No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on “Hannity” in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women…

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers’ post is well worth your time – there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? “Babydoll” clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is “profoundly stupid” and a “dolt”? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is “profoundly stupid,” Mr. Matthews? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Gov. Palin.

Bernie Goldberg discussed Obama’s Fall from the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” recently, based on research he conducted for his book of the same title Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and evidenced by recent statements from prominent members of the media:

Gee – is it possible that some folks are really starting to get what we were trying to tell them (and for which we were roundly dismissed with charges of racism, sour grapes, and much worse)? Even some folks in Hollywood are getting it now:

Here’s the thing, Gene – maybe if you had actually done some homework, maybe looked at the local Chicago papers, or thought to yourself, “huh – I wonder why we can’t see Obama’s transcripts, or medical records, or any paperwork at all from his time in IL?” Or even, “why did Obama have to get everyone thrown off the ballot to win his IL seat?” Or how about, “Why did Obama’s team expose the sealed divorce records of both front-runners for the US Senate seat?” Or maybe, just maybe, THIS question: “Why is this guy running after being in the U.S. Senate for 143 days?” Maybe then you wouldn’t have wasted your vote, and be regretting it now.

I have to say, I LOVE Jane Lynch, so I was thrilled to see that she got it. I have tried and tried and TRIED to tell my Obot-loving family that Obama does NOT support same-sex marriage, just the same as the woman they love to hate, Sarah Palin.

While I am speaking of Obama, SC Gov.-Elect Haley was on Greta discussing Obamacare the other night (and thanks to fellow writer, Eastan, for alerting me to her appearance):

Yep – she’s going to be representing our state, and I have to say, I am glad of it.

Anywho – so some in the media continue to wake up (others, not so much – three words, Olbermann and Maddow), but there are signs of life now among not just the media, but the Hollywood cheerleaders, too.

Okay, so NOW do I get to do my “Told You So” dance? Hmm – that wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season, so how about this: Welcome. We have been waiting for you.

Breaking News: As of this writing, the Senate has voted to allow DADT to advance. Finally. I knew this was going to happen – it would be left until right before the new Congress came in. But it appears DADT will finally be repealed, thank heavens (and no real thanks to Obama – if anyone should be thanked for this, it is Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has pushed for repeal tirelessly). A final vote should be forthcoming this weekend, but it looks good for repeal!

The Courage Campaign has highlighted an important aspect of DADT repeal about which you may not have heard. This from an email I received today:

Here’s the skinny: the Senate vote was the last legislative obstacle. Now the bill will head to President Obama’s desk for his signature. But even after the President signs this law, no one can serve openly. Certification is first required from the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense. It’s part of a backroom deal cut months ago, and it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen how the Administration has dragged their feet over the past two years on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. We can’t let that happen again.

It is not a done deal yet. We must keep the Administration’s feet to the fire on this issue so that all Americans who wish to serve may serve.

I came across an article recently that confirmed what many of us have suspected: the media helps shape opinions on female political candidates. Anyone who has heard the stories about Nikki Haley’s alleged affairs (proven false as her released emails demonstrate, though you rarely hear that), or the alleged one night stand with Christine O’Donnell, which turned out to be hogwash (sexist, misogynistic hogwash at that, so much so that even N.O.W. felt compelled to defend her), or Meg Whitman being called a whore by her competitor’s aide, know of what I speak.

That is to say, the focus seems to be less on their actual political positions than airing unsubstantiated claims, usually of a sexual nature or involving a sexist characterization. That distinction was highlighted in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece, “Ending the ‘Hot Or Not’ Factor For Nikki Haley And Female Candidates.” The authors of this piece, Swanee Hunt and Kerry Healey are mighty powerful women in their own right, the former being an Ambassador to Austria, the latter the former Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts. They know what it is like to be a woman in the political world.

Their commentary is based on the results of a recent survey by the Lake Survey Partners. The entire piece is well worth your time, and I encourage you to read it. Some of the highlights follow:

American women hold twelve percent of governor’s seats and make up seventeen percent of Congress. If these numbers sound low, that’s because they are. The United States ranks a stunning 85 in the world in women’s parliamentary representation. No matter which side of the aisle prevails in the upcoming mid-term elections, both sides can agree the US needs to draw on one hundred percent of its citizens’ talents to meet our huge challenges.

Many factors contribute to the gender gap in political leadership, but a recent study sponsored by the new “Name It. Change It.” campaign highlights the key role of sexism in the media’s treatment of female candidates. This sexism acts both to deter women from running for office and also decreases their chances of success when they do throw their hats in the ring.

[...]

In the past few months, the experiences of South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R), Representative Betty Sutton (D) of Ohio, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan have demonstrated how women of all parties and branches of government get slammed by the same denigrating treatment. Despite differences in backgrounds, careers, and ideologies, as they’ve traveled the road of women in public life, their journeys – a congressional seat, a gubernatorial nomination, and the highest bench in the land – have been regrettably similar.

As the piece goes on to say, these women, despite the odds stacked against them by numerous media outlets, persevered. Nikki Haley not only won the primary, but she just received the endorsement of the Post and Courier, Charleston’s newspaper. Haley is no flash in the pan, after all – she has served in the SC House since 2004, and has a tremendous amount of experience preceding her time there. Though one would be hard-pressed to know much more about her than the allegations of infidelity.

Back to the Christian Science Monitor piece:

Now that we know the real and lasting damage to public discourse and political representation caused by offhand sexist remarks in the media, we all have a duty to push back.

Sexist commentary isn’t a harmless joke. Just last week, Boston radio station WRKO plumbed new depths when it stood by a producer’s mocking “endorsement” of Karyn Polito’s campaign for state treasurer that included an obscene comment about her body. That kind of endorsement hurts, not helps, and now we have the research to prove it. In the past two weeks, “Name It. Change It.” has called for public response to this and 12 similar sexist attacks on Republican, Democrat, and Green Rainbow candidates. As a result, WRKO was flooded with calls protesting the producer’s outburst.

Every election day, we two travel to the polls to cancel each other’s votes. But we, and millions like us, must stand together and “name it” until media outlets “change it.”

Amen to that. If you want to make a difference fighting sexism in the media, just click here: “Name It. Change It.”

And don’t forget to vote. One of the other important pieces highlighted by Hunt and Healey was this:

[snip] This makes voters less likely to cast a vote for female candidates who have been the subject of media assaults that target their gender or their sexuality. [snip]

Let’s not allow the media to make our decisions for us. If you have questions about a candidate’s position, don’t rely on the media’s interpretation of their policies. Go to the candidates’ websites and look for yourselves.

We must hold the media accountable for how they present information to us. In the case of women, we cannot allow them to present the candidates solely in terms of their gender, or their sexuality.

But it isn’t just in terms of gender that we must keep an eye on the very institution charged with bringing us the news we need to be informed citizens. As we know, the JournoList gang kept important information that was likely detrimental to Obama from being published, specifically related to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In addition, they targeted Sarah Palin once she gave her acceptance speech, realizing that she was a force with which to be reckoned.

Well, the media is at it again, and interestingly, still in Alaska. It turns out that a CBS affiliate tried to craft – check that- create negative stories against Joe Miller, particularly hoping to find anyone who supported him that may be a sex offender. Wanna know how the Miller camp found this out? The “journalists” left a message on a Miller campaign worker’s cellphone. No, I am not making this up! They were talking about how to gin up a story on Miller, preferably one that involved a child molester. Naturally, the general manager for the affiliate, KTVA, Jerry Bever, came up with a whole bunch of hooey about how yeah, there’s this recording and all, but, um, well, uh, everyone is just misunderstanding what they are saying. Yeah. Right. That’s the problem. Because how could anyone think for one second that’s what these “reporters” mean when they were saying this:

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something…
[Laughter]
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester?
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person…
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.

Wow. This is a CBS affiliate. As in, they are using OUR airwaves for this kind of rumor mongering.

Sarah Palin is mighty fired up about this whole Miller thing, as one might expect. I believe she used the term, “corrupt bastards” to describe what they attempted to do to Miller. Given Palin’s own experiences with the press making crap up about her and reporting it as fact, she makes the case for Hunt and Healey. Here she is on Greta Van Susteran discussing the state of journalism in general:

Unfortunately, we cannot have a “Do-Over” before the upcoming election, but we can, we must, demand a Fourth Estate that is reporting, not creating news. We must demand that journalists are not just reporting the pieces that helps their favorite politicians, or conversely, not reporting information that would harm their faves. We must demand that they stop framing women politicians on the basis of their sexuality, and/or gender. They must stop with their sexist and demeaning attempts to tear down women in politics. In short, they must return to being reporters, to journalists in the truest sense of the term. We have our eye on them…

UPDATE: This just out: “Producers Involved In Alaska ‘Phonegate’ Fired.” The article stated that: [snip] KTVA’s General Manager released this statement on the station’s web site:

“KTVA today released findings of its internal assessment of allegations that the “news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussed creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller,” as alleged by the Miller campaign. KTVA states that its review included multiple staff interviews, a review of that day’s actual news coverage and a forensic transcript of the recorded audio conversation. [snip] (Read the rest here.)

Wow, how about that?

No, not Election Day, though yeah, that’s right around the corner (thank heavens). No, I mean my very last visit with my Physical Therapist. YAY!!! And he came about an hour earlier than usual, too, so that was good. Oh, what a relief. Not that I am done with physical therapy, not by a long shot. That is a lifelong event for me. But I no longer have to deal with Rico Suave (as he sees himself) on a regular basis. And no more political discussions with him, either.

Or so I thought. I had already been doing physical therapy exercises for about 1 1/2 hrs before Mr. Suave showed up, and then he had me do some more exercises. Our time together generally culminated in a walk up and down my (long)driveway, and this visit was no different. I was so relieved, having noticed he already had his glasses with him, and his clipboard, so clearly, he was going to leave as soon as we got back to his car.

Except we started talking about the state of education on the walk, and by the time we got to the car, he said,”Yeah, I wanted to mention something just a little bit political.” He then launched into his impressions of Nikki Haley, going on and on about her platform, though he threw in a dig about Sarah Palin saying that at least Nikki Haley is more eloquent than Palin. I told him that Palin really didn’t say she could see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, and mentioned that Palin’s dad was a teacher. That was all I could get out before he brushed it off, didn’t want to hear anything else (because really, why – he had already decided she was a moron, so why listen to anything that might contradict that?).

So, he talked on and on about what Haley wants, and when he took a breath, I said, “Well, what about Vincent Sheheen? What’s HIS platform?” His response? “I don’t really know, but, well, um, uh, probably neither one of them will be all that good” (or words close to that effect). Uh huh. And back to Haley. He made a point of watching Haley, looking for anything he could criticize (that she wants to cut taxes is one of the things on which he focused since SC schools are so crappy). But her male competitor? What was HIS stance on taxes and education? How the hell would the PT know? He just knew he was going to try and convince me not to vote for Nikki Haley. I hadn’t said anything about her one way or the other, so ALL of his pontificating was completely unsolicited. (For the record, Vincent Sheheen has talked about tax reform after being pushed by a small business owner on the rates small businesses pay.)

Imagine my, um, delight, when Mr. PT said he would drop by if he was out this way, and was going to keep my number. Oh, joy. That’s just jake…

While I am talking about SC politics, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the platform for the Democratic candidate for US Senator, Alvin Greene. He is happily campaigning along on this platform: the recession is all Senator Jim DeMint’s fault. Huh? Now, I am no big fan of DeMint’s but honestly, I had no idea the man was that powerful. And if he is, I am going to ask him to pick my lottery numbers for me so we can get that little place down in Montserrat on which I’ve had my eye. Want to know what is REALLY surprising? That DeMint is leading him by ONLY 37%!! Really? Not, say, 100%?? That is pretty scary, if you ask me. Just in time for Halloween!

Okay, I have said some unkind things about N.O.W. recently, all deserved, IMHO (like endorsing Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman), but they have finally realized that they were supposed to represent ALL women. Yep – they have now come out and condemned an online tabloid for running an anonymous article about Christine O’Donnell, US Senate candidate in Delaware:

[snip] O’Neill said that while NOW “finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women … that does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

A bit backhanded “support,” but there you are.

Finally, I asked my good buddy, Divine Democrat, a Chicago suburg resident (who may be posting again at Bad Habit come November – YAY), about how things are playing out in IL with the two candidates running for Obama’s seat. She responded with the following (and I post this with her permission, and with a few edits for typos and space):

Well, elections in IL are always down and dirty so it’s never a surprise to us when the dirty tricks begin. I knew when Obama became President he would be bringing his dirty style politics to Washington with him and he hasn’t disappointed. The thing is, most people blamed it all on Rahm (who is a real sleezeball), but it wasn’t just Rahm, it’s Obama making the calls on the real sleezy stuff…especially if it’s sneaky and backroom style. For instance, that mess in FL with Clinton pressuring Meek to quit. On Greta Van Susteran last night, she was interviewing Crist and he said that he knew about it and that he had spoken to “someone in the White House” about it. Greta, bless her heart, tried to get him to tell who it was but he refused so she started rattling off names…but he said “no, it wasn’t him”. But the one name she didn’t mention was Obama, himself. I know it was him! That’s the way Obama works. I also know if she had mentioned Obama’s name to Crist that he would not be able to say “no” so convincingly. He’s a real sleezeball, too.

In IL, I don’t think Quinn has a chance in hell of winning the Governor race. Everywhere I go I see Brady signs. Oh..and Alexi Giannoulias will only win if the numbers are cooked (which they probably will be, I heard the dead vote will be coming out in droves). I also see Kirk signs wherever I go (although I haven’t been in the Chicago city limits since the last Sox game)…(Alexi) doesn’t look like he’s put in an honest days work in his entire life. Just like Obama, he’s had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

I can tell you this, if the Republicans do well in IL, say they take the Senator and Governor position, it won’t bode well for Rahm Emanuel when he runs for Mayor. Rahm will just be seen as another Obama lackey and Obama is not that well loved, even in IL…

I only wish Dick Durbin was up for re-election this term…I’d love to kick his ass out of office, too.

Divine Democrat made some more interesting comments about Rahm Emanuel in a follow-up email as I asked if the residency issue had been swept under the rug. She wrote:

No one in Chicago is really talking about the eligibility of Rahm, that was buried along with the rest of the corruption within the Chicago political hierarchy. I did hear something about the “Anybody but Rahm” coalition forming which first started within the City Council with aldermen who don’t want another “bully” mayor. It seems to be spreading to Latino and African American leaders. So, we’ll see, I guess. I still won’t count him out, though…I’m sure he’ll get enough Union leaders who will take a few of those aldermen to the back room for a beating…er, talking to.

Short of it is, that Rahm is not popular, but given his methods, one cannot count him out. Yep, we know all about those methods, don’t we?

Well, I’m going to stop rambling now go try and recover from my physical therapy. What is happening in your neck of the woods on the political front? I’d sure be interested to know…

UPDATE: So, not only did my PT give me a hard time about politics, with only his opinion counting, but he gave me his COLD, too! Sheesh! Talk about adding insult to injury…

Happy Halloween, folks! Just for fun, here’s a little toe-tapper for you to take your mind off my crazy PT, and the upcoming election. It’s a classic!

My physical therapist doesn’t know that I dwell in the world of politics except when recovering from major surgery (and thanks, everyone, for your support and concern. More on that below…). At my last visit with him, he brought up politics. First, he bashed Fox News, and anyone who would watch “such trash”, claiming they make up news to suit their points, not report the news. I mentioned to him that Bret Baier routinely has someone from NPR on for the discussions at the end of his show (since he mentioned he likes NPR), and that Fox routinely has Democrats on. He said they were only the wimpy ones, though, not tough ones. Hmm. So, you know, they don’t count. Like the current head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, I suppose. Okay. Whatever. Let’s find a way to not let facts influence our opinions. (I might add, before 2008, I had the same opinions about Fox, having never watched it. I believed the spiel from the DNC, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and others. But they (Fox) were the only ones who treated Hillary Clinton with a modicum of respect, especially Greta Van Susteran, so I started giving them a chance. Turns out, they are not as horrible as the Democrats made them out to be.)

Meanwhile, my PT thinks MSNBC is just fine, naturally, and really only operates to counteract the vileness that is Fox. You know, they are performing a service, see, lest people fall under the spell of that horrible Fox machine. Misogynistic rhetoric by Keith Olbermann directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Campaign was not something my PT noticed, but if there was anything, he suggested that I probably just noticed it since I am a woman. He couldn’t think of any instances in which he heard anything misogynistic from Olbermann at all.

I am not kidding. He said all of this with nary a thought that he could be making an ass of himself, or that he was being just a tad sexist his own self by minimizing my saying something was sexist because I’m a woman. (I wonder if a person of color says something is racist, does his/her saying so automatically mean they are just being too sensitive? Or is this something left more for us little ladies when we cry foul on sexism?)

That set the tone for what came next. The PT insisted that I was completely, flat out, absolutely, completely, couldn’t possibly be right, wrong when I said that that Obama stated there are 57 states, or that he said the Great Lakes are in Oregon, or that his parents were inspired to have him because of the March On Selma, even though that event occurred 4 years AFTER his birth, unless this information came solely from Fox News. You know how we women folk don’t really know nothing and all. Well, I quickly found him an article from the LA Times, “Barack Obama Wants To Be President of These 57 United States,” and asked if THAT was sufficient for him, even reading him this quote:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he’d also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, “”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.” At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

I asked him if the LA Times would suffice. His response? He would have to look it up for himself. He is sitting there, seeing the LA Times masthead on my computer, but even that was not sufficient. Yeah, whatever, dude. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge any of the above instances of Obama misspeaking, but also blew off Obama’s claim that Hillary Clinton won Kentucky because it borders Arkansas, apparently, not understanding that Kentucky borders Illinois’ Southern border. His explanation? That for the people there, at least, it was a “psychological” closeness, so it made sense they would go for Hillary Clinton. Huh?? Wow. Oh, and I mentioned to him that the MSM did not do its job vetting Obama, that had Bush or ANYONE else, said these kinds of things, they would still be talking about them. Seems maybe MSNBC didn’t provide him with as much information as he thought it did (or Jon Stewart, whom he mentioned as one of the people from whom most young people get their news). Ahem.

And you know what his immediate response was to the litany of “mistakes” Obama made? One thing – Hillary and Bosnia. Right. Her exaggeration of one story is equivalent to all of the misstatements and flat out lies of Obama’s. Gotcha.

But here’s the thing – that example cam tripping right off his tongue, but he knew NOTHING about Obama’s gaffes and lies. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

But that is just one guy. We know there are so many more who don’t notice the sexism because they are not women (according to my PT’s logic). For instance, how about California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown denying that a woman being called a whore is as bad as a racial slur? Not only did he deny it, he dismissed it out of hand. He sure does know how to win a woman over, doesn’t he?

I can make it a bit more local. Our SC Democratic nominee for the US Senate, Alvin Greene, was apparently just trying to flirt with a young woman when he showed her pornographic photos for which he has now been charged with a felony. At least that seems to be what his attorney was saying in this Washington Post article when the attorney said this:

“He was attempting to flirt with a young lady who had no interest in him,” Eleazer Carter told The Associated Press. “While the charges are very serious, I think it boils down to, when a lady turns you down, has it reached a criminal offense?”

That’s all it was, people – why is everyone making such a big deal out of it? Sheesh, c’mon, already – you little women need to stop being so sensitive.

Which is apparently what the California chapter of N.O.W. thinks in terms of calling women derogatory names. Yep – turns out they think it is A-Okay. You know what I mean – the Jerry Brown “hey, baby, being called a whore ain’t such a bad thing,” from the recent debate with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. WTH??? Add to that Alvin Greene’s “just flirting” assertion, and I just had to share this recent experience. Holy Moley.

And speaking of physical therapy. I am still pretty busy with my daily regimen of physical therapy and dealing with high levels of pain (so, um, that’s my excuse if there are any typos or anything. The PT did say this is what happens when your bone and muscle are cut. It hurts, like being hit with a police baton right on the tibia over and over 24/7 for 6 – 8 weeks. Yep, sounds about right.). I have missed our conversations, but also haven’t been in a place where I can give the time I would like to fully engage. So, thank you again, everyone, for your thoughts and prayers. It means a lot to me. I am working up to writing more regularly, I promise.

Secretary Gates, after a 45 day review, suggested the following:

Here is a list of the changes:

The rank of the person who can initiate a fact-finding inquiry or separation proceeding will be raised to a one star general or flag officer in the servicemember’s chain of command.

The rank of those who can conduct a fact-finding inquiry will be raised Lt. Col, Navy Commander or above

The rank of those authorized to separate an enlisted member to general or flag office in the servicemember’s chain of command

A revision of what constitutes credible information to begin an inquiry or separation proceeding by, for example, specifying that information provided buy third parties should be given under oath and by discouraging the use of hearsay

We will revise what constitutes a reliable upon whose word an inquiry could be initiated, with special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the servicemember

Finally certain categories of confidential information will no longer be used in support of discharges, including information provided to lawyers, clergy, and psychotherapists.

These modifications will take effect immediately. And will apply to all open and future cases

Gates also said, ”I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed the study . . . doing it hastily is very risky.”

Well, it’s a start. I don’t know why it has taken so long to make these changes in anticipation of Congress taking this up, but that’s just me.

And for more on where we go from here on Health Care, here is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) talking with Greta van Susteren:

In the midst of all of the hoopla, the fact that this is Women’s History Month has been backburnered. So, here’s one NQ regular Portia Elizabeth posted the other day:

Oh, I love that Martina McBride! Happy Women’s History Month, friends!

Update: Confused American found this McBride video, and thinks it reflects how many of us are feeling these days with Obama:

This is a Saturday Night Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

Ah, yes, right off the bat, it sets the stage, doesn’t it? Uh, yeah:

“If Sarah Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so am I!”

These words spoken by my friend Janet were true. But Janet hasn’t put herself in Palin’s position by running for office. She’s made films and renovated houses, cushioned by inherited money. And since she doesn’t have any kids, it’s hard to say what would have gotten in the way if she’d wanted to be in politics. She didn’t, though, any more than 99% of my women friends and acquaintances; she believes in cultivating one’s own garden.

Most women I’ve talked with about Palin–all certified members of either the media elite or the just plain elite–take her nomination personally. Their animus isn’t explained just by her politics; none of them hate Condoleezza Rice, though they disagree with most everything she’s done. Nor, for that matter, do they even dislike John McCain. Typically they “respect” McCain but find him too old or too erratic or simply adore Obama.

It’s as though Palin were an average girl from their boarding school class–or, frankly, from the public school down the road–who unexpectedly won a big prize. “Why not me?” is the subtext, and it’s one I’ve never heard from men talking about male politicians. Many New Yorkers hate George Bush, for instance, and say similar things about his and Palin’s lack of intellectual capability and curiosity about the wider world. But they don’t view him as a personal rival.

My friends who hate Palin are all more articulate and better educated than she is, better traveled, probably smarter, definitely more fun to talk with. But the reasons they can’t stand Palin are all wrong.

I think it is safe to say that by “elite,” the author means: sanctimonious, classist, arrogant, snobs. And I would have to say, after reading the above about the author’s friends, I guarantee you, I would rather hang out with Sarah Palin ANY DAY of the week, despite our differences on policies. At least SHE is open minded, willing to engage in dialogue, and can appreciate the differences between people without feeling compelled to put them down at every opportunity. So, yeah – despite my own educational background, or how much I have traveled, blah, blah, blah, I’d rather have a cup of coffee with Gov. Palin any day of the week, thank you very much.

Oh, but wait, you know there’s more:

It’s not so much that Palin isn’t one of our own–an Ivy League type, or an Eastern preppie, or a self-made intellectual like Rice. It’s not for the fake feminist reasons that “she’s against freedom of choice” or “she didn’t tell her daughter about birth control.” (Though there is an element of hatred for her fertility, and the fact that it hasn’t impeded her rise.) It’s not because Palin only got a passport a few years ago and doesn’t speak any foreign languages.

No, it’s because Palin makes us look like the slackers we mainly are. We’ve had our bit of success, but we’ve also spent a lot of time smelling the roses. We’ve gone back to school to get another degree, volunteered in poor countries, devoted ourselves to a sport or a hobby. We’ve not had kids, or if we have, we’ve had one or two, and we’ve had nannies paid for by our work or our husbands or our inherited money.

We not only have had passports for decades, we’ve put serious mileage on them. We’ve lived overseas or spent months wandering around Africa or India, we understand foreign people and places in ways Palin never will–and yet it’s she who could become vice president, not one of us.

Wow, even in this explanation, that these women are “slackers,” she STILL manages to put down Palin at every opportunity. It doesn’t seem like HUMILITY was one of the lessons learned “wandering around Africa and India,” or for those who “volunteered in poor countries.” I might add, nor did they seem to get a clue about their over-inflated sense of self, or how they got to where they are on the backs of other people, so yeah, let’s just go with they are “slackers. ” Just sayin’.

Ms. Marlowe continues, again in her “elite” way, to describe why certain people pursue these avenues, like Gov. Palin has:

It’s not hard to see why. The boyfriend of one of my freshman roommates at Harvard is now governor of Massachusetts–a man no less and no more qualified than many of my classmates. Why him and not us? As with Palin, it comes down to wanting it badly enough and being singleminded. It means spending a lot of time in deadly dull meetings talking about school bond issues or where to put a new off-ramp.

It means spending a lot of time in small towns where no one you know has a country place or ever will. And except at the higher reaches, politics doesn’t offer much in the way of glamour or fame. I just got my absentee ballot here in New York City, and I didn’t recognize the names of the people running for Congress. (Jerrold Nadler or Grace Lin, anyone? Nadler has been the congressman from New York’s 8th District since 1992, and Grace Lin is a 24-year-old graduate of the University of Chicago whose previous experience is as a committeewoman for a Chicago ward. While her chances of victory are nil in this district, her Web site is frighteningly sketchy on the issues.)

People who become writers and intellectuals and artists tend not to want power that badly or pursue it that obsessively, which is what makes us interesting and fun–and makes few of us household names. Success at the Palin level in politics or business takes a level of blinkered self-confidence that comes mainly to (a very few) men. A lot of the people with this quality are annoying to be around. Maybe they aren’t very happy with themselves. But it’s not a surprise that a vice presidential nominee should be one of them.

The lesson of Sarah Palin for privileged women is to try harder. And that may be the toughest one to hear. (Ann Marlowe is the author of How to Stop Time: Heroin from A to Z and The Book of Trouble: A Romance.)

Holy cow, what an incredible back-handed “compliment,” if it can even be CALLED that. Ms. Marlowe claims writers, intellectuals, and artists don’t want power? For real? They don’t want to be household names?? That’s bullshit. I’m sorry, but that just is. What writer, intellectual, or artist does NOT want for people to know about their work, to know their names?? If they didn’t care about any of that, they would all write/pain/”think” under pseudonyms or something (okay – that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point, right?). Again, she cannot stand to say anything that is just positive about Governor Palin, and let it stand at that. The essence of what she is saying is that Governor Palin worked hard to get to where she is. She IS college-educated, as was her dad, a teacher, and her mother worked as a school secretary (and go check out who some of her New England ancestors were, since Ms. Marlowe seems to be all about the East Coast). She has stood up to her own party, called them out on ethical reasons, and while she may not have spent her summers in Monaco or Martha’s Vineyard, she has done quite a bit on her own, like running for governor – and WINNING.

And Sarah Palin is a feminist, who cares more about building women up than tearing them down (talking to you, MS. Marlowe), as the following video highlights so well:

THIS is what a feminist looks like, not what the East Coast Liberal “elite” determines are feminists. No, Feminism is meant to include ALL women, whether we all agree with each other or not. One thing about which Ms. Marlowe is correct is that Governor Palin worked HARD to get to where she is, and many other women have worked as hard to get to where they are, or to keep their heads above water. Not everyone wants to be a public figure. Some just want to be able to fed, clothe, and educate their children, and cannot afford a nanny, a maid, or a chauffeur – many of them ARE the nannies, maids, and chauffeurs. I might add, since Marlowe mentioned this too, freedom of choice means just that – the right to CHOOSE. And that means a woman can choose what she wants to do with her own body. Palin CHOSE to have her Downs Syndrome child; other women might not have. But that is each and every women’s INDIVIDUAL choice. Sheesh, already!!

That is to say, when Ms. Marlowe puts down women like Palin, she is putting down a whole bunch of other women who have worked hard to be self-made women. Since Marlowe brought up “fake feminism,” I would suggest she has engaged in a bit of that herself. Feminists need not all be “elites” – the whole point of feminism is for ALL women to be self-actualized, however that looks for THEM, as I have said befoer.

Oh, and one last thing – she and her friends may be “slackers,” but I think many women will look at the videos of Governor Palin talking with with Greta van Susteren while making food for her kids’ lunch as “same-o, same-o.” In other words, the dripping disdain with which Marlowe and her friends, the self-proclaimed “elite,” seem to hold Sarah Palin is probably why many other women like her – because she reminds them of themselves. They sure aren’t slackers, either. Perhaps if Ms. Marlowe and her well-heeled, Ivy-League educated friends opened their eyes, they would see a whole bunch of women, are working their hearts out every day – probably some of their very own employees.

Wow – it seems feminism sure has a ways to go before ALL women are actually included, doesn’t it? I have to say, though, Gov. Palin sure sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton in her desire for women around the world to live lives free of abuse, and full of choices.

Here’s a little thought for Ms. Marlowe and her “slacker” ilk – maybe you should get off your collective high horse, spend more time actually LISTENING to what Sarah Palin says rather than assuming she’s some hillbilly hick because she grew up in Alaska, who somehow fell into the Governor’s Mansion, or all of the unsubstantiated rumors/diatribes about her. You might just learn something about her, and about yourselves, too. Like maybe just because people are Ivy-Leauge educated writers, intellectuals, and artists, they are not above putting people down based on zero or erroneous information to make themselves feel better about what they have/have not done with their lives. And maybe, just maybe, you can start to see women like Sarah Palin, and all women, as potential allies as opposed to potential foes. Just a thought.

But there are others who disagree with me, which is peachy keen-o by me. That’s the beauty of a democracy (such as it is at this stage). I was asked highlight the excellent comments for WHY Clinton should accept the position if offered to her, which I have done here. The comments came from one of my great readers, who also has an awesome blog of her own, BlueLyon. My comments are interspersed as well. BlueLyon had this to say (and I reprint this with her permission):

I think she’d make a super SoS and Barry would be a fool not to offer it to her. Of course, if he does offer it and she declines, we’ll never know.

I think her time in the Senate, if she stays there will be ruled by the archaic seniority rules and she’ll never get a major chairmanship. After all, she didn’t start in the Senate when she was in her 30′s (ala Biden).

Any hoo, I’d like to see her get it for one reason: I’d like to see Kerry and Richardson’s heads explode and their man-parts fall off when they get bested by “the girl.”

Okay, I gotta admit, seeing Kerry and Richardson’s “heads explode and their man-parts” falling off may well be worth it just for that. There was some back and forth with some other smart folks (including InsightAnalytical), and I finished up with, “

And BlueLyon makes some good points abt her time in the Senate…I dunno – obviously, she’ll do what she thinks is best…

To which BlueLyon said:

That’s just it. She’ll do what she thinks best. What is best for the country that is. Her political ambitions have always been about moving her agenda forward, not moving herself forward. When I think of what force she could be on the international scene, rather than having to bide her time in the Senate and waiting around for crumbs from the Big Boys’ table, I get chills.

Well, BlueLyon has a point there. I know exactly what that feels like – waiting for the crumbs that drop from the table. As a woman, as a lesbian, as a woman in ministry. One of the main reasons I left the Episcopal Church while in seminary (besides my changing theology) was the church’s reaffirmation that GLB people were allowed to come to the church, but not be ordained in it. I would have had to lie to get ordained, and that was just wrong on so many levels, it was not a real choice. Anyway, that felt a whole lot like being grateful for the crumbs that were dropped from the table. So, I totally get that.

I asked my buddy if she had seen American Girl in Italy’s excellent post, “So, Does She Have Foreign Policy Experience, or Not?“. She had, and if you haven’t, I recommend it. Naturally, she had. And she said:

…Aside from Kerry and Richardson’s reaction, would be also to see the Obots’ heads explode from the cognitive dissonance.

I have one friend in particular whose face I’d like to rub in it, if HRC is named SoS.

Yes, I’m leery of the way Obama operates. And really, this whole conversation we are all having is just tea leaf reading…

She does have a point. I like the idea of the exploding heads as a result of the cognitive dissonance after the way Obama treated Clinton, and gave tacit approval to his minions to act likewise. Then here he is, after labeling her a racist, inexperienced (compared to HIS foreign policy experience of living in Indonesia from ages 6 – 10, and traveling in Pakistan for 3 whole weeks!), or belittling her accomplishments (Annie Oakley anyone?), etc., etc., to considering her for a major position in his Administration. Wowie zowie – can’t wait to see the machinations they go through to justify THAT one!! So, there is some poetic justice there, I have to admit.

I have to say, this whole “vetting” thing is really getting to me. Now the media is saying if she doesn’t get it, it is all Bill’s fault for his international work post-presidency:

As always, Greta was the most balanced in her coverage of this issue. Generally, from what I have seen, it just looks like another opportunity for people to pile onto the Clintons, to ream them anew. Like the video in LisaB’s excellent article, “The Media Tells Stories THEY Want To Tell People They Don’t Respect,” which has these two HORRIBLE women on “Hardball,” Jennifer Donohue and Michelle Bernard who are just insane in their descriptions of Clinton, and their adoration fr Obama. When CHRIS MATTHEWS comes off as looking neutral, you KNOW you are in trouble.

If only they had ever, ever cared about vetting Obama as much as they do the husband of a potential cabinet member.

All of that is to say, yes, at this point, it is tea leaf reading, though the time is ever-drawing near. I still cannot bear the concept of Hillary Clinton carrying this guy’s water, but she will do what she thinks is right. Right for her, and right for the country, because unlike Obama, for Senator Clinton, those two are one in the same…

AND YET MORE BELOW …

What fun. Greta, you’re the best! So are you, Sarah! And so is your entire wonderful family. We’re thrilled we’ve gotten to know all of you so much better.

And, yes, this is an OPEN THREAD, so go for it!

Parts 1 and 2 are posted here. Below, Part 4:

Like many of you before this election cycle, I never watched Fox News. In my naivete, I believed they were the bad guys and MoveOn were the good guys. Boy have things changed.

I now go to Fox before any of the other MSM, and while there are several excellent reporters there, my favorite is Greta Van Susteren. Greta Wire has the real dope, the antidote to the sexism and misogyny of the others talking heads, men and women alike.

In response to Obama’s Infomercial, Greta points out that Obama is not taking questions and that there are questions that women in particular need answered:

Tomorrow night [TODAY, October 29] Senator Obama has purchased 30 minutes on television on multiple television statIons. It is disappointing that he is NOT TAKING QUESTIONS – that means he is going to miss talking about issues that might matter to YOU. Until now, I have had a question that he has not answered but he won’t do an interview with me to get the answer….but now I have another question….a new one…and I think he needs to answer this BEFORE WOMEN VOTE FOR HIM on November 4 ..and here is the question (with a few follow ups):

She asks questions that Obama has ignored through the primary and then general election.

IS IT TRUE THAT WOMEN IN YOUR SENATE OFFICE GET PAID LESS THAN THE MEN???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WOMEN IN YOUR 30 minutes tomorrow night! IF THIS IS FALSE, MAKE SURE WE KNOW AS IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO YOU.

SusanUNPC addressed this in a post in September; in addition, Obama’s inequality to women has been raised here and here and here. Greta makes her case to Obama for answers before election day in terms that all women can understand:

I have read that the women get paid 83 cents to the men’s $1.00 in your Senate office…true? or false? ….I was suspicious of the unequal pay allegations and suspected the allegation was wrong and/or politically motivated. So what did I do? I had someone on my staff crunch the numbers and it is, per our calculations 84 cents on the dollar! I am still uneasy about our number crunching. We are not accountants and this is a very important issue. What is the truth? Tell us!

As an aside, we did a similar analysis of Senator McCain’s Senate office and women get 97 cents to the men’s $1.00.

Let me tell you what I was also told by my number cruncher – which might be disturbing to women (if true.) The reason for this unequal pay for women analysis is due in part because men hold the better jobs (the important high paying jobs) in your Senate Office. This also needs to be explained. Women in other Senate Offices are the chief of staff etc and hold all sorts of important higher paying jobs than entry ones. Why don’t women hold the high paying jobs in your Senate Office? Women I know don’t accept it anymore that we can’t have important jobs. Many women not only are the breadwinners in many families but also assume extra responsibilities at home…yes, multitask..so we demand equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity…not extra..and not less.

There are many reasons I refuse to vote for Obama, but the sexism coming out of the Democratic Party is the reason I have quit the party after almost 40 years of loyalty. And the liberal women who felt justified in attacking Hillary turned their rabidity onto Palin with a bloodlust previously unimaginable.

Sarah Palin appeals to women who work hard for a living, especially women who work hard while raising a family. But as we’ve seen, the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Randy Rhodes’ comments about older white Hillary supporters, Donna Brazile’s comments about the Democratic Party not needing the white-working class, Obama calling blue-collar Pennsylvania Democrats “bitter,” and Rep. Murtha calling huge swaths of Pennsylvanians “racists,” it’s clear that the new Democratic Party, with Obama as their leader, HATES THE WHITE WORKING CLASS! Obama will not deign to answer Greta’s question because if you have to quibble over the difference between .83 and .97, you are of no interest to him. To quote Victor David Hanson again, as Reverend Amy did in her fine post:

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

This is not the Democratic Party I used to know.

Some prominent feminists — including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee — also stand up for all women (not just women whose politics they prefer):

[A] small group of high-profile feminists has lined up behind the Republican ticket. They stood on stage today at Governor Palin’s side — Linda Klinge, the former Oregon president and now current vice president of the organization NOW, Shelley Mandell, president of the LA chapter of NOW, Elaine Lafferty, former editor-in-chief of “Ms.” magazine, and Lynn Rothschild, a member of the Democratic platform committee. — From the transcript of “Behind the Feminist ‘Left’ Jabs to Palin, On The Record With Greta, October 21, 2008.” [Below the fold, you'll see a more detailed description of these women.]

All of you, especially our longtime fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton, will love the quotes below from Sarah’s spirited speech yesterday:

The ABC News blog Political Radar wrote an excellent, detailed report on Sarah Palin’s speech yesterday. “Palin Reaches Out to Women Voters, Slams Obama for Passing Over Clinton” includes a number of direct quotes from Sarah’s speech, as well as backgrounder facts and details relevant to Sarah’s remarks.

First, here’s the ABC blog’s more detailed description of the prominent feminists who stood up with Sarah on stage yesterday, which I’ve broken up into bullet points for easier reading:

Palin was joined on stage by five women who endorsed her candidacy, including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee, two leaders of chapters of the National Organization of Women, and a former editor of Ms. Magazine.

• Lynn Rothschild, a Democratic National Platform Committee member and prominent supporter of Sen. Clinton, had endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket in September, but had not appeared publicly with Palin.
• Prameela Bartholomeusz also served on the Democratic Platform Committee …
• Linda Klinge, the current vice president of the Oregon Chapter of the  National Organization for Women.
• Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, also appeared in Henderson, and had previously endorsed Palin at a public rally in Carson, CA earlier this month.

The campaign has often had former Hillary Clinton supporters introduce Palin at campaign events since her nomination [including Dr. Lynette Long, whose writings you've read at No Quarter], in an attempt to win over disaffected Clinton supporters. After introducing the women, Palin sought to dispute the idea that the Democratic ticket would easily win the female vote.

"Our opponents think that they have the women’s vote all locked up which is a little presumptuous since only our side has a woman on the ticket," Palin said to strong applause.

Here’s the lead section of Political Radar‘s story:

>ABC News’ Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: A day after Sen. Barack Obama campaigned with former Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in Florida, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin slammed him for not seriously considering Clinton to be his second-in-command, citing Obama’s decision as an example of the barriers women face in the workplace.

"When it came time for choosing, somehow Barack Obama just couldn’t bring himself to pick the woman who got 18 million votes in his primary, and that seems to be too familiar a story isn’t it?" Palin said at a rally in Henderson, NV yesterday. "How it is for so many American women that the qualifications are there, but for some reason the promotion never comes?

In stronger language than Palin has used on the campaign trail before, the comments were part of a broader attempt to sell herself as an advocate for women and working numbers at a time when Palin’s support among women has slipped dramatically in national polls since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"You’ve got to ask yourself why was Senator Hillary Clinton not even vetted by the Obama campaign?" Palin continued. "Why did it take 24 years, an entire generation from the time Geraldine Ferraro made her pioneering bid until the next time that a woman was asked to join a national ticket?"

"In the long history of our country, 74 people have held the position of President or Vice-President, and why have the major parties given America only two chances to even consider a woman for either office?" Palin asked. "This glass ceiling, it is still there, but it’s about time that we shattered that glass ceiling once and for all."

[...]

Building on her theme of equal rights for women, ABC News reports, Sarah Palin next “sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women.”

As all of you regular readers here know, Barack Obama pays female staffers far less than do John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but ABC News excuses that because Obama has more male staffers.

Palin sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women, while charging that Obama does not pay women in his Senate office at the same level as men, raising the issue as one of "fundamental fairness" that she would address as an advocate for working women.

"Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate pay roll records women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get," Palin said of Obama. "That’s 9,000 dollars less every year that he pays the guys. Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive?"

The Palin campaign cited press reports from last month and Senate records to back its claims on Obama’s pay to Senate staffers. The discrepancy, however, appears be that more top level staffers in Obama’s Senate office are men, and therefore have higher pay. The Obama campaign points to the many senior-level female staffers currently employed on the presidential campaign trial. …

Excuses, excuses.

While we’re talking about women, can anyone tell me where in the hell Michelle Obama is? Is she too assertive, too blunt, too acrimonious and divisive to be seen? Must she be kept hidden to protect her husband’s campaign?

Has Obama’s campaign “tested” the effect of Michelle Obama’s visibility versus her invisibility? Does Obama lose a point or two in the polls when she’s seen and heard?

I’m just curious. But it’s good that the Republican candidates proudly let their female candidates and partners speak.

It is notable, though, that neither Cindy McCain or Sarah Palin has ever felt compelled to mention that their husbands are “stinky” in the morning or can’t remember to put the butter away.

And I’ve never heard the husband of either woman mention, frequently, that his wife reminds him constantly how imperfect he is — like Barack Obama does. (In his speeches, Obama uses the example of Michelle’s criticisms to convey to rally crowds that he is an imperfect man, but the frequency with which he makes the reference sets off alarms for me.)

In contrast, Sarah Palin always speaks positively about her husband. In yesterday’s speech, she praised her husband’s help in allowing her the time to attain her political goals and the importance of KEY legislation that has helped women:

Palin praised her husband Todd for his support while she has pursued her political career, while saying said that federal laws need to better support working mothers — especially those in households without a father.

"I’ve been very, very blessed to have a husband who’s supported me along the way. He’s a great dad who doesn’t disappear at bath time or run from diaper duty, and I appreciate that," Palin added. "But a lot of women have it much, much harder than I’ve had it. And they need child care, which today can cost some families a third of their household budget. And they need reforms in labor laws that allow greater flexibility in the workplace, including more tele-commuting. And they need a tax code that doesn’t penalize working families."

As she has done before on the campaign trail, Palin cited the positive impact that Title IX had on her career.

"Women of my generation were allowed finally to make more of our own choices with education, with career, and I have never forgotten that we owe that opportunity to women, to feminists who came before us," Palin said. "The belief in equal opportunity is not just the cause of feminists, it’s the creed of our country — equal opportunity."

Palin said that if elected, she would seek to spread that opportunity to other women around the world, especially for those in countries facing persecution where women are "murdered in honor killings, places where women are sold like commodities in the nightmare world of the sex trade, and places where baby girls are unwelcome as a matter of state policy and their mothers are forced to have abortions."

“Now no one person, no one leader, can bring an end to all of those ills, to all of the injustices inflicting upon women,” Palin said. “But I can promise you this, if I am elected, these women, too, will have an advocate and a defender in the 47th vice president of the United States.”

We bash the MSM all the time here. While this ABC News report isn’t perfect, it is rich in detail and direct quotes, and it gave all of us who didn’t see Palin’s speech a great picture of her messages in her speech yesterday, as well as the stories of the prominent women who stood with Sarah Palin.

And I think it is notable that Sarah Palin is GROWING as a candidate. Her delivery and the construction of the thoughts behind her remarks are excellent. There’s no doubt, in my mind, that as vice president, she will grow and learn and work very, very hard to represent this nation proudly.

I’m furious at these young people, naturally. For thinking that calling the Governor of Alaska a despicable terms is not just fine, but “cool.” Every photo, they are just BEAMING with pride at how clever they are. And why? Because they know they can. Because they have seen that they can say whatever they want to about women because the DNC and the MSM have.

I’m furious that it has become acceptable this Election Season to treat women with such blatant hatred. These people are not calling Gov. Palin a “c–t” because she is a Republican, after all – they are calling her one because she is a WOMAN. They did exactly the same thing to Clinton, so no party affiliation claims will wash here. This is flat out misogyny.

I am furious that it has become more important to try to embarrass Gov. Palin with “Troopergate” than to mention that her former brother-in-law had a Domestic Violence Restraining Order , in addition to all of the OTHER issues with him (drunk driving in a patrol car, tasering his stepson, etc.). Rather, the desire to “take her down a peg” was more important than to acknowledge that this is one violent, abusive man who should not BE a law enforcement officer.

I am furious at the men and women in the Democratic Party, people in my own family with daughters of their own, standing by while their Party began a systematic attack on women – standing by and saying NOTHING. I think we all remember the youtube videos of the horrible things said about Senator Clinton this season, not just by the media (HERE’S one), but by members of CONGRESS (Cohen, Jackson, Jr., et. al). Even worse, though, were the ones who were happy that Clinton was being treated like this because it meant their candidate was going to be the nominee (despite Clinton continuing to win big state after big state after big state). Evidently, they didn’t care WHAT it took to get Obama there – attack Clinton for being a woman, steal votes, and claim RACISM every time anyone tried to ask a question of their candidate. If they had supported their candidate and spoken out about this horrible, sexist treatment, that would be one thing, but they did not. Speaker Pelosi even stated in an interview with Greta van Susteren that she had been “too busy” to notice the level of vitriol directed at Clinton, and women, this year.

I am furious that I have worked so hard for women’s equality to see it thrown away so cavalierly. All of those marches, all of those protests, all of the work, the pain, the dedication, to have it just disappear in the blink of an eye. Even worse, to have women’s organizations like NOW support the very candidate who used misogyny to get the nomination is just staggering.

I am saddened that this is the country in which my nieces and grand-nieces will be growing up, where they can be called the filthiest of names just because they are female. And my nephews and grand-nephews will grow up thinking this is perfectly acceptable behavior because in both cases, their PARENTS allowed this to happen. (And for my family who work in universities, go look at those kids in the photos and tell me they are not college-aged kids. These are the people YOU are teaching, and look at what they think is acceptable political discourse.) I wanted better for them than what I had to deal with growing up. Now it seems that they will have it at least as hard – they may have more employment opportunities, but they will know they are not held in the same regard as men. They will know they are considered less than, not as good as, just sex objects for, men.

Honestly, I am alternating between raging at what my former Party has become, that so many people in my life will support it anyway, and weeping for what is happening to women in this country. This is not what I wanted for my nieces and grand-nieces, my sister and cousins, my mother, my aunts, myself. This is not what I expect from my country. It bears repeating: THEY ARE NOT WEARING THESE T-SHIRTS BECAUSE PALIN IS A REPUBLICAN BUT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

So when your daughters come home from school, and toss out the c-word, or the b-word, you can thank yourselves for supporting a party that treats women like crap. Thanks shitloads.

If, goddess forfend, Barack Obama wins (read: steals) this election, I guess he will have a record: he, along with the DNC, will have not just set back race relations fifty years, they will have set back the Women’s movement 50 years, too.