Welcome to Katalusis for progressive views on politics, religion, environmental issues,
and popular culture. (Photo of the Mississippi River
from the University Club in St. Paul, MN.)
During a phone call last night, an old friend and I puzzled
over the scary phenomenon of the growing number of Trump supporters who buy
into their idol’s bigotry toward anyone different from them, e.g., Syrian
refugees, immigrants from Mexico, etc. My friend and I wondered about the
source of their vehement hatred of “the other.” Today, I came across a possible answer
in an item in Politico by Nick Gass.
"With his call to deport illegal immigrants, especially
because Mexico sends us its 'bad ones,' his proposal to bar Muslims from
entering the country, his emphasis on the threats to lawful gun ownership and
his promise to protect American goods and workers from China, Mr. Trump is
riding the wave of anxiety that Ms. Palin first gave voice to as Senator John
McCain’s running mate," Wallace wrote. "Mr. Trump has now usurped and
vastly expanded upon Ms. Palin’s constituency, but the connection between the
two movements is undeniable."
“Palin, Wallace continued, ‘owned the resentment voters’ in
her party, a torch that has seemingly been passed to Trump.
”
And that’s the answer my friend and I were puzzling over –
Palin and Trump supporters are the “resentment voters.” It figures, doesn’t it?
But the next question is how to connect with those who feel disenfranchised and
lead them toward more positive solutions to their life challenges.
Okay. I think I’ve finally figured this out. The recent release of Sarah Palin’s emails from her tenure as governor of Alaska is a strategy initiated by the Left-leaning media – see David Corn, Mother Jones, et al – on behalf of the struggling Obama campaign to divert attention from the economy, Anthony Weiner, etc.
The media’s frenzied examination of Palin’s emails has not revealed any scandals and in fact has so far shown her to be an effective state leader. This is proving frustrating to media types like Politico’s Molly Ball who, although – as Rev.Amy points out – she acknowledges that Palin emerges from her emails as a “popular, charismatic competent woman of the people,” feels driven to smear her anyway.
In the meantime, the media looks like a bunch of fools, and Rep. Weiner is right to be seeking treatment; you don’t need to be a licensed psychiatrist to realize the man is very, very sick.
And if Democratic Party leaders have not yet repented for their treatment of Hillary Clinton in 08, they might want to do so at this juncture as they witness their one-time haloed candidate, Barack Obama, falter on his way to re-election.
Plus, we need to remind ourselves that it’s the droves of U.S. unemployed who are suffering the most for the travesty of justice the Democratic primary of 08 continues to symbolize.
Palin's no stranger to motorcycles (public domain photo via LA Times).
Whatever you can say about Sarah Palin, the woman knows how to create a buzz. Whether she’s paddling down a river in Alaska with her family and scaring up Mama grizzlies or climbing on the back of a motorcycle in Washington, DC, the former governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate attracts crowds.
Today, Sunday, May 29, 2011 Palin, whose son is in the military, joined a rally with other bikers in DC in support of American war veterans.
Rachel Weiner reports for the Fix (Washington Post):
Palin, along with husband Todd and daughters Bristol and Piper, joined the hundreds of thousands of riders who gather in D.C. every year to raise awareness for prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action.
Palin’s arrival at the event around 11:30 a.m. caused a huge commotion that event organizers struggled to contain. Photographers swarmed her; young men in suits hung around the press pack asking Palin to sign copies of her books. Rolling Thunder security yelled at press and fans not to touch the expensive bikes.
The domestication of Michelle Obama (public domain photo)
I would argue that misogyny has never become uncool, but Anita Finlay’s post at the New Agenda on Why Politicians' Wives Dread Their Husbands Running for President is a must read for any self-respecting female who cares enough about herself and her daughters to take action against the ongoing “terrorism” unleashed against any woman in our culture who assumes a position of power, especially if she dares to step on the national stage either as a candidate or a candidate’s wife.
It had to happen: Sarah Palin onstage in Madison rallying her Tea Party constituents in opposition to labor supporters gathered at the state capitol building.
The AP reports:
MADISON, Wis. — Sarah Palin defended Wisconsin's governor at a tea party tax day rally Saturday, telling hundreds of supporters that his polarizing union rights law is designed to save public jobs.
Braving snow showers and a frigid wind outside the state Capitol building, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate told tea partyers she's glad to stand with Gov. Scott Walker. Hundreds of labor supporters surrounded the rally, trying to drown Palin out with chants of "Hey-hey, ho-ho, Scott Walker has got to go!" and "Recall Walker!"
"Hey, folks! He's trying to save your jobs and your pensions!" Palin yelled into the microphone. "Your governor did the right thing and you won! Your beautiful state won! And people still have their jobs!"
Walker, a Republican, signed a bill into law last month that calls for almost all public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health care coverage, changes that amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. The plan also strips them of their right to collectively bargain on anything except wages.
As if it’s a crime, Sarah Palin is being accused this morning of having a ghostwriter in response to her well-written op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that expresses her conservative critique of Obamacare.
Although I consider myself a liberal, I feel obligated to remind readers that President Obama has a speechwriting TEAM at his disposal led by none other than 20-something Jon “the groper” Favreau who became notorious with the photo of him and his drunken buddy sexually molesting a life-size cardboard cutout of newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Posted on Facebook the photo went viral, telling the rest of the world that while preaching to others about human rights, America defiles women in leadership roles in our own government.
That same youthful Favreau no doubt had a hand in preparing the speech Obama will read from a teleprompter this evening to a joint session of congress in an attempt to take back control of the health care reform debate.
In light of all the above Harris and Martin’s post at Politico today titled Obama’s media skills face pivotal test has a perhaps unintentional satirical bite:
This summer marked the fifth anniversary of the Democratic Party’s swoon for Barack Obama, who thrilled millions of people hearing the young state senator for the first time with words that set his image as a dazzling unifier in an age of mean and divisive politics:
“Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes,” Obama told the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. “Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America.”
Five years later — amid declining approval ratings and an increasingly polarized debate over health care — President Obama is losing his argument. Far from taming the forces of accusation, personal malice and ideological fervor, Obama and his signature health care agenda this summer became their target — and at least partly their victim.
What’s more, as he prepares to address Congress in a nationally televised speech Wednesday, one of the main pillars of Obama’s reputation — that his gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics — has never looked more wobbly.
Even some Democratic strategists say Obama and his vaunted political and communications teams should have seen it coming.
“The true impact of congressional or party leadership is declining every day compared to the power of blogs and talk radio,” said longtime Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. “It was surprising to me that Obama and company were caught unaware by this. They should have been first to realize you can mobilize people and use forms of communication to get people riled up.”
Peter Daou, political consultant and former Internet Adviser to Hillary Clinton, recently posted a sensitive, insightful article at Huffpo on the sadistic political sideline of bashing Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Daou begins:
The explosion of Palin-bashing (and yes, it's bashing, justified or not) across the political spectrum reminds me of a campaign that happened a lifetime ago. Back then, Hillary Clinton reprised her role as the political world's favorite target. Attacking her was elevated to an art form; participants of all stripes joined in. It was the pinnacle of bipartisanship; right and left hammering away at her in an all-out assault that ultimately cost her the nomination.
I don't want to rehash whether or not any of it was warranted -- I'm more interested in another angle that's been completely overlooked in the torrent of punditocracy about Palin's resignation.
It's that Sarah Palin, like Hillary Clinton, is a person, a human being, a mom, a wife, a daughter, once a little girl.
That last sentence was enough to set off Obama supporters in the comments section; the fine example below with its peculiar little twist of sexism was contributed by mrsgm:
As much as I hate the fact that us ladies have to be ten times better...at everything, to be respected, I must say that I would not trade in the last of the sexism just yet. As horrible as it is when they show their true colors as in calling Palin a slutty looking flight attendant, what are us girls going to do when we get so equal that the guys stop noticing that we are girls? I know it probably sounds horrible but I know a lot of men who don't know what they are there for and so feel as if their wives are unapproachable. They often fight with their ambitious wives about sex, when the truth is that the wives are becoming so like the ambitious men they work with, that their husbands are becoming less attracted to them.
But back to Daou’s article. Again he reminds us that Palin is a human being:
Vulnerable, like all of us.
Self-centered, like all of us.
Fragile, like all of us.
Opinionated, like all of us.
Defensive, like all of us.
Deceptive, like all of us.
Lost, like all of us.
And totally wrong on the issues as far as I'm concerned
.
Daou points out:
Unlike Clinton, Palin didn't have time to develop the layers of thick skin required to handle the withering glare of the national celeb/politico spotlight, a glare that for some reason shines much more harshly on women like Palin and Clinton.
For some reason? Take Arianna Huffington and Maureen Dowd, for example, both of whom immediately go on the attack if any strong woman with leadership potential dares set foot on the national stage. Arianna and Maureen thus gain acceptance in the good old boys network in both the old and the new media. And make no mistake, those good old boys are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to women’s rights: “The world is better off when us men keep women barefoot and pregnant.”
Daou concludes:
Patrick Hynes, my co-blogger at CTN, is chronicling some of the more offensive remarks about Palin. All I ask of my fellow Democrats and progressives is that no matter how wrong-headed Palin's policies, no matter how inconsistent her rationale for stepping down, and no matter how muddled her infamous press conference, we remember that she is the rare public figure who for some reason attracts infinite interest and attention, much of it negative.
Granted, you ask for scrutiny when you enter public service, but not this much, not so quickly. She may not have Hillary Clinton's character or experience to cope with the spotlight, but even if she did, it behooves us to avoid outright viciousness and mockery on a level that few of us could handle.
From glancing at the readers’ comments following his article, Daou is apparently asking too much in that last paragraph from the majority of his readers at the Huffington Post who appear to be psychologically incapable of empathizing with anyone who doesn’t share each and every one of their opinions.
It’s amazing how many page views the Palin name draws to Web sites like the Huffington Post. Over 3500 readers have so far taken the time to comment following a post by the teenage Levi Johnston claiming that Palin resigned because of money.
The attacks on Palin, already intense from both the right and the left, have continued to heat up since the Alaskan governor announced her resignation a week ago this Friday. I once trusted Ellen Goodman to be fair-minded columnist, but she, too, has found it necessary to second guess Palin and throw her under the bus:
“All options are on the table,’’ she says. But ironically, the soon-to-be-ex-governor and speaker, author and celebrity has only one option. Authenticity? The only job left for Sarah the former Barracuda is to pretend to be a candidate for president. In the middle of a midlife meltdown, the quitter is now the teaser.
Ah, well, Goodman probably got her share of web site traffic today.
Oddly enough, even former critics of Hillary Clinton are now making favorable comparisons between the way Hillary has handled the vitriol from good old boys on the left and the right over several decades and Palin’s decision to resign in the face of the onslaught threatening to destroy her and her family, including ridicule of her infant son Trig who has Down’s syndrome.
Note the issue at hand becomes how “they” handle the attacks, not whether or not the attacks, whether sexist or otherwise, represent ethical behavior by news reporters.
Secretary of State Clinton has remained silent throughout all of the media madness surrounding Palin. During the general election, there were those who urged Clinton to debate Palin on the abortion issue and other matters, but despite the fact that Palin once made a snide remark about her, Clinton wisely held her peace. She knew better than to get involved in an exchange the media would have quickly labeled a “cat fight.” Earlier, she ignored the bait during the primary when Michelle Obama felt compelled to sling a little mud her way.
In the meantime, Clinton has continued to work hard in her new position as America’s top diplomat. Six months in, it should not surprise anyone that the Obama Administration is now receiving high marks in foreign policy while failing to make the grade on the domestic front. It just goes to show you: Clinton was ready to lead on day one; Obama wasn’t.
In yesterday’s column titled In Search of Dignity, David Brooks listed three stories to hit the media in the past several days that in his opinion featured public figures who exemplified another branch of indignity: Mark Sandford’s press conference, the death of Michael Jackson, and Sarah Palin’s press conference.
Brooks commented:
In each of these events, one sees people who simply have no social norms to guide them as they try to navigate the currents of their own passions.
Americans still admire dignity. But the word has become unmoored from any larger set of rules or ethical system.
The conservative Brooks concluded his column by pointing to Barack Obama as the nation’s exemplar of “reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity.” He adds: “The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.”
It’s true that stylistically President Obama conducts himself well despite the occasional gaffe when meeting with important leaders from other nations. For example, in his recent visit to Russia, Obama offended his Russian hosts by brushing them off on his second night in Moscow by taking his family out to dinner at an expensive club at the Ritz Carlton.
However, Brooks failed to mention a bothersome detail about Obama’s supporters during the 2008 campaign and since. Although their leader preached a “new politics” and has managed for the most part to stay above the fray, most people who scrutinize online message boards will agree that Obama’s followers are among the most verbally abusive, sexist, misogynist, and otherwise offensive people to post comments on the Internet.
At the Huffington Post, Obama’s shock troops have even vilified handicapped people. If Obama presumes to be our nation’s role model for dignified behavior, perhaps he should begin with those closest to him.
At least it can be said about Brooks that he usually maintains a degree of decorum in his column. In contrast, the liberal media long ago completely joined forces with the above “undignified” Obama supporters in their attacks on first Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin.
Prior to 2008, I faithfully followed several liberal columnists in the mainstream media. Today, I can read without holding my nose only a couple of them; that would be Paul Krugman and Dr. Stanley Fish, both of the NY Times.
Fish was pilloried by Obama supporters during the Democratic Primary for defending Hillary Clinton against the rampant sexism. This time around, Fish is defending Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford. In his lead paragraph the other day, the professor wrote:
I did not vote for Sarah Palin in the November election, and had I been a resident of South Carolina, I wouldn’t have supported Mark Sanford. But I find their failings and, in the case of Sanford, sins more palatable than the behavior of the pundits who are having so much fun at their expense.
Fish advises Palin’s critics to actually look at the video and pay attention to the reasons she gives for resigning:
It is true that her statement was not constructed in a straightforward, logical manner, but the main theme was sounded often and plainly: This is not what I signed up for. I’m spending all my time and the state’s money responding to attack after attack and they aren’t going to let up because, “It doesn’t cost the people who make these silly accusations a dime.”
The accusations had been coming from all sides, from investigators of her ethics, from Alaska Democrats and fellow Republicans, from officials in the McCain campaign, from scathing magazine articles, from what she termed the mockery and humiliation directed at her son Trig, from late-night comedians taking potshots at her daughters.
Fish has this to say about Sanford:
The ineptness of his remarks on every level was staggering; politically he was busy digging his own grave; personally, in terms of his family life, he was digging another. He declared in one breath that he was trying to fall back in love with his wife, and in the next he told the world that this was a love story, “a forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”
The commentators thought they were covering the latest chapter in the male-politician-who-can’t-keep-his-pants-zipped saga. What they were really covering (although they just couldn’t see it) was the latest chapter in the “all for love” saga, with earlier chapters featuring Antony and Cleopatra, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky. (O.K., so his stage is not as large as theirs, but it displays the same drama.) Sanford’s actions were without doubt foolish, reprehensible and incredibly maladroit, but they were also real.
Fish concludes:
So what’s the bottom line story? Simple. Sanford is in love. Palin is in pain. Sometimes what it seems to be is what it is.
It would be great if all pundits would follow Fish’s example and maintain their dignity – not to mention ethical standards of journalism - while covering the behavior of public figures.
For many feminists it was a challenge in 2008 to stand our ground among “liberal” acquaintances venting their hatred of Hillary Clinton in the primary and later on in the general election ripping Sarah Palin to shreds – and not solely on the basis of policy disagreements. As others have pointed out, misogynists in the electorate chastised Hillary for not being feminine enough and then scolded Sarah for the crime of being pretty.
It’s encouraging these days to follow blogs like the Widdershins where sober discussions are held regularly on how best to move forward on issues of women’s rights and the rights of the LGBT community.
Unfortunately, the shock troops in the extreme left-wing blogosphere are still cranked up to assault their main targets with full force. Just check out readers’ comments here defending David Letterman’s right to make perverted jokes at the expense of Sarah Palin and her daughters.
Amy Siskind, president and co-founder of the New Agenda, is stating the obvious in her post titled “Sexism Against Conservative Women is Still Sexism,” while also addressing concerns about the several factions in the feminist movement that surfaced in 2008.
Amy writes:
When is sexism acceptable? The answer should be never. Yet for many feminists in our country, only certain types of women have been worth defending. When a conservative woman is the target of an attack, many so-called feminists stay silent. This “selective sexism”, or speaking out against sexism on a case by case basis, does not advance our national dialogue on women’s issues. Rather, selective sexism allows a dangerous level of permissible sexism to live and breed in our country. The only way for the women of this country to truly move forward is to unite and speak out against all forms of sexism regardless of party or the source of the attack.
When Playboy publishes a piece titled So Right It’s Wrong which is a “hate rape” fantasy of Guy Cambalo targeting ten conservative women, all women (and like-minded men) should be outraged and renounce this immediately. The identity and party affiliation of the 10 women is not of consequence — this is simply a despicable act.
Or when Ms. California, Carrie Prejean, voices her point of view on gay marriage and then becomes the target of an objectifying sexist rant by Keith Olbermann, where’s the outrage? Carrie is entitled to her point of view, and if you don’t agree explain why — don’t diminish her opinion by turning her into a sexual object.
Or when Governor Sarah Palin’s 14 year-old daughter is the subject of a degrading and humiliating joke by David Letterman, how can we let this be part of our culture? How would any one of us feel if this comment were directed at our daughter? And if Governor Palin were Governor “Sam” Palin, would Letterman dare to make that joke?
We all know the answer to that one: the perverted Letterman would not dare to make that joke against Governor “Sam” Palin or any straight male politician. And let’s face it, as far as the extreme left-wing blogosphere is concerned, bigotry against straight African-American males is the only form of bigotry to be treated as morally wrong.
I’ve repeatedly argued the ugly sexism and misogyny against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, unleashed by party leaders and amplified by the good old boys network in the media, followed up by the trashing of Sarah Palin in the general election, sent a message to the rest of the world that America sanctioned the oppression of women. Plus, we had the millions of readers’ comments on blogs like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post written by Barack Obama’s immature, vulgar online shock troops.
We thought we’d seen and heard it all by the time Hillary Clinton was confirmed as secretary of state. That’s when the photo of Obama’s drunken head speech writer and his inebriated buddy sexually molesting a life-size cardboard cutout of Secretary Clinton went viral as if to make sure all repressive cultures got the word.
As so-called leaders of the free world, why are we surprised to hear of the upsurge in violence against women in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
The editorial in the NY Times this morning is titled Women, Extremism, and Two Key States. Unfortunately the Times editorial board touts American values without noting the undercurrent of misogyny here at home while calling the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to account:
There have been two recent reminders of the cost of extremism. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai signed a law that effectively sanctions marital rape. In Pakistan, a video surfaced of the Taliban in the Swat Valley publicly flogging a young woman screaming for mercy. Pakistan’s government compounded the indignity on Monday by giving in to Taliban demands and formally imposing Shariah law on the region.
Such behavior would be intolerable anywhere. But the United States is heavily invested in both countries, fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban and financing multibillion-dollar military and development programs. The cases represent an officially sanctioned brutality that violates American values and international human rights norms. They also sabotage chances of building stable healthy societies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
There was a lot of rehashing of the Democratic primary and the general election campaign in the final weeks of 2008. In the process, even Howard Dean publicly acknowledged the sexism endured by Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.
Reading Nicholas Kristof’s painful op-ed in the New York Times this new year’s morning on the brutal exploitation of teenage girls in Cambodia reminded me that Kristof – well known for his reports on the abuse of females in other cultures – joined his so-called liberal colleagues in the media in their concerted attempt to force Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race.
Gloria Steinem among others has since reminded us that no male candidate has ever been told to drop out.
In the meantime Obama named Clinton as secretary of state in his administration. That distinction did not inhibit Jon Favreau, the head of Obama’s speechwriting team, from joining a drunken male friend to sexually molest a cardboard cutout of Clinton.
Needless to say Favreau has not been fired for his adventure in hate speech; we hear the young man is busy working on Obama’s inaugural address.
It’s long been my contention that the repeated evidence of misogyny in America - reported worldwide - gives permission to other cultures to continue horrific treatment of girls and women.
We’re reminded of the 13-year-old Somali girl who was brutally raped by three men while on her way to visit her grandmother. The child went to the authorities for help and was charged with adultery. She was then publicly stoned to death.
To my knowledge Sen. Hillary Clinton was the only American official to write a letter to the United Nations on behalf of this child.
This morning, Kristof’s column is yet another on the abuse of girls and women in poor countries; this time he tells the story of Sina Vann, a teenager in Cambodia brutally forced into prostitution.
Among the ugly details:
“Sina is Vietnamese but was kidnapped at the age of 13 and taken to Cambodia, where she was drugged. She said she woke up naked and bloody on a bed with a white man — she doesn’t know his nationality — who had purchased her virginity.”
I’m left wondering if Kristof will ever take responsibility for his role -along with his sexist colleagues in the media - in the world’s continued ill treatment of girls and women.
Hillary Clinton greets supporters in Ohio during the primary.
According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton is No. 1 on the list of “Most Admired Women,” a spot the New York Senator and next secretary of state has held for 13 of the past 16 years. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin came in second.
Gallup’s Lydia Saad reports:
“Clinton is the first choice for Most Admired Women among Democrats and Independents. Palin is the first choice among Republicans and the second choice among independents.”
Saad continues:
“This is the seventh consecutive year that Hillary Clinton has secured top billing as Americans' Most Admired Woman -- and the 13th year she has made the top ten since her first appearance on the list in 1993. The 20% naming Clinton this year is comparable to what she received in 2007 (18%), but falls short of the 28% naming her in 1998.”
President-elect Barack Obama topped the list of "Most Admired Men." Second on the list was President George W. Bush.
Saad noted:
“Democrats overwhelming name Barack Obama as the man they most admire, with Bill Clinton ranking second. Obama also ranks first among independents, although not with nearly as many mentions as among Democrats. Among Republicans, George W. Bush ranks first, named by 15%, followed closely by John McCain, with 9%.”
Ya gotta love Andrew Malcolm’s wry post at the Top of the Ticket (LA Times) on the saga of Sarah Palin: From running mate to Time’s runner-up.
See if you can read this passage without a chuckle:
“Her selection by the old Arizona guy annoyed the nation's news media because they weren't ready and they think Washington is a qualifying experience for the White House now that Bill Clinton and the new guy have some.
“So reporters wrote a lot about Palin's children and a future son-in-law and her baby with Down syndrome, and they jumped all over her effort to help salvage the 2008 women's clothing sales, as if that was a bad thing for the struggling economy.
‘“Time calls hers ‘the most astonishing political debut in modern times’ and says the 44-year-old mother of five -- who upset a corrupt GOP party establishment in a place many people don't ever want to visit -- was ‘a one-woman rescue team for the Republican ticket.’
According to the AP’s William Yardley, Alaska is checking E-mailed slurs about President-elect Obama. Yardley reports:
“Alaska officials are investigating e-mail messages that included racist jokes about President-elect Barack Obama and were circulated on state government accounts by state employees.”
The article continues:
“Bill McAllister, a spokesman for Gov. Sarah Palin, said Thursday that none of the 10 employees worked in the governor’s office and that to his knowledge no one in the office had received any of the messages, which, he said, Ms. Palin condemns.
‘“They violate state policy — at least that’s the prima facie view of things,’ Mr. McAllister said in a telephone interview. ‘They’re not state business, and obviously they are offensive, and clearly she doesn’t support that. And she does not support racism, and she does not support attacks on the president-elect.’”
Compare the condemnation of the above racist activity by Gov. Palin to the complete lack of response from President-elect Obama to the photo of Jon Favreau widely circulated on the Internet showing Obama’s chief speechwriter and his buddy sexually molesting a cardboard cutout of the newly named secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
Also, please take into consideration that Obama has justified inviting a homophobic evangelical Christian pastor to give the invocation at his inauguration by urging us to learn to disagree with one another without being disagreeable.
In ObamaLand, racism is apparently the only form of bigotry considered morally wrong; women, gays, and other minority groups don’t merit equal protection from abusive treatment.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi became hypnotized by Barack Obama early in the Democratic primary and did her part to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Until recently she declined to speak out against the sexism from Democratic Party leaders and their misogynistic allies in the media.
I suppose it’s progress that Pelosi is now supporting Clinton as Obama’s pick for secretary of state, but she still refuses to take an unequivocal stand against sexism, regardless of the victim. Sam Stein reports at the Huffington Post:
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered effusive praise for the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State on Monday, saying the New York Democrat was an ideal fit for the post, would faithfully carry out Barack Obama's policies and serve as an inspiration to woman, much like Pelosi herself.
‘“I got a call this morning from Hillary Clinton, saying the announcement will be made,’ Pelosi recalled. ‘What an exciting moment. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Thomas Jefferson [and now] Hillary Clinton.’
“Speaking at a Hunter College forum on the role of gender in politics, the Speaker downplayed the suggestion -- put forth in the form of a question -- that Clinton might face misogynistic obstacles on the world stage.
‘“None at all," she replied, when asked if this would be the case. ‘I have traveled the world as Speaker of the House... and I have seen the treatment I have received in these places. And I know the respect that they will have for soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... What is important to world leaders is, ‘Does the president listen to you?’... She is a force in her own right and anybody that might have that thought that you mildly suggested does so at his peril.”’
Stein contines:
“But the most interesting topic of debate centered around whether Clinton and Sarah Palin were hindered by their sex while on the campaign trail. Both Pelosi and Rep. Carolyn Maloney were put in a tricky position, arguing that their Democratic colleague had been disadvantaged by her gender while Alaska's governor was not. But they made the case astutely, noting that the policies pursued by the McCain-Palin ticket were antithetical to women's interests, even if Palin's candidacy was a symbolic victory.”
What Pelosi, Maloney, et al overlook is that regardless of her positions on the issues, there is no justification for heaping sexist abuse on Sarah Palin or holding her to a double standard compared to male candidates, e.g., criticizing her for running for public office instead of staying home and caring for her children.
Pelosi’s waffling on these important issues is just one more reason I continue to be glad I left the Democratic Party and registered as non-affiliated in 2008.
Sarah Palin’s continued celebrity status must be giving the misogynous wing - that would be the extreme lefties - of the Democratic Party hissy fits. You can get a hint of the Far Left’s distress just by reading Doonesbury. The strip’s author, Gary Trudeau, has been making fun of the Alaska governor and former GOP VP candidate every day for the past six days. In yesterday’s strip, Boopsie says to B.D., “I thought you disapproved of celebrity candidates.” Evidently not: in today’s strip, B.D. is pleased to hear Palin reassure TV viewers that if God opens the door for her in 2012, she won’t blink.
In the meantime, Politico is headlining Palin as “A Digital Superstar.” Here’s the evidence as presented by Charles Mahtesian:
“Three weeks after the Republican ticket suffered a sweeping defeat at the polls, Sarah Palin continues to dominate search engine queries, cable news and online video sites.
“The only American politician who generates comparable interest is President-elect Barack Obama. No one else is close.
“Palin was the most popular Lycos search from the week she joined the ticket continuously through last Sunday, some two weeks after the election, when she was dethroned by Paris Hilton, the celebutante whom John McCain famously compared to Barack Obama.
“The Alaska governor now ranks fourth, just one spot below Obama, on the weekly Lycos 50 list.
‘“People are still searching for her in record numbers,’ said Kathy O’Reilly, a spokeswoman for Lycos. ‘How bizarre is that? Obama is the president-elect after the most historic election of all time and you’d think he would be dominating search activity and he only now is going ahead of her.’
‘“Palin has been the subject of intense online fascination since her introduction as the Republican nominee on Aug. 29. In September, the Anchorage Daily News reported a 928 percent spike in traffic, according to Nielsen Online. Her mid-October ‘Saturday Night Live’ appearance drove the show’s highest rating in 14 years, and her Oct. 2 debate with Joe Biden was the most watched vice presidential debate ever — drawing more viewers than any of the three presidential debates between McCain and Obama.”
There’s a lot more. And hey, don't forget to leave a comment!
Thanks in part to the failure of Howard Dean and other Democratic and Republican party leaders during the 2008 presidential race, our culture continues to give tacit permission for depraved minds in the media to freely attack women who run for office. Just yesterday, I received this email message (shown in red below) from Team Sarah, a Web site that supports Sarah Palin:
Such hypocrites!
Two nights ago, David Letterman, in interviewing Katie Couric, described Gov. Palin as "the first vice presidential candidate that I found myself being aroused about."
It is ghastly that this kind of discourteous, indecent talk should pass for conversational fodder - even on late night TV.
This violates CBS's own "Program Practices," {which} specifically states that: "The Program Practices editors review material for excessive or gratuitous violence, sexuality, nudity and inappropriate language. They ensure that character portrayals are sensitive to current ethnic, religious, sexual and other significant social concerns."
Email fccinfo@fcc.gov, tell them your name, where you are from, and EXACTLY how you feel about Letterman taking indecent liberties with a dignified lady, mom, and governor on his show!
As a long-time progressive in the tradition of the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone (D. Minn.), I disagree with Gov. Palin on many issues, but I stand with her against the sexist treatment she continues to receive.
As for Howard Dean and company, he recently appeared on a panel of six men where he loudly protested the sexism against Hillary Clinton in 2008 (see video). Howard's gesture was obviously too little too late, and we can only hope that he’s finally gotten the message. Wonder of wonders, he even noticed that Sarah Palin has been verbally assaulted, too. Howard said:
"This is the most underwritten story of this campaign… by the press… by the media. . Nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this…issue…and to this day, it has been swept under the rug and been forgotten because she didn’t win. . We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened, and it happened to Sarah Palin too."
If nothing else, the 2008 campaign made clear that the left is just as sexist as the right, and it’s way past time for women across the political spectrum to unite in our efforts to drain the cesspool of sexism and misogyny in our culture fed daily by the pathological mind set of the national media.
According to an item in the Huffington Post this evening, Sarah Palin has had enough. Dan Joling and Sharon Theimer report:
‘“ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called her critics cowards and jerks Friday for deriding her anonymously and insisted she never asked for the expensive wardrobe purchased for her use on the presidential campaign.
‘“I never asked for anything more than a Diet Dr. Pepper once in a while,’ Palin said as she returned to the governor's office from her two-month odyssey as the GOP vice presidential nominee. She said the Republican National Committee paid for the tens of thousands of dollars in designer clothes and accessories.
‘“Those are the RNC's clothes. They're not my clothes. I never forced anybody to buy anything,’ she said.
“Republican Party lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was purchased for Palin at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, what was returned and what has become of the rest.
“She particularly lashed out at the anonymous Republican campaign sources cited in a Fox News report who said she did not know Africa was a continent, not a country, and could not name the three countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement _ Canada, the United States and Mexico.
‘“I consider it cowardly that they did not allow their names to be used,’ she said.
“Palin said those allegations aren't true. She recalled discussing Africa and NAFTA with aides who prepared her for the vice presidential debate with Democrat Joe Biden.
‘“If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context,’ she said. ‘That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair, and it's not right.’”
WARNING: Anything published at the Huffington Post about a professional woman serving in politics - or any other field for that matter - is throwing red meat to hordes of hungry left-wing attack dogs who haven’t yet figured out that authentic liberalism includes respect for the rights of both men and women. Scanning the hateful readers’ comments following an item about Sarah Palin at the Huffington Post can lead to severe symptoms of nausea and cause nightmares for those who sincerely believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all persons.
Just a thought this wintry morning in St. Paul as this intense week winds down. In following the presidential campaign and its aftermath, I’ve been repeatedly offended by a couple of sexist terms used freely throughout the blogosphere on both the left and the right.
Let’s begin with “balls,” as in male testicles. Earlier I linked to a post by Michelle Malkin in which she defended Sarah Palin against the attacks of McCaine aides. Malkin wrote: “Shame on the smearers who don’t have the balls to show their faces.”
Although I appreciate Malkin’s defense of Palin, I object to the increasingly common usage of “balls” as a synonym for bravery or courage. Using a slang reference to testicles strongly implies that courage is primarily a characteristic of males.
I’m reminded of a story I read years ago in MS Magazine. It seems Norman Mailer was heard to remark: “In order to be a good writer you have to have balls.”
A feminist reporter asked, “And in what color of ink do you dip them, Norman?”
“Fuck” is the other ubiquitous crude term that I find offensive. An old English word, referring to sexual intercourse, fuck literally means to take unfair advantage of, i.e., rape.
In an election year when party leaders and the media have clearly demonstrated that sexism is alive and well in America, it’s not surprising that the vulgar language of male superiority and related issues of violence against women continues to dominate the national discourse.
It’s been said before in Campaign 2008, but I’ll say it again: America, we can do better.
