In Palin Pick, McCain Uses Identity Politics to Insult All Women
Identity politics are the politics of intolerance.
Normalization and legitimization by the press of identity politics gives permission for political decisions based on prejudice... based on race, on religion, on gender, on any factor that denotes differentness.
Identity politics feed on stereotyping and judgment by superficialities.
Identity politics are the bigoted opposite of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that his four children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Identity politics caused the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to receive death threats because she supported longtime friend Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries rather than fellow African-American Barack Obama.
Identity politics caused Oprah Winfrey to be branded a traitor to women for supporting Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries rather than Hillary Clinton.
And identity politics is what caused McCain campaign strategists to believe that Democratic women who supported Hillary Clinton's thwarted presidential candidacy will automatically transfer their allegiance to Republican vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Reality is that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are polar-opposites politically on every conceivable issue of importance. Gender and a certain hard-edged congeniality are about all these two female political leaders have in common.
Explains New York Times columnist Frank Rich today about McCain:
" ... he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman..."Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton."
As they discovered yesterday when Gov. Palin was booed in Pennsylvania, McCain and Palin insult Republican women and their priorities by assuming that conservative women want a female leader who aspires to be classed with liberals Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
And Democratic women are deeply insulted by John McCain's assumption that they will support an anti-choice, anti-equal opportunity, anti-environment, anti-science, pro-big oil, pro-NRA candidate just because she has the same genitalia.
McCain and Palin both apparently assume that all women are interchangeable. That women don't have individual needs and priorities or even meaningful thought processes.
Then again, John McCain's legendary disdain of women is not news.
But for ultra-conservative Sarah Palin to blithely assume that women supporters of Hillary Clinton will flock to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket is either woefully naive or a serious red-flag of bad judgment.
Either way, the McCain campaign's clumsy attempt to use identify politics to manipulate women voters is breathtakingly arrogant and frankly, kind of silly.
And judging by Gallup and Rasmussen national polls taken in the last two days, McCain's gimmicky political trick to attract liberal women has failed. Of course.
Women aren't that stupid.
(Photo taken on August 30, 2008: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Related Reading
Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women
Comments
You still do not get it. Many of us will NEVER vote for Obama regardless of your rhetoric. Not even the old Supreme Court fear tactic will sway us. A lifelong Dem that even gave to Hillary’s debt, I am very pleased McCain chose a woman. You all can scream from the mountain tops about unity-we were disenfranchised. And from my perspective, Roe v Wade is no longer an issue. McCain will never get an ultra right wing person on the Supreme Court with a Democratic congress. McCain will get my vote and the vote of my two daughters. Thank Howard Dean, Donna Brazile and the rest of the group that was so certain of what we women would do after hijacking the primary. I am still OUTRAGED and cut up my Dem voters card and changed my party. That is what I call real CHANGE!!
Hahahahahahahahaha! Really, you’re much smarter than that. So McCain picking a woman was a deliberate, cynical ploy and was “identity politics”? What about the liberal assumption that Palin couldn’t possibly be qualified? That isn’t patronizing? Please!
If anyone is guilty of sexism here, Deborah, it’s you. You’re basically saying that McCain was not allowed to pick anyone but an older white male as his running mate. Anyone else would’ve been seen by you and other liberals as “pandering”.
Did it ever occur to you that Palin being a woman was only one small factor in many others that prompted the choice? In case you haven’t noticed, most Republicans are overjoyed by the pick, she has conservative credentials that most of them could only dream of. She has one son shipping off to Iraq, and she just gave birth to her fifth child who has Down Syndrome (most Down Syndrome pregnancies end in abortion, talk about sticking to one’s convictions!). She is the ONLY person on either ticket with executive experience.
By the way, what does the fact that she’s a member of the NRA have anything to do with women voters supposedly rejecting her? I guess you assume that all women are interchangeable and are as anti-Second Amendment as you? And pro-big oil? Maybe you should do a little more research on her before launching into partisan attacks.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080830/NEWS/808300355/1348/news09&title=Who_is_Sarah_Palin_
You’re just angry because McCain didn’t pick an easy or predictable target like Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney. He chose someone who basically stole the thunder from Obama’s speech and has the ability to be a game-changer in this election. You frequently write articles that are well thought-out and make me think about the perspective of the other side. This isn’t one of them, it’s a knee-jerk hypocritical reaction to a smart pick for VP.
Robert, you write “By the way, what does the fact that she’s a member of the NRA have anything to do with women voters supposedly rejecting her?”
The paragraph you’re referring to is one in which I’m clearly talking about Democratic women voters. A majority of Women who are registered Democrats are supporters of thoughtful gun control laws, and are decidedly not fans of the NRA. I did not make that statement about conservative women. I also did not say that “McCain was not allowed to pick anyone but an older white male as his running mate.”
I have to say, though, seems as though conservatives are starting to exploit that poor baby for their own political purposes. Please know that if I, or one of my daughters, was pregnant with a Downs child, I 100% assure you, we would also carry it to full term, and enjoy that child as we do our others. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on being loving mothers.
great article! mccain honestly can just kiss this presidency goodbye, because who in their right state of mind is going to vote for some dying man who’s brain isn’t even functional enough to pick a running mate who can fill his many holes of flaws and stupidity? Women weren’t only voting for Hilary simply because she was a women, but because of her wisdom and strength. There are so many dysfunctional things about mccain’s family, his strategy, and his character that my hands don’t even know where to begin.
Unlike Osama er Obama, Hillary, or McCain, Palin’s experience as a governor alone required her to actually show up for work everyday and make decisions that affected everyday lives, as opposed to stating “present” once in a while when it suits them.
Her experience includes blowing the whistle on corrupt big oil rather than pandering to it, and going against her own party (the same people who tapped her for her position to begin with) in order to clean out the corrupt, political machine. She didn’t tow the party line. She stood up against eztremely powerful people,and won, all while raising 5 children, not one.
You won’t see Liary or Obama go against the machine, which is why Obama refused to pick Hillary. Clinton voted for a war she says she opposed because it was politically expedient for her at the time. And you can bet Obama would have done the same. How convenient that he wasn’t in the Senate at the time so he can claim otherwise.
Palin has executive experience as someone other than a sleazy lawyer, or as the wife of the governor and president pretending that she was elected along with him, which in her deluded mind qualifies as the kind of experience necessary to be commander-in-chief.
McCain picked someone with real experience, a fresh eye, clean record, who stands up against bullies in her own party in order to live what she believes in. That’s progress. That’s change. And it’s coming from a woman. A tough, principled female who wishes to ensure that EVERY human being gets a choice, including the most innocent and defenseless of all.
‘What was McCain thinking?’, you ask. Watch how women independents now vote the Republican ticket.
Watch how women independents now vote the Republican ticket.
I found a great new website full of information that helps liberals combat the right. Check it out http://www.howtotalkback.com
“And Democratic women are deeply insulted by John McCain’s assumption that they will support an anti-choice, anti-equal opportunity, anti-environment, anti-science, pro-big oil, pro-NRA candidate just because she has the same genitalia.”
I think this is the real issue, think about a pro-life woman… are you sure you ladies support this? Losing the right to an abortion at YOUR discretion? As a man, I think that is a scary thing.
The so-called “right” to abortion is the legal right for women alone to kill innocent, defenseles human beings and no one else.
Scott Peterson is prosecuted for killing his son Conor, but if Lacy had gone to a clinic and paid a doctor to do the dirty deed, perfectly leggal.
Now THAT is scary.
Palin is a member of a group called Feminists For Life. They oppose abortion, but not birth control. She opposes murder not choice.
I just want to interject that abortion is something, as Americans, we should protect as a personal choice every woman has the freedom to make at her own discretion. Things happen that may motivate this hard decision(rape, incest) and it’s really no one’s business but that of the victim. The government should not dictate our liberties as the christian right feel fit. We are a nation of many faiths and many people. Even a very devout christian woman may one day need an abortion.
BB: So you’re going to stomp off in a huff because your candidate didn’t win? How childish. By all means, leave the Democratic party. I’ve grown weary of your immature hissyfits. Go join Joe “Turncoat” Lieberman. You are no longer wanted here.
Lauralee: That snarky old Osama/Obama remark shows your bigotry. And Laci Peterson was 7 and a half monts pregnant when she was murdered, so no, she could not have legally had an abortion. Try to do a little research next time.
I somewhat agree with you, Deborah, and in fact wrote a similar post. However, if the fact that McCain didn’t adequately vet Palin doesn’t eventually get in the way, Palin could draw a large number of conservative and moderate women to the polls in November–women who would have voted for Hillary Clinton, but who otherwise were likely to abstain from the general election. In other words, there are voters who will let gender influence them more than the policies and for that reason would have voted across party lines for Clinton, were not excited at all about either McCain or Obama, but are now excited about Palin.
But I do think you’re right about McCain’s reduction of women to exchangeable images. Cindy wasn’t doing it for him in the polls, so he went out and got himself a trophy VP.
FYI, Partial birth abortion is legal. Head out, needle in, 7, 8 months along, and all you need is a note from the right doctor. He can claim any ‘medical’ reason he wishes to authorize it. Just a matter of ‘taking care of the “problem” ‘ in a cooperating state.
DNA of a new human being begins at conception. At that moment, skin color, hair color, gender, and personality traits etc are immediately determined. That is science not religion. Rape or incest do not suddenly negate those facts. Religion has no place in this issue unless you happen to be personally religious. It is about legalized murder and the effort to protect the rights of ALL, not just females of child-bearing age.
Aborted children are victims whether rape and/or incest is a factor or not, and their rights to life are currently being legally denied. Where’s the guardian ad-liem for them? You speak of the womens safety? Abortion is never safe for the unborn.
“Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban… requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.” The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X remains legal as long as there is first an “injection that kills the fetus.”
There is also controversy about why this procedure is used. Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.” Some prominent self-described pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons’ statements.
BTW, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers testified in government hearings that only about 450 D&Xs were performed annually in the United States. Later, on ABC’s Nightline program, he admitted that he had lied about this figure in order to match the the lies and rhetoric by the other side in the debate. He now estimates that 3 to 4 thousand per year is a more accurate value.
In response to Sean’s comment: “I just want to interject that abortion is something, as Americans, we should protect as a personal choice every woman has the freedom to make at her own discretion. Things happen that may motivate this hard decision(rape, incest) and it’s really no one’s business but that of the victim. The government should not dictate our liberties as the christian right feel fit.”
This is the standard cliche party line that has been used over and over again, but it has never made sense to me. What logic are you using to justify abortions? You are saying that a woman should have “the right to choose”, but how can you convince people that this is the correct mindset?
To me, if cells are dividing and growing, then it is alive. How can you justify that destroying that organism is just another part of our freedoms here? If these cells aren’t human, then what are they? What species are they?
The main debate that people like to go into is when “life” starts. Obviously, I believe that life begins at conception. People can make arguments otherwise, but how does the simple statement “the woman has the right to choose” counter against the notion that abortion is murder?
I just believe that you have to be way more specific if you are going to be debating on the pro-choice side of the equation. The “woman’s right to choose” line just doesn’t cut it against those that feel abortion is murder. You have to look elsewhere to be convincing instead of aggravating (in my humble opinion of course).
Yes, let’s define what that choice really is. The CHOICE in reference to abortion is a woman’s decision (hers alone) to either destroy an innocent defenseless human life, or try to save him by carrying to term. The right to kill, afforded solely to women regardless of health to the mother.
Mom has rights but the totally separate invidual who happens to live temporarily inside her is afforded none. It’s the mother’s obligation to protect her childrens lives. Guardian ad-litems speak on behalf of children whose mothers can’t or won’t all the time, unless they are unborn. What crime did the child commit to deserve the death penalty at his mother’s ‘personal discretion’?
We’re not speaking of direct and immediate health to mother where the baby dies while trying to save the mother’s life. Even ectopic pregnancies do not require direct abortion.
Upon fertilization, human life begins, identifiable via DNA as human, male or female, with skin, hair & eye color, even personality traits confirmable. Not visible to the naked eye, no, but most definitely scientifically provable.
If all are indeed created equal, that means all, womb to the tomb, especially now that we have the technology to prove it. The laws simply haven’t caught up with the scientific facts.
This is not a religious issue.
I agree that no law will put an end to abortion, but these children deserve to have their rights to life legally protected.
And if this is truly a personal issue, without government involvement, then our taxes should not be paying for abortions directly or indirectly. Insurance companies should not pay for these ’services’ either. Private issue, private, personal funds.
Don’t hire your doctor hit man to kill your kid with funds forced from taxpayers at gunpoint in order to ensure that everyone gets blood on their hands.
GeckoRaomin,
Your comment:
“Lauralee: That snarky old Osama/Obama remark shows your bigotry.”
Every comedian on the planet has made the Borat Hussein Osama joke in every form possible since he began his historic bid for the presidency. A few members of Obama’s own party have even inadvertently slipped and mistakenly called him Osama in public, during speeches, at which Obama was present. Lighten up.
A feeble attempt at humor is not bigotry. Talk about using the Race card in lieu of substance.
Voting for Palin merely because she’s a woman is as idiotic as voting for Clinton for the same reason. People have good reasons for supporting either one. It’s a smart political move for McCain for more and better reasons than her gender.
The right to choose is what it is. And that’s all it is. It means in our country we invite people from all walks of life to a promise of liberty and justice for all. We cannot bend that to the will of religious conservatives. It’s unjust. I myself would hope that my wife never needs to choose an abortion, but what of the women on the welfare rolls who simply reproduce because that’s all they can do? What of a family who has five children and finds that their next child will be born with severe, mental retardation and be a financial and emotional burden for the rest of their lives. Overbearing on their commitment to the rest of their children? These are choices to be left to the individuals involved, not the government. Unless of course we had socialized healthcare, where as all you right wingers could foot the bill with the rest of us.
I am a christian and that’s between me and God, the government should not promote christian views(how christian can a capitalist society be anyway?).
The only women that Palin speaks to are cynical redneck bible thumpers from small towns who have no concept of other cultures and real life. The pentecostal religion is a stone’s throw away from a snake charming cult. Good for her for keeping her retard baby. I personally would’ve terminated the pregnancy. I’m not going to roll out the red carpet for her for keeping the kid and for being a woman with 5 kids working. My mom did it and never got any praise. I think she’s a bible-thumping extremist who is mean-spirited, sarcastic, and smug. A poor example for the a woman VP. How’s she going to help with national security when the most security she ever had to worry about in her little town was probably shopping mall security. And big decisions? Like what? Deciding if elk hunting season should be changed? At least she got to meet her first minority person now since she’s running against a black man. She’s only attractive to the most conservative people in her party- and idiots in the NRA who think Barack is trying to outlaw guns. Like that’ll ever happen. By the way, look at the polls. Most women aren’t all that excited by Palin.
And also,
why are we still talking about abortion? I think we should backburner that now to focus on real issues effecting our country.
Yes, abortion is key because it is core to what is wrong with society. If we cannot respect human life at the beginning, when they’re most vulnerable, how can we expect anyone to value life at any other stage?
Elderly, terminally ill, disabled. They too are now ‘burdens’ many are actively trying to rid the world of too. Roe vs. Wade opened that door.
Funny how you guys are the ones who keep bringing religion into this. The LAWS concerning abortion center around SCIENCE, not religion. Individuals decide their own morality, but they are still subject to the laws (or ought to be) of a civilized society. Laws are enacted to protect human lives. They should not cater only to specific individuals.
And current laws do not reflect the solid scientific proof that a human being’s life begins at conception, no matter what your religion tells you.
The laws that do exist are out of date, and contradictory. For example “Conor’s Law” (aka the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) which classifies the unborn as a CHILD in utero, and places no restrictions on viability.
The abortion laws contradict the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. An abortion is every bit as violent an act as killing a child in the womb via beating of a pregnant mother, yet the abortion laws have been engineered to provide a loophole for both women & physicians if SHE decides for any reason she does not wish to give birth.
And as I said, science tells a different story concerning the undeniability of the beginning of human life. The laws concerning abortion simply ignore them, all under the guise of protecting HER body.
A woman whose life is physically & directly threatened, can be saved by allowing the child to die in an effort to preserve the immediate life of the mother, which would not violate the doctor’s oath to FIRST do no harm. For example, in cases such as ectopic pregnancies (where the child grows inside the fallopian tubes), the fallopian tube can be removed, & the child will die, but no direct killing has taken place, sort of like a fireman forced to save the child within the closest reach from burning flames, which render him unable to go after and save the second child.
True, most states have left late term abortion as a rare option, but orgs like PP routinely refer women & girls to states that allow late term abortions (often providing travel expenses), without circumstances of medical trauma for the woman. So late term abortions are not rare at all.
Severe fetal abnormality of the fetus does not give a woman the right to kill him. Yes, the law in some states says she can, but that child is a separate being & ought not be given a death sentence before birth because a doctor & parent decides he is certain to be doomed to a life of difficulty and pain.
You reiterate the rights of women whose rights to life are already legally recognized, but you speak as if the rights of the child she carries are irrelevant depending upon whether the child fits into her life.
Why would you hope your wife wouldn’t choose abortion if there is nothing immoral about it? It’s simply a surgical procedure right?
The choice is what it is? Are you serious? Can you get any more vague? Choice in regard to abortion is the right to choose abortion. An abortion is a deliberate, pre-meditated destruction of innocent human life. The choice is to destroy, or attempt to save if at all possible.
Murder cannot be optional. It cannot be anyone’s personal choice. The child is a separate individual. His life should be protected. We’re not speaking of whether to have a tumor sliced up and vaccumed out.
And of course,it goes without saying that ALL children must be taken care of and not forgotten. What’s wrong with our taxes being used to preserve and nurture rather than destroy?
It’s a bald-faced lie that pro-lifers abandon these children once they’e born. I cannot tell you how many have adopted & are foster parents to severely mentally & physically disabled, often crack-addicted, suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, many outside their race babies who were spared at the last minute from abortion. And yeah, it’s no easy task. No fancy vacations, no ivy-league schools, no expensive cars or homes. But these children are alive, and happy to their natural deaths. Some of these adopters are religious, some not.
There will always be welfare cheats and ill children. You could have a perfectly healthy baby, and on the ride home from the hospital be hit by a truck which results in the child’s permanent disability. Do we destroy this burden too? Do we punish the children of professional baby-mamas because they’re parents are irresponsible?
To Marie Palmer,
You claim in your post that Palin “is mean-spirited, sarcastic, and smug.” Did you not realize your attitude echoed these same words? Also, you insult a poor, mentally disabled child and think you have class, intelligence, sophistication…it’s your mother who should have terminated her pregnancy with you.
As for your perceptions of who Palin appeals to, I’m a huge fan and was a former Hillary supporter who worked on the Hill. In fact, 47% of women have a favorable view of Palin vs. 36% who don’t. Get your facts straight before sounding like an idiot.
As a Republican male that has supported the career of my professional spouse for 30 years, I’m frustrated at the reaction of women in this country. I experienced, indirectly as a husband, the difficulties my wife had working in executive roles in a mans world. Always breaking new ground and having to be that much better than a man. Having to deal with the insulting comments directly and indirectly about her sex. She had to be better and was always suspect that she wasn’t qualified. Sound familiar!!! Well she showed them all that she was a highly competent and outstandingly effective executive/administrator which the agencies she worked for sought out for advanced positions.
We are both a product of 60’s revolution. Equality for all. Equality for women. We grew up in the California Bay Area. We are familiar with the difficulties women and minorities have had in this country.
The Democrats rejected the more experienced candidate Hillary Clinton for Barack Obama. Barack Obama then rejected Hillary as a Vice Presidential candidate. Now the Republicans have placed a qualified woman on the ticket. The Democrats are trying to tear her apart. WOMEN, won’t it be a shame that you were so close to having placed a woman in the white house, but blew it. Go ahead and hold on to your Democratic principles, but if Obama/Biden win this election, you, yes women of the United States, will have rejected a highly qualified liberal Democratic woman and rejected a highly qualified conservative Republican woman. I can’t believe it!!!!! What do you want? Hillary Clinton is now in a difficult position to oppose the Republican ticket and tell women of America not to vote for the only woman candidate that has a chance reaching the White House.
We are not electing a King or Dictator. The President and Vice President can’t do what ever they want. Congress does have a say in running America. Call it what you want, but the blacks in this country see their opportunity to realize their dream. They are overwhelming voting for Obama. I don’t blame them. If I were black, I would likely do the same, political views aside. I’ve lived through too many democratic and republican administrations to know things change slowly in this country and my life goes on. As a staunch Republican, I voted for Al Gore in the last election. Bush was a joke! If Hillary was on the Democratic ticket I would have likely voted for Hillary. I have to say though, when McCain selected Sarah Palin, he locked in my vote for McCain/Palin. I would have preferred a Clinton/Obama vs McCain/Palin election. If that was the case, women would have made it to the white house. Since that is not the case, it’s a toss up now.
There is a bigger prize out there. Bigger than the Democrats and Republicans. Vote your heart, women of America. Take a stand. Place a woman in the White House. Make a statement that women are a force to be reckoned with. Are you going to pass up another generation, since Geraldine Ferraro (who never really had a chance of being elected) ran in 1984! Wake up. Make it happen. Take a chance, show that spirit of the 60’s. Show some leadership. Tell the good old boy establishment that a presidential ticket with out a woman on it just won’t fly. If you really want CHANGE, make it happen.
Palin actually has more executive experience than Hillary, but she’s not a Washington insider. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And as has been said, she serves as an example of what many said could never be done. She has balanced a very high-powered career with marriage and family, just as millions of women all over the country have done. She is as qualified as any of the other candidates. She does deserve to be there.
Palin, has made tough economic decisions that have affected many peoples everyday lives. She hasn’t spent the last two years campaigning for president like All of the others, including McCain have. She understands the economy, the energy crisis, and has been unafraid to stand up to her own Party and big oil.
She doesn’t tow the Party line, which is the real reason the Maverick chose her. Obama refused to pick Hillary because his Party pressured him not to.
People speak of McCain being 4 more years of Bush but I don’t see it. After 911, if he had sent troops anywhere, HE would have sent them to Afghanistan, where Osama Bin Laden actually was.
HE, unlike Bush, would have had an exit strategy, and would not have waited to put in more troops as needed.
We may have kept troops stationed there, but not as occupiers, just as we still have stationed in France and many other areas around the world. That’s what McCain meant by possibly being there 100 years. He understands the dynamics of war and how the military operates, Obama does not.
Obama himself has finally admitted that the surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. He said they need to take more responsibility for their own country, which is what McCain has said all along.
This is for Cliff: you’re kind of dumbing down how women and minorities vote. Women are not going to vote for Palin just because she’s a woman and we desperately need a woman in the white house, if her ideology doesn’t match that of her own. You are absolutely right, however, that Clinton would have been a better female candidate. Also, all blacks are not rallying behind Obama just because he’s black. Women and minorities give more thought to who they’re going to vote for than based on sex or race.
Hi Matt: Why is it that I don’t know any women in that alleged 47% of women who are completely behind Palin? You can’t place all of your blind faith on useless statistics like that. I’d like to the source of that statistic and whow was ACTUALLY polled. She only appeals to a portion of women. And I think many of them will wake up when they hear her real values and ideologies in the coming months. She’s not inclusive – and has a hard time showing her contempt for Obama.
Although maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe in the “diverse” state of Alaska she was able to interact and help people from all walks of life.
Palin makes Bush look like Ted Kennedy. As president she will overturn Roe v. Wade. As president she will continue to spout out anti-gay rhetoric. As president she will strengthen the already large group of Evangelicals in the country. If this is the America you want I can’t argue with you. Just don’t whine or complain when these things happen. If Hillary did not convince you to vote for Obama and not be selfish then we can’t do so. But you will hurt Hillary with a vote for McCain. She will never be able to return to politics. Those that have lost jobs, retirement benefits and those angry about our country being at war will never forgive you and other Hillary supporters for destroying our chances. Hillary and Bill’s political careers will be over if McCain wins. If you are truly a Hillary supporter you will vote for Obama. This isn’t about who is running. It’s about a change in the philosophy of those who govern. Look at how McCain has completely changed his politics to win this election. This is Bush 3 vs. new hope for America. Not Obama vs. McCain. I am not an Obama supporter. I am an independent because I disagree with bipartisanship. But it is time to move away from the Evangelical movement. It is time to stop letting people like Sarah Palin who believes we are in Iraq by God’s will govern our nation. Who has perverted a beautiful story about how much a God loved his creation into a reason to hate others.
Please let me know why some people think Hillary got the shaft. Didn’t everyone agree that Florida(suprise suprise) and Michigan were in the wrong for holding their elections too early. Everyone knew those votes were not going to count before they found out who got the most votes. If we had let those votes count Obama and Edwards could have cried foul. Even though it would have been wrong to count them I would have still voted for Hillary Clinton without reservation I am not changing my political views because I am bitter that is silly. I am a Democrat so it hurts to say some of you are being in the simplist way to put it super dumb. You so called disenfranchised voters need to talk to people who were intimidated at the polls, were denied the right to vote, and lied to about registration in 2000 and 2004. I lived in Florida in 2000 I didn’t get the chance to vote not even a provisional was offered to me that is being disenfranchised. That does not mean I give up on the entire voting process, which is what these so called “pro Hillary now Palin” supporters are doing. You’re giving up on your beliefs because you feel things didn’t go your way. How can you even compare Palin to Hillary Clinton that is an insult towards Hillary. If you really wanted Hillary and not just a women then you would vote for Obama who has similar views to Hillary. I love Hillary I think she is sharp and smart which is now considered being an elitist, but I am voting on my political beliefs not my race or my gender. If anyone can show how Hillary and Sarah’s politics match up then I am all for you voting for her but if not which I believe they won’t vote on policy not for or against a person. If you want to be mad be mad at the leaders in Florida and Michigan they are the ones that messed up. For everyone who thinks the females in this campaign or being “beat up” Barack has been called every name in the book for having an unusual name. Men have been bashing each other for years in campaigns saying pretty harsh things, but for some reason Barack is the only being called out on his “mean” words. Do not claim you are a tough barracuda/pitbull then be hurt by the words of someone else, and for Hillary she has been called so many terrible things over the past 16 years none of which came from Barack Obama. Lastly all the people NOW voting for Palin does McCain play any part in your choice or is he just the running mate.
-If you’re Barack Obama, your unyielding support of abortion, including partial birth is viewed as support for women’s rights.
If you’re Sarah Palin, fighting to include the rights of ALL human beings defined scientifically, not via religion, you are an extremist.
-If you’re John McCain, a quote taken out of context claiming you voted 90% of the time with the outgoing President makes you McBush.
If you’re Barack Obama, the same kind of spin showing you as having voting 90% of the time with John McCain makes you bipartisan.
-If you’re Barack Obama, you can tow the Party line, shut out the female candidate that Democratic voters preferred to be your VP, and still be America’s savior.
If you’re John McCain, you can behave as the Maverick you are, buck the Party line and choose a strong, independent female Washington outsider as your running mate, and still be blasted as pandering to women.
-If you’re Barack Obama, denying the right to prayer in schools or to teach creationism is lauded as progressive.
If you’re Sarah Palin, support for teaching creationism IN ADDITION to evolution makes you a religious zealot.
-If you’re Barack Obama, you can blur the lines between birth control and the morning- after pill and be hailed as taking positive action in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
If your Sarah Palin, and explain medically that the morning-after pill is an abortion if the egg has already been fertilized, once again, religious zealot.
-If you’re Barack Obama, you can make no distinction at all between embryonic and adult stem cell research and get away with accusing conservatives of trying to ban all stem cell research.
If your Sarah Palin, and explain that embryonic stem cell research has not only produced no cures but results in uncontrollable tumors when used as treatments, and that their much desired pluri-potency (not found in adult stem cells) can now be obtained via amniotic fluid without risk of the developing tumors nor does it harm the embryo in any way, well ….science just doesn’t matter in this case because a vote against embryonic stem cells paves the way to outlawing the right to murder the unborn, and we can’t have that can we?
To Marie Palmer:
You ought to be ashamed. What a combative, dried up, ugly, bitter old hag you are to insult a little innocent baby who has as much right to live as you do. I agree with another poster when he addressed a comment directly to you. Your mother should have terminated YOU -the world would be a better place without such evil, hateful people as yourself. I realize that this message is a bit late, but I hope you get it and it haunts you for the rest of your miserable life!