If you’re posting here for the first time, your comments are automatically placed in a moderation queue. I have to personally approve or disapprove each of these comments, and since it’s a holiday weekend and I do have a life outside of blogging, they may be slow to appear. If your comment doesn’t appear in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps it is because you did not follow the comments policy of this site. Politics talk can turn nasty fast but I hope we can debate this rationally and politely.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 10:38 am
34 On August 31st, 2008, Rachel said:

he average person out there votes candidates they like; they are simply too lazy to research the issues.

I think this is true for some voters, unfortunately. A good example of this is shown in the book “What About Kansas?” The author examines conservative middle- and lower-class voters in Kansas and why they continue to vote for candidates who support and legislate moves that are not in these voters’ best interests; they support them because these candidates inflate fears and concerns about moral issues, like religion, abortion, gun rights, gay marriage etc… Yet none of these presidential candidates have ever DONE anything about any of these issues. I mean, look at Bush’s proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage. He made it an issue right before the election to motivate conservative voters to the polls. After the election, the issue was dropped like a hot potato until later, when he began to drop in the polls dramatically.

And unfortunately, as a historian, I do feel many people are ignorant of history. Conservatives who say Iran should be next usually don’t know how the U.S. deposed Iran’s democratically-elected popular leader and reimposed the Shah, who ruled the country with an iron fist for the next few decades. Most Americans don’t know how the U.S. has overturned other, often democratically-elected governments, in some 21 states in the past century. I think presidential candidates ought to first pass a basic history test before they are allowed to run for office. As the old saying goes about being doomed to repeat history…

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 10:47 am
35 On August 31st, 2008, Rachel said:

If McCain’s choice of a female running mate makes Obama look bad, that’s Obama’s fault, not McCain’s.

Actually, I think she’ll serve to hurt him more than she will help him. And I think you’re also misunderstanding why so many feminists are outraged at the gender issue. Most of us, from what I read, outraged at the tokenism of the decision and the implicit insult to women voters’ intelligence, not the decision itself.

Here’s one of my biggest concerns, though. Palin, whether she be a man or a woman, lacks the credentials and the experience for this office. And should McCain die while in office, which is a possibility given his age and past medical history, Palin is woefully unprepared to assume the presidency. Should this happen and should Palin makes mistakes due to her inexperience, I fear some people will look at it as an indication of how women shouldn’t hold such high political offices and in turn, these people won’t vote for the next woman candidate based on this assumption. If McCain wants a woman running-mate, more power to him. But at least pick one that is qualified for the position and potential position (and I don’t doubt that there are Republican women out there who are more qualified), and not select a woman candidate on the basis of gender alone.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
36 On August 31st, 2008, Rachel said:

Please provide examples that actually show she’s anti gay if you’re going to assign her such a label.

Thanks for letting me know about the mis-link. I had a deadline looming at work, so this post was made rather hastily. If you click around on the governor’s own website (link already provided above), you will see that she writes, “I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.” She has gone on the record repeatedly in support of a ban on gay marriage. I shouldn’t have to provide you with any additional links on this; a simple Google search should suffice.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 11:18 am
37 On August 31st, 2008, Janey said:
I understand that you see tokenism in McCain’s choice of Palin, and that’s what bothers me. Why assume she’s a token? Look past gender and you’ll see the reasons she was selected.

As for her lack of experience…she (as VP) may be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but Obama will BE president, if elected. And his experience is just as sketchy, I’m afraid. At least her experience has been in an executive position as governor, and mayor previous to that.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
38 On August 31st, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Considering how viciously ugly the smears at DailyKOS and DU have gotten, I applaud you for keeping it civil here, Rachel. I won’t repeat the smears, but they are the ugliest possible kinds.

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
39 On August 31st, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
I agree with you Janey – considering that conservatives generally vote issues and not gender or color, I’m disturbed by the charges of tokenism as well. She’s a strong, dynamic woman who isn’t afraid to stick her neck out – I’m sure she’s made mistakes but that doesn’t mean that she can’t be a leader. She leads a state (and accomplished a lot there in a short time) and she doesn’t seem afraid, which is a good thing. If in fact McCain is only able to serve one term, she’ll have experience (I’ve never understood this thing with experience – we don’t want career politicians, or at least I thought we didn’t) then and might make a fine President.

Does anyone know if she supports a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage? Because that would be a black mark in my book; anyone who’s too willing to tamper with the constitution I find disturbing. If she doesn’t, and would leave it to the states, then that would be fine. (IMO naturally.)

posted on August 31st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
40 On September 1st, 2008, devil said:
McCain does need a super-conservative running mate, and certainly there are other more experienced people to choose from. But, he also needed a “spark”, and Palin gives him that many times over.

If McCain wins, I wonder if Palin’s husband would be a stay-at-home dad? I also wonder if she plans to have more children while she’s VP?

If I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, I’d vote for McCain in a heartbeat. The next president will((I’ll bet) be a one-termer, and if it’s McCain then Hillary can run again in four years. If Obama wins, Hillary can’t run against him in four years without looking like a traitor (to the Democratic party), even if it’s certain that Obama won’t get a second term.

I just can’t see Hillary Clinton accepting an eight-year wait very well.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am
41 On September 1st, 2008, Lemmy said:
Janey,

Obama is a constitutional law scholar and someone who’s done serious work on public policy issues. Moreover, he came out on top after a rigorous primary campaign against Washington veterans that involved at least 20 debates. The fact that he could run a campaign with such efficiency that he could best all of those opponents — including the most powerful machine in Democratic politics, the Clintons — and has put together detailed policy proposals that helped him to come out on top (if you’ve bothered to read his proposals) clearly places him in a whole other league from Palin when it comes to preparedness to be Commander in Chief.

So far as we know, Palin hasn’t thought much about national economic or foreign policy matters, and definitely has no experience with them. Beyond that, she was simply picked to be #2, without any vetting on a public stage and without having her credentials and policy ideas tested.

Don’t be a Republican sheep: Palin’s time in public service and Obama’s time in public service can’t be measured simply by comparing years. What are the results? Obama has stepped up and shown he’s got what it takes to be President. The most the McCain campaign can say about Palin so far is that she’s a mother of five, is a “reformer” (though she voted for the Bridge to Nowhere before she voted against it), and is governor of the state that’s nearest to Russia.

If those seem like adequate qualifications to you for a VP on a ticket with an old man with a history of health problems, then I simply don’t know what to say. Maybe she’ll surprise us by coming up with detailed foreign and domestic policy proposals that demonstrate a command of the issues on par with Obama’s. But I’m not holding my breath.

And let’s not forget that judgment is at least as important as experience. McCain has been wrong on serious economic and foreign policy matters, where Obama has been right. Obama’s VP pick was spot-on in terms of bringing someone to the ticket who, no matter whether or not you like him, is clearly capable of stepping into the executive role. By picking Palin, McCain chose to put the nation’s security at risk for what he hopes is short-term electoral gain through political pandering. How much does “experience” count for when the “experienced” one does something like that?

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 2:05 am
42 On September 1st, 2008, Melissa said:
My first reaction was to agree with you, Rachel, but I read and thought more, and now don’t. She describes herself as a feminist. Do we get to kick her out of the movement when she doesn’t agree with us on some things? Is there a set list of beliefs that all feminists need to have?

As I understand it, being a feminist means believing men and women should have equal rights. Someone can believe that and oppose gay marriage. Someone can believe that and oppose abortion. And not want to save polar bears, and whatever else we don’t like about her views.

I quote from a Time Magazine interview, regarding how her kids influenced her: “because I have both boys and girls I have a greater respect for equality and making sure that gender is not an issue and that everyone is treated equally.” I mean, they asked about her kids, and the very first thing she said was on-message 100% feminist.

I also read that she’s part of a (self defined as) feminist group that is pro-life AND/BUT pro-contraception.

I do think her gender helped get her the nomination–but not as a token to woo Hillary Clinton supporters. Who she is as a person (including gender) freshens up the Republican image, and contrasts with McCain (old white guys). I mean, she’s young, worked as a sportscaster and fisherwoman, is the first female governor of Alaska and very popular, and is in an interracial marriage. I mean, come on–she just sounds really cool.

I don’t want a pro-life evangelical Christian in office either. But I can’t deny that her life, to me, looks like a dream of feminism fulfilled.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
43 On September 1st, 2008, Cassandra said:
I think he chose her for attention, strictly attention. McCain didn’t chose her based on qualifications, he chose her because she has a uterus and thinks the most like him. He could have just opted for a sex change if he wanted to make a statement, rather than putting her face up on the dart board. It is a disgrace how belittling McCain is to women in general and now he has another trophy looking woman at his side, similar to his silent wife.

She doesn’t care enough about health care and right now, her focus SHOULD BE on health care — her 17yr old daughter is pregnant and has no way (other than by mommy and daddy) to realisticly support her child… so who is going to pay for the health care?? Medicaid, which most people in the USA can’t get unless they are pregnant or poor or disabled.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
44 On September 1st, 2008, Anthony Johnson said:
I am appalled that Governor Palin has accepted the nomination of VP. She has five kids. My mother sacrificed everything for me so that me and my brothers and sisters could have the love, social skills and other life tools that we needed to go out into the world.   She is a mother of a “newborn” child with Down’s Syndrome! As a parent and even more as a mother I would want to know that the person who was in the office of the White House made sacrifices for their children. I believe that this is outright neglect. If she was any ordinary white , black, or latino woman with five kids, one of which was was 17 and pregnant, she was be morally and ethically judged and ridiculed. But, because she is white, rich, privileged and a Republican, she is being praised and viewed as someone whom American woman can “relate to”.   In America we often praise women for their moral and fundamental judgments, for their incredible sacrifices for the their children, and to do what Palin is doing (accepting the nomination) demoralizes what all women should have, undying and unconditional love for their children. If her lack of focus on her family has ultimately resulted in an unwanted pregnancy for her underaged daughter, one might be forced to ask, what then might be in store for her disabled newborn?  I believe that many Republicans often shift the responsibility of raising their children to others (i.e. grandparents, family members, nanny’s) not because they have to sacrifice for them or work hard but often because they would rather keep up “appearances” than raise their children properly themselves. ” Oh Ms. Minnie has the kids, she’s a charming little black woman” or “Oh I sent Johnny up to Boarding School, he’s out of control.”   All this, not to mention, is she really prepared to step in and be the next President of the United States? I think that the answer is obvious.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
45 On September 1st, 2008, Jackie said:
Sarah, did it ever occur to you that the reason people like making babies, is the making part? Couple that with a religious devotion to not using contraception and/or being against abortion, and it’s not long until that family is having a litter to look after.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
46 On September 1st, 2008, Janey said:
I’m sorry, Jackie, but a large family should never be referred to as a “litter”.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
47 On September 1st, 2008, i-geek said:
Considering how viciously ugly the smears at DailyKOS and DU have gotten, I applaud you for keeping it civil here, Rachel. I won’t repeat the smears, but they are the ugliest possible kinds.

Agreed. The Palin family probably has a case for a libel suit on their hands if they were inclined to pursue it. Thank goodness the mainstream media hasn’t stooped so low.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
48 On September 1st, 2008, Jackie said:
Janey, well what should I call a giant family then?

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
49 On September 1st, 2008, Janey said:
How about -

“a large family”?

“Five children”? (not exactly “giant”)

“A full house”?

Anything but a dehumanizing, disrespectful, offensive term like “litter”.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
50 On September 1st, 2008, Liza said:
Oh, just a little something else.

When people refer to her youngest, they are frequently saying “down syndrome baby” or (worse) “Down’s baby.” Thanks to a friend I had in high school (who had a younger brother with Down’s), this bothers me.

There is something called people-first language. This mean, referring to the kid as “baby with Down’s syndrome” instead because it rearranges the sentence to be person first, disability second.

I know that in 99.999999999% of uses it’s not intended to be offensive or derogatory, but it’s something that I (and probably some others) would appreciate people considering. Thanks.

posted on September 1st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
51 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Yikes, did my comment get eaten? Or maybe because there was a link in it? At any rate, let me reiterate that I hear you, Liza, and will try not to make that mistake again.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
52 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/why-is-michelle-duggar-fair-game/

Even in feminist circles it was determined NOT to be cool to dehumanize and make women animals.

[quote]3. a number of young brought forth by a multiparous animal at one birth: a litter of six kittens.”

These are not animals. Let’s have the respect we darn well want for women exhibited here, of all places, at a site that supports respect for women.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
53 On September 2nd, 2008, KT said:
*a little fyi–my rant below isn’t directed at commenters here, just at the media/world at large!*

I’m hardly what you would call a Sarah Palin fan–I’m pretty sure we disagree on pretty damn close to every single issue I find important. Still, I find the way people/the press have been talking about her disturbing, to say the least. If one more person makes a comment about how she’s abandoning her baby with Down’s or her pregnant teenage daughter by running off to campaign, I’ll scream. (Scratch that, I’ve already screamed over this one.) The kids have another parent–I think it’s called…um…a DAD. A man in the same situation would never be accused of abandoning his family–it’d be assumed that his wife would be at home (where she clearly belongs *gag*) taking care of teh kidz. Whether or not any parent–mother OR father–whose family is wrestling with difficult issues should be on the campaign trail is, IMHO, potentially a legit question as to the appropriateness of one’s priorities, but it’s only raised here because she’s a woman, and that pisses me the hell off. And comments about how McCain picked her because she’s pretty or whatever piss me off too–not because I necessarily think that’s untrue (can’t say I understand the man at all so how the hell am I supposed to know what he was thinking?), but because it’s often used to impugn HER and brand her a bimbo rather than brand McCain as a sexist ass.

And there’s plenty more, but I think I’ve already ranted enough and taken up enough space here!

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
54 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
“A man in the same situation would never be accused of abandoning his family”

No, he’d be accused of raping his daughter. I know,I said I wouldn’t repeat the ugliest rumors, but there it is. THAT is the ugliness of real, genuine misogyny, and it takes place in the most leftist of media. THAT’S where it goes.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
55 On September 2nd, 2008, Jackie said:
Janey I’m sorry, if I’m not willing to respect someone who feels they can’t keep their legs together, and stop at 2 or 3.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
56 On September 2nd, 2008, Jim from Addison, IL said:
When are you gonna get it? You want change? What exactly are you looking for- the messiah? Barack Obama is a Chicago political “Hack” and a “Socialist”. I live in Illinois and have seen his rise to fame….. David Alexrod is a master at Democrat politics just like Carl Rowe is to the Republicans. Wake up and get real. Anyone running for political office thinks they are smarter than we are. They think we are lemmings, and those of you that just hang on breathlessly to whatever Obama says are prefect examples of that (Chris Mathews get a tingle up his pant leg). That is why the founding fathers created the electoral system because they realized that some of you have no clue as to what life is. Read the Federalist Papers. You want women’s rights- yet a woman runs and won’t vote for her because you don’t agree with her politics. Do you agree with everything that every Democrat says?? Who cares who breaks the ceiling as long as it gets broken…….. I have generally voted Republican, but I voted for Ferraro because she was smart- fresh- and a real change. Oh yeah you all called her a racist because she supported Hilary…. Now that is really two faced…. Like I said “Get Real”!!!

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
57 On September 2nd, 2008, Rachel said:

Jackie – Your comment above is, frankly, offensive. You know what other group is accused of not being able to “keep their legs together”? Rape victims.

There is something called people-first language. This mean, referring to the kid as “baby with Down’s syndrome” instead because it rearranges the sentence to be person first, disability second.

I try to be cognizant of this language also here on the blog and to not refer to anorexics or bulimics, but rather to people with anorexia or women with bulimia. My cousin has Down’s Syndrome and we prefer to just call him by his name, Jay.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
58 On September 2nd, 2008, Rachel said:

You want women’s rights- yet a woman runs and won’t vote for her because you don’t agree with her politics

Sorry, I don’t vote for candidates on the basis of their reproductive organs. Do you assume minorities vote for candidates on the basis of their ethnicity alone? As an independent voter, I vote the issues, regardless of the skin color or gender of the candidate who holds those ideas. And, frankly, I feel Obama would do more to advance women’s rights than would Sarah Palin.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
59 On September 2nd, 2008, Janey said:
Jackie – “Can’t keep their legs together”?? Ugh. I’m speechless.

To Jim from Addison, IL – Why would I vote for someone whose politics I don’t agree with, just because of their gender? That’s about as sexist as you can get. I’m a Republican and I might have voted for Hillary, not because she’s a woman, but because I’m not all that keen on McCain and because I think she would be a good leader.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
60 On September 2nd, 2008, Liza said:
You want women’s rights- yet a woman runs and won’t vote for her because you don’t agree with her politics.

I really thought this was a joke at first.

Women’s rights include our right to disagree with said woman.

A man who will ensure that I keep my right to choose, right to affordable birth control, our children’s right to comprehensive age-appropriate sex ed, and who will fight for me to earn an equal salary for an equal job does more for women than a woman who wants to remove my free agency over my own body and reproductive choices and won’t educate the country’s youth on contraception and intelligent choices any day.

Politics are the #1 reason to choose a candidate. The only time gender would play into my decision would be if two candidates were exactly 100% matched on issues, experience and platform. Then maybe the fact that one was a woman might sway me a little – I’m mature enough to admit that, even if it doesn’t sound great – but if there were any inequity on their political performance I would vote solely on that, not on whether or not they are in the possession of a vagina.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
61 On September 2nd, 2008, Liza said:
I try to be cognizant of this language also here on the blog and to not refer to anorexics or bulimics, but rather to people with anorexia or women with bulimia.

I’ve noticed that, actually, and appreciated it without saying anything. I was mostly tipped off by various news sources but also saw it in comments so I thought I’d share.

As I said, though, I know no one here means anything negative by it. I know it’s something that would never had been on my radar if my friend hadn’t mentioned it lo those many years ago (ok…maybe like 7 years ago, lol), even though I consider myself aware and compassionate toward those with disabilities and have had other people in my life with them.

And I’m not perfect with it, either. I just realized that in the review I wrote of Disfigured for my school paper I may have referred to Darcy as “an anorexic.” Or maybe it was “an anorexic woman” or “an anorexic real estate agent.” Fortunately no one at my school will read it beside the 5 people on the newspaper staff and like 4 journalism professors. lol

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
62 On September 2nd, 2008, Rachel2 said:
“Even in feminist circles it was determined NOT to be cool to dehumanize and make women animals.

[quote]3. a number of young brought forth by a multiparous animal at one birth: a litter of six kittens.”

These are not animals. Let’s have the respect we darn well want for women exhibited here, of all places, at a site that supports respect for women.”

Ah, but I think we sometimes forget… Humans are animals as well. We’ve got “intelligence” and “civilization”, but at the end of the day, we’re animals. I think that we, as humans, give ourselves too much credit by considering ourselves “a step above” other animals on the evolutionary tree. What about dolphins? They’re smart as hell! Smarter than us, for sure. If I had sextuplets (OMG! hope not!!), I’d make the comment about having a “litter” myself. Not to dehumanize, whatever.

Heh.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
63 On September 2nd, 2008, Rachel said:

I’ve noticed that, actually, and appreciated it without saying anything.

Thanks, Liza. I try to make a concerted effort to be aware of this, but sometimes I slip up, too. In fact, I may have done the same thing in my review of “Disfigured.”

f one more person makes a comment about how she’s abandoning her baby with Down’s or her pregnant teenage daughter by running off to campaign, I’ll scream.

I don’t fault Palin for pursuing a career while still having young children at home. I fully support equality in parenting roles and I trust Palin to know whats best for her family. But, speaking as someone who has a cousin with Down’s Syndrome, this baby will need a lot more attention than would a baby without Down’s Syndrome. My cousin is older than I am by a few years and now lives in an assisted group home, but my uncle and his mother are still very much involved with his life and in ensuring his health and safety. I’m curious to see how Palin will balance the demands of having a special-needs child with the demanding toll of a vice-presidential (and possibly presidential) career.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
64 On September 2nd, 2008, Ami said:
I wanted to thank Melissa who commented above for posting something that was also bothering me on this subject. Regardless of your politics, I think it is a danger for the feminist movement to include non-gender related topics such as drilling or polar bears into the category of “If you don’t mirror the accepted political views of the feminist majority then get out.” I fail to see why so many feminists I know personally are willing to stifle political or ideological diversity in the movement. And I think it ultimately hurts the cause.
I am supporting Obama, but to see the media and blogs spend more time discussing how she looks or that she is “abandoning her children” instead of her views is insulting to me as a woman. Or that comments on her hairstyle and shoes get interjected in articles discussing her time as Gov. (I’ve seen them) Especially when you are aware how differently a male candidate would be scrutinized. Regardless what you think of her views, a VP candidate who happens to be a woman deserves better than that.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
65 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
And when the real sexism rears its head – telling her to close her legs, wanting to deny her reproductive choice because it’s in the direction of having children instead of preventing them, likening her to some sort of brood mare or otherwise dehumanizing her, saying that she OUGHT to be in the kitchen sacrificing everything for her children (as if their father doesn’t exist) instead of being all uppity and running for office (despite having a 90% approval rate in her own state where she has served as exeutive, balanced budgets,and made executive decisions) – why is it that the sexism is rearing its head on a site that’s about feminism, instead of on those super-conservative sites that supposedly are the only ones who ever say such things?

The irony hammer is just banging away, and I must be the only one hearing it.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
66 On September 2nd, 2008, Jackie said:
I wasn’t aware that people were so ignorant still, as to blame people who are rape, an act completely not of their choosing, of having an inability to keep their legs together. What I am talking about is a matter of choice. Sarah Palin chose to have what most people would consider a lot of children. She also chose to have a career that most likely is going to take up a lot of her time. I’m not a fan of seeing children having to fend for themselves in such situations, are you?

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
67 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
So reproductive choice doesn’t mean choice at all – it means choosing what others determine for you as acceptable. Five children aren’t that many. Just because you arbitrarily determine that 2 or 3 is the max anyone should have does not make it a matter of concern to her, nor should it be. And they have a father, do they not? While the babies are young and nursing she brings them to work with her; that isn’t neglect. And to see her blamed for her daughter’s pregnancy? “Oh it’s because she worked so much.” That’s 8 levels of hypocrisy. When Alice Walker’s daughter recently wrote an article about being neglected by her radical feminist mother, feminists were furious. Now it’s a complete 180 to blame her for her daughter’s condition because she has a career. I mean some of these things aren’t even remotely “talking the talk” much less walking the walk. Wow.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
68 On September 2nd, 2008, b. lyden said:
Shooting a moose is like shooting a cow. They stand in a field – looking at you – they don’t even try to flee. Then Sarah lifts her shot gun and kills it. There is no sport in this. It’s simply disgusting. I wouldn’t vote for her for anything – more or less VP.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
69 On September 2nd, 2008, Jackie said:
“So reproductive choice doesn’t mean choice at all – it means choosing what others determine for you as acceptable. Five children aren’t that many. Just because you arbitrarily determine that 2 or 3 is the max anyone should have does not make it a matter of concern to her, nor should it be. And they have a father, do they not?”

They have a father, who also works.

“While the babies are young and nursing she brings them to work with her; that isn’t neglect. And to see her blamed for her daughter’s pregnancy? “Oh it’s because she worked so much.” That’s 8 levels of hypocrisy.”

Bringing her babies to work with her, is a sign that she can’t balance having children and work. It’s a reality, not a moral issue. We’ve made childcare into a decision, not an imparative. If you have children they should come FIRST, not “Mommy wants a career, and to have friends, and..” as is so common today. I would say that for the father too, although someone in the family needs to bring the money in, and unfortunetly the majority that do are the fathers. That’s just the way of the world, you want to look into the eyes of a child who is left at home alone the majority of their day, while they ask “When will mommy or daddy be home?” and tell them that their parents lives are more important than their right to basic needs that should be provided by their parents.

This may sound rather broad, but daughters who grow up in good homes tend not to get pregnant. And I do mean, aside from a situation like rape. You can ask any psychologist, they will say if a daughter doesn’t have a good relationship with her parents be it mother or father, she will seek love in the wrong places. Again that is not a matter of feminism or morality, it just is.

I’m sorry for always having to be the bearer of harsh realities, that most would rather ignore.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
70 On September 2nd, 2008, Jackie said:
One more thing, reproductive choice isn’t a choice for the children brought into the world. Those children have no say in if their parents are home to care for them. Sarah Palin isn’t a woman who needs to work to see that her children can eat, she is choosing to work. Think of all the parents who have to work 3 jobs who would love to be in a position like Sarah Palin where they could spend time with their children.

The majority of people, believe that when you have children, they are more important than anything. That you are giving your life to your children. It seems today, we’re living in a society that says raising children is passe, and it’s more than fine for parents to go out and have a life of their own, despite the needs of their children.

Also Sarah Palin has a baby with Down Syndrome. Does she really think she’ll be able to look after a child who may need 24/7 care, while trying to be a public figure?

This is a situation here, where it is very clear who the victims of Sarah Palin’s decisions are.

Her children.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
71 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
If she were a man, there would be no issue as to the number of children they have (although admittedly since you seem to believe no one should ever have more than 2, I guess it would be an issue, but not the same way it is now.) So you’re…not a feminist then? (Pardon me for not asking first; I shouldn’t have assumed you were.) I mean, this is very sexist talk, very gender-role enforcement oriented, and even dehumanizing to any woman who chooses – **chooses** to have several children. It even seems to *support* the type of “patriarchal culture” that MAKES it so hard for women to have both children and a career – something they’ve been working on changing for a long time, and something which she seems to be helping to change. So like I say, my fault for assuming you were feminist; I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
72 On September 2nd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
FWIW “Dr.” Laura agrees with you.

posted on September 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
73 On September 3rd, 2008, Jackie said:
Annie, I’m what you would call um.. a childist? I think of the children first. We have no problem as a culture calling men who leave families “dead-beat dads” and saying that if they’re accused of infidelity that they “must not be able to keep their dick in their pants”. It does cut both ways. I am not against a mother who needs a career and who has children taking on a career.

Sarah Palin is not in a position where she needs to be a politican to feed her family. She chose a job that would take if not all, a majority of time away from her children. It’s cute to bring kids into the office when they’re a baby or a small child. Not so much when they are 13 or 16.

Sarah Palin doesn’t need this career, she chose it at a detriment to her children’s well being. It’s that simple. The reason there hasn’t been much contraversy over how male politician raise their children is because they are already presumed by most of society to be so-so parents. Clinton cheated on his wife, Bush’s daughters are drunkards. This didn’t get a pass in the media simply because they are men.

There also is much more communication via the blogs and the internet than was possible during times when male politicians made mistakes in raising their children. My point is, that she has a baby with Down’s Syndrome. My mom’s friend who has a child with Autism, who she is more than willing to look after 24/7 day in day out, was appauled at the idea that Sarah thinks she can put her baby with Down’s Syndrome in front of the media, talking sweetly about how it’s a gift from God, and how perfect it is. While at the same time, admitting to not having the time nor availability that is NEEDED for a neurodiverse child.

I’d be just as upset if a man did the same thing. The thing is, Sarah feels by talking about how she’s a mom through all of this will bring her votes. She’s slowly learning that was passes for child care in Alaska, doesn’t pass in the rest of the USA. She also is religious, and is one of those people who claim God wanted her to have these children. I can’t tell you how many religious families use the Bible, as a explanation for having more children than they can take care of. There are families who have had Sextuplets who have asked for public support for their situation, so I don’t see why having 5 children is much different then that sort of situation.

I’m sorry if it means I’m not a feminist because I think children are the most important people in this world, who need protection and in many cases do not get that protection or support. I am tired of the feminist view being used as an excuse by mothers to take time off of raising a child, or taking their child out into public and putting them in harm’s way, because they want to sit at a certain table in a resturant and mommy is going to get her way! We say children shouldn’t raise children, yet our society now accepts adults who behave more like children than ever, as being appropriate parents.

I’m not for abortion, however at the same time I am against a child being born into a family where they may suffer from neglect, emotional abuse, or physical abuse. If abortion will prevent a child from living a life of abuse and horrors, so be it. I stand for the children. Clearly none of you will.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 am
74 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Like I say I’m sorry for presuming on you there. That makes more sense.

In this case, I really really don’t think these children are in for a life of abuse and horrors. They were well spread out – it isn’t like she has 5 kids under the age of 7 or 8. The eldest three are what, 19, 17 and 14? Or like having sextuplets. Is she spreading herself a little thin? Probably. I am impressed that she’s made the extra effort to nurse her baby – believe me, that is not as easy as it would sound, and it takes commitment and dedication. Which tells me she has commitment and dedication to her children. If the dad is going to take time off from his career to stay with the children, I am sure they will be just fine with a VP or President for a mom. And seriously, I am all for the children too, and I’m not a feminist myself. It just surprised me hearing what is generally considered sexist and counter-feminist stuff here was all.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 am
75 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel2 said:
Tough questions, tougher answers.

Somebody mentioned a few posts ago:

“If you have children they should come FIRST, not “Mommy wants a career, and to have friends, and..” as is so common today. I would say that for the father too, although someone in the family needs to bring the money in, and unfortunetly the majority that do are the fathers.”

Obviously the children should come first and foremost. It does not matter who brings in the bread, as long as it is brought. In my case, my mom worked and my dad stayed home to care for us and cook. For a lot of us down at the bottom, the choice between “Mommy [i]wants[/i] a career, and to…” is not a choice at all. We all have to work to make ends meet. I find this rather arrogant attitude that I cited to be a bit offensive. In my case, and many, many others that I know, the children DO come first. This day in age, there almost MUST be two-plus incomes to just get by. I don’t know where the people reside that this is not the case, but it sure must be nice to not be required by your situation to work your butt off to get food on the table. If the family *is* able to adequately provide for and love their children, more power to them! The majority of the families I know are struggling. Myself included. I have no children, but I can barely feed myself with three jobs. Let alone even attempt to bring a child into the mix. Yes, I do want children someday, but the financial stability is nonexistent at this point in time, so I use state-funded family planning and contraceptives to stay on track.

Personally, whether Sarah Pallin has 1 child or 18, I care not. Using her children to put herself on a holier-than-thou pedestal is what is really irritating me. So what? She’s got 5 kids. Obviously, the income is there to take care of them. The father is at home, so that’s not an issue. They’ll be taken care of, but I really feel like she and the media are shoving this attitude down voter’s throats. This whole exploitation of her children just smacks of rottenness. It’s like there is nothing else to talk about except: “She’s a mother of 5 and let’s-fawn-over-how-wonderful-this-irrelevant-information-is-to-the-fact-that-she-could-potentially-lead-the-nation-someday…” Exploiting her child with Down’s Syndrome is even more irritating. Nevermind her extreme and horrifically scary conservative political stance, as well as the pending investigation for extreme abuse of power.

I’ve got an aunt with Down’s Syndrome. I love her to death. People with Down’s Syndrome are some of the sweetest, kindest, most caring people on the planet. Why is this being made a big deal of? I really feel like she (and the media) are using her children as a banner to cover up and soften her very extreme and dangerous political views.

All of that being said, I’m obviously no fan of this woman. HOWEVER, I DO find it absolutely abhorrent that the media talks about her hair and shoes over her political capability AND/OR political stance. MEN DO *NOT* go under the same visual scrutiny that women do, and it’s NOT bloody fair. This patriarchal, mysogynist society can take these discrepancies and shove them where the sun don’t shine as far as I’m concerned.

Our society absolutely stinks when it comes to the treatment of women. Yes, 40 years after the Feminist movement. It’s just more subtle, and as such, is even more damaging. The expectations are set to impossible and we’re expected to succeed marvelously at this mythical standard.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 am
76 On September 3rd, 2008, Jackie said:
I agree with you Rachel2. I did say earlier as well, that there are plenty of working mothers holding down multiple jobs, who’d love to be in Sarah Palin’s decision. Therefore saying that Sarah has a choice to spend time with her children, she just would rather be a politician. I didn’t mean to say women shouldn’t work, if they NEED to work that’s a whole different basket of apples.

I agree with your statement that Sarah Palin is exploiting her children, or letting her children be exploited. I also agree with you about how they’re exploiting that she has a child with Down’s Syndrome. If they want to talk about her special needs child, they should be talking about the concern that these children tend to need more personal one on one care than other children. If Sarah is going to be in politics, she most likely will not have that time.

I really don’t understand, where people see this as a issue that involves outside issues like feminism or issues of woman working. There is a difference between needing to work, and choosing to work when you have children. Perhaps people don’t like the idea that they might have to make a choice that benefits their children, before their own wishes.

Sarah shouldn’t be scrutinized the way she is, but it’s already happened. That ship has sailed. If she wants to exploit her children to make herself appear softer, then she should have been expecting to have her parenting out in the public for criticism. This is a larger issue than Sarah Palin in some respects.

I just don’t see why I’ve been attacked on here, for thinking of the children first. For stating the reality that when a man or woman has a child, their life now is dedicated to their child, or should be. It’s fine if you want to make a feminist issue out of this, but only after you consider how clearly her children have shown signs of being neglected in this situation. Girls typically don’t get pregnant with supportive and available parents. If you heard this about someone who wasn’t a public figure, you’d say a child having a child is a red flag.

Sure it’s dissapointing to see someone who’s supposed to be representing women in politics, being infallable. What’s much more dissapointing, is that we can’t put that aside and think of how her children have to deal with their parents thinking of themselves first, and their children last.

BTW, I’m far from the only one who feels this way. I just saw a segment on Today where MOTHERS were agreeing with me, that Sarah Palin can’t be a politician and care for her children well. So are you going to say now that mothers have no idea about this either?

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
77 On September 3rd, 2008, i-geek said:
So reproductive choice doesn’t mean choice at all – it means choosing what others determine for you as acceptable. Five children aren’t that many. Just because you arbitrarily determine that 2 or 3 is the max anyone should have does not make it a matter of concern to her, nor should it be. And they have a father, do they not? While the babies are young and nursing she brings them to work with her; that isn’t neglect. And to see her blamed for her daughter’s pregnancy? “Oh it’s because she worked so much.” That’s 8 levels of hypocrisy. When Alice Walker’s daughter recently wrote an article about being neglected by her radical feminist mother, feminists were furious. Now it’s a complete 180 to blame her for her daughter’s condition because she has a career. I mean some of these things aren’t even remotely “talking the talk” much less walking the walk. Wow.

*applause*

Thank you, Annie, for posting so eloquently what has been bothering me about some of the comments. Apparently for some, “my body my choice” doesn’t extend to women who choose to have more than the socially acceptable maximum number of children.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
78 On September 3rd, 2008, Jackie said:
Does my body my choice now extend to, and I can make bodies with my choice, and just treat them like they’re little more than bodies?

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
79 On September 3rd, 2008, Elizabeth said:
“MEN DO *NOT* go under the same visual scrutiny that women do, and it’s NOT bloody fair.”

I watched the news this morning and they were talking about Barack Obama going gray and debating if he should color his hair. They also spoke about how Joe Biden was over weight. These two men were being either praised for the way they dressed or torn down for not being perfectly attired.

I don’t agree that Sarah Palin is being criticized for her clothing or hair but the men are being criticized as well. I realize that she will be criticized much more then the men will but it is happening to them as well. I find it disgusting in both points. I could care less if Sarah Palin’s shoes don’t match her dress or if Barack Obama is going gray. I can’t imagine that Joe Biden enjoys being called fat on national television.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
80 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel said:

To turn the discussion back to the actual issues, here’s a great editorial written by a fellow Alaskan politician who likes Palin but is as concerned as I am about her qualifications.

“Palin as the president-in-waiting of our nation? Really?”

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
81 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Here’s a different take on her experience (and it’s not the one I was looking for, as it’s somewhat humorous – the one I am looking for was really unbiased. But it’s worth a look to see some of the amazing accomplishments and creds. she has earned against some tall odds – http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-vs-barack-obama/

The thing is, being governor of ALASKA is no small matter. It is an enormous border state with international dealings, with very unique military leadership required, it comprises a *very* large chunk of our GDP and our oil supply, and is vastly full of natural resources. Which was one of the reasons we wanted it in the first place. It’s a massive accomplishment and Obama himself, when asked what his comparable or superior experience was…was actually stupid enough to compare her *mayoral* position in Alaska (its budget and staff) with HIS EXPERIENCE CAMPAIGNING – apparently he has a much bigger campaign staff and budget than that town. And he thought that comprised experience. His experience is limited to the Chicago political machine, known to be corrupt, and the junior senate. She’s not running for president, but Vice President. He’s running for president and hasn’t really accomplished…anything. At all. So far as I know the commmissioner himself in the “abuse of power” thing has himself said that his own firing wasn’t abuse of power but because they had different directions they wanted the department to go. It’s looking like it might be a slight black eye but nothing like a smoking gun.

The media are the ones who can’t stop introducing her as mother-of-five, mother-of-five, MOTHER-OF-FIVE – which is hardly her fault. It caused a stir when she turned up 7 months pregnant and was governor; you can’t expect people to ignore that she recently had a baby. (Though you can expect KOS and other smear-mongers to imply that the whole thing was a coverup and a fraud, and that Todd Palin just might be a daughter-rapist.) Because so many Downs’ fetuses are aborted because of Downs now, it’s relevant that a pro-lifer did not just talk the talk but walked the walk. That’s not “exploitation.” She seemed to feel that it simply wouldn’t be a big problem to handle her responsibilities and continue her accomplishments and handle her family as well – and so far it hasn’t been.

Now I understand pretty much no one here agrees with her politics, her positions. So, one suggestion is why not actually stick with THAT issue because it’s really all you’ve got. The rest can be and is being refuted quite handily. There is nothing wrong with opposing her because of her stances – no one could expect the left to like her or want her voted in – that is valid and it makes sense. So instead of reaching and grasping and parroting the media on every other irrelevant or unsubstantiated thing that comes along, my suggestion would be to stick with the issues, as in, her stances. Many people admire her stances on many things; other people do not.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
82 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel2 said:
[rant warning]

Well, apparently, the posters on this website aren’t nearly as concerend about Palin’s qualifications as, say, the rest of us might be. I’m just having trouble buying that she’s going to be ready to lead the country on paper-thin credentials. A wee bit more experience would be handy on this one. I don’t suppose that she’ll do well in the VP debates at all. Yeah, Alaska may like her, but I have a hard time seeing how that makes her ready to potentially lead the nation. Especially with her very hard-core conservative background. The only reason why McCain would have had a shot in hell on this one is because he is NOT the promoter of staunch conservatism that has thrown this country down the toilet over the past 8 years. We went from a budget surplus to a $9+ trillon dollar deficit. What?!

Education. The No Child Left Behind Act is the biggest joke and insult to education, educators, and children everywhere. A token symbol to appease those evil, evil democratic teachers that whine about not being able to teach their classrooms with books that are 50 years old. Some of the books out there being used have maps in them from before the Soviet Union split. And Germany reunited. And what about those whiners about the arts? Creative thinking is not a “productive” use of time… So art classes and band classes get cut in favor of math and science… Oh, wait. Math, science, and creationism (aka psuedo-science). Creative thinking is what’s made some of the biggest strides in the world today. Creative thinking IN COMBINATION with math and science. It’s like trying to put together a puzzle without all the pieces, this is.

Health Care. Wow. What a joke! I don’t go to the doctor unless it is an absolute, dire emergency. I’ve got many friends who are in the same boat, and one who actually happens to BE INSURED, but wouldn’t go because of the loopholes involved and SHE MAY BE STERILE NOW due to PID!

These Wars (Yes, Plural). The Iraq War is in line for being one of the biggest mistakes ever made in US History. YES, Saddaam Hussein was an ASSHOLE. I’ll give them that. BUT, he was a leader of a SOVREIGN country. He was also a leader of a sovreign country that WE PUT INTO PLACE 20 or so some-odd years ago. I know people who live in Iraq who lived when he was around, and who live in there now. They say that although he was kind of insane, and that people had to watch what they said, things were better than now. He was a leader of a sovreign country that had to deal with several very different and very, very opposing ethnoreligious groups. Yes, he was kind of a dickhead, BUT, here’s the big **BUT**, given the circumstances while he was around and now, he kind of had to be.

Now what about the war in Afghanistan that we are still fighting that the news has so conveniently forgotten about? And what exactly is with North Korea? And now there’s this Russia-Georgia mess, not that we CAN get involved in any way, shape, or form.

Now, back to the reason for going to war: LYING about some mythical connection between that and September 11, 2001? That is based on not only shoddy evidence, but the attack itself is kind of shoddy as well? I’m no conspiracy theorist, but things certainly do not add up right on the attack. Whomever was responsible for it, (I’m not saying here or there), it certainly was a great way to rally the country behind going to attack Iraq… Donald Rumsfeld said in a closed door meeting “How can we use this [9/11] to invade Iraq?” (Against All Enemies – Richard A. Clarke).

The Economy under Bush. Wow. What a disaster! It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if there is not revenue coming in to support the expenditures, that things are going to go to hell very quickly. It’s a reality that many of us deal with on the bottom every day. Do I buy the cereal, or do I save that $1.62 for the electric bill? It’s not as though I’m down here with a Lamborghini that I’ve gone $300,000+ into debt for. I can’t manage my daily/monthly expenses on the income that I’ve got. Why would it be any difference higher up in the government? “So let’s cut these evil, evil taxes that my dad hiked in his term (”Read my Lips: No New Taxes” Remember that?!) and then explode our expenditures to epic proportions!” Wow. Genius, there. Leaving creditors unchecked for 8 years (let’s leave the Big Government out of this, they can rip off whomever they like without consequence) has done a lot of good, let me tell ya. There is an economic crisis going on because there’s not enough money coming in to support the government’s expenditures. An attempt to cut funding in other places like health care and education has only proved disasterous.

Yeah, so this raging “Conservative Revival” that was hailed very early on has done nothing but create disaster. It didn’t do it overnight, and it won’t be fixed overnight. It’s difficult for anybody to make ANY headway when there’s such a mess to begin with. People are complaining about Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Takeover in 2006 in that they haven’t done anything. Well, in order TO DO anything, first, the “Takeover” wasn’t a complete majority. Which is fine. It is indeed healthy to keep things in check. They need to have bipartisan support to get anything through. A novel idea! BIPARTISAN support instead of MAJORITY support behind closed doors! Also, any time they DO send something through, it has to be approved by the moron (and the few of his cronies left) and signed before it goes official. THEN, it needs time to work. 8 years of a Blank Check for the Conservative Way (or “Convoluted Way,” according to Mr. President… Not picking totally on the conservatives here. I may be staunchly “liberal” , but I DO find a FEW things good about the conservative mindset, and I find a FEW things bad about the liberal mindset) is plenty of time to screw things up royally.

And all of this is why Sarah Palin’s very conservative attitude scares the living shit out of me. I can’t deal with more of this. Even though she’s the potential VP and has no real clout until McBush croaks, I’m terrified of the staunchly conservative mindset that launched our country into the toilet over the past 8 years. I know that Mr. Bush has been the worst president in the history of the nation. Ever. But, we’d said that about Mr. Nixon. Who, at the very least, had the decency to resign once he was called on his bullshit. Mr. Bush hasn’t been called on his bullshit. He hasn’t been impeached. He’s gotten a slap on the wrist for some very gross, very, very grave violations of human rights. I’m absolutely terrified that this trend will continue with ANY sort of semblance of ANYTHING similiar that is elected into office next.

Her serious inexperience coupled with her gross, extreme views is exactly what this country DOES NOT NEED. I’m concerned for the country. I wouldn’t have minded Senator McCain so much. He’s not all that bad, and being moderate right now is NOT a bad thing! Picking this staunchly conservative woman as his backup is both incredibly brilliant (nobody will even dream of assassinating him), but also incredibly stupid (a lot of people are going to come out of the woodwork so he DOESN’T gain the presidency).

Anyhoo.

[/rant]

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
83 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel said:

AnnieMcPhee — Sorry, but with a website title like that, I don’t trust at all the source you cite to be professional and fair. Their biasness is obvious in the very title of the site. And in general, as a journalist myself, I tend to trust reputable news organizations for information on candidates over that of the disaffected rumblings and undocumented claims of bloggers, who wear their political leanings on their sleeve. It’s one thing to discuss issues on blogs; it’s quite another to rely on blogs as a source of unbiased and accurate information.

So instead of reaching and grasping and parroting the media on every other irrelevant or unsubstantiated thing that comes along, my suggestion would be to stick with the issues, as in, her stances.

As I have done.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
84 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel2 said:
“There is nothing wrong with opposing her because of her stances – no one could expect the left to like her or want her voted in – that is valid and it makes sense. So instead of reaching and grasping and parroting the media on every other irrelevant or unsubstantiated thing that comes along, my suggestion would be to stick with the issues, as in, her stances. Many people admire her stances on many things; other people do not.”

::applause::

See above post. Her stances scare the living shit out of me. I can look past most things, but her stances truly scare the living (and dead) shit out of me. The rant above is why.

I think it’s great that she can handle having a family and doing what she’s done. An example of what CAN happen when there’s enough money and a present father around to take care of the children… In the end, though, I don’t care if she’s got a family of 1 or 20. As long as the children are well cared for financially and emotionally, that’s fine. It doens’t matter if it’s mommy or daddy. I feel that she (or the media) are exploiting this fact and ignoring the important thing-her stances. Perhaps to make her “more electable?” I don’t know.

Then, as I’ve stated several times now, my biggest concern is about her stances. They scare the crap out of me, and they will continue to do so forever. I’m pretty bleeding-heart left-wing liberal. I’m more liberal than most, but I CAN see where she would scare the living hell out of even more moderate individuals than myself.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
85 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Ok, Rachel – I know it was tongue-in-cheek, but the actual accomplishments listed are indeed true. This charge of no experience, while it wouldn’t really bother me if it were true, simply isn’t. Leading the state of Alaska is *major*, not minor, and what she’s done there is *a lot.* While she used $400 million in excess revenues to invest in a mightily valuable pipeline (not an easy feat to accomplish) you have Obama chairing the Annendale Challenge with William Ayres, which led to 160 million dollar increase in bureaucracy while not imporiving the schools or teacher standards/results at all. I don’t see how this charge of no experience can possibly fly when her experience is with getting big things done and his is…not getting anything done except being a politician. Like I say leading a border state that deals internationally as well and has unique military involvement – this is just not what you can call “no experience.” It is so silly.

Rachel2 – I agree. And while I believe you are incorrect on most of those issues (such as that so-called “surplus”) I applaud you for dealing with the actual issues instead of the ridiculous personal smears.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
86 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
And when asked about his experience as compared to hers, again Obama said straight out that he was more experienced because his *campaign* has a bigger budget and a bigger staff than the town she was mayoring. That was so insane I had to watch it three times to be sure I understood him correctly. He can’t even list his own experience, and if he thinks that’s what “experience” is, it speaks reams as to where his real values lie. Not one of the other three even have *executive* experience; at least she actually does. And again, not without some very difficult accomplishments thrown in. I just don’t buy it, and I don’t think any thinking person, when looking at the actual facts, will be able to hold onto that particular mythconception for very long.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
87 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel said:

Annie – While I concede that Palin may have limited experience running a small town and a short amount of experience running one of the least populous states in the union, I still am not convinced that she has the experience needed to help run a nation.

Even if we accept, for argument’s sake, that Obama has as little or even less experience than Palin (and I’m not convinced that he does), I am not as worried about the specter of Obama as president as I am of Palin as president. JFK also had very limited experience when he took office and one of the reasons he managed to avoid WWIII and succeeded in making political gains for both black Americans and women is because he was willing to listen to a trusted group of advisers (EX-COMM), that included members who were very vocal in their disagreement with the president’s decisions. I think Obama is a similar kind of leader as our martyred president, and I’m confident that even if he lacks experience in any one area, he will surround himself with and listen to professionals who are more experienced. This kind of diplomacy will be a welcome change after eight years of a president who not only lacks experience necessary of a commander-in-chief, but also doesn’t listen to anyone else who is experienced outside of his own personal echo chamber.

And I’m curious, Annie… I assume you also supported George W.? If so, why is Obama’s so-called lack of experience an issue for you now, but it wasn’t for George W. in 2004?

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
88 On September 3rd, 2008, pennylane said:
John McCain raised the experience issue so he’s really the one who needs to justify himself.

By most media ccounts McCain didn’t pick her anyway. The right-wing social conservatives did. He wanted Lieberman but they threatened to disrupt the convention–so he didn’t even pick who he thought was the best person for the job. The social conservative wing is running the show. And, incidentally, the GOP voted–barring all discussion–for an abortion platform with NO EXCEPTIONS. Not rape, incest, OR to save the life of the mother.

Incidentally, she used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party (that is, as it indicates, secessionist) and used to head up Ted Stevens’ 527. She has really been upfront about her own experience as a “reformer.”

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
89 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Supported him in what sense? I didn’t vote for him, if that’s what you mean. I’m a libertarian, though occasionally I will vote, when there’s a good enough reason to. Even this time I really probably won’t, because my state is guaranteed to go Democrat, so there would be no point. (It’s the electorals that do it, as we all know.) I didn’t campaign for him or try to convince people to vote for him or blog nice things about him, or anything of that nature. Or send him money, or what-have-you. That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything he’s done or agree with everything he’s done – he’s totalitarian just like the left is totalitarian – just a matter of degree and direction; and it’s totalitarianism that I really abhor. (Totalitarianism to the left gives you gulags and mass starvation, totalitarianism to the right gives you ovens and disastrous one-child-policies, etc. They can always think of something, given the power.)

Now – Obama’s clear lack of experience except in being a bureaucrat is NOT really an issue for me – his leftist totalitarianism is. It is the incorrect charge that Palin is less experienced than Obama, and that experience is suddenly the defining issue because of Palin that surprises me – why now, all of a sudden, would Obama supporters be railing on and on about experience? And how is it that they genuinely fail to recognize the achievements and credentials that Palin has under her belt? They put her, if experience is an issue for you, light years ahead of Obama because of their nature and scope. Even he could come up with nothing better than running his campaign (I still can’t get over that.) Alaska is a major economy, of which she had to be in charge, and she accomplished a lot up there – fighting corruption in her own party as well as fighting bureaucracy and pork projects. Big things got done, in a BIG economy – and yes, I think running a very large economy is a huge achievement (considering how big we are really talking about) and involvement in a very large portion of our domestic oil as part of that economy, while dealing with foreign concerns as well, as chief executive – yeah, that’s experience. To be able to accomplish so much in such a short time is just testament to how capable she really is.

And, did I misunderstand you before or did you intimate that the mainstream media outlets are not biased? Has this multi-day feeding frenzy changed your mind at all on that? Being neither conservative nor leftist, it always shocks me that the obvious left-leaning of the media is not patently obvious to everyone who watches/reads it (that’s why Fox News got so big – there was a dearth there.) And I’m not faulting them for being so because absolutely *everything* news-wise is, of necessity, editorialized. There is no such thing as genuinely objective reporting, and that’s ok. But just because a news outlet agrees more with our point of view doesn’t make them objective, it just makes them more fun for us to read.

On a lighter note, did you see these pictures?

http://www.fightthepalinsmears.com/articles/2008/09/us-weekly-sarah-lies-and-scandal-obama-love-and-kisses/

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
90 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
pennylane, they are denying both of those allegations, so far as I can tell. Just the media grasping at every possible straw and spreading rumors, it seems. You’d almost think they were scared.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
91 On September 3rd, 2008, Rachel said:

And, did I misunderstand you before or did you intimate that the mainstream media outlets are not biased?

As long as news outlets are run by humans and not robots, degrees of biasness are inescapable. But as for a leftist media conspiracy? Nope, as one who works in the field, I think this is a straw man argument. I’ve often heard other, more liberal-leaning folk, argue that the media is conservative. It all depends on who you are and how much you like what you read.

Take my newspaper, for example. For it to be biased in any one direction, there’d have to be a lot of people who identify as either Republican or Democrat. Case in point: For my paper to be liberal, the editor who assigns the story would have to be Democrat. The reporter who writes the story would have to be Democrat. The copy-editor(s) who checks the stories would have to be Democrat. The page layout editor who determines where stories are placed would have to be Democrat. The page layout designer who ultimately places the story and determines font size and imagery would have to be Democrat. The photo editor that made those images available and the graphic designer that edited that image for print would have to be Democrats. The managing editor, who oversees operations, would have to be Democrat. And the publisher who manages all aspects of the paper would also have to be Democrat. That’s a lot of Democrats in a city known for its conservatism.

Professional journalists, regardless of their own personal party affiliations and political beliefs, are upheld to professional and journalistic standards that bloggers are not held to. If information is reported erroneously or fabricated, there are repercussions for journalists that don’t exist for bloggers. Journalists have several people fact-check and proof their stories; bloggers do not. As a journalist, I often write stories about people and organizations that do and promote things that I don’t agree with and yet I report it anyway to the best of my ability because it is my job to do so. So, when I say that I trust reputable news organizations for my information, this is not to say that I don’t recognize that biasness may exist, but that I trust the information to be, for the most part, fair and accurate, and if it is not, I trust that the news organization will issue a retraction.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
92 On September 3rd, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
I’m sorry – genuinely – but this time I stopped reading at “conspiracy.” That isn’t close to what I said. The bias is inherent. I am told that in other parts of the country it leans in the other direction and I’m inclined to believe that. But the cable news and national outlets – that’s just the direction they lean. If people can look at that and see conservative-leaning, then they have to be in the leftist extreme (which are generally the people who say it, as far as I’ve seen.) You don’t have to be conservative or extremist to see a general leftist bias. Again, which is so obviously responsible for the way Fox News took off – the mainstream media news was too unsatisfying to half the population that isn’t left-leaning. Someday maybe they’ll get an anti-totalitarian libertarian news and I’ll finally have something to watch. Who knows. For now I have to read both sides and decide who’s more full of shit. Sigh.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
93 On September 3rd, 2008, More Devine Bullshit « Fuck Politeness said:
[...] coming from feminists/the left more generally, see posts and comment threads here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here…ok, you get the point right? Cos I’m going crosseyed. The [...]

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
94 On September 3rd, 2008, Elizabeth said:
“I didn’t vote for him, if that’s what you mean. I’m a libertarian, though occasionally I will vote, when there’s a good enough reason to. Even this time I really probably won’t, because my state is guaranteed to go Democrat, so there would be no point.”

Annie-
I may not have agreed with everything you were saying but I do have respect for the way you wrote and the passion in what you were saying. I do however take what you say with a grain of salt after reading the above quote. Sorry but if you can’t take the time to vote and use the chance that was given to you then what is the point. I understand that your state may vote in a direction you don’t like and it may feel like a waste of time but things don’t change if you stay home. I encourage you to go and vote, you never know you may be surprised.

posted on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
95 On September 4th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Thanks, Elizabeth – when I can vote in good conscience, I do. There isn’t often a chance to do so.

For what it’s worth this is a sort of clearinghouse of 50 different falsifications, spin, and other accusations that have come out against Palin these last few days, all with sources for the accusations as well as sources for the rebuttals. (Er, some aren’t rebutted because they’re true.) It has the aerial shooting of wolves, the polar bears, the trooper firing, the alleged proposed censorship of libraries, her alleged stance against birth control, and mostly anything else that’s been spread around. I highly suggest this one for anyone who has those specific concerns as well as any others. The only one not on the list is the secessionist group, which they have, AFAIK, plausibly denied. Thankfully none of the nuts demanding placentas and DNA tests are posting here, but this should put to rest whether or not most of the more plausible accusations are true. These things are coming out more and more in the media as the research is being done.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_democrats_fearful_and_into.html

And shame on them (the MSM) for printing trash from KOS and DU in the first place.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 4:59 am
96 On September 4th, 2008, Ripley said:
There are so many points which have come up, it would take me hours to give my own counterpoints to them all….

One of the most fundamental reasons for women siding with the “Feminists”, and the Left, and the Democrats is the issue of abortion.

Since the Supreme court usurped the authority of the state legislatures in 1973, abortion has been “legal”.

Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Republican majority Senate and Congress NEVER NEVER pushed this issue.

The Republicans have paid lip service to the pro-life factions, but after all these years, most politicians would rather never hear of the issue again.

If ALL the liberal justices were replaced by serious pro-lifers, it would mean that abortion would be thrown back to the states WHERE IT BELONGS.

I’m 49, and I am less concerned with my losing my rights to terminate a pregnancy, than I am with losing my right to carry a gun to deal with a carjacker, robber or rapist. Obama has made it clear that he is opposed to citizens carrying, owning or using firearms. Black or white, man or woman, Democrat or Republican, this makes him my mortal enemy.

Obama said quite plainly in his speech, that “criminals” shouldn’t have AK-47s. And I have no desire to become a criminal at the stroke of a pen.

Ripley

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
97 On September 4th, 2008, Rachel said:

Again, Annie, you speak out again biasness in mainstream news organizations and yet the only links you post here for people to get so-called honest information are links to notoriously conservative blogs and webzines. Sorry, I prefer to get my news from a source that doesn’t have so blatant a political agenda.

For anyone else interested in a non-partisan, non-biased, nonprofit news source to check the real facts, I recommend FactCheck.org.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
98 On September 4th, 2008, Rachel said:

Obama has made it clear that he is opposed to citizens carrying, owning or using firearms.

I suggest you relisten to his acceptance speech or perhaps even visit his website to learn his true position on gun rights and ownership, because this isn’t his position at all.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
99 On September 4th, 2008, Ripley said:
He is what he is.

What he said last week is smoke and styrofoam.

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=231794

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html

Ripley

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
100 On September 4th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee said:
Without those conservative watchdogs the feeding frenzy against Palin would have gone unchecked; as it is, they have brought to light the fact that most of those things were false (and they are all sourced – it isn’t like it’s coming off the top of someone’s head LOL) and NOW the MSM is beginning to report more and more on these facts. I’m sure you’ll start to see it. Meanwhile the MSM doesn’t bother saying much about Obama’s ties with shady and corrupt characters like unrepentant domestic terrorists, property deals with slumlords, etc. Instead he gets the cover of the Rolling Stone with the god-halo and no hard questions except about maybe Wright.

I’ve checked out factcheck before and if that’s what passes for neutral and objective – no thanks. Same as “F.A.I.R.” I’ll stick with reading all sides and sifting out the bullshit for now until there is an actual unbiased source.

But it’s still worth noting that the media smearing of Palin started with the shameful MSM picking up on filthy KOS and DU stories, running with them, adding to them, refusing to vet these stories – and it was conservatives and libertarians who had to call “Bullshit” – and if they hadn’t it would have continued. Yet you can do nothing but say you won’t look at them because they aren’t from the biased MSM in the first place. Who would have continued DOING it and who are NOW beginning to report more and more exactly what the conservative bloggers have found, but that won’t count somehow either.

I really don’t understand it, Rachel. It makes no sense to me, and I would think you would know better, but I understand we all do have our biases and I guess sometimes they color all that we do. Like reporting and investigating. No one is immune from that. My bias just happens to be in a direction in which no media goes as of yet, so I seem to be able to see these types of things a little more clearly.

And I will now bow out. But I think you’re seriously wrong. And a lot of the charges other people have made in this thread (and everywhere else) are patently wrong as well. Like about the aerial wolf shooting and the purpose of moose-hunting (hint – in Alaska, moose is food, not sport. Jeez. One moose lasts two people all winter and it isn’t like they can run out to whole foods and buy snappy organic produce all year long.) After sifting through lots of BS, there’s no there there. There just isn’t.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
101 On September 4th, 2008, Rachel said:

You seem to have it all figured out, Annie, but I would just remind you that Kos and DU are leftist, but they aren’t THE left, just as James Dobson doesn’t speak for all conservative voters. I would also hope that you are equally outraged by conservative sites that portray Obama as a Muslim terrorist who eats American babies.

More people here, including myself, have commented on Palin on the issues so your ramblings about moose-hunting and wolf-shootings are out of left field on this blog. In fact, all of the feminist blogs I’ve read have focused on the issues and not smears. If you are offended by the commentary on Kos and DU, then raise your objections there and not here.

I ask that further discussion here be restricted to talking about Sarah Palin’s positions on the issues. Thanks.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
102 On September 5th, 2008, Rachel2 said:
Nice, Rachel. Very, very nice.

Annie- On your Sept. 3rd response, I appreciate your applause as well as keeping it civil by merely stating that you disagree. Thanks! It is indeed healthy to disagree on points, and I appreciate at civil disagreement.

I do not believe that I am way out in left field in most of what I say. At a later date, I’ll back everything up by credible media. For now, however, I’ll just stick to the subject at hand: Sarah Palin is very, very scary.

posted on September 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
103 On September 5th, 2008, Janey said:
Rachel2 – “Sarah Palin is very, very scary.”

Is that because of her position on abortion?

posted on September 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
104 On September 13th, 2008, Pair of Cha-Cha Heels said:
Rachel, I feel the need to step up here and put in my two cents. Not because I am some political pundit and can argue facts and figures till I’m blue in the face (I’m obviously not), but because, well, I am Alaskan and have actually been witness to her acts as a political figure.

Lately nothing has brought out the rabid liberal in me more than the swirling miasma of the Troopergate scandal here, the ridiculous appointment as a possible V.P., and the scandal of her 17-year old daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. The last bit, I’m not getting into too much because frankly, that’s none of my business. I think it’s funny as hell as it flies in the face of her support for abstinence-only sex-ed programs, yet she is supposedly supportive of contraception. Interesting how those things are completely opposite of each other, no?

She has said that “individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that’s why I’m a Republican”, but she would only permit an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, and supports parental consent for under-age abortions. Those seem in stark contrast with “individual freedom and independence”. I mean, individual freedom = choice, right? And removing choices would be seen as oppression, wouldn’t it? So then why promote personal freedoms, but restrict them to certain ideas and place limitations on them? What I find also interesting is that while Sarah is “pro-life”, she’s also pro-capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty. I find this again an interesting concept. After all, isn’t being pro-choice about the sanctity of life? Or is that only reserved for cuddly babies and not wicked murderers? In fact, I notice a lot of the pro-lifers tend to be pro-capital punishment as well. I feel that this says something about how we’re willing to pardon the innocent but throw away those we see as irredeemable.

She opposes same-sex marriages, supported a referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Meaning that because she thinks being “the gay” is wrong, couples who could possibly be better adjusted than some straight couples I know are up shit creek if something happens to their partner. While I’m not a fan of the term “marriage” as a catch-all for creating unions between couples (mostly I see it as a religious ceremony and since I’m not religious, I’d have a union ceremony performed), by no means should I deny it to anyone else. After all, by denying their wishes to be married would infringe on their “individual freedom and independence”, and we know that’s what’s truly important, isn’t it Sarah?

Sarah wants creationism taught alongside with evolutionism, but doesn’t that fly in the face of the Separation of Church and State? After all, if you go to a Catholic private school, creationism is a main staple in theology classes that you would take. But that’s a private school with private administrators and funding, not a state-funded institution like public schools.

Basically I cannot and do not see Sarah Palin as a feminist or a person we should hold as a feminist ideal. She negates the basic tenant of feminism, which is choice, in our lives. We as women and as individuals choose what values we hold dear, be it what we do with our bodies or what we think is important for our children to know. The government has no place in my body or my bedroom, but it should respect the choices I make for myself and I should have them honored as a citizen of a free country. That being said, I see it as a grave injustice to ourselves as women and as feminists to support someone just for being a woman. First off, she’s not going to be our president (hopefully), but she will have an opinion on policies made and secondly, if those policies make our “individual freedom and independence” null and void, than that kicks back all the progress we have made.

Ladies, I’m going to stop before this is a full-blown rabid liberal diatribe, but I will say this. When you vote for someone, don’t do it because they are the same gender, race, religion, etc as you. Vote for the issues, vote for the person who takes up what you hold to be true and is willing to protect your ideals. That being said, we’ve been in a conservative freeze-zone for eight long years. How about breathing a little life into the administration?

posted on September 13th, 2008 at 6:47 am

up to content »

Recent Comments

The-F-Word on Twitter

Meta

Recent Posts

Categories

Beyond Blogging
Read the-F-Word on Facebook

Blog about eating disorders? Join the Eating Disorders Digest blog feed.

Sign up for the Eating Disorder Studies email group.