If you apply the Sarah Palin standard the majority of the people who lost their lives in that big-city, eastern, liberal bastion of New York City would not be considered as “real Americans”. Nor would those “Washington insider” Pentagon employees or the majority of passengers on Flight 93 meet the Palin standard.
And when you think about it, a large number of US troops probably do not meet the Palin “real American” criteria either.
Of course, as suggested by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), the media can always conduct an in-depth investigation to see if members of our military are “pro-America”. After all, swearing an oath of allegiance isn’t enough proof. And if you don’t tow the GOP line, being a decorated general and former Secretary of State doesn’t count for much either.
Colin Powell Endorsing Barack Obama. See full video from Sunday’s Meet The Press…
What do you think? Are you influenced by Colin Powell’s endorsement? Do you think this endorsement will have an effect on the outcome of Election? Let me know what you think in comments.
Last November 26 as the race for nomination began in earnest I posted an Open Letter to the Candidates. I think it relevant that I now post it again with a few additions highlighted in bold.
Well, since it is here and easy to step onto, I am pulling out the soapbox this morning. This is an open letter to all the presidential candidates about what I want from my next president. Here it is not in priority order since I don’t want to make this too hard:
Have you heard the latest phrase from the McCain-Palin stomp speech? It consists of two very powerful words. “I’m angry.” To place the statement in context, Palin has said, “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” McCain has himself said, “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”
However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid McCain actually loses the election— then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”
McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.
I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.
Like everyone else in America, I was waiting to see how the match up between Palin and Biden would transpire. Beyond the giddy atmosphere that was building (somewhat between a sporting event and a game show), was a deeper, darker space. It was a low, wide valley occupied by symbols and ambiguities of murky distinctions — the roles of gender and race in the 2008 election.
Those specific issues were discussed and debated at a two-day symposium at St. John’s University. As
I sat down to watch the two Vice-Presidential contenders, the presentations of the conference’s speakers reverberated in my head.
Presented by the university’s law school, there was a heavy representation of scholars focusing on media and law, election law, and legal theory. In addition to those emanating from the academic world, there was a cross section of journalists and activists.
Perspectives on Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Role of the Media in Shaping Perceptions of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Intersectionality of Race, Gender, Media, and the Political Process; A Dialogue on Legal Constructions of Race, Gender, and Identity in the 2008 Elections, were some of the panels which I attended.
The concerns that had been come up earlier in the election season got turned on their heads once again with the placement of Sarah Palin onto the McCain ticket. Charges of sexism, reverse sexism, populist feminism, anti-feminism — and permutations on the theme — were doled out in abundance. Prominent in the mix was the role of the media, both amplifying and exacerbating misconceptions to the public.
What did you think when John McCain showed nothing short of total disdain for women’s rights and health, during Wednesday night’s debate? Personally, I think he may have lost many women who might have been ‘on the fence’ about a McCain/Palin ticket. Take a look at what other bloggers are saying, and let me know what you think in comments.
Clearly, in all his debate prep, no one thought to coach McCain not to go to the third rail of the abortion issue. Boy, was that an oversight. Because not only did McCain go there, he jumped right on to it. In trying to paint Obama as being for the great Republican bugaboo of late term abortions (because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them), Obama replied that he didn’t vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother. And that’s when McCain proved how heartless and clueless he is: Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health (indicates air quotes) of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything. Really? Not a legitimate concern?
We already knew McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, isn’t concerned about the health of mothers since she opposed a ban on abortions even in the case of rape or incest. Now we learn that McCain has contempt for women’s health issues as well and thinks concerns about their health is “extreme.” McCain can kiss the independent women’s vote good-bye after this doozy.
McCain doesn’t understand a key principle that, for many women, is central to their choice of a candidate for president. The same woman who wants a president to address the difficulty of paying to put gas in the car while other bills pile up on the kitchen counter also wants a president who respects her ability to make the personal, private medical decisions that are best for her and her family. She doesn’t want a politician like McCain mocking protections for her health or voting against birth control. As the election enters its final phase, and these key voters hear from NARAL Pro-Choice America about the stark differences between John McCain and Barack Obama about a woman’s right to choose, women will choose the candidate who will stand with them. That candidate is Barack Obama.
John McCain put women’s “health” in inverted commas during the debate last night, as though it’s a made-up phrase that represents some imaginary or laughable idea. Or alternatively, an idea that doesn’t matter very much and can be easily dismissed by a candidate who, say, had no idea that health insurance plans cover Viagra but not birth control. McCain labelled people who support the right to terminate a pregnancy when that pregnancy endangers the health of the mother “extreme” and “pro-abortion.”
In my last political post, I said I was deeply disturbed by McCain’s stance on women’s reproductive rights. Now, I’m going to say, if you are a woman of reproductive age or if you love a woman of reproductive age, you are playing with her life and health if you vote for McCain. McCain totally dismissed the fact that pregnancy ever threatens a woman’s life.
. . .
Hell, I wish we could completely ban late term abortion but I value the lives of the adult women involved more than I value their unborn babies. I am pro-choice but I am not pro-abortion. I will never presume to claim I know whats best for someone medically and that includes whether or not they should continue to carry a baby. I believe each and every woman should be able to decide what to do with their own body. With this one ignorant statement, John McCain has alienated many people who feel the way I do.
Here is some post debate media and blogger reaction. If you want to see what I thought, check out this link, that also has the full video of last night’s debate. I am very interested in what YOU thought. Who won? Who lost? Are you sick of hearing about “Joe” the plumber? Who do you feel will do better fixing our economy? What about health care, taxes, and jobs? Let me know what you think in comments.
The Sarah Palin Troopergate story has uncovered more about McCain’s VP pick than you might realize. Rachel Maddow does a great job at explaining the story and what it means to abuse power. I personally like her “alternate universe” analogy (it’s so m-theory). And, you gotta give her credit for calling “non-truths” what they really are…
It’s not even JUST Troopergate anymore. Housegate is moving in…
Remember back to the first week in September, when it seemed like every day there was a new “gate”? Actually, believe it or not, “Troopergate” used to be known as “Palingate” in Alaska because we naively believed there was only one. Oh, how innocent we were.
Since that long ago time, our naivete has fallen away, and “gates” have been springing up like mushrooms all over Alaska: Troopergate, babygate, bookgate, pastorgate…the list seemed endless. Add to that a whole host of more recent and harder to say “gates” – Leaving-your-town-in-debt-gate, collecting-per-diem-while-living-at-home-gate, charging-victims-for-rape-kits-gate, trying-to-rid-the-world-of-wolves-and-polar-bears-gate, and we’ve been busy people. We’ve been focusing on John McCain’s I-didn’t-vet-my-running-mate-so-I’m-going-te-let-everyone-else-do-it-gate.
But now, a brand new “gate” surfaces. I present “House Gate”. There will be more digging on this one in the days to come, but here’s what we know now. – ready full post here
Palin omits Obama’s “terrorist ties” from her rally speeches in the spirit of stopping negative attacks. It lasts until Palin tells crowds Obama does not want women to be “punished with a baby” when addressing his abortion stance. But she does follow it up by saying “it is not mean spirited”
. . .
Glamoracy asks if women would “hate” Palin if she was a liberal. Let me answer on my behalf – if she was for any form of women’s equality (ERA!) , did not make rape victims pay for their rape kits, did not say “she tolerates” when she speaks of gay rights, recognized the need to improve our nations health care, stopped implying Obama is UnAmerican because of propaganda that failed to work a year ago, could name a Supreme Court case or a paper she read each day I would not be as scared to have her as number two.
Answering the question, Where are all the women political bloggers? Well, if you are here, you have found them. We are dedicated to giving women bloggers a voice, starting with our list of over 500 women political bloggers. And now, in addition to guest bloggers, and our growing community, we will also feature regular contributing editors.
