September 13, 2008
"How disrespectful."
Okay, here's new McCain ad, and this is a nice contrast to the Obama ad in the last post. It eschews grabbaggery and sticks to one clear point: Obama got jealous when Palin upstaged him so he desperately disrespected her.
So I like the clarity and thematic unity. It worked well to begin with a reminder of the "biggest celebrity" ad. That set Obama up as a big narcissist who can't stand to see a prettier star steal his spotlight. Of course, that's not the real reason why Obama attacking Palin, but it's an effective, funny way to portray the attacks, which really do sound too desperate.
But I want to talk about sexism. Is this ad playing on the notion that women should be treated with special respect? Yes. I understand why the McCain campaign wants to do that, just as I understand why they decided -- correctly -- that a lot of people would get very excited about a woman VP candidate. But that notion offends me. If a woman is going to seek great political power, she must be scrutinized and attacked just as harshly as a power-seeking man.
You shouldn't be able to get away with the contradictory arguments that a woman is capable of handling the presidency and a woman must be accorded special respect. You shouldn't, but you probably will, and I can certainly see why you're trying. I just hope it doesn't work on me.
And it goes without saying that Obama's attacks tap into sexism too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
309 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309And, you know, look, I come from Chicago, I know politics is hard, you know, it's not for the faint of heart, I understand that," Obama continued. "But when we end up involved in these constant distractions, these petty, trivial slash-and-burn, back-and-forth, tit-for-tat politics, so that we no longer talk about the things that the American people care about, that may be good for the television ratings, but it's not good for you."
What he meant to say:
And, you know, look, I come from Chicago, I know politics is hard, venal, and corrupt, you know, it’s not for the faint of heart. How do you think I got here; on my qualifications and experience?
paddy never voted for a Democrat in his or her life.
No, Petey, what he said is exactly what he meant to say.
Drivel you like to believe he said means nada.
Obama, McCain and Biden have all been asked tough questions and have fought through D.C. muck. For more than a year, Obama's been hit on everything from his alleged Muslim roots, to his tax plan (wrapped when retold by the McCain camp) to his family background, to his senate record. And he faces up to it. He even went live on Fox, which has done nothing but badmouth him.
Now Palin is feeling the heat, too. Top journalists are tough, rude, probing, arguing. That's how they suss out problems and inconsistencies for the public to see.
If you think Obama's been treated lightly, look at how Palin basically accused him of pandering to terrorists in her RNC talk. She's a bulldog. That may not be a bad thing. But I'm not crying in my sleep when she's hit with hard questions. She should be able to take it.
The leaders of Russia, China, the EU and everyone else vying economically with the U.S. won't be as nice as some American TV guy. They're not going to see "hockey mom" or "moose hunter." They're just going to see another American top official they have to beat down in talks.
I'm a married professional woman, so I TOTALLY understand how frustrating it is to walk into a job interview and be asked if family duties will get in the way. (And I don't even have kids!) Meanwhile, male colleagues who are up all night because they have infants at home never have to answer these questions.
It's AWFUL. But that wide problem is not Obama's personal fault. After all, he was the one who immediately said that Palin's family and children should be off limits. He took the high road, and said the right thing.
Then Palin goes lugging that poor disabled infant, pregnant teen, pregnant teen's boyfriend and everyone else around for photo ops. If Obama kept campaigning with a baby slung over his shoulder, I'd worry, too. I mean, Palin sent out a PRESS RELEASE on her teen daughter's pregnancy to every major U.S. media organization. So she can't exactly complain that her personal life is getting covered.
Alpha Liberal,
There was a period of about a year when I was young that I couldn't really type for any length of time. It HURT. I could use the phone. I could use my mouse. I could even do some yoga postures that required me to put weight on my arms But typing (or holding a pencil) for more than 2 minutes was impossible.
There are numerous newspaper sources out there showing that not only is McCain computer literate but he does have physical limitations.
Your silly pictures of him looking at a car or making a thumbs up sign debunks nothing and your mocking of a man's disability is nauseating.
Joyce, If Obama had an unmarried teenage daughter, and suddenly announced that she was pregnant, this blog site would literally EXPLODE with indignation and calls for his immediate withdrawal as a candidate, based on bad parenting and of course a few would throw in some kind of racial undertone.
Top journalists are tough, rude, probing, arguing. That's how they suss out problems and inconsistencies for the public to see.
You left out partisan, subjective, and unethical.
It's AWFUL. But that wide problem is not Obama's personal fault. After all, he was the one who immediately said that Palin's family and children should be off limits. He took the high road, and said the right thing.
Two days after the damage was done. He responded faster to questions about his experience or qualifications.
UWS guy again: Harwood: If you give female politicians "special" respect you're asking for abuse of power.
---
So you claim. Once again: Assertion is not argument.
More UWS: You're [he means "your"] point of women being capable and women also receiving preferential treatment is a non sequitur.
---
They weren't offered as a sequitur. They are two statements that Ann said are contradictory. She evidently thinks this is obvious and needs no argument.
Peter says: "You left out partisan, subjective, and unethical."
Can I assume you're describing Sean, Rush, Bill, Michael, Glen, Laura, Joe and a few others?
Why do you think Palin's first cable interview is with Sean Hannity?
Must be his "objectivity."
Why Should Not Old Men Be Mad?
WHY should not old men be mad?
Some have known a likely lad
That had a sound fly-fisher's wrist
Turn to a drunken journalist;
A girl that knew all Dante once
Live to bear children to a dunce;
A Helen of social welfare dream,
Climb on a wagonette to scream.
Some think it a matter of course that chance
Should starve good men and bad advance,
That if their neighbours figured plain,
As though upon a lighted screen,
No single story would they find
Of an unbroken happy mind,
A finish worthy of the start.
Young men know nothing of this sort,
Observant old men know it well;
And when they know what old books tell
And that no better can be had,
Know why an old man should be mad.
(William Butler Yeats)
It's relatively rare for biological parents to molest their own children.
Happens in 1/3 of molestation cases, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The question here is why was it so important for the McCain campaign to get across the notion that Obama disrespected Sarah Palin, so important that the truth of their allegations mattered little. Further, "disrespected" is a funny word, and a funny slam against a political candidate.
But set in context, one possibility becomes clear. Last week, Deep South GOP Congressman Lynn Westmoreland referred to the Obamas as "uppity." In other words, they did not know their place. They were acting above their station. Anyone alive around the time of the civil rights movement realizes that "uppity" is to "nigger" as "black" is to "pepper."
Thoughts of Obama filling the role of Emmett Till flashed into my head. Like Till's wolf whistles, Obama's criticisms disrespected a white woman, Sarah Palin. And, while white men might no longer beat and kill a black man for the transgression of disrespecting a white woman, they sure as hell won't vote for an uppity black who disrespects white women.
Michael said...
Can I assume you're describing Sean, Rush, Bill, Michael, Glen, Laura, Joe and a few others?
I will make it easy for your small brain to understand. The media.
"paddy never voted for a Democrat in his or her life."
You might be quite surprised. The California Republican party has been terrible in recent years, and my local interests are quite environmental.
But, all that involves nuance... so I won't get into it.
Paddy, If you're truly an environmentalist, how why would you vote for a Republican?
I live in California, too and Arnold's only contribution to a reasonable way of life for our citizens is the environmental issues he's handled.
Michael said...
No, Petey, what he said is exactly what he meant to say.
Mikey,
He admitted to being a Chicago Politician. There is no such thing as an honest Chicago politican. Since you do not know anything about Obama, except what he tells you, you will believe anything. There is a word for that; gullible.
FLS: "Happens in 1/3 of molestation cases, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics."
Of course those stats are based on children who actually say it happened. It's impossible to know how many are actually abused, but say nothing.
Petey: "He admitted to being a Chicago Politician."
Now there's a wild revelation!!
Somebody write that one down.
And to think, Obama was an Illinois State Senator ans is a U.S. Senator from Illinois...grew up in Chicago and lives in Chicgo...and he works in "politics."
What's next...
Petey: "Since you do not know anything about Obama, except what he tells you, you will believe anything."
You must mean, except for his books, biographies, 100's of articles, interviews, appearances, debates and speeches?
Are you daft?
Michael said...
You must mean, except for his books, biographies, 100's of articles, interviews, appearances, debates and speeches?
Are you daft?
You actually wrote all of that and you are asking me if I am daft? Puleeeeeeze!
What dirty blog was the Althouse blog screwing around with that it picked up the itchy and embarrassing STD of a commenter Michael?
I mean, even herpes has a dormant period. For God's sake, isn't there an ointment we can slather on here to get rid of it?
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions.
Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said today on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''
Palladian, I'm afraid you got what you got from one of your hands, dipstick.
holy crap!
today's NYT article on palin is bruuuuutal.
Hey, anybody here know Obama was a Chicago politician?
Really, I heard it from Petey.
Pass it on.
grew up in Chicago and lives in Chicgo...and he works in "politics."
Uh, Mikey,
I thought you read all those books and biographies about Obama? Were they the adult versions or the age appropriate pop up versions?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you did refer to them as being your source of all that you know about Obama. Now, though you are juvenile, you seem to be a fairly intelligent person. I would think that a person of your intelligence who read so many books by and about Obama would know his story. Though we disagree on so much, I believe we can agree on that. I mean, you did read the books and bios, right? You read the articles and read or watched the interviews?
So, dumb fuck, tell me or cite the article, book chapter, or biography chapter that categorically states with proof, verifiable proof, that BARAK OBAMA GREW UP IN CHICAGO
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions.
Great!!!! The government can cut taxes and spending at the same time.
Michael said...
Hey, anybody here know Obama was a Chicago politician?
Really, I heard it from Petey.
Pass it on.
Corrupt Chicago politician. You left out the corrupt part.
Hey, Michael! Good work! You're confusing them with facts.
When they start hurling insults, you know it's because they have nothing else.
Ha-ha!
Were they the adult versions or the age appropriate pop up versions?
Wouldn't the adult versions include "pop ups"? ;)
AlphaLiberal said...
Hey, Michael! Good work! You're confusing them with facts.
Like the one that Obama grew up in Chicago? Hee, hee, hee, hee, hee.
AlphaLiberal - Notice how I posted the FactCheck reference illustrating how the entire ad is a lie and distortion...and not a peep from the wingnuts...not even Ann who loved the clarity...??
Once Again:
VIA FACTCHECK.ORG:
# The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
# It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
# The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
Petey, Obama moved to Chicago when he was all of 23 years old.
Synova wrote:
Is it because she's female, or is it because this is the way Obama dismisses everyone?
I hold out hope it's the way he treats all people, instead of just women.
Equal opportunity snobbishness.
Children *deserve* their innocence.
Hear, hear, Synova. I will never allow my child to go to public school, even if I have to eat cat food and pay for his or her private school tuition.
Better yet, I'll homeschool them. I was wholly innocent until I was 10, maybe even really 13 (I didn't really know what hetero/homosexuality was, until that age). I'm a happier, less tortured person because of that.
Michael: VIA FACTCHECK.ORG: Analysis -
Just another reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up Palin quotes. Nothing he posts is credible. If you insist on mud wrestling with this troll, demand links and follow them yourself.
So, I guess we have to assume that ALL teachers are "left wing" now.
Almost ALL elementary school teachers are Democrats and union members. The exeption in the higher grades for the left leaning bias of teachers is in the hard sciences. Math, Chemistry and other disciplines tend to not attract the left wing types.
Why, you might ask? Because you actually have to use your brain and know your subject to teach science and math instead of just making it up as you go along.
Michael said...
Petey, Obama moved to Chicago when he was all of 23 years old.
Mikey,
You stated Obama grew up in Chicago. A man of 23 YOA is- are you ready for this- an adult. Last time I looked, a 23 YO man is a grown up; an adult; not a child or teenager.
So, can you please explain to me, with some modcum of intelligence, how at 23 years old Obama "grew up" in Chicago?
Is it really that hard for a dumb fuck like you to admit he made a mistake? A factual error? I mean you do claim to live and breath facts. You are in consistent search for the truth? How is it factual and true that Obama, as an adult, grew up in Chicago?
Victoria wrote: "I was wholly innocent until I was 10, maybe even really 13"
We celebrate your feast day every December 28th.
You're a better person because you weren't exposed to the fact that two women or two men can love each other.
grats.
We celebrate your feast day every December 28th.
Yeah, but after 13 I became rather Vulgate.
Better yet, I'll homeschool them. I was wholly innocent until I was 10, maybe even really 13 (I didn't really know what hetero/homosexuality was, until that age). I'm a happier, less tortured person because of that.
Oh yeah, that's a winning plan! How could kids do better than being homeschooled by someone who believes that ignorance is bliss?
fen,
He claims Obama grew up in Chicago. There ya go.
michael, where in my post does it say that?
Almost ALL elementary school teachers are Democrats and union members. The exeption in the higher grades for the left leaning bias of teachers is in the hard sciences. Math, Chemistry and other disciplines tend to not attract the left wing types.
The Dutch multi-utility company Delta has constructed a biomass power plant that converts manure to electricity.
The next time you have a large pile of crap to unload, sell it to Delta instead of posting it here.
"If Obama had an unmarried teenage daughter, and suddenly announced that she was pregnant, this blog site would literally EXPLODE with indignation and calls for his immediate withdrawal as a candidate, based on bad parenting and of course a few would throw in some kind of racial undertone."
This is the part I particularly like... how "we" don't even have to do anything. We're guilty of what we *would* do but haven't done. Particularly the racism.
Right out of Obama's book of tricks, of course. If you can't point at something that the opposition has done, talk about what they're *going* to do. And then when they protest being smeared as racist before-the-fact, go "See, I was right!"
ignorance is bliss
We would all be more blissful if we had never known about you.
"Oh yeah, that's a winning plan! How could kids do better than being homeschooled by someone who believes that ignorance is bliss?"
What part of "children deserve their innocence" do you not understand?
Though thank you for demonstrating the exact attitude that parents worry about when it comes to teachers and other people who do not have a consuming personal interest in their children. It's very easy to decide what is "best" and "age appropriate" and then just assume the Right and Higher Calling to impose that on other people's children.
Heck, it's got to be nearly as intoxicating as Other People's Money, eh?
The true wonder of homeschooling is that parents know what information their children are exposed to and how it is presented. This actually is freeing in a great many ways. With schools often the only way to have any assurance that delicate subjects aren't presented badly or in a way your particular child might not receive well, is to make sure that information isn't presented at all. When you do it yourself, one-on-one, you are far more free to adjust what you do to your individual child.
I get how homeschooling is threatening to many people, particularly those who have their ideas they are so sure are right and should apply to all children.
Curiously it's not liberals. Those who believe in individual freedom and autonomy on both ends of the political spectrum find themselves more in agreement than not when it comes to the question of who is responsible for their children.
"It's patently ridiculous."
LOL. Well, I heard from a guy I know who used to work at a hospital who dated my sister and he says it ain't.
I think you should go find a bunker and chill along with AlphaLiberal.
michael, just because I have a life to conduct here; let me clarify for you what my post meant. It is simply what it is supposed to be, an elementary lesson in human anatomy. However you think it is some sort of attempt to venture into the realm of speculation or some justification of sorts.
I don't know how serious McCain's injuries were, but regardless of that, if he had some injuries to the above mentioned nerves, that will have some consequences. The extend of such consequences is not known to me, but I am sure they don't make his life easier. I did not imply that he's too disable to use a computer, you did.
And since we are on that topic, and you apparently believe that any injury to one's body will produce permanent disability, please do tell us when, where and how you hit your head. I am willing to bet it was at birth.
Ciao
The government can cut taxes and spending at the same time
Theoretically possible. But from Reagan on, no Republican government has managed it.
children deserve their innocence
To be sure. That's why we should arm them against being groped by a relative or family friend.
Honestly, people don't give kindergarten teachers credit to know what's developmentally appropriate for that group. They're not going to teach the Classic Comics version of the Kama Sutra, for pete's sake.
What part of "children deserve their innocence" do you not understand?
You should learn the difference between ignorance and innocence, especially if you are going to sign up for the homeschooling gig.
It seems that we have two parties in the country both of whom want a one-party state.
I'm just so happy we still have two legal parties.
Joyce said...
Obama, McCain and Biden have all been asked tough questions and have fought through D.C. muck. For more than a year, Obama's been hit on everything from his alleged Muslim roots, to his tax plan (wrapped when retold by the McCain camp) to his family background, to his senate record. And he faces up to it. He even went live on Fox, which has done nothing but badmouth him.
Now Palin is feeling the heat, too. Top journalists are tough, rude, probing, arguing. That's how they suss out problems and inconsistencies for the public to see.
Amazing you still maintain your admiration of the top journalists who are so rude, probing, tough, and arguing after this campaign.
Early on, it was clear that both McCain and Obama were given "passes", as was Edwards - while Hillary, Romney and later Huckabee and Rudy were trashed brutally.
The fawning of the press and the pufball questions Obama got became so blatant that Jon Stewart and SNC began mocking them.
By March Edwards was pretty well out of it, but the media refused to bring up or investigate if his affair was true - because it would wreck their John&Elizabeth Love until Death and Noble Sacrifice - template.
After the Comedy Channel and SNC ridicule "Mr. Obama, your question is - Do you want a pillow?" "Hillary. You are Commander in Chief in war and an enemy force is bearing down. What are your tactics?...."Mr. Obama, a follow-up question - Is your pillow comfortable?
alleged Muslim roots, to his tax plan (wrapped when retold by the McCain camp) to his family background, to his senate record. And he faces up to it.
You omit it wasn't the "top journalists asking the tough questions" of their beloved Black Messiah that brought those issues up. The MSM refused to. It was talk radio and blogs that surfaced any dirt or questionable business of Obama. The MSM then did it's best to quash reporting on it as news, a la Edward's love child, and only began covering them when they were forced to by it rised by alternate media to something a good part of the general public became aware of. Rev Wright, NOI ties, Bill Ayers, the Rezko mansion deal, Michelle Obamas nasty words about the country, the "present" votes?
Just about every negative on Obama was not uncovered by a "top journalist" who was an apostate to the Messiah - but by Bloggers, staff of 2-3 conservative TV commentors, talk radio tips.
Obama's own "deflection" strategy was fairly plain. Such issues were a distraction from Hillary's many problems, and a distraction from Iraq, and in turn, Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan. Which if we only can find and get "Mr Big" the only real Muslim extremist - would return America to Barack Bliss.
Nor was Obama trashed by the sort on Fox that are journalists - unlike their "objective peers" at NBC and CBS and NPR which saw Messiah as delivering them from the Bush-Hitler.
Obama got fair treatment on Fox. He got and continues to get better than fair treatment elsewhere.
Palin did not get fair treatment on any of the networks or old Leftist papers - except by Fox. And that excepts the Fox commentors, just like it excepts the Koz Kidz commentors...we are only talking about people that have snookered the public for decades with the pretense that they are "objective, top journalists" determined to get to the bottom of things...(Obama and the Edwards affair they hushed up for a year nonwithstanding)
We would all be more blissful if we had never known about you.
We? If you are going to use the majestic plural (i.e., the "Victorian we"), you must leave out the word "all." Let me correct the sentence for you:
"We would be more blissful if We had never known about you."
Don't bother to thank me, just sod off.
"You should learn the difference between ignorance and innocence, especially if you are going to sign up for the homeschooling gig."
And who's going to determine that and give me permission? You?
I'm of the opinion that I understand very well and you are confused. Why is your opinion on that more important than mine?
Clearly you're prejudiced against people who might have their own ideas about where to draw the line, who might feel that the consequences are important enough that when it comes to their own children they simply must insist on going with their own best judgment.
What it comes down to is one group of people who feels it necessary to control the upbringing of other people's children and the other group who are happy with the freedom and liberty inherent in families with vastly different priorities and ideas making those decisions for themselves.
It's called respect for true ideological diversity.
And who's going to determine that and give me permission? You?
Hey, you don't need anyone's permission to fuck up your kid's education.
Why is your opinion on that more important than mine?
Because I know the difference between ignorance and innocence and you don't.
Clearly you're prejudiced against people who might have their own ideas about where to draw the line
No, but I have a problem with relatively uneducated parents homeschooling their children. Did you know that home school parents are 39 percent less likely to be college graduates?
What it comes down to is one group of people who feels it necessary to control the upbringing of other people's children
What a load of crap. I'm not trying to outlaw homeschooling. Stop misrepresenting what I write and stop playing the victim. I don't have any sympathy for fake victims.
Hey Mikey,
You still looking through your coloring books and pop up books for an explanation of how Obama grew up in Chicago?
Facts are stubborn things aren't they?
"Because I know the difference between ignorance and innocence and you don't."
Do you really have any idea what you type when you type it? You make my arguments for me. You sell homeschooling *for* me.
A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They're the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won't accept that they are losing and they won't listen."
Here's the difference between ignorance and innocence... and the guaranteed failure of "experts" in child development to have a clue...
My child happily accepted all people as people, no matter that his little friend had darker skin and curly hair. It was very normal for him, very ordinary.
A program developed by child development experts for children exactly his age... age appropriate!.. had a show on racism. Wow, that was so not part of his life, and aimed right *exactly* at his age group... what he came away from was an understanding that racism was the norm. That he was *supposed* to notice those things.
Why? Because he was five, and five year olds very predictably and very *consistently* are trying to figure out the world around them and trying very *very* hard to conform to it. They don't register that something is good or bad... simply that it *is*.
And any freaking "specialist" "expert" in child development should have understood this.
So my child's *innocence* is harmed and I'm left to do damage control.
SpongeBob is going to do less harm to a child than public television educational programming. And if child development experts can mess up an issue like racism so very badly... I sure as h*ll don't want them explaining "age appropriately" that some adults, maybe their own parents, want to hurt them.
In a way, it's irrelevant whether Obama's or McCain's campaign "lies more." The fact of the matter is, it's a stream of lies and smears directed against McCain/Palin (mostly the latter) that's been peddled by the mainstream media, sometimes in front page headlines (cf. today's Washington Post). Whether or not the Obama campaign has any hand in disseminating those lies and smears, the fact of the matter is that they are disseminated by the media in order to help Obama.
So those Obama supporters invested in the "McCain/Palin are liars" meme can repeat it all they want, it's certainly repeated & reinforced by the mainstream media (making reference to the "distortions" and "smears" of the McCain campaign, as reasons--or rationalizations--why Obama is going to get "tougher"). But over the past 2 weeks, it's a barrage of lies about Palin that citizens have been repeatedly hit over the head with, whether by journalistic sources (tv news and newspapers) or celebrity loudmouths (cf. Matt Damon) or late night comedians, etc. Whatever lies and distortions you claim the McCain campaign is peddling, they are certainly not amplified and disseminated through the megaphone and in the voice(s) of the mainstream media (as it were in [the journalist's] propria persona).
That, I think, has more of an influence on the extent to which the swing voter may feel he/she is "being lied to," about whom and by whom. I think the shift in the polls supports this. The cumulative effect, from the hysterical, off-the-wall accusations against Palin when she first stepped into the national spotlight, up to the obviously dishonest/biased editing of her interview with Gibson, is of a wall-to-wall effort to deceive-- in order to help Obama and hurt McCain/Palin. Regardless of whether the Obama campaign itself is implicated or innocent in this, that is the effect (certainly that's the way I've been made to feel).
And in a (little) way I feel sorry for him, because he & the media are now caught in a vicious cycle. The worse things look for him, the more desperate those in the media will be to help him; the more desperately the media tries to help him, the more the egregious bias will turn off voters. Ultimately, every desperate attempt to further "unmask" Palin will only add another layer to her teflon coating.
The thing I got in the mail yesterday from the state democratic party was all lies. Or rather, it was very carefully selected truths presented in a way that would lead people to specific and understood misinterpretations and wrong conclusions.
I don't think it will work. And I don't think it works when McCain or any other politician does something similar. Because people are on to the game, yes? The only people who will read the flier I got in the mail and go "OMG, McCain wants to enslave women!" are Whoopie Goldberg and everyone else who *already* thought so.
Certainly we're all sophisticated enough to understand that *of course* McCain is trying to show Obama in a bad light. And *of course* Obama is going to try to portray himself as, well, the way he's trying to portray himself, and McCain as BushAgain and Palin as a hick from the sticks.
They all risk shooting themselves in the foot. I thought this ad, for example, was far too heavy on the "How disrespectful." It risks making Palin seem weak, which she's not. A hint would have been better and then let other people come to their own conclusion.
BTW, when do we finally get a debate? Could we please have a debate?
Me: It's relatively rare for biological parents to molest their own children. (source: Dr. Drew Pinsky).
FLS: Happens in 1/3 of molestation cases, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Me: No, I looked it up. They separate it by family members, acquaintances, and strangers. I imagine step-fathers and step-brothers (and common law husbands) are considered family members, but they don't specify. Of course, no telling how much blood incest is never reported.
# The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
Palin did say no to the bridge to no where. The bridge like all earmarks was a pet project of a U.S. Senator. According to the final legislation, the money was appropriated to Alaska to do whatever they wanted with it, but it was clear that the money was for the bridge. It was a gift from Ted Stevens to those who wanted the bridge. But Palin said no and appropriated the money to the general coffers instead, thus stiffing Stevens and the entire Republican establishment.
You don't get the issue with earmarks do you? Earmarks are not necessarily about the money, they are about corruption. Earmarks are the unseen pet projects from Senators/Congress. They are the pinnacle of corruption, because Senators and Reps use them to gain influence, pay off "debts" and make names for themselves in their home districts. Senators and Reps got to Washington to serve the people and not themselves. Earmarks are designed to serve the Senators and Reps, not the people.
Imagine if the governor of Illinois had stood up to Barack Obama and the Chicago Machine when Barack earmarked $1 million of taxpayer money to his wife's employer.
In contrast, Sarah Palin is someone who has fought the machine.
McCain and Palin will end the despicable earmark process. They will make it so all earmarks are laid out on the table so that Senators like Obama will have to explain why they are earmarking money to his wife's employer.
I was reading comments somewhere or other yesterday (the ones here, from both sides, are fabulous) and one person was going on and on about earmarks and how he or she was from Arizona and how McCain was a crappy Senator because he did nothing to get earmarks for his state. He was supposed to get as much money as he could for Arizona and he didn't. So no way was this person voting for McCain.
I don't know how true it is, but maybe I like McCain better today than I did before.
Palin herself never said she went to Iraq. This "lying" meme that the Dems and libs are spouting lately is the panic of a failing campaign, and evidence that Obama is tanking in their internal polls big time.
So what is the story about Obama and money for his wife's employer after she got a huge raise?
And why don't we know more about this story? Really, the media should investigate something like that, shouldn't they?
BTW, when do we finally get a debate? Could we please have a debate?
How about this.
Is taxing the top 5%, those who provide the capital for nearly 100% of the jobs in this country, and then transferring the tax to the middle class and poor in refundable credits - is that good economic policy or just populism.
He was supposed to get as much money as he could for Arizona and he didn't. So no way was this person voting for McCain.
Some Senators and reps rationalize taking earmarks for this purpose. They say, well we should get our fair share, so I am giving our earmarks to projects that serve the public good, etc... This could be true in some circumstances and for some senators, but its hard to believe. The system is just to ripe for corruption. It's hard to beleive that Senators/reps could resist the inlfluence they can get for their earmarks.
In a way, I think it plays to McCain's favor that Palin be even more scrutinized than a man - because she is trying to become the 1st WOMAN..., so Gibson's interview is good for that reason.
At the same time, I think they are being cognizant of the sexism for the sake of the PUMA crowd.
I wrote about this on my new blog:
http://elmumfo.blogspot.com/
I do hope they are careful with the sexism/victim stuff, but I understand that they are leaving nothing on the table to win the election - which is good!
Synova said...
So what is the story about Obama and money for his wife's employer after she got a huge raise?
And why don't we know more about this story? Really, the media should investigate something like that, shouldn't they?
What part of the media is in the toilet for Obama don’t you understand? What part of Obama is a product- bought and paid for- of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine don’t you understand? What part of we must make history and elect a Black man as president don’t you understand?
Barak Obama can do no wrong. He is the Messiah, come down from the mountain. He will liberate us and break our chains of slavery. He is da man. Da man with no credentials.
So what is the story about Obama and money for his wife's employer after she got a huge raise?
Just ask Mikey. He knows everything.
I’m Barak Obama and I approved this message.
It just proves that American politicians are all talk and no action. But if putting lipstick on pigs ever becomes truly profitable, you know that Congress will demand that the federal government support swine lip-gloss subsidies, and swine lip studies, and so on. Such trickery already has a name:
Pigs-earmarks.
Yachu:
God Bless You. Heh.
Synova:
Obama got some federal grant or earmark for the hospital where Michele works. The grant was at least $1 Million and was around the same time Michele got like a $150,000 raise.
We already covered this in a previous thread, but since the Leftys insist on repeating their ignorance, I will repeat...
Obama (and you) claim that the bill in question is not comprehensive sex education, that's it is about good touch/bad touch but that is a complete and utter lie.
Nowhere in the bill does it specify that only good touch/bad touch is to be taught to kindergartners. It says "age appropriate" which means different things to different people: meaning it leaves it entirely at the discretion of those who are teaching the course - not to the parents. Despite your claims to the contrary, there is no prohibition against teaching them about STDs, oral sex, or any of the things that parents would be concerned about having taught to the kindergartners. In short, every word you've written on the subject is a complete lie.
We see over and over and over again across the country where teachers and entire school systems who take it upon themselves to engage children in discussions that are in no way age appropriate, so any claim to the effect that "you can't possibly think they would" is way off base. That's why the percentage of parents who are homeschooling or enrolling their children in private schools increases every year: because just when you think that public education can't get any more base, it does.
The fact that you would defend this legislation tells me that you don't have children and likely never will. Here's a news flash: you don't get to decide how and when my child (or anybody else's child) learns about sex and sexuality. It's neither your business nor that of anyone outside my family. You want to know why you keep losing elections that you think you're entitled to win? Because you think somewhere along the line you were given the right to tell me and everybody else how to raise our families, and you think you have the right to force it down our throats under the threat of law if we don't agree. And you want to even open your mouth to complain about the religious Right? Don't make me laugh...you only make yourself look like a fool every time you try.
For people who get so charged up when somebody else tries to impose their morality on you, you have no problem trying to jam your hypersexualized morality down me and my family's throats under the force of law. You know what that makes you besides a complete jackass: a hypocrite. You know, that thing that you keep accusing your political opponents of being? You're so indoctrinated by your Left-Liberal politics that you don't even see how ridiculous your entire position on the subject of sex education is.
Do yourselves a favor and shut your yaps. When you have children, then you can decide what and when they learn about sex. As for me and my family, you and Obama can take your government-mandated morality and stick it.
Jim:
Very well said. I asked the same earlier - they left it very vague (age appropriate) so they could do as they felt later.
People like Obama and liberals fancy themselves big thinkers and don't get themselves tangled up in the little details and pitfalls of the dopey programs they enact.
Don't bother to thank me, just sod off.
You've got spunk. I hate spunk! At least on my face.
Cheers,
Victoria
synova: As a concerned, thoughtful parent, you may be relieved to learn that the bill Obama apparently voted out of committee, to extend 6-12 sex education to K-12 retained the right of parents to review the instructional materials ahead of time, and to opt their child out of the sex ed instruction:
6 (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)
7 Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.
...
(d) An opportunity shall be afforded to parents or
2 guardians to examine the instructional materials to be used
3 in such class or course.
4 (Source: P.A. 86-941.)
And here's Obama's earmark requests for FY2006:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_scoop_obama_after_initia.html
Obama Requested $5 Million For Northwestern Memorial Hospital’s Prentice Woman’s Hospital. In 2006, Obama requested that Northwestern Memorial Hospital receive $5 million to support its Prentice Woman’s Hospital. The current Prentice Women's Hospital is the largest birthing center in a 7 state region with nearly 10,000 babies born annually. This is partially due to population growth in the area, resulting in a 100% increase in deliveries since 1985, and this 1970s facility is now reaching maximum capacity. Northwestern Memorial Hospital has begun construction of a new Prentice Women's Hospital to replace the current facility and provide comprehensive care for women of all ages, and will include a comprehensive array of state-of-the-art services for women's contemporary health needs. Since its current quarters cannot support future technological needs and anticipated growth to more than 10,000 deliveries by 2010, funding to support construction costs would greatly aid in meeting the demand from this growing community. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education, 4/5/06]
Whoops, silly me. Obama asked for $5 million for Northwestern, not Michelle's hospital, University of Chicago. He only requested $1 million for Michelle's employer:
Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago. UCH is one of the largest Medicaid providers in Illinois, and it provided more than $90 million in uncompensated care for Medicare and Medicaid patients this past year. To continue providing the best care for patients from all walks of life, UCH is proceeding with the construction of a new 600,000 square foot facility that will ensure their ability to provide the best care for patients well into the future. Funding will go towards assisting the construction and equipping a new hospital pavilion that will increase the Hospitals' clinical capacity by over one-third. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]
As it turned out, neither Michelle's employer nor its competitor got a dime.
PM, if I may quote what you wrote in your very good post about Palin:
In politics, there is a certain virtue to not hitting a home run every time you get up to bat.
You know, that's a good point. On a subliminal level, Palin is approachable and we all know she's new to the national spotlight.
It was absolutely essential for her to hit a grand slam in the RNC speech. I and so many others said that, during the live-blogging thread. She did.
Now, she can actually afford not to bedazzle too much, and likewise, not to be too below average.
It's enough for the first few interviews, until the debate, for her to be decent.
It will not be easy, but I believe when Sarah Palin has finished running the gauntlet of the mainstream media, the perception of the American public will be that she was interrogated more thoroughly than any of the other three candidates. Some may justifiably call it unfair. My view is that it is to Palin's advantage.
The thing is, she has another crucial Reagan quality -- so far, she's made of Teflon. Nothing sticks.
I've counted over 70 rumours about her, and really, none of them have worked. The Left have one card to play -- Troopergate. They will go after this "small potatoes" scandal for all it is worth.
Unless they have some kind of smoking gun (a secret tape of her berating the commissioner about firing the Trooper), it's not going to be enough to bring her down in the eyes of the American public.
She's going to have to do that herself.
Cheers,
Victoria
Jim, standing ovation about what you wrote from me. And I'm not even yet a parent.
Cheers,
Victoria
Here's a news flash: you don't get to decide how and when my child (or anybody else's child) learns about sex and sexuality. It's neither your business nor that of anyone outside my family
The father of friends of mine thought it was his right to have sex with his daughter, their sister, from age eight to twelve. He stopped when she began to menstruate, fearing a little incestual bastard. He thought this was none of anyone's business, either. He was a devout Christian and father of seven.
She was never able to have a normal intimate relationship with another human being.
Peter V. Bella’s song describes Palin more than it does anyone else in this presidential race. As for Lisa’s remark that “Palin should be evaluated to the same degree the other candidates” – it is obvious that the only reason Palin was selected to be McCain’s running mate is because she is a woman – no man with so little understanding of foreign affairs and policy issues would EVER have been selected by either party. The only things Palin has going for her are her gender, her down-home folksiness, her NRA membership, her moose hunting, her considerable good looks and charm. She is the new poster-child for the double-standard, because if she were really competing on competence, she never would have been selected.
it just seems to me some American people will believe anything coming from republicans...talk about the bread and butter issues that affect me and my children and the country as a whole. This is why you have many uninformed citizens because they believe crap like this!
"it just seems to me some American people will believe anything coming from republicans...talk about the bread and butter issues that affect me and my children and the country as a whole. This is why you have many uninformed citizens because they believe crap like this!"
I'm glad that you have the courage to admit that, yes, this is why we have so many uniformed citizens, because they believe crap like what you wrote.
Mark in Irvine wrote:
it is obvious that the only reason Palin was selected to be McCain’s running mate is because she is a woman – no man with so little understanding of foreign affairs and policy issues would EVER have been selected by either party.
That conclusion is only obvious to those who don't want Republicans to win this election.
Do you know why Palin was chosen?
Let me put it to you this way. Remember Diana Taurasi, the Connecticut Husky phenom basketball star?
She was called the "Lady Vols killer", because that's what she did. Every time she came on the court, she destroyed Pat Summitt's team.
Sarah Palin is the Obama killer.
He renders all his accomplishments, talking points, and criticisms about Republicans being "the same old same old", moot.
Sorry your guy didn't choose Hillary. But don't take it out on us because our guy is a crafty veteran.
Cheers,
Victoria
According to the latest U.S. Government data, parents account for 26% of all reported cases of child sexual abuse:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/table3_19.htm
It's not the place for strangers to teach children barely out of diapers about sex, either the perverted or the normal kind.
Keep it up. We'll win the White House for the next 2 decades with crap like this.
FLS,
2 problems:
1. Your anecdote is not data.
2. Your statistic doesn't justify taking the right to make parenting decisions away from parents. And even if it did, highly politicized public school teachers are hardly the proper conduit.
There is an excellent program available from the Committee For Children that provides age-tuned courses to teach children about unwanted sexual advances. It is called Talking about Touching. I've seen some of the material. It is great stuff, and the CfC offers training to people who want to teach it to children. It has materials tailor-made for Pre/K, grades 1-3, 2-6, etc.
I'm all for teaching kids this stuff. But the Illinois program goes way beyond that, and that is absolutely unnecessary if your only stated reason for supporting kindergarten sex ed is to protect against molestation. When I read the text of the Illinois bill, I knew that Obama's excuse was absolute bullshit.
Now when you look at this material, at first you're going to think, "where's the molestation stuff"? It's buried in between fire safety, car safety, etc. etc.
The folks who are behind this have found in their studies that that there are negative effects of overteaching about dangerous things. What I mean is: if you just come right out and tell a pre/K that there are people out in the world who want you to touch their pee pee, they're actually going to be harmed by the fear of it. Couching information about sexual safety among other safety measures still gets the point across without the fear factor.
These aren't amateurs. This stuff is backed up by lots of research and study.
From their history page:
The origins of Committee for Children trace to the streets, where cultural anthropologist Dr. Jennifer James sought to identify the risk factors in the lives of children who turn to prostitution. Dr. James's groundbreaking work at the University of Washington in Seattle established that early sexual abuse was linked strongly to later prostitution.
As a response, Dr. James founded Judicial Advocates for Women to sustain an avenue for research and child sexual abuse prevention. In 1981, the group produced the TALKING ABOUT TOUCHING program, a personal safety and sexual abuse prevention curriculum that is still in use today.
OK, that's all, sorry for the multiple post. I just want to dismantle this idea that you've got to teach anything remotely resembling sex ed to kids to teach them to guard against sexual abuse. I would not be surprised if the Illinois-mandated programs wouldn't have been worse for these kids than nothing.
http://www.prints-online.com/pictures_605843/CHILD-UNDER-CABBAGE-LEAF.jpg
vbs illustrating where babies come from.
Avoiding sex education seems a strange attitude for a physician to take, but so be it. Will Victoria explain STDs to her future child, and if so, when, I wonder.
Will Victoria explain STDs to her future child, and if so, when, I wonder.
Don't worry. The moment he gets crabs, I'm taking out the Ross Perot pie charts.
I just want to dismantle this idea that you've got to teach anything remotely resembling sex ed to kids to teach them to guard against sexual abuse.
Well, that's not fair of me. It does resemble sex ed because they encourage parents to use of proper names for private parts, and teach them to their kids, etc. So it sounds explicit in some sense. (Indeed, that's one reason why if you Google this stuff you'll see some objections to it.) Honestly, it made me squirm watching it, thinking we'd have to talk to our daughter like that.
I guess what I should say is that it does not resemble comprehensive sex ed in that it doesn't address the myriad of issues found in a typical sex ed course for older kids, including many of the topics mandated by the Illinois law.
The Illinois law covered grades K-12, hoping the words "age-appropriate" would be enough guidance for the curriculum developers. Here's how "comprehensive K-12 sex ed" plays out for kindergarteners across the country:
Cleveland (Oct 06): The new classes, which begin soon, will address self-esteem and peer pressure as well as biology. Children in grades K-3 will learn
about how viruses work and appropriate and inappropriate touching.
Grades 4-6 will start learning about menstruation and other aspects of reproductive health.
California:
Child abuse, including sexual exploitation: Identifying ways to seek assistance if worried, abused, or threatened, including how to tell a trusted adult if uncomfortable touching occurs Developing and using communication
skills to tell others when touching is unwanted After parents are notified and local standards are complied with, age-appropriate information about child abuse or neglect can be introduced. Included should be reference to each person’s right to the privacy of his or her body and the appropriateness of telling others when touching is not welcome. Instruction should emphasize
that a child is not at fault if the child is touched in an improper or uncomfortable way by an adult. The child’s responsibility in this situation is to tell a trusted adult what had occurred.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/healthfw.pdf
Other localities postpone sex education till 5th or 6th grade, yet start with HIV prevention from Kindergarten on:
Prescott, Arizona:
GRADES K-4
Focus is on healthy practices that reduce the risk of infection. Students should be able to differentiate between communicable and non-communicable disease. Students will be introduced to HIV/AIDS and learn that it is transmitted by blood. Students will learn how to be assertive and say no to behaviors that might transmit HIV.
New York Sexuality Education Law
Health education is required in kindergarten through sixth grade for all students. This instruction must provide information about HIV/AIDS including how to prevent its transmission. Health education is taught by classroom teachers in kindergarten through sixth grade and by certified health teachers in grades seven through twelve. In grades seven through twelve, health education must be a separate one-half year course.
The Illinois law covered grades K-12, hoping the words "age-appropriate" would be enough guidance for the curriculum developers.
That's all well and good except that subsequent subparagraphs mandated specific topics to be covered. So if you, I, or anyone else things that such a topic wasn't age appropriate, well, tough, the law apparently disagrees.
Focus is on healthy practices that reduce the risk of infection. Students should be able to differentiate between communicable and non-communicable disease. Students will be introduced to HIV/AIDS and learn that it is transmitted by blood. Students will learn how to be assertive and say no to behaviors that might transmit HIV.
This is supposed to sway us, FLS? Why does a kindergartner need to learn about HIV/AIDS? And nice dodge there about learning that it is transmitted by blood. So when they get to the part where they learn about "behaviors that might transmit HIV" I assume they're talking about, what, swearing blood brother oaths?
Or are they hoping that when a sexual predator is threatening to anally rape them, they'll have the presence of mind to ask him to use a condom to reduce his risk of HIV infection?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, FLS. There is absolutely nothing here that needs to be taught simply to protect against inappropriate sexual touching. It's not inappropriate because of a risk of pregancy or STD. It's inappropriate because they're 5-6 years old.
You sell homeschooling *for* me.
It's fantastic that you put so much thought into an important decision about your child's education. What better resource for making a critical decision than blog comments?
You went the extra mile for your kid, Synova. Rock on sister!
It's not the place for strangers to teach children barely out of diapers about sex, either the perverted or the normal kind.
Barely out of diapers? Do the children of republicans have bladder control/potty training problems?
I've never heard a parent or child describe the child's teacher as a stranger. What a bizarre world republicans inhabit.
The only way McCain gets away with this ad is that Obama made such a production of being a "different" kind of politician who would run a "different" kind of campaign. He has demonstrated that he is nothing if not an old style politician.
Obama's attacks on Palin have been sexist.
I don't personally see the "lipstick" comment as being one of them so I do agree that the McCain campaign is overplaying the argument. If they are going comment on the sexism in the attacks, they should concentrate on only one or two. For example, the Obama campaign seems to have a serial problem in remembering that her titile is GOVERNOR.
As to the issue of women being prepared to "take" the hard questioning, I agree that Palin should not be spared.
What I question - and I believe its an opinion that lots of people share - is when Obama is going to start being treated the same way.
One thing I liked to see in the Gibson interview was that he did not accept her first answer and move on. He asked followed-up on her responses.
Too often in this campaign Obama has made the most ridiculous comments and the reporter in question accepts the response like it answered all of life's questions when, in truth, it was largely incoherent.
You see, Krylovite... it's not all about you.
If you want to convince anyone, then you need to be convincing on their terms, rather than anti-convincing, as you are. Unless it's just about being right and feeling superior. In which case I suppose you succeed.
But in the end... people like me are going to out reproduce people like you anyway, and the bloviating of people like you will convince ever more people, who actually *like* humans, to avoid situations such as public school where self-proclaimed experts feel qualified to mess with the psyches of individual human beings that they hardly know and will never deal with again.
the mccain camp has turned lying into a new artform but you find this ludricous "how disrespectful" ad to be "effective."
deep insight.
I will give you this, when Obama lies he's rather inartful about it. He's downright lousy. If only it didn't happen so often.
Post a Comment