In this Discussion
- agentnumone September 2008
- beckysioux November 2008
- canoe7grape October 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- darbie_starpower December 2009
- DJRose December 2009
- dollarflame6 October 2008
- jedi_grrlie September 2008
- llama0engine November 2008
- manx9shrine June 2008
- moveadvice72 September 2008
- Pearl June 2008
- QueenofthePosers June 2008
- redsusan47 November 2008
- spy9black June 2008
- Surfer Rosa January 2009
- swissfeast68 November 2008
- target35ghost August 2008
- Tempe Arizona November 2008
- thephantommilk November 2008
- tune1shade November 2008
- women60banana November 2008
Comments
And yes, Palin is a disgusting person. She rallied with McCain saying that earmarks are "bad" when she herself submitted a list for Alaska projects worth $197.8 million this year. I wonder if she knows the definition of hypocrite.
"Earlier this year, John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, Sarah Palin, slashed funding for programs that help support teen mothers in her state of Alaska."
She also declined to support sex-ed programs in the Governor's questionnaire.
Also, if you haven't yet, do yourself a favor and watch the video Amy posted!
I admire Obama for saying that the media should keep out of Palin's family matters. I also think that just because she is a mother with controversial children, does not mean she should not run. If she were a man, she would not have the same scrutiny. Obama says he's about change. He's managed to even change the Republicans enough that they chose a woman for the ticket. I'm ever an optomist. I'm excited about this election because for both sides, Democratic and Republican, it's historic.
Maybe not, but I think it's relevant in this particular case. Mothers are WAY more important in these matters to children than Fathers. Look, when I get pregnant, I'm calling my MOM because she's the one of my parents who has actually been through it before. And if I have an infant with special needs, I am sure as heck going to devote as much time as humanly possible to the development of that baby. Look, there are treatments that SHE can give her child so that her kid won't be as behind developmentally as a downs syndrome baby would be normally. She can make that kid's life better!
Look, if I were 17 and pregnant, I would already be feeling pretty shitty. Now let's imagine that I'm 17, Pregnant, and my mother is running for the Vice Presidency. Now Perez Hilton is calling me a Whore. THANKS MOM. Oh, yeah, and also, Mom, thanks for all that great sex non-education you advocated for, you know, that got me knocked up in the first place! These kids are in ALASKA. Probably not that much to keep them occupied. Maybe we should talk to them about what happens when you screw around (pun intended).
I also cannot stand any single one of her policies (anti-choice, anti-gays, pro-guns, anti-environment, pro-oil companies, pro-religion in the state), nor her Church's stance on Jews (her pastor is great buds with Jews for Jesus), and for all of those reasons, I call her heinous and vile. For the record, I'd use the words heinous and vile to describe many male politicians as well (JOE LIEBERMAN).
PS, I loved that vid Amy posted. I'll raise you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-QevraCQUc
I admire Obama for saying that the media should keep out of Palin's family matters. I also think that just because she is a mother with controversial children, does not mean she should not run. If she were a man, she would not have the same scrutiny. Obama says he's about change. He's managed to even change the Republicans enough that they chose a woman for the ticket. I'm ever an optomist. I'm excited about this election because for both sides, Democratic and Republican, it's historic.
I have to respectfully disagree.
If one of Obama's daughters were a teenager and pregnant, you know the GOP would be all over it. Black unwed pregnant girl? They'd have a field day. "Scrutiny" would be an understatement.
Moreover, Palin was the one who thrust her daughter onto the national stage, and continues to put her family up as props in as many ads and photo ops as she can. She calls herself a "hockey mom"- ie, she is the one telling us her identity is wrapped up in her family. It's not sexism; she herself told us to associate her with maternity and family. You can't say "I'm a hockey mom," prop up your family for pics and ads, announce your daughter is pregnant, claim to be against sex ed, then say peopl should close their eyes at her family. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Moreover, the GOP talking heads always go on and on and on and on about how it's the parents to blame, discussing Jamie Lynn Spears to the MA girls. All of a sudden, they're telling us never mind, we were just kidding, we didn't mean what we said, or at least don't apply what we said before to this situation. It's underhanded.
And Palin is no step forward. McCain called his own wife a cunt, and divorced his first wife just b/c she became handicapped and gained weight. He also voted against fair pay for women and men. And he's said clearly that he wants to do away with Roe v Wade. He's no feminist, and neither is Palin. He grabbed her up without knowing her (he met her only twice before) simply b/c he thinks we can't tell the difference between ppl with va****s, as the new phrase goes.
There were many, many, many muuuuuch more qualified candidates, both male and female, but McCain grabbed the family-oriented, beauty queen trophy woman after Obama's speech b/c he wanted to get in the historic game. He's a nasty old man. McCain picking Palin in no way represents change.
And Palin's crimes, from doctoring documents to keep the polar bear off the endagered species list to her troppergate investigation, are gradually coming out. Sarah Palin is NO feminist and NO Hillary Clinton: she's got NO law degree, NO idea what the vp does, NO experience outside of governing the empty snow and NO clue.
No way, no how, no McCain. Change doesn't mean change the biology; it means philosophically and ideologically, let's promote progress.
PS: Palin showed her gratitude to Obama's kindness by um, lies and attacks tonight. Nice.
Thank God for Youtube
Well, Amy, logic would suggest that she cares more about her career (although she knows little about her prospective position) than she does about her children...and the wolves that she enjoys killing so brutally. You know, my papa hunted deer. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, really, but he never wasted anything that he caught.
I agree with you about Hillary. And Frankly, I am very afraid of what a Palin presidency would mean for this country. I don't think congress would allow reversal of Roe vs. Wade, and there are certainly enough democrats in congress to fight for sex education, gay rights, and healthcare, but I don't know how much damage she could actually do. She will not make anything better, though, and that is what we need - someone humble, organized and intelligent enough to know how to go about cleaning up the enormous mess that Bush has made of things. I think Obama can do it. I know he's the best chance we have at recovery.
Also, I nominate you for the President of YouTube Links. The ones you've posted are really funny. But have you noticed how negative the responses are to the videos? It seems that YouTube is being dominated by hateful people. Mostly Republicans responded to the videos you posted.
Hmmm...
Anywho, I'm sure most of you have seen this one already, but it really is brilliant, so here.
But as a follow-up, the thing I DON'T GET is how women think that because she's a woman, she is automatically going to make it better for the ladies. The Republicans seem to be trotting her around as some sort of warped Republican sex object; "Look guys! We're progressive and have a LADY VP. (But don't worry men. Look! She's a hottie! So she won't make you feel emasculated!)"
I know we have a democratic majority in terms of the legislative wing, but there are so many people what bills that seem otherwise counter to left sensibilities get passed (Hey retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who went along with illegal wiretapping, 'SUP?).
With that argument, you could accuse a lot of people of being heinous selfish bitches. What about all those Hollywood moms who get preggers? What about, say, Angelina Jolie? OH MY GOD her children will be - and are! - under such scrutiny! She should just stop being so internationally famous and concentrate on being a mom!
Maybe that seems like a stretch, to compare a politician to a celebrity, but when you think about the fact that we as a culture and a society give MUCH more attention to our celebrities and their antics and their pregnancies, it really isn't.
You're also not Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter. Her relationship with her mother may not be the same as you had with your mother. Maybe she encouraged her mother to accept McCain's proposal. Maybe she discussed this with her family beforehand. None of which you know about. (If there is evidence for or against this, please let me know.)
My point is I think it's incredibly mean-spirited to call her things like a "harpy" and "a selfish bitch" for wanting to further her career. Do I think it's incredibly nice of her to put her family under such scrutiny? No, but I don't think that means she should not have taken the position. I think you can call her heinous and vile for her political record and values (none of which I agree with), but claiming that she is a TERRIBLE PERSON because she should be AT HOME with her KIDS HOW DARE SHE actually smacks of sexism to me. Not that that's what you meant, but that, to me is what it comes across as.
I don't particularly like Palin, so this isn't really my defending her. But I think she and her family must have understood what position they would be in if she accepted McCain's offer, and calling her out for "exposing" her teen daughter just seems like a lame reason to hate on her.
I wholly agree with what Tempe said. Palin is not a demon, and Obama is not a saint. They are politicians. Demonising one in order to laud the other as a heaven-sent angel is going to lead to disappointment at some point down the road, whether your "demon" winds up in office or your "saint" winds up doing something you don't agree with. I have to say, I'd prefer Obama in office but I have grown grossly disenchanted with him as of late.
Somebody pointed this out to me recently, and I agree - the biggest problem we have in this nation is not necessarily the presidency and his administration (although that is a huge part of it), it is largely the fact that we have a Congress full of Democrats and Republicans that DO NOT want to work together to get ANYTHING done. I saw Howard Dean speak to the CDA '05 Convention; he was fucking amazing and one of the most brilliant people I've had the chance to hear speak. And he pointed out that, you know what? Democrats don't have all the answers, and neither do Republicans. It's not until we come together and stop focusing so much on who's red and who's blue that things will start to change.
I stand by what I've said before - I think McCain will win the election, but I wouldn't be surprised if Obama took it, either. In any case, I'm moving to Europe in the next year, so.
ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/...amp;exprod=digg
An Op-Ed on McCain's health coverage proposal, which is supposed to get us off of our dependency of employer-provided health care. Which I agree with. What I do NOT agree with is that, instead of doing this by providing universal health care, it's going to force lots and lots of people to run to the health care market, which is messed up.
What I agree with more, though, is the author's assertion that maybe we need to be focusing less on lipstick and whether or not Palin should have accepted the nomination because of her kids and start paying MORE attention to stuff like this. I'm tired of hearing about Palin not because I hate her or something but because we should be focusing on the people who are actually running for the presidency itself - which would be McCain and Obama - and their proposals. (That isn't so much directed to you guys as to the nation in general.)
This is all such a shit-show.
Discussing her irresponsibility to her family doesn't mean "that woman should be at home, where women belong." Not everything that puts family and females in the same idea is sexist. Palin was irresponsible to her newborn and her pregnant daughter, and she just happens to be a woman.
Just because she's a woman doesn't mean we treat her with kid gloves. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean we can't question her life philosophies and how she handles things. Being a feminist does not mean a carte blanche for the female: it means we examine the female in the same way that we examine a male. If Obama were in this position, he sure as heck would be under fire- ppl still haven't shut up about "he raised his kids in that church!" and I can only image what they'd say about a preganant daughter and a newborn son. In fact, SNL just did a skit tonight about that very scenario, creating a commercial that went: "Obama! He already has TWO BLACK kids born inWEDLOCK!" Granted, a white man probly wouldn't get the same scrutiny as Palin, but since Obama is Obama, the game has changed.
It doesn't help to stamp "hands off" on every female/career/family issue. That's actually the opposite of what should happen. Instead, everybody in the country ought to be discussing the new role of women, and how they balance career and family. Remember when Hill said "I guess I could be home baking cookies," and everyone erupted? It was a huge moment not just b/c it made some socially conservative ppl upset, but also b/c it was her making The New Role of Women front and center.
Palin is doing the opposite. Palin's hallmark is that she's a hockey mom. She's not telling us to support her b/c she passed awesome legislation or b/c she has great diplomacy skills with foreign leaders or b/c she has brand new ideas on how to reform healthcare. No, she wants our attention for being a mom. Ok, if that's the standard she wants us to apply to her, then let's apply it- how good is she at being a hockey mom?
Well, for the "hockey" part, I don't know. What exactly IS a hockey mom? She drives her kids to hockey games and cheers for them? Or she plays hockey? I don't know. I'd assume she can do those things.
But the mom part...She and her husband are both trekking the country campaigning. If the newborn is trekking with them, I think we can safely say she's not a very good mother and is putting the baby in a bad environment.
If the baby is with a nanny or something, that's good and fine for the baby, but it means Palin isn't the picture of the relatable super-mom she tells us to see her as.
Even if her teenager did tell her it was fine to put her pregnancy in the national spotlight, that doesn't negate the fact that it discounts Palin's only professed credibility: being a good mom.
WhattheBuck put out a vid today that mentioned how "that's sexist!" is the new catchphrase that's going on. And he's right. It's annoying how any criticism of Palin, whether about her experience or her self-professed emphasis on motherhood, is always rebutted simply as sexism. Not everything is sexist. When you're running for vp of the biggest military power on earth, nothing is. As Jon Stewart said, she's not going to be queen- she's running for vp. If you can't take criticism on your own favorite issue, how are you going to hack it on the world stage? Sexism was not why Hillary Clinton lost, and it won't be the reason Palin does, if she does. There's nothing wrong with a woman or a mother as vp- just not this woman. She's failed even at her one claim to sufficiency: being a good mother.
That she's not an ideal mother is not, of course, the reason she's not vp material- after all, if she had credibility at something else, say, Wallstreet, then we wouldn't care so much that she's a bad mother. But since she's got nothing else to brag about, this is just one more thing to make us shake our heads.
Some people are horrified by how Palin has put her Down Syndrome afflicted newborn and her pregnant daughter aside so she could run. It's understandable that people are horrified, and that doesn't mean these ppl are sexist- a newborn with special needs and a pregnant teen are together an extreme case, not a "those kids don't need their parents all the time anyway" situation. Personally, it's not how she put them aside that bothers me, but that she has the hypocrisy to call herself a perfect 50's housewife, anti-choice, "pay for your rape kits," hockey mom- especially since she had put Hillary Clinton down for speaking about sexism. She said Hill was doing a disservice to women and that she should have just "worked harder" to prove herself. I can't stand that kind of hypocrisy.
I didn't say that every criticism of Palin is sexist and I certainly agree with that statement - it's a ridiculous cop-out to yell "SEXISM!" anytime someone tries to say anything about her record and experience and credibility (or lack thereof) and it's a shame for all women, everywhere, if we're just going to hide behind the "that's sexism!" screen to avoid criticism.
What I was objecting to was the language that was being used to describe Palin as "heinous" and "vile" because she supposedly put her career before her children and that it comes across too strong, extremely biased, and, yes, as an antiquated mind set to me. I know that's not what was being said, absolutely. But, I personally, don't necessarily see the choice in and of itself as wholly "irresponsible," or that Palin should be singled out as the sole "irresponsible" mother in the United States according to that criteria, because she's not.
And as I said before, there are so many other, valid reasons to criticise Palin - including, as you point out, that if we're supposed to relate to her as "the world's greatest hockey mom" and she put her children out there like that, what does that say about her credibility? or than she's a hypocrite? - that merely saying, "Well, her daughter is pregnant and she decided to put her in the national spotlight, so clearly she's terrible and a bitch", full-stop, isn't good enough of a criticism.
Really, I don't need a dissertation.
Because I NEVER EVER EVER use hyperbole. Ever. Or sarcasm, LOL.
Not that I'm even remotely bothered by your statements, I'm just pointing that out (and I know you know me well enough to know where I'm coming from). I did, however, make a point to say that I couldn't stand a single one of her policies, and would use the words "heinous" and "vile" to describe male politicians as well. I like those words. I feel they're descriptive.
At the end of the day, it's her policies that upset me the most and the hypocrisies I see in her treatment of her children only make me angrier. Were those situations not involved, I would probably be calling her "heinous and vile" for making rape victims pay for the investigative kits. Does that make it better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tw8tesd5EA
BUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Excuse my French but FUCKING A. McCain is trying to appear presidential, but postponing this debate is just giving him a chance to learn what the fuck is going on so he doesn't sound like the senile fogey he is. Also, apparently this would mean that the vice presidential debates would be pushed back a week (sounds like SOMONE is trying to buy more time to prep his VP candidate so she doesn't babble all over television).
As stupid as it sounds, I am staying in Canada if McCain gets elected. Mark my words.
Also (because it seems pretty interesting, even though I've only read the first little bit):
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/09/rober...n_smith_on.html
I'm so proud of him! There were some debates with Clinton where I felt he wasn't standing out, but tonight he made a complete 180 and kicked butt! McCain was a moron- stop saying "doesn't understand"! It didn't work with the first question and it didn't work with all the ones after!
McCain was full of platitudes and threw out as many fire cards as he could, playing the "inexperienced" card a lot. He looked stuck in the past and very grandpa-ish. He said some really retarded things though, like a freeze on everything but veteran benefits. And then Obama was like, "wtf? What about children?" And every time McCain tried to distort Obama's words, Obama would say, "um, nobody's talking about that," and explain how his plans worked. And whenever McCain made a false statement, Obama would interject "That's not true."
My only reservation is that perhaps Obama was too good. He was confident and very smart, knowledgeable, well-versed and assertive- which stupid ppl label "elitist." Whereas McCain appeared like an ordinary person you'd drink with...
I think my favorite moment was when McCain was talking about the mother of a fallen soldier giving him her son's bracelet and asking that her son not die in vain- McCain said this meant stay the course in Iraq. And then Obama said, "I have a bracelet too," from the mother of a soldier, and this mother asked that no other mother go through what she had to. And then he explained that responsibly leaving Iraq was NOT defeat and that no American soldier had died in vain.
gah.
I'll try to catch bits of it on youtube. and I CANNOT WAIT for the VP Debate. It'll be hilarious.
In the meantime:
Obama Llama Duck!!!
^ in another video, Hank (the guy who put this together) says that he emailed the creator of the original llama song to ask if he could use it, and the guy said "as long as it's pro-obama". The guy is British
And what the hell was wrong with the moderator! Interrupt the candidate in the middle of a point to go "Talk to him." Lol, my fav light hearted part was early on when stupid moderator butts in and McCain and Obama are both thrown off. "Where you afraid I couldn't hear him?" Obama and McCain both then sort of laugh at the moderator's stupidity.
Obama is a good debator, but he has got to be careful about interrupting the person he is debating. He is passionate about his point of view, great. But it's still something that can come across badly, as seemingly rude or unprofessional (I'm not saying he was rude or unprofessional, I'm just saying.) It's a debate not an argument.
I respectfully disagree. If McCain makes a false statement, and 5 minutes later, Obama has to mention in passing that his opponent was lying/distorting, what's everyone going to remember? They'll remember what McCain said. They'll either not register Obama's refuation or it'll be a "do not push this button- ok, now I'll push this button" situation where you remember the opposite.
vs: if McCain lies/distorts and Obama interjects with "that's not true," what's everyone going to know? They'll know right away that Mccain told a whopper.
And this is not a high school debate team event, where we all have to be polite and there are a book full of rules (I hated every single rule when I was on the team) and talk about abstract political philosophy. This is a debate for who will be the MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON EARTH. If ever there is a time to interject and to be bold, this is it- what would be unproffesional in this case would be to be weak. If you notice, McCain was very condescending, like "I knew Henry Kissinger for 25 years and you did not, so you have no right to talk about Kissinger."* Obama managed to be assertive without being condescending like McCain was. So, I think Obama did the right thing to interject.
McCain was being retarded- Kissinger actually did make a statement saying he disagreed with the Republican stance on no negotiations without preconditions.
I think that's what Jim Lehrer was aiming for, and I think he did a good job. It was up to him to create the rules and ask the questions, and the interruption at first was to make sure they understood and followed his rules. I think he did a good job.
Also, I think the questions asked were specifically about broad topics. Like when Jim Lehrer asked "how will the economic crisis affect your presidency", he wasn't looking for nuts and bolts, he was looking for a very broad statement about if their overall plans would be reconsidered to address the economy. He even had to restate the question like fifteen times to get the idea across to them.
I think the main difference I noticed between them was that Obama was much better at answering the question directly, comprehensively, and . McCain did a lot of the 'avoiding the topic' strategy, like when he went tangents about how much experience he had and the story about the soldier's bracelet, and it was just annoying. Sometimes he was spot on, but other times he didn't answer the question at all. Obama did much better in that regard- he wasn't perfect, but he was better.
I think my favorite part was when McCain said, "Obama's voting record has been incredibly liberal. How can you reach across the aisle when you're so far to the left?" and Obama just smiled. It wasn't like a "I can't stand this drivel" smirk, either. It was more like he actually thought it was funny. And he didn't really deny that he had a liberal voting record, the only thing he was refuted was that he couldn't work across the aisle. But it made me happy.
I only wish I was as eloquent in writing about politics as I am in science so that I could more indepthly describe my point of views in this thread because my point of view sometimes greatly differs, but I don't know how to put it to words and I don't want to make people angry who disagree.
Okay, sorry for the rant, that bus driver just really got on my nerves. Haha I didn't tip him even though he was expecting it so there!