Friday
03Oct2008
What Did Sarah Learn?
Friday, October 3, 2008 at 07:59PM
The frisky pit bull bounded out of her debate camp confinement, lipstick glistening under the PBS staging lights. Her black suit might have echoed Susan B. Anthony, were it not for the decidedly un-serious peplum that added a not so subtle, curtsy-cute feminine flourish.
But then nothing about Sarah Palin is either subtle or uncalculated. Just as her glittering rhinestone flag pin, ten times the size of the one on ol’ “Say it ain’t so, Joe” Biden’s lapel, intended to telegraph “I’m a red-blooded, patriotic all-American girl”, her perky (Red Bull enhanced?), “Hey, kin I call ya Joe?” aimed squarely to disarm both her audience and her debate adversary.
I mean, what was Biden going to say? “No, honey, call me Senator Biden”?
She certainly knew full well her political future and that of her presidential running mate John McCain hung in no small measure on her performance at this, the only vice-presidential debate. To that end, she had practiced forcefully spitting out her most emotion-laden words like “maverick!” the Republican red meat “tax cuts!” or the ultimate epithet “Washington DC!”, even while flashing a shining smile. And she looked absolutely gleeful when she got to pounce on Biden’s promise that “We will end this war” applause line with her obviously practiced sound bite: “Your plan is the white flag of surrender.”
Palin is a fierce competitor, as her high school basketball teammates knew when they nicknamed her Sarah Barracuda. If you’re a feminist, you’ve got to love the way this woman embraces her powers, both the power of her physical attractiveness and the power of her current political opportunity to become America’s first female vice president. It’s pretty heady, even for someone who said, when told she might become governor someday, that she’d really rather be president. You can't blame her for going full bore for the brass ring.
The chattering classes used the word “spirited” often in describing the tone and tenor of the debate, and most concluded that Palin didn't knock it out of the ballpark, but her performance kept McCain-Palin in the game. That was no surprise, since the format agreed to had been designed to favor her particular strengths.
To me, the only real surprise in this debate was how well Biden did. Republican strategist David Gergen said it was the best performance of his life.
Most of the pre-debate speculation had centered on whether Palin would measure up. I was frankly much more worried that Biden would be too smart for his own good—that he would display his deep knowledge and experience as Al Gore did in 2000, and afterward find himself characterized as arrogant. People like perky a lot more than they like arrogant. And if they don’t like you, it doesn’t matter how smart you are; you won’t get elected.
More than once at Senate hearings, I’ve seen Biden become testy and condescending with women. Anita Hill is a case well known, but I myself have been pointed to publicly by Biden and excoriated for insisting that the Senate Democrats shouldn’t roll over and confirm George Bush’s judicial nominees without evaluating whether their judicial philosophy is consistent with American principles of justice and equality for all, including women.
That why Biden’s reply to debate moderator Gwen Ifill’s question, “Can you bring up a single policy issue where you had to change your position over time due to changed circumstances?” was to me the pivotal point of the debate. It spoke volumes about the man’s character, his principles, and his willingness to learn.
“Yes,” he said without skipping a beat.
In contrast, Pit Bull Palin answered that same question by referring in her usual generalities to compromises she had struck in state government.
He went immediately to a question of principle; she went to a question of expedience.
Ever the calculating competitor, for Palin the game is simply about winning. In this debate, Palin certainly lived to compete another day. But Biden won the debate hands down on his humanity and on his substance.
You betcha.
But then nothing about Sarah Palin is either subtle or uncalculated. Just as her glittering rhinestone flag pin, ten times the size of the one on ol’ “Say it ain’t so, Joe” Biden’s lapel, intended to telegraph “I’m a red-blooded, patriotic all-American girl”, her perky (Red Bull enhanced?), “Hey, kin I call ya Joe?” aimed squarely to disarm both her audience and her debate adversary.
I mean, what was Biden going to say? “No, honey, call me Senator Biden”?
She certainly knew full well her political future and that of her presidential running mate John McCain hung in no small measure on her performance at this, the only vice-presidential debate. To that end, she had practiced forcefully spitting out her most emotion-laden words like “maverick!” the Republican red meat “tax cuts!” or the ultimate epithet “Washington DC!”, even while flashing a shining smile. And she looked absolutely gleeful when she got to pounce on Biden’s promise that “We will end this war” applause line with her obviously practiced sound bite: “Your plan is the white flag of surrender.”
Palin is a fierce competitor, as her high school basketball teammates knew when they nicknamed her Sarah Barracuda. If you’re a feminist, you’ve got to love the way this woman embraces her powers, both the power of her physical attractiveness and the power of her current political opportunity to become America’s first female vice president. It’s pretty heady, even for someone who said, when told she might become governor someday, that she’d really rather be president. You can't blame her for going full bore for the brass ring.
The chattering classes used the word “spirited” often in describing the tone and tenor of the debate, and most concluded that Palin didn't knock it out of the ballpark, but her performance kept McCain-Palin in the game. That was no surprise, since the format agreed to had been designed to favor her particular strengths.
To me, the only real surprise in this debate was how well Biden did. Republican strategist David Gergen said it was the best performance of his life.
Most of the pre-debate speculation had centered on whether Palin would measure up. I was frankly much more worried that Biden would be too smart for his own good—that he would display his deep knowledge and experience as Al Gore did in 2000, and afterward find himself characterized as arrogant. People like perky a lot more than they like arrogant. And if they don’t like you, it doesn’t matter how smart you are; you won’t get elected.
More than once at Senate hearings, I’ve seen Biden become testy and condescending with women. Anita Hill is a case well known, but I myself have been pointed to publicly by Biden and excoriated for insisting that the Senate Democrats shouldn’t roll over and confirm George Bush’s judicial nominees without evaluating whether their judicial philosophy is consistent with American principles of justice and equality for all, including women.
That why Biden’s reply to debate moderator Gwen Ifill’s question, “Can you bring up a single policy issue where you had to change your position over time due to changed circumstances?” was to me the pivotal point of the debate. It spoke volumes about the man’s character, his principles, and his willingness to learn.
“Yes,” he said without skipping a beat.
I was of the view that the only criteria for judges is judicial temperament, had not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitide…. It took about five years for me to learn that the ideology of that judge does matter
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
And so that -- that -- that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.
In contrast, Pit Bull Palin answered that same question by referring in her usual generalities to compromises she had struck in state government.
He went immediately to a question of principle; she went to a question of expedience.
Ever the calculating competitor, for Palin the game is simply about winning. In this debate, Palin certainly lived to compete another day. But Biden won the debate hands down on his humanity and on his substance.
You betcha.
tagged Gwen Ifill, Joe Biden, Jon McCain, SARAH PALIN, presidential politics, vice presidential debate in Joe Biden, John McCain, Roe V Wade, Sarah Palin, Supreme Court, abortion, communication, federal office, feminism, ideology, leadership, political pundits, politics, president's agenda, presidential elections, religious conservatives, republicans, talking about politics, vice presidential selection, women in politics
Gwen Ifill, Joe Biden, Jon McCain, SARAH PALIN, presidential politics, vice presidential debate in Joe Biden, John McCain, Roe V Wade, Sarah Palin, Supreme Court, abortion, communication, federal office, feminism, ideology, leadership, political pundits, politics, president's agenda, presidential elections, religious conservatives, republicans, talking about politics, vice presidential selection, women in politics
Reader Comments (23)
Gloria -
I'm mystified by the attacks on Sarah Palin by feminist icons, like yourself, which violate long-standing tenets of the women's movement. You begin your article speaking of a governor of the United States and a candidate for the second highest office in the land with a discussion on…no…not her policies or character…but her lipstick, her dress and the "feminine" cut of her dress. Then you go on to point out the difference between the size of Palin's big glittering rhinestone flag pin compared with Biden's little plain one.
You say "Ever the calculating competitor, for Palin the game is simply about winning…" as though Biden is NOT a calculating competitor. And I question your characterization of Palin as someone who ONLY CARES about winning.
I'm going to vote for McCain-Palin. I do not share their political positions. I 'm a centrist Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton. I'm befuddled by other feminists who support Obama and the DNC after the misogynistic public spanking they gave women in the primaries - apparently with no regrets and no remorse. I feel depriving the Democratic Party of a win in this election is the most efficient way to clean house of the thugs who have hijacked the party and violated every rule of fairness the party stands for in their rabid fight to win the Presidency.
If it were one or two feminist leaders attacking Palin in sexist terms, I could understand it as an aberration, a couple of loose cannons who have lost touch with their moral centers. But these misogynistic attacks against Palin are almost across the board with feminist leaders.
Perhaps you can give me some insight into how this is okay. Does feminism stop at the Republican line? I thought sexism was sexism not matter where it was aimed. Perhaps I was busy disco dancing on that 1970's night when "exclusions to the feminist rules of conduct" were discussed in our rap group. Or maybe it was that time I skipped out on my feminist obligations when Chicago rocked and rolled into town. Now wouldn't that be a touch of irony?
Linda A1-Thanks for your question, for it prompted me to clarify my post, and what the differing answers say to me about the character of the candidates, which in turn impacts their leadership style. I added this sentence:
He went immediately to a question of principle; she went to a question of expedience.
In my immediately previous post here, I also referred to Robin Morgan's opus magnum on why Clinton supporters--and I am one--should not vote for McCain, why we should vote for Obama, and how to make a pitcher of lemonade out of the very sour lemons that we have before us. The link to "When Sisterhood Is suicide and Other Late Night Thoughts" is:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/100108.html
Let me know what you think.
Gloria, you are an excellent writer and a meticulous observer. Thanks for your post.
Linda, I am a lifelong feminist. And while I am happy the Republican party picked a woman, this woman is doing what I was always taught women should never do lest they perpetuate sexism: flirt, wink, and toss out trite empty phrases rather than standing on merit and principles. It's the stage equivalent to sleeping your way to the top. I find her behavior offensive and feel she sets feminism back. She is not an intellectual or even an authentic political mind like Hillary Clinton. She is Caribou Barbie.
It's interesting how some ignore the right wing sexist sentiments out there and focus exclusively on some stupid comments by Obama supporters.
Personally, I don't think there is anything sexist about Gloria's post, nor do I think Obama or Joe Biden have been sexist. To vote for a ticket with whom one totally disagrees so that supporters of the other ticket can be punished, strikes me as a bit self-defeating, but to each her own. I think Gloria rightly pointed out that the Palin Persona leaves nothing to chance nor is it unintentional. Does anyone disagree?
Here's the conservative National Review's Rich Lowry, on Sarah Palin's debate performance:
"I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."
****
Wow, starbursts through the screen! I wonder if he felt that way when Hillary was debating Obama? Methinks not- it must have been those damn pantsuits that did her in...a little too butch for Lowry perhaps? And I don't recall any cutesy winks from Hillary during her debates.
And btw, I am so sick of people claiming the criticism of Palin goes against feminist principles, simply because Palin is a woman, when John McCain and his camp have been treating her like some sort of gentle flower that dare not be mishandled by the press corp or the Sunday talk shows- as if they would treat Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton that way! Talk about sexist.
There are some from the left and the right saying stupid, sexist things, but focusing on that small cadre of kooks ignores the larger point, which is that she's a candidate for the second highest office in the land and she is the most unqualified, uninformed person holding public office that they could apparently find.
The McCain camp could have picked anyone, male or female, with a real handle on national and international politics but instead, they cynically went with red-meat for the far right evangelical base and condescendingly thought that simply because Palin lacks male genitalia, that women would vote for her in large numbers regardless of competence, knowledge or policy views important to women (basically all issues).
I'm a feminist and Sarah Palin can say any damn thing she wants but there is nothing feminist about giving her a total pass on her far right wing ideology which is bad for women, not to mention not allowing people to point out her embarrassing lack of grasp on the most basic elements of the economy and foreign policy. If anything, I find the double-standard applied to Palin's lack of competence and refusal to go through the gauntlet of political questioning with the press, to be outright offensive to women, whether we are from the left or the right.
wow, Stacy, you are on a roll!
Thanks, Bobbie, for your comments.
It seems that Palin has presented many women and many feminists of both genders with some serious cognitive dissonance. I'm going to write more about that soon. It it so fascinating to observe people trying to sort all this out though and I encourage other readers to hop onto this discussion.
Is Sarah Palin what we fought for?
Is Hillary Clinton?
Is Barack Obama?
Is Michelle Obama?
Gloria -
Seems I got a question for an answer to my question and one that seems a bit unrelated to my observation that your post has sexist components. I have no problem with you or anyone attacking Sarah Palin for her political positions or what you perceive as a lack of political experience or how she dodges questions in the typical political fashion. My complaint is about the sexist nature of those attacks - and my question still stands unanswered.
Palin deserves criticism for her positions and lack of experience - something she shares with Barack Obama. But she does not deserve the shameful personal, sexist attacks she gets - especially from feminists.
I have never heard Palin disrespect other women - unless you claim it is disrespecting women to have a negative stance on reproductive rights and sex education (a legitimate political position shared by almost half of the electorate, by the way). Even Palin's "whiner" comment about Hillary has some arguable merit if you can read the whole interview objectively.
I think the following remark by Palin exemplifies how she treats other women - opposition or not. (March 2008 Newsweek)
"Hillary…comes across to me--and I respect this--as someone who just doesn't have time to kind of pussyfoot around and try to win you over with charm and personality..She's got that healthy degree of impatience where she just wants to get in there and get the job done, and she's going to go from point A to point B and prove herself and get it done. I say that with all due respect to the candidate, although I'm not going to vote for her. I'm not supporting her. But I do respect that in her."
This is the same woman who, in her acceptance speech, acknowledged Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton up front as trailblazers who made it possible for her to be a candidate for Vice President. Ferraro noted that it was the FIRST time any woman candidate has publically acknowledged her.
Gloria -
As to your question to me about Robin Morgan's piece, I'm amused by it. If we were in a formal debate, I'd say you really know how to overwhelm a person off the stage. But, since you requested that I read Robin's "opus magnum," I did and here goes:
There are two worn books that sit on my bookshelf in that hallowed space where Christians would plunk their bibles - The Second Sex and Sisterhood is Powerful. Those two books, in order, were my June 1970's introduction to second wave feminism. Needless to say, I have special admiration for Robin Morgan.
So, Robin's book-length post railing against Palin is all the more disquieting and serves to punctuate my complaint that feminist leaders across the board have resorted to using sexism to wage an unholy war against another woman.
I'm frankly appalled by Robin's disingenuous use of mean-spirited sarcasm and her flagrant listing of debunked Democratic Party talking points to attack Palin. She is matched in her prevarications by Gloria Steinem in the Huffington Post piece "Renowned Women Speak Out on Palin." My feminist idols are falling like dominos - thank goodness Simone de Beauvoir is mortally beyond failing me.
I have no desire to rival Robin's opus with my answer as it would take pages to address the litany of misrepresentations of McCain's and Palin's records in her post. But I'll take on three or four as stark examples of the unfairness:
ROBIN: "She’s broad-minded, willing to have evolution taught alongside creationism."
Palin has said repeatedly that she has no desire to push her personal social beliefs on her constituents and the records prove that to be true. On creationism specifically, Palin is quoted in the Anchorage Daily News (October 27, 2006) saying "I don't think there should be a prohibition against [creationism] debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
ROBIN: "She has executive experience: As mayor of Wasilla, then-constituency 5,000 souls, she presided over a population almost as vast as that of some urban high-schools."
Robin's spurious comment is straight out of Obama's playbook - the total ignoring of Palin's experience of Governor of Alaska. In a September 2008 CNN interview, Obama said "Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month."
For anyone interested in real figures and real experience, Governor Palin's Alaska State budget for 2008 is over $11.2 billion employing approximately 15,000 people. And she is the most popular governor in the country with an 80% approval rating.
ROBIN: "Remember that, responding to a comment Cindy made about his thinning hair, he [McCain] guffawed, 'At least I don’t plaster on makeup like a trollop, you c**t'."
That event is an old rumor revived recently by Cliff Schecter, a liberal political strategist and regular contributor to Huffington Post - not exactly a friend of McCain's. Schecter has released a book called THE REAL MCCAIN in which he claims three reporters and two staffers of McCain witnessed McCain call his wife the c-word in 1992. Oddly, the three reporters - after 16 years - are still ANONYMOUS. Reporters? Three of them? Reporters who will sell their mothers for a headline but not one of these three have written the story? The two staffers, Wes Gullet and Doug Cole, have always denied the story.
ROBIN: "Meanwhile, in Obama we can have a chief executive who reflects our politics…"
This is the same Obama who ridiculed Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady, nefariously betrayed women on sex education and reproductive rights, kissed off NARAL when he didn't need them anymore, called a female journalist "sweetie in full view of cameras, flicked Hillary off his shoulders and shoe in Jay-zee fashion, slapped the potential first lady on the butt upon accepting the nomination for President of the United States, brazenly underpays the female employees on his staff and…oh… somebody help me! The list is too long to complete.
I found very little in Robin's post that could not be debunked outright or reasonably argued but I'll stop the Robin debate since I'm likely already beyond reader tolerance.
And too, I'm not at all comfortable with having to defend Palin - or McCain. My vote for them is purely strategic to defeat the DNC, Obama and the joke we now call a press corps.
Bobbie -
I really don't believe flirting, winking and tossing out empty phrases are in and of themselves anti-feminist. I watched the debate closely and Palin's smiles and winks didn't seem to have any sexual energy to me - perhaps a little theatrically friendly at worst. I can see how someone as rigid as conservative Ron Lowry might think he saw something he didn't - at least Palin didn't produce a quiver up his leg. I continue to be mystified by the hysterical, vicious hoop-de-la around Sarah Palin - and I'm baffled that her personal behavior reaches the level of offensive to some - so offensive that a self-declared feminist would publically smear her with such a anti-feminist term as "Caribou Barbie."
Stacy -
So I'm to understand that you don't think there is anything sexist about Gloria's post even though her pejorative opening description of Palin's lipstick, dress and big ole rhinestone pin are classically sexist? Okay, but you actually astound me with your finding that Obama has exhibited no sexist behavior when even his fawning press corps admits it. All in all, I have to admire such boundless loyalty on your part.
You say: "To vote for a ticket with whom one totally disagrees so that supporters of the other ticket can be punished, strikes me as a bit self-defeating…"
Both life and history are replete with examples of using deprivation strategies to achieve higher purposes - in war, we give up lives for freedom, in Boston we dumped tea to make a point, we imprison criminals to protect society, we give up rights and freedoms just to get to another city in an airplane. How many times were you sent to your room as a child? Did you ever have to give up anything for bad behavior?
Voting against the misogyny and corruption of the Democratic Party leadership to deprive them of benefiting from their bad behavior is no different. And yes, we will all suffer temporarily but the greater good is at stake - the forcing of a political party to return to its moral center.
You seem to believe that aiding and abetting corrupt people to gain power is going to get you fairness and equality when they get there - a rather desperate and ill-conceived belief that you will be rewarded for your help.
I'm not that gullible. Particularly since Obama has already shown on multiple occasions how he rewards those who support him. He tosses them under the bus when the going gets a little tough - or even just when he gets to where he's going. Heads up!
As a feminist myself, it mystifies me that other feminists would be so self-defeating as to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket out of sheer spite.
For crying out loud, until recently the page about 'Judicial Philosophy"' on JohnMcCain.com talked explicitly about appointing judges to overturn Roe v Wade. (They've since changed it to some more vaguely, densely worded promises of federalism).
These are the types of actions that will have ramifications far beyond the next four or eight years.
And if you, like me, are not a single-issue voter, then consider Mccain's failure to support equal pay for women - especially in contrast to Biden's authorship of the Violence Against Women Act - and other women & family issues.
If you truly believe that Obama is sexist, then don't vote for him. But tacitly - nay, explicitly - endorsing McCain's bad policies because of Obama's bad behavior seems awfully strange to me.
Stuperb,
Perhaps you did not read my post to Stacy or perhaps you failed to grasp the distinction between voting out of "sheer spite" and voting strategically to deprive corrupt party leaders from being rewarded with ill-gotten gains.
I do not support the McCain-Palin ticket but voting for them is the only way to defeat Barack Obama and his cronies.
I am as mystified as you about this election - but from a different perspective.
How can liberals whose core principles are fairness and honesty and equality vote for a man who has violated all those principles, practiced blatant misogyny without apology, shown himself to be as solid as a wet noodle on women's issues (on any issue actually), brazenly underpaid the women on his own staff and disrespected Hillary Clinton as a woman and a candidate?
Barack Obama's actions are in direct opposition to the "just words" that come out of his mouth...and you choose to believe him while not trusting your own eyes and ears.
Yes, I'll take my chances with McCain-Palin and be accountable for the consequences. Tactically, there's only so much damage they can do with a divided government and a strong Democratic majority in Congress.
Meanwhile, those who think like me will use the next four years to lobby passionately for reform in the Democratic Party - which means cleaning house of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Brazile and Company. At the same time, we'll fight tirelessly for an organized boycott of the shameful, and dangerous, liberal media.
Hi Linda.
I agree with much of what you've said - especially your criticisms about the media - and I'm not so dense that I don't grasp the strategies involved. I'm just not sure I could go that extra step and actively vote *for* the McCain-Palin ticket.
I'm all for activism, though, and I agree that people like Pelosi need to go. I think we mainly just differ on how to handle what we do in the voting booth.
At any rate, I wish you luck. We're ultimately on the same side - just have different ways of getting up the hill.
Stuperb -
I know it's just semantics, but I like to think I'm simply "voting McCain-Palin" not "voting for McCain-Palin." Every little bit of solace helps.
Whatever happens on November 4, we're all going to need all the luck we can get. Thanks.
Stuperb, I love your phrase "We're ultimately on the same side - just have different ways of getting up the hill." I'm putting that one into my quotable quotes file for sure.
The scary thing to me about trying the strategy of "punishing" those who so mistreated Hillary Clinton, Linda, is that we don't just elect a president. We elect all the people the president brings with him and someday goddess willing, her. The people running everything from the FDA to the Supreme Court, the bureaucrats who under the radar make decisions that affect every aspect of our lives. So if you take the long view, as you say you do, I hope you will consider the very profound implications of living under the people McCain-Palin would bring with them to continue Bush's dismantling of our pluralistic democracy.
I cannot imagine living in a society where there is not even an island of principled people. The Obama campaign, the Democratic Party Leadership, the mainstream media - and now feminist leadership have all thrown fairness and principle out the window. Is that the society I want to live in? No.
Rewarding unprincipled people by joining them and then hoping to change them from within is a fool's errand. Why should corrupt people change once they have all the power when they had the audacity to abuse you when they were merely seeking power?
Obama and Company will be so emboldened by winning the presidency that nothing will be sacred. As you well know, corruption breeds corruption.
Yes, I prefer McCain's brain-dead Republican crowd to Obama's shamefully corrupt misogynistic crowd. Why? Because it is a temporary situation. Fours years of deadlock with a divided government.
If Obama wins this, he and the people he brings with him will be entrenched in power for a decade or more.
Try visualizing this future with what Barack Obama brings to our living rooms: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, a host of radical "black liberationist" reverends, a bunch of other unsavory, mysterious characters, a slew of power hungry misogynistic despots like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and a jubilant press corps who are no more than a hoard of partisan hyenas. And now you can add discredited feminist leaders to the list who seem to have adopted Obama's "win at all costs - principles be damned" methods.
I'm not going to close my eyes to the screaming truths of what's happening in this country. I'm a pragmatist first, a no nonsense person. And I'm not afraid of the hard decisions.
I know when it's time to pull the plug, drown the rats and start over with a clean slate. THAT TIME IS NOW with the Democratic Party. THE WAY is to keep them out of power and rid ourselves of them while they are weak and powerless under a Republican President.
Mmmm-straight out of the Republican playbook.
More about that in future posts.
Gloria -
Explain.
That, among other things, is why I felt compelled to comment on the blog of the Free Soil Party candidate for President
Obama reflects our politics? Really? I refuse to believe Robin Morgan has turned into a pseudo-feminist greenwashing warmonger like Barack Obama or Joe Biden. I disagree with some things LindaA1 has said, particularly that voting for McCain/Palin is the only way to defeat Obama and his cronies, but I do agree the list of reasons why Obama does not deserve to benefit from being anybody but Bush/McCain is too long to complete. I have compiled a long list myself. See The Peace Candidate is Anything But, my response to the debates, or my essay on how Obama has betrayed principles important to me, A Case Against Obama Nation.
I challenged the Obama campaign to respond to the latter. I got a reply, sort of. I posted my challenge and that infuriating cavalier condescending dismissal as the first two comments to my essay. So much for holding his feet to the fire. It is obvious he does not give a hoot what issues a feminist revolutionary like me has with his positions. After all, where could feminists go? Apparently his PR person thinks that learning more about him would assuage my concerns. Those who complain that Governor Palin dodged questions, she has nothing on Senator Obama. He is just much more skillful at concealing his artifice.
Gloria -
Well, I have to assume I'm not going to get an explanation of your claim that my comment - or a portion of my comment - is "straight out of the Republican playbook."
I've posted enough here for you to know I am not a Republican nor have I ever laid eyes on a "Republican playbook."
So why the easy shot to dismiss my comment?
In my own book, your remark falls flatly into the same territory as using ingenuous sexist remarks to dismiss Palin.
Hi Aletha-As I've blogged before, Obama as Mr.Cool escaping scrutiny other candidates got is quite annoying, as is his tacking to the center. My entreaties to his campaign to change his lens to "Obama for Women" were met with verbal agreement but minimal action. One thing I learned about real politics a long time ago is that your friends can do you in as quickly as your adversaries, so never expect more from any candidate than you have the clout to hold his feet to the fire for. But then, before she ran, I wasn't a Hillary groupie either. She was always too cautions for me, and like Obama, tacked to the middle. It was the symbolism of her candidacy, as well as her obvious hard work and preparation, that engaged me on her behalf. I could go there because I agreed with her at least 85% of the time. Same % for Obama now. The symbolism of his candidacy would have been equally thrilling had he not moved in on territory that I thought Hillary had earned the right to take first. But she lost her own race, as happens so often, though she darn near won it back at the end. She won great respect for what she accomplished, but it wasn't quite enough to win the presidency. We have to live with that.
I disagree with almost 100% of what Palin does and says. That's the difference, Linda, and that has been my point. She is a faux feminist and though she is a woman--and makes much of that--she does not support pro-woman policies.
I wasn't dismissing you, but I heard in your statements the same talking points and even wording that I read and hear from McCain-Palin Republican partisans. In addition to what's on this blog, I receive unsolicited e-mails each day from angry people, usually men who identify as Republicans for McCain, who use eerily similar words and phrasings to yours.Their hatred for Obama is so visceral, no reply of mine is going to make an iota of difference. After 30 years of encountering such repetitiveness from anti-choice partisans, I have a nose for it. I believe you are sincere in what you say. At the same time I feel we have worn out that particular conversation and it is time to move on. I plan to take on some topics other than Sarah Palin and hope you will join in that conversation.
Finally let me apologize for slowness in responding this week due to a combination of travel, writing projects, and running two big events in AZ where I am now ensconced for a couple of weeks. Don't anybody take offense when I don't post for a few days, please. I am a great admirer of bloggers who post daily or several times a day. Am trying to emulate them but haven't quite arrived as yet.
Gloria -
Before we wrap up this Palin round, I have a couple of points - as you might suspect. It's apparent that we are not going to persuade each other on the subject of Sara Palin and sexism.
First to a different point, There is a limit to the English language. There are just so many ways to describe the same event or fact. If I agree with conservatives on certain characteristics of the Obama campaign, there are just so many ways to say it. Using the term "Republican playbook" or "Democratic playbook" is pejorative as you know and meant as a dismissal of mindless parroted propaganda not worth further comment.
Perhaps you can understand my annoyance at your usage of it.
As for Sarah Palin being a "faux feminist," I'll let her speak for herself.
KATIE COURIC (ABC Interview): "Do you consider yourself to be a feminist?"
SARAH PALIN: "I do. I’m a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed and to try to do it all anyway. And I’m very, very thankful that I’ve been brought up in a family where gender hasn’t been an issue. You know, I’ve been expected to do everything growing up that the boys were doing. We were out chopping wood and...hunting and fishing and filling our freezer with good wild Alaskan game to feed our family. So it kinda started with that. With just that expectation that the boys and the girls in my community were expected to do the same and accomplish the same. That’s just been instilled in me."
KATIE COURIC: "What is your definition of a feminist?"
SARAH PALIN: "Someone who believes in equal rights. Someone who would not stand for oppression against women."
Contrast that with Michelle Obama's answer on the same question in a May 2007 Washington Post interview with Anne Kornblut:
MICHELLE OBAMA: "You know, I'm not that into labels. So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it. I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive."
I wonder how Obama characterizes himself on the feminist question since even his wife can't seem to embrace the term. This might explain his misogynistic behavior.
I think feminism needs to re-define itself to reflect contemporary society. Simply because some women do not share ALL the beliefs of ideological liberal feminists does not mean they cannot be feminists of some kind. Perhaps we need to invent categories of feminists - if nothing else, just so Michelle Obama can claim to be one.
The idealogical rigidity of feminist leaders and organizations has hampered modern feminism, in my opinion. In 1973, I was involved in organizing an ERA coalition that included 17 women's groups representing 55,000 women statewide. The coalition included two lesbian alliances, NOW, BPW, The Junior League and the League of Women Voters. Now that's power of diversity. And that was in the South. And it worked!
BTW, I still consider myself one of those idealogical feminists but I have a real bone to pick with the obsolete exclusiveness of the club.
I watched the entire Anita Hill hearing and Senator Biden was great! It was Arlen Spector who was demeaning toward women.
I believe that my generation of women was the first to come of age with most of us believing that the world would be fair to us.
Women have not been treated with equal respect in this campaign but at least women are in it!
Can you even imagine NOT being able to vote?
Thanks to the suffragettes, America has women voters and wide range of women candidates, and we are a better country for it!
Women have voices and choices! Just like men.
But it saddens me that so few people know ALL of the suffering that our suffragettes had to go through, and what life was REALLY like for women.
Now you can subscribe FREE to my exciting e-mail series that goes behind the scenes in the lives of eight of the world's most famous women to reveal the shocking and sometimes heartbreaking truth of HOW women won the vote.
Thrilling, dramatic, sequential short story e-mail episodes have readers from all over the world raving about the original historical series, "The Privilege of Voting."
Read this FREE e-mail series on your coffeebreaks and fall in love with these amazing women!
Subscribe free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html