What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

Liberal Chauvinist Pigs

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 134
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Since Alaska Governor Sarah Palin became the choice to round out the
GOP ticket for Sen. John McCain, there's been a firestorm of reaction, much of it ecstatic, much of it appalling. What we have witnessed is shocking and disheartening to those of us in our 50's and older who thought we had laid major sexism to rest in the 80's. We did see new evidence of this in the mainstream media's treatment of Hillary Clinton, but I thought it was just as much an issue of most of the media being biased--come on, you know they were starstruck--toward Barack Obama. As far as the liberal blogosphere, I think it had to do with their relative youth--let's face it, they're a foul-mouthed majority male bunch. And after all, we conservatives are used to being given the back of the mainstream media's hand.

But the vile character assassination of Sarah Palin has reached a fever pitch. And now Barack Obama is piling on. Monday he patted Palin on the head, much as he did Hillary in the primary. Yesterday, in Lebanon, Virginia, Barack Obama went overt:

"That's not change," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is offering.

"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."

The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

 

A pig. Lipstick on a pig. And the crowd laughed. They laughed. What should we call this swinish, misogynist behavior?

Maybe he just can't help himself. Does the expression male chauvinist pig come to mind? But this isn't just a slip of a tongue-- it's a pattern. It's deliberate:

Obama made a sexualized attack on Palin, comparing her to a pig. This is exactly the same sort of thing that he did in the primary. Earlier in the cycle I noted:

Jake Tapper first noted this when Obama said that Hillary was "taking out the claws." At the same time he noted that Obama would use "[l]anguage such as 'when she's feeling down' 'periodically' she 'launches attacks.'" Tapper noted that a number of female reporters and bloggers picked up on this. Later Obama complained that Hillary was "throwing the China" at him. Again, Tapper heard the dog whistle. Tapper noted that this "feeds into the 'harridan' caricature of Clinton."

This is the stuff that alienated Hillary Clinton voters.

This is the supposed post-partisan uniter Barack Obama, all Hope and Change, these are his supporters. And his running mate, Joe Biden, says Sarah Palin's candidacy is a step back for women, as if we couldn't assess her for ourselves.

Let's look at how the mainstream media has been treating working mom Sarah Palin. No credible person, blogger or otherwise, can honestly say she hasn't been attacked as a working mom.
And it's a double standard. If you're a conservative woman you're supposed to stay home and stay in the kitchen, is that it? Your parenting skills can be questioned, while smug liberal media moms get a pass-- they're some of the ones saying it.

How about the liberal blogs, now practically joined at the hip with the supposedly objective press. Arianna thinks Sarah's a distracting Trojan moose(!?), stay classy Arianna. And a successful conservative woman with more executive experience than Barack Obama is a distraction? Leftist Salon says she's a dominatrix. Salon also compares her to Muslim fundamentalists, comparing her Christianity to the terrorist organization Hamas. This is deeply offensive, and the positions Cole cites are smears of her beliefs. Check her record, please, stop the smears.

Madonna or whore --the way women have been controlled and demeaned for centuries. And this is all coming from so-called "progressives". HotAir:

I find this fortnight of reaction utterly fascinating. When challenged by a strong, self-made woman, what has the mainstream media done? They have painted her as:

  • A hick
  • A slut
  • A bubble-headed beauty queen
  • A bad mother

[snip]
Some of us scoffed at the notion that Hillary Clinton got victimized by a sexist media. I’d say that the profession

  • 134
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
evilslutopia 5 pts

What's up with the constant ageism?  You do realize that McCain is older than Biden, right?  Do you constantly refer to McCain as "that old guy from the Senate"?

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

Glad you got a laugh out of the link.  Too bad you didn't actually read or understand any of it.  

Apparently writing the Violence Against Women Act doesn't count as "accomplishing anything" to you.  Interesting.

Could you name something that Palin has accomplished as far as women's rights?  And no, having babies and joining the PTA don't count.

And if you want to talk about working your way up in record time - Joe Biden was elected to the Senate at age 30, the minimum allowed age.  

At least we provided a link that contains actual information about Biden's record, as opposed to "hahaha biden's old! hahaha palin rules lol!"

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.  Biden has worked for social change throughout his career, so he's suddenly not for change now?  

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

MLOKnitting 5 pts

I am PRO-ABORTION when the fetus is already DEAD or will die an agonizing death within minutes of birth.  You know what?  Not all bodies will expel the "products of conception."  I tire of the falsehoods spread by the anti-choice groups.  Oh, and anyone who thinks anti-abortion laws don't interfere with proper medical treatment in such cases should look at existing laws governing allowed medical treatment in states such as Michigan.  If you investigate every last anti-choice group, they are also anti-birth control and getting funding from religious institutions.  Please keep religion out of government.

This brings me to why Sarah Palin is the worst candidate ever put on any ticket - she is associated with Dominionism.  We do not need another four years of such nonsense.  If you do not know what a Dominionist is, I urge you to research it.  It is a very scary sub-cult of the Religious Right who believe that it is their duty to usher in the Second Coming of Christ - by any means necessary.  I remember them announcing their plans in the 1980s.  MLO / Melissa

KiwisCanFly 5 pts

tracycoyle

Executive experience is meaningless if one is incompetent.

 Palin’s style of governing was unorthodox and at times impulsive. Although she boasts of a record as a fiscal conservative, she raised the sales tax while she was in office. She left the town saddled with millions of dollars in debt from the building of a new sports complex, and with legal fees, because she had failed to secure title to the land on which the complex was built.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/0809... ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/0809... )

 Also: Gov Palin as Mayor of Wasilla took office with a population of approx 5,500.

KiwisCanFly 5 pts

Sen McCain’s age is a legitimate worry for me.

Fiorina eludes to ageism simply as a ploy to get off the subject and project another distraction rather than address issues.

The McCain campaign will maintain the distractions.

Similarly, any legitimate questions (which are increasingly going unanswered) of Palin are being pushed aside as either sexist or not adequately deferential.

My folks and my MIL are of McCain’s generation. They have plenty of ‘senior moments’ and we all laugh.

My Pop, is really fit for 74 years young. But I wouldn’t want him to take on a job like the POTUS at his age. The stress would kill him.

Which brings me back to Gov Palin??

nellewrites 6 pts

An oil spill is a one shot and done tragedy that cannot really be undone. And judging by Exxon's conduct post Valdez, we can hardly expect the Oils to clean up after themselves.

I don't live in Florida, but I'd be curious to know what percentage of Floridians support drilling off their coasts...

And how about Chesapeake, if oil were there? One major spill and an incredible biosphere would be destroyed.

I don't see that risk as worth any amount of energy we pull out of the ground. As with our deficits, we would be borrowing against the future of our children.

No thank you.  

nelle ( http://refractivethoughts.org/ )

&

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

KiwisCanFly 5 pts

Tracycoyle

No dispute with Gov Palin’s 6yrs Municipal and 21mths State executive experience.

Since accepting the VP nomination and regardless of her gender, she is being vetted at a national level. Examining her record is a legitimate act.

As Gov Palin’s record is exposed, the media and the public are questioning her competence in her executive decision making. This is fair?

Obama wasn’t belittling Palin’s experience as Mayor in Wasilla (BTW 5,500 pop when she took office). He was comparing the executive experience between them.

He has a legitimate argument.

Palin has cited her mayoral work as a central part of her qualification to serve as governor. "It's not rocket science. It's $6 million and 53 employees."

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-82... ( http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-82... )

Mr. Giuliani said, “Barack Obama has never led anything, nothing, nada,”

But he has.

‘Obama for America’ is the largest organization Obama has ever run.

Obama runs a tight ship with a drama-free campaign.

Can the same be said of Palin‘s executive record?

Obama was drawing a comparison with his executive experience of leading a very successful campaign. Millions of constituents, a staff of 2500, payrolls, a budget of millions per month, and scheduling over a 50 state strategy.

His community organizing experience (that Sarah derided) has helped develop the foundation of his pragmatic, political style.

“The clinging to guns etc” Obama comment, is one of those that I wish he hadn’t said. However, I am not convinced it’s an untruth. No offense.

Concerning, Sen Biden, u make valid points.

Biden’s modest wealth, when compared to other politicians, with his long tenure in Federal Legislation tends to confirm he is an honest man.

Perhaps, that is my bias that I think very wealthy politicians are more likely to be crooked.

Obama often refers to himself as an ‘imperfect servant’. He has written about his transgressions.

He has been vetted nationally over an extended period, Gov Palin’s is only just started. Any benefit to the Obama campaign concerning exposé of Palin’s record is fair game, regardless of her gender, but not because of it.

KiwisCanFly 5 pts

 tracycoyle

“I support Sarah Palin because she is a principled conservative politician.”

One of the reasons why I could not support Gov Palin is because I do not perceive her as a principled politician.

Sen McCain, the GOP and Gov Palin are touting her as a champion anti-earmark person.

All the rhetoric in the world (as Obama critics repeatedly tell us) doesn’t change the record.

On Friday, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, Palin was asked whether she was in agreement with McCain that earmarks should be eliminated.

"I certainly am," Gov Palin said

Just this year, Palin sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million more, per person, than any other state.

When Palin as mayor of Wasilla, she obtained about $27 million in federal “earmarks” during her last four years in office, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense

This hypocrisy is being exposed during Palin's national vetting. Dare I question when Gov Palin picked up the mantle for anti-earmark championship?

Conversely, Sen Obama is walking the talk.

Obama supports reforming earmark allocation.

Obama supports more transparency and accountability in government.

Obama worked with Sen Coburn, to draft and pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.2590.... ). GW signed this measure into law in September 2006.

According to the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate term. But the group gives him credit for disclosing his requests, which most members of Congress don't do.

Obama ( http://null/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.... ) has not made any requests for the next fiscal year, and even when he was asking for earmarks, he was far from the worst offender, the group says.

"Just to put it into perspective, he got $98 million worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2008. Sen. Clinton got more than $300 million in earmarks, and Sen Cochran, Republican of the [Senate] Appropriations Committee, got $800 million in earmarks," Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said.

Obama says

“We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project,"

"The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint's amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,"

Now this is honesty, I relate to.

KiwisCanFly 5 pts

debontherocks

 U may adore Sen Obama, but I do not agree with your analysis.

If as u assert, Palin has ownership of the idea of putting lipstick on power.

Then u have defeated your own argument.

When both Obama and McCain used this political cliché they are referring to bad policies that no matter how they are dressed up are still bad policies.

McCain referring to Sen Clinton’s Health Reform.

Obama referring to McCain’s Economic plans.

No context in either of their remarks concerning any form of power. Just healthy debate over issue differences.

Following the distorted logic of Obama accusers and putting his statement into context, then Palin would have to be the lipstick and McCain the pig.

It is obvious to any fair-minded person that Obama did not mean anything detrimental to Gov Palin.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Anais Nin ( http://null/quotes/quotes/a/anaisnin107089.html )

nellewrites 6 pts

is not necessarily the issue. It might prove interesting, might prove a solid debate point, but the real issue is perception.

You cannot debate any given person's perception. That comes with reaction to an issue they hear. Now they might be willing to ponder the issue, to hear other sides, but in the end, that is possibility, one they actively have to choose, whereas perception rises from the moment we hear something like 'lipstick on a pig.'

Setting aside the fact that this sort of comment sometimes gets tossed at tg folk (for the record, I rarely wear lipstick - or any makeup, like *maybe* once a year, and if I do, it is exceedingly light) and it can cut, it can upset, it can hurt.

Yes, McCain said it, but McCain didn't get an adverse reaction; he does not have this as an issue to overcome. Overcoming issues is vital to a campaign; creating issues to overcome is highly detrimental. It means you have to cover unanticipated ground, instead of plodding onward on message. It means you have to explain, deal with the reaction, and try to defuse.

In a year where women are particularly engaged and paying attention, the mistakes of the past 3 weeks are huge, huge and self-destructive.

Obama has to actively cater to women, not toss out comments that can be perceived as insults, even if unintended. Every vote has to be won, and alienating a very sizeable voting block is incredibly inane strategy. 

Along with this, he has to really pay attention to these toss away comments, he has to ponder them from the perspective of those hearing the message, how it might play. This is a common sense thing, a sign of 'getting it' on issues important to women, on the issues we face. He needs to act like he understands and appreciates.  

nelle ( http://refractivethoughts.org/ )

&

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

tracycoyle 5 pts

hahaha....oh, that is priceless!  oh...good laugh...honorary...ahhhhh.   

Ok.

As Senator, Biden MAY have been working to do good things for women, but actually accomplishing anything?  Not likely.  And of course, Palin can't be working to do good things for women if she benefits from that effort so, breaking a few glass ceilings doesn't count.  BUT, on October 2(?), we can compare them standing side by side.

And old guy in the same job for 35 years will look REAL good next to young woman that has worked her way up from PTA to Governor in about half that time. 

But go ahead and compare the records - just for grins.

tracycoyle 5 pts

Biden has won his reelections to the Senate with an average 60% of the vote, an impressive number.  But, does this sound familiar?

Biden's campaign had virtually no money, was managed by his sister
Valerie Biden Owens (who would go on to manage his future campaigns as
well) and staffed by other members of his family, and relied upon
handed-out newsprint position papers.[20] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#cite_note-n... ) Biden's campaign issues focused on withdrawal from Vietnam, the environment, civil rights, and "change".

 An agent of change?

evilslutopia 5 pts

Great point.  Guess it's okay to focus on Palin's looks and objectify her, as long as you're a Republican.

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

You're right about one thing - we would absolutely LOVE to start talking more about how Palin compares to Biden, because Senator Biden has a long record of working to do good things for women and Palin...doesn't.

http://evilslutopia.com/2008/09/joe-biden-honorary...

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

 afterall if they win, Delaware will FINALLY get a new Senator.

You say that as if all of the people of Delaware are so desperate for someone new and haven't been, oh I don't know, VOTING FOR Senator Biden over and over again all these years. 

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

Soccer Swim Mom 5 pts

Cronyism is alive and well in Alaska

NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14pa...

Remember Michael Brown, the FEMA guy from Katrina?  He liked horses. 

miteegirl 5 pts

In the spirit of offering solutions instead of just complaints, here is the link to Obama's political positions.  It is only a Google search away!

Obama's political positions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o... )

Plus!

Obama versus McCain on economic issues ( http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gall... )

How Obama and McCain compare on policies ( http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23809082-5017257,00.html )

Obama, McCain on the Issues ( http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/28/america/... )

Soccer Swim Mom 5 pts

Wow, the bar is pretty low to be VP.  Gosh, I have a friend who thinks she could do it too, where do you apply for that?

By the way, have you been to Wasilla?  I was just there and it has about 12 traffic lights.  So much like other Red Blooded American towns. Yippee.  And a heck of a great sports arena.  The sewage treatment plant that folks wanted just wasn't a priority right now, what with all the meth addicts.

I think that the feeling was that we gotta get those kids something athletic and productive to do with their time besides all the sex and drugs. 

Here's a link from an interview with a real life person from Wasilla:

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-09-11/news/wa...

tracycoyle 5 pts

no link to Barak Obama's political positions?   Or did you just assume that everyone here is both fully informed on his?

tracycoyle 5 pts

Let's see:

 1.  Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president?

 Over 35, citizen....yep.  Oh?  Did you have other things in mind?  Please, feel free to state what other subjective, or objective qualifications YOU are seeking in a Vice President.

I mean, you might want someone with experience running something.  Or someone that has at least been around the world once or twice.  Maybe you want someone that can work with liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, rich and poor, black and white...?   Right?

 2.  Is she who she says she is? 

 Ah, well, there is the problem huh?  Can you trust what she actually says? She might say something, well, that someone else wrote!  Or, she might say one thing to one group of people, and something entirely different to another.  She might be hiding what she truely believes by distancing herself from long term associates...yea..got to watch that.  She is a 'politician' after all.  AND!   We can check on her words and see if they actually match what she DOES!  Yea...not enough just to listen to the words...got to see the deeds too.

 3.   How can someone be a reformer who takes money from lobbyists, including oil companies?

 Yea!  Got to watch those slippery oil companies...all those profits (pssst, I heard they were up to almost 8%!   Google and Microsoft, they are only at about 45% but THEY don't have any political leanings...like oil companies, or banks...)  I mean, McCain might have someone he really likes working as a lobbyist and then what...you never know what money might get swung their way...like military contracts or..gambling interests.

 4.  How can someone with a narrow range of experiences in a remote part
of our country possibly understand fully the issues that confront the
majority of Americans?

 Damn...did you hear, they GOT PHONES up there!  Finally!  What does someone from Podunk know about....raising kids, teenage pregnancy, oil prices,wars and foreign politics and you know...balancing a budget, mortgages, losing a job.  Why, up there in the middle of nowhere, they hunt animals...AND EAT THEM....ewwwww.

5. Anchorage Alaska is not anything like St. Louis, Orlando, Columbus
or Pittsburg.  The mayors of those towns have more 4 to 5 times the
population of the entire state, and 4-5 times more challenges.  

 Or like the southside of Chicago!  Or Detroit!  Why I heard in Anchorage, the sidewalks are made of wood!  Yea...  But you might have missed the recent count of the Alaskan population...after totalling all the checks on the sheets taken by the census takers...apparently (sheesssh), Alaska is only about twice the size of St. Louis, or Pittsburgh and three times the size of Orlando, BUT...it is still smaller than Columbus..well, it has less people than Columbus...cause you know, like, Alaska is BIG! :)  Did you know there are some place in Alaska where you can't drive to?  Yea, it is stupid place...how good can she be as governor if, like there are no good roads everywhere....

Yea...all this is a distraction from really getting to know Obama and what's his name, the old guy from the Senate....yea...Bidden....

Floridian 5 pts

We are definitely getting distracted from the real issues in this election.

Here is a link to John McCain's political positions. Please share this with anyone who may not be fully informed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o... )

miteegirl 5 pts

Does it bother you that I pick and choose whom I defend?

Nope, I just want you to be honest about it in your answers.  I wasn't correcting you, I was making your viewpoint more accurate.

I defended and defend Conservative moms, Christian moms (I am one),  soccer moms, hockey moms, working moms (I am one) and all moms when their motherhood is being bashed without reason.

Condi Rice is not a mom, as far as I know.  I will defend her right to be a woman working in government from here to "the gates of Hell". Smart woman? Awesomely smart. Talented woman? No question.  Did she make some mistakes as National Security Advisor?  I think she made at least one major mistake.  Do I admire her though stance on qualifications for diplomats?  Yes, it has been awesome.  Her work getting Israel to withdraw from some Palestinian Territories has been phenomenal. I think her biggest impediment in her job is George W Bush.  Because of her blinding loyalty to Bush and to his talking points, I don't have a sense of her own opinion about the Bush Doctrine or about many things, actually.  I can't really evaluate how she would do away from the Bush Administration until she is out from under the administration.

tracycoyle 5 pts

two points: 

 Based upon what you've written in her reply to her, let me fix that for you.

"I've been fighting for <strike>women</strike> CONSERVATIVE WOMEN for a long time." 

There you go.  Now you're more accurate.

does that bother you? Does it bother you that I pick and choose whom I defend?  Does it bother you that I would support one woman over another?  See, I didn't like, don't like Hillary Clinton.  She demeaned herself by staying with a man, for political reasons, that would as quickly cheat on her as breathe.  Her own self-disrespect gave me little sympathy for her.  That little play back in March(?) told me that when she didn't like the way the boys played, she would be happy to use her gender, again, for political reasons.  Sorry, a person that starts a bar fight shouldn't ask me for help when they get their butts kicked.

Second point: I am sure that you have been right there defending CONSERVATIVE WOMEN.  I could be wrong, you might have been fighting for all women without consideration of their political, religious, or marital status.    I am sure you stood your ground and defended them and their choices when others demeaned them and dismissed their positions.  I am sure you defended soccer moms, hockey moms, working moms, Christian moms when individuals attempted to smear them.  I haven't googled you, but I am sure that you defended Condi Rice when she was getting hammered and smeared.

Oh, last point, I don't need my mother to dress me, my partner to feed me, or you to 'correct me'.

miteegirl 5 pts

Mom101 is correct.

She is referring to the statement that was made "been fighting for women for a long time".

Based upon what you've written in her reply to her, let me fix that for you.

"I've been fighting for <strike>women</strike> CONSERVATIVE WOMEN for a long time." 

There you go.  Now you're more accurate.

Soccer Swim Mom 5 pts

I don't know about you, but even though this is an important issue, it seems like a distraction from the other issues like:

1.  Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president?

2.  Is she who she says she is?  

3.   How can someone be a reformer who takes money from lobbyists, including oil companies?

4.  How can someone with a narrow range of experiences in a remote part of our country possibly understand fully the issues that confront the majority of Americans?

5. Anchorage Alaska is not anything like St. Louis, Orlando, Columbus or Pittsburg.  The mayors of those towns have more 4 to 5 times the population of the entire state, and 4-5 times more challenges.  

tracycoyle 5 pts

that is bs when someone else suggested it, and it is bs now.  I can pick and choose whom to fight for, when to fight, and how to fight.  I don't have to have done drugs to oppose them; I don't have to have had an abortion to oppose - or support the right to choose; and I don't have to have defended Hillary against sexism to defend Sarah against even worse.

And whether or not someone blogs about a situation does not determine whether they have actually been fighting or not.  Blogs have been around for what...5 years?  I have been blogging for over 3 and NOT ONCE have I talked about supporting MDA - despite my brother having lived and died with muscular dystrophy and our family's support of that organization.

I support Sarah Palin because she is a principled conservative politician.  So if her name had been Sam, I'd still be supporting HIM, but I am very proud and very enthusiastic that SHE is a principled, conservative WOMAN.

Mom101 5 pts

And oddly, I haven't been able to find any incidences in which you spoke with such outrage when hecklers said as much to Senator Clinton. 

You don't get to claim you've "been fighting for women for a long time" if you pick and choose which women you fight for. 

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

Cool Mom Picks.com ( http://coolmompicks.com )

Suzanne 5 pts

Currently, there are only two places in the entire nation where an abortion can take place up until 26 weeks. Every other place stops at 24. I can probably count on both hands the number of people who have abortions for reasons other than the life or health (and I include health as very important) of the mother or fetus (meaning: the fetus has severe issues threatening its viability) after 24 weeks. It is just a very, very rare procedure. So the reality actually matches your ideal case scenario. You can check out the Alan Guttmacher Insititute for harder numbers if you want - they do a lot of research and probably have the best data of anyone, including the CDC.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

miteegirl 5 pts

Sexist members of the 110th Congress (with many thanks to Dylan Ris):

* Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine) on the Peru free-trade agreement: "Same old model with a little lipstick."

* Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) on trade policy: "You know the old saying about lipstick on a pig? Well, I smell bacon."

* Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) on withdrawal in Iraq: "Calling this surrender a 'withdrawal' or a 'redeployment' is like putting lipstick on a pig. No matter what you call it, it is still a pig."

* Rep. Lynn "Uppity" Westmoreland (R-Ga.) on energy policy: "The energy bills that were brought out this week was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig."

* Westmoreland, again on energy policy: "It's almost like putting lipstick on a pig. You can make it look good, but it's only going to be a pig."

* Westmoreland, yet again on energy policy: "So while we are passing these bills ... it's been putting lipstick on a pig."

 * Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) on an omnibus spending bill: "There has been lipstick placed on this pig, but it's still a pig."

* Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) on an ethics proposal: "They may have put lipstick on that pig, but it is still a pig."

* Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) on the president's veto of a children's health bill: "There's just no lipstick to pretty up this pig."

* Ortiz on language in a border-wall bill: "That puts a little lipstick on the pig."

* Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Republican moves on carbon emissions: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig."

* Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) on a children's health bill alternative: "We have a saying in Texas, if you put lipstick on a pig, it will still be a pig."

* Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) on equal-pay legislation: "This amendment is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig."

* Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on wiretapping legislation: "It's very difficult to put lipstick on a pig."

* Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) on Medicare legislation: "... trying to put lipstick on this legislative pig."

* Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) on a college- cost bill: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig."

Doesn't Obama have any ideas of his own? Is he so desperate for fresh sexist comments that he resorts to stealing them from Republican women like Virginia Foxx?

stephmsdiva 5 pts

Brava! To both the post and your defense here. I've been watching these campaigns with a good deal of interest, and to be quite honest, I think what upsets people is not the lack of defense for Hillary, but the fact that Barack Obama is turning out to be a sexist wrapped up in a very pretty package. But it's much easier to lash out at those who support Palin than to take a look at the media darling's record of sexist garbage.

Just my never-humble opinion, of course.

Stephanie
http://quirkyblogger.com

myrnatheminx 5 pts

If you take the saying literally which you seem to be.  This fundamental misunderstanding of how Obama used the common saying obliterates the argument about sexism that you are making. Granted, to label her the lipstick on John McCain's pig could be problematic except for the fact that she put her lipstick front and center in her acceptance speech. Do you really want to continue to contribute to this nonsensical argument? People chuckled about the lipstick remark because she called herself a "pitbull with lipstick" not because he was calling her a pig.  Good grief.  Erin is correct, I might be more sympathetic to your argument if you had been calling out sexism throughout the campaign season in terms of Clinton, but if you didn't do that, then there is no consistency and your position seems falsely and conveniently taken.  I was not a Clinton supporter but consistently criticized sexist coverage of her.  I've actually done some of that for Palin too.  That's where my authority as a feminist blogger comes from, not because I'm a liberal blogger.

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com ( http://www.renofabulousmedia.com )
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com ( http://www.renodiscontent.com )

LawyerMama 5 pts

 The lipstick on a pig comment wasn't taken from a WP cartoon.  The portion before it about McCain's policies was.  Either way, Obama wasn't talking about Palin.  And I seriously doubt the crowd at a Norfolk high school knew that he was referring to a political cartoon.  Sure, some people here read the WP (as do I), but most of us don't memorize every line. We have our own local paper, thanksverymuch.  Nor did anyone at the high school think he was calling Sarah Palin a pig.  Because it was a ridiculous assumption.

Stephanie (someone who actually lives in SE Virginia) 

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com

Liz Rizzo 5 pts

This comment is full of win for me.

After reading post after post for month after month from the liberal side about "dog whistles," I'm sorry, but Obama just stepped right into it. The proof is the crowd who thought they knew exactly what he was saying.

This is exactly why I'm not really on the "dog whistle" bandwagon in the first place. It's too much fuss over maybes. It doesn't matter that it's a "common phrase" or even whether the phrase itself is sexist or not. In that moment, coming right after Sarah Palin's words about lipstick (why is she talking about lipstick in the first place, I have no idea, but anyway), it was a dog whistle and it was crappy. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, he and his campaign should be smarter than that.

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

tracycoyle 5 pts

 Actually,

Or just regurgitate a clip of the comment in question?

Senator Obama CLEARLY was talking about McCain's policies.  He said
it right before the oh-so controversial comment.  "That's not change,"
he said.  He didn't mention Governor Palin.  He didn't mention her
speech.  He very clearly & obviously used a phrase that people have
been using for years & years (& yes, even your Senator McCain
used it earlier in this election season).

 he was repeating a cartoon from the Washington Post.  You don't know that, because he didn't say that he was quoting the cartoon - he just used it to make it a nice sound bite....punctuated with a dig.  You don't have to believe that was what was happening - I think it is clear the audience did.  But, fine, over reaction, so has been the reaction to the reaction.  End of line.

But you raise other points:

 Governor "Palin and the right" SHOULD be spending the last 10 days
dealing with issues.  No one knows where she stands on anything.  She
came seemingly out of nowhere & the American public needs to know
about her.  Heck, she spent the first fifteen minutes of her speech
detailing her background because, quite frankly, no one knew her up
until then.

 What issue is being raised when the pregnancy of a child of the candidate is being dug into?  What issue is being raised when it is suggested that the recent child is actually the child of the daughter and the pregnacy of the Governor was a fake to cover it up?   And the seemingly out of no where is a function of the 'ignorance' (and I used that ONLY to suggest the absence of knowledge) of those that didn't know of or about her.  She has been part of the discussion of possible VP candidates for months on the right.

 About health care:  The government of the United States of America is,
to quote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, "government of the
people, by the people, for the people."  We are not a nation that turns
away from its own.

That is an application of thought that could apply to virtually ANY thing considered 'necessary' to people.  Why shouldn't the government provide reasonable housing?  Or a reasonable level of food?  Oh, right.  It does, to those that NEED it, not everyone.  My partner has a severe, limb threatening diabetic ulcer.  We have no insurance:  since the initial contact with the doctors at the end of March, we have had over 100 appointments, including 45 cast changes, 56 days of IV antibiotics and more than $75,000 in medical expenses.  We are making monthly payments that if the debt ended today (and we have at least 4 more months of intervention) we would be paying this debt for the next 25 years provided no interest is involved - it isn't.  So, while SHE is voting for Obama to get free health care, I oppose it as both inappropriate for government to be doing, and not YOUR responsibility.

IDEALLY, every person should have the resources to provide adequate
health care for themselves & their families.  But try telling that
to the farmer who, because of heavy flooding, lost 75% of his corn crop
&, as a result, can't afford the $500 per month for health
insurance for his family.  Try telling that to the stay-at-home mom
whose husband just died, leaving her a mortgage, three mouths to feed,
& a mother of her own to take care of due to Alzheimer's.  Tell
that to the letter carrier just diagnosed with Parkinson's, whose
bosses decided his health costs & pension would be too costly to
maintain, so they laid him off three months before he was eligible for
retirement & now, now he must get health insurance with a
pre-existing (chronic, degenerative) condition.

 Although it would be tempting to address each of those examples, I am going to again point out, why is this the responsibility of government to fix?   If you believe we as citizens have an obligation to deal with these disasters people face, then join together with others that feel the same sense of obligation and get them to help you help others.  When a business man, through no fault of his own, has his business fail, you are not interested in supporting his family are you?  Or paying off his debts?  Do you have insurance?  Fire, auto, life?  These are things available to people to deal with the terrible events in our lives.  Often, people don't take those precautions.  My partner has had diabeties most of her adult life and has been unable to afford health insurance - do we have the right to make YOU pay for it? 

 So until then, what is it going to hurt, ultimately, if we take care of our own?

 Ultimately, there is no 'until then'.  Ultimately is both never ending and open ended.  Social security was designed to help only those that didn't have a safety net - the current obligations are well over a trillion dollars and no one can touch it despite the fact the 'entitlement' is growing and virtually everyone now is covered by it.  It is not a matter that it is getting 'too expensive', it is that it should never have been started in the first place.  There is nothing in our Constitution that suggests government can be used to 'take care of our own'.  If we want to take care of our own, do so.  To give that responsibility - moral, ethical or Christian or just plain nice - to government is to abdicate the responsibility, not fulfill it.

Government is not an infinite checkbook.  Every penny it spends comes from you and me.   At some point, every bad thing could become the responsibility of government and at that point, people will start looking to government to protect them from any risk, to 'make them whole'.  We are seeing it in the housing market and it is going to cost us billions and the banks and mortgage companies will survive their folly - all because we can't stand the idea of people that can't afford their homes being tossed out of them.

There is always good reasons to help people.  And denying those reasons does not make me, or others like me, cold and heartless.  Often, we help those near us directly with better effect.  But even if we didn't, even if we were cold and heartless, you can't use government to make us be less so.  You shouldn't be able to.

It works two ways:

Some,
whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would
willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while
others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add
one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental
control. And men range themselves on one or the other side in any
particular case, according to this general direction of their
sentiments; or according to the degree of interest which they feel in
the particular thing which it is proposed that the government should
do; or according to the belief they entertain that the government
would, or would not, do it in the manner they prefer; but very rarely
on account of any opinion to which they consistently adhere, as to what
things are fit to be done by a government. And it seems to me that, in
consequence of this absence of rule or principle, one side is at
present as often wrong as the other; the interference of government is,
with about equal frequency, improperly invoked and improperly
condemned. 

 and....

That
principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted,
individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action
of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot
rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for
him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the
opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are
good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or
persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or
visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. 

The only
part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is
that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself,
his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign. 

 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.  I heartily recommend it.

nikiconrad 5 pts

Or just regurgitate a clip of the comment in question?

Senator Obama CLEARLY was talking about McCain's policies.  He said it right before the oh-so controversial comment.  "That's not change," he said.  He didn't mention Governor Palin.  He didn't mention her speech.  He very clearly & obviously used a phrase that people have been using for years & years (& yes, even your Senator McCain used it earlier in this election season).

Governor "Palin and the right" SHOULD be spending the last 10 days dealing with issues.  No one knows where she stands on anything.  She came seemingly out of nowhere & the American public needs to know about her.  Heck, she spent the first fifteen minutes of her speech detailing her background because, quite frankly, no one knew her up until then.

Senator Obama, Senator Biden, & the rest of the Democratic party have been talking policies & real issues all throughout this campaign.  Tell me ... what was Senator Obama's reaction to the rumblings about Governor Palin's family background rumors?  Leave the family alone.  As well it should be his reaction.  That is one of the many things about Senator Obama & how he has run his campaign that I admire.  Enough.  Enough with the rhetoric.

About health care:  The government of the United States of America is, to quote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, "government of the people, by the people, for the people."  We are not a nation that turns away from its own.

This pull yourself up by your bootstraps, make your own way ideal is fantastic & the American Dream, yes.  IDEALLY, every person should have the resources to provide adequate health care for themselves & their families.  But try telling that to the farmer who, because of heavy flooding, lost 75% of his corn crop &, as a result, can't afford the $500 per month for health insurance for his family.  Try telling that to the stay-at-home mom whose husband just died, leaving her a mortgage, three mouths to feed, & a mother of her own to take care of due to Alzheimer's.  Tell that to the letter carrier just diagnosed with Parkinson's, whose bosses decided his health costs & pension would be too costly to maintain, so they laid him off three months before he was eligible for retirement & now, now he must get health insurance with a pre-existing (chronic, degenerative) condition.

Yeah ... ideally, we'd all be self-sufficient.  Ideally, we'd all be happy little campers with no health problems.  Ideally, we'd all be able to call up our doctors & say, "Fix me," without having to deal with big business insurance bureaucracy.  But, as we're all well-aware, we don't yet live in this ideal world.  So until then, what is it going to hurt, ultimately, if we take care of our own? 

tracycoyle 5 pts

Thank you Laurie!

Please consider (as I try to) things from my (your) perspective.  My first Principle is that the individual is sovereign.  Government proceeds from our giving it the power to act.  Government gives us nothing, no rights, no freedoms - those are ours to begin with and government can only limit or infringe upon them.  With this Principle, there are two other important parts - the first I have aluded to: I have infinite rights - any action I can imagine, that I have the ability and resources to accomplish, is mine to freely express PROVIDED it does not intefer with the rights of others.  With those infinite rights, I have the personal responsibility and obligation to protect others from the consequences of my actions and I can and should be held accountable for ALL of those actions and their consequences.

From this set of Principles, government is my servant, not my master, nor is it my equal.  Government is NOT a tool.  It has it's own duties and responsibilities and it should be supported in those duties (taxes, adherence to laws) but not used to affect, or effect changes.  An example:  the purpose of tax law is to distribute the burden of necessary taxation as equitably and broadly as possible - it is not to be used to benefit or punish behavior.  Both conservatives and liberals use tax law for this purpose and it is wrong.It may be my responsibility to care for my neighbor, but it is an abdication of my responsibilities to let government do it.

These things inform my positions.   An example: if a group in a community wants to organize to create a jobs program for local people, that is great - if they seek to get government to create the program, then they have attempted to get government to take on a responsibility that doesn't belong to it.  Just because, in some situations, government might be more efficient at the process does not give it the responsibility to do so.  Every time we give government a responsibility we should be bearing, the government gets the authority to demand from unaffected others support for its actions.  

Should the people of Chicago, or Illinois, or Colorado be required to pay for (even if the amount is minimal - 1 cent per person) for a jobs program on the south side of Chicago?  I do not believe so.  Neither did our Founding Fathers.

I think liberals in general, Democrats in particular, see terrible things and want to help and fix them.  The impulse is great, but their means are incorrect - with few exceptions it is an obligation of ours, as citizens, upon seeing the terrible thing, to help and fix - not governments.

Just my and the  Founding Father's point of view.

L16 5 pts

Yes I agree - it was totally influential to me.  I may not have made that clear.  I think it's a good book for preteens/teens.

lauriewrites 5 pts

I think Obama's efforts at community organizing is wonderful experience and honorable work. I also was born and raised on the southside of Chicago. My family has lived there for over 50 years. Members of my family worked directly for Trinity and interacted with Rev. Wright, his wife and members of that church directly. My comment stands.

My problem with Obama's time as a community organizer - activist in my experience, does not give him the type of experience I want to see as President. That is my choice, my opinion. It gives him the type of experience you want to see in a President, that is your choice, your opinion. I do not think it is comparable to being Mayor or Governor, but in saying that, I do not disrespect, or dishonor it.

I disagree with just about everything you write as your views are mostly opposite of mine and I've been avoiding this thread because my head is tired. BUT in the spirit of issues discussion and of realizing that we're all human, I have to say that you are the first person who identifies as conservative to say ANYTHING positive within my earshot about Obama's work in community. 

And even though I disagree with you - since I think that being in the trenches, affecting change and mobilizing people for a cause is JUST the kind of new experience I'd love in a president, rather than the often-shady dealings of politicians on both sides of the aisle - I appreciate that you explained it. 

This is one of the very rare comments that make me feel as though discourse and useful debate is truly possible. 

Laurie

tracycoyle 5 pts

Let me take you a little at a time:

I think a Christian calling any war that doesn't meet the conditions of Augustine's Just War Theory IS delusional ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion ).  

THIS is disrespectful. Your position is fixed.  You have established a criteria by which you will judge someone's beliefs.  It is inappropriate.   Many other perfectly wonderful Christians, with strong, solid beliefs, don't think like you do.   That doesn't make them wrong or delusional.

In other words, they are operating under a set of fixed, false
beliefs.  How is believing that someone is operating under false
beliefs disrespectful?  If you'd prefer, you may substitute "delusional" in the sentence with the words "operating under fixed, false beliefs or, at the very least, a gross misinterpretation of the New Testament."

I consider anyone that has a belief in religion to be operating under a set of fixed, false beliefs.  You canbelieve some is operating under false beliefs, keep it to yourself unless you can PROVE to them in a respectful way, they are false - and YOU CAN NOT do so with regard to religion.

If you'd prefer, you may substitute "delusional" in the sentence with the words "operating under fixed, false beliefs or, at the very least, a gross misinterpretation of the New Testament." 

I can interpret the New Testament and do so in a way that differs from you.  Does that mean that I am wrong, or that you are?  Maybe.  But we have multiple types of Christian religion because there are multiple interpretations.  Are you willing to call all the different Christian religions wrong?

I sit in a church every week to support my partner and our child in their Faith.

Allowing people to hold different beliefs, to be respectful of their choices, is part of our national heritage.  Judge people on the basis of THEIR standards, not yours.

miteegirl 5 pts

The Food Pantry--Sorry, I forgot to respond to this question:

When you left the non-profit because of the leadership was awful, I would wonder why such people were left in charge?

The food pantry was having problems with its funding and budgets.  I was asked on as a volunteer by the Board to investigate the situation and develop a financial strategy.  This is an organization that was serving a local population that I cared very much about.  Wonderful mission.

I found out that the Director of the pantry was using threats, bribes and fear to run her "staff"...low income women who were promised food for work and who were threatened if they did not follow the orders of the Director.  There was mismanagement of funds.  All sorts of awful things happening.

I reported back to the Board with my findings.  They were enraged, but could not organize to take action.  All of them were afraid of this Director.  In the past, during performance reviews, she would fly into rages and tirades.  No one on the Board wanted to be the one to confront her.  But they needed to go through documented due process to protect themselves from the threat of a lawsuit (she was a woman in her 50's). They sent me back looking for more evidence time and again, without taking action.  I tired of it after a few requests, finished up my reports, and left.  To the outside world, this organization looked effective.  The Director talked a good game and people seemed to be getting fed.

Finally, two years after I left, a new Board Member dug up my old reports, organized the Board to take action, and forced her resignation by starting with the withdrawal of the rent free situation where the food pantry was physically situated.  This started off a chain of events where the Director was forced to take more accountability for her work and failed miserably.  She was eventually replaced by a new Director, a fair and responsible person who treats her volunteers very well and who has earned the loyalty of many.

tracycoyle 5 pts

my personal position on abortion: 

I think legally, it should be available on demand until the child is viable.  That time frame is 20-24 weeks.  During the 20-24 week period, I would prefer as many options as possible be made to the mother and abortion only after counseling.  After the 24th week, abortion available only when the mother's life is in immediate jeapordy...

...and...I am the Chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the American Conservative Party.  

miteegirl 5 pts

I don't dishonor Palin's 20 months as Governor.  I believe, as you do, that she was elected Governor and has served 20 months and has an approval rating in the 90s among Alaskans.  I admire that she has stood up to some Republicans in her home state.

We agree on that much.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on Wright, unless you can provide me with specifics.  Evil is a pretty strong word.

tracycoyle 5 pts

Rather than discuss all the parts of the post, for this discussion, I am going to ignore the topic of backsliding - two reasons: one, I should not have said it, it was neither my place, nor appropriate, I apologize doing so; two, it opens a discussion that I no longer want to have as it would require holding or disputing positions I no longer am willing to - nor should be - debating.

I have not considered, read or considered the notion of a just war.  I think all war is bad, however, I support the use of war.  My opinion on war is likely to be somewhat shocking to most people: once engaged, I believe the United States should utterly destroy any enemy and deprive them and any others from future ability to use a staging ground.  Avoid war if at all possible - if not, destroy the opponent completely and without quarter.

War is a terrible, horrible thing.  Too often people think there is an acceptable cost to war and therefore are willing to engage in it to benefit themselves.  If the cost is the total destruction of one's country, people and infrastructure, we would probably have less wars.  

To note: As I said, I served in the military back in the late 70's/early 80's.  My father served in the mid-50s,  as a prelude to becoming a citizen - I am the first born of legal immigrants. My brother served for 24 years.  His only son, my nephew, is on his third tour in Iraq, having signed up in 2003.  He has served in Mosul and Sadr City and is do out in a couple of months.  

tracycoyle 5 pts

I have served in the military.  I have run a small business.  I have served in a non-profit. My experience is less than your and I am relying on my experience rather than research, I accept your greater experience with non-profits - it is not consistent with my more limited experience.

I was not suggesting that volunteers do only mundane tasks, only suggesting the need for experience in motivating others is greater in those situations than in the situations you suggested.

When you left the non-profit because of the leadership was awful, I would wonder why such people were left in charge?  I am not saying your leaving should have provoked change, but I do believe you probably tried hard to work with them before making such a move...

I think Obama's efforts at community organizing is wonderful experience and honorable work.  I also was born and raised on the southside of Chicago.  My family has lived there for over 50 years.  Members of my family worked directly for Trinity and interacted with Rev. Wright, his wife and members of that church directly.  My comment stands.

My problem with Obama's time as a community organizer - activist in my experience, does not give him the type of experience I want to see as President.  That is my choice, my opinion.  It gives him the type of experience you want to see in a President, that is your choice, your opinion.  I do not think it is comparable to being Mayor or Governor, but in saying that, I do not disrespect, or dishonor it.

Your opinion of the relationship with Ayers is certainly shared by many people, however, I also don't like Jane Fonda, so I have a significant PREJUDICE when I think the country has been attacked or dishonored by someone.  My partner thinks my position on this is stupid and petty.  So be it. Take it as an example of my personality.

Last point: having an administrator running a town when she was mayor is probably the same as having campaign managers in 50 states....

miteegirl 5 pts

My friends who are agnostic are usually very interesting to discuss religion with and I do support their position.  They have often examined religion more closely than people who are born into a church ever do.

I assumed that, given the content and quality of your posts (which are very well worded), you were at least familiar with the concepts of "Just War Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War )" promoted by Augustine.  Christ never talked about war directly.

I think a Christian calling any war that doesn't meet the conditions of Augustine's Just War Theory IS delusional ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion ).  In other words, they are operating under a set of fixed, false beliefs.  How is believing that someone is operating under false beliefs disrespectful?  If you'd prefer, you may substitute "delusional" in the sentence with the words "operating under fixed, false beliefs or, at the very least, a gross misinterpretation of the New Testament."

Interesting.  I'm backsliding by supporting Obama?  How so?  There are tens of thousands of Christians for Obama who would love to know. Including Evangelical Leaders Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis.

miteegirl 5 pts

Good points.  But years of experience as a volunteer and as a consultant to not-for-profits suggests that there are some problems with your assumptions.

You say:

"Leading 10 or 100 people that WANT to be there, WANT to help, WANT the
goals of the organization to be met, would tend to be easier than
motivating 10 or 100 people that just want to get through the day and
pick up their paycheck."

Motivation and people who want to help the goals of the organization only solve your recruitment problems. ( http://www.casanet.org/program-management/voluntee... )  They do nothing to effect your retention problems.  In fact, sustaining the motivation of your volunteers is more complicated than in organizations where staff is paid because the intrinsic motivations of volunteers are so diverse.  In a for-profit organization, the overriding motivation is to keep your job, get paid and, possibly, advance.

So, I would disagree with your assumptions.  Especially since experience and research disprove them ( http://www.google.com/search?q=retention+of+volunt... ).

I'm extremely curious about your statement here:

although I am sure that when there is hard work (mundane, repeatitive
tasks), motivation is very important, even crucial to the project, so I
don't want to suggest that no skill is required to motivate the
'troops'. 

Are you suggesting that all volunteers do only mundane, repetitive tasks?  Because you would be very, very wrong.  I know volunteers who are doctors in Haiti, engineers in the Congo, surgeons in India, financial strategists, construction workers, accountants.  I volunteer my time doing financial strategy for a small not-for-profit.  It is a part time position and unpaid.  If I felt that the people I was working for where poor leaders, I wouldn't waste my time even though I feel the goals of the organization are admirable.  In fact, I did resign from a similar position with a neighborhood food pantry years ago because the leaders of the organization were so awful.

This ability to inspire people and give them the tools to begin helping themselves, what Obama does so well, is something I admire. "Helping others to help themselves" is something that Republicans claim to admire as well.

Your questions assessing Obama's accomplishments could also be applied to McCain and Palin.  For example, the huge payouts that she takes credit for giving to Alaskans are payouts that happen yearly from the trust set up by gas companies and the State.  And the administrator hired to run Wasila while she was Mayor?  Seems to reduce the amount of years she can claim as executive experience to months. 

Were other accomplishments hers?  I imagine some of them were.  But, holding up her 20 months as a governor to 20+ years in public service for Obama, I would give the win to Obama.

As for McCain's military decisions, would you care to be specific as to what these were exactly?

I am from Chicago and I do not experience Rev Wright as evil.  Misguided, yes.  But evil?  Either your family's experience with Wright is that they live in the same state, or they do not know Trinity UCC.  At all.

Ayers?  Please.  That association is weak and a non-issue.  That is like saying that, since McCain knew Mark Foley and served with him in Congress, that McCain likes young boys.

As for Hillary, wonderful candidate.  Obama needed someone with more foreign policy substance than Hillary.  And if he wanted a "yes man", he didn't do himself a favor by picking Biden.

miteegirl 5 pts

I had an issue with your statement:

A large percentage of women in this country are pro-life.

I believe that you are trying to cite a percentage of women who are for anti-abortion laws.  And I believe that you will find that the percentage of women who favor anti-abortion laws are, in fact, a minority.

The semantics have been a problem affecting validity of results in past Gallup polls.  

Otherwise, I think we are violently agreeing about all women being different and not represented by any one group.  

I'm not voting for Palin because she isn't qualified and I don't care for the policies of McCain.  Whether or not she has a uterus is of no concern to me.

tracycoyle 5 pts

As an agnostic, I can't say that I have any clue as to what may or may not be in God's Plan.  And, given my personal experience, I don't think you can either.  You MAY be able to tell me what YOU think is in God's Plan, and I can accept that or not.  Sarah Palin has made her opinion known, and if you disagree with her, well, isn't that the whole idea behind freedom of religion?

As an agnostic, one calling another delusional on the basis of their particular religious beliefs, even if held by friends, husbands, wives, and pastors, is not likely to be persuasive to me.

If you tell me you have been 'born again', or talk to God daily, I am polite and respectful.  If you were to tell me that you KNOW another person that says they were 'born again' and talks to God daily is nuts because they said so....I am not likely to be persuaded you are being polite, respectful or honest.

And just to be clear - I once called myself 'born-again'.  And if you adhere to Scripture and support Obama, I think you are backsliding...but don't worry about my opinion!