<p>
[quote]
Actually there are a few quotes that talk about her being a mother like ASC, b'smom,NBAchris, and Cervantes. Thier criticism directly spoke of her being a mother.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That wasn't the point of those posts. If you re-read them, you'll begin to realize that. You need to understand distinctions if you are going to try to make such points. What a lot of people have said it's not enough to choose a female; she's got to have the right credentials.</p>
<p>He should have picked Kay Bailey Hutchison. I am from Texas and from what I know she has been an amazing conservative in the Senate and a seasoned woman. Ppl like her and clinton and even Condellezza opitomize that women are very capable, but they do not play into the game the McCain camp is creating. Attacking them is like attacking a man, bc they are just as qualified and known, but attacking an unknown mother is just attacking an unknown mother and I think WILL backfire.</p>
<p>Exactly what I was trying to say, Bedhead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are going to cast Obama and his campaign in a very negative light and I think the media and Obama camps are falling into it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obama has taken the high road. He doesn't have anything about Palin in his attacks or attack ads.</p>
<p>Obama has both the class and the savvy to avoid doing what it is you are saying he is doing -- and he's forbidden anyone from his campaign from doing differently.</p>
<p>However, you inadvertently point out a possible exit strategy for the debacle that is the Palin nomination: have her leave the race and claim the Dems hounded her out. That would be a good Rovian tactic.</p>
<p>This would be a way of taking the focus off the fact that McCain made a very stupid decision nominating her in the first place.</p>
<p>Again, who you are angry with is not Obama but the media that will pore over every bit of her life -- and with her, apparently, discover things that you don't really want discovered about your running mate with only two months to go before the election.</p>
<p>^^ I read every one of those quotes in fact I was the person many of them were debating when they posted them. Although the overall post was not sexist the lines were, they were unneccesary and obviously sexist. There is no reason to refer to her "private parts" in criticizing her. If she was a man it would not happen. But I hope ppl keep doing it, it will just fuel the strategy. Remember this post, bc I believe that this will be what causes women to vote for McCain.</p>
<p>I don't understand.</p>
<p>The Democrats squandered it in 2000 after Clinton's success in 1992 and 1996. Again in 2004, despite unpopularity with the war, and now in 2008, against the party of one of the least approved presidents, McCain is comfortably close.</p>
<p>What does the abomination of the Obama nomination say about the Democrats? They don't care about loony separatists churches
Riehl</a> World View: Obama: "That's Just How White Folks Will Do You"
sleazy slumlords,
, or associations with terrorists.
Hot</a> Air Blog Archive Brutal: New ad hammers Obama over Ayers; Update: McCain ad on Rezko coming tonight, attacks on Wright now “fair game”; Update: “Despicable,” says Obama camp</p>
<p>^^^Yes Obama took the high road, but his statements will not be what ppl will look to. Ppl will see anti-Palin as pro-Obama and it will hurt him. Politics is not about logic, but about perception.</p>
<p>Of course this is a distraction strategy, bc that is what wins elections. As a conservative I will concede that if it was about issues Obama would blow McCain out the water, so to win craft the debate about the aspect that you need. He needs to win ppl who supported Clinton not just the women but the men. Men who probably view women as strong and capable, men have a inherant desire to protect women and when Clinton men see a woman being attacked alot it will ultimately backfire. This is what I think the McCain campaign is counting on and it depends on this convention to get the line through. </p>
<p>I will ask all of you to watch the Republican convention tonight and see if the McCain campaign does not consisently use sexism as an out, they will throughout the commentary on the convention. It is the strategy to win. Whether Obama attacks her or not is irrelevant bc anti-Palin will be seen as pro-Obama, so he will be connected anyway.</p>
<p>The term sexism is thrown around way to much. Sexism means that you believe one gender is inherently inferior to another. While there can be no doubt that many of those posts were unnecessarily crude, sexist isn't the right term for the majority of them. From what I could tell, most of the posts that weren't direct criticisms of her person were trying to point out that she was only chosen because she was a woman. That McCain was pandering, and that she was under qualified. Not that women are inferior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I will ask all of you to watch the Republican convention tonight and see if the McCain campaign does not consisently use sexism as an out, they will throughout the commentary on the convention. It is the strategy to win. Whether Obama attacks her or not is irrelevant bc anti-Palin will be seen as pro-Obama, so he will be connected anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I am telling you for women in the middle who may be on the fence, showing them Sarah Palin and saying "Look, the Democrats tossed over HRC, but we have Sarah Palin -- she's a woman and they are SEXIST." If that's the approach taken -- and that's about the sophistication that the choice of Palin seems to have for a lot of people (look, she has a v***na too) -- that will backfire for McCain. It's empty tokenism. </p>
<p>I don't doubt that you trust the Rovians to be able to pull this off by avoiding any real discussions -- Pugfug points out they have done so well before --- but it won't work this year.</p>
<p>Unless something unforeseen happens.</p>
<p>For her accomplishments, and for the media to not acknowledge Hillary's experience, not care about Obama's lack of, and for them to rip Sarah apart is sexism if I ever saw it.</p>
<p>Yes, to diminish her as just a token chosen by McCain to attract Hillary supporters is sexist. He did not have to choose this woman, if a woman at all, but clearly, he saw something he liked.
CNN's</a> biased reporting on Sarah Palin > SundayPaper.com > Staff Blog</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I don't doubt that you trust the Rovians to be able to pull this off by avoiding any real discussions -- Pugfug points out they have done so well before --- but it won't work this year."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It really depends on the intelligence of Americans. There is a risk, but if you pull it off subtly. Suggesting here then there, get enough high profile journalist to say it, then it will work. By America we are not talking about the east or west coast, or even the south. We are talking about the heartland, where family means alot (of I guess it does bc I do not live there, I live in Texas) so it will strike a stronger cord then the pandering comment.</p>
<p>No, it's not. It says nothing about women being inferior, and it's not a criticism of her sex, it's a criticism of one person's decision to use gender as leverage and one person's credentials.</p>
<p>See look at this conversation, already ppl have crafted it around sexism, even though the vast majority are legitmate, and this is only a forum, when this occurs in the public sphere sexism is what ppl will hear and what they will associate criticism of Palin with.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>How can you criticize McCain for something you don't know he did (pander)?</p>
<p>Right...</p>
<p>So tell me, based on what we KNOW, what qualified Obama and what disqualified Palin?</p>
<p>Well, before you answer...
Hot</a> Air Blog Archive Obama’s answer on experience: But I’m such a great campaigner! Update: McCain response — “Desperate, laughable”
Don't forget Obama's answer:D</p>
<p>I value 8 years in the state senate and 4 years in the U.S. senate over being mayor of a tiny town and governor of a state of 700,000 for 20 months. I also don't believe previous executive experience is the only qualifier for becoming president. Surely as a Mccain supporter you can appreciate this sentiment.</p>
<p>Obama's thus far been smart enough to avoid the sexism issue. I can almost guarantee you that it won't play a big role in this election, and if it does, the advantage will go to the Dems.</p>
<p>Has everyone forgotten that this was exactly what the Bush presidency did? Every time the Bush administration did something they shouldn't have done, they'd say it was for 'national security' or 'preservation of our freedoms' or some variant thereof that was just avoiding the real issues. Americans have a great deal of experience with this. So why would they fall for this trick by McCain where the response to every reasonable criticism is 'sexism!'?</p>
<p>Americans, and especially women, are not that dumb. It's not going to work, and convincing yourself that it will won't solve the problem. Get another strategy.</p>
<p>I can't support that sentiment.
8 years as mayor. That's a pretty big job. To me at least, considering the hooplah over my mayor, Shirley Franklin, I know the position is definitely more than just a title. You're essentially governor of a city.</p>
<p>Obama's been in the Senate for what 3 years, 1 of them running for President.</p>
<p>Mayor > legislature
Governor > Senator</p>
<p>It's simple really.
We can only go on about this topic for so long. Seems I can't convince you.. :D</p>
<p>Mayor of Atlanta=/=Mayor of 6,000 people.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I think some people are not facing the fact that neither the issues nor the environment favor the Republicans this year.</p>
<p>George W. Bush's administration has been one of the worst we've ever had, a lot of people feel. Certainly, his approval ratings, persistently among the lowest since those were measured, are an indication of this.</p>
<p>And people, and the media, are bit more hip to Rovian tactics.</p>
<p>Saying that charges of sexism are going to keep this all together for the Republicans is missing the point of what's happening this year.</p>
<p>pugfug:</p>
<p>Obama, however, has much more experience in the political realm. I think I mentioned to you in another thread that he has degrees from Columbia/Harvard Law and has taught Constitutional Law at Chicago for 12 years. Therefore, he's been exposed to this kind of environment for a long time. </p>
<p>Have you not seen the recent news that McCain is sending over a tutor to Alaska to help Palin deal with the media and political questioning that is to come? Has Obama gone through a similar process in the past few months? Did Howard Dean send him a tutor to help him out? No, because he's been there for over 20 years. You can argue all you want, but the fact is, Obama's been in the game a lot longer than Palin has been. Moreover, Illinois vs. Alaska? You have to be kidding me. When you consider the contents of the parentheses, this is how it is:</p>
<p>Legislature (Illinois) > Mayor (Small Town in Alaska)
U.S. Senator > Governor (of one of the least populated states in the U.S.)</p>
<p>For some extra information, here are some extra statistics on population.</p>
<p>Wasilla, AK: 8471
Alaska: <700k (4th least in U.S.)
Illinois: 12.85 million (5th most in U.S.)</p>