Liberal Chauvinist Pigs
by BackyardConservative

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 is doing its level best to cinch that reputation with its unhinged attacks on Palin. In the end, though, this is much more about them than it is about Palin, and it’s pretty disturbing.

Now they are going after her special needs baby.

In contrast to these pure slime excuse for men, Todd Palin. And a message to mothers.

The Anchoress sums it up.

And I say--Liberal Chauvinist Pigs. The rest of us are riled up. Casting pearls before swine.

They will rue the day.

UPDATE: It's clearly an agreed upon tactic and imagery. The Politico:

Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan on Tuesday – introducing Joe Biden at a campaign event – ripped into Palin’s record and punctuated it with this snarky jab. “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,” he said. Later in the day, Obama used a variation of the lipstick line, though he was clearly talking about the McCain-Palin reform rhetoric. "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said. "It's still a pig."

UPDATE: Remember this?

And this. And Alice Palmer.

Contributing Editor Anne Leary also blogs at BackyardConservative and UNCoRRELATED

Submitted by BackyardConservative (view blog) on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 00:04

Comments

 

How about Conservative Chauvinist Pigs?

Shall we bust out everything said against Hillary?

Shall we really go down that path?

Have you seen what Emily's List is doing? Or Women Count? Or Femenist or Shakesville?

And they've been doing it since before your inexperienced Governor showed up to galvanize the base.

Where we you when Clinton was being attacked? Where were you when Michelle Obama was being attacked?

No where.

Oh, and your boy McCain- he puts lipsticks on pigs too.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out...

and by the way, Sarah Palin thinks women who cry sexism are whiners

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-didn%E2%80%99t-like-hillary-cl...

If you want to fight sexism, fight it for EVERY woman.

Don't just join the bandwagon now that it suits your candidate.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:26
 

Waitch the Daily Show video for playing the
gender card

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml

Watch the video on the Daily Show titled "Sarah Palin Gender Card."  Then you will see how the conservatives are hypocritical.

Submitted by lajollajule on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:44
 

Where someone might have been...

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

&

llhaesa

Submitted by nelle2nelle on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 07:36
 

It's frustrating

I know a lot of other members of the BlogHer community have raised the same or similar points over the past week. It's quite frustrating to see the same items raised on the home page with no response from the writers on this topic.

If the conversative-leaning members of the community are going to continue raising the same issues, just using different words, can we at least address some of the questions that have continued to come up? It shouldn't matter if the person asking the question is liberal, conservative, independent, Democrat, Republican.

Let's have a civilized conversation that isn't one-sided and doesn't resort to blanket namecaling.

 

Dimple and a Smirk (dot) com

Submitted by alvenable on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:36
 

Issues

I am for drilling anywhere in the United States and off shore for oil and gas.  It reduces our dependence on foreign sources.   The potential environmental impact - is minimal - but even if it were not, the potential area of damage is small in comparison to the benefits.   NO damage is not an acceptable demand for environment impact.  Sarah Palin seems to be of the same mind.  She also thinks that thenatural resources belong to the citizens and has share the boom in state revenues from oil prices with the citizens of the state.

She opposes abortion - and therefore refused to even consider one.  She has not made any effort to open the abortion issue in Alaska.  I too oppose abortion which is why I have not, nor will ever have one.

I oppose social engineering - be it to make us better, or to fix us.  So many of the things government is doing, it should not be doing.  Gov Palin apparently agrees in principle.

That get us off to a start?

 

 

 

Submitted by tracycoyle on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 12:42
 

Let's see. The alternatives

Let's see.

The alternatives are not limited to DRILL EVERYWHERE and DRILL NOWHERE.  That is ridiculous and limiting.  We have an economic and environmental imperative to develop alternatives to oil and gas for energy.  This will also benefit our national security and foreign relations.  If we don't need oil from the Middle East, we won't have to bother to go there.  Period.  If we don't need oil at all, we won't need to go to the Middle East OR limit emissions.  Less limits, more freedom from defending/managing limited resources.  Sign me up.

I don't believe ANYONE on this board is pro-abortion.  Anyone care to raise their hand to prove me wrong?   I believe that we are all anti-abortion.  Being anti-abortion is pretty universal.

Being anti-"government legislated control of women's decisions about their bodies", THAT is where we probably differ.  Because, wow, talk about some social engineering.

 

Submitted by miteegirl on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:53
 

Pro-Abortion In One Instance

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

Submitted by MLOKnitting on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 15:33
 

I disagree...

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

&

llhaesa

Submitted by nelle2nelle on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 14:41
 

Seems to me that Blogher is

Seems to me that Blogher is in serious danger of being overcome by the McCain/Palin camp. As others have noted, these issues have come up, more than once. And the posts come across heavily as political propaganda, more than discussion openers.

In particular, these instances of fake umbrage are getting old.

Really old.

Is this the best you can do to support your candidate? These games? How about an honest discussion of the issues. Oh that's right: this isn't about issues, is it? 

Submitted by shelleyp on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:49
 

Hey, Erin, I've been attacking Obama!

Michelle started off on the attack, she doesn't need defending from me.

 My "boy" McCain. Well, I suppose that's a compiment. Yeah, I saw that, but that's a common expression. In Obama's case it was a deliberate follow up on Palin's joke, obvious to everyone including ABC and CBS--and it was a pattern. 

Sarah has not been whining, nor will she. She just gets on with what she needs to do. 

But this is personal attack taken way, way too far, and Americans are understandably upset. and the contrast with Barack Obama's nice guy persona message he's trying to put across is stark. But then he comes from the good old boy Chicago machine politics.

I have been fighting for women for a long time.

We may disagree on how we get there, but please don't suggest conservative women are any less committed to empowering women.

Submitted by BackyardConservative on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:54
 

Sarah hasn't been whining,

Sarah hasn't been whining, or much of anything, in fact, because she's been in LOCKDOWN from the moment she was named as R veep nom.  (Being trotted out with prepared speeches for a complicit crowd doesn't count.)

You've been fighting for women for a long time?

Evidence, please?  I believe Erin requested some, but I don't see any being produced on your part.

Please become credible at some point, or I shall have to begin to assume that BlogHer has ceased vetting their contributing writers.

Submitted by lildb on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 21:59
 

I'm confused

Michelle started off on the attack?

McCain uses a phrase but Obama's use is different?

And my suggestions had just as much to do with conservative women as progressive. The conservative blogosphere, perpetuating this meme of feminism, has little evidence to show for it's sudden found interest in women and their plight.

However, if you'd like to talk about American's being upset....

Clearly Mike Huckabee was not broken up on Hannity tonight.

Clearly McCain's former press secretary isn't either

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=PMeULHFMkgoC&dq=torie+clarke+lips...

And as for your defense of women, apparently that only applies if they are NOT Michelle Obama?

Back when I took McCain to task for using another well turned phrase about wife beating, it came with a nice line of sexism behind it. Votes, remarks, etc.

I'm sorry but with Obama, you have nothing. Kinda like putting lipstick on a pig, as they say.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:20
 

Can I have clarification?

Here's where I get lost:

The conservative blogosphere, perpetuating this meme of feminism, has little evidence to show for it's sudden found interest in women and their plight.

Are you suggesting that conservative women have no right to yell "SEXISM" because they have not been fighting for feminism as it is defined by the liberal left?

Isn't that much like saying a prostitute can't yell rape?

Help clear up my confusion, please.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 04:25
 

Conservative Misogyny

I think it is being pointed out  that a major weapon in the conservative political arsenal has been misogyny and misogynistic attacks since (at least) 1984.  And that fact doesn't allow them to claim victimhood.

It isn't quite like a prostitute crying rape.  It's more like a misogynist crying rape.

Submitted by miteegirl on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 04:53
 

It's not about rights, it's about sincerity

It is totally disingenuous for the right to suddenly be concerned about sexism. It appears insincere and as simply a weapon being deploiyed to attack the Demcorats.

 In which case, it devalues the very real issues of sexism that many have been addressing for a long time.

 I will NOT engage in rape discussion or metaphors.

But I will say it's like the boy crying wolf.

 

 

Julie Using My Words

Submitted by RavinPictureMaven on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:09
 

I said nothing of conservative women

I spoke of the conservative blogospere- which as a whole- has never been feminist in nature. Ever. In a million years.

Some conservative women certainly are, but the conseravative blogospere- yeah...no.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:38
 

Ah I see...

Your use of the word "you" was confusing to me. I thought you were responding to Anne individually - and it appears, based on her comments that she did as well.

"where were you..." in direct response to a post by an individual, felt personal. I'm following along now and appreciate the clarification. Though I am left with more questions that I'll try and figure out how to ask later. :-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:44
 

To be fair

I was including Back Yard Conservative in my 'you'.

And a scan of her blog shows she has never spoken on sexism before, and believes Michelle Obama is the attacker, not the vicitm.

She has also spoken frequently, in mocking tones as many of us do, about the "racism vs. sexism" democrat battle and the "cult of women."

Thus my confusion with her, and many conservatives, sudden interest in sexism.

I'm sure there are some conservative women who have been fighting the good fight before Sarah Palin, however I'm not seeing it be the norm in the right side of the blogosphere.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 07:08
 

Can I get some clarification here ...

You said when McCain used it ... well it's a common expression but when Obama used it was a follow up on Palins joke?? Sounds a bit biased to me. One rule for McCain, another for Obama ey? Why couldn't it be that he was using a common expression since it's common?

Senator McCain said last yr while criticizing Hillary's health care plan and I quote "I think they put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". Senator Obama said and I quote "You can put lipstick on a pig, ...... It's still a pig." Then went further to say "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

Sounds like he's trying to make a point here using an expression, McCain used the same expression. THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND PALIN!!!

Temi

Submitted by topsyturvy86 on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 03:54
 

Why not?

Michelle started off on the attack, she doesn't need defending from me.  

I have been fighting for women for a long time.

We may disagree on how we get there, but please don't suggest conservative women are any less committed to empowering women.

Why does Sarah Palin need your defense and not Michelle?  When these sentences are put together do you not see just a little bit of a double standard?  If not can't you see how the rest of us see one?

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Submitted by Southerngirl on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 04:48
 

Brava! To both the post and

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

Submitted by stephmsdiva on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 07:05
 

Best Laugh All Morning

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?

Submitted by miteegirl on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 07:12
 

I googled "backyard conservative" and "iron
my shirt"...

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

Cool Mom Picks.com

Submitted by Mom101 on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 11:07
 

sorry

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.

Submitted by tracycoyle on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 11:29
 

Mom101 is correct. She is

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.

Submitted by miteegirl on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 12:29
 

*sigh*

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'.

 

 

Submitted by tracycoyle on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 13:36
 

:)

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.

Submitted by miteegirl on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 13:54
 

Honesty is a moral principle?

 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. 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 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.

Submitted by KiwisCanFly on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 13:00
 

Good Grief

How old am I anyway.

 I don't have to defend myself, thanks

Sarah will be out on the airwaves, you can be sure.

I am sourcing what I am talking about. This is what is burning up the blogosphere rght now. If you don't like to hear it I am very sorry. I am sorry I had to write this post. I am sorry I have to defend Sarah Palin from such slime

 I am sorry I am now being attacked personally. How nice.

Submitted by BackyardConservative on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:04
 

Asbestos big girl panties time

You comeout with an inflammatory baseless post like this, it is going to get dissected and deconstructed on the merits. You can't personalize it. Its not personal. It's deconstruction and you should expect it.

Same goes for your lady Palin. We're going to dissect and deconstruct her stance on the issues, her positions, her record and he rexperience. That's not personal either.

It's also bipartisan because that river flows both ways. Have a look at the vetting Obama goes through, Biden too.

Julie Using My Words

Submitted by RavinPictureMaven on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:13
 

From Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026

I think it's important to point out Suzanne's post as well

http://www.blogher.com/pundits-ask-where-are-feminists-answer-right-here

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:32
 

I just wanted to comment

I just wanted to comment that you are obviously on the attack on behalf of Sarah, and your attack seems (from my perspective) very aggressive and judgmental (similar to what you are criticizing).  I'm saying this because you seem surprised in your last comment that you are being attacked - of course you will be attacked in return.  Such is the ugly nature of politics.  Conservatives are just as guilty of similar tactics.  Did you see Elizabeth Hasselbeck's raised eyebrow attack on Michelle Obama?

Same same same, and if you give it (for whatever reason or person you want to defend) in a harsh, blinders-on kind of way, you will most likely receive it back.

 

Submitted by madeintaiwan on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 22:44
 

I'm a liberal blogger and I'm not young and
male

I am 38 and I am a woman, a mother of two girls, and someone who doesn't share Sarah Palin's family values or her view on issues.

Regarding that lipstick on a pig quote, I'm sorry but you got that one completely wrong. The WSJ's Chozick misrepresented her statement. Please see here:

Summary: In a blog post, Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Chozick baselessly asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's statement that "[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig" "played on [Gov. Sarah] Palin's joke during the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom was lipstick." Chozick provided no evidence for this assertion, and, in fact, Obama did not mention Palin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment. Indeed, his preceding comments consisted of what he described as a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies that Obama said were no different from President Bush's.

Obama was talking about MCCAIN's POLICIES, NOT SARAH PALIN.

Read more here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026

Besides, Sarah Palin had to know that from the moment she made that pitbull joke, the door was wide open for it to backfire on her.

Welcome to the big leagues, Sarah! Hey, when you're done reading your Cliff's Notes on how to be a VP, can I borrow them? Cuz I was the Chair of a municipal commission and a Daisy Troop leader so I think that if I can just brush up on my foreign policy, tax code, budget deficit, healthcare, economics, homeland security, social security and medicare/medicaid knowledge, I might have a shot at it, too!

And so can you!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRxzYmgYb2I

Stefania Pomponi Butler


I blog:
CityMama
Kimchi Mamas
MOMocrats

Submitted by CityMama on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 23:14
 

Amy Chozick explains a lot

Amy Chozick is the reporter that wrote the article that put forth the utterly nonsensical theory that Obama is unelectable because he is too skinny. In order to come up with that issue-less line of attack she went on message boards asking people to give her quotes which she then used in her article to "prove" her point with no actual sourcing and with verbatim attack copy from the McCain campaign. The ability to paraphrase a press release doesn't make you a journalist.

And just because the blogosphere is buzzing about an attack meme promulgated by a biased reporter from an arch conservative newspaper doesn't make it fact unable to stand scrutiny. Karl Rove and his operatives working for McCain may be schooling him in the "repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it" mode of campaigning but I would hope we can have a higher level of discussion here.

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Submitted by Maria Niles on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 07:42
 

I agree with Erin on this

Where were you when the attacks were coming from all angles on Hillary?  When people were yelling "Iron my shirt!" at her speaking engagements?  When people were criticizing her competency as a politician because her husband CHEATED ON HER?

The "liberal" media (owned by Rupert Murdoch) has every right to question Palin's abilities as a candidate.  For her to close out the media (so she can go through foreign policy boot camp run by Bush acolytes), for McCain to explicitly say that she would not be answering questions, is chauvinistic.  If she's so qualified, so strong, she should be able to handle the media.  It's part of the job.  Because she was "vetted" (and I use the term loosely) so quickly, she loses time to cover her ass on her lack of knowledge.  To press her on issues is not sexist.  To ask her about why she's qualified is not sexist.  It's what should be and is done for EVERY candidate.  There's nothing special about her treatment.  

Palin is the running mate of someone who doesn't support equal pay for equal work, and Obama/Biden are the chauvinists?  Please.  Obama has dealt with personal attacks since he became a viable candidate--questioning his faith, particularly, but also his Blackness and his accomplishments (you know, his elitism).  Mindless conservatives continue to circulate spam about how he's a Muslim terrorist.

As far as Obama's comment.  It's a colloquialism.  Which he followed immediately with another colloquialism.   Seriously.  Bring on the Biden/Palin debates.  Someone should Taboo-buzz her every time she changes a topic or evades talking about anything real.  I'm going to invent a drinking game to go along with it.  I'm going to need it.

Submitted by KBestOliver on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 03:18
 

Of course "a pig in lipstick" is an old-South
sexist statement

 I'm left of left, and have plenty of old skool feminist street cred, including 15 years of full-time DV and SV advocacy plus work in government, electoral politics--and I've written scores of talking points. 

 All of that said, I'm throwing out a few thoughts--

The very fact that the Right has been able to co-opt feminist principles when speaking against attacks on Palin is sign of the success of feminism as a philosophy but a failure of feminism as a political movement.  Feminism is/was both.  The Right usually doesn't fall in line with feminism's political goals, but can embrace the philosophy of feminism, of course, and they do at times.  We also need to remember that the Right does not always equal Christian.

We can't say that the Right can't call sexism because they didn't speak out to defend Clinton.  That doesn't make sense. 

I adore Obama, but his "pig in lipstick" comment, intended or not, is certainly sexist, and especially so in the Palin context.  Many colloquial statements are sexist and racist, and we ask enlightened people not to use them. Using "pig in lipstick" is meant to conjure an image of an ugly woman with a facade of beauty, and in doing so has the intent to demean the subject by equating it with an ugly woman, the worst of the worst.  Saying it's an old saying would not be an acceptable excuse for using an old racist statement, either.

I very much doubt that the statement was used without knowing that it would reference Palin's lipstick remark.  In political writing, Palin asserted ownership of the idea of putting lipstick on power, and Obama tried to win it back by demeaning the context.  His comment was too obvious and too clumbsy, and he tripped over it.  Oh well. It happens.  The "hats off to her" for managing five kids was also a passive dig to suggest she already has her hands full.  Subtle but certainly there, and I promise you five people hashed that statement out for an hour before he said it. That's how campaigns work. I would wager that we'll see a little more, mostly from Biden, as they attempt to disarm and anger Palin to get her to show her true colors. She'll be running her own game.

If the Right wants to call him out on it, go for it.  It's truly not a deal breaker for anyone, and it will pass, which they know.  At heart, it's great the Right has a reason to call out sexism.  It truly is.

I can't wait for the debates.

Deb

www.debontherocks.com

blog

www.3smartgirlz.com

consulting

Submitted by debontherocks on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 04:55
 

Thank you Deb

Your comment made my morning. Agree completely on all points.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:47
 

Full of win

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

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Submitted by Liz Rizzo on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 11:19
 

Over-reaction distorting the real

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

Submitted by KiwisCanFly on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 12:15
 

"I adore Obama, but his "pig

"I adore Obama, but his "pig in lipstick" comment, intended or not,
is certainly sexist, and especially so in the Palin context.  Many
colloquial statements are sexist and racist, and we ask enlightened
people not to use them. Using "pig in lipstick" is meant to conjure an
image of an ugly woman with a facade of beauty, and in doing so has the
intent to demean the subject by equating it with an ugly woman, the
worst of the worst.  Saying it's an old saying would not be an
acceptable excuse for using an old racist statement, either."

I'll believe that this particular phrase is sexist only when pigs fly. 

Get over it, people. This phrase is common as dirt and is meant exactly as said: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

And all this conversation has done, is fall for the trap--hook, line, and sinker--of focusing on the people and not the issues. Why? Because if we focused on the issues, McCain/Palin would lose. 

Ohmigod, I used a fishing metaphor. Palin fishes. I must be sexist.

 

Submitted by shelleyp on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 05:11
 

Thanks

Thanks Shelly P I think we all needed that little dose of reality. 

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Submitted by Southerngirl on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 05:16
 

What a disappointing and ignorant article

Wow, of all the REALLY overt examples of sexism out there, you pick a big fat nonevent nonsexist thing to write about?

Hey this article is a huge case of you can put lipstickon a pig and still it's a pig.

Let me try to steer this back to reality:

1. That's not even sexist, not even in origin and anyway McCain himself used it when referring to HRC's health plan last October. Did he mean it in a sexist way? if so, that's McCain's problem, sexism. And if we want to get into sexism? McCain LOSES BIG TIME on his VOTING RECORD.2. Obama clearly used it in a cliche "a rose is a rose by any other name" way. Here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/animal/main4433795.shtml3. Not to mention, that is the name of Torie Clark's book---you know THE LADY WHO WORKS ON MCCAIN'S CAMPAIGN!!! She's a PR consultant and was Rumsfeld's Asst Sec of Defense for Public Affairs. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_ClarkeYou want to talk sexism? How about McCain calling Chelsea Clinton so ugly she's the child of Reno and HRC, or offering hs wife for a wet t-shirt contest or the CLINCHER the C word.I'm a woman and I know who the real sexist is and it's not Obama.I also know who the REAL agent of NEEDED change is and that IS Obama. I also know who the REAL friend to women is and that is also OBAMA.

Julie Using My Words

Submitted by RavinPictureMaven on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:00
 

Dude...

No one is attacking you personally. They're making arguments in response to your argument. It's about as fair and civilized as one can get in this climate. You made a point and now there are counterpoints. You don't *have* to defend yourself but when you make such inflammatory statements then you should be prepared to answer them.

I'm assuming you wrote this to start a discussion and now one is being had and now you're all "But wait! Back off of me! I don't have to defend my position". That makes absolutely zero sense. What you said was valid - a little harsh and angry, but whatever since I write harsh and angry stuff all the time - and what others are saying is valid as well.

Don't start a conversation and then walk away mid sentence...

Heather B. Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance

Submitted by HeatherB on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:23
 

He wasn't talking about her ...

... her was talking about the Bush administration and how McCain is trying to convince us that more of the same will somehow be a "change." At least let's be honest about what they're talking about.

Submitted by PunditMom on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:34
 

Oh the spin !!!!

Oh the spin !!! You conservatives !!! Obama calling Palin a pig ??? Are you kidding me ? You are trying to run down the clock so that the flock that is drooling over Mrs. Palin right now will not realize until after Nov. 4th that she has no game, no grasp of the issues, no VP qualifications, no nothing. We (the independent thinkers) will not be fooled. We will keep at it (and you too) until Palin is exposed for what she is..and is not. We truly do want and deserve CHANGE. You keep spinning, eventually you will get dizzy. In the meantime be prepared to be attacked.

Submitted by BrownImani on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 06:36
 

"liberal mainstream media"?

Couldn't grant the ideas here credibility once I saw this whopper: "we conservatives are used to being given the back of mainstream media's hand."

Would that be before or after Faux News is done kissing the Bush administration's feet by printing White House talking points verbatim, and right-wingers Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan bloviate on those same mainstream media channels? Do I even need to go into the "barbecue media" journos that McCain once called his base?

Besides, as many have pointed out earlier, Obama was talking about McCain being the lipstick-wearing pig, not Palin.

Cynematic

Submitted by cynematic on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 07:47
 

Shame on me, shame on you?

I just found this site, and upon reading the comments, felt a little shamed that I commented negatively on Obama's comments.  And I went off into a corner to consider the comments here.

First, as a conservative blogger, I didn't 'defend' Hillary because, well, why do I need to defend her?  Is she not a woman capable of defending herself?  Did she not want to play in the big leagues? And if some little ratdog wants to snipe at her heels in their play yard, well, so be it.  Just because a woman is being called names or treated unfairly does not mean all women must come to her rescue - and having not done so, does not disqualify anyone from raising the issue in another situation or context.

I didn't defend Palin, I just stated that Obama's comments were clearly directed at her.  She is capable of defending herself.  I also asked where those that complained about Hillary's treatment, were now?  If the issue is sexism - not politics per se - then those that complained about it towards Hillary should be doing so again.  However, it is clear that Obama is NOT being labeled sexist by the left - they are 1) saying that McCain has done it too; 2) Hillary had to deal with it too; 3) that is not what he meant; 4) don't complain about it now, you didn't before....

Politics is about getting your positions heard, and hopefully if elected, implemented.  It has never been a polite gathering of intelligent people - it has been a knockdown, dragged out, mud slinging, hate mongering riot, last one standing wins, series of events...that everyone tries to put lipstick on.  If you don't like personal attacks, stay out of politics - because, from the left or the right, that appears to be the only ones people care about or listen to.

Submitted by tracycoyle on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 08:01
 

Could someone please make a

Could someone please make a list of rules....

I don't know it would have been nicer if Obama said "You can dress her up..."  But wait that is sexist.  Well maybe "People in glass houses.." well why make fun of people in glass houses don't they have rights too?  

Politicians are just a bunch of "Clucking hens"  Gawd, Hens have feelings too.  

well maybe it is just a case of "Birds of a feather..."

Okay I am campaigning NO METAPHORS 2008! Screw free speech!

~Susan                                                                                                                   

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

Submitted by lilmommythatcould on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 09:57
 

You used the word "screw".

You used the word "screw". Men "screw". That's a sexist word

I'm telling Mom on you.

Submitted by shelleyp on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:52
 

The Media is attacking a candidate personally

They are supposed to be unbiased. The blogosphere no. But they have gone way beyond what anyone even did to Hillary. You can deny it all you like but the sources are linked. They examples are there. And they are blatant.

And Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and so did his audience. Words mean things. Barack Obama is a master at words. 

And conservatives have been trashed for years, all conservatives, not just women.  Now women are getting the same treatment from the elite media, when their hegemony and know what's best for us world view is threatened.

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted by BackyardConservative on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:07
123next ›last »