ENOUGH!!!

[jdb1]

Friends and neighbors, I am no fan of Gov. Palin and her "every man and/or woman for him/herself" brand of politics, but I will weigh in with on her side in this clothing issue: the day of the down home, folksy campaigner moseying about in her overalls is over. People expect their candidates to look presentable, mature and polished. Public funds are allocated for presidential campaigns, and so what if they are used to buy a nice wardrobe for a candidate, or to buy 10,000 red, white & blue balloons? When people make campaign donations, I think they expect that the money will be used as the directors of the campaign see fit.

If Gov. Palin bought herself and her family Guitar Hero games with the allocated clothing money, and they went home and played with them, ignoring their responsibilities, that might be scandalous. But she didn't. She dressed up, hit the hustings, and did what a candidate does. She did what her "experts" said she should do. It's all part of the PR. To tell the truth, although I think she could use a little moderation in her cosmetics, I think she looks quite nice. I want the candidates to look nice. She called the criticism sexist, and I agree with her on that one.

[Synnove]

I think you're right there, and I get really impatient when the side I'm supposed to agree with starts focusing on trivialities like that. Sarah Palin has become a target for sexism, and I feel ashamed when I read about it. There are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize her for. Why do they feel the need to do that?

It's funny that I read and see and talk so much about something that I have no way of affecting, isn't it...

[MichiganJ]

While I agree that women are held to a higher standard than men in regards to clothes, (much of that standard applied by women themselves. Even after having to watch Sex and the City, I still can’t tell what makes a pair of shoes so expensive. Now handbags, that I get...) But, I think that since the conservative party, and Palin in particular during her stump speech, continue to paint Obama as “elite”, (I guess because of his education), it seems to me that by Palin shopping at the highest-end shops and boutiques, instead of say, Macys, Talbots, (or maybe even TJ Maxx and Marshalls) she no longer can make the claim that she is “one of the us” (aka, a member of the middle class). My wife has a lot (and I mean a lot) of nice clothes. There’s no way they value anywhere near that kind of money. (If they did, I’d have a bigger TV!) Perhaps Joe the Plumber’s wardrobe is valued at $150k, and he can relate. But I still get my socks at Target...

All the hubbub about Palin’s clothes reminds me of all the hubbub about John Edward’s $400 haircut. Maybe that standard isn’t so different after all...

[jdb1]

Well, Mish, that's yet another issue. I wasn't even considering the hypocrisy angle in my last post, and of course when it comes to politics in general, where isn't there some hypocrisy; no one side has a monopoly on that.

However, a lot of what I've read in the print media seems to be focusing on the fact that Gov. Palin is wearing "nice" clothes at all, and that campaign funds should not be spent to dress up a candidate. I don't agree with that -- it's usually the party's responsibility to present its candidates in the best possible light, at least in physical presentation.

I don't think any attendees at a McCain/Palin rally would turn down a fancy and expensive spread of free food provided by the campaign, saying "Oh, no thanks, I'm 'One of Us,' and I eat only 89 cent fatburgers!" Despite the wishes of some that everything be kept serious and on point, campaigns are largely roadshows, and we all want a little entertainment value for our vote, including free food, souvenirs, and pretty guys and girls.

[silentscreen]

I think you're right there, and I get really impatient when the side I'm supposed to agree with starts focusing on trivialities like that. Sarah Palin has become a target for sexism, and I feel ashamed when I read about it. There are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize her for. Why do they feel the need to do that?

It's funny that I read and see and talk so much about something that I have no way of affecting, isn't it...

No it's not funny Hedvig. You feel strongly about it. I do too. What's sad is that it still continues to go on in this country after all these years. They've even taken Palin's head and super imposed it on top of another body clad in a bikini. That's really sexist too! Never at any time have I known that Sarah didn't look and dress like a lady, or that she isn't a lady, but her critics will try to humiliate her by making her out to be a strumpet. No men and women aren't treated the same.

[klondike]

Yes, you are probably right Chris. McCain has pretty well messed her up except perhaps in her own state.

I think that "ship" is rapidly sailing as well.
According to everything I've heard from my friends in Alaska, Sarah Palin just barely squeaked her way into the big chair in Juneau as a text-book "lesser evil" candidate, after she leveraged enough support to buy her term as mayor in Wasilla.
And now, an apparent majority of Alaskans consider her an embarrassment to their identity as modern Americans, especially given her barely submerged track record of pro-lobby porkbarreling and hardline anti-abortion advocacy.
I predict that should she choose to run for the presidency in 2012, it will be as an ex-governor of The Last Frontier.

[MichiganJ]

I would be interested to see Palin run in 2012. It would be very enlightening to see her go through the primary process. It’s unlikely that, going up against fellow (is “fellow” gender neutral?) conservatives, she would be able to avoid answering direct questions about, well, anything.

The “sexism” claim is rather fascinating. Hilary got pilloried (hey, it almost rhymes!) for being a strong working woman way back when. In fact, confessed-drug-addict Rush Limbaugh labeled Hilary and the entire feminist movement, “femin-nazis”, and, while I can’t say for sure, i don’t think it was a term of endearment. The mocking Hilary endured for her pant suits as well as her politics has been merciless, but it’s only now, when the conservatives have a viable woman running for a high office, that the word “sexism” enters their vocabulary.

Just a few years ago, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate and leader among Christian conservatives, Rick Santorum, wrote a book, It Takes a Family, in which he blasts two--income families, as well as other “liberal” ills. In the book, he blames the “radical feminists” for encouraging women to work outside the house:

''In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't really need to or at least may not need to work as much as they do..."

So, while Sarah is running Alaska and/or running for VP, and hubby Todd is fishing (among other things, Todd is a salmon fisherman), who, exactly is raising the kiddies? Isn’t this two-income family diametrically opposing the conservative doctrine? Where’s the conservative outrage?

Here’s compassionate conservative Rick’s take:

"What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else...or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon - find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism."

Am I wrong, or did Rick Santorum just called Sarah Palin a “radical feminist”. She does come from a two-income family, right? She’s a “feminist”, right? That’s what she told Katie Couric. (Since Palin’s definition of “feminist” is likely slightly different from that of say, Gloria Steinem, I think Palin may not exactly be a “feminist’s dream”.)

She is hot, though...

[silentscreen]

She is not a liberal feminists dream. For one thing, she doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage. She doesn't like to label herself as a "feminist." Everyone's idea of what a feminist is varies depending upon whom you talk to. She was raised in a family where the girls weren't treated any differently because they were girls. and she had to get up in the wee hours to chop wood with her father. She learned how to shoot a gun and dress a moose. Well good for her! Those are skills that most women don't have, and I'll bet she could survive in the wild as well as a lot of men. Todd does take care of the children a lot, and so do other family members. I am divorced and raised my son by myself working outside the home. That was just the way it was. We made it through, and today he is married with a good job that he's had for years, he's trying to start a business of his own, is remodeling his house, is a step Dad to two children, and they have twins on the way. I did okay, but I don't think of myself as a feminist. I think of myself as an independent woman who learned some life skills a day at a time. An attractive, successful woman is a threat to some women. You're not supposed to have it all! I applaud Sarah for her accomplishments. It takes a lot to stand by your principals and not go along with the crowd. If the McCain people had just let her be herself, she would have fared much better.

[klondike]

Good points all, SS!
Now, let me apologize in advance for getting just a tiddly-tad offtrack, especially as I promised myself to stay off the whole Caribou Barbie thing, but . . .
Mrs. Palin {I'm sure she'd bristle @ the honorific "Ms."} has been repeatedly credited with hunting & shooting moose, and enjoying the great Alaskan "wilderness" with her hearty, outdoorsman husband.
What this shouldn't suggest is an image of the rugged pioneer-type gal who stuffs dried grass into her elkhide mocc's, layers woolens under her capote, hikes game trails along the treeline until she finds grazer spoor, and then tracks her quarry til sunset, when she stalks in close for a 40-yard killshot, then guts, capes & quarters her prey before dry-binding the take onto a dragframe for the long trek back home . . arriving by dawn's pearly light.
I won't pretend I know all the details of her moose hunts with hubby, but I've seen the bright, smiling trophy pics of Sarah & Todd, and what I observed is this: two happy, rested, well-groomed people, wearing about $1,000 each of sporty, new, high-tech, cold-weather gear, and carrying high-caliber rifles with precision long-range optics, posing with their trophy in the clear, strong light of a short, late-autumn subarctic day.
In other words, I'd bet this week's grocery money that the guy taking the pictures is also the charter pilot, who will be helping Todd strap that moose to the undercarriage of his ski-plane, which is parked just beyond the photo op range; with a tailwind, they'll be home in Wasilla for pre-dinner cocktails, and trust me, however that moose really does get dressed out, it won't put Sarah's Korean manicure at risk.
Anything wrong with hunting like that? Spiritually, plenty, I think, but - societally, legally, ecologically . . no, in fact it's a popular, widespread, seasonal pastime in modern Alaska, harvesting tens of millions in tourism-related income annually for the state.
My big beef here is that promoting the concept of Sarah Palin as a grass-roots, star-spangled, soccer-mom Ramboette is dangerously irrelevent to the hardly-hidden day-to-day facts of her actual life.
As a personal allusion to underscore my point, I've done emergency surgery on sled dogs on four separate occasions . . but I don't go around calling myself a veteranarian!

[silentscreen]

Ha, ha, ha! Maybe you're right Klondike, I don't know either. Politics is a game in the office and on the national stage. But that's why I also find it very dangerous that people seem to hero worship Obama as they do. We very few of us deserve that. After all, although an intelligent, accomplished man, he is only human, and can hardly produce the results that people seem to expect of him. Sarah is no different, but because she's female, she seems to be held to a higher standard. That's the only point that I've been trying to make in my rather dogged and long winded way. Thanks everyone for letting me vent. I love the fact that this board is very democratic and that we can all express our opinions.

[Synnove]

Silentscreen wrote:

No it's not funny Hedvig. You feel strongly about it. I do too. What's sad is that it still continues to go on in this country after all these years. They've even taken Palin's head and super imposed it on top of another body clad in a bikini. That's really sexist too! Never at any time have I known that Sarah didn't look and dress like a lady, or that she isn't a lady, but her critics will try to humiliate her by making her out to be a strumpet. No men and women aren't treated the same.

Thanks silentscreen. The fact is, this election gets reported so much in our media that everyone knows about it, everyone has an opinion (and quite a few people got the impression last spring that Hillary and Obama were the ones running for president, both!). This is definitively an event of world wide importance.

MichiganJ wrote:

The “sexism” claim is rather fascinating. Hilary got pilloried (hey, it almost rhymes!) for being a strong working woman way back when. In fact, confessed-drug-addict Rush Limbaugh labeled Hilary and the entire feminist movement, “femin-nazis”, and, while I can’t say for sure, i don’t think it was a term of endearment. The mocking Hilary endured for her pant suits as well as her politics has been merciless, but it’s only now, when the conservatives have a viable woman running for a high office, that the word “sexism” enters their vocabulary.

Both sides have fought dirty that way, I think. It's just a tactic for undermining them which doesn't belong in this day and age. When Hillary ran for the candidacy, some of the more biased journalists talked about how her voice sounded shrill and that it reminded them of nagging wives. A few months later I open a copy of The New York Review of Books, and what do I see? Sarah Palin being described as having a shrill voice, looking small and nervous. What's that little woman doing in the big white house, the article seems to be saying. The word "shrill" makes you think of a hysterical woman. As a matter of fact, both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have female high-pitched voices, but that does in no way make it difficult to understand what they say. But of course, neither side will admit to using sexist tactics to undermine each other.

We haven't had a woman prime minister here at all, and I don't think the situation is much better. One of the most prominent and admired woman politicians was murdered in 2003. Otherwise she might have been a worthy candidate. Who knows what will happen in the next election though.

[charliechaplinfan]

It's nice to tune back into this interesting discussion, it's so enjoyable to discuss something so important with such politeness. I've been away from the board for a few days after my children have, once again, shared their bugs with me.

Why do parents get it worse

I would love to be able to understand and be moved by the same passion that Obama seems to incite in his supporters. Is it the extraordinary world events that make him seem so right? Or is it more the national issues that are winning the groundswell of support? I apologise for my 'favoritism' but quite frankly our news channels have decided on the winner. I have very little idea of either nominees manifestos, such is the quality of news reporting.

[movieman1957]

I apologise for my 'favoritism' but quite frankly our news channels have decided on the winner.

So have ours. Even liberal commentators are agreeing that the press has been a little too obvious in their support of Obama. Depending on who you read the polls have Obama up by as little as two points or as much as 11.

Not being a supporter it is hard to put my finger on it but he is among other things very well spoken, confident and determined. He's done well at dismissing issues that call his character into question. He is convincing. He is smooth in much the same fashion as Clinton was. McCain, on the other hand, is not quite nearly as eloquent and can't quite make anyone's leg tingle. (See Chris Matthews) He comes off and at times has been portrayed as little more than an old white guy. It hasn't helped that McCain has not run a very good campaign.

[jdb1]

On the topic of women in politics, it appears we yet have a way to go before "woman politician" becomes simply "politician."

I mentioned to you all, quite a while ago I think, that when I was younger a very common epithet for an outspoken woman was "bitter." If you expressed an opinion contrary to the expected (i.e., you contradicted a man), you were labeled bitter. Women were supposed to agree with a smile to any verbal crap being dispensed.

So -- have we progressed? From "bitter" to "shrill?" I don't think so - I think "shrill" is even more harsh, and represents an even more aggressive attempt to make us shut up. Sorry, guys-who-cry-shrill, it ain't gonna happen. Women will continue to have higher-pitched voices than men do; we can't help it. And don't worry your pretty little heads: you'll get used to it.

[charliechaplinfan]

Shrill, I take it this is something else that is being aimed in Sarah's direction. From what I've heard she has a very pleasant voice and it's brimming with enthusiasm.

I know from our news she has had some gaps in her knowledge but I've heard nothing more than soundbites, I do know she wears nice clothes, has children, is anti abortion, pro hunting but I don't know anything else. I have to come hear to get the real low down. It's bad that she gets airtime but it isn't concentrating on the real issues, on what is being said.

Two people seem to be fighting this election, Obama and Palin and I haven't much of an idea what either support SHAME ON OUR MAJOR NEWS CHANNELS.