Let's try not to be idiots in the comments, mkay? Thx.

You sure you aren't new here?

Does admitting that her voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me make me an idiot? I can't help it. Anyway, the NOW endorsement isn't surprising.

The phonetree voice for the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, NY, sounds to me just like Sarah Palin's voice, which sounds to me just like every voice from Michigan and Minnesota I've heard. Are there modes to this near-Arctic dialect I can't hear?

Obama/Biden 08: Mandatory abortions for all!

The flowering of your political consciousness is a joy to behold, w-lfs-n.

I just used to be more private about it, Josh.

Anyway, the NOW endorsement isn't surprising.

If the article is to be believed, that NOW is endorsing anyone at all is a surprise. Given that they are endorsing someone, the choice isn't surprising.

The thing that I find interesting to contemplate about Palin is how much of my (and not just my) visceral loathing of her is sexist (I suspect MC is going to say "most of it") and how much of it is the kind of visceral loathing one feels towards, say, a traitor. There's something *especially* infuriating about an ambitious or powerful woman who uses feminism as a cover to promote an anti-feminist agenda, e.g. Phyllis Schlafly.

I think that the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler sketch on SNL last weekend goes a long way in demonstrating why feminist-type women hate, hate, hate Palin.

I want ben to be more private about his flowering, kthxbai.

"Manpower"? Hah.

"Ladypower", please.

Thanks for making that explicit, John.

Emerson accidentally cross-posted from Standpipe's other blog.

People power, John.

why feminist-type women hate, hate, hate Palin

I'm not sure whether I count as a feminist-type woman, but I don't hate her and I certainly don't see her as a traitor. There are a lot of conservatives in this country, and many of them are women. Why shouldn't they have a woman candidate to represent them?

I wouldn't vote for her, but I just don't feel that sense of loathing that you describe. And yes, I think much of it is sexist. Or worse than sexist: deeply misogynist. I'm fascinated (but horrified) to see self-described liberals and progressives doing this group hate, 'kill the witch' thing. Not good for women. And not good for the Obama-Biden ticket, either. Some women are going to turn away in disgust and either stay home or vote McCain-Palin.

I'm increasingly convinced that MC is right, that the Palin hate-fest has been a big loser for Democrats. Still, Obama's going to win, so there's some solace in that.

Also, I don't really get hating Palin. She's a small-time, small-town wingnut. She's proud of her ignorance and wears it like a badge. But for the moment, at least, she's the governor of Alaska, a relatively unimportant position in a state that couldn't have less to do with my life or really the workings of the nation writ large. I mean, I can understand NOW's decision; it makes sense. And I can understand people who have attacked her on substantive terms. But pointing out that she has a tanning booth in the governor's mansion, what's the point? If she becomes vice president, I suppose I might learn to hate her. But for now, who cares?

You're not small-time when you're the VP nominee, ari.

I certainly don't see her as a traitor

Maybe not to feminism or womanhood.

I don't doubt that there is deeply misogynistic hatred for Palin out there. I'd like to just dislike her for the same reasons I dislike McCain.

I totally disagree, ben. I think she's a cipher, little more than a reasonably gifted small-town pol (because Alaska is nothing more than a very big small town) who already has been unmasked as totally unprepared for the role she's being asked to play. It's he haters who have elevated her to the big time.

14: That's the theory, anyway.

"the"

No, it's definintely the he haters.

Oops, hit "post" too early. I meant to add:

And I'd like to be able to dislike her independently with being misogynistic about it. I expect others agree with me. Will we always succeed? Probably not.

Still: Sarah Palin would make a terrible vice-president and a worse president.

Palin got the Christian right on side, or more so, for a news cycle. Insofar as criticizing her has been a mistake, it's that it afforded her more significance than she really can lay claim to in the bigger picture.

Palin is not a stand-in for "women," and represents a kind of unpleasant, superficial Church-goin' hypocrisy that people have no particular obligation to respect. "Deeply misogynist" will do for a description of cartoons of McCain rogering her, but it won't do at all as a description of this general sentiment. And yes, it makes perfect sense for feminists to regard her as a traitor, just as it makes perfect sense for black voters to regard Alan Keyes as an Uncle Tom. (Do Uncle Toms need representation too? Sure, but so what? Doesn't mean we have to hold their representatives in high regard.)

just as it makes perfect sense for black voters to regard Alan Keyes as an Uncle Tom.

Might be harder to make that stick if the majority of African-Americans voted for Republicans.

But wait, DS, I don't want to carry too much water for MC, but it does seem important that the African-American community, on balance, is overtly hostile to so-called Uncle Toms. Whereas, and I think this is MC's point, a significant plurality of women in this country are quite conservative and/or Republicans and thus see in Palin the sort of leader they want. Which is to say, we don't have to venerate her. But insisting that she's a traitor to her sex risks suggesting that women have monolithic political interests.

I find pith appalling.

Actually, I kind of like pith.

But insisting that she's a traitor to her sex risks suggesting that women have monolithic political interests.

'Traitor to her sex' doesn't describe it well, but her inexperience is irritating from a feminist point of view. An anti-feminist trope is that women have it easy, political correctness and affirmative action mean that unqualified women get promoted when a white man wouldn't. And Palin's VP candidacy feels as if anti-feminists in the Republican party have made that trope true on purpose -- a man with her resume (small town mayor, two years as small state governor) really wouldn't have been tapped as VP, she really is getting the job just because she's a woman.

26: I'm thure you're not the only one, but you don't have to announth it to all of uth.

That's interesting, LB. I think they chose her because they thought she'd help them win. And so far at least, the choice has apparently paid big dividends.

Anyway, I would anticipate that feminists would be irritated by her selection, but that still doesn't address the issue that many, many women in this country are not feminists. Like I said, that doesn't mean we have to like or admire Palin. But I do think MC's right -- if I'm reading her correctly -- in that labeling Palin as some kind of traitor really ignores an important political reality.

27: Yes, what I really, really, really hate is the utterly cynical calculus that went into the calculation (and that it has a chance of working). It was the real "haters" who elevated to the big time.

From everything I have seen that is credible is that she is a spiteful, hypocritical, dishonest Republican pol just like thousands of others in that cesspool. And I hate that too (just not as much as I hate the overall spirit of the National Republican Party).

Some women are going to turn away in disgust and either stay home or vote McCain-Palin.

I guess those would be the women who were already going to stay home or vote for McCain/Palin. I'm sure there are a lot of misogynists who are enjoying the opportunity to hate on a woman with impunity (as with HRC), but plenty of people find Palin detestable for her policy positions and her style of campaigning by which I mean lying.

I think mockery is a more effective approach to a ticket-balancing nonentity like Palin than a lot of vitriolic ranting (wasn't Quayle supposed to bring in the women's vote?)

Palin used to refer to her opponents back in Vanilla Wasilla as "haters", so it's old hat for her to conflate principled opposition with personal dislike or misogyny, and then play victim.

24: a significant plurality of women in this country are quite conservative and/or Republicans and thus see in Palin the sort of leader they want.

All the more reason for feminists to go on the attack against this sort of mentality. And in particular the profoundly insulting attempt by conservative women's groups, traditionally devoted to pooh-poohing the feminists for always bringing sexism up, to now try to shelter Palin's profoundly unpleasant views under the canopy of universal sisterhood.

insisting that she's a traitor to her sex risks suggesting that women have monolithic political interests.

There's wriggle room on plenty of political issues, but it's pretty hard to see how someone can (for instance) toe the "life begins at rape" party line and not be a de facto traitor to women. If a political movement somehow managed to convince a plurality of blacks that slavery was no big deal, that plurality would still be offensively wrong.

I'm mad at the women who seem to be projecting some sort of plucky-heroine fantasy onto this cynical, shallow politician. I'm mad at the whole phenomenon of Sarah Palin, her lies and her obvious contempt for the process and her record of double-dealing and her apparent appeal to low-information women voters. I'm mad that Sarah Palin and her handlers have had the unmitigated gall to cry sexism at the first whiff of independant questions, cheapening the charge, draining unresolved energy from the Democratic primary, throwing liquified shit into our public discourse. Christ, if Sarah Palin manages to swing the ticket for McCain, I'll be really pissed off.

I sort of think of Palin as representing the branch of feminism that in the years after the end of the successful suffrage movement was no longer considered feminism (both in terms of self-identification and outside ascription). I don't think I remember enough of the history of the women's movement to elaborate much on this. This is the branch that emphasized difference.

I think they chose her because they thought she'd help them win. And so far at least, the choice has apparently paid big dividends.

So far, but possibly not for long.

29: And *so far* at least, the choice has apparently paid big dividends.

Emphasis added. This is one of the key tests of this campaign. Can this ruse be extended until Election Day? Have no doubt, the McCain campaign is trying something along the lines of "every day try to win the day, win enough days you win the week, win 10 weeks and you win the election". The way they are tryin to do it is contemptible and maybe effective, it is true that the outrage against the strategy spills over into overzealous outrage against the person. When you unbottle the hatred and contempt like the Repubs have that is what happens. Maybe it hurts the Dems but you are not going to stop it.

a man with her resume (small town mayor, two years as small state governor) really wouldn't have been tapped as VP, she really is getting the job just because she's a woman.

I'm not sure that's true. People have a way of getting over obvious objections for a solution they like. One example would be the set of women against the war but for Clinton.

many women in this country are not feminists

I think that gets at it, though I think the definition/common understanding of "feminism" is floppy enough that the statement might not be true. On the whole, I would think you would have to say that the selection of Palin is a win for feminism. The question is whether the election (or even the selection) of Palin would be a net win for feminism, and that requires a good definition of goals and a good understanding of the various mechanisms available for achieving those goals.

On the whole, I would think you would have to say that the selection of Palin is a win for feminism.

Oh, God, no.

Palin is important because she's the VP candidate, not because liberals don't like her.

My sister is a moderate Republican / Democrat who supported Hillary and became a PUMA. I am actively trying not to find out what she thinks about Palin, because I like her as a sister.

I really so hate Palin. She'd probably be even creepier if she were an otherwise-similar guy, but Palin is bad enough.

37: I would say it is a marker for the gains of feminism (that a woman would even be considered). I don't know that it is a "win".

On the whole, I would think you would have to say that the selection of Palin is a win for feminism.

No, you wouldn't, since she's anti-feminist.

I would say it is a marker for the gains of feminism (that a woman would even be considered).

Sometimes I wonder if I just dreamed Geraldine Ferraro.

I recently discovered the neighborhood of blogs by lifelong Democrat women who are now supporting McCain because of Palin. I haven't been this horrified in a long time.

38: Feminism considered broadly, Palin's a big loss. If you define 'feminism' as 'anything that increases the likelihood that women will hold positions of power', I'm not sure -- it might be a win on that front. Not worth it, however, even though that's something that I do have as a goal (until the point at which the likelihood that someone holds a position of power is unaffected by their sex).

Did Thatcher's election and time in office make it more likely that women would hold positions or power? (Serious question. This seems often to be left out in discussions of Thatcher and I don't know the answer.)

32: There are several issues at play here. So let me try to clarify a few of my points. First, I think feminists and Democrats should go on the attack against Palin. I haven't said otherwise. Indeed, I said it makes good sense to me that NOW is endorsing Obama/Biden. I just think the attacks need to be substantive and quickly pivot to McCain. Second, I think the vast majority of the attacks I've seen against Palin have been substantive and fair, though they have not pivoted to McCain. But that doesn't mean that some, including, most recently, the tanning bed nonsense, aren't sexist. Third, and this is really my point, I would never call Palin a feminist. And people who do call her that are completely full of shit. But the idea that she's a traitor to her sex makes no sense to me for all the reasons I've listed above. And your analogy to a black politician who supports slavery doesn't work for me, because it seems to assume that A) a pro-choice position must be at the center of a woman's political consciousness. B) that most women know how anti-choice Palin actually is.

45 amended: or s/b of

And the question is about the UK in particular (of course).

If you define 'feminism' as 'anything that increases the likelihood that women will hold positions of power', I'm not sure -- it might be a win on that front.

Yeah, might in the short term, but I think not in the long term.

Palin is the result of identity politics. As ye sow so shall ye reap.

Okay, I should clarify one more point: I chose my words above carefully when I said "so far" and "apparently" in reference to Palin's positive impact on the McCain ticket. I, too, think that she's not going to wear well. Because, again, she's small-time. The national spotlight is very harsh for pols who aren't ready for it. And she seems likely to wither over time.

49: Yeah, you see, I find that statement enraging, and I can't quite shake the belief that the fact that Palin's selection makes it easy to say was viewed as a plus for Palin by the people who chose her.

Several people in real life have asked me my opinion of Palin. My stock answer is that she's a "whackjob." It's a very pleasing epithet, especially if you manage to nasal up the "a" and really spit it out as though you were imitating the "ack-ack-ack" of a machine gun.

I hope that helps the rest of you all.

I thought identity politics meant "voting for people based on what is best for people who resemble me", not "voting for people who resemble me".

As ye sow so shall ye reap.

Sexist.

No, you wouldn't, since she's anti-feminist.

So what? We don't care about her, we care about the effect of her selection on the environment for, variously, women and feminists. At a minimum, this means both parties, in the future, have to compete for a group of voters that is big and willing to swing by increasing the number of female candidates offered. The costs are going to depend on definitions of feminism, as eb suggests above.

And your analogy to a black politician who supports slavery doesn't work for me, because it seems to assume that A) a pro-choice position must be at the center of a woman's political consciousness. B) that most women know how anti-choice Palin actually is.

A's a reasonable argument, but I'm not sure I understand why B matters.

55: But if the policies she works for in office are ones that work against feminst goals, it's perfectly possible that having a non-feminist woman VP will be a net negative for feminist goals, even though the fact that she's a woman does serve some of those goals as you describe.

57: I agree. From my #37: The question is whether the election (or even the selection) of Palin would be a net win for feminism, and that requires a good definition of goals and a good understanding of the various mechanisms available for achieving those goals.

You should be enraged, LB. The statement above about "Uncle Toms" was enraging. I do not know one black person who was ever a slave, although I know that they do exist in the world (just not in the US). I know plenty of black Republicans, who would get fighting mad at being called "Uncle Tom". The concept that people can not have individual views, that they are somehow race or gender "traitors" is BS. There is no doubt that McCain has cynically chosen Palin, but the VP selection is supposed to get votes, and that part shouldn't be ignored.

the Palin hate-fest has been a big loser for Democrats

But the Obama hate-fest is just fine for the GOP, I take it. My hate for Palin has everything to do with the Christian right, and nothing to do with her sex. I agree with Jackmormon. The issue is that she's a wackjob. Her feminist bona fides or lack thereof are really beside the point in electoral terms.

I thought identity politics meant "voting for people based on what is best for people who resemble me"

Given the number of people who seem to consistently vote against their own self interest, it's got to be something more complicated than that.

60: electorally, it seems the Obama hare-fest has been just fine for the GOP, while the Palin hate-fest has been a problem for Dems. Again, only speaking so far, and hopefully this will all change very soon. But still. I think the Republicans are just better haters than the Democrats are.

59: No, you don't understand, I'm enraged at you for believing and spreading scurrilous bullshit about feminism.

The concept that people can not have individual views, that they are somehow race or gender "traitors" is BS.

Individuals have views but those views aren't self-generating. Usually individuals are buying something from someone else. If you're buying something from your enemy--here, the Dixiecrats--you ought to wonder about what you've purchased.

I think the Republicans are just better haters than the Democrats are.

I think that's true and a real problem for Democrats.

46: Of course I mostly agree, except: And your analogy to a black politician who supports slavery doesn't work for me, because it seems to assume that A) a pro-choice position must be at the center of a woman's political consciousness.

Not "must be" but certainly "should be" pretty close to the centre, sure, why not? It goes directly to the freedom of women to do with their bodies as they see fit without being penalized or interfered with by the law. In fact as far as questions of gender politics go, it's one of the most relevant analogies. (Yes, pro-choicers have sometimes gone overboard in suggesting that abortion should have no ethical implications whatsoever, but that doesn't mean they're wrong in focusing on the basic issue of women's freedom.)

55: So what?

So it actually matters whether the female candidates in question will mean substantive gains for feminist politics. If they don't, they are not gains for feminism.

I know plenty of black Republicans, who would get fighting mad at being called "Uncle Tom".

Hey! I think I saw those three guys at the Republican Convention.

could it be that the feminists hating Palin hate her b/c of some kind of jealousy plus to all the issues of course
more women hate her than men i've heard

I know plenty of black Republicans, who would get fighting mad at being called "Uncle Tom".

And, well, fuck them. They are.

But that doesn't mean that some, including, most recently, the tanning bed nonsense, aren't sexist.

Wait, are you serious? I mean, it's fluff, but that's a lot of political attacks. It's no more "sexist" than $400 haircuts and windsurfing and ranchers who are afraid of horses. I mean, there's a feminist argument that pointing out instances of physical vanity by pols has to do with misogyny, but that's not what you're claiming, I don't think.

Palin's image is that she's the no-nonsense hockey mom who put the state jet on eBay. And now she's installed a tanning bed in the governor's mansion? Bullshit that's a sexist hit.

But your objection to it is the exact inoculation that the Rs were counting on when they picked a comically inadequate woman for VP. It's the same as the claim that any mention of Jeff Gannon was homophobic. I can accept the claim that such things are distractions or counterproductive, but I can't accept the double-standard claim that they're sexist or homophobic (or, when a black R finally gets nominated for something and someone points out that he never even got a HS degree or something, racist).

the Obama hare-fest

Everybody hates a rabbit-fucker.

while the Palin hate-fest has been a problem for Dems

Because the polls shifted in exactly the same way they have after every national convention for the past several decades?

And, well, fuck them. They are.

Same deal with Log Cabin Republicans.

||

Congratulations, O buzzworthy apo.

|>

71: Is this true? I thought the first convention historically got the bigger bounce, while this year it seems to be the second one.

This year is unusual in that there was only a weekend separating the two, though.

Well this year the second convention started 3 minutes after the first one ended.

Speaking of Log Cabin Republicans, what the hell is it about log cabins that make them synonymous with "gay"? Allusion.... or euphemism?

73: Thanks, but I've recently discovered that I cannot cash in my buzz for fabulous prizes. Sigh.

77: I presume this.

your objection to it is the exact inoculation that the Rs were counting on when they picked a comically inadequate woman for VP.

The Republicans could've inoculated the hell out of themselves if McCain had made Trig his VP.

"You heartless liberals! The Vice President can't talk to the press! He's only an infant! And he has Down Syndrome, you fuckers!"

According to the LCRs themselves, their name simply refers to Lincoln as a call to the ideals of freedom and inclusivity that the Republican Party once represented. Oh, and that the name "the Lincoln Group" or "Lincoln Republicans" was already taken.

Sounds a little thin.

Speaking of Log Cabin Republicans, what the hell is it about log cabins that make them synonymous with "gay"?

Well, men alone in the woods for long stretches of time...

Or Abe Lincoln. But that whole Joshua Speed thing was just how they rolled in the 19th Century. (Full disclosure- Joshua Speed was my great-great grand uncle, on my mother's side).

60: Again, I wasn't saying that hating Palin is necessarily sexist. And you're welcome to hate her if you want, of course. I just don't get it. She's a sideshow, a distraction, and nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned. Except, that is, insofar as she seems, for now at least, to be helping the guy at the top of the ticket.

70: The tanning bed story was overtly sexist. I was stunned to see it on the front page at TPM and immediately began thinking of things that MC has written here. You don't see it that way? Okay. I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But comparing it to the fag-bashing that went on with the Edwards haircut story doesn't do your argument any favors.

Joshua Speed was my great-great grand uncle

You homo.

70: And again, there are plenty of issues that one can attack Palin on, and then pivot to McCain, that have nothing to do with her looks. Do you really not see the problem here?

Just latent, so far...

A lot of men use tanning beds.

87: men s/b "men"

If I had been Palin, Governor of All Alaska, I would built me a nice solarium, right offa the governor's palace. My dad's cousin up in the North had a solarium where they actually grew giant cacti through the year. You double or triple-pane the glass, and I think you might even heat it in the worst months. See, a solarium would be a very sensible addition to the governor's perquisites.

In Germany, or at least the part of Germany where I spent a godforsaken year, EVERYONE used tanning beds. The university's post office was in the back corner of a tanning salon, I kid you not. My twenty-story apartment building had a tanning bed by the indoor pool. It was in the outer suburbs of Bombed-to-Fuck-in-WWII-ville and just a ghastly place to live, but it did have a tanning bed. Which I never used, being the kind of woman who freckles.

87, 88: Especially in Alaska. Plus, lots of people buy those fancy broad-spectrum lights. They're elitists, I tell you.

I had no idea the tanning bed "story" was so widespread. But there it goes again (checking my RSS reader).

Do you really not see the problem here?

Obviously, a story about a female candidate spending too much money on a tanning salon can be sexist if the point of the story is her alleged vanity. But are you saying that a story about a so-called "reformer" spending money to install a tanning salon in a house taxpayers are paying her not to live in shouldn't be written at all?

(Also, the more I think of it, the more I think McCain should've made Trig his VP. He could've cradled his little running mate in his arms whenever he spoke. And whenever Trig cried McCain could have said "My friends, this is the cry of freedom.")

But are you saying that a story about a so-called "reformer" spending money to install a tanning salon in a house taxpayers are paying her not to live in shouldn't be written at all?

She paid for the tanning bed herself, so no, probably not.

The blog posts I've seen haven't detailed where the money came from, though, not caring about the story at all, I haven't read them carefully enough to know for sure. But here, let me turn the question around: do you honestly think the story/meme is about Palin's corruption? Because it isn't. It's about the fact that she's a woman, that she's vain, that she's unserious, that she's low-class. If people want to talk about her as corrupt, they have much better angles to pursue.

And while I really don't want to talk about Trig, that's probably the funniest thing I've read about the campaign in weeks.

45

"Did Thatcher's election and time in office make it more likely that women would hold positions or power? (Serious question. This seems often to be left out in discussions of Thatcher and I don't know the answer.)"

One would think so. She showed it was possible for a woman to reach the top and she showed a woman was capable of exercising power effectively. Sort of like a successful black quarterback.

83: Ari is right. Women who lie a lot about matters of public policy, who want to ban books, who endorse charging rape victims to investigate their crime, and who would force rape victims to bear children are not people whom we ought to hate. You all are a bunch of, of, of - of coastal elites ! That's what you are.

6

"... There's something *especially* infuriating about an ambitious or powerful woman who uses feminism as a cover to promote an anti-feminist agenda, e.g. Phyllis Schlafly."

How has Schlafly used feminism as a cover? Has she ever claimed to be a feminist?

Doesn't "Log Cabin" refer to a kind of sex act, like the dirty Sanchez or the camel-toe slide?

96: Either you're kidding, in which case, fine, though I don't think I get the joke. Or, if you're not kidding, I'd rather not be your strawman. I have no idea how many times I have to say that it's fine for people here to hate her. I just don't share the sentiment at this point. If McCain wins, as I said above, I promise to consider hating her then, okay?

Sarah Palin should not be mocked for exercising her Second Amendment Right to Brown Arms.

89: Which I never used, being the kind of woman who freckles.

I consider Anne of Green Gables to be an erotic classic.

Especially in Alaska
a dilemma, use the tanning bed to avoid vit d deficiency and depression or get melanoma

Freckles are so cute, JM.

could it be that the feminists hating Palin hate her b/c of some kind of jealousy plus to all the issues of course
more women hate her than men i've heard

Oooh! Busted!

Wow, 95 is a beaut. Missing the point, *and* offensive, all in one post.

I once went to a fancy cosmetics place to buy some facial cleanser, and the counter saleswoman asked me my age, pursed her lips, pointed out my "age spots," and directed me towards the brand's whitening-and-brightening line of products. "Age spots?" I said. "Those are freckles!" The saleswoman was not to be embarrassed.

Facist.

Just explain that they're powerful sexual magic.

I object to these sexist remarks about women with freckles!

And further to Ari's 24, I think there are many women in this country who sort of fall in-between: liberal on some issues, conservative on others, receptive to some feminist messages, not so receptive to others (and btw, I think the pay equity issue is a winner, and, if pitched properly, can appeal to all sorts of women who wouldn't necessarily call themselves feminists. The Obama campaign has just come out with a really good ad on this one). The gender traitor argument really misses a lot of the complexity of women's interests and affiliations and etc.

Instead, not being really clear on the actual difference between freckles and age spots and needing some sort of cleanser, I bought her damn product and vowed never to return.

If you were Anne of Green Gables, you'd be covering your nose with some concoction of borax, lemon juice, and quince.

Women with freckles tend to be lewd, I've heard. If they get rid of them they're equally lewd, but guys can't tell so they have to be more aggressive.

109: No doubt there is plenty of complexity -- in the political calculus of any group -- but that doesn't mean there aren't specific issues that can and should be dealbreakers, and regarded as such.

110 is heartbreaking.

It was not my finest moment.

The gender traitor argument really misses a lot of the complexity of women's interests and affiliations

The gender traitor argument is preaching to the choir. Which has its place, but won't move anybody from the GOP column to the Democratic one. The Obama ad MC mentions is indeed a good one.

So wait, DS, you get to tell a group what is and isn't a dealbreaker for it? Because, I have to tell you, I get really frustrated when Abraham Foxman tries to tell me that I need to become a single-issue voter when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

117: It's tough being King of the Universe, Ari. Heavy lies the crown, and all that.

Seriously, I'm not "telling the group" anything; I'm saying that AFAICS the feminists who regard it as a dealbreaker are right to do so. Certainly in many years of seeing the issue argued about, and the behaviour and attitudes of the anti-choice faction, I have yet to see a convincing argument that the pro-choicers are wrong to regard the issue as a pivotal one.

115: I believe that salesmen are trained to embarrass people into buying shit.

I needed some $50 electronics part and went to the nearest outlet, which was a high-end place. I might as well have had a dump in my pants, the way they greeted me.

Moral: if you're going into a high end electronics outlet, you don't need to put on clean underwear, because nothing you can do will be anywhere near enough.

but that doesn't mean there aren't specific issues that can and should be dealbreakers, and regarded as such.

Might be true, but you may not be as well-situated to sort those out as MC is. Coates, at The Atlantic, noted that there is something patently offensive about white people arguing about whether or not Obama was "really black." I think the same thing obtains to men and feminism. It doesn't mean that we, men, shouldn't comment on or address the issue; but I think it does mean that we should understand ourselves to be shouting from the peanut gallery and maybe listen more attentively to those on the stage.

AWB has posted about how at a high-end spa she was trained into doing precisely that. I usually don't fall for that shit, but that time the saleswoman just got me at a weak moment, I guess. I've got to run away from the computer now.

118: Sure, I agree with you. But the anti-choicers are equally convinced, I imagine, that they're on the side of the angels. And so we go round and round: it's fine for us, and for feminists more broadly, to think that Palin sucks. But calling her a traitor to her sex papers over the fact that many women apparently agree with her overall issue profile.

Ugh, I'm too tired to argue any more.

Might be true, but you may not be as well-situated to sort those out as MC is.

Wait, I'm just as well-positioned to sort those issues out as MC, and I assert that DS is Correct. Go, DS! You have a day-pass.

I believe that salesmen are trained to embarrass people into buying shit.
My 22-year-old niece with the perfect complexion tells me about the time she went to some makeup counter to look at eyeshadow, and the saleswoman said,
"Sure, but first, let's do something about that skin."

123: You're only allowed to issue single comment passes, which must be renewed for each successive comment. Did you not read the mailing at all?

Also, there's a difference between hating on Palin and feeling infuriated that the American people seem to respond so enthusiastically to her.

Their enthusiastic response seems to reward all the non-merit-based aspects of her, which is super galling to me as a statement about being a woman in 2008.

My understanding of the pass-issuing rules is innate, and comes to me by virtue of my gender.

127: Proof positive that gender is a social construct.

120: So I'm being offensive about feminism if I agree with too many feminists and disagree with MC's particular viewpoint? That dog, my friend, will not hunt.

122: But calling her a traitor to her sex papers over the fact that many women apparently agree with her overall issue profile.

Ummm, no, I think that's still irrelevant actually.

Sure the anti-choicers think they're right, all parties to an argument get to think they're right. They just don't all get to actually be right. I'm also sure black Republicans think they're not selling out to a party that aggressively courts white supremacists and is fundamentally hostile to their community in any number of ways, but what they think they're doing isn't necessarily relevant to what they're in fact doing.

123: Yay!

That dog, my friend, will not hunt.

Even if you put lipstick on it?

131: It'd have to be really fabulous lipstick.

131: Why would you say that about me? Filthy sexist.

So I'm being offensive about feminism if I agree with too many feminists and disagree with MC's particular viewpoint?

You may understandably be seen to be offensive if you claim an equal right to make an independent judgment about the matter. It's one thing to say, " I agree with many feminists that Palin is anti-feminist." It's another for you (or me) to say, "Palin is anti-feminist."

|| Good piece on the financial crisis as an opportunity for Obama. ||>

Nope, DS, as I noted above, I think that if there were a significant plurality of African-Americans in this country who supported the Republican Party, it would be equally incorrect to call a Republican candidate who was black a traitor to his or her race.

In my opinion, the sky is blue. but it all depends on your definition of "blue".

If you want that dog to hunt, you have to put lipstick where the ducks are, my friends.

134: Sounds rather mealy-mouthed to me. If I'm comfortable agreeing with many feminists that Palin is anti-feminist, I should be comfortable simply saying she's an anti-feminist. I don't think whitefolks (should) need to preface the statement "David Duke is a racist" or "Alan Keyes is a glorified stepinfetchit" with a bunch of bona fides about how they got it all honestly from an actual black person; it's simply not hard to tell, from a lot of really basic cues, that these are defensible statements.

136: And if they were supporting the Republican Party as it currently exists with the policies it pursues, you would still be wrong IMO. (Black is a de facto community IMO, not a "race," but whatevs.)

I don't think ...

That's because you're Canadian.

I don't think that there's a point to be settled here. We just fundamentally disagree.

But calling her a traitor to her sex papers

I don't even have sex papers.

They're in the mail, Heebie.

They're in the mail your womb, Heebie.

I'm focusing my opposition to Palin on my vehement opposition to her policy positions.

That said, it is additionally galling to see a woman whose very existence as a serious political contender is attributable to eensy-weensy feminist accomplishments like the Nineteenth Amendment slam feminism in so many ways.

I haven't noticed her turning down any of the benefits of feminism, and in that respect the reference to Schlafly above is spot-on.

-

145

"I haven't noticed her turning down any of the benefits of feminism, ..."

She didn't abort her defective fetus.

Sometimes James' insight into feminism is quite keen.

You think she sees the chance to abort as a benefit she turned down? I doubt she'd phrase it that way.

Shearer, under the good-faith assumption that you are not consciously trolling, I will point out that the benefit of feminism in that case is the choice to handle her pregnancy as she saw fit.

It totally irks me that it was touted as heroic that she kept her baby when it was FLAWED! She kept a FLAWED BABY!

150

"Shearer, under the good-faith assumption that you are not consciously trolling, I will point out that the benefit of feminism in that case is the choice to handle her pregnancy as she saw fit."

In which case what does "I haven't noticed her turning down any of the benefits of feminism, ..." even mean?

145: I wonder, sometimes, if there isn't a "I didn't abandon feminism, feminism abandoned me" thing going on for some women who are conservative Republicans but enjoy the benefits won by feminists.

what does "I haven't noticed her turning down any of the benefits of feminism, ..." even mean?

1. Ability to pursue higher education. Note that the admission of women to colleges was at least a 120-year effort, continuing at least into the 1980s.

2. Ability to own her own property. (Admittedly, I'm guessing here, but I bet the deeds to her property don't say "Todd Palin et ux.")

3. Ability to open her own bank account.

4. Ability to work outside the home in the public sphere without massive social opprobrium or scandal.

5. Ability to run for public office.

6. Ability to vote, and to solicit the votes of women when running herself.

I could go on a lot longer.

153: Oh, there's a whole bunch of conservative media women who talk like that; I'd have to google to give you names. IIRC, they use 'gender feminism' as a pejorative for what most people would call 'feminism'.

I wonder, sometimes, if there isn't a "I didn't abandon feminism, feminism abandoned me" thing going on for some women....

IME this is absolutely true,* but when you scratch the surface it often turns out that they like social consensus and are put off by the messy, unladylike "making a fuss" side of activism. So back in 1960 they weren't wanting equal pay, but they're happy to take the checks now. Back in 1910 they weren't agitating for the vote, but now it seems "normal" and they are happy to have it.

*I am not saying this is true for all such women, just the half-dozen or so that I have personally encountered this with.

(And I should add to my 154.4 that this really only applies to middle and upper-middle class white women. Everybody else was already long since working.)

154

But if she didn't do any of these things like she didn't have an abortion, you would say she was just exercising a choice feminism gave her not that she was turning down a benefit of feminism. What could she do that would constitute turning down a benefit feminism gave her?

156: Right, the free-rider problem. What makes it harder, I think, is that you're looking at successive generations. So Sally sits out early fights for working outside and workplace rules, and Sally's daughter Molly enjoys the benefits of those wins--and quite literally can't imagine the world without the benefits--and sits out today's fights. But it's not like Sally is necessarily claiming the rights of the fight she sat out, or Molly the fight she is sitting out.

158: Shit, he's got us there. I guess feminism was pointless after all.

I assure you that if Sarah Palin asked that her name not be on the deed to her home, or that if she said "I don't need to register to vote, my husband speaks for me," I would construe that as turning down a benefit of feminism.

Back in 1910 they weren't agitating for the vote, but now it seems "normal" and they are happy to have it.

Except this is not necessarily true. This is that other branch of 19th century feminism I was referring to above. Almost all of the goals listed in 154 could be and were pursued in the 19th century on the basis of women's different place within the social structure. So you have woman should go to college, because they are the ones responsible for educating children (including boys) and teaching them proper morality. Women should own property because they will be responsible for their families if their husbands die, abandon them, or are hopeless and abusive drunks. And so on. I've seen this referred to as "difference feminism" or "maternalist feminism."

This is the argument for women's rights based on demonstrating how the supposedly separate and domestic woman's sphere reaches deep into the public sphere, but which does not go so far as to attack the idea of spheres entirely. (See, for example, Francis Willard and the idea of making "the whole world homelike.) There was a lot of women's activism and organizing in the late 19th century and early 20th century, in addition to the suffrage movement. After suffrage there was an early attempt at an ERA that fell apart partly because of the conflict between these two views of feminism. By the 1960s, the difference feminists probably weren't advocating for equal pay. And not really identifying as feminist as we've come to understand the term.

I'm not sure I've explained this very well.

How long does the obligation for all women to be feminists because they now have the right to own property in their own names extend?

This feels the same as the "you should support organized labor now because it was through organized labor 100 years ago that people got Saturdays off" argument.

162: I'm guessing the domestic sphere does not stretch all the way to the governorship of Alaska.

Oh, and people like Schlafly were out making fusses in the 1960s. But on things like sex ed (the successor to the temperance movement?), not equal pay.

164: Right. I'm not saying that this other branch of feminism is exactly like it was pre-suffrage. Just that there's a longer history it's grown out of.

How long does the obligation for all women to be feminists because they now have the right to own property in their own names extend?

Let's be very, very clear that I am not suggesting that anybody has an obligation to be a feminist.

Per my 145, I am highlighting a contradiction -- and to me a serious one -- between someone whose life has been significantly materially enriched as a result of certain policies that she seems to ignore, malign, or actively wish to roll back. (No I'm not going to go looking for cites.)

That said, my off-the-top-of-my head argument says that living memory is an okayish yardstick for how long we ought to grant recognition and consideration to political progress. Given that people are still today dealing with the fallout of deeds not in female family members' names, I'm quite comfortable listing it as a contemporary benefit of feminism.

I don't know enough history to intelligently comment on the specifics of 162. My layperson's read of it is that it's not really a different type of feminism, it's the same issues framed in a more palatable way. Not unlike the difference between people who want to fund AIDS relief in Africa out of some kind of moral duty in comparison to those who see it as a social justice/human rights issue.

How long does the obligation for all women to be feminists because they now have the right to own property in their own names extend?

Of course, if one were to define "feminist" as "one who believes that women should enjoy the same dignity, opportunity, etc. as men, then anyone who is not a feminist can bite me. [/trolling, earnestly]

Is 134 back to the old "men can't really be feminists" thing?

168: My not-terribly-informed understanding is that eb is identifying a pretty well-known schism in feminism, and one which has been argued about here, I think, a lot.

169: I don't think anyone would openly disagree with that, either here or on the right, and very few would do so privately. The problem is what it means to give flesh to those bones.

My layperson's read of it is that it's not really a different type of feminism, it's the same issues framed in a more palatable way.

My understanding is that there was, or the different approaches led to, a very real split over essentialism: whether women were a particular way and could carry out their roles - however expansive - in accordance with that way, or whether women could act in ways people thought previously only men could act. It was a dispute over bases that led to a dispute over goals after many of the common goals had been achieved.

170: #120 basically is, and #134 builds off of that.

171: Agreed. The "obligation ... to be feminists" construction just bugged me is all.

Of course, if one were to define "feminist" as "one who believes that women should enjoy the same dignity, opportunity, etc. as men, then anyone who is not a feminist can bite me.

Is Sarah Palin opposed to all those wonderful things, or does she just believe that there should be restrictions on women's ability to get an abortion?

There's clearly something dishonorable about simultaneously trashing something while partaking of its benefits (farmers railing against government handouts while cashing their checks), but the boundaries of this rule are vague.

173: Well, nuts to that.

Via Slacktivist, here's an interesting take on the issue of Palin and women in power.

The "obligation ... to be feminists" construction just bugged me is all.

The construction wasn't meant to be belligerent. Just trying to explore senses of group loyalty and whatnot.

The tanning bed story was overtly sexist.

I rather suspect that if Obama had installed a tanning bed, it would have attracted equal curiosity. Sauce for the goose.

Is Sarah Palin opposed to all those wonderful things, or does she just believe that there should be restrictions on women's ability to get an abortion?

B has a wonderful discussion of this that really shaped my thinking on choice. Boils down to the point that whether or not you support the right to choice is about whether or not you trust women. To me, this makes it a question of equal dignity. I can't do that particular argument justice though. Go to her site and search "do you trust women" or something like that...

177: Understood -- I'm just being nitpicky.

That link in 176 is quite interesting indeed.

On the history from an actual historian, see here, under "The History of a Term." Note that calling something prior to a certain date "feminism" is not strictly how people at the time would have used the term.

173: Interesting. Are her evangelical views of women's subservience such that her nomination is implicitly also a nomination of Todd Palin?

er, 183 to 176...

I'm sorely tempted to start an independent political party which always supports Democrats except that it allows its members to make grossly sexist remarks about creepy Republican Vice Presidential candidates. We're fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

183: Possibly yes. Todd Palin played a significant role in Alaskan government. The degree is unknown but it was rather troubling.

In fairness I feel compelled to note that 186 is exactly the same kind of complaint that people had about Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1992.

FTR, I do not endorse the cc'ing of policymaking e-mails to one's spouse regardless of the party of the officeholder.

185: You can get Tripp to help.

185

"I'm sorely tempted to start an independent political party which always supports Democrats except that it allows its members to make grossly sexist remarks about creepy Republican Vice Presidential candidates. We're fighting with one hand tied behind our back."

You think grossly sexist remarks about Palin help your cause?

162 is great. Actually, in a previous life I published an essay on this public/private thing, and argued that it was too simplistic a dichotomy because it ignored the important intermediary social sphere (where, e.g., middle-class women could engage in all sorts of not-private or not-domestic activities [philanthropy, educational reform, moralization of the poor, etc] as an appropriately feminine expansion of their domestic role into civil society...and all well before demanding the vote]). I do think that an overemphasis on the political story (the suffrage campaigns and etc) misses an important part of the history and legacy of Anglo-American feminism. "Social housekeeping" claims about women and politics are still with us, to some extent, and it's not always, or not only, conservative women who invoke that language/legacy.

187: The difference being that no one assumed Bill felt any moral obligation to defer to Hillary's authority.

191: Maybe it's more like saying voting for Al Smith is voting in the Pope. I'm not sure if I'm joking.

Or voting in Dubya is voting in Dick Cheney. It's foolish not to consider who someone's advisors and cronies are, but it's also foolish to think it's more sinister to have a certain kind of advisor than another kind of advisor.

I mean, I started 192 as a joke, but the parallel isn't completely out there, as parallels go.

192: Wasn't that the concern with JFK's candidacy?

||

As of right now I am probably the first person since 1994 to have the song "Unlucky Friend" by Dig stuck in my head.

|>

Are her evangelical views of women's subservience such that her nomination is implicitly also a nomination of Todd Palin?

Do we know that she holds such views? Has she ever expressed them?

I dunno. I think people are sort of reading her the wrong way, or reading stuff into her without (yet) having any real grounds to do so. So far, I see her as sort of an Annie Oakley 'gals can do it too, and we don't need your femmy-sissy welfare state measures to compete against the boys' type.

191: I'm not at all sure about that. I remember an awful lot of not-really-jokes about him being, uh, unduly influenced by his pants-wearing wife.

They might not be stereotypes we endorse, but there were a lot of people out there who were nervous about Hillary's influence on Bill, and I stand by my assertion that it is quite a good parallel to the uneasiness of other people now in terms of Todd's influence on Sarah.

Do we know that she holds such views? Has she ever expressed them?

Well, does she belong to a church that permits women to be clergy?

195: Yes, but I think it was more an undercurrent than an out in the open attack. Certainly strong enough a concern for JFK to have to give that speech. But - though I now wonder if the "a vote for Al Smith is a vote for the Pope" slogan is an urban legend - I'm pretty sure more overt anti-Catholicism was a part of the campaign against Al Smith.

189: We're writing off the grossly sexist vote.

199: That's not a particularly good litmus test for the issue. Alot of churches refuse to ordain women without the flock universally believing women must submit to men.

A lot of churches refuse to ordain women without the flock universally believing women must submit to men.

Sure, but why do they refuse to ordain women? Isn't there necessarily some hypocrisy is believing a woman can run the country but not a church?

More Al Smith: check out the Tolerance Tour dialog at the bottom of this Time article.

203: No, what I'm saying is that people may belong to such churches without agreeing with the policy against ordaining women.

I get your point, I do. I myself can't reconcile myself to a church that pushes the subordination of women. But There are people who can and do.

Practically every specific political thing we know about Palin is bad. Her church is extremely creepy. Her husband is a separatist. Her ethics are suspect. Why are we having this stupid discussion?

206: Because she's a woman, and therefore discussing her flaws can appear to be sexist even when it's not, thus gaining female votes for John McCain.

But There are people who can and do.

Indeed! I hope I didn't seem to be denying the existence of religious sexists.

Discussions of Palin on the left have been so circumspect that that this is the first time in my life I've ever thought there was any truth to "political correctness". Palin is a joke. She's Dan Quayle, except even less qualified to be President.

It turns out that moral hazard is only important when it's people abusing health insurance. There's no such thing WRT big fincance. Glad that's been made clear.

The moral center of America is business.

208: So all Catholics are sexist, then? One way various denominations have come to see the light on women in leadership has been through non-sexist adherents pushing for change rather than deserting the denomination.

179. Di, LB had a similar post, 'Do you trust women?', Again. Worth the read.

So all Catholics are sexist, then?

That would probably be putting it a little strongly. I think I'd be willing to say all Catholics who support the ban on women priests are. Let's just say I'm a little suspicious of anyone willing to "reconcile [themselves] to a church that pushes the subordination of women." Maybe it hinges on what you mean by "reconcile"?

209: Circumspect? Within 24 hours of McCain's announcing her as his running mate, diarists at dKos and TPM and elsewhere were accusing her of having faked her last pregnancy. Detailed discussion of her amniotic fluid levels ensued, followed by increasingly outraged demands for Palin to release the medical records relating to her labour and delivery. It was agreed that the case was a matter of vast political import, and serious moral urgency. She's been accused of "causing" her son's down syndrome through inadequate prenatal care; she's been called a porn star and a dominatrix; she's been described (by SC Dem chair Carol Fowler) as someone "whose primary qualificaction seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." At HuffPo, Erica Jong used the terms "white trash" and "redneck."

She's been in the national public eye for what? two and a half weeks? I've never so many personal, and yes, sexist, attacks on an individual politician in so short a space of time, and these come from the left, from the people who are supposed to be opposed to sexism. I'm not even offended anymore, I'm just sort of amazed by how far down that road some people are prepared to go.

That would probably be putting it a little strongly.

It would be, yes.

215: Then you have never paid any attention to American politics before this year.

210 gets it right. Everyone in the know knows it's just something you trot out to support something that you really want to do for completely unrelated reasons.

217: Yes I have. These attacks remind me of Newt Gingrich's "revolutionaries" and their attacks on Bill the moral degenerate and his radical feminist lesbian wife Hillary.

219: Daily Kos is an influential Congressman now? Shit, I missed that.

It was agreed that the case was a matter of vast political import, and serious moral urgency. She's been accused of "causing" her son's down syndrome through inadequate prenatal care; she's been called a porn star and a dominatrix;

Passive Voice seems to be very busy. But I don't think he has a vote.

Just to be clear on the rules before I play the game, we're talking about whether attacks on Palin have been sexist, right? Not whether said attacks have driven women into the McCain camp?

Because if that's the question, there certainly have been sexist attacks from the left, as MC says, specifically from the bowels of Kos's site, pretty much non-stop from the lunatic fringe that is Sullivan (he's not left, I know, but people on the left link to him a lot), and, if you agree that the tanning booth story is pure sexist drivel, from TPM and Yglesias. I'm sure there have been many others. But that lot represents several of the most-trafficked left-leaning blogs. Is that the same as a coordinated attack from the Obama camp or the Democratic Party? No, it isn't. But it still hasn't been pretty to watch.

Again, she's a joke, but there are plenty of ways to make that point that have nothing to do with her kids, her clothes, her glasses, or her tan.

MC, I may have missed it, but do you have a larger point regarding, say, the outcome of the left's handling of the Palin pick to date? Or is it just a charge of sexist rhetoric on the part of some (whose approach has, unfortunately, been picked up and magnified by the press in some cases)?

On preview, pwned by ari.

Yes, there have been sexist attacks on her. At the same time, she has automatically been inoculated against the kind of low-level mockery that makes up part of American politics. Saying Bush is a chimp is fifty times more offensive than making fun of Palin for installing a tanning bed in her house. (She installed a tanning bed in her house! That's more embarrassing than going windsurfing any day.)

She and Todd are obviously shitty parents. But we're not supposed to talk about it? These are rules of engagement that we have no other politician in America.

-

Sexism? I agree with whoever above said that if the tanning bed story was about Obama, it would be about 100x as big a story. We'd be hearing about it everywhere, and all the time.

And that's doubly true about the pregnant teenage daughter thing.

I agree with whoever above said that if the tanning bed story was about Obama, it would be about 100x as big a story.

Racist.

Is that the same as a coordinated attack from the Obama camp or the Democratic Party?

Just to clear, I'm not suggesting these attacks are coming from the Obama campaign. In fact, when Obama intervened (made a public statement, I mean) over the pregnancy stuff, I think he was being sincere in his concern and not merely perfunctory: he mentioned that his own mother had been pregnant at 18, after all, which he didn't have to do.

Andrew Sullivan may be on our side this time around, but that doesn't mean he's not a fascist bullyboy. He pushed that fake pregnancy story, and pushed it hard, and he seemed to think it was perfectly reasonable that a female candidate to public office be required to release records relating to her reproductive activity. I'm sorry, but I find that quite creepy.

DKos and other big-name liberal blogs do have some influence on the public discourse. My mother heard about the fake pregnancy story, for example, and she's never heard of dKos, wouldn't know from a weblog, and gets most of her news from the CBC. She saw something about it on the Canadian news, as it turns out: a story about a story, no doubt.

Again (I say "again" because I know I've said this many times before), the problem with sexist attacks on even the most awful female candidate has very little to do with the actual candidate. The problem is that it helps create a toxic, women-hostile environment, which makes it that much more difficult for women to function as political equals, both as citizens and as candidates.

I don't think anyone (other than maybe Tripp and Emerson) would disagree with your last paragraph, MC.

It's not the sexist attacks. It's the attacks that would be leveled on any politician, but somehow can't be leveled at Palin. There is not a politician in America who would not be embarrassed by having a tanning bed in their house.

225: Uhhhhhhhh.....

The best thing I've seen written about Palin and sexism is this piece by Rebecca Hyman.

MC is of course, right that there's been a lot of off-the-deep-end stuff about Palin in the blogosphere. It's not a surprise that many bloggers in the partisan blogosphere have gone a bit nuts by this point -- especially at dKos, which is sort of known for this. It's also not a surprise (though not laudable) that from some quarters there's been a sense of giddy novelty at seeing the media Heathers phenomenon seemingly turning against the GOP for once. And Ari is right that a lot of the crazy shit can be done without; Palin's a damning enough choice just on the strength of her (lack of a) record and her blathering about how you can see Russia from Alaska.

There seems to me to be little point in shaking our heads about how these attacks are supposedly coming "from the left," since what passes for a "left" in American politics is basically anything that isn't currently the even-crazier-hard-right. Kos is a former Reaganite. Many of the most vocal parts of the anti-Bush blogosphere are ex-movementarians. People like Yglesias are centrists, which only counts as "left" in a country where any sort of actual leftists have been extensively and disastrously marginalized. These people all happen to find themselves on the same side because for the moment they all have a common enemy -- the out-of-control corruption, malfeasance and burgeoning tyranny of the GOP -- but they are only collectively a "left" in the Rethuglican sense of the term wherein anyone not currently bending to the will of The Party is the "left."

228: a story about a story, no doubt

The McCain campaign made statements (I heard one of his representatives speak on NPR) referring to the story. The gist: 'liberal blogs that support Barack Obama have been grotesquely claiming that Sarah Palin's most recent child is not her own, but her daughter's.' This was actually a non-sequitur bearing little or no relation to the interviewer's question.

But sure enough, that's all your mother or my own will hear.

if you agree that the tanning booth story is pure sexist drivel

I still don't get that. I thought it was a frivolous out-of-touch spendthrift point, as one might expect as an attack on Kerry.

And that's doubly true about the pregnant teenage daughter thing.

Oh, gawd yes. I can't even imagine. Jeebus, there's a huge trove of literature on the right about just that.

-

Yeah, Sullivan's gone nuts about this. And I have to admit to pretty strong sympathy for any woman complaining about Yglesias's comments section.

Tim, having now looked into the story a bit, just to make sure I have my facts straight, it seems she bought the damn tanning bed with her own money. Moreover, a friend who lives in Juneau insists that half the state's population only survives the winter by going to Hawaii with their oil money, spending as much time as possible in a tanning bed, and/or having whole houses filled with broad-spectrum lighting. But really, none of that -- silly facts -- matters; the point is that the story was meant to make her look frivolous, low-class, and unserious. If anyone wants to argue that she's a spendthrift there's fodder enough for that.

And again, I'm not sure why people keep saying that if this were Obama the attacks would be even worse. That's not the rules of this game: we're not talking about whether we should be using sexism to attack her, just whether the attacks against her have been sexist. But if the game is whether we should, I think the answer is clearly a resounding, "no." I really don't want to risk alienating women, the Democratic Party's most important constituency. And anyone who thinks that sexism, even when employed in service of destroying someone like Palin, won't alienate women is advocating a gamble that I'm not willing to take. For fuck's sake, would we be talking about using racist slurs if McCain had tapped an African-American running mate? I sure hope not.

-

Christ, Bush nationalized AIG without asking me first? I'd better check in at the other thread.

But she is frivolous and unserious. You are saying we, the denizens of Unfogged, can't even say true things because they might be construed as sexist by somebody somewhere.

it seems she bought the damn tanning bed with her own money.

And windsurfing is reported to be pretty fun and open to all comers. And?

the point is that the story was meant to make her look frivolous, low-class, and unserious.

Right, but none of that is sexist. That is, if you get a personal tanning bed, I'm definitely making fun of you, and it will start with me asking if you've purchased the gold chains and the medallions as well, move on to appending "Suavee" to your first name in all instances, and end with comments about sports cars and a certain age in a man's life.

237

"... For fuck's sake, would we be talking about using racist slurs if McCain had tapped an African-American running mate? ..."

You might ask Clarence Thomas about that.

the point is that the story was meant to make her look frivolous, low-class, and unserious.

which you have been equating to "sexist drivel." Earth to ari: mocking one's political opponents is fair game in modern American politics, and not all mockery of women is sexist.

I know that you know these things, which is why it's so frustrating to see you insisting, over and over, on things you know to be false.

Pwned more cleverly by Tim, but I'm annoyed that this topic is still open 170 comments and ~5 hours later.

The tanning bed has to do with public perceptions of feminine beauty and frivolity. But that both you (Tim) and Walt (asshole) don't see it is making me rethink my certitude, as I tend to trust (but dislike) you both.

You know, I still think Steve Gilliard was in the right over that whole flap about the infamous Michael Steele "Simple Sambo" post.

Okay, sadly, I have to admit that the only possible excuse for having, or even using, a tanning bed is living in Alaska or an Alaska-like region of the world.

You know, I'm trying to think of some form of grammar that makes you/Walt parallel to Tim/asshole, but I'm not seeing it. Maybe W-lfs-n can help out.

The tanning bed is one of those borderline cases. I don't immediately see it as a sexist attack. (I don't think it's a legitimate political attack, but that's setting the bar awfully high.) On the other hand, if women are telling me it feels like a sexist attack, then I feel obligated to concede it might be.

I just want to make sure that we can attack Palin as a politician without being assholes. I'm sure we can. Right, guys?

You might ask Clarence Thomas about that.

Yeah, boy, all those people who said that Toomas was a lightweight with a chip on his shoulder sure have egg on their faces.

243: Hmm. I trust you as well when it comes to these things. I guess I really will have to think about it a bit more. My first reaction on seeing the story was: "Well, that's really stupid and sexist." I even sent an e-mail to Josh saying as much. And I still think that's right. But if the three of you are all telling me I'm a moron, maybe I'm a moron. Still, a tanning bed is the way to make the argument you all are making? And the counterargument you're offering is the Edwards-swishy-haircut/he's-a-fag story and the Kerry-windsurfs/he's-a-fag story? I'm still not sure that you're not making my argument for me.

Tim and Walt are, I think, suggesting that frivolity and unseriousness are only coincidentally associated with the female sex.

Kerry windsurfing was about him being a fag? I thought it was about him being rich. I can't keep track.

Hey, can we make fun of Palin for being rich enough to buy her own tanning bed?

Thanks, parsimon. But I'm still saying they're wrong.

243: Actually the windsurfing wasn't faggy, it was elitist and unAmerican (and flip-floppy). And I stated in my original comment that the Edwards thing has gender overtones, but that's different from saying that people made fun of Edwards' haircut because he's a woman. I would argue that it started as a story about extravagance (did you know he owns a large house?), then morphed into the gendered Breck girl thing.*

Still, a tanning bed is the way to make the argument you all are making?

We have a LOT of arguments against Palin. Why should we restrict ourselves to just a few? I have no problem discarding clearly sexist ones (like anything about Trig), or ones that are likely to backlash (like the wolf-hunting one). But this is one that effortlessly makes her look frivolous, when her persona is supposed to be this grounded hockey mom. The fact that lots of Alaskans use tanning beds is about as relevant as the fact that Kerry is, unlike Bush, a lifelong hunter. Do you think that the Rs thought to themselves, "Gee, guys, we shouldn't make fun of Kerry for hunting; he really does like to hunt, plus it might cause a backlash among some group of people who hate us anyway."?

* I know that the Breck girl thing dated back to 2004, but I still think that the initial splash was about an insanely expensive haircut, not that Edwards is faggy.

MC, I may have missed it, but do you have a larger point regarding, say, the outcome of the left's handling of the Palin pick to date?

Possibly I do. I don't know how typical or representative this is, but:

I belong to an online discussion board for mothers, and it's a different demographic than is found here at Unfogged. Most of the members are American, though the board was actually started by a Canadian living in Australia, and there are some Canadian, British, Irish and Australian members. The Americans are all Dems, and roughly liberal on most issues. A conservative woman would not feel comfortable there for very long. But! overall, the American members are, though Dem, more culturally conservative than, say, the women you'd expect to find at a liberal-progressive-feminist site. Older, and married, and encumbered with children, and etc. And also, overall, more American-ly patriotic, which sometimes creates friction with the Canadian, English, Irish and Australian women. But not all of them, it's a kind of a weird mix: a few women are proudly polyamorous, and a few women are evangelical Christian (but solidly Dem, and they care about health care and shit).

Anyhoo, and again I don't know how representative this is, but certainly the women at this motherhood discussion board are more representative of rank-and-file Democrats than are the fine people at this blog: there have been some interesting, and often quite heated, discussions of Palin and her candidacy of late. The vast, and I mean the overwhelming, majority of the Americans are going to vote Obama/Biden (some of them have been Obama supporters from the get-go, some of them were HRC supporters who've since signed on with Obama). But! many of them are quite bothered by the sexist attacks, and speak of feeling "betrayed" by their own party, and of feeling "torn" (they can't quite bring themselves to vote GOP, but they don't quite feel right about things, because they feel that they, and their families, have been under attack). They'll vote Dem in November (on the issues, and etc.), but they're really not feeling all warm and fuzzy toward their own party. The pregnancy/motherhood stuff really hits a nerve.

Again, it could be a completely quirky and non-representative sample (it's an odd group of women, after all), or it could point to some larger dynamic amongst Democratic women at large. But given the overall importance of women voters to Democratic electoral success (there are more female than male Democratic voters, and have been since at least 1980), it seems to me that these expressions of concern and discontent should be taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand. White males! if you want to be the default setting, you should register and vote Republican. Just in pragmatic terms, and leaving out matters of principle and etc, surely it's never a good idea to do and say things that are likely to alienate significant numbers of your own base?

254 to 250, obvs.

It seems like the only reasonable way to settle this is for ari to go to a tanning salon, post before and after pics on that other blog, and then wait to see what the comments look like.

I just want to make sure that we can attack Palin as a politician without being assholes.

Of course. We shouldn't be attacking Palin anyway. If not McCain, there's always Bristol.

Kerry windsurfing was about him being a fag? I thought it was about him being rich

Me, too.

No one cares about the tanning bed. CC'ing her husband and including him in confidential communications is serious. Appointing unqualified high-school girlfriends to major posts is serious. Having zero capacity for self-reflection about judgment or any discernible ethos about governance other than a clannish commitment to hometown values and her very specific church upbringing is serious. Could these arguments all be spun as sexist by the frighteningly hypocritical McCain campaign? Why yes! Does it make them sexist? My God, I hope not. I don't think we'll be able to survive another eight years of the soft bigotry of low expectations for stupid corrupt leaders with a gaping void for an ethical reasoning faculty.

I'm just sick of talking about her and thinking about her. But I also have just about no tolerance for hearing how criticizing her genuinely selfish, hypocritical, and fucked-up style of governance is sexist.

I want to get back to where we're talking about Obama/Biden again. In this election cycle, for some reason, it seems to be that whoever's name is mentioned most often, positively or negatively, stays on top of the polls. The debates (such as they are) should correct this somewhat.

MC, that's a really interesting perspective. Now I'm all curious what the other board is, and whether my wife is on it.

What kind of baffles me, though, is why "the sexist attacks" would turn anyone away from the Democrats. Shouldn't they turn women against, say, certain diarists on dKos, possibly JMM, Andrew Sullivan, and most of the news media?

Yes, unquestionably, a Democratic strategy of sexism would be a monumentally stupid one, but I really don't think that's what's happening.

Bush's and Cheney's whole campaign in 2004 consisted of calling Kerry and Edwards gay. Over and over again. The windsurfing was about not doing a real man's sport, being rich was about being effete, having a wife like Theresa was about not being man enough to control your woman. And why did it matter? Because we needed real men to be able to kick the ragheads in the teeth. Or that's how I remember it. But mostly I try to forget. Seriously, that stuff still makes me gag, which might be why I'm misreading the Palin attacks.

253: But I'm still saying they're wrong.

I'm not sure at the moment what you think they're wrong about: that the tan-bedding Palin story isn't sexist, or that charges of unseriousness and frivolity are only coincidentally more often applied to women?

But it's not that important.

But! many of them are quite bothered by the sexist attacks, and speak of feeling "betrayed" by their own party, and of feeling "torn" (they can't quite bring themselves to vote GOP, but they don't quite feel right about things, because they feel that they, and their families, have been under attack). They'll vote Dem in November (on the issues, and etc.), but they're really not feeling all warm and fuzzy toward their own party. The pregnancy/motherhood stuff really hits a nerve.

This is the problem with American politics -- people approach it as symbolic theatre to make them feel good about themselves, instead of as selecting a policy advocate. Republicans are virtuosos at playing this shit. By any measure, on every issue, Obama/Biden are going to have better policies for ordinary working mothers than McCain/Palin. Who gives a damn what some stupid blogger is saying somewhere or whatever high school back and forth bitchery is going on about Sara Palin. It's your duty as a voter to get over that nonsense.

With Obama/Clinton I could sort of grudgingly understand it more, since there was almost no clear policy difference. But now it's nonsensical. Not that it doesn't matter, but I'm disgusted that it does.

I'm just sick of talking about her and thinking about her. But I also have just about no tolerance for hearing how criticizing her genuinely selfish, hypocritical, and fucked-up style of governance is sexist.

Let me say, for the millionth time, that there are many ways to attack her that steer clear of sexism. And let me say, again, that every attack on her should immediately pivot to McCain. She's a lightweight and a sideshow. That we've all spent this much time talking about her is telling.

261: The latter. The tanning bed stuff I'm not sure about at the moment. But as you say, none of this is in the least bit important.

Economic catastrophe is having the salutory effect of refocusing people somewhat. Obama is moving to the left and attacking in some of the ways recommended in that piece I linked in 135, good for him!

Witt, 154 and following: I don't think Palin is or sees herself as unfeminist, just as practicing a right-wing pro-family brand of it that has little intersection with liberal feminism. I just don't see a necessary contradiction between being religious, anti-abortion, Republican, and wanting voting and property rights for women. Perhaps you've seen stuff from Palin I haven't though.

ari, when you say "immediately pivot to McCain," do you primarily mean to tie whatever Palin failing you're talking about to McCain, or do you mean hanging the corrupt incompetent Palin around his neck like a lipsticked* albatross?

* Obviously a reference to her own joke, but easily interpreted as sexist, and therefore wrong. I should really treat her with all the respect and dignity owed her office and experience.

265.2 sort of contradicts 262. I contain multitudes. Especially when I'm drunk. I was angrier when I wrote 262, so let's take that as more authentic.

She's a lightweight and a sideshow.

Sexist.

(Sorry.)

267: I mean, do what Obama is doing: note that John McCain has no earthly idea how, nor apparently any interest in, governing this great nation of ours. The Palin pick underscores how craven the musty maverick has become. And on and on. Her corruption is his corruption. Her lies are his lies. She is his problem. But it always comes back to him. Because that's how, in the end, people are going to make their decision: based on who they want to be president.

Hey, you know what I'm going to stop doing? Taking MC's worries about sexist attacks personally, since, as far as I know, I haven't been making sexist attacks against Palin (or that doddering warmonger at the top of the ticket).

Ari's right that arguing for hundreds of comments about whether a certain slam on Palin is sexist (is so! nuh-uh!) is kind of a waste of energy, when we should be talking about the kinds of things AWB brings up, and anyway focusing on Bomby McCrazy. So.

In fact, I think I'm going to go to bed.

249

"Yeah, boy, all those people who said that Toomas was a lightweight with a chip on his shoulder sure have egg on their faces."

For a liberal with a different view see this :

"... But I am inclined to agree that much of the derision of Thomas's abilities is unfair, particularly the attempt to turn him into Scalia's puppet (which, it must be said, does sometimes reek of racist condescension.)"

244 -- No it wasn't. You got it right before: frivolous, low-class, and unserious. And there's nothing wrong with taking a swipe at a politician's vanity, which doesn't have to be sexist -- think about the difference between jokes about John Edwards hair and Joe Biden's. Or Tom Dewey on a wedding cake.

I may be the only one in this category, but I am not a campaign operative, or even a prominent blogger. I'm a guy shooting the shit on the Internet. If I have the power to swing the election for McCain, then America has bigger problems.

272: But I think MC's last point in #255 holds: if you want women to vote your side (and we do), what matters is whether they're offended, and it doesn't matter whether they're reasonably offended or unreasonably offended.

Mostly, I think we should just leave all but the most obvious attacks to middle-of-the-road Dem women. We can chime in with "What she said!" and "Yeah!" along the way.

267: PGD, you get a free pass from me (not that I speak for all women, of course, or even a slim majority), because you're one of the (ahem) few men at this site who consistently gets it, and who even knows how to have a bit of fun with it. Same goes for Ari, times two (the Canadian premium, naturally).

271: That post is a lot more about knocking Scalia down a few pegs than about lauding Thomas.

Thomas's combination of straightforward "originalist" conservatism (with a libertarian tint), Straussian natural law and a soupcon of black nationalism (as Tushnet notes, Thomas remains the first justice to quote W.E.B. DuBois and Frederick Douglass) is certainly idiosyncratic.

The few times Thomas has caught my attention with his jurisprudence, it has earned my contempt. When he has spoken outside of the Court, what he has said has been beneath my contempt (Oh noes! Now blacks won't vote Democratic anymore!). I'm sticking with "lightweight with a chip on his shoulder."

Same with Scalia, I might add.

273: If Obama loses, I'm coming after you, Walt.

It being 11 pm, I cannot catch up on this thread. However. Based on the first 50 or so comments:

Slack gets it. TLL's comment about "identity politics" is deeply insulting. And shit yes, as a feminist and a woman, I freaking hate Sarah Palin's guts, in part because I know that my hatred of her is *exactly* why they chose her and yeah, it's counterproductive. It's for much the same reason that one hates trolls: because they are *setting out to piss you off*, and your options are either let them run willy-nilly or else argue with them, both of which are losing options. If I could fucking ban Sarah Palin, I so totally would.

I don't think my hatred of her is misogynist, though sure, it's partly sexist: it's fucking irritating as hell to have the Barbie doll who can talk! held up, yet again, as the Representative of All That Is Best About Women. Hell yes thinking of her as a Barbie doll is sexist. I freaking defy you to find a way of hating a woman that *isn't* fucking sexist.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that McCain's started blundering around again today. Hopefully we can start ignoring Palin now and get back to being amazed/outraged/gleeful about how freaking stupid the head of the ticket is again.

Palin is Bush with tits, another ignorant, obnoxious mean fucker who somehow is given a shot at the presidency. any right thinking person hates her, because we've all seen that movie too many times these past eight years.

The fact that she's presented as the big feminist hope is just the urine drenched icing on this rat turd cake.

Also, the fact that Palin can even be sold as a "thriumph for feminism" is a tribute to how much feminism has been redefined as breaking the glass ceiling for a select group of (usually white, upperclass) women rather than as a specific political ideology.

A couple of notes on participation in progressive community blogs and the throwing around of "DailyKos" and TPM here in regard to the Palin baby switch stories, because I think that a false narative that was promulgated in the media (and the CBC was part of) is being furthered here. (And to be fair it does point to some problematic aspects of community sites and the blogosphere in general, but even more so the media's treatment of same, in a manner similar to the Bush/Hitler MoveON Ad)

Facts as I know them:
1) The switch rumors were being circulated in Alaska before the selection, as noted in the Anchorage Daily News and The New Yorker. Most point to the camp of Republican rival Lyda Green from Wasilla being the original source. (And just for context Green is the cancer survivor about whom Palin listened to an Alaska wingnut radio show (and laughed along with) being called a "cancer" and "a bitch".)

2) A very "well-prepared" diary (and several others, not really sure of the order) appeared on DailyKos pretty early that weekend (maybe even Friday). (At least one of these posters was pretty conclusively identified as a troll). These did generate a huge number of comments, a significant majority (but certainly not all) condemning those diaries. As far as I know Kos did not address them directly (I may be wrong on that) and they were not taken down, but they also did not stay (if they ever got there) on the Recommended List for any length of time.

3) Many other sites, most gossipy and not political, picked up the stories, with the DailyKos diaries often being singled out. Kos was also identified as the source by right-wing bloggers, Repubs and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, none conveyed the nuance of a community site and generally reported it as "posted on/by Kos". For instance the CBC, The website Daily Kos alleged in a post on Sunday that Sarah Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy to cover up the fact that her youngest child, four-month-old Trig, was actually her daughter's illegitimate baby. (The CBC itself in fact pushed the story several days later after it had been pretty much dropped from every place else.) Somewhere in there as well one or more community posters on TPM posted the story.

So maybe DKos and others got played, sexism of varying degrees was certainly exhibited, but I do not like this blaming of the whole sites for this. It certainly does raise a question on how to manage sites like DKos in a volatile environment like an election campaign (and many of the DKos comment threads consisted in large part of exactly that kind of meta-commentary.)

However, in the end I find myself a bit annoyed at the superior moralistic tone about it. Is some random Dkos diarist/commenter an "elitist" or spokesperson for progressives? In fact one of the strengths of sites like that is that a larger community participates. What I find condescending, insulting and somewhat elitist is this hand-wringing over some Democratic partisans going overboard in a political climate poisoned by 16+ years of Republican slime and lies. Call them out (specifically!), decry it, point out that tactically it was a fuckup and that reprehensible sexism was exhibited, but the broad characterization of Kos, JMM & the liberal blogosphere are somewhat out of line on this one.

[Andrew Sullivan on the other hand, has no excuse. Nor the CBC.]

Okay, I guess I can skim.

Slack is right throughout, and--though it pains me to say this--Ari is wrong where he disagrees with Slack (though right, I suspect, that the tanning bed thing is totally sexist). It is, in fact, treason of the Uncle Tommish variety to be a woman who wants to deny to women as a class the right to make their own decisions about pregnancy. And I don't care how many women want to do that. Because there is a difference between having a moral objection to abortion and being in favor of criminalizing it--which would result in the deaths. Of women.

And yeah, of course there are plenty of women who are dismayed by sexist attacks on Palin. OTOH, wake the fuck up, ladies: lefty men have been making sexist attacks on, oh, say, Hillary Clinton, women bloggers, women in politics, etc. for freaking ever. It's *Palin* you're going to get all upset about? Gimme a break.

Anyhoo, on the "she's a bad mommy" thing, which I infer is part of what MC's forum mommies are bothered by. If I think that she is a bad mommy, then that is no more or less significant than if she thinks that abortion is morally wrong--it's merely my judgment about someone else's personal life. If, however, I think that mommies should be *forbidden* from running for office, then you're goddamn right I'm a traitor to other women--especially if I'm using my position as a woman with a public soapbox to make that argument. Just like it's freaking uncle Tommish bullshit to be a woman running for freaking VP *in part because* she's a mommy of five with a special needs baby that omg, she's such an angel she didn't abort it! when she freaking supports criminalizing abortion. If abortion should be a criminal act, then no, you do not get to make hay out of not aborting. Hell, if you think it's immoral in all cases, you don't get to make hay out of not violating your core moral beliefs, either--especially when there is really *no* compelling reason why you should have done so, what with having plenty of support and plenty of money to make raising a Downs syndrome kid about as easy as it can be.

Plus the fact that it's so patently obvious that one of the primary reasons for her being on the ticket in the first place is that she's an anti-feminist, "traditional values" woman who manages to get away with being ambitious and clearly something of, well, a bitch, *only* because she's also a former beauty queen and a social conservative. It's infurating.

Just for purposes of contrast with the hand-wringing over the treatment of Sarah Palin, I can't recommend this Tim Wise piece highly enough.

The Tim Wise piece annoys me. Because Palin *can't* get away with most of that stuff, only when perfectly reasonable people (like me) hate her and her party for thinking she can, we're all intolerant and sexist.

Plus, y'know, let's be honest: the "proud redneck" son-in-law and pregnant daughter would totally be marks against her if she weren't rich as shit and on the Republican ticket.

(But yeah, Wise's basic point that the entire freaking Republican campaign is racist as hell is, of course, correct.)

Because Palin *can't* get away with most of that stuff,

Being elected governor and then selected as a major party VP candidate doesn't constitute getting away with it? What would?

I wasn't going to say anything, but:
I freaking defy you to find a way of hating a woman that *isn't* fucking sexist.
is bullshit, and this works for lesser values than "hate."

285: She's only VP candidate *because* she's incompetent and paper-shallow. That's why she's so freaking annoying. She's not getting away with anything; she's being used as window-dressing.

286: I'm sure there are ways of disliking women that aren't sexist. But if you can come up with a way of talking about hating a woman, specifically--rather than hating some generic person--that isn't sexist, more power to you. I can't think of one.

I hate Phylllis Schlafley because she's a Christianist crusader.

And because she spells Phylllis with three Ls.

Whereas I hate her because she's a smug anti-feminist bitch.

So between the two of us, we've basically got it covered, I think.

re: 287

But if you can come up with a way of talking about hating a woman, specifically--rather than hating some generic person--that isn't sexist, more power to you. I can't think of one.

That's crazy. Hating someone because they are a women might be necessarily sexist, hating someone for other reasons and where that someone is a woman, is not.

Are you genuinely saying that one cannot hate a particular woman without that hating being sexist?

I can hate Margaret Thatcher with the power of a thousand suns but that doesn't make that hate sexist.

I didn't say you can't hate women for reasons that aren't sexist. But good luck talking about it without, sooner or later, calling her a bitch.

Or, in Thatcher's case, the iron maiden or something. Anyhoo, I'm going to bed. Must get my beauty rest.

re: 292

At one level though that's just going to come down to the fact that English is a gendered [in the grammatical sense] language.

Most pejorative terms are gendered --not just the ones routinely applied to women. it's pretty hard to talk insultingly about men OR women without using gendered language. it's pretty hard to talk about men or women full stop without using gendered language: pronouns are gendered, after all.

It's pretty hard to think of more than one or two insulting terms that can be used equally of men and women.

Of course pejorative terms can be used in a way that's deliberately sexist, or in ways that isn't deliberately sexist but nonetheless reinforces some sexist trope or other. But, that's not the same thing as claiming that any and all pejorative statements made about women are sexist.

I don't like own goals, no matter who is kicking the ball. Maybe I ought to get out more, and have the chance to be offended by more of the random sexism from our side. It would probably lessen my irritation at MC's continual practice of taking shots. But vastly increase my annoyance overall. Tough choice.

I think that we're not angels, but that the sexism from our side truly pales compared to the sexism from the other side, up to and including the blatant tokenism involved in the selection of the Governor of Alaska for the nomination.

And no one gets a pass on account of their insignificance. There's a political market, a marketplace of ideas,if you will, made up of millions of transactions going on every day. You're either part of a collective market action bidding the price up, or bidding the price down. And surely the experience of 2000 shows that the consequences of even a small segment of the market can be very significant.

If Palin is like "half of Alaska's population" that's one more point against her. What a creepy state.

Wonder Woman comes out against Palin.

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2008/09/right-palin-for-job.htmlia Gary Farber.

Farber

It would probably lessen my irritation at MC's continual practice of taking shots.

I'm irritated by your irritation, so I guess that makes us even.

297: She says she likes John McCain, though. Why?

Because Palin *can't* get away with most of that stuff

Purest bullshit. She is getting away with it. Jeebus.

I have no problem discarding clearly sexist ones (like anything about Trig), or ones that are likely to backlash (like the wolf-hunting one).

Shooting animals from airplanes? You have got to be kidding me: that is pure symbolic-warfare gold. That has already entered into the cultural imagination like crack through a junkie's veins. It's the visual image to accompany the argument that Republians are mean fuckers. Dick Cheney shot a man in the face!

I totally understand the rationale for the airplane-wolf-hunting. I don't precisely agree with it---in the past, wolves were pretty damn near eradicated simply by offering a bounty---but it's certainly supportable. NOT LIKE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER LET THE REASONABLENESS OF A POSITION PREVENT THEM FROM A GOOD OUTRAGE.

||
Former Clinton heavy and DNC member Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who is married to this banking, media, and diamond magnate says she'll endorse McCain because Obama "is an elitist."

The mind boggles.
|>

Anti-Semite.

I really think that we're cringing again. Nominating Palin was a cheap gimmick, and it worked beautifully.

Palin is unfit to be President even by winger standards, and she's the most right-wing candidate ever nominated for national office by a major party in many decades. She has all kinds of personal flaws.

I have a PUMA sister who I'm sure loves Palin. I think a little bit about how to change her mind, but I think more about whether I'll ever talk to her again if McCain's elected.

(Off-topic, but my sister turned into a Republican jerk after she went through some kind of counseling. She's probably been happier since she became a jerk. That's America.)

The mind boggles.

At long last, Apo and I are in full agreement.

'So I have a wonderful life in Britain, mainly because I have a wonderful marriage in Britain, so this is a great country. I have a very good time. I have very good friends, and it's a great base for my business.'

Her good friends include Lord Tubby and his wife Barbara Amiel. And she's calling Obama an 'elitist'?! Truly unbelievable.

Also.

Tony Blair will open the doors of No.10 to a string of American billionaires in his latest attempt to secure his career after Downing Street. The Prime Minister and his wife Cherie are planning to host a glittering reception at which they will network with big business tycoons. New York society's finest are effectively paying more than £13,000 for the chance to meet the Blairs. [...]

The event is being arranged by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who hosts influential gatherings for London's elite. Those invited include at least seven billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £25billion.

Invitations to Downing Street were given to tycoons willing to donate more than $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery. Organisers of the event, American Patrons of Tate, which Lady Rothschild chairs, claimed the No 10 evening is part of wider fundraising efforts for the gallery, and that the main event will be a dinner in Manhattan, which will not be attended by the Blairs.

Others invited include Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican who is the world's third richest man with a fortune of £15billion, the Russian tycoon Len Blavatnik, oil billionaire Sid Bass, and the chief executive of investment bank Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld.

It does make you wonder when she developed her distaste for elitists.

I guess I'll go further. Clinton got a lot of support from women who are otherwise Republicans and who will vote for McCain and Palin. We should let them go. Numbers-wise, it would have been nice to have kept them, but win a few, lose a few. Every candidate is stronger in some demographics than in others. And if we win without them, we won't have to pay any attention to their creepy Republican ideas.

I propose that from here on out "because Obama is an elitist" be silently replaced with "because I am a racist." Because that's what it actually means.

Sarah Palin is a less-competent Dan Quayle with creepier views. The Republicans have set up a narrative where criticizing her for this is automatically sexist. Why? Because the Republicans are the rightful rulers of our country.

Hand-wringing over what someone said on Daily Kos is fucking pathetic. Apparently rejecting and denouncing is not just for Obama.

urine drenched icing on this rat turd cake

Why is this not the mouseover text already?

What I love about 306 is the list of guests, where they give the job or major company for every other person, but Carlos Slim is simply "a Mexican". Kind of unhelpful.

be silently replaced

Why be silent about it?

312: Because you have to do it in your head.

Shooting animals from airplanes? You have got to be kidding me: that is pure symbolic-warfare gold.

I just think it's one that reinforces the cosmopolitan liberal elites concept - I suspect that, to an average SW PA resident who takes off work to hunt bucks on the Monday after Thanksgiving, hunting wolves from a plane sounds off (cruel, unsportsmanlike, what have you), but that if a liberal says it, and Rush and the NRA tell hims that liberals want to get rid of all hunting, he'd come around to wanting to save up for a wolf-plane hunting trip himself.

but Carlos Slim is simply "a Mexican"

Well, it's a commonplace that most Mexicans are the third richest man in the world - it would be a bit tedious to have to spell that out.

314: I happen to agree on this one. JRoth is right; leave it alone. It sucks, but leave it the *F* alone, if only for the sake of the wolves. If the eee-leets get going on this, there might be a massive increase in wolf hunting from airplanes to show solidarity with Sarah.

massive increase in wolf hunting from airplanes

Would it be ok if we hunted the wolves from helicopter gunships? That Vulcan gatling gun can sure plow some dirt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

Agreed that it isn't a winning issue. But if Palin were really as tough as she claims, she'd be *trapping* them from airplanes. Any monkey can shoot a wolf from an airplane, but dropping those leg traps right on target requires true marksmanship.

And we should demand no less from our elected officials.

The polar bear thing makes the same point as the wolf thing and is more effective and less counterproductive, so yeah. Forget the wolves.

But we're still cringing. We're accepting the Republican frame. We cannot win by playing by their rules.

When Gerson or Brooks or Crook or Rove tells us what we should be doing, we shouldn't necessarily do the opposite, but we shouldn't think deeply about what they're saying either.

Lady de Rothschild is worried about out sexism and elitism? Well fancy that! Hillary really had some scummy friends, didn't she?

Nobody gives a fuck about wolves or polar bears. Or, for that matter, Sarah Palin, now that McCain is scrambling desperately as the economy crashes around our ears.

320: I don't know about that. Everything started falling apart last week, and yet everyone still seems more interested in talking about Palin. I have had conversations with people around me where I say "You know, the entire US banking system might collapse completely over the next few weeks," and the other person says something like, "Yeah, I heard about Lehman Brothers. I also heard that Sarah Palin fucks the shit out of bears."

Hillary really had some scummy friends, didn't she?

A boatload of them. And I'm very pleased they'll likely not be getting administration positions next year.

Sarah Palin fucks the shit out of bears

Bear Stearns, specifically.

320: B is so wholesome and optimistic. There's no chance that this election will be decided on actual issues. Minnesota is a Republican target state, and both McCain and Sen. Coleman have imbecile, content-free, dishonest negative ads in heavy rotation and Coleman could win here. McCain probably won't, but the Repulicans don't need Minnesota.

It's so sad that Minnesota has degenerated into a swing state.

And I'm very pleased they'll likely not be getting administration positions next year.

I think you're kidding yourself. If Obama wins, the DLC will get fewer administrative positions, but it seems to me that the evidence suggests that the Clinton faction remains pretty strong in the Democratic party. And, as the difference between the neocons and the DLC-ites is often trivial, a win for Neocon John keeps the ground well-prepared for their attempts to win power in later elections.

I guess I think that we didn't get here in an election, and we're not getting out in just one, either.

But I don't care. If the cost of an Obama win is an ambassadorship for de Rothchilde, fine.

How about putting Jamie Gorelick where she can't hurt anything.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html

I no longer expect Obama to be much better than Hillary on policy questions, though I'm willing to be surprised. I much prefer his ground-game campaign strategy, though, and the 50-state strategy up to a point. And I think in terms of party control, he'll freeze out the Clinton loyalists and strategists -- Penn, W-lfs-n, Carville, Davis, et al. They'll be forced to take lucrative jobs with Fox stabbing Obama in the back, the poor dears.

de Rothchild has switched to McCain, so no ambassadorship for her.

Could someone explain things to TLL? The 9/11 part of the post he links has been shown to be Republican misrepresentation, but I don't have a link handy, and I don't know anything about the other part.

Or everyone should just consider the source.

The 9/11 Commission was a toothless disgrace, especially the way it failed to underline Bush's disastrous part in the whole thing. A lot of the information was there, but the Republicans edited out all the sound bites and blandified the summarie and conclusions.

JE- the link was meant to be amusing in a Rush Limbaugh but not Jon Stewart way. I find it "amusing" that one woman would be in place at not one but two prominent disasters. I can only assume she was not yet at Justice during the Waco raid. For all I know she is a lovely woman who is kind to the help.

Maybe you should go find a Rush Limbaugh audience somewhere.

You must just mean "funny in a lying way", right? Because the link didn't seem to have Limbaugh's trademark creepiness, so it's really a very poor imitation.

I'm sure Ms. Gorelick thanks you for your undying support in ferreting out Republican talking points in regards to her heretofore stainless record of public service. But you have to admit it is a bizarre coincidence.

I have had conversations with people around me where I say "You know, the entire US banking system might collapse completely over the next few weeks," and the other person says something like, "Yeah, I heard about Lehman Brothers. I also heard that Sarah Palin fucks the shit out of bears."

Well... It is rather boring unless you're a banker or have a lot of money in financial stocks. Fucking the shit out of bears would be much more exciting, though about equally unpleasant.

P.S. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs both reported continuing profits today. Morgan Stanley's down 37% and Goldman's down 25%. Now that's negativity!

The part about "the wall" is phony, but I don't have the documentation available. I know nothing about the other part.

Are you saying that she didn't write this document
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper441/documents/5nkzph1t.pdf

Or that it doesn't mean what people say it means. Because it does say "walled off".

Former Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:

The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Moreover, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Democrats of erecting had been built well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office. The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures stated: "The 'Wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over sixty years as a result of legal, policy, institutional, and personal factors." Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traces the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s."

Nor did enforcement of the "wall" end with the Clinton administration. In his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the "wall" in August 2001.

So Ms. Gorelick did not erect the entire wall on her own, but was just another brick in the wall. I am not sympathetic.

Various provisions were put into place to make it harder for government officials to abuse the intelligence apparatus for their own political gain. Which really is terrible -- what is the intelligence apparatus for?

I am not sympathetic.

Nor, apparently, getting it. 337 does, however.

I'm increasingly convinced that MC is right, that the Palin hate-fest has been a big loser for Democrats.

And yet, her positive/negative net rating has gone from +17 to -1 in six days. EVERYBODY STOP ATTACKING! REGULAR AMERICANS WILL SAY WE'RE MEAN!

Cringing doesn't win, folks.

339: I will also note that the trend in the link would be a classic pattern for someone who LIES. In a healthy society LIARS only win in the *very* short term; one the real tests of this campaign is whether the media, the Dems and the public are up to exposing and punishing LYING LIARS.

And I'll pile on to TLL on the Goerlick BS. Ashcroft's testimony to the 9/11 Commission was among the most despicable ever given by an Attorney General (although who could have anticipated Abu Gonzalez?). In a position to provide some real insight, he instead launched into a politically-motivated attack on Goerlick and the commission re: "the wall". I remember it well, having received a ticket during a rage-induced bit of speeding while listening to it on NPR. John Ashcroft you owe me $109, you sick jagoff, you agalmatophile.

Apo, I read that memo, and I am not a lawyer, so maybe it means something different than what it says. It certainly did not say that any foreign intelligence could not be passed to the FBI, rather that there could not be a coordinated investigation, and that no Justice official should be active in any investigation, but should be "informed". I am sorry that a coincidence that I thought funny has become yet another rehash of who is more wrong.

Sorry if I came off harsh, TLL.

339: Y'know, I don't think you've ever done that to me before, taken a fragment of one of many comments I've written in an entire thread, and then used it to make me into a strawman. Given that I've said at least five times in this thread alone that I think people should attack Palin (just not on sexist grounds), and given that you and I agree that the real target should be McCain, I wonder why you've chosen to do this. You're just being lazy, I'm guessing, in trying to hammer your point home.

Regardless, I, too, am sorry if I'm coming off as harsh. I'm just getting tired of having things I write misrepresented.

343: Palin-lover.

344: It's true: I love women who are sideshows and lightweights. I'm just sexist like that.

Group hug!

make me into a strawman

Ari, and this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I wasn't intending you as the target of my comment at all. Nor, for that matter, Mary Catherine or anybody else. That was just the first quote I got to scrolling back through the thread that dealt with attacking Palin after reading the Yglesias post.

Like I said, I thought you were being lazy in making your point. And, given that, it's no problem. Because, as I said, you don't make a habit of misrepresenting my comments. I'm just getting tetchy about having words put in my mouth in these threads. Sorry I made something of nothing.

In other words, yes. Just being lazy.

Efficient is more flattering and probably more accurate, lazy.

Splatter Hairshirt Palin

Ari just likes Palin because she dresses like a hooker.

White privilege means John McCain gets to go on CNN dressed out in full regalia and he's a man of the people. But Obama has one rally drinking from this and Brit Hume headlines it for a week.

No, Walt, that why I like you, sexy.

Sarah Palin has been swiftboated!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0

There's no chance that this election will be decided on actual issues.

And yet, winning on the issues is the only chance a Dem ever has to win the White House, which is why it's so seldom won by a Dem, no doubt. There's no way a Dem's going to win on policy wonkishness, that's for sure. But sentimentalized narratives based on actual issues is one way, and perhaps the only way, forward for a Dem candidate. It worked for Clinton in '92 (yes, I know you despise him, but unlike Mondale, Gore, Kerry, he did manage to get himself elected. Twice, even).

Thanks Apo. You're an malign idiot, TLL.

Anyone want to read Sarah Palin's email?

You're not malign, TLL.

But sentimentalized narratives based on actual issues is one way, and perhaps the only way, forward for a Dem candidate. It worked for Clinton in '92 (yes, I know you despise him, but unlike Mondale, Gore, Kerry, he did manage to get himself elected. Twice, even).

As a Democrat, of course I despise Clinton retroactively as a result of despising his wife, as shown by my mild support of someone over her for the nomination of the Democratic party, but I'm going to be fair to him nonetheless and point out that when he won in '92 it was with 44% of the vote, with Perot and Bush splitting the non-issue-based electorate.

356, in the thoroughness of its confirmation that MC and I see politics through just vastly, vastly different lenses, is remarkable.

282: Slack is right throughout

I just asked myself, "what would B do?", and everything fell into place.

362: That's usually how it works, yup.

363: It'll be our little secret, 'kay?

I just moved to Canada and back, bought a house in the middle of a financial panic, started an open relationship, penned a feminist blog, and lost my iPod, and I've never felt better!

I don't even know why I'm doing this!

365: Not necessarily in that order.

353: The pimpcup is blinding me.

Seriously, it made me blink repeatedly.

I will never be VP. I know this now.

bought a house in the middle of a financial panic

Can I just brag momentarily that I really hit the sweet spot as far as recent interest rates go? For once in my life, I did something right financially.

361: You hater. It's latte-sipping coastal elite liberals like yourself who sneer at the all-important 'Irish RC Canadian somewhat conservative on some of the social/cultural issues but way left of the American mainstream, and almost socialistic, on the economic issues' vote, and that's why you keep losing elections, even though, I'll admit, the demographic I just described doesn't actually have the vote.

But seriously, to what do you object, specifically, in the "sentimentalized narratives based on actual issues" formulation? It quite boggles my mind, really, that any Dem could object to that, at this stage of the game.

Rorty explains it all in Achieving Our Country and Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, both of which I highly recommend.

For once in my life, I did something right financially

Woo-hoo! When are you moving in?

370: Oh, we just locked in the interest rate. We're still quibbling with the owners over repairs, even though they're in a big hurry and want to close asap. So presumably once they realize that we're not going to back down, it should all happen quickish. I will, of course, give you all the details.

B, buying a house in the midst of a financial panic really does take a bit of nerve. So good luck to you!

(I suspect it's going to be okay for you, really).

369: the idea that a Democrat -- or, really anyone -- might win on issues, as opposed to fundamentals and marginal bullshit, is I think what I found quaint and incomprehensible.

There are issues? I thought politics was just what we did between football games.

Football is better than windsurfing, Walt, in electoral terms. So: advantage you!

b,

Can I just brag momentarily that I really hit the sweet spot as far as recent interest rates go? For once in my life, I did something right financially.

Just my opinion but anyone who correctly uses the word "quibble" deserves all the financial success she can get.

Good on ya!!

Guts and Cash, B, are the necessary ingredients for making money in real estate.

Oh, and DS and JE, when in doubt, go ad hominem. Always classy.

I'd never even heard of Gorelick. Thanks for mentioning her. She's so, so much worse than Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, Monica Goodling, George Deutsch, Michael Brown, Eric Keroac, J. Steven Griles, and Dr. David Hager that I now feel really indignant about Clinton and his unqualified appointees!

Gee, did I offend you, TLL?

I really don't come here to get warmed-over, already-refuted Republican talking points.

Not offended, JE. I take it as a compliment when I disagree with you.

OK, but you still might avoid the rewarmed GOP talking points.

379. So, it's not about the hunting?