Notes from the RNC, Post 2: Palin’s grandchild is a good thing?

Posted on by

One of the more interesting takes on the whole teen pregnancy upset was given to me by Brian Weber, a 25-year-old delegate from Dodge City, Ks:

“I don’t think it’ll have an effect on elections. I think Palin’s daughter’s choice to have her baby will ring true with Americans.”

Weber says he has spoken to many delegates from many states, all of whom say this hasn’t shaken their faith in the McCain/Palin ticket; instead, Weber said, they feel this is proof that the pro-life conviction can be put into action by anyone in any sphere of life. That view is shared by James Dobson, founder of the conservative Focus on the Family. According to an NPR story, he:

“commending the Palins ‘for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances.’ He added: ‘Being a Christian does not mean you’re perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord.'”

It’s an interesting premise, a twist on the Obama-eschewed-a-high-paying-corporate-law-job-to-help-the-people or McCain-suffered-in-a-POW-camp-he-knows-the-horrors-of-war. Here it’s Palin who has chosen belief over facility (though it undoubtedly would have been much worse had the story of her teenage daughter’s abortion broke). Will she lose McCain supporters for standing by her daughter through a teen pregnancy? Probably not. Will she gain fence-sitters for sticking to her principles? It’s not clear. But in my opinion, this can’t alienate Palin from voters any more than her strange resume already might.

That’s just my opinion though.

I’ll be headed to a Ron Paul rally later today, which I hope to post about. My laptop has a virus on it, so I can’t post a picture I have of some Paulites doing their thing in front of MSNBC cameras, but I plan on posting all the pics I’ve taken so far tonight, using the hotel computer.

233 thoughts on “Notes from the RNC, Post 2: Palin’s grandchild is a good thing?”

  2. OK, I did actually watch her speech this afternoon over the web, not having had a chance to watch it live – and I’ll say that I was quite impressed with her as a person. For a speech that would have had to be written over the last few days (if one believes McCain hadn’t decided until a few days ago) – it had some very good lines, and Palin delivered them well.

    I was among the first few here to totally dismiss her, and I now think I might have to take some (or all) of that back.

    To me, the 2008 tickets now look a lot like 1988: Bush-Quayle vs Dukakis-Bentsen. (Let’s not forget that Bush Sr (like McCain) was also a Navy pilot who got shot down – by the Japanese; and that Bentsen (like Biden) was then a long-serving Senator. Palin is the female Quayle – as far as they were both chosen for being good-looking – but she sounds much smarter than he did, even before he made those famous gaffes. And Obama is like Dukakis, in that they’re both seen as ‘having funny names’, are both out of Harvard, and are each (being) seen as ‘elitist’ policy-wonks.

    However, the one thing they could never accuse Dukakis of was lack of executive experience – he was serving Governor of Massacusetts when he ran. This one charge – and from a small town mayor and Governor – is going to be hard for Obama to wish away. And while Biden and McCain mostly got along well in the Senate (so it is hard to see, for example, Biden really attacking McCain) – Bentsen and Bush had had quite a history – Bentsen having beaten Bush Sr in his Senate races, and in the Presidential campaign, could (and did) credibly attack Bush. Biden might be a street-fighter, but he’s said way too many good things about McCain (both in absolute terms and in comparing him with Obama) already.

    And right after Labor Day in 1988, just about this time in the campaign, Dukakis had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, but it evaporated and turned by Election Day, so Bush won 54% to Dukakis’ 46% of the popular vote, which translated into an Electoral College landslide of 426-111 (40-10 statewise).

    History never repeats itself exactly, of course. But something similar could happen again. My earlier dismissiveness of Palin was way off.

  3. 136 · Dr AmNonymous said

    it’s hard for me to imagine that a woman running on a rabidly anti-woman ticket the head of whom offered his wife naked to a bunch of bikers recently said ANYTHING that, in context, can be understood as “the single most dramatic feminist symbol in american history.”

    Well you got me with impeccable logic, Dr. A: How can the image of a husband holding a newborn while his wife accepts the nom to be the 3rd most powerful person in the world (Oprah, Prez, VP) be considered feminist when the end result is to forward policies that are anti-woman? Its actually anti-feminist since its obviously a ruse meant to cover a political arraignment suitable to the patriarchy. I get it.

    But why stop there? Surely we don’t have to go too far to find people who argue Obama’s sybolic speech is actually racist, since his presidency furthers the pillars of white supremacy–liberalism and capitalism lets say for the sake of argument–while appearing to break it down. Just like you cannot appease apartheid, anything short of revolution is collaboration. Feminists who believe in intersectionality, that multiple forms of oppression are interconnected, must reject Clinton; since one must challenge all forms of unjust power (capitalism, classicism, etc) to achieve any kind of liberation. To just fight one form is actually worse than fighting none, since it gives the appearance of justice and divides oppressed people so they can be conquered.

    The problem is there is actually no way to argue with these people since their arguments are self-contained. In order to engage we have to accept their presumptions—that abortion is anti-woman, that capitalism necessitates exploitation, that inequalities equal oppression and all these oppressions are interconnected–as fact in the first place. All counter-arguments are reduced to biogry, to the great moral issues that have already been resolved as evil: imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, the holocaust, fascism, and communism. Thus an anti-racist cannot support free trade, even if statistcs show his people benefiting (as thats part of the ruse too), b/c ultimately it means he supports a new form of imperialism, a new oppression. the latter assumption is of course a fact, the premise that we must accept in order to begin the “argument” about who is the real liberator (feminist) in the first place.

    The appearance of oppressed people who disagree leads to more self-containment: they are victims of hegemonic powers, of false consciousness. Thus one cannot disprove the premise…there is no way to demonstrate these hegemonic forms of oppression do not exist. In fact, it is often argued that the oppression is invisible, an infrastructure that one cannot see. The point is to raise consciousness, not debate.

  4. 13 · Harbeer Yes. 100% of all people are going to have sex (even priests and our friend Rob)

    Harbeer, No offence taken, but–what? I’m right-wing overall, yes, and you’re perfectly entitled to tease me about that, but when have I said anything anti-sex? I’m actually pro-abortion, although I’m not really into the issue, so anti-abortion types don’t trouble me as long as they’re “solid” on economic issues.

  7. 156 · RahulD said

    Now I find Obama a snob too

    I just want to know what makes Obama ‘snobbish.’ I will be glad to share why I think Ms. Palin is provincial.

  8. Well you got me with impeccable logic, Dr. A: How can the image of a husband holding a newborn while his wife accepts the nom to be the 3rd most powerful person in the world (Oprah, Prez, VP) be considered feminist when the end result is to forward policies that are anti-woman? Its actually anti-feminist since its obviously a ruse meant to cover a political arraignment suitable to the patriarchy. I get it. But why stop there? Surely we don’t have to go too far to find people who argue Obama’s sybolic speech is actually racist, since his presidency furthers the pillars of white supremacy–liberalism and capitalism lets say for the sake of argument–while appearing to break it down. Just like you cannot appease apartheid, anything short of revolution is collaboration. Feminists who believe in intersectionality, that multiple forms of oppression are interconnected, must reject Clinton; since one must challenge all forms of unjust power (capitalism, classicism, etc) to achieve any kind of liberation. To just fight one form is actually worse than fighting none, since it gives the appearance of justice and divides oppressed people so they can be conquered. The problem is there is actually no way to argue with these people since their arguments are self-contained. In order to engage we have to accept their presumptions—that abortion is anti-woman, that capitalism necessitates exploitation, that inequalities equal oppression and all these oppressions are interconnected–as fact in the first place. All counter-arguments are reduced to biogry, to the great moral issues that have already been resolved as evil: imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, the holocaust, fascism, and communism. Thus an anti-racist cannot support free trade, even if statistcs show his people benefiting (as thats part of the ruse too), b/c ultimately it means he supports a new form of imperialism, a new oppression. the latter assumption is of course a fact, the premise that we must accept in order to begin the “argument” about who is the real liberator (feminist) in the first place. The appearance of oppressed people who disagree leads to more self-containment: they are victims of hegemonic powers, of false consciousness. Thus one cannot disprove the premise…there is no way to demonstrate these hegemonic forms of oppression do not exist. In fact, it is often argued that the oppression is invisible, an infrastructure that one cannot see. The point is to raise consciousness, not debate.

    Your capacity to intentionally misconstrue what I say, divorce it out of all context, and then expound on what you have decided I said is truly breathtaking. Really. One wonders how you have the time–I got about half way through before I gave up – and not because of length (rule of thumb – a good lead will get the reader 7 paragraphs in).

    For the record – I said that in THIS context, to make a sweeping claim that ANYTHING that Palin did at the Republican convention is whatever you said it was – what was it? the most historic symbol in american feminist history? – is ridiculous. She’s not even the first woman to be nominated for vice-president by a major party – by 24 years! And her party is anti-woman, whether you want to admit it or not. it’s not just abortion, it’s not just the anti-sexuality stuff, it’s not just the war, it’s not just the culture of masculinism – it’s actually all of it put together.

    But my logic is impeccable. Thanks 😉

  9. This is what I was referring to…

    My apologies, I usually make references that I think are witty and relevant…but they are not and they usually are too cryptically obscure to get, unlike your clever handle.

    I have no need for an explanation on why Palin can be proven provincial…ty though

  10. Hey look, Manju, I found another “single most feminist symbol in American history“! Oh wait, maybe this is it. No wait, maybe it’s this! No wait, maybe it was one of these!

    Shucks. It’s just so hard. There are so many single most dramatic feminist symbols in American history that it’s difficult to choose which one to go with. Oh well – I guess you were right to go with the woman who opposes the right of women rape victims to have control over their own bodies while she betaized her husband while accepting a nomination from a political party for the vp post, something that was already done 25 years ago. Truly historic 😉

    Now I understand why Abhi has an “Evil” alter ego 😉

  11. 159 · RahulD said

    This is what I was referring to…

    RahulD, thanks for your response. I understand that Jesse Jackson was criticizing Obama for “talking down” to Black churchgoers. While I myself do not know the exact content of these remarks from Obama, the article you posted summarizes them as such:

    In such settings, Obama has urged greater emphasis on fatherhood, advised parents to choose reading books over playing video games and most recently told young students to stick with school and forget about a career as a rap star or professional basketball player.

    This advice seems wise and hardly ‘snobbish.’ One imagines it is applicable not only to Black youth, but also to the youth of the great state of Alaska, no? Young Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston would do well to heed these words. Unfortunately they missed the boat themselves, but the Lord hath given them the opportunity to make amends.

  12. Oh no, I have no problem with Barack said…I actually happen to agree with him on both that and the whole guns/religion thing (I actually use the Terror Management Theory in my academic research). But what I was pointing out is that, the whole “Obama is a snob” thing has nothing to do with Racism but more to do with the way he comes across to many people who have a different perception of him than his supporters.

    Obama to me is a morph of George Clooney, Bill Cosby, Mayor Daley, Laloo Prashad Yadav and Dick Durbin…and thats how I view him.

  13. 156 · RahulD said

    Of course she is racist, she is white…

    is this what you think? your experience as a repub seems to have really scarred you…

    Now I find Obama a snob too…does that make me white or racist?

    i don’t know, you tell me.

  16. And her party is anti-woman, whether you want to admit it or not.

    I get it. For you it comes down to this fact, which you’ve now doubled down on. Once you accept this premise your conclusions are inevitable. To give you the most simplistic formulation of this argument: its like the Nazi Party putting a Jew 2nd in command.

    But just as you’re so certain the Republican party is anti-women, some are certain the democratic party (along with the repubs) is racist, an integral part of American hegemony, and integral part of a deeply racist state, society, and ideology. I’m sure you off all people are more than familiar with such arguments. Its the reason Malcolm called Martin an “Uncle Tom.” So where does this leave Obama? It leaves him with Palin. Can you see the flaw here?

    In #138, you go even further. So certain are you in the belief that free trade, i’m sorry, “free trade” is a form of imperialism, that Warner’s rhetoric, which specifically mentions “Bangelore, India” in a derogatory tone (not to mention that anyone who follows inside baseball knows this party has no intention of reversing NAFTA, etc) ceases to be anti-Indian, b/c the net result moves the world away from neo-colonialism. The ends justify the means.

    Only the ends are subjective, and I say this as someone fairly certain in them. A woman who believes another woman cannot have an abortion even if she’s raped is misguided at best and misogynist at worst. But only an ideologue cannot see her point. If the human fetus is human that trumps all.

    I’m not certain here but perhaps feminism is not political at heart. Perhaps intersectionality is misguided. Maybe Angela Davis and Margaret Thatcher can both be feminists despite the fact that the latter’s philosophy is freedom while the formers is tyranny, or vice versa depending on your point of view. After all, feminists are so often gobsmacked that so many women don’t call themselves such. But if you’re right whats there to be so gobsmacked about? After all, at a minimum only about 50% of American women should, by your definition. Perhaps feminism is just the radical idea that women are human. So forgive me for thinking watching a man hold a newborn while his wife rises to extraordinary power was a great symbol representing how far this nation, our culture, indeed this world, has come.

    So I raise my martini glass and inhale a Virginia Slims to Gov Palin while I pull the lever for Obama… b/c if you don’t believe a woman who is raped should have the right ot terminate her pregnancy, then you can just fuck off, you great feminist you.

  17. 154 · rob said

    Harbeer, No offence taken, but–what?

    Aren’t you the guy who’s always complaining about not getting any or seeking new ways and means to get some? I’m sorry if I have mistaken you for another commenter, but whoever-that-is is charming and entertaining (and I believe s/he is making those comments tongue-in-cheek) so I didn’t mean it as a dis.

  18. A woman who believes another woman cannot have an abortion even if she’s raped is misguided at best and misogynist at worst. But only an ideologue cannot see her point. If the human fetus is human that trumps all.

    This is inaccurate. only an ideologue can reduce the transformation of a zygote to a human baby to “life.” A humanist or a rape-victim advocate or a pro-choice advocate can all equally object to her position. It’s her position that makes clear how ideological she presents herself.

    I get it. For you it comes down to this fact, which you’ve now doubled down on. Once you accept this premise your conclusions are inevitable. To give you the most simplistic formulation of this argument: its like the Nazi Party putting a Jew 2nd in command.

    Yes, in extreme form. But please don’t Godwin the discussion.

    But just as you’re so certain the Republican party is anti-women, some are certain the democratic party (along with the repubs) is racist, an integral part of American hegemony, and integral part of a deeply racist state, society, and ideology. I’m sure you off all people are more than familiar with such arguments. Its the reason Malcolm called Martin an “Uncle Tom.” So where does this leave Obama? It leaves him with Palin. Can you see the flaw here?

    Here’s the problem with your argument – one, just because something is a subjective opinion (as all statements are) – that doesn’t mean it can’t described as “more” or “less” accurate to put it really simply. This is particularly true in comparisions. It might have been more apt for me to describe the Republican Party as anti-feminist, rather than anti-women, but I identify feminism as what will fight the disempowerment of women in the aggregate – including through belief and social structures – and so the two are almost but not quite equivalent for me. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Republicans and their social base, which relies on “family values” and “Church” and the construction of hot-button issues like ‘abortion’ and ‘gay rights’ – have been a very anti-feminist force (and for me, by implicaton, anti-women).

    In #138, you go even further. So certain are you in the belief that free trade, i’m sorry, “free trade” is a form of imperialism, that Warner’s rhetoric, which specifically mentions “Bangelore, India” in a derogatory tone (not to mention that anyone who follows inside baseball knows this party has no intention of reversing NAFTA, etc) ceases to be anti-Indian, b/c the net result moves the world away from neo-colonialism. The ends justify the means.

    Ends justifying the means is an extraordinarily simple reduction of what I’m saying. It’s about taking a series of complex situations and evaluting the intents and the outcomes. When Allen or Warner or Clinton or Obama or McCain says something racist or marginally racist or prejudicial, it remains so – that doesn’t mean that the effect of their policies, the particular policy regimes they’re supporting, are or are not a path towards improvement. By which I mean that I would rather that the Democratic Party would stop engaging in xenophobic (as opposed to class-based pro-worker) rhetoric, but the fact remains that this appeals. It’s part of life in contemproary global capitalism and imperialism – as much as protecting farm subsidies in rich countries and the elites of poor countries taking part in luxury consumption and being subjected to demonstration effects.

    The reason I’m not applying equivalencies here between the Democrats and the Republicans (or more aptly between the pro-corporates, pro-rich like the DLC, Clinton, Republicans, and others and advocates of the working class like Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich) is because the social and political base of one party DROVE changes (along with a lot of other things) or exploited them (i.e. southern strategy) – though obviously any political party is not the maker of society but interacts with it (cause-effect-cause-effect-cause-effect….= subject-effect).

    I’m not certain here but perhaps feminism is not political at heart.

    Then you don’t understand feminism. advocating for women (or any group less empowered than another group or any identity less empowered than another identity) involves the psychological, the social, the emotional, and YES the political. ideas matter, as do social structures, and the ways they interact. Reducing feminism to “political” or “not political” is absurd. I’m not going to define feminism, because I’m not enough of a student of it to know enough to do so.

    Perhaps intersectionality is misguided.

    How so? And where did we start talking about it in terms of feminism? Feminism is feminism – but feminism as part of a broader social justice project is different. That’s why feminists can be racists, nationalists can (and often are) patriarchal, lgbt advocates can be racist and anti-trans, etc. It’s about “cross-cutting cleavages” to quote Partha Chatterjee (who doesn’t beleive int hem…at least where he uses the term).

    Maybe Angela Davis and Margaret Thatcher can both be feminists despite the fact that the latter’s philosophy is freedom while the formers is tyranny, or vice versa depending on your point of view.

    Sure, and maybe I can give birth, but it’s probably not true. What criteria are you using? Words like “freedom” “democracy” and “tyranny” are ways to obscure objective analysis (of subjective beliefs ;).

    After all, feminists are so often gobsmacked that so many women don’t call themselves such.

    So? Many women aren’t feminists.

    But if you’re right whats there to be so gobsmacked about? After all, at a minimum only about 50% of American women should, by your definition. Perhaps feminism is just the radical idea that women are human. So forgive me for thinking watching a man hold a newborn while his wife rises to extraordinary power was a great symbol representing how far this nation, our culture, indeed this world, has come.

    No, feminism is the radical idea that women, as agents and social beings, should be TREATED like humans. That women are humans is not feminism – it’s a statement that falls in the “definitely true though I can’t prove it” category…i.e. near objective 😉

    So I raise my martini glass and inhale a Virginia Slims to Gov Palin while I pull the lever for Obama… b/c if you don’t believe a woman who is raped should have the right ot terminate her pregnancy, then you can just fuck off, you great feminist you.

    What? Call me back after you read up on disempowerment and its social function.

  19. feminists can be racists

    Apologies to feminists – I should have said ‘blinkered feminists’ here. But it’s a debatable – a real debatable question – the extent to which intersectionality is inherently part of a political programme based on supporting, remedying, advocating, articulating, liberating one particular group.

  20. Wow, a woman who has this much flexibility is part of a campaign platform that will deny women equal opportunity at work.

    Many high-powered parents separate work and children; Ms. Palin takes a wholly different approach. “She’s the mom and the governor, and they’re not separate,” Ms. Cole said. Around the governor’s offices, it was not uncommon to get on the elevator and discover Piper, smothering her puppy with kisses. “She’ll be with Piper or Trig, then she’s got a press conference or negotiations about the natural gas pipeline or a bill to sign, and it’s all business,” Ms. Burney, who works across the hall, said. “She just says, ‘Mommy’s got to do this press conference.’ ” Ms. Palin installed a travel crib in her Anchorage office and a baby swing in her Juneau one. For much of the summer, she carried Trig in a sling as she signed bills and sat through hearings, even nursing him unseen during conference calls.

  24. 173 · IQ test said

    Meet the Republican party: Boldly pursuing racist policies in their effort to prevent invisible voter fraud.

    Are you saying blacks are the ones who get their houses foreclosed? RACIST! Are you also for millionaires with several residences voting in each of their districts? HYPOCRITE!

  26. We obama supporters must be very concerned now. McCain’s lead now appears to be sticking, his negative attacks and lies doing damage, and maddingly (is that a word?), the dems negative attacks on Palin appear to have backfired.

    Its not hard to see why. What I learned from Clinton vs Obama is that Clinton could specifically play identity politics b/c her identity base was large, while obama must avoid it, b/c his is small. That’s just political reality. On top of that, identity bases react to perceived slights that others don’t see. The symnpathy Clinon garnerd at the end was not about politics, but about dogwhistles she explointed to the hilt, by comparing her nixonian electioneering (MI and Fl) to the suffragette movement for example. Its been reported McCains advisers studied this and now their employing it quite effectively.

    As an evangelical woman from a working class backgroud, Palin simply has a huge identity base that probably thinks the immediate assumption that she’s unqualified was based on sexism, classism, and christianphobia. The fact that she knocked the cover off the ball during her speech only solidified this belief. Now it’ll be really interesting to see how the pols react to her first interview.

    Personally I think she blew it. She appeared unknowledgeable and unpresidential to me. But I’m an atheist sushi connesueur, so its hard for me to see how the heartland sees it. I personally thought Gore locked up the election after Bush appeared bumbling in the first debate only to be shocked the next morning to learn most Americans liked Bush and thought Gore obnoxious. Never saw that coming. Other politicians have survived the appearence of ignorace but will the bar be highter (or lower) for a woman? i don’t know. Will our wartime status affect things? I’ll be eagerly viewing the polls and Palins approval ratings next week.

    If American’s are concerned about Palin as commander and chief, Obama must exploit that to the hilt. Use it to attack McCain. I think he can effectively use rove’s strategy of making your opponents strength his weakness, namely his foreign policy cred and arguably his POW status. The Palin pick proves McCain relies on instinct to much to be an effective commander in chief., after all she doesn’t even know what the bush doctrine is. He’s too emotional, not deliberative enough to be prez during wartime. They are moralists who want to go to war with russin when is not in our self-interest. their strategy on Iraq was based on instinct, not analysis, that’s why we’re in a mess and haven’t caught OBL. Appeal to the other side: Use pat buchanan’s conservative opposition to the Iraq war and mccain reaction to russia’s invasion. portray them as hyper-moral and position yourself as the realist a la kissengereque realpolick. Americans respect that. I personally think he can win on foreign policy if he has the balls to use a rovian strategy. Now that the 527s have been unleashed they could use his POW days against him, perhaps sow doubt that his attempted suicide and torture made him too unstable to be commander in chief. Obama should condemn this while benefiting from it by calling mccain emotional and undiscipled. Mock mccain/bush for not capturing OBL in 7 yrs. They’re going dirty on him. Hit back hard (with plausible denial).

    At the same he needs to triangulate like Clinton. Progressives, misreading the cultural zeitgeist yet again (conservatives won’t vote for a woman! They’ll be shocked her daughter is pregnant!) are blowing it for him with their bigotry and misogyny and making him appear like a narrow minded leftist. She’s managed to garner huge sympathy from the swift boating for the cultural reasons I cited above: she had an affair, she called obama sambo, she called hillary a bitch, she wasn’t really pregant, she belongs to a radical anti-american party, she belongs to a radical religion, she should stay home with the kids, she’s not really a woman but more like a man, she was picked mainly b/c she didn’t have an abortion, etc. The progressive version of feminism, which only allows women to be feminist if they embrace a narrow leftist agenda, is misogyinsitc itself. Since it denies women full personhood. Her womanhood has been questioned repeatedly (palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.” For example) and most Americans will see this as incendiary and sexist. If Obama hits the feminists on this he effectively triangulates like bill Clinton, appears to defend Palin (something the PUMAs resent him for not doing with Clinton) and thus looks moderate himself, and most importantly neutralizes palin and the sympathy she’s garnered.

    If he follows my sage advice, he can still pull this thing off, perhaps by a considerable margin.

  27. 176 · Manju said

    We obama supporters must be very concerned now.

    Huh? From not having a dog in this fight to an ardent obama supporter recommending rovian tactics?

    Nice try, though.

  28. 177 · moralize this said

    Huh? From not having a dog in this fight to an ardent obama supporter recommending rovian tactics?

    er, isn’t the most obvious answer usually right. i went from undecided (leaning obama) to Pro-obama after considering Palin. I’ve been leaning Obama for some time now.

  29. 176 · Manju said

    The progressive version of feminism, which only allows women to be feminist if they embrace a narrow leftist agenda, is misogyinsitc itself. Since it denies women full personhood.

    No, the only thing that denies women full personhood is assuming that every woman must automatically be a feminist, and that it stretches plausibility to call Sarah Palin’s views anti-feminist. I allow Sarah Palin full personhood when I say that she benefits personally from her agenda, which goes against vast swaths of women. There is nothing remotely misogynistic about this.

    Women have the right and ability to be as anti-feminist as men. Take that, glass ceiling!

  30. the only thing that denies women full personhood is assuming that every woman must automatically be a feminist

    sure. but why are you debunking claims I never made?

    and that it stretches plausibility to call Sarah Palin’s views anti-feminist

    Well i really didn’t address this directly. you can call her anti-feminist if you like i suppose. I’d disagree but I understand what you mean since you choose to define feminism very narrowly, as opposed to an inclusive over-arching principle encompassing many political systems and agendas. I addressed questioning her womanhood, like in the quote i provided 176. for two reasons: (1) it parallels sexism by arguing biology should be destiny in regards to political beliefs and (2) its a political loser that most american women will find vitriolic and incendiary and it will garner her much sympathy…which we are clearly seeing now.

    I allow Sarah Palin full personhood when I say that she benefits personally from her agenda, which goes against vast swaths of women. There is nothing remotely misogynistic about this

    .

    Which is why no one called you misogynistic. You can certainly argue that Palin’s agenda goes against women. I would argue angela davis agenda does that too. nothng remotely misogynistic about that all.

  31. 180 · Manju said

    but I understand what you mean since you choose to define feminism very narrowly, as opposed to an inclusive over-arching principle encompassing many political systems and agendas.

    Sorry, I got lost in a blizzard of words there. But, yes, I do believe that words actually have meanings, that up isn’t down, and that black isn’t white. And that women will be worse off in a world with policies that Sarah Palin supports.

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because she will deny women recourse to the law when being discriminated against in the workplace, while herself having the flexibility to freely commingle her responsibilities.

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because she will deny women recourse to the law when being discriminated against in the workplace, while herself having the flexibility to work from home whenever she chooses to (and even billing the state for it in the garb of travel expenses!)

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because she will deny women recourse to the law when being discriminated against in the workplace, while going so far as to take her children around wherever she travels and having the state foot the bill.

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because she will deny teenagers basic knowledge about sex and health, and the burden of this falls disproportionately on disadvantaged women.

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because having deprived teenage women education about sex, she refuses to provide assistance when they face the natural consequence of unwed pregnancy, something she has the resources to address when it occured to her personally, and to her daughter.

    Sarah Palin is anti-feminist because having deprived teenage women education about sex, and further having deprived them of any assistance when they face the natural consequences, she will force them to resort to a world of backalleys and coat hangers as their last resort.

    but why are you debunking claims I never made?

    You said: The progressive version of feminism, which only allows women to be feminist if they embrace a narrow leftist agenda, is misogyinsitc itself. Since it denies women full personhood. I repeat: it does not deny women full personhood to allow them to be anti-feminist. In fact, it allows them full personhood to see that women like Palin can get very far by being anti-feminist.

  32. Sorry, I got lost in a blizzard of words there. But, yes, I do believe that words actually have meanings, that up isn’t down, and that black isn’t white. And that women will be worse off in a world with policies that Sarah Palin supports.

    well there’s the problem. you’re treating matters of opinion–that women would be worse off under palin’s policies–with the certainty one treats up/down black/white. There’s no leeway for dissent in this narrow ideology when all policy matters are treated with the degree of certainly usually reserved for the gravest moral matters of our time, like slavery.

    In other words, are dems anti-children b/c they oppose school choice? Is Obama a hypocrite for sending his kids to private schools while his party denies this for poor parents? Or do they just have competeing principles, like believing in a stronger wall of seperation between church and state?

    You said: The progressive version of feminism, which only allows women to be feminist if they embrace a narrow leftist agenda, is misogyinsitc itself. Since it denies women full personhood. I repeat: it does not deny women full personhood to allow them to be anti-feminist. In fact, it allows them full personhood to see that women like Palin can get very far by being anti-feminist.

    errr, i was only responding to your claim that “full personhood is assuming that every woman must automatically be a feminist.” a claim i never made, though i understand where you got it from: its an exaggerated strawmans interpretation of what i said. reminds me of the time, i’m pretty sure its you but u change handles a lot, you responded to my story about watching a man cry over obama’s victory b/c he was forced to recalibrate the extent of american racism, which you mocked as crying over “the end of racism.”

    you’re responding to your own strawmanish construiction of my statements and then getting your panties in a twist.

  33. @ 181…similar perceptions on treatment of blacks led Jesse Jackson to accuse Obama of being “Anti-Black”

    Palin is hardly an anti-feminist, so give it a rest and pick a battle where you don’t have to overemphasize your points by redundantly elaborating on pithy points…its very blasé.

    There is a lot of criticism I can heap on Obama, but there is no reason to get worked up. Citing Meghan to show John McCain’s alleged sexism, is ridiculous.

    Since a lot of the Dems on Sepia cannot go a week without bringing up the “Macaca” reference, lets tread familiar territory. I’m a huge fan of Webb and probably would’ve supported the Dems if Clinton ran with him…and most of you would’ve been even more rabid about the infallible Messiah if Webb ran; coz the Desi angle would’ve been positive instead of a torus-handed-compliment. Webb is a lot more sexist than McCain, and as someone who didn’t latch onto him just coz he beat the “desi-baiter” and respects him a lot…I can assure you, that the democrats are no worse than Rove and if anything Soros is the worst kind of political manipulator this is.

    YOU PEOPLE should get the hell off your high horse about the quasi-moral-superiority that the Dems have.

  35. 183 · RahulD said

    Palin is hardly an anti-feminist, so give it a rest and pick a battle where you don’t have to overemphasize your points by redundantly elaborating on pithy points…its very blasé.

    Okay, in what sense are you using the word anti-feminist? What do anti-feminists support?

    I think the concept of “feminism” is pretty much deprived of all meaning if an American politician doesn’t qualify as “anti-feminist” that has her policy positions and her stated reasons for having them. We might as well just call her desi if we’re going to throw around language this loosely.

  36. 184 · RahulD said

    183 · RahulD said
    political manipulator this is.
    worst kind of political manipulator this side of Laloo

    If you’re going to attack George Soros for “political manipulation” (as opposed to for destroying the British pound), you’re going to have to back it up. Open Society Institute is pretty f@#king great.

    Also, Laloo? How about Modi?

  38. why do only dudes debate feminism here? is that the patriarchy or has feminism won?

    well that’s not entirely true, but if you really want to know, my guess it’s the south asian patriarchalness combined with american factors (i’m queer and in somme ways genderflexible) creating a particular variant of discourse that’s not conducive to bringing feminists and/or women in. But I think it’s really not a good idea to go down the road of metadiscussion, so i’m going to stop here. not cutting you off though – just dont’ want to get into a big discussion.

    also note that most people talking about feminism are just talking about palin or the campaign – there’s very little feminist content to it. if there were feminist women here, i think they would leave pretty quickly or just tell a few people off. a lot of these points would be considered not worth responding to, i think.

  41. Whew! Obama just got delivered a game changer and should have a solid lead in the polls in a few days. There are risks to be sure–he has bush/enron like connections to fannie and freddie, McCain is on record for correctly predicted Fannie Mae’s financials were overstated and would lead to collapse while Barney Frank and Melvin Watt blocked measures to save it in committee, and Charlie Rangel is doing him no favors (can we at least get the idiot to step aside temporarily)–but these are details the American Public will probably miss in favor of the larger narrative that lax regulation as advocated by the republicans has bought us to the brink. True or false, its simple to understand. All Obama has to do now is follow the Clinton playbook.

    No need for a Rove-like challenging of McCain’s foreign policy cred now. One must be opportunistic. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to tie the price tag of the war to the current economic bust, but other than that, he needs to stay on message…its the economy stupid. As I predicted, Dem 527s (quietly unleashed by Obama) are swiftboating McCain precisely the way I said they would, but Obama should steer clear and not try to subtly gain from them by questioning McCains temperment. He doesn’t need to go there now.

    One thing that has surprised me is that Obama has successfully labeled McCain a liar. This tactic usually doesn’t work, as Dole discovered going against the Bush and Clinton lie machines. The victim usually looks like a whiner and a loser. But Obama’s got the press on his side and, more importantly, high ranking Republicans like Mitt Romney, Bill Bennet, and Karl Rove (!!!) have come to his defense by saying McCain went too far. McCains attacks may very well backfire.

    I’ve never seen that happen. I suspect, behind the scenes, they have qualms about Palin and are backstabbing McCain. Palin seems to have peaked. She hasn’t imploded but I think unprecedentedd economic uncertainty coupled with war will make Americans weary about giving her the benefit of the doubt. Obama should continue to ignore her, let the press do their job, and not appear to be pulling the strings. Her only strength is the sympathy she garners from being an evangelical woman from a working class background in a world controlled by ivy league men.

  42. Excellent article on economic performance under dems vs. repubs.

    Public will probably miss in favor of the larger narrative that lax regulation as advocated by the republicans has bought us to the brink.

    And related to that, all I have to say is hoist by their own petard! The obviously false myth that repubs are pro-business, that they have worked so hard on burnishing, is biting them squarely in the a** on this one. And McCain doesn’t mind providing helpful assists with his statements about not knowing squat about economics, his belief in the strong fundamentals of the economy yesterday as the entire financial edifice is crumbling after they played russian roulette while nobody was watching, and his chief econ adviser proclaiming that McCain isn’t fit to run a company. Of course, the real fact is also that McCain has stood squarely behind the republican party line of no regulation through his career, and as part of the Keating 5, was involved in one of the biggest scandals of the S&L fiasco in the late 80s – one of the earlier times when the Govt had to step in and take over tons of banks to avoid a giant collapse.

  43. 191 · Manju said

    One thing that has surprised me is that Obama has successfully labeled McCain a liar. This tactic usually doesn’t work, as Dole discovered going against the Bush and Clinton lie machines. The victim usually looks like a whiner and a loser.

    Maybe the press, which has been in the tank for McCain all these years thanks to his careful cultivation, is finally pissed off now that he doesn’t give them free access to his no-longer-straight-talk express, and have finally woken up with the egregious stories that are being planted about Sarah Palin (“Thanks but no thanks????”), while simultaneously denying the press any access to her, and complaining that they are not being deferential to her (which is basically an excuse to keep her hidden while intensively coaching her about the A-B-Cs).

    As I predicted, Dem 527s (quietly unleashed by Obama) are swiftboating McCain precisely

    The article claims that McCain campaign is complaining of being swiftboated by Obama. The evidence in that article makes it amply clear that this charge is about as credible as the McCain claim that Obama wanted to teach sex-ed to kindergartners.

  44. it also doesn’t hurt that some bozo with the last name de rothschild is going around calling Obama “elitist.” I haven’t seen anyone this clueless since the time Mrs Craig tried to get her husband to take migrane headache medication.

  45. Maybe the press, which has been in the tank for McCain all these years thanks to his careful cultivation, is finally pissed off now that he doesn’t give them free access to his no-longer-straight-talk express,

    the press loved mccain b/c he was a republican who took on republicans. in contrast, lieberman and zell miller got no such love. the press turning on him was quite predictable.

  46. 195 · Manju said

    the press loved mccain b/c he was a republican who took on republicans. in contrast, lieberman and zell miller got no such love. the press turning on him was quite predictable.

    oh yeah, that old chestnut. liberal media bias.

  47. The article claims that McCain campaign is complaining of being swiftboated by Obama

    well, thats the way the game is played. kerry did the same to bush re the swift boat ads. notice the timing, thats the way things are done. its all murky.

  49. 197 · Manju said

    kerry did the same to bush re the swift boat ads

    huh? swiftboating is pejorative, well, because it was completely false and vile and a smear campaign. a pac ad by itself is not “swiftboating”, at least in my opinion. and wiki seems to agree.

  50. The evidence in that article makes it amply clear that this charge is about as credible as the McCain claim that Obama wanted to teach sex-ed to kindergartners.

    I have a feeling this is what really offended Rove. To have the campaign itself, not 527s, do this was unwise and signified desperation, not unlike the Clinton campaign at the end. The old dark artist was offeneded by the incompetence and maybe wanted to distance himself from a sinking ship…knowing the backlash was coming.