Oh that is true. ;-P

Posted at September 5, 2008 4:07 PM in response to Palin Won't Be Subpoenaed on Trooper-Gate

Yeah well that's probably because Savage is a misogynist. I once heard him say:

"If you are a white male and a woman or a minority get a job over you, 9x's out of 10, they're not qualified."

I hate to think that he's right here in this VP instance, though it is sweet justice that it's coming from his own party. =-D.

Posted at September 1, 2008 11:09 AM in response to Poll: Race Remains Dead Even; Only A Third Of Women View Palin Favorably

Well to be frank, some women DO choose on gender. Especially if they're led to believe that it's a girl power moment which can easily be constructed when you have a history in a position that is positively male dominated.

I'm just calling it now that when Biden tries to take Palin to task for her $hittiness in foreign policy she'll push the gender card about how he's condescending to her because she's a woman and not because she's a delusional idiot.

What disappoints me most about the choice of Palin is that she IS being used for her gender. There's no way McCain would have picked a man with this lack of experience. It was obvious with the choice, but even more when she said: "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

This is the kind of girl power I'm afraid of. I'm a woman and I sure didn't stop when Hillary Clinton dropped out. I cheered because the guy I've been going for could finally clinch the nomination. I was never finished and I'll vote to stop this woman in part because she isn't ashamed of allowing herself to be used by the 'boys club' she claims to be fighting.

Posted at August 30, 2008 7:55 PM in response to Sarah Palin: I Love It!!!

Too late, my boyfriend was already talking (as I'm sure others have been) about the V-PILF.

Tee hee.

Posted at August 30, 2008 7:37 PM in response to Top Twelve Reasons McCain Picked Palin

"And for those who comment that this is obvious pander, how many people here talked about the Dems having a female on the ticket other than Hillary? Wouldn't that be a "pander" too?"

Granted somewhat but mostly no. The woman they were talking about having on the ticket besides Hillary Clinton would have been Sebelius, a second term governor who actually has had served in 1986 as a Kansas house state representative and and then ran as insurance commissioner.

Bottom line, the 'democrat's were talking about doing it too' line doesn't hold much (really any ground). If they had gone with Sebelius, she would have been a woman yes, but she would have been a QUALIFIED woman.

And that makes all the difference in the world between sexist appeasement and actual progress.

Posted at August 29, 2008 3:37 PM in response to Palin: some thoughtful analysis

"And for those who comment that this is obvious pander, how many people here talked about the Dems having a female on the ticket other than Hillary? Wouldn't that be a "pander" too?"

Granted somewhat but mostly no. The woman they were talking about having on the ticket besides Hillary Clinton would have been Sebelius, a second term governor who actually has had served in 1986 as a Kansas house state representative and and then ran as insurance commissioner.

Bottom line, the 'democrat's were talking about doing it too' line doesn't hold much (really any ground). If they had gone with Sebelius, she would have been a woman yes, but she would have been a QUALIFIED woman.

And that makes all the difference in the world between sexist appeasement and actual progress.

Posted at August 29, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Palin: some thoughtful analysis

Okay, there lies the loophole. I suppose it's not really a loophole, but still it seems to me if you're targeting the DIRECT opponent of Obama, even if you're not saying Obama's name in the ad, that's a bit like crossing your fingers behind your back in the promise to me. I mean sure, they could always vote third party, but really they're saying vote obama. But just not saying it.

Posted at August 19, 2008 4:04 PM in response to MoveOn Sinking $500,000 Into New Ad Linking Elizabeth Dole To McCain And Big Oil

That's alright, I completely understand that. Thanks though =-D

Posted at August 19, 2008 4:02 PM in response to MoveOn Sinking $500,000 Into New Ad Linking Elizabeth Dole To McCain And Big Oil

That's alright, I completely understand that. Thanks though =-D

Posted at August 19, 2008 4:00 PM in response to MoveOn Sinking $500,000 Into New Ad Linking Elizabeth Dole To McCain And Big Oil

Well Amelie, it's just that Obama asked them not to and they agreed to at one point.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/moveon-terminates-its-527/

Those type of attack ads I would think would be a part of that. But that's were I'm wondering. No need to be snide.

And anyway, do we really want more ads like that bullshit one with the mother and her baby 'Alex'. I personally don't like giving Bill Kristol easy comebacks like "It's unlikely that little Alex would ever go to Iraq under a McCain presidency because even at the end of two terms, he'd only be 9".

I'm more of the Jon Stewart persuasion where he says:
MoveOn.org: 10 years of making even people who agree with you cringe. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=174767&title=local-campaign-ads&byDate=true

Posted at August 19, 2008 12:57 PM in response to MoveOn Sinking $500,000 Into New Ad Linking Elizabeth Dole To McCain And Big Oil