My husband is a vision of twenty-first century values and a model of reason.It was while he was watching the primary debates that his attention was on Hillary and his praises were lavish as he acclaimed her confidence and stature as presidential material. Later when Sara came on the scene he made the comment that she reminded him of a Barbie doll and he felt that if he were to lift her skirt there would be nothing to see. First time I heard him demean a woman and I told him so, his reply was to say that he didn't see her as a woman but as a wooden block to prop up a fading ego.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wrote this Top Ten list a few days ago to email to friends. I was shooting for humor, but, after reading the article, I'm honestly wondering whether it sounds sexist. This was not my intention. (Does Palin-bashing equal woman-bashing?) What do you think?

**********************************************

The following is dedicated to all those who wish she would just go away...


TOP TEN PREDICTIONS FOR SARAH PALIN

10. President Obama will appoint her ambassador to Mars, and dispatch her there forthwith.

9. Recordings of her voice will be used to torture prisoners at Guantanamo.

8. Will star in "Annie Get Your Gun" at the Greater Wasilla Dinner Theater and Dental Emporium.

7. She will become spokes-model for an ingrown toenail remedy company.

6. Will succumb to a newly discovered disease known as Caribou Jerky.

5. Will finally fess up to that Bigfoot costume in her attic.

4. Will attempt to open a family restaurant chain called You Betcha That's Good Eatin'!

3. Her ego will be used to inflate the balloon floats at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

2. Will become Paris Hilton's new BFF.

1. Will reappear in 2012 as host of the new Family Values Channel cable show, "America's Funniest Snow Machine Accident Videos."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't want people to think that I'm dismissing the author's entire argument but I have to say that denigrating Palin's intelligence is not sexism. It's just accurate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many men see it for what it is (a destructive business) but quite a few seem blind to the realities.

Perhaps instead of wanting to convince both men and women that women are just as good as men (whatever that might mean), we should begin to see men as people with their share of shortcomings.

We tend to look up to the strong in the hope that they will protect us in a dangerous world. A lot of the time they--male and female--are the source of the danger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting...

If I do not support a liar for President or for Vice President, I am woman bashing.

I do not support Hillary Clinton for President because she was caught in several lies and tried to lie her way out of them. I do not support her for SoS because she is a liar and a leader of the DLC. (The right centre neo-con Democratic organisation that Obama said that he had no affiliation with and yet almost to the letter every member of his transition team and potential selections of Cabinet are all card carrying members). If you don't know about the DLC - do some studying but have some peptol abismal waiting - it is a real stomach turner of you are a true progressive.

We do not need a liar as the person in the third most powerful position in the US Government.

When I learned that Obama was "semi-affiliated" to the DLC and denied it when confronted about it - I changed.

Really changed

Think neocon agenda and you got it.

Let that sink in,


So I am not woman bashing with Hillary - I just flat out do not trust her or her ilk.


In regards to Sarah Palin - I am sure she has many qualities that we have missed but what I do not support is the use of government funds to transport her children, to charge the State of Alaska per diem to live in her own home while she is "snow-commuting" to Juneau, I do not support her giving the surplus income from state taxes of the oil companies to the citizen equally (socialism and vote buying in my books) and then to come begging to Washington because she is out of money.

I do not trust her because she is not trustworthy.

if they were both men and did the same things, I would say the same things.

My Daddy taught me something when I was a kid (well, actually two things - actually quite a few things) and they are:

How you do the little things, is most likely how you will do everything.

And

DWYSYWD - Do What You Say You Will Do

Can I say, with integrity, that I see these traits in these two women?

no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this article's assessment of Hillary's loss doesn't consider all of the variables.

For a Democratic candidate, Obama has a level of charisma and confidence not seen since Kennedy, or possibly even FDR. If Hillary was running against another wishy-washy snooze-fest like John Kerry or Dukakis, I think she would have done much better.

From the Republican side, it's pretty clear that they are ready for any half-decent looking ditz who appeals to their hatreds and paranoia.

For the Democrats to get a woman president through, I think it will require the same qualities it took to get a half-black man through. She will have to have unusual levels of charisma, unshaking confidence, and have good speaking skills. Contrary to what the article says, being a strong woman will not be a threat but rather, a requirement in order to set a precedent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the biggest enemy of the femenist movement are women such as the author who see every critique of a woman as an unfair bashing of the gender. This is an absurd non-argument. Sarah Palin could have been Sam Palin and if he had uttered the same words, stumbled across the same phrases and demonstrated the same lack of intelligence and culture then the ridicule would have been applied just as harshly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that, in hindsight, Hillary and Sarah had it pretty tough because they are women.

The shame of it all, in Hillary's case, is that it is extremely difficult to judge her on her own merits because of whom she is married to. That is just a big weight on her. Look at the whole secretary of state thing. Bill comes into the picture. Everytime, Bill comes into the picture. She should DIVORCE him and move on with her career.

The real test case on whether or not there is increased sexism is Nancy Pelosi. She is the most powerful woman politician in the country now.

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are by contrast lightening rods, and it is extremely difficult to use them as barometers.

When the author says that the secretary of state job was a step down to servitude or whatever, that's hardly a genuine statement. She lost an election, not a promotion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a huge difference between critisizing someone on their abilities to do a job, (or their character) and critisizing their gender. The use of words such as "bitch, Barbie, nag" etc. are gender based words, they don't insult or critisize the person they critisize ALL WOMEN. Those words are not applied to everyone, only to women. If we called men "bitches" or "nags" then it would just be an insult on the person, but because we only refer to women as it is an insult of a gender.

I am shocked by how many people responding to this topic cannot figure out the diffence!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the really curious things about this election is that the first Pentecostal candidate for national office - a woman associated with the most radical and authoritarian wing of the movement, to boot - was able to get to election night without ever having to address her creepy religion like JFK or even Mitt Romney addressed theirs. Even when video existed that showed this woman being anointed by a Kenyan witch-hunter. There was less concern about Palin, a likely next president, and her being guided by a form of emotion-based mysticism than there was about John Ashcroft's adherence to the same principles. And Ashcroft was a mere AG! And as far as I know, Ashcroft was an orthodox Pentecostal, not a member of the New Apostolic Reformation group that's explicitly theocratic, which Palin belongs to.

I guess it's a lesson to all aspiring theocrats - get cosmetic surgery, some lip tattoos, and avoid wearing pants. No one will care what you believe then.

I wonder how well it'll work in 2012, when the persistent encrouchment of aging will be too great for Palin to cover up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unless she goes out of her way to run Murkowski out in the primaries, possible given that she's somewhat a social moderate but unlikely since the GOP will be hell bent on getting back other seats first, she'll have to wait at least 6 years to get a Senate seat. As for 2012, the Republicans will most likely treat her as another "Dan Quayle" at that point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dwarfs many a soul, man or woman.

Cindy's distinguished much more for all the things she's not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now there's a powerful woman trying to push for the better. Hell, she would make a great replacement for the current sitting dud Dianne Feinstein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a shame both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were such misfits for their respective jobs. I believe it was their lack of qualifications, not their gender, that kept them down.

Palin couldn't seem to speak with out a teleprompter or memorized talking points. Physically attractive, yes, but that's not what counts.

Clinton is disingenuous. During the debates, every question asked of her was glossed over and she managed to work a sales pitch in pretty much every time. She comes from a point of view of power, not of concern of guiding this nation through some pretty rough waters.

I supported Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party. Sharp, knowledgeable, courageous and unafraid to look a problem in the face and deal with it effectively.

Surely she can't be the only one like that. But that's the kind of woman...or man...we need, not someone in the pockets of the rich and infamous.

Skywolf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and realise that not only did she sleep in the wet spot, but that she is nothing more than the office slut at the company Christmas party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article has a point. Anger, a political motivation tool, has dragged out ugly sexism. From whom?

Yes, there's an underlying double standard. Studs like Bill Clinton use sexuality to get votes. We get aging Hollywood actors like Ronnie Reagan and well-oiled muffins like Jesse "The Body" Ventura in office. We don't make fun of the men's steaming sexuality, not until they actually get caught in sexual affairs.

However, Palin mostly got knocked because she was hateful on the stump and several criminal investigations are still unresolved for her. Her kids traveled on state money. She got a state trooper fired for family revenge reasons, but the Republican Alaska legislature is too circle-the-wagons to do anything about it. Quite frankly, the various Palin baby stories are so unbelievable that I expect some criminal charge to pop out in a month or two.

I think the American people dislike airheads regardless of gender. Didn't Dan Quayle earn his hallowed spot in the American political pantheon?

It didn't help that the Vice-Presidential candidate was kept in a closet for three months, away from the media, and when Governor Palin did speak to the media she was spectacularly and repeatedly skewered. Repeatedly going far off topic at her one debate to deliver some canned messages does not constitute clear thinking. No, she didn't get through a four year college program in four years. Sometimes airhead is as airhead does.

A "bitch" is a female dog. Hillary didn't deserve that association. The wingers will point out Sen. Clinton's corruption problems, but Sen. McCain has corruption issues too. She's calculating, but so are most politicians and their staffers. She debates well. She went to law school at Yale. The family business was always politics, and for its benefit she gladhanded strangers and kissed babies for 30 years.

I hate articles that attempt to be "bipartisan" when it's the wingnuts that richly deserve the sexist label all by themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It truly is no wonder Hillary Clinton was not elected. But it's not because she is a woman, it's because her campaign was unscrupulous and nasty. I really wanted to support her, but when I heard her say on three different occasions that she would be ready on day one, Senator McCain would be ready on day one, but Senator Obama only had a speech he made in 2001, I simply could not make the proper excuses.

Clinton has not been "demoted" to Secretary of State (should she decide to take the job and be affirmed), she LOST the nomination for president due to her own poor judgement and behavior.

I am a hardcore feminist. I would vote for a competent woman of integrity in a heartbeat, but neither Clinton nor Palin was that woman. And, as other posters here have pointed out, any man who was as empty-headed and unable to use the English language as Sarah Palin would have been mocked just as much. She set herself up for ridicule with her "hockey mom" and "Joe Sixpack" rhetoric and the way she used her kids as political props. If a man did that, it would be just as dreadful.

When you have a female candidate for vice-president who, as Dick Cavett stated in a recent article, doesn't seem to have a first language to the point where she can't even complete an entire coherent sentence, it's no wonder she becomes fodder for comedians and media critics.

I agree that there is still far too much sexism in this country and the rest of the world, but it is not addressed well in this article. And Hillary's "cankles"? Is there such a thing or did the author simply not edit very well?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can sexism "make a comeback" when it never left? What may be making a comeback is a clearer and wiser understanding of patriarchal ways and means.

And racism isn't "down for the count" just because a black man has been elected president of the U.S. Maybe it's been dealt a good blow but that's about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A brief note of thanks. As long as women like yourself continue to trash other women, no matter who they are, nothing will change. Is this supposed to pass for journalism? I hope not. It's pure trash. Hillary Clinton is the real deal, leave her alone. Sarah Palin is not my favorite, but her face is all over the world. Everyone knows who she is. Don't be so quick to throw stones. Face it, you're stuck writing mediocre stuff forgetting that many women out there have real jobs. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know whether, as Merkin claims, "public discourse about women has taken several steps backward." I don't know any more, however, after reading Merkin's article. The "facts" upon which she based her conclusions are 1) observations she made while attending a stuffy private club party; 2) a widely YouTubed comment a single voter made to John McCain; 3) some of the criticism that was leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the recent election. She also complains that some magazines don't have many articles by women, as if that had anything to do with her thesis. Oh yes, she links to a sketchy poll commissioned by "The Daily Beast," the findings of which do nothing to demonstrate whether sexist utterances are more common, less common, or just as common as they were in the past.

Merkin's evidence is anecdotal and thin, a fact not excused by her own admission that "The evidence may be difficult to pin down, but it hovers in the atmosphere...." Someone else could write an article saying it "seems" (a word Merkin uses five times in attempt to support her claims) that tolerance of sexist language is decreasing and mention some cocktail party chatter in support thereof. Would that make it right?

Remember, we're supposed to be the reality-based community. I expect considerably more factual rigor from Merkin and AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author writes: "it seems to be ... OK, too, for men openly to dismiss women as social and intellectual equals, the better to focus on how they rate in the all-important looks department."

But 2 paragraphs earlier: "this boyish bunch"
and: "the short, bald man"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If in fact the public discourse about women is going backwards, which I question, Clinton and Palin are not a fair test. I am perfectly happy saying that Cheney is an asshole and Bush is an ignorant fuckhead... better now? Yeah, it would be better if we used gender neutral terms of abuse, or better still none at all. But, you know what... Clinton kinda is pretty amazingly awful, and Palin is quite clearly missing some vital grey matter, or at least the data that's supposed to be stored in there.

Aside: Lately, where I hear the B-word is mostly from one gay man to another.

The real violence against women is just that, real violence. I don't think it gets us very far to be getting all language-police about this. There is just as much or more hateful language about whole groups of people in the posts on progressive sites like Alternet as there is on cable channels about politicians. Try being a progressive Christian for a day, and you find out that you are mentally ill, responsible for the Holocaust, and probably a pedophile, all in one delightful thread. I feel a lot more sorry for a gay high schooler getting called a f*&, or a black kid in Connecticut getting called a n*&^$%, than I do for Clinton or Palin, two of the most mercenary liars I've seen on the national stage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Napolitano, Jarrett, Pritzner and several other women have already been chosen by President-Elect Obama to fill various cabinet positions. There are more to come. Celebrate. I rest my case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I beg to differ on your views and add the persona of the Virginal madonna. this appears to be the one 'Janie Come lately's' have been expounding.
What I find is that Women have learned just because you have a vagina, does not mean you are free of real analysis or critism. I find this a new age of Real Liberation.
Sarah was Unqualified.Period. No Lipstick, Pumps or large breast can make up for that shortcoming.
Hillary has proven herself to be a Neo Con in Drag. Her Blue pantsuits could not disguise her adherence to the 'good Ol' boy' agenda.
I actually find your article rather depressing. Once again we are to only examine people by the plumbing they possess.
What you are now witnessing is not 'Sexism' it is Equality. We can love or dispise someone with or with out a penis. We can hate their politics, we can hate their means to achieve their ambitions. We can hate what they stand for.
Why do I hate Sarah because she used her 'Feminine Wiles' to distract from her incompetency. Why do I hate Hillary, not because of her ambition, but because she was no better than McCain in her Blind arrogant ambition.
Women do not want the Bar lowered, exceptions made, Nor excuses allowed. We want the same opportunity to be judged on our actions, ideas and ethics...Just like our male counterparts.
Come On now, We are allowed to hate Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh freely. But should we question Andrea Mitchells abilities or objectivity we are now 'Bashing women'.
why is it ok to label Lou Dobbs a Racist and yet not Geraldine Ferraro or Michelle Bachman?
Why should I lower my standards or ethics just because the offender is also female?Are we not doing a disservice to our own Cause if we allow such lowering of the bar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Daphne- We just elected a president whose theme is 'unity'. Please join us - there are no Commies under your bed, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexism be damned. I call a spade a spade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CARIBOU BARBIE RIDES AGAIN
A quick peek into Sarah Palin's camp and one will come to the conclusion there's something afoot. Using Astral Projection I was able to get past the doors and became the fly on the wall. Between bong hits and jello shooters her plan began to unfold.
' Look,' she started, " McCain is an old goat!". " For Christ's sake,the man needs spray starch just to get a hard-on, how the hell is he supposed to lead?" Slamming her hands on the wall,nearly hitting me, " And they want to muzzle me?" she continued. " I'm the best thing that ever happened to this God forsaken party!" she exclaimed. Looking in the mirror Palin continued " just look at my Doe-like eyes,these boobs and how about my ass! No one can even come close to what I've got to offer." she railed in disgust. " What the fuck is with Mccain...offering VP blowjobs for $100,000 donations..WHAT GALL!!!!"
"Does he have any idea just how many moose I had to do that to just to become Mayor?" " You son-of-a-bitch!!!' she screamed at Mccain's picture on the wall,which she proceeded to yank down to the floor and began to piss on it. " How do ya like me now Johnny!!" she bellowed.
After several staffers tried to calm her down,finally a hype full of thorazine
did the trick. " Do they even know what we're trying to do?" Palin asked her staffers. " Not a chance Sarah." came the response. "We're trying to get Alaska away from the union." Palin carried on, " I told Todd he could have fucking Hawaii just because he likes Maui Wowie and they are'nt even a State."
Just then the phone rang,I could'nt tell who was on the other line but Palin's demeanor told me it was Johnny Boy. " Oh, Hello," she began, " I was just talking about our platform" she continued all the while pretending to gag herself with her finger. " Why no, I never said you were an old fart with bad skin" she told Mccain,then she wiped her ass with the phone. " No, I did'nt say Cindy used super glue on her lady parts" " Who's saying this shit anyway?" she questioned. " Todd!!!" came the shocked response. Cupping the phone Palin turned to a staffer and said " I'm gonna bite his dick off!" Going sweetie-pie again " I'll have a chat with him,don't you worry Johnny" she told McCain.
Hanging up the phone Palin began banging her head against the wall, " What is with that asswipe pudfucker trying to do to me!" she cried. " It was his idea to gut that moose, I'm a vegetarian God Dammit!!" " Now he's making moves on Cindy Mccain." raged the Wassilla Wombat. " This is how we're going to handle this." said the angry Palin. " First, we're making America only the lower 48,fuck Alaska and Hawaii, I hate moose and pineapple anyway. Then I'm going to boob slap Johnny Mac until he makes me the front runner and him the VP,then we'll see just how many knobbers he can handle." pausing for another jello shooter
Sarah rambled on, " Then we'll make virginity tests a law to get into school.
Then declare a state of emergency on energy and order oil wells in every yard in America." About that time Todd came into the room, " Sarah," he started,
" I think you may need to tone it down a bit...." Before the man could finish Sarah jumped on him with a meat mallet screaming " Gut the moose Sarah,
whack she nailed Todd with the mallet " Be nice to Cindy." pow she nailed him again. " I'm not giving you shit" she yelled. Dropping the mallet she began kicking Todd in the nuts several times over. " Now get up,ice off your nuts and put a smile on your face. We've got an interview with US magazine" pulling her skirt down Sarah walked her battered husband to the hall and in a hail of flashbulbs she kissed his cheek and said " Don't you just love this man?"
About that time I felt the need to get the hell out of there because even as a fly there's only so much shit a person can handle.
Jeffrey7

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't call myself a feminist because I'm a man and I agree with what RadFems say about that but I have studied and cared about it for well over 30 years.
For me ,the fact that the announcement of her choice happened right around the anniversery of the winning of the franchise for women here in the USA just spoke volumes to me. Just the first few facts I found out about Gov. Palin made me feel in my gut that what the Republicans were intending in a VERY CALCULATING manner was to PISS ON THE GRAVES of every woman who ever worked to achieve the vote (Alice Paul,Gage,Anthony,Stanton etal) and to every woman like Bella Abzug or Andrea Dworkin or one of a few dozen others (make it hundreds or thousands if you want) now departed who devoted their lives to the cause of feminism.
It made me think of the R's nominating Clarence Thomas. There had been quite a bit of talk about the need specifically for a Black man to take over from Thurgood Marshall. What a gift they gave in Thomas (I believe Anita Hill).
What a perfect commentary on Sen. Clinton's run to offer up someone like Gov. Palin ("So those uppity B's and C's want a woman on the ticket?? We'll show THEM!")

Lost in all the fuss going on is the very,very SIMPLE FACT that the GUYS who run the Republican Party DON'T GIVE A SH#@ AT ALL ABOUT WOMEN (and the democrats aren't much better)-how much more proof do we need than the last 8 years? or 14? or go back past Reagan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She deserves all the ire I can muster. She is an insult to intelligent, thinking women everywhere. As for Hilary Clinton - I simply didn't agree with her politics. Now, Michelle Obama - there's a woman to admire - I'm honored to have her as my new First Lady.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As for Hillary, well, she made some major mistakes in her campaign, one of which was her statement that McCain was more qualified than Obama. I think she may have been a little overconfident in the early primaries.
I am old enough (58) to have suffered some of the gender bias that you talk about, though. Reminds me of going to lunch with my (then) husband at the Houston Engineers' Club in the early '70's. I could not sit in the main dining room, but had to be seated in a separate room. I said, "What about the female engineers?" Oh, well, that was a long time ago. One of the reasons I divorced that husband was a monthly banquet, again held by the Engineers' Club, called "Total Woman". The gist of the program advocated that women, after a hard day of taking care of the kids and cleaning the house and shopping and preparing dinner, take a nice long bath and wrap themselves in SARAN WRAP to greet their mates at the door while drawing them toward a candlelit meal. I remember this so well because I was suffering side effects from birth control withdrawal and had to leave, but the idea that he would subject me to that drivel with a straight face should have told me then and there that our "communal bliss" was destined for the trash heap. Of course, this stuff has been going on for centuries, but that time period was the era of the Equal Rights Amendment (never passed), when women were categorized as feminine (Stepford wives) or "butch" (ugly women or lesbians) because they wanted equal treatment under the law. Things are somewhat different now, but a lot of the problems from that time are still with us, evidenced by the number of single women with children in today's society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary was not a change from Bush leadership--her voting record proves she voted right along with Bush on almost every issue.
THAT is why she lost.
The country wanted a change in direction & she was not it, no matter how she tried to spin doctor herself.
No other reason.
It had nothing to do with her being a woman.
The country voted for a black man--with the message they desperately wanted to hear.
The Republicans were pulling for her--Karl Rove wrote numerous columns praising Hillary & bashing Obama--he knew if she became president, she would continue war & all the other things dear to Republican hearts if a Repub could not get elected.

As far as Palin goes--she would be hilarious even if she had been a man.
If a man had been nice looking & ignorant, with weird religious beliefs, & still naive enough to think he deserves to interact on the world stage because he's folksy & flirts a lot--he would have been the butt of many a joke also.
You betcha.
She's the one that marketed herself to Repubs to be the VP pick & McCain chose her in a short-sighted, to say the least, effort to create some pizzaz for his boring campaign.

I guess Palin failed to bone up on the world before becoming the VP pick, like a normal person who understands they know nothing would have done--while she was still in the marketing phase of her push for VP--because she actually thought no one would notice her lack of knowledge due to her personality & looks--along with her nutty end-of-days religious beliefs that made her think "God" was "opening the door" for her. Her religious brainwashing has obviously been successful.
Palin is actually a victim of her religious brianwashed upbringing.

She has the ego & confidence of a man, but was brought up NOT TO THINK--a fact that she doesn't yet realize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She thinks that anyone attacking her for her attacks on Obama is violating her First Amendment rights. She thinks Africa is a country. She doesn't know what newspapers she reads, and she doesn't know what the Vice President does. She can't name the three countries in NAFTA. She can't string together a coherent sentence. She thinks the Alaska personnel board vindicated her on her ethics violations. She didn't have the sense to distance herself from former Sen. Ted Stevens or to call for his resignation. She trotted out her kids on the campaign trail like stage props. She tried to turn the Republican Governor's Association meeting into her own personal photo-op. She accepted the veep nomination knowing that she was already under investigation for several violations of her state office. I could go on...God knows, there's more. Her voice, to me, is like nails on a chalkboard. And all of these things have nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So ... how should we describe these two women to avoid being considered sexist, regardless of our own sex? Should we say that Sarah Palin was a bright, articulate, knowledgeable VP candidate? Or that Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign without racist overtones and that as we speak, she is not bringing her own portable neurotic chaos into Obama's otherwise calm and deliberate transition process? Come on friends! We are not going to win this one by denying the obvious. Eventually, we will get it right and we will have a serious, conscientious woman candidate for office. Neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton are her, though. And the fact that they aren't, has nothing to do with sexism among us or in the media and everything to do with their qualifications and temperament. I am glad we were smart enough not to elect an illiterate bimbo or a neurotic diva for president. Let's hope one of them is not now anointed Secretary of State. In the meantime, let's be patient. Our turn will come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here Alternet spends the last three months bashing the living shit out of Palin (and rightfully so) and now comes out in her defense against the media's "blatant women bashing" as the title of this piece refers to it. I think it's important to realize that attacking a female candidate for office, based on their politics and views, is not sexism. When we on the left attacked Palin, it was not sexism or misogyny, it was her views, her politics, and her apparent lack of a brain. Conversely, when Fox News and the rest of the conservatives attacked Hillary, it was (usually) not sexist in nature; they hated Bill Clinton every bit as much as they hated Hillary. (Jesus, I can't believe I'm defending Fox News.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton had recently been demoted from presidential contender to possible secretary of state

All those men in the race were "demoted" from presidential contender too - and a lot earlier than Hillary.

once again positions her as ready and willing to serve rather than to command

Um... I thought the President was supposed to be "serving" too.

Sorry, this one doesn't fly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These men were wasted at a bar of course they aren't going to be very respectful. Alcohol brings out the worst in people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just wanted to throw in a thumbs up the writer of this article for succinctly stated what I feel is wrong when people say it's a win for women that Hillary got as far as she did in the democratic primaries. That attitude is only viable in a universe where it's commonly held that a woman would never get anywhere at all in the presidential race, not that she might and even should be a competent candidate and possibly the best one in the race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Palin chirp along in her usual oblivious fashion while turkeys are graphically dispatched behind her. What an airhead, dumb as a rock.
From Huffington Post video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/
sarah-palin-holds-news-co_n_145375.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never would have thought that this type of identity politics would become so cozy with corporatism, imperialism and straight out corruption. Clinton and Palin were disliked by many for these reasons, not because they were women, just as many people cheered on Sheehan and McKinney in their brave confrontation with power.

Sadly, Obama is also proving the whole identity politics thesis right, given that his administration is emerging as a blending of Clintonism and Bushism. Hawks, neo-cons, and Clinton cronies abound -- where is the change?

Amazing how the corporate financial elites have so hoodwinked and bamboozled both the right and the left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That Sarah Palin was chosen for the Vice Presidential slot over the heads of highly qualified women who have worked and held office in the Republican Party for years, if not decades.

Politics isn't a meritrocracy, far from it. But the surprise elevation of Palin would have been less painful, and maybe more successful, if she had shone as super-qualified, or had toiled a little longer in the vineyard.

I read a good joke about Palin. Here's one of the places it's from.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.

The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.’

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle.’

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. ‘You know she didn’t get up there by herself, she doesn’t belong up there, she doesn’t know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sexism is in the press. Where was the coverage of Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate?

I mostly voted for Obama to break the race barrier. I do not see him with rose colored glasses. I knew he would be more conservative and warlike than I want in a world leader, but he does come across as someone who can lead.

I had actually envisioned a woman president for 2008. But I would never have voted for Palin or Clinton. Why didn't I vote for Palln or Clinton to break the sex barrier? I don't see either of them as leaders.

Cynthia McKinney is a leader and has integrity and courage. Integrity is something neither Clinton or Palin have. I hope McKinney runs in 2012.

More on McKinney -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An astonishing piece!

You cite the treatment of Hillary and Palin as evidence of the slide backl into misogynistic commentary and mention not a single issue of policy with which they were associated.

And this is the point isn't it? Hillary's defenders expected to have it both ways -- to pick up votes for being a strong woman but given a pass on being criticised lest it be seen as 'sexism'. And that episode with the tears at the conference ...???

The fact is, her comments on "bittergate" and " the "white workingclass" became the theme for the McCain campaign before they had dared to do it. It was a clear pander. At that point, I stopped respecting her as a worthy contender.

At some point, a woman will appear who takes herself and her politics seriously. I hope it is not too long in coming. I suspect the Obama campaign has beat the bushes (pun intended) hard enough to make this happen, but until she really is the best available ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you mean "ready to serve".

As far as I know she didn't make it in the primaries. The job of "president" is gone. What's wrong with taking other jobs then?

"Hillary Clinton had recently been demoted from presidential contender to possible secretary of state -- a move that once again positions her as ready and willing to serve rather than to command"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

{Now that the election is over and racism is ostensibly down for the count, has sexism gotten a new dispensation?} It is not a fact that racism is down for the count and you can’t just make such a statement as if it were true.

{Has the "unlikability" (not to mention "unf--ability") of Hillary not only cost her the presidential nomination but brought out the streak of misogyny that runs deep in American culture, affecting the way men think about women and the way women think about themselves?} It is also not a fact that Hillary is “unlikable.” I don’t have a trust in what she says because of her record. It may be a fact that she is no longer sexually appealing to the average man, but when we think about electing a president, the thought process of a man doesn’t include how we think that she appeals to us sexually. Men are not infatuated by women of wealth and power, the reverse would be open to debate.

“There you go again…” using that word misogyny. Is this the new in-word for bitter females who want to place the blame for all things on male attitudes toward women? We didn’t vote for Hilary because, -- we hate women? Just examine the facts. Hillary was president of the Young Republicans, favored NAFTA, was a Goldwater Girl and to my knowledge, she never got a single piece of meaningful legislation produced while in the Senate. Sleeping with the governor or with a president is simply not a qualification to hold that office. If it were, then Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski would make great politicians. This doesn’t mean that I hate her, only that I don’t see her as a progressive woman on any issue except for women’s rights.

{And is it only me, or is there something about women's attitude to other women, especially those in the limelight, that seems to suggest that centuries of disenfranchisement has produced the Stockholm Syndrome rather than Steadfast Sisterhood?} I wish to assure you that it’s only you.

{Nancy Pelosi … is more famous for her pearls than her policies.} What pearls?

{What Clinton failed to realize is that when it comes to female candidates, accomplishment is a sideline.} What accomplishments? The great weakness in your article and probably your thought process is that you continually assume things that just aren’t true. Starting from a false premise doesn’t lead to thought provoking analysis.

With regard to Sarah Palin, {the public discourse about women has taken several steps backward.} Is Sarah Palin a progressive candidate? In my opinion, she just represented an attempt by the good old boy network to sucker in the vote of bitter women who felt that they lost on the democratic side. In the end, 8 million more women voted for Obama than voted for McSame with his token woman VP candidate. {(A poll conducted this week by The Daily Beast confirms these suspicions.)} Please read the poll more carefully. More than half of the respondents were female and less than half of the total were democrats. Here are some examples: I believe that women are treated unfair in the workplace. That is still a fair assumption. I don’t consider myself to be a feminist and neither did the men who answered the question. As a role model, Hillary was a clear winner. Women are “too emotional” and men are more “suited” to be president, again the vast majority disagree with the statements. The vast majority felt that Michelle contributed to Barach’ candidacy. Are these misogynic attitudes? Was the conservative press unfair to her; nobody ever asked the question but I think that they were and that their intent was to attack him through her and that would have been a better story to write about. Did Cindy McSame get a free ride, again nobody asked but I think that she did. Your story is just way off the mark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women bashing was taken to a startling new level by the leftist media and other liberals who relentlessy attacked Governor Palin. But since some conservatives attacked Senator Clinton in the same vein, I guess turn about is fair play, right? Wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I recently had to leave the private security and criminal justice fields because of the SHEER HATRED, SUPER PREJUDICE and downright sabotage from my so-called "brother officers". These are the people who are supposed to have your back in hazardous situations that you are supposed to back up ( and I did, often at great risk to myself) and help out. Only to find that they sent me into several situations in which they expressed the disappointment that I was not killed. I was EXCLUDED from EVERYTHING.
I have talked to a couple of other women my age who were in law enforcement and unless you had a male patron, you were S.O.L. and probably would not stay around long enough to retire.
In my case, an explosive device under my hood caught my car on fire and nearly killed me. The one on the gas tank did NOT detonate. This is attempted murder of a peace officer but NOTHING WAS EVER DONE. Who am I going to report it to, THE POLICE? I could get my way in and out of any situation but the one situation I could NOT escape was the SHEER HATRED, VIOLENCE, ISOLATION, PREJUDICE and TOTAL DISREGARD OF MY HUMANITY AND MY BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS! I later found out that some of the male police officers and security officers where I worked were gay. I NEVER asked at the time and I have NEVER felt animosity for gays or lesbians either.
The other cops felt that I was a fender lizard or a lesbian otherwise I wouldn't be working with the guys. AND I NEEDED TO BE PUT IN MY PLACE!
I LOVED MY JOB! I WAS ABLE TO RESOLVE ALMOST ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WITHOUT USING VIOLENCE AND I ONLY PULLED MY PISTOL ONCE IN 20 YEARS! I NEVER shot anybody, I was NEVER sued for violating people's civil rights and the only people who LOATHED me were the MALE officers!
I FINALLY Left after I was SHOT at and the owner of the private security services contracting company REFUSED to do anything to the guy even though EVERYONE there had heard him curse me and threaten to kill me! Turns out that the owner of the company and the other idiot were gay lovers.
But this was in TEXAS where NO WORKERS are protected cause it is all MACHISMO and GOOD OLD BOYS RULE here!
I don't hate men. I certainly don't hate gays --(in fact, I had a gay male roommate who also had his life partner living with us.) I just to be treated with professionalism and for the guys to follow departmental policy and treat me just like anybody else.
IT WAS LIKE TWENTY YEARS IN HELL! DON'T EVEN THINK OF COMPLAINING TO THE EEOC OR YOU WILL BE BLACKLISTED ( ILLEGAL BUT SO WERE THE ATTEMPTS ON MY LIFE AND THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT,AND SEXUAL HARRASSMENT!)
And all I will have is social security benefits to live on.
I hear that patriotic women who want to join the military and serve their country are being raped and beaten up by their male colleagues so I guess that nothing EVER changes or ever will change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We linked back to this in a post at the CA NOW blog, "Sarah Palin: Scapegoat"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]