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.

Obama refused to debate Hillary anymore during the remainder primary states (as he is doing during the general election race). She offered Obama a debate, mano e mano, no moderators. He said no! He refused a debate in North Carolina as well. Could it be because he can’t speak extemporaneously (off the cuff) ?

And what has he been saying to McCain (as he did to Hillary) about townhalls and debates, ad nauseum, no, no, no. Obama says no to a town hall in Fort Hood and offers this instead I have a schedule conflict. His schedule conflict is a vacation to Hawaii with his family. Does he stop there? No. He snubs New Oleans for the second time. Obama refuses an offer to do a townhall in a city that is still recovering from Katrina, a city that still needs help.

This from Gretawire:

Just in: I was just tipped off that New Orleans (yes, the unfortunate home of Hurricane Katrina…) invited Senator McCain and Senator Obama to do a town hall meeting cp-sponsored by New Orleans and Google. As you might imagine, with all that has happened with Katrina, New Orleans is doing all that it can to attract Presidential candidates, commerce etc to help rebuild and revitalize the area.

Senator McCain accepted the New Orleans / Google town hall meeting 6 weeks ago…and Senator Obama? Well..he just answered yesterday and he declined ….the reason? his campaign says he will agree only to do the Commission on Presidential debates….

Could it be because he can’t debate without teleprompters? Or maybe because he doesn’t know his own policies! Does he even have any of his own policies? Is he still borrowing them from Hillary? Is it because he keeps flipping and flopping everyday? What ever the reason, it isn’t a good one I am sure!

Ms. Van Susteren does an excellent job in this interview. She does not let Speaker Pelosi get by with a lot. My letter to Ms. Van Susteren in response to this interview is below:

Dear Ms. Van Susteren:

Thank you for your interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You have consistently been one of the BEST interviewers during this campaign season. I have a lot of respect for you. And I should add, I have been impressed at your willingness to allow the interviewee to actually answer your questions fully. That is a skill sorely lacking among many currently in the media.

As to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, let me say this: I am a 50 yr old, FAR left liberal, lifelong Democrat who has chosen to leave the Democratic Party after the actions of Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, the DNC elite, and the RBC of the DNC.

For Speaker Pelosi to blow off your question about the level of sexism in this campaign by saying, “well, I’m too busy being Speaker of the House, so I haven’t been able to document this…” was reprehensible. DOCUMENT it??? She was part of the PROBLEM!!

And she did not NEED to document it - it was blatantly OBVIOUS!! Since she seems incapable of acknowledging the sexism, the misogyny, with which Senator Clinton was met, perhaps this video by ShuttheFreudUp.com might give her a little clue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM Feel free to pass it along to her.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Speaker Pelosi’s derogatory comments toward Senator Clinton this Primary Season were born out of her own fear of having a woman who will show how INCAPABLE Pelosi has been by contrast. Senator Clinton works HARD on behalf of her constituents, and the American people. Her abilities, her intellect, her drive, would clearly show up Speaker Pelosi’s horrible leadership as Speaker. No doubt in my mind.

And Speaker Pelosi is wrong. Obama is NOT the nominee YET, as you reminded her - the Convention is not until the end of AUGUST!!! And his “better ideas” are ALL ones he has copied from SENATOR CLINTON!!!

Here is part two of the three-part Fox News video, with more commentary below:

Even his recent statements on gas prices are the SAME ones about which he criticized Senator CLINTON just last month!

He has NO original ideas - he is merely a copy cat, of Deval Patrick, of Chicago poltiics, and of Clinton’s policies. How many times did he say in the debates, “What she said”?? He has no firm stances, no firm policies, and certainly no NEW ideas. Seems we just went through 7 1/2 yrs of another candidate who was similar in many regards, except one - he was actually MORE experienced than Senator Obama is now, and we all thought BUSH was too inexperienced to be President! Oh, wait - Obama did take ONE stand - he voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill!!

And for Pelosi to claim that Obama is not a Washington insider with ALL of the Washington insiders who have been running his campaign is just laughable. Daschle? Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi? Dodd? Leahy? Axelrod?? The list goes on and on. Not only is he not the blank slate she pretends he is, he comes from Chicago politics, politics in which he gets elected by getting EVERYONE else off the ballot! Politics in which the Republican contender for the Senate seat mysteriously has his divorce papers unsealed, thus forcing him to drop out, and he competes against ALAN KEYES!!! A State Senator who did NOTHING on his own, having his name attached to legislation on which he did NOT work by Emil Jones, legislation he neither earned nor deserved. He is a US Senator who has done NOTHING, including not chairing his OWN subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, a Senator who has spent more time campaigning than working, a US Senator who won’t even vote on issues when he is in the BUILDING! He has NO real experience, and compared to Senator Clinton, he is SINGULARLY unqualified to be President. I will never, EVER vote for this arrogant, sexist, inexperienced man who is SORELY lacking in good judgment - his closest associates bears that out (Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Wright, Auchi, et. al).

I won’t even go into the behavior of Obama’s campaign and his supporters except to say, the vitriol he has spewed about Senator Clinton in his speeches has given rise to a tremendous amount of acting out by his followers. It has become unsafe for people to speak out against him for fear of retribution. It is hard to believe this is still the USA…And it comes from the TOP down, no doubt about it.

I won’t bore you with all of my retorts to her ridiculous responses to your excellent questions, but her response about Obama’s choice of church is absurd. People DO care about the kind of message to which he has been listening for 20 years! People DO care that he counts The Reverend Wright as family to him. People DO care about the connection between TUCC and the Nation of Islam! It is not enough that “at least he goes to church” - what KIND of church it is MATTERS!!!

Speaker Pelosi is COMPLETELY out of touch with the American people. And her behavior toward Senator Clinton will not be forgotten, OR forgiven.

Finally, the vote stealing by the RBC/DNC, voter fraud, and inaction by the DNC of numerous reports of unethical behavior at the least, and illegal activity at most, in the caucuses made it CLEAR that the DNC did not care who the people wanted, contrary to Pelosi’s constant refrain that Obama is the people’s choice.

I never thought I would see the DNC disenfranchise voters , especially after the 2000 Florida debacle, never mind STEAL votes and delegates as they did in MI, and so blatantly go against the will of the people, but that is EXACTLY what they have done. Their actions, especially the theft of actual votes and delegates from Senator Clinton TO Senator Obama, who was not even on the BALLOT in MI, have proven to me that the fix was in to shove this unqualified candidate down our throats. I am ashamed of what the Democratic Party has become. I am ashamed of how they have conducted themselves in this primary. And I am sad that the Party to which I have belonged for decades has become one of such immorality. The DNC’s candidate will get neither my money NOR my vote.

Thank you again for your outstanding work. You are a breath of fresh air in the Mainstream Media!

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
PUMA08
Just Say No Deal

Here is part three of the three-part interview:

Apparently the Obama Campaign, in their typically rude and threatening fashion, put Geraldine Ferraro’s phone number on the internet in the George Bush tradition they so naturally have embraced — so sycophants could dutifully harass her. But that backfired because, in addition to the expected Bush Obama campaign vitriol, Mrs. Ferraro also got plenty of phone calls from disgusted women who gave her an earful about exactly what they think of Barack Obama.

The only difference between Geraldine and me is I couldn’t care less if Barack Obama reached out to women now. I find him to be a dishonest vote panderer who doesn’t mean a word he ways, whether it’s to Jews, Typical White People, Women or any other voting block he disdains. I will never vote for Barack Obama and I will do my very best to make sure that everyone I know does not vote for him. For me, it’s a crusade against an incurable bigot, racist and sexist pig. Or as Geraldine put it:

“I don’t know how he gets these women who are so angry to vote for him.”

 Part 1:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFp7yqhrDs[/youtube]

Part 2:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_7_eVoxmks[/youtube]

In part two, Mr. Murtagh articulates Larry Johnson’s investigative findings about Barack Obama’s eight years of employment by William Ayers: “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”

But, since Van Susteran’s breaking news interview — and John Murtagh’s two op-eds (here and here) last week — there hasn’t been even one story, according to my regular searches of Google News, except for some blog posts. I want to know why. [Oh, that image? That's from Larry Johnson's story, "Stomp On This," showing Barack's good buddy William Ayers stomping on the American flag.]

I also want to know why Obama, who worked for Ayers for eight years as well as serving on boards with him and permitting Ayers to raise campaign funds and contribute — can limply excuse Ayers’ behavior because he, Obama, was eight years old when Ayers set his bombs but that it’s alright that — but for the grace of God — a nine-year-old boy and his family weren’t blown to bits by Ayers’ and Dohrn’s bomb.

I want to know how Obama can excuse his long associate’s statement to the New York Times on September 11, 2001 that “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

A blogger wryly noted the cruel irony of Ayers’ remarks on 9/11:

Perhaps if you had done more, William Ayers, you might have kept this person [John Murtagh] from writing [his op-eds last week]. Do you regret that?

Right on, William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn. IF ONLY YOUR BOMB HAD WORKED BETTER, John Murtagh wouldn’t have been ALIVE to write those op-eds or appear on Greta’s show.

BACKGROUND:

On Friday night, Greta Van Susteran conducted a superb, two-part interview of John Murtagh, an attorney and city councilman who was nine years old when his family was nearly murdered after Barack Obama’s pals William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn bombed his family’s home while they were all asleep.

Murtagh’s father was a New York State Supreme Court justice who was presiding over the trial of the so-called “‘Panther 21′, members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores.” The Panther 21 were “allies” of the Weather Underground so, apparently, a nine-year-old son of the judge was justifiable “collateral damage” in their revolutionary struggle.

HERE ARE MORE IRONIC observations from the blogger at RedState:

The piece really should be read in its entirety, but let me isolate two more sections. First:

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.

[snip - but read it, too]

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

The snipped portion relates how Mr. Murtagh takes personally the revelation that Ayers regrets not burning him and his family to death; said regret is no less chilling for being essentially divorced from any sort of personal animus. If you wonder why we still find the Weathermen outrageous, you should consider that it’s in large part due to the fact that (I say this not as a mental health care professional, mind you) the most public ones were and are sociopaths*. We have enough problems with hardline Islamist fantasy ideologists to be comfortable with people being comfortable with the domestic versions.

The other bit?

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

John, I frankly don’t think that he cares. On the bright side, Senator Obama will, eventually. All you need to do is get his Oregon numbers down three or four points and he’ll disavow this guy in nothing flat.

SEE MY FRIDAY NIGHT STORY — “[Action Update] Victim of Ayers and Dohrn Appears on National Television, Describes His Entire Family’s Near Murder” — for more detail and background.

You first learned about John M. Murtagh this morning in Uppity Woman’s “When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home.”

The story was based on the devastating memories of Mr. Murtagh, described in his op-ed, “Barack Obama pal is an enemy, too,” in yesterday’s New York Daily News. In 1970, Mr. Murtagh’s entire family was targeted for murder by the Weather Underground because his father was a New York State Supreme Court justice who was presiding over the trial of the so-called “‘Panther 21′, members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores.” (The Weather Underground and Black Panthers were allies in their dedication to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.)

Mr. Murtagh is “an attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies and a member of the city council in Yonkers.” It is important to note that a longer version of his op-ed is available at CityJournal.org under the title, “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”

Tonight, in a two-part interview, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteran, an attorney and host of On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, interviewed John M. Murtagh, an educated, articulate and well-informed man. Mr. Murtagh is a Republican, and isn’t involved in either Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign. It is important to note that, in part two of the interview, Mr. Murtagh refers to the findings of Larry Johnson about Barack Obama’s eight years of employment by William Ayers, reported in “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”

Part Two is below:

It is in this portion — part two — that Mr. Murtagh refers to the findings of Larry Johnson about Barack Obama’s eight years of employment by William Ayers, reported in “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”

Below is a short excerpt from Mr. Murtagh’s April 30 op-ed in the New York Daily News — which is an abbreviated version of his full op-ed at CityJournal.org, titled “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers’ Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs. …

Read all of “Barack Obama pal is an enemy, too,” the abbreviated version of “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”

:::::::::::

In “The Game of Expedience,” I posed some ETHICAL questions about Barack Obama’s associations with an unrepentant terrorist who — besides trying to MURDER an entire family — also brags about having bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, NYPD police stations, and more:

Then there is the example of William Ayers, who helped jumpstart Obama’s political career by hosting an early fundraiser in 1995, who donated to his campaigns, who served with him on a board for eight years. Then, the other day, Larry Johnson reports to us that Barack Obama was an employee of William Ayers’ foundation for EIGHT YEARS.

Obama’s excuse for his relationship with an unrepentant terrorist is that the bombings of the Pentagon and Capitol building, NYPD offices, and more all occurred when he was eight years old. But the CORE problem with “dusting off his shoulder” the issue of the relationship is that, well into their business and personal relationship — at least six to seven years or more into that relationship — William Ayers told the New York Times that he didn’t regret setting those bombs, that he wishes he’d set off more bombs, and that he feels he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists didn’t do enough.

Didn’t Obama READ that account? Hasn’t he heard about the Ayers interview? Wouldn’t such remarks — even if we were children when the violence occurred — be enough to end a relationship for you or me with someone with such a history of violence? That not only does Ayers have no regrets but he wishes he’d done more?

That’d be a deal-breaker for almost all of us, I am sure. Even if our associate had led an exemplary life since, such suggestions that violence was warranted, that more violence had been needed, and that such violence may be needed again would do it for us. But not for Obama. Because, apparently, it is not politically expedient to do so. (And I have a lot of questions about why Obama does not find it politically expedient to also disown that man as well as his terrorist wife, Bernardine Dorhn.) …

And, if you’ve not, please read Larry Johnson’s “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”

::::::::::::::::

Special thanks to V for the fast video uploads.