Guys? You're not helping (Palin sexism watch)

Exactly. If you Google Political T--Shirts, you'll see for yourself. You'd also see the makers of same usually don't limit themselves to political shirts, either. I would imagine a high percentage of the shirts are bought as a gag gifts for the very partisans being slammed on the shirts... though plenty of idiots do this too. The same manufacturer would put out the "proud to be an American" variety and shirts captioned by something like "This Scud's for you!" Depicting Saddam Hussein with a missile going through his head. The marketing common factor is that they're designed to elicit a reaction... but I doubt many in the business are shortsighted or foolish enough to limit their commerce by limiting their creations to any one political agenda. That would be bad business.

What an awful thing to say.

This is an assumption of convenience for you (and quite a few, apparently) and probably reflects your own bias as much as it does hers (from what you know about her position.) On what basis do you assume the candidate's gender is the catalyst of the concern, rather than the age and/or health of the child?

Bullshit. I am neither leveling an attack, nor am I using anyone for cover. I merely relayed a conversation; are you calling me a liar, Finn? Is anyone here?

As for the 'sexist tag'; I make no claims to be immune to it. For instance; I don't see a woman striking a man in a domestic abuse situation as the same crime as when it's the other way around. I believe it's reasonable to assume that the female victim is more likely to suffer additional mental anguish and fear due to the typical strength and size differential between men and women (naturally, there are exceptions). This typical physical inequality can not (and at least IMO should not) be legislated away.

More nonsense, Finn. A baby, let alone a special needs baby, isn't an ambiguously disconcerting difference... and this consideration need not have anything to do with the sex of the parent-candidate to be considered a reasonable consideration. President of the United States is a (24 hour a day) position of such great importance, that a much greater degree of latitude insofar as what should be considered relevant is both appropriate and necessary. I don't believe you disagree. I find it odd that you, of all people, would kick in with the PC Police in a pre-emptive defense of an ideal that may or may not have even been broached. Partisanship perhaps?

For the record; I too am offended by the actual sexism being perpetrated against Palin (and Hillary before her.) As you know; before my vote was sealed for Obama based on my actual assessment of qualifications; I decided that my vote would be required to offset a bigot's vote and pledged it accordingly. Were Palin the number One; I would have to give serious consideration to spending my vote to offset some misogynistic asshole's vote instead.

FWIW, if I thought gender or race of a candidate would present an impediment to actual job performance, however unfair and against my ideals it would be, I would nonetheless feel compelled to take this under consideration before casting my vote. I think the awesome responsibilities of the office supersede any desire to be politically correct. The PC Police can put their minds at ease, however, because I don't see how either race or gender would present such an impediment. Quite the contrary, really, because I want both adults and children, both here and abroad to know America is capable of electing a capable black man (especially one with a funny name) AND a woman to the Oval Office.

I remember Hillary being peppered with the reminder that many cultures view women as inferior to men before she was asked if putting a woman in the oval office would send the right message right now. I gave her a standing O in deep respect when she answered without hesitation that she thought that was exactly the kind of message we should send. I admire Palin's poise under fire in much the same way (and have defended her and commented according), and would wager she too, at least at times, would make me very proud indeed as the leader of the United States.

Unlike so many of the disgruntled both on and off A2K; I think this election is fielding the most impressive crop of Presidential Candidates of my lifetime. I would feel no compunction in voting for any of them as I feel nothing compelling me to keep any of them out. Actually getting to decide who I am more for, rather than against; is pretty damned cool.

I agree, dlowan. Hillary Clinton was out there everyday facing the people and the press. She did not avoid the scrutiny that was heaped upon her. Every time Hillary was questioned, it gave her an opportunity to express her political views and positions. In doing so, she gained the trust of 18 million people who voted for her the primaries.




Foxfyre, I perceive a whine. You're not doing any service to YOUR right-wing extremist female politician by claiming that she's being treated worse than our moderate female politician. Why doesn't your candidate, Sarah Palin, take her own advice, stop whining, plow through it, and work harder? Why isn't she out there everyday talking to the press and answering their uncensored questions? Why is Palin, and her protector McCain, using the allegation of "sexism" as an excuse for Palin to HIDE and EVADE the probing questions of the press and the public?

If Palin can't take the heat, she should have stayed out of the kitchen. (Oh. Was that sexist?)

Clearly, the McCain campaign doesn't want the American people as a whole to get to know the REAL Sarah Palin, (the unprepared, ignorant extremist that she is), before the election.

What is Palin doing to gain the trust of the voting public? NOTHING. At the same time, McCain and Palin are running on the platform that transparency and accountabililty will the hallmark of their administration. Because so many of us can see through that LIE, I expect the public pounding to continue.

The more people know about Palin, the more she's going to show she's not ready for veep. The campaign strategy to keep her in the background may work for a short while, but they won't get away with that strategy, because the media will continue to dig up more shite on her. That's politics.

I would have a lot more respect for Palin if she actually followed her own advice. She didn't do that, however. And that accentuates the infuriating hypocrisy of the right-wingers.

The McCain campaign whined about the public scrutiny of their relatively unknown pick for the VP position and used that to excuse the campaign's strategic tactic of keeping the press away from their unprepared candidate--and thus to keep the public from discovering the staggering magnitude of Palin's incompetence to hold the second most critical position in our national government.

On Sunday, September 7, 2008, McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, appeared on "FOX News Sunday" and made these statements:

WALLACE: [Palin] has not answered a single question from the national media. When is she going to agree to an interview?

DAVIS: She'll agree to an interview when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it....

WALLACE: Why is she scared to answer...

DAVIS: I don't think our campaign...

WALLACE: Why is she scared to answer questions?

DAVIS: I don't think our campaign is the campaign that has not given immense amount of access to the press. That's the Obama campaign.

WALLACE: Why is she scared to answer questions?

DAVIS: She's not scared to answer questions. But you know what? We run our campaign, not the news media. And we'll do things on our timetable. And honestly, this last week was not an exemplary moment for the news media.

WALLACE: I understand that.

DAVIS: And so why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?

And I think our attitude would be why don't we let that pass until we expose her to...

WALLACE: I think there are legitimate questions that " and it doesn't have to be a huge news conference. I'm not telling you how to run your campaign.

DAVIS: Sure.

WALLACE: There are legitimate questions about is she or is she not ready to be commander in chief. If last week didn't work, why not this week?

DAVIS: Sarah Palin will have the opportunity to speak to the American people. She just gave a speech to 40 million Americans in her convention.

WALLACE: But that was reading a script. She's not answering questions.

DAVIS: She's in the process of, you know, getting to know people out on the campaign trail, and she will do interviews, but she'll do them on the terms and conditions of which the campaign decides that it's ready to do it.

And, Chris, all due respect, I mean, you know, the information that the news media has been putting out on Sarah Palin is not what I would call objective journalism.

So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment.

* * *

Source: Transcript: Rick Davis on 'FOX News Sunday'

* * *

Who are the one's playing the SEXISM card? It's the McCain Campaign that sugguests that they must protect their defenseless female candidate from the news media PIRANHAS and they must continue to do so until she feels comfortable. Would the American people accept that sexist explanation if their VP selection had been a man? Get real.

How do we respond to the McCain campaign's ridiculous sexist protectionism of Palin? Answer: If Palin, regardless of her gender, is so weak that she needs protection from the media and is uncomfortable answering tough questions without a script, then she is unfit to sit one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

CI wrote: "The more people know about Palin, the more she's going to show she's not ready for veep. The campaign strategy to keep her in the background may work for a short while, but they won't get away with that strategy, because the media will continue to dig up more shite on her. That's politics. "

I agree, CI. By the way, someone voted down your response. I voted your response back up--but apparently some people cannot tolerate the truth.

whhhaaaaattttt???????

never? i cannot believe you make this assertion, foxy.

hill's been getting the stuffing beat out of her by the gop and right-wingers only every single day since she first came to national attention with bill.

good gawd...

We're talking sexism, DTOM, not criticism in general. It is important to be precise about these things.

yup. it does seem like the bloom is falling off.

we went to my niece's wedding reception (the l.a.version. they got married in juneau, where they live..). the groom's family is pretty much a mini-gop convention. all the same, there was a lot of uncomplimentary conversation amongst them re: ms. palin's qualifications and qualities. apparently they don't (edit)find her very bright.

it was also kinda fun talking with my strict catholic, conservative brother in law from san diego about how he's fed up and leaving the republican party for good.

yup. it was a pretty good night.

If you, or they, are judging her on her appearance, then it's sexist.

that's not what you said. but in any case a personal or non-business attack is still an attack.

do you agree?

It IS what I said within the context of the discussion on this thread which should be obvious if you read all my comments. A discussion includes a number of comments, not just one contained within a single post.

In anything other than the issue of sexism, we can't judge whether Palin or Clinton has been the most maligned until Palin has been around as long as Hillary has. This isn't the first thread I've commented on sexism being used in attacks on Hillary though and I was observing that long before Palin's name had come up anywhere. All I am saying is that it is my observation, that the sexism directed at Palin has been especially prevalent, constant, and hateful.

As far as personal or non-business attacks go, however, as well as the level of sexism included in it, we can compare the level of scrutiny, sliming, and mud thrown at Palin since she was announced as veep pick compared to that thrown at Biden when he was announced as veep pick. You want to make a case that he has been treated as harshly as she has? How many sexist remarks has Biden had to endure?

I think that this is all a tempest in a teapot in that
- I think we all agree that nimh's linked cartoons/tee shirts/whatever/are inappropriate. Or do we? Maybe they are just routine for discourse now, but they would be considered by many as inappropriate.
- I think we all don't want censorship.
- we all prefer that issues be the basis of our choices.



Some of us agree that Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno were the focus of hateful jokes for a long long time. Perhaps they weren't always hateful, just ignorant and fearful.
Some of us believe in humor with no boundaries, few boundaries, some boundaries in some circumstances.. and some people think of some humor as blasphemy. (I know I did as a child/early teen.) I've been moving toward no boundaries, not absolutely there yet. I usually add that I think humor is about perspective (in contrast to a longish piece on the nature of humor in a recent New Yorker, link when I find it)... a way of organizing the data our brains take in, making adjustments.

In this case, I think of the first post examples as both insulting and tacky juvenilia.

humour is in the eye of the beholder, just as is beauty, the obscene and so on and so on. Nobody here can make a blanket statement that the stuff in the OP should be seen as one thing or the other, nobody has that right to determine what other peoples values and sense of the aesthetic are. So long as nobody is getting hurt no on has the right to tell other people what to do, and they never have the right to tell other people what to believe. I personally don't think we have the right to tell other people how to communicate but the Supremes having upheld "hate speech" laws have demonstrated that they disagree with me on that.

Most people here don't see the stuff in the OP as humor, I do. I think that it is perfectly fine for that stuff to be passed along in appropriate settings. It should not be in the newspaper, but out drinking with the guys or at a GOP gathering it should be fine to pass along a copy to our buddies and have a good laugh over it.

I don't agree that they are inappropriate-- the word inappropriate is meaningless without putting them in context.

There is no standard of "appropriateness" that applies everywhere. There is a very different standard from what I say drinking with my friends, from what I say at work, to what Obama says as part of his campaign.

This is a non-issue.

the mainstream press may not have been sexist regarding hillary, but my fave radio shows sure were, cankles, lesbian clothes and hairstyles, that stuff was funny

the problem with palin is she's got this milf thing going, not nearly as funny, luckily she's a complete whackjob so things should pick up soon

ebrown, I don't disagree with that. Inappropriate is surely relative.
There is a certain disjuncture re a candidacy for the potential presidency, though, that many think out of line.
And, I gather, many think as a perfect way to mock a candidate.
To me it's noise, and non-issue, but
not to many, as there is a below the belt maneuver.



The cartoons are patently off issue, to me. Thus, the use of them as stimulants is slightly interesting.

Do you mean that a pair of good earplugs is all that's needed?

Thanks god....now, having dealt with this, may I suggest you turn your attention immediately to the Sudan, the Israel/Palestinian conflict, the Iraq thing and global warming?

I'm prioritising Pakistan and Russian testosterone.

Firstly you don't know if they are if all they said is that she's a "hottie" and at the same time laud her intelligence and character, and secondly it's not always sexist. Can't you imagine that someone might be stupid enough to vote for someone based on their looks without necessarily having a sexist motivation for it?

What about the people who voted Bill Clinton for his looks? Was that just vapid or was it specifically sexist?