Sarah Palin


So McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She’s young — 44 — and a self-described “hockey mom.” Because Palin is relatively unknown on the national level (she’s been governor since 2006, and before that was mayor of a town of 8,000 people), a lot of people are already identifying this as a ploy to snag the votes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. I don’t know whether that’s true (my guess is yes), but it’s my sense that Hillary backers who don’t like Obama are not going to like a McCain/Palin ticket much better.
Let me say right off the bat that, overall, I think it’s great that Republicans have chosen to elevate a woman to this level — no matter what their motivations. I want to see more women of all parties involved in politics. But, as we stated over and over in the primaries, a politician’s gender isn’t everything. It’s merely one factor to be considered. And quite frankly, Palin’s political views suck.
First up, she’s super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down’s syndrome.) She’s against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she “has gay friends.” Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She’s also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Plus, she’s embroiled in a scandal:

But Palin’s seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.

As Vanessa blogged last month, Bill Kristol was claiming McCain would pick Palin — and that would prove that Republicans are “much more open to strong women.” Frankly, that’s bullshit. Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman — one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.
More to come later… Any Alaskans out there who know a bit more about her? What do the rest of you think?
UPDATE: My colleague Adam over at TAP makes some great points:

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it’s equally sexist. Palin is essentially a hard right ideologue, and therefore nothing like Hillary as far as substance is concerned. It’s not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004. The conservative media reaction has already engaged in paternalistic language, with FOX News reporting on television that “McCain broke the glass ceiling,” implying in fact, that the pick had nothing to do with Palin or her qualifications, but merely her gender. It’s fitting that the party positing affirmative action as a program that picks people exclusively based on race or gender rather than qualification should do something similar given an opportunity for political advancement. While Obama is promising change through policy, not simply through the circumstances of his birth, the McCain campaign thinks his appeal is simply visual and demographic, and therefore something they can exploit.

UPDATE II: Bilerico has more on her record on LGBT issues.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

220 Comments

  1. Focused
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Heh. I just started laughing when I found out what his choice was. Race and gender have not been issues to me in this race–I supported Obama because I believe in his message, not because he’s black, and I didn’t support Hillary because I don’t like the way she does things, not because I’m anti-woman (I’m a woman myself, after all). I almost thought McChain (this is my name for ‘McCain’) would choose Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is a strong woman–not one I agree with–but a formidable woman who actually used her power to help my husband while he had medical problems in Iraq.
    But… Sarah Palin? Seriously? Miss not-quite-Alaska, mayor of Nowhere, barely governor? Miss gets pregnant at like 43, finds out it’s going to have down syndrome, and makes it live? Not to mention she FLEW ON A PLANE WHILE IN LABOR because she didn’t want it born in Texas, she wanted it in Alaska. That sound irresponsible to.. anyone? I mean, I don’t care that she’s not a stay at home mom, but in a plane while in labor and knowingly putting a child at risk for down syndrome when she already has 4 of them? I don’t understand it. I don’t understand choosing someone with so little understanding of anything.
    Oh, well. Not my candidate’s VP pick, not my problem.

  2. Tammy
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been furious ever since I read that McCain chose Palin as his running-mate. He NEVER would have picked a woman had it been a man who lost to Obama. I would love to see a woman VP but not her and not for the reasons she was chosen. I don’t think this is a step forward for women. In fact I think it’s a step backwards. She is being used and displayed to make McCain look appealing to Clinton supporters.

  3. Tammy
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been furious ever since I read that McCain chose Palin as his running-mate. He NEVER would have picked a woman had it been a man who lost to Obama. I would love to see a woman VP but not her and not for the reasons she was chosen. I don’t think this is a step forward for women. In fact I think it’s a step backwards. She is being used and displayed to make McCain look appealing to Clinton supporters.

  4. Tammy
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been furious ever since I read that McCain chose Palin as his running-mate. He NEVER would have picked a woman had it been a man who lost to Obama. I would love to see a woman VP but not her and not for the reasons she was chosen. I don’t think this is a step forward for women. In fact I think it’s a step backwards. She is being used and displayed to make McCain look appealing to Clinton supporters.

  5. Tammy
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Oops! Sorry for that showing up three times. It wasn’t going through so I clicked submit a couple more times.

  6. katemoore
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    What the flying goddamn unholy fuck?!
    “…finds out it’s going to have down syndrome, and makes it live…”
    I’m speechless. I have no goddamn words.

  7. katemoore
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    I still have almost no fucking words.
    Ableism.
    That’s all.

  8. Paul
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    I think that looking at the credentials actually make Palin a great VP candidate. Every one is overlooking the fact that no one in the race as of yesterday had any executive experience. No one has to run a city or state government. No body has administered an operating budget. I kept hoping Obama would pick a governor to add some executive experience. Add to executive experience that Palin was the most popular elected official in the country, and on credentials you have a good candidate.
    Palin manages to be a maverick while still appealing to the base. She stepped down from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission citing ethical problems with the Republican, and lo and behold we have trials and convictions aplenty from the Veco Scandal(maverick). She is pro-life (base).
    She also has a credentials in the energy crisis. The democratic rebuttal to offshore drilling before flipping like a pancake was “we hold lessees that we haven’t developed.” Palin supports ANWR drilling which democrats have blocked. Palin has instigated law suit against oil companies for not developing leases.
    She does have some failing. Her AGIA proposal is problematic in that Trans-Canada’s bid was non-conforming. She also botched saving the Matanuska Dairy. Her firing of Monegan has been her biggest scandal. Look up Andrew Halcro’s blog to get all the bloody details. Her spin was that motivated staffers acted independently on this issue. She would complain here and there and motivators wanted to get some chips.
    Also, with the Obama lead narrowing if McCain can pick some one who gets him just a few percentage points, that could turn into major electoral votes.
    Don’t look to Biden to rip her apart either. In the Murkowski, Palin, Binkley debate for governor Palin held her own. I’d give the debate to Murkowski; but he was so curmudgeonly he ended up being the loser. Biden can’t just crush her. Crying helped Clinton stay alive.
    I wonder what the response would have been if Palin had been male with the same accomplishments. I think McCain had the same problem with Romeny that Obama had McCain. The VP candidate is a wildly popular governor in race with no one with executive experience. The VP candidate has a history of fighting big oil and a reputation for clean government. She has some dirty laundry. But Obama has his shady real-estate dealings, the Clintons as a family have a slew, and McCain had a failed marriage and the Keating Five Scandal. As a candidate she has legs to stand on.

  9. LlesbianLlama
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Ditto, katemoore- Focused, that was TOTALLY out of line. I am astounded. How disgusting.
    This Sarah Palin thing is just tiring to me. I’m bored already. It’s a transparent decision, one that barely needs to have its flaws articulated out loud. It isn’t going to fool anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
    I am less worried when it comes to substance, but I do think the Democratic party is going to have to bust out the facts and break down the issues on this one. On paper Palin looks like a formidable choice and a good move on McCain’s part. In reality, this isn’t the case. We’ll need Obama, Biden, Clinton and everyone else with a mouth and some visibility making public exactly WHY Palin is not an acceptable stand-in for a Clinton presidency or vice-presidency.
    As for her record on gay rights/same sex marriage, there is something that needs to be said in response to this statement:
    “As for being pro life and anti gay marriage to be honest I don’t know to much on how far right she is. She did VETO a reform that would have denied same sex partner benefits to state employees and while it may not be marriage its a step in the right direction and it shouldn’t be ignored.”
    SHE VETOED THAT REFORM BECAUSE SHE HAD TO. She had NO OTHER choice, other than to sign legislation that had been found to be unconstitutional. She didn’t do it because she is an ally to the LGBT community, she did it because she was in a corner.
    DO NOT BELIEVE that this woman is better on “gay issues” than McCain or the Republican party at large. Having a gay friend does not mean you are an ally or that you support equality.

  10. feministinthecold
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    It’s definitely a condescending ploy, but I’m guessig it has more to do with the one thing Palin is known for–forcing a small tax increase on the oil companies in Alaska–than her gender. I’d say the Republicans want to pit her against Biden (who’s branded in the media as the senator from MBNA) as “proof” that the Republicans are not corporate stooges. Obama’s done a great job of pointing out just how indebted to the industries Republicans are, and McCain coincidentally finds the one Republican with a tiny shred of anti-corporate cred? I’m betting any votes they hope to pick up from women would just be an extra bonus.

  11. ktmser
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    McCain picked a woman for his VP candidate who is willing to fight against womans rights no matter what it takes. She is a member of Feminist for Life (possibly the strongest anti-choice organization) and will probably continue to fight against women’s reproductive rights if elected. This is seriously frightening. Not to mention she is nothing like Hillary and only an idiot would even group them in similar categories.

  12. NicoGrrl
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    “…finds out it’s going to have down syndrome, and makes it live…”
    Good thing she didn’t find out her child was going to be gay or trans, or she’d have had a real crisis on her hands…..

  13. kalynn
    Posted August 29, 2008 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    I mostly just lurk, but had to post, because I find this pick extremely insulting. If McCain had chosen a man with this resume, the media and the Democrats would have torn him to shreads. as Rachel Maddow pointed out, this is the person that MCCain feels is the second best choice in the country to be president? If he wanted to pick a woman, there are women, such as Kay Bailey Hutchison who have impressive resumes, but he had to go far and wide to fins a woman who is a “true conservative” and more hard line on choice than he is, so he threw things like education and solid experience out the window. I can admire Governor Palin for accomplishing all she has, but in no way does she have the resume of a Vice President, and it’s an insult that of all the brilliant, qualified women in the country she is on the ticket.

  14. JoanaP
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Kay Bailey-Hutchison is my senator.
    IMO, Palin’s political resumé is far more impressive than Kay’s. And it’s not even close. I’ve phoned Kay’s office many times to ask her to fight against the big oil companies special interests in Texas. Still waiting. Palin has done it Alaska after a couple of months in power.
    I think she was not picked only because she’s a woman.

  15. Posted August 30, 2008 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    What is it with you women?? Why is gender only relevant when the woman in politics is a liberal?? Can’t you see the hypocrisy in your comments? If women vote for Hillary they are progressive and they are voting for the person not the woman. But, if someone like Condi Rice gets appointed to high office or Sarah Palin gets support as a VEEP candidate then those who appointed them are just pandering to the “cunt vote” not the quality of the person. How vulgar and narrow. With that same logic then when most African Americans vote for Barack Obama, they are all voting for him only because he is black not the most qualified candidate. Of course, some people are voting for Obama strictly because he is black and some will vote for Paling strictly because she is a woman. But, most will also look at substance. Also, you criticize Palin for talking about her husband but it is normal and perfectly fine for Obama, Biden and McCain to have paraded their spouses and families all over the country with them to demonstrate that they are family men. What a double standard! For men, you say they are family centered, but for Palin she is considered as pandering to the Christian right. Those are such sexist remarks and views.
    I am an independent and I am trying to look at the issues for both candidates. Obama and McCain are both courting the Hillary supporters. I think that McCain made a bold move in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was strategic not hypocritical. You and women like you are the hypocrits!!!

  16. Mike
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    I found your “lovely” site, by trying to find something negative about Gov Palin. All that I have so far found is her conservative social views, her lack of experience, and her occasional abuse of power.
    I consider myself conservative, so I love her views. Her lack of experience concerns me less then Sen Obama’s. As for her abusing her office by firing someone for personal reasons… nobody is perfect.
    To be honest, at first I was really amused by the spitting and sputtering of everyone who feels offended by Gov Palin being picked for VP. However, the more I think about it the more it saddens me. You are burning her at the stake, just because she does not believe the same as you. You are so hard hearted that you are unable to even consider her a strong woman and a good choice.
    I know you will roast this post. But do not worry, you will not offend me in the slightest. I never plan to visit your hateful little site again.
    I would like to leave with a couple questions.
    why do you fight so hard for abortions ?
    Why do you not fight for the rights of prostitutes? If a woman wants to have sex for money, does she not have right ? After all it is her body.
    Why do you not fight for the rights of drug users? If a woman wants to pollute her body with poisons, does she not have the right ? After all it is her body.
    Now, before anyone screams at the screen “abortions are not harmful you pig”
    You are killing a Human Life, You are killing a Child, You are killing Your Child !
    the Bible says “it is appointed to man once to die, and then the judgement”
    you may never be held accountable this side of eternity, but what will you say when you stand before a Holy and Just God? Will you try to justify it or will you hang your head knowing that you can not.
    with all my love and prayers
    Mike

  17. dan&danica
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    one thing that is interesting to me is how this will effect, in a very small way, people who say we need 50 or 52% of all representatives at all levels to be women. If there was another conservative renaissance and they took over a lot of congressional spots and 50% of congress became female, with views that echoed those of Palin would that be progress? I don’t see how there can be no gender litmus test and how a lot of us will defend Biden during this process and on the other hand say that 50+% of reprsentatives need to be women or that men are not capable of representing women. A small thing but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  18. dan&danica
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    one thing that is interesting to me is how this will effect, in a very small way, people who say we need 50 or 52% of all representatives at all levels to be women. If there was another conservative renaissance and they took over a lot of congressional spots and 50% of congress became female, with views that echoed those of Palin would that be progress? I don’t see how there can be no gender litmus test and how a lot of us will defend Biden during this process and on the other hand say that 50+% of reprsentatives need to be women or that men are not capable of representing women. A small thing but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  19. dan&danica
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    mike,
    Very interesting. Lack of experience is no problem for you, lack of higher level education is no problem for you and you say as far as abuse of power “nobody is perfect”. Really? Is that how you want to approach this? What if I flipped the script and Obama picked someone to the left of him, with very little experience, only a BA, and so on. Would you only attack that person and that choice on idealogical grounds or would you also attack all the other stuff? Amazing how much of a pass someone can get if theyre on your side.

  20. dan&danica
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    mike,
    Very interesting. Lack of experience is no problem for you, lack of higher level education is no problem for you and you say as far as abuse of power “nobody is perfect”. Really? Is that how you want to approach this? What if I flipped the script and Obama picked someone to the left of him, with very little experience, only a BA, and so on. Would you only attack that person and that choice on idealogical grounds or would you also attack all the other stuff? Amazing how much of a pass someone can get if theyre on your side.

  21. klompen
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    What worries me most about this pick is that, besides being a blatant pander, it’s probably an attempt to re-inject “values voters” into the race. In 2004 the economy wasn’t doing well and the war was just as hopeless, but the Republicans won by distracting the religious right with the reminders that Democrats want to kill your unborn babies and convert the others to homosexuality. People can become so emotional about those issues and that emotion can displace any logic they feel about what’s best for the economy or world security. Obama’s got to keep going with his unity claim that “It’s American let gays visit their partners in the ER” and “It’s American to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies,” because it seems that Palin will be trotting her five children out every time she can’t answer a question on foreign policy, just as McCain brings up his POW memories whenever he’s asked about the economy. They have won with xenophobia before and they’re going to try it again.

  22. Misspelled
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    LMAO at Mike. “I came to this liberal site and found everybody criticizing her conservative views! Can you believe that? Plus they were getting all bent out of shape just because before being elected governor she was mayor of a town the size of my living room, and because there’s a good chance that once elected, she placed the full power of the governor’s office behind a cheap ploy to get revenge on an ex-family member! Bunch of godless bitches. Also, abortion abortion abortion hookers abortion.”

  23. JenR
    Posted August 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to shfreereleesti for reminding everyone about Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s VP choice way back in 1984. After Hillary’s run for president, Palin as a VP candidate is a mere anticlimax.
    My other initial reaction to Palin is that she’s pushing the “hockey mom” image hard enough to arouse my suspicions. She says that prior to her 1992 entry into politics, she was “just your average hockey mom in Alaska.” I wonder: 1. how many average hockey moms are TV sportscasters, and 2. how much of a three-year-old child’s life is devoted to hockey? What is Palin trying to hide behind the “hockey mom” facade?

  24. Roy
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    Any woman who owns a rifle, enjoys moose stew, takes care of her family, is anti-abortion, and loves her country is okay with me.

  25. collyria
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Rather surprised at McCain’s pick–didn’t even know who she was. Listened to her acceptance “speech” and, sure, it was opportunistic (the “glass ceiling”), but so what else is new? Don’t all politicians play to win? Truthfully, I didn’t think McCain had it in him. I think it would have been best for Obama to pick Hillary as his VP; that would seem to be an unbeatable ticket. But too much history (hostility) between the two of them. I think he listened to McCain, et al., saying he wasn’t experienced enough in international affairs, so he picked Biden. Then what does McCain do? He turns around before the convention is even digested and picks a woman VP, one who is lacking experience in international affairs, but has more experience than the three of them in management. It was a real “gotcha” move. It says, “Okay, Obama, you have acquire this huge following despite the fact that you are a virtual unknown, based on the fact that you have charisma, good looks, and fantastic presentation (and phenomenal financial support of the Move On folks, etc.) Obviously, experience doesn’t mean that much in terms of votes in a prez, so why should it mean anything in a Vice-prez? You think I’m too old? Well, let’s get some youth going on. Ha, ha. Actually, McCain’s choice would have been someone like Leiberman or Ridge, who are both pro-choice. But that would have doomed him with the conservative base. She, now that I think about it, is actually a good pick. Besides, Presidents and VP’s really don’t have that much say over abortion rights, anyway (unless they get to stack the Court). This is a game, folks. McCain is no more sneaky than Obama. They both want to win (god only knows why). Maybe McCain is somewhat of a maverick after all and not just a stodgy old man, playing it safe. This could make or break his candidacy; it is really too soon to tell.

  26. collyria
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    P.S. It really is so “on the reservation” to vote for someone based on their race, sex, political party, stance on one issue, etc. Or to NOT vote for someone based on those factors. Seems prudent to do the research on the individual in depth and to not take the media’s (or other interested parties’) word for it. It seems the tendency these days is to be a “true believer,” to succumb to group think. We see the outcome in the two main parties, which are essentially at war with each other. They have each developed dogmas and,if you stray on even one issue, you get branded a reprobate. People are even willing to sacrifice long-term friendships over political views (which, in the last analysis, are really only abstractions). I think it is sad and eventually could result, if this trend continues unabated, in a breakup of our country. (I suppose there are those who wouldn’t mind that, as long as they get the coast.)

  27. Alex101
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    Mike:
    1. Because we believe the rights of a person to control their body outweigh the rights of something that can only be called a person from a religious viewpoint.
    2. Feminists fight pretty hard for the rights and protection of prostitutes. There is some disagreement about the best way to do this, but very very few advocate removing rights from women in this position.
    3. Not a feminist issue. Though I think you’ll find that many feminists are pretty big on personal/social freedoms.
    4. The only reference to abortion in the Bible AFAIK is when it talks about a man striking a pregnant women so she loses the child/fetus. And IIRC it simply says the woman’s husband can press charges if he chooses. Which would indicate that unmarried women get a free pass at abortion. Other than that it’s strangely silent on the issue. If it was remotely as important to God as it is to Social Conservatives then you’d think the Bible would make a much bigger mention of it.

  28. Debbie
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I’m a little surprised at the posted reactions, although I guess at my age I shouldn’t be.
    While I may not agree with any of the women on some issues, I celebrate the fact they can be an inspiration to all girls and young women. First Geraldine, then Hillary, now Sarah. I am so proud for my Granddaughter, her future is limitless.

  29. zakerel
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    I believe that also, that for my daughter, she will not be as limited by her gender than women were when I was her age. But this is not the way for women to shatter the “glass ceiling”.
    I have supported Republican politics for many years because I believed they were more favorable to small businesses: I voted my “career as a businessperson” policies and beliefs.
    I have reached the tipping point.
    My personal convictions now must override all other factors. I can not and will not support a party that is willing to hastily and desperately add to the ticket “Evangelical Barbie” and tout her as equal to Hillary Clinton because she has a vagina. Sarah may be popular in her state and may be highly talented in what she does, at her level, but she is no Senator Clinton. To suggest a comparison is insulting to all Hillary supporters, grossly unfair to Senator Clinton, and condescending to women.
    I do not believe in legislating morality and I do not want to live in a country where “Evangelical Barbie” can succeed McCain and fight to criminalize abortion and defy the constitution by teaching religion in school.
    Read what the international community thinks about this “brilliant pick”:
    Quote at the end of an article from “The Austrailian” September 1, 2008 under the heading
    Reckless pick bad news for Australia
    “But as an ally who has fought alongside the US forces in every conflict America has been involved in for the past 100 years, there is reason to be worried. As an ally, we deserved better than this from McCain.”
    Read the entire article. I have nothing more to say. McCain has done nothing for women except make thinking women wonder whether he has any judgement left or whether he “just doesn’t get it”.

  30. Debbie
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    My only comment would be that I disagree that he picked her because he was pandering.
    I believe the pick was made because John McCain believes that Sarah has the same maverick spirit he has. John McCain has never been one to go along, and/or take the popular route. You can choose to “buy into” the spin that Sarah was chosen only because she was a ‘fe’male instead of a candidate with experience at the local and state level. It does make one wonder what experience Obama has that Sarah doesn’t. A community leader (hmm), a state senator, and 1 year US Senator (1 of 100 no decision making needed) prior to running for President…now that is “real” experience. Perhaps it is because he is a male that we aren’t finding him wanting?
    Hillary was robbed, but this isn’t a comparison of two women. Sarah seems to be able to stand on her own record, and to suggest otherwise sounds both bias and demeaning of a Governor.

  31. melissa
    Posted August 31, 2008 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    I really can’t believe the things I have been reading here. One person referred to her as “Jezebel.” Where did that come from? Because she chose (I know you’re big on choice) to have 5 children with her husband? And why does it matter that she spoke of her husband and children? I’ve seen Hillary go on about her husband many times during her speeches, so how does that make her a “stronger woman,” especially after what she put up with from her husband? Also, Wendell’s post went on about how low income people do not research the issues because they are too busy putting their kids to bed and discussing lack of money. Well, my husband and I have four children and not a lot of money but we are both struggling to obtain higher education while raising a family and we DO research the issues. I find it insulting that you imply that low income = low knowledge. By the way, Republicans are not just rich men. Like I said, we don’t have much money ourselves but we don’t expect the government to support us.
    You people call yourselves “pro-woman” yet you are roasting a woman who is trying to achieve great things and who could be a role model to young girls, showing them what women can accomplish. YOU are the ones saying she was only chosen because of her gender. How sexist is that? All this just because you don’t agree with her views.
    If you were really pro-woman, you would want EVERY woman to strive to reach the goals in life that will make her happy whether that means she is a lawyer, a waitress, or a housewife. Wanting to raise children does not mean a woman is weak or submissive. It takes a strong woman to be a good mom. It seems you only want to support women if they support your views on social issues.

  32. trish
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    I find it curious that Ms. Palin poses with her baby and younger children in ads for a new job that will propel her away from that very family.
    As a feminist and a mother of two, I realized early on the importance of steering myself into a career that allowed me some latitude to be with my children. Being in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is not a job that would seemingly lend itself to someone doing double duty as a mother, nor should it. Both of these are demanding jobs. If a mother chooses to hand over her children to surrogates, so be it, but don’t campaign for the office using motherhood as a theme. And don’t imagine all Americans think a former beauty queen and “hockey mom” is going to be intimidating to al Qaida. Just saying….

  33. Debbie
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 3:42 am | Permalink

    Thus far she has taken both of her last two babies with her to work. I also believe the Father is who she hands the children over to. As for the very cute snide remark about being a former beauty queen…she tried out to help with college funds. She hasn’t been a beauty queen nor a hockey mom in years, but don’t think for a moment that she isn’t tough as nails. I think we might truly have a pioneer woman. Anyone going hunting for Caribou at 3:00 am I think would find little to intimidate her.

  34. Monique
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 3:43 am | Permalink

    Okay this one is for Mike and you too Melissa,
    We do not fight for abortions… we fight for women to have a choice…Sarah Palin made a choice to have a child or have her daughter have a child who would be born with special needs (sorry but check out current.com for the 411). Roe v Wade is not only about abortion it is about choice… Choosing to never have children, choosing to prevent having children till a more appropriate time in your life and choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if needed. Prevention and contraceptive options are also being targeted for elimination by the pro-lifers. So are we as women to return to a time where childbearing was not a choice but an unevetable result of marriage or sex? Believe it or not even some married women want to decide when they become parents or expand thier families. Because some want to pursue education, careers, and other goals prior to having children. Yes, Roe V Wade has taught us that we can have it all or not at all. That is what choice is about.
    Melissa, I am a mom and I have felt like we as women have to do a better job of respecting each other’s choices. In my naive opinion all women would be pro-choice even if most of us would never have an abortion. See we would then be respecting each other’s choices. I have long felt that there is sometimes a level of elitism in our community… because feminists are very likely to have at least a college degree. We have to bridge the gap to include working class women and women of color.
    I do agree with you the GOP has made history, bus aside from gender she has very little in common with Geraldine or Hillary. So for many of us who care about issues affecting all women, this is a lot less of a victory.
    In terms of her experience, she herself said that she didn’t know what a vice president does… there is footage of this. How do you argue with that? She is a big fish in a very small tank… remember total population of Alaska is less than 650K. Is that about the size of Austin TX. She has less in common with me than if she were a moose. No higher education? Please, you don’t really believe that she was the most prominent female member of the GOP. These are women with law degrees who have been in public service for years… how does it feel to see the pretty girl with less qualifications get the nod from the party they have served faithfully for years?
    I agree with you Melissa, that we should try to contain our outrage at McCain’s choice… because she is a woman doesn’t mean she was meant to represent many of us who are pro-choice and, not oil affiliated etc… She was meant to secure the right wing conservatives who had lost faith in McCain.
    Pardon me but maybe he has a very limited view of women. Or does the GOP not have any experienced politicians, with higher education, a working knowledge of what the VP does who also happens to be a woman.

  35. O
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    It’s interesting that in fighting for a women to succeed at her chosen profession and life-choices, you’re all so quick to diss Palin. The opportunity to vote for someone who is outside of Washington, her own person vs. beholden to lobbyists of either party and conservative is what is most appealing; the fact that Palin is a women is all the better – its time. Why is it that only liberal democratic-affiliated George Soros funded women are appropriate for public office. I’ll take a VP with 2 years of executive experiance over a PRES with 1 year of floor voting in washington. What will you do when Obama calls her “sweetie” ???. You’re characterizations of republicans and conservatives are way off. Many of us can’t wait to get rid of Bush, but would never have voted for McCain. I was staying home until the Palin pick. Now I’m back in the game – and that should be your BIGGER fear, because there were a lot of MEN like me until Fridy.

  36. melissa
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Monique, you comment that she chose to have a child with special needs, as though this is a negative thing. Surely you are not implying that this child has any less value because it has special needs, are you?
    Trish, like you, I personally would not chose to make such a career move if I still had young children at home, but since you guys are all about choice here, how can you put that down? Don’t “feminists” typically tout that women shouldn’t have to give up their careers for motherhood? And does the fact that she has made such a choice mean that it’s no longer appropriate to be photographed publicly with her children? I’m sorry, but I’m really not following your argument. You say she is “using motherhood as a theme” of her campaign. When Bill Clinton was running when his daughter was a preteen, was he not often photographed with her and did he not speak of her often, regardless of the fact that he was campaigning for a position that would make him less available to her? Why was this appropriate for him but not for Sarah? Is it because he’s a man and she’s a woman? If so, then YOU are being sexist and “anti-woman.” If that’s not the reason, then I guess you must just be nit-picking at her parenting just because you don’t share her political views. It doesn’t sound like you REALLY believe in a woman’s right to make her own life choices.

  37. Mina
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    melissa commented at August 31, 2008 11:57 PM: “If you were really pro-woman, you would want EVERY woman to strive to reach the goals in life that will make her happy whether that means she is a lawyer, a waitress, or a housewife.”
    …and that’s exactly why I’m not voting for McCain and Palin. Their policies are worse than Obama and Biden’s policies at letting every woman and man strive to reach the goals in life that will make her or him happy.
    Monique commented at September 1, 2008 3:43 AM: “I agree with you Melissa, that we should try to contain our outrage at McCain’s choice… because she is a woman doesn’t mean she was meant to represent many of us who are pro-choice and, not oil affiliated etc…”
    Exactly! It doesn’t men she was meant to represent us and it doesn’t mean we should vote for her.
    O commented at September 1, 2008 8:44 AM: “her own person vs. beholden to lobbyists of either party”
    Of course she’s her own person. The person she is happens to favor policies that are worse for the nation, so I’m still not voting for her.
    This actually reminds me of a few comments I saw back when Ron Paul was running for president, which were along the lines of “I don’t agree with his policy on X but he’s really sincere about it so that’s OK.”
    As a voter, I have a chance to help the policies I want get enacted in government by voting for the candidates and referendum options I agree with. That goes for every other voter too. Your vote is your chance to help your favorite policies get enacted. In general, choosing candidates just because they are sincere and consistent about their policies, no matter if the voter agree with their policies or not, is wasting one’s votes.

  38. Monique
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Hey actually I did not ever intend to say that her choice to have Trig was a negative choice. What I am saying is that she had multiple choices yet if given her way she will limit choices for all of us… How that part is confusing is a bit of a mystery.
    The problem is that her choice to have the baby when knowing his condition, is used by the party to play up her ultraconservatism. Making little Trig somewhat of a political object.
    I have posted on this site under the tag Roe V Wade worked for Sarah Palin… That was before I saw some things on other sites like current, and you tube, which point to some serious inconsistencies in the Sarah is Triggs mom theory. Like her leaking amnio fluid 3 hours before giving a keynote address…waiting to give such address, then flying back to Alaska from TX to give birth ( 8 hr flight)… then 45 minute drive to a hospital in a remote area near Wasilla. Ohh and goes back to work in 3 days after his birth. Nothing wrong with adopting your grandchild… hey I ‘m all for protecting my family and doing what may be best for my daughter. But then maybe try to be a little low key about Trig.
    Don’t have your party wave him like a flag to your conservatism if you haven’t been completely honest from the start. I don’t know, maybe announce that you are adopting instead of that you a 7 months pregnant and no one around you can tell. Or you are in labor on an 8 hour flight and the airline goes on record saying they had no idea of your condition. This stuff is all posted in cites & newspaper articles that were written at the time… long before the nomination.
    I know many of you will hate me for mentioning this scandal… but I’m a grown up… so I can handle healthy discourse and hearing alternative viewpoints…

  39. Debbie
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    Monique said:
    “I know many of you will hate me for mentioning this scandal… but I’m a grown up… so I can handle healthy discourse and hearing alternative viewpoints…”
    Monique, I don’t hate you for it…I don’t waste my emotions on stupidity. That you would promote the spreading of rumor is both distasteful and shows your true colors. It doesn’t matter that you are coyly putting rumor “out there”…what matters is that you ensure others know. High school behavior at best on a feminist site… sadly. No wonder women can’t break the glass ceiling. Instead of just voicing an opinion you resort to the tactics of despicable behavior.
    I would expect this from the Daily Kos…I didn’t expect this from another woman. I’m sure you will find a way to excuse your behavior…go for it. As an older female I must admit to expecting more of other women, shame on me.

  40. Monique
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Hey Debbie, no love lost but how about this for a thought… SP is on the cusp of taking away our reproductive rights… anything that points to a candidate somehow misleading the public and also benefitting politiacally is should be looked at. Period
    How many people were criticized for raising concerns about John Edwards, at the time when it was just a rumor. Maybe this rumor is baseless I don’t know… but she just had CNN announce that her daughter is pregnant and expected to marry the father. Interesting timing… I would say… more childish behavior on my part you are probably thinking…. so be it!
    BTW what exactly are my true colors (NO PUN ON RACE INTENDED)… the color that doesn’t just listen to feminist voices… the color that lets me speak for my self and shoot from the hip… the color of that lets me take in and express opinions on a variety of issues… many of them distasteful….
    My favorite is “no wonder women cant break the glass ceiling” Where exactly is the ceiling… please tell me… Is it the presidency? Because I don’t really like the analogy of a ceiling but rather chipping away at walls that are used to narrowly define women and box us in. I think many women are able to chip away at walls in their personal realities everyday. SP has already made great strides for American women… that point is indisputable.
    So by all means paint me with whatever colors you choose…just dont try to paint me into a box ….

  41. melissa
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Like most of you, I would love to see a woman in the White House. However, like most of you, I would never vote for a woman JUST BECAUSE she is a woman if she didn’t stand for what I believe in. I think any woman who would is guilty of being just what many men think we are – mindless followers. That said, I am SO happy there is finally a woman candidate I can vote for. From what I know of her so far, Sarah Palin represents my key beliefs and am looking forward to hearing more from her. Everyone who has said that it’s insulting to compare her to Hillary is right – it’s an insult to Sarah. I wouldn’t have voted for Hillary Clinton if you’d offered me money.
    By the way Monique, please explain to me how someone is “on the cusp of taking away our reproductive rights.” Those are rights that can be taken away from you only at the hands of a man – a rapist. I feel for woman who have experienced that tragedy, but we all know that abortions performed of rape victims are a very low percentage of the total number of abortions performed. If you haven’t been raped, you will ALWAYS have the right to choose. We all know how babies are made and we all make our own choices in that regard. Period. By the way, what does the fact that her daughter is pregnant and expected to marry have to do with anything? And as far as the son supposedly not being hers, you are living up to the catty, gossipy reputation woman already have to deal with. Thanks a lot for perpetuating that stereotype.

  42. Debbie
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Monique, having faced the “real” glass ceiling I assure you I would never paint you into a box. The rationalization that John Edwards rumor was true therefore it’s okay to spread another rumor is ridiculous.
    Again, high school behavior at best. You make it easy to dismiss any “real” argument you might have with your continuous mindless statements.
    Hopefully, in your case, maturity will come with age.

  43. moni
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Very interesting reading so far. From my perspective, there is a lot of emotion regarding Sarah Palin but no real substance. Some key points:
    1. SP has been quoted as saying that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she’s a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life. “I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,” The bottom line is that she believes from a moral position that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control.
    2. One must also consider that the Executive branch does not determine the fate of Roe Vs Wade. The legislature ( Congress) does. With a Democratic Congress, what are the chances of any change in that regard?
    I think that emotion is getting in the way of the real big issue hear for women. A milestone that has never been reached before by women in the US has been reached. Regardless or the emotional or political view, women should proudly acknowledge that fact as being overall good for women.

  44. Monique
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Yeah Debbie, when I heard about Feminists for Life, I looked around on thier site. Not sure that feminsm and anti-choice really mix very well. This is still about people defining those choices for us and taking abortion out of the mix… which is a limit being placed on our choices…
    I am aware that the judicial branch actually decides the future of RvW but it is the executive branch that controls who those individuals will be. It is the executive office that has a great deal of control over funding for pregnancy prevention programs. At this point abstinence only programs are receiving more and more funding at the expense of other programs that have higher success rates.
    Saying that women should not have to choose between her child, career and education, is somewhat of a fallicy. Lets consider, some of the choices that working class mothers have to make. I myself am a professional (education was taken care of before I chose to have a child), I feel the pull in the workplace when I take steps to balance career and motherhood.
    Honestly, does “no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child” include all women? Think about where we stand in this country on pay equity, access to affordable childcare, and access to affordable healthcare. Then answer honestly if poor women are making the same choices as the Sarah Palin and many of the women represented by FFL. I just met a young woman who is a soldier, who has to send her son to live with his grandmother for 3 years because her responsibilities to her unit take her away from her son from 4:30 – 6pm. Is she not being put in a position to make a choice on some level? Or do we alienate her and blame her for being a single mom?
    Rather than call me names, which I am sure is mature on some level… talk to me about where Palin stands on the issues that will really allow make sure that nol women will be forced to choose between, family, education and career.
    Her record on the environment is questionable, troopergate is a concern, her possible support of oil interests is also a big question.

  45. Debbie
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Monique, Monique, Monique.
    Perhaps I’m not the best female to speak with regarding the example you provided.
    Veteran, single mother, college graduate (worked my way through college while a single mother), professional, author, and now retired. Additionally, I don’t believe that I was an exception during my generation.
    Please don’t attempt to lecture this old lady on what a young woman must deal with.
    By the way there are always going to be sacrifices we have to make…always. To suggest otherwise is either insincere or naive.

  46. Virginia
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    I think the real TINA FAY is more qualified for VP!!

  47. Virginia
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    I think the real TINA FAY is more qualified for VP!!

  48. Debbie
    Posted September 2, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Offensive post at best.
    Please explain to me the qualifications of Obama for President? By the way, do we know who watched Joe Biden’s children while he was working everyday in the Senate (remember he traveled four hours a day to Delaware)? Is he a bad father? Should he have found some way to stay home…or just married a “fe”male to take care of his kids…
    You can disagree with Sarah as much as you want on policy, but personal attacks? Some of the above comments are sexist and elitist.
    So sad, we always manage to eat our own.

  49. KBZ
    Posted September 2, 2008 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    >> Yeah Debbie, when I heard about Feminists for Life, I looked around on thier site. Not sure that feminsm and anti-choice really mix very well. This is still about people defining those choices for us and taking abortion out of the mix… which is a limit being placed on our choices…
    I’m not so sure about this. Some feminists may genuinely see a fetus as a human life, and thus prioritize the right of the fetus to survive over the right of the mother to choose.
    In a civilized society, each individual has her choices limited in countless ways. We cannot choose to steal that which does not belong to us. We cannot choose to kill without legal justification. We cannot choose to not pay taxes. We cannot choose to drive while intoxicated. Our choices are already limited.
    The question isn’t one of choice. The question is when does a fetus’s right to bodily integrity vest? We’re weighing the rights of two individuals here … the question is, whose rights are controlling?
    I simply don’t see it as inherently anti-woman to come to the conclusion that the right of the fetus to live supersedes the right of the mother to terminate her pregnancy. I simply do not see why a true feminist could not arrive at the conclusion that a mother does not have the right to terminate life of her child, even if that child is inside her uterus.
    I am pro-choice, because I do not think a fetus’s rights vest at conception. But, I do not believe that prioritizing the rights of the fetus is inherently anti-woman (as many fetuses are women). I can certainly see how someone — even a feminist — might disagree with me.
    kbz

  50. michelle
    Posted September 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Greetings!
    My name is Michelle, a proud American Democrat.
    Sarah Palin is a JOKE and a TOKEN choice for V.P.
    John McCain choosing Palin was merely to get the Hillary supporters.
    One problem is, Sarah Palin is AGAINST EVERYTHING HILLARY IS FOR. SARAH PALIN IS ANTI-WOMEN.
    We as Americans,have a CHOICE, Elect BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT or JOHN MCCAIN AND SARAH PALIN FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH POLICIES.
    WE CANNOT AFFORD MORE OF THE SAME.
    NOVEMBER 4TH, 2008, I URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR
    (BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT)
    GOD BLESS AMERICA
    OBAMA/BIDEN 08

225 queries. 1.869 seconds