pageok
pageok
pageok
Estrich on Sexist Attacks on Palin and Wizbang on Lieberman.

Susan Estrich, former Dukakis campaign manager, just said on Fox that she was appalled by the attacks on Palin as "really unfair" and "really sexist."

Also at Wizbang, Lorie Byrd says that CBS attributed Lieberman's speech to cronyism and self-interest:

I tuned to CBS to hear how they would spin the speech by Joe Lieberman, former Democrat Vice Presidential candidate. Grrrr. Unbelievable. Evidently, the reason he endorsed John McCain is only because he is John McCain's close friend and if McCain wins he will get a cabinet post. Grrrrrr. Lieberman couldn't possibly think McCain was the right man for the job. He couldn't possibly think that McCain is best for the country at this time. Nope. Self interest and loyalty to a friend. That's the ticket. I thought the media line would be that Lieberman isn't really a Democrat, that he is an independent now. Lieberman went into detail about all the reasons he is supporting John McCain (war on terror, reform, history of service and delivering on what he says he will do, etc.) but the only reason Bob Schieffer could come up with is self interest. Lieberman must have done even better than I thought. The speech was very low key in contrast to Fred Thompson's, but it was very good and I suspect very effective. Hopefully Americans listened to the speech, rather than to the [Democratic Media] . . . spin.

It really is an unusual thing that the 2000 Democratic VP candidate was a main speaker at the 2008 Republican convention. It's hard to think that Lieberman would do this unless he thought that the War Against Terror (and the War in Iraq) were the most important issues facing the country and that McCain was much better on the war than Obama. This same commitment to the war -- and refusal to accept defeat by withdrawing troops by early 2008 -- is what drove him out of the Democratic Party.

I didn't see either the speech or CBS's spin. Did Schieffer really say what Byrd says he did?

I don't remember the mainstream press dismissing the Democratic keynote speakers right after they spoke by simply repeating the Democratic spin on why we should discount what we heard.

Ryan Waxx (mail):

I don't remember the mainstream press dismissing the Democratic keynote speakers right after they spoke by simply repeating the Democratic spin on why we should discount what we heard.



Do you mean "the Republican spin" in the above?
9.3.2008 2:00am
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
estrich link? bueller, bueller, anybody? bueller

(i tried to find her blog via google and failed)

also, at the byrd link the first comment i saw was:


Let's see, their VP nominee from 8 years ago is on our side now and their nominee from 4 years ago is on........never mind.


that is little painful, no?
9.3.2008 2:02am
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
Can't be worse than MSNBC -- watching Mitchell, Mathews, and Olbermann makes me wonder if William Randolph Hearst's ghost is in charge there and supporting Obama.
9.3.2008 2:12am
Arvin (mail) (www):
It really is an unusual thing that the 2000 Democratic VP candidate was a main speaker at the 2008 Republican convention. It's hard to think that Lieberman would do this unless he thought that the War Against Terror (and the War in Iraq) were the most important issues facing the country and that McCain was much better on the war than Obama. This same commitment to the war -- and refusal to accept defeat by withdrawing troops by early 2008 -- is what drove him out of the Democratic Party.

Another possibility is that he's just trying to get back at the Democrats for 2006. I'm not saying that IS why he's doing what he's doing, just that there are other political / selfish reasons for him to be endorsing McCain, besides sheer love of country. I think what "drove him out" of the Democratic Party was the fact that he lost the primary to Lamont. I doubt that if he had won the primary he would still have left the Democratic Party.
9.3.2008 2:17am
Jim Hu:
astrangerwithcandy: She was on the tube, not a blog.
9.3.2008 2:20am
LN (mail):
On how many issues do Lieberman and Palin agree?
9.3.2008 2:21am
LN (mail):
Sorry meant McCain/Palin.
9.3.2008 2:21am
Mahan Atma (mail):
"estrich link?"



Here you go.
9.3.2008 2:22am
astrangerwithcandy (mail):

astrangerwithcandy: She was on the tube, not a blog.


yeah, thanks...i am obviously not great on the reading comprehension
9.3.2008 2:24am
SP:
Gergen on CNN said essentially the same thing. I think what is so ridiculous about it is that more plausible theories (including: he's a friend of McCain, he's serious about the war on terror, and he is mad still over Ned Lamont) aren't even mentioned - just a constant talk of quid pro quo. Um, this is a risky move on Lieberman's part - it's not like McCain is ahead in the polls.

It's not that the media is biased - it's that it is biased AND stupid. Including US magazine, apparently.
9.3.2008 2:28am
TruthInAdvertising:
Turn on Fox and then you won't have to complain about media bias.
9.3.2008 2:32am
llamasex (mail) (www):
Isn't it a bit irresponsible to make this post based on another blog interpretation of a response you have yet to see?
9.3.2008 2:33am
ArtEclectic (mail):
Media bias is like judicial activism -- it's the label that gets applied to anything you don't agree with.
9.3.2008 2:35am
grackle (mail):
I am dumbfounded, dumbfounded that anyone would suggest that Joe Lieberman might be self-serving. Say it ain't so, Joe!
9.3.2008 2:36am
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I don't know about Lieberman endorsing McCain purely out of friendship. But I certainly think that it's simply a combination of his dead-end hawkishness and political opportunism.

Simply put, Lieberman was run out of the Democratic Party because he refused to join the reality-based community on Iraq and continued to pretend that all the Bush talking points about the war that were put out in 2002 were true and that the war was an unqualified success. While he was at it, he also agitated for war with Iran.

So, he faced a primary challenge that eventually forced him out of the party. He turned around and endorsed McCain-- fine, if he thinks that McCain will pursue Joe Lieberman's bloodthirsty foreign policy, I guess. But his trashing Obama (who campaigned for him in 2006 after Lieberman ASKED for his help, when many other Democrats stayed away) and his pretending that social and domestic issues on which he vehemently disagrees with McCain's current positions and has for 30 years aren't one bit relevant are pure political opportunism.

If Lieberman were an honest man, he would say "I still disagree with Bush and McCain on lots of issues, and I admire Barack Obama and am in his debt for supporting me when few Democrats did. But I think the necessity of continuing the occupation of Iraq and moving on to conquer other parts of the middle east is so central to our foreign policy that I am willing to look past my differences and endorse McCain". Lieberman, of course, is not an honest man. He is what he always was-- one of the biggest phonies in politics, and made absolutely worse by the fact that he pretends to be Mr. Morality.
9.3.2008 2:37am
PC:
Isn't it a bit irresponsible to make this post based on another blog interpretation of a response you have yet to see?


This is the internet. It would be irresponsible not to.
9.3.2008 2:40am
Mac (mail):
Lieberman is a stand up guy. Always has been. I said that even when he was a Democrat. He is a Blue Dog Democrat. Something most Democrat's used to be before they became elitist's.

I have hope that this new batch that got in in 06 are much more like Lieberman than Michael Moore. However, there is a group of MoveOn types who are actively working to get them defeated. The Democratic "tent" doesn't seem to be big enough to hold a Blue Dog anymore. I hope they waste their money. (No, I can't remember the name of the group, sorry. I know I should, but I can't. They were in the news recently)

Estrich is an honest player in the game. She can actually talk instead of just repeating talking points. I like to hear the other side when it is presented intelligently so I always listen to what she has to say.

She is a feminist and true to her convictions. She is not afraid to criticize the Democrats when she thinks the Party is going the wrong way and still be a proud Democrat. I am not surprised that she is sticking up for Palin. She is not one to ditch her beliefs in women's rights just because it is the "wrong kind" of women i.e. a Republican. Good for her.
9.3.2008 2:40am
LN (mail):
In Lindgren's previous post, he complains about a NYT article that is sourced almost entirely to various Republicans. He talks about the importance of alternative news sources (even though the info in the contrasting NRO piece is almost entirely contained in the Times article) and wonders if the NYT is just a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign (of course he wasn't suggesting that, he was just asking a completely unwarranted question).

Now he quotes Susan Estrich, highly esteemed on this blog for her statements about the Duke lacrosse case, and now is deeply troubled that CBS convention coverage that he hasn't seen about a speech he hasn't seen is simply ridiculously biased.

Is morale low or something?
9.3.2008 2:41am
astrangerwithcandy (mail):

He turned around and endorsed McCain— fine, if he thinks that McCain will pursue Joe Lieberman's bloodthirsty foreign policy, I guess.



bc i am on the west coast and assume hoosier is asleep, i am merely quoting this so that i can say - i just wanted to make sure everyone saw this. dilan, daily kos would be more your style, no?
9.3.2008 2:42am
Careless:

On how many issues do Lieberman and Palin agree?

I find this question more interesting than your intended question, but I don't want to invoke loki's law.
9.3.2008 2:52am
js5 (mail):
Leiberman also knows that McCain himself wanted to pick him, not Palin. He also knows that if Palin excuses herself, Lieberman is at the top of the list. He also knows that he has to situate himself right in the middle of it all to flow wherever the country sways on November 2nd. A bit like Tallyrand, no?
9.3.2008 2:56am
cvt:

This same commitment to the war -- and refusal to accept defeat by withdrawing troops by early 2008 -- is what drove him out of the Democratic Party.

This is sort of true in a indirect way. What drove him out of the Democratic Party were the voters in the 2006 Democratic Party Primary. But the reason they drove him out was that he was such a hawkish supporter of the war.
9.3.2008 3:05am
BGates:
Lieberman, of course, is not an honest man. He is what he always was-- one of the biggest phonies in politics
I don't think that is true, but if it were, and if I were an Obama supporter, it would trouble me that my candidate had been unable to see through "one of the biggest phonies in politics" despite serving in the Senate with him for two years.
9.3.2008 3:10am
a. depaul (mail) (www):
You think CBS was bad? Oh please, get a load of PBS:


The other thing you were saying, Jim, about, you know, reaching across the aisle. You know, Joe Lieberman's speech tonight, I think it probably can be fairly said, if he had been nominated for vice president this week, we probably would have heard maybe three-quarters of the words that we heard tonight.

That was probably large chunks of an acceptance speech that he never got to give. The reason he never got to give it, we are told, is that John McCain wanted to choose him, but his party said you can't reach across the aisle, you can't nominate a Democrat who has very differing views from many of us and from John McCain.

And so there was a great irony that here he is saying, "Let's all reach across the aisle," to a group that essentially prevented John McCain from choosing a Democrat, Lieberman, as vice president.


That's right
- Lieberman's speech is evidence that McCain is too partisan.
9.3.2008 3:11am
Grover Gardner (mail):

that is little painful, no?


What, losing Joe Lieberman to the Republicans? Like losing a hemorrhoid, if you'll pardon the expression.
9.3.2008 3:13am
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
well, losing your 2000 candidate to the opposition and your 2004 candidate bc of his mistress with love child is not exactly a promising trend. i wasn't try to make a point on that, i had to pause the video as i was watching lieberman's introduction bc i was so confused. i just had never thought about that commenter's point before. i guess maybe you could do the same for the GOP - Quayle and Cheney....neither are banging on the door of the whitehouse or at a local picnic for a scoop of potatoe salad
9.3.2008 3:18am
LN (mail):
a. depaul, it looks like the paragraph you quoted is arguing that Lieberman is too partisan for the Republican base (not McCain, who wanted to pick him), and is using the fact that he wasn't picked for VP as evidence.

The assertion that McCain is too partisan is not made in that paragraph, nor is Lieberman's speech at the convention used as evidence for that assertion.
9.3.2008 3:23am
Kevin Murphy:
A bit off topic, but I was watching CNN's "gavel-to-gavel" coverage and noted that very little of the actual convention was being shown. Most of the time it was some Democrats talking about how horrible the Republicans were, or some reporters turning over the pregnancy story one more time. Occasionally a Republican commenter would be heard, but until Bush spoke, almost nothing was seen of the actual convention. They couldn't even show videos from a direct feed, but from some odd camera angle that distorted the image.

Did they do this to the Democrats, too, or is this just a special CNN FU to the GOP?
9.3.2008 3:26am
PC:
Did they do this to the Democrats, too, or is this just a special CNN FU to the GOP?


They did it to the Dems last week too. CNN is doing "loyal opposition" or something like that.
9.3.2008 3:30am
Joe Kowalski (mail):

Did they do this to the Democrats, too, or is this just a special CNN FU to the GOP?

Not as bad, but the coverage of most of the speakers was ignored. Unless the speaker's name was Michelle, Teddy, Hillary, Bill, Joe, Al or Barack, the taking heads droned on &on over the speech about how all those Hillary supporters were still not "getting over it".
9.3.2008 3:39am
wolfefan (mail):
Hi Jim -

Often you respond to points raised in the comments to your posts, something that I as a reader deeply appreciate. One of the best parts of this blog is the engagement between the bloggers and their reading community.


I'm wondering what your response is to the questions raised by LN and llamasex above. What, specifically, was an "attack" about the NYT piece? Had you read it before criticizing it? Is LN's paraphrase of the two pieces accurate? Is all of this unfolding so rapidly and so dramatically that you must post immediate reactions without any research or reflection? Feiler Faster indeed....
9.3.2008 3:39am
DangerMouse:
I don't remember the mainstream press dismissing the Democratic keynote speakers right after they spoke...

That's because the MSM views their job as to hurt Republicans and help elect Democrats. Almost everyone in the MSM is a rabid liberal. In study after study, almost none of them attend Church on a weekly basis, none of them are pro-life, none of them voted for a Republican, none of them have a family member in the military, and none of them have ever once tried to start their own business.

You really should just shut off your TV. It's much better to get news from reputable bloggers. If you must watch the news, watch C-SPAN or Fox. CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN are all completely liberal. And this time around, with their outright boosting of Obama, it's become embarrassing to all but the left-wing. I haven't watched any of those networks in years. I don't even know what channel any of them are on. You shouldn't believe a word of what they say until it's independently confirmed by a verifiable source. If CNN reported that the sun was shining at 12 noon, I'd have to go outside to check. They're that bad.
9.3.2008 3:43am
a. depaul (mail) (www):
LN: You're right.

But do you think that the clarification legitimizes the commentary? That a reasonable critique, given the situation, is to criticize the base for being overly partisan? That I do read into it (part of it comes from having watched it live). I don't recall anyone having a VP from another party since the rules were amended 204 years ago. It does not strike me as legitimate criticism that the base is overly partisan for not wanting to do so now. They did, after all, welcome and applaud Lieberman at the convention.

Thank you for calling the error to my attention.
9.3.2008 3:58am
Grover Gardner (mail):

That's because the MSM views their job as to hurt Republicans and help elect Democrats.


And they're doing a helluva job!


I haven't watched any of those networks in years. I don't even know what channel any of them are on.


...which puts you in a perfect position to complain about how "liberal" they are.

But, of course, you don't have to watch them to know how liberal they are, because those dependable sources of real news, the blogs, tell you they are.
9.3.2008 3:58am
Mac (mail):

Leiberman also knows that McCain himself wanted to pick him, not Palin. He also knows that if Palin excuses herself, Lieberman is at the top of the list. He also knows that he has to situate himself right in the middle of it all to flow wherever the country sways on November 2nd. A bit like Tallyrand, no?


js5,

When I read this, I thought that you were, perhaps, delusional as I couldn't see how anyone who was not in McCain's or Lieberman's inner circle could possibly know this to be so true that you state it as a fact. I thought that maybe you believed yourself to be a mouse in the campaign room or else were smoking something. However, reading further, it appears you got your information from that bastion of accuracy, knowledge and fairness, PBS. You should have learned from Biden and not plagiarize without giving credit.

However, I am still clueless as to the accuracy of the claim as I doubt that PBS is in the inner circle either. However, it belittles Lieberman and McCain, so I guess it doesn't matter if it is true or not. They served Obama and that was their purpose, I imagine.

I note they did not mention that Obama has never reached across the aisle and Biden is hardly noted as anything but a partisan hack with a liberal philosophy to match Obama's. Given that Obama is talking "change" it seems a reporter may point out that Obama's choice for VP doesn't exactly represent unity or change or "reaching across the aisle". Interesting how these guys have such high standards for Republicans and no standards for Democrats.
9.3.2008 4:16am
Cornellian (mail):
It's hard to think that Lieberman would do this unless he thought that the War Against Terror (and the War in Iraq) were the most important issues facing the country and that McCain was much better on the war than Obama.

It seems to me just as plausible that Lieberman knows the Senate Democrats will throw him overboard just as soon as they increase their majority in November and don't need his vote anymore and that Lieberman is looking for any port in a storm.
9.3.2008 4:21am
Kevin Murphy:
Leiberman also knows that McCain himself wanted to pick him, not Palin. He also knows that if Palin excuses herself, Lieberman is at the top of the list. He also knows that he has to situate himself right in the middle of it all to flow wherever the country sways on November 2nd. A bit like Tallyrand, no?

1) If Palin quites before the end of the Convention, there is no guarantee that McCain gets the nomination -- I think the delegates would be REALLY angry and there's really no telling. Considering that such a cockup would hand the election to Obama and all.

2) If Obama wins, Lieberman gets his seniority zeroed, standing in line for committees behind all the Republicans. He's all in.
9.3.2008 4:28am
jgshapiro (mail):

If Obama wins, Lieberman gets his seniority zeroed, standing in line for committees behind all the Republicans. He's all in.

Lieberman will get his seniority zeroed only if the Dems get at least 60 seats, which is not very likely. Otherwise, they will not want to lose their ability to break a filibuster on issues other than national security to punish Lieberman. Absent 60 votes, if they did strip him of seniority, he would almost certainly start causcasing with the Republicans, assuming he did not just join the Republican party, so what the Dems would be doing is guaranteeing a vote against them on all procedure issues, rather than just on national security and related procedure issues. Are they that dumb? It could be, but I doubt it.


If Palin quites before the end of the Convention, there is no guarantee that McCain gets the nomination -- I think the delegates would be REALLY angry and there's really no telling. Considering that such a cockup would hand the election to Obama and all.

Palin would never quit before the end of the convention even if more info came out tomorrow or Thursday on Palin that made it hard for her to continue. It would be too distracting and would overshadow McCain's speech. If she was forced out, it would be post-convention. I don't know what the procedure is for replacing her in that circumstance, but I would bet that the likely replacement at that point would be Romney or Ridge, not Lieberman. I don't think that the GOP would replace one longshot pick with another (and a former Democratic VP nominee is quite a longshot pick), especially without a convention ratification of the choice. Of course, this is pure uninformed speculation, so I could be wrong.
9.3.2008 6:22am
Hoosier:
Why would Palin quit?

This is all getting a bit silly.
9.3.2008 7:53am
Chris 24601 (mail) (www):
"I don't recall anyone having a VP from another party since the rules were amended 204 years ago." There were Lincoln &Johnson in 1864, though they sort of started a new party to do it.
9.3.2008 8:08am
Chris 24601 (mail) (www):
Man, what do I need to do to make ampersands work right?
9.3.2008 8:09am
Mercutio (mail):
I find it interesting that Obama and Palin mirror each other in so many ways, and yet one is generally treated positively by the media and the other attack mercilessly. Why do the fine combs come out to squint over Palin's record for every tiny and debatable slip over her entire career? Has Obama been treated with such careful negative attention? How much of his record as community organizer been examined in the press, even when there's possible failures like that housing projects? How loudly has every reversal he's ever made been been touted, on things like FISA?

What could possibly explain this vast discrepancy? Oh wait, I know.
9.3.2008 8:09am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Simply put, Lieberman was run out of the Democratic Party because he refused to join the reality-based community on Iraq and continued to pretend that all the Bush talking points about the war that were put out in 2002 were true and that the war was an unqualified success...
Never could understand how the anti-war crowd could style themselves as the "reality-based community". In the last two years, with the Surge, it has been anything but.

But, yes, both McCain and Lieberman believe in the War on Terror, that Islamic fundamentalism, etc. is a threat to this country, etc., and I have no doubt that the later believes that Obama is far too weak to protect us from our enemies.
9.3.2008 8:18am
jjohn143 (mail):
Palin would quit?
As a middle aged male in the human species, I have learned 1 thing for sure, we (males) are not the stronger of the sexes. the woman has been and always will be the stronger of us.
They manage the home finances, the children, the cooking &cleaning, the husband and a job! You do not have to worry about Sarah Palin quitting. She, raising 5 kids can handle anything put in front of her.
My questions are to the husbands in the world. Have you ever won a fight with your wife/woman? Have you ever been in awe on how they manage everything? Have you needed her compassion? Have you seen how the children respond to their mother compared to their father? and would you ever doubt she would kill for them. Women are by far the stronger of the sexes, they just let us play the role. And as far as women from Alaska, they are just a tougher version of the ones we have in the lower 48. Don't fear for Sarah, fear for whom she is against.
9.3.2008 8:27am
hawkins:

That's because the MSM views their job as to hurt Republicans and help elect Democrats. Almost everyone in the MSM is a rabid liberal. In study after study, almost none of them attend Church on a weekly basis, none of them are pro-life, none of them voted for a Republican, none of them have a family member in the military, and none of them have ever once tried to start their own business.


This is absurdly false. Just off the top of my head:

David Gergen: served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations
Campbell Browne: married to a Republican (Dan Senor) and a converted Orthodox Jew
Chris Matthews (that hated liberal): voted for Bush in 200

In addition to all the other die hard liberals (such as Buchanan and Scarbrough) at MSNBC.
9.3.2008 8:43am
Fury:
Why would Palin quit?

This is all getting a bit silly.


Indeed. When people start to trot out links to medical web-sites to make the case that Sarah Palin flying to Texas just prior to her baby being born was poor judgment, and then speculate this poor judgment may continue if she is VP - that (from my perspective) is indeed silly and a sign of how disjointed the issues concerning Sarah Palin have become.

Likewise how the husband and family have been treated. The claim by some (some here on VC) that because the family was on stage with her as she was announced as VP, and claiming this in effect amounts to "open season" on the Palin family because she is touting her "family values". I find it disgusting and frankly very cynical.
9.3.2008 9:06am
hawkins:

Likewise how the husband and family have been treated. The claim by some (some here on VC) that because the family was on stage with her as she was announced as VP, and claiming this in effect amounts to "open season" on the Palin family because she is touting her "family values". I find it disgusting and frankly very cynical.


Completely agree. But what is new or unexpected about how Palin's family has been treated?
9.3.2008 9:13am
DangerMouse:
The claim by some (some here on VC) that because the family was on stage with her as she was announced as VP, and claiming this in effect amounts to "open season" on the Palin family because she is touting her "family values". I find it disgusting and frankly very cynical.

Fury, here's how an liberal mind works. It is a lesson in insanity:

Because Republicans are the only ones who believe in family values, when they introduce their families to the public, it's fair game to go after their families. But because Democrats don't believe in family values, it's unfair to attack their families after they're introduced. If this were not the case, then Obama's daughters are "fair game", and we all know that they're not.

That's how the liberal mind thinks. It is, as I said, an exercise in insanity.
9.3.2008 9:13am
DangerMouse:
In addition to all the other die hard liberals (such as Buchanan and Scarbrough) at MSNBC.

hawkins,

Token talking heads hardly matter. I'm talking about not only the people in front of the camera, but behind, who set policy and who track stories. Those people are picked up in the surveys as well as the talking heads. Don't forget that in Rathergate, while Rather was the talking head, he had people behind the scenes who were drinking the kool aid also.
9.3.2008 9:16am
DangerMouse:
But what is new or unexpected about how Palin's family has been treated?

A paid blogger at the Atlantic promoted an idiotic, insane conspiracy theory that Palin wasn't Trig's mother, but rather he was her daughter's, because the blogger didn't think Sarah Palin looked very pregnant in a picture. This man has not been fired, although to be fair his credibility, already tattered, has been torn to shreds.

Also, if you look at the Newsbusters website, you'll find clips of people discussing that conspiracy theory and how journalists were calling up others and finding out if they should report it on the air, after reading it from the Daily Kos. And how they were cheering after Obama's speech, etc. Their open and rabid enthusiasm for Obama is plain to all.
9.3.2008 9:26am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
How to keep the Palin pregnancies--real and imaginary--under wraps? Tell the NYT that John Edwards is the father.

I'd like to see the press go after the CAC issue with as much verve as they did the infamous "bridge" or the troopergate story. Point is, that they don't is clear evidence of bias. Or...got any other ideas?

If one spends time on blogs, it becomes vague how many issues, and to what extent, are in the 'sphere and how much in the MSM.

A Kossite is being quoted as to the moral requirement and the efficacy of massive lying.

As the dems said when smearing Tower with false charges, it isn't the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges.

The new Palin father is an "eighth grader"? Kos lie. We'll see if it gets into the MSM.
9.3.2008 9:29am
Waldensian (mail):

Women are by far the stronger of the sexes, they just let us play the role.

So, as omnipotent puppet masters are they in league with.... you know.... the industrialists? You know what I'm talking about....
9.3.2008 9:32am
rarango (mail):
I think one should exercise caution when reading anonymous sources of "republican operatives." Palin came into the governorship by challenging the very corrupt republican establishment in Alaska. One presumes she made no friends among some "republican strategists." Since I havent read the NYT article, I don't know if they actually divulged the name of this "republican strategist," but I really doubt it.

Given that the NYT ran three front page stories yesterday on the challenges of motherhood and holding public office (Howell Raines would be proud no doubt), and given that the NYT ran the "secessionist" meme and had to retract, the quality of the investigative journalism seems to need a bit of work.

So when you hear anonymous "republican strategists" being quoted as source, caveat emptor.
9.3.2008 9:54am
JosephSlater (mail):
CNN was all "Hillary will split the party!" and "there's not enough red meat for the base!" last week.

VC is all "when we lose, it's going to be the media's fault!" this week.
9.3.2008 10:10am
Philosopher:

It's hard to think that Lieberman would do this unless he thought that the War Against Terror (and the War in Iraq) were the most important issues facing the country and that McCain was much better on the war than Obama.
Actually, supporting McCain is in Lieberman's self-interest purely from a pragmatic political point of view. Lieberman has moved to the right over the past seven years and has become the favorite whipping boy of the Democratic Party's base. They supported his opponent in the Democratic primary and he lost that election. Liberman has no future in the Democratic party. The only way he can get a cabinet post (or more) is in a Republican administration, using his status as a "Democrat" (he's really an independent now) to make his support seem more important or relevant.
9.3.2008 10:14am
Justin (mail):
What attacks on Palin have been sexist?

Curious.
9.3.2008 10:23am
rarango (mail):
Justin—my suggestion is check hillaryclintonforum.net; the posters there can probably respond better than I
9.3.2008 10:27am
PaulD (mail):
"Given that the NYT ran three front page stories yesterday on the challenges of motherhood and holding public office (Howell Raines would be proud no doubt), and given that the NYT ran the "secessionist" meme and had to retract, the quality of the investigative journalism seems to need a bit of work."

The NYT's is not sexist, they are simply in the tank for Obama. The NYT's will be sexists when it starts running articles on the whether mothers of young children should aspire to be partners in a major law firm, or CEOs of a major corporation.
9.3.2008 10:40am
Hoosier:
JosephSlater
CNN was all "Hillary will split the party!" and "there's not enough red meat for the base!" last week.

VC is all "when we lose, it's going to be the media's fault!" this week.


Now Joseph Slater is all "I'm going to talk like Cartman."

And Hoosier was like "Dude!"

And Slater was all "T'sup?"

And Hoosier was like: "How the Rockets gonna do this wekend?"
9.3.2008 11:01am
Bill Twist:

hawkins:

Chris Matthews (that hated liberal): voted for Bush in 200



You mean the Chris Matthews who was an aid to democrats Frank Moss and Ed Muskie, who ran for the House of Representatives as a democrat, and for four years was a speechwriter in the Carter administration, and who then worked for Tip O'Neil for six years? That Chris Matthews?

The Chris Matthews who has openly stated his support for Barack Obama?

No, I'm sure he's a solid conservative, simply because he voted for George Bush once.
9.3.2008 11:08am
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
I don't remember this much interest in GOP ex-Congressman Jim Leach's endorsement of Obama, nor Barney Smith's, nor any of the other Republicans. Why would that be?

Joe Lieberman was the Benedict Arnold of the Democratic Party. His whole act was to be Fox News's favorite Dem, where he could go on their shows and slag other Democrats. (Oh, and who wanted to fold fastest in the Florida election mess in the interests of comity?) It isn't just about the war: you've never seen the sort of anger towards Sen. Nelson of Nebraska who is generally more conservative than Lieberman. It's about attitude. Lieberman wanted to be some sort of scourge of the Democratic Party and now that he is out of it, there's a lot less interest in his machinations.
9.3.2008 11:15am
theobromophile (www):
Why would Palin quit?

This is all getting a bit silly.

Because these people think that girls can't take the heat? Because, from everything I've heard about how this has energised the Republican ticket - evangelicals, moms, rural America, former Hillary supporters like John Coale - the Dems have, oddly, got to be hoping that she'll think it's all very overwhelming, and, wilting flower that she is, will go back to skinning caribou.

Oh, because Harriet Miers quit, so when one girl quits when the going gets tough, that means that every other girl will quit, too.
9.3.2008 11:18am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Justin.
Your question is a joke, right?
To question a woman's capacity to do anything at all is sexist. Ask the feminists. I mean, ask them earlier than ten days ago. They've gone all Betty Crocker all of a sudden.
9.3.2008 11:19am
Deoxy (mail):
It really is an unusual thing that the 2000 Democratic VP candidate was a main speaker at the 2008 Republican convention.


I could have sworn he spoke at the 2004 Rep. convention, too. Am I the only one who remembers that? It's so very unusual that it... happened at the last Rep Convention, too. ?

hawkins,

The abiliity to list a few exceptions does not change the overwhelming and well-documented bias of the entire journalism industry and profession in this country. Survey after survey, study after study, journalists, reporters, and editors are found to vote and donate Democratic by ENORMOUS margins, usually in excess of 10:1.

The Edwards cover-up is just one recent example. Another interesting example is the "10-15 points" worth of "glow" prmiosed for Kerry in the last election (quote from a head guy at one of the major networks - CNN maybe? I could go find it if you like).

The media is in the tank for the Dems.
9.3.2008 11:22am
JosephSlater (mail):
Hoosier:

LOL.

If the Rockets lose this weekend (and there is some precedent for midwestern college football teams having a tough time when they play out west), I plan to blame the media.
9.3.2008 11:22am
JosephSlater (mail):
Theobromophile:

I don't think Palin will quit, and you're right that she seems to have energized the base. But "Moms," I don't think so much. At least with women generally, early polls don't have her doing so well.

McCain is now following the Rove "appeal to the base and win by 51% strategy." The risk there is losing moderates. Palin's "no legal abortion even in cases of rape and incest" won't help there.
9.3.2008 11:26am
Sarcastro (www):
The em-es-emm are a borg-like monolithic entity wherein all individuals think exactly alike.

Clearly, the many-who-are-one have chosen Obama. This can be seen by all the concentration on Obama followed by all the concentration on Palin.

See, a lot of the Palin coverage was negative because the Media are in the tank for O.

A lot of the Obama coverage was negative to throw us off the scent.

So clever, but not too clever for the Medias only natural enemy: the dreaded Blogs! They'll get to the truth!
9.3.2008 11:43am
Hoosier:
and there is some precedent for midwestern college football teams having a tough time when they play out west

Or even when the west comes to visit. (But enough about Utah . . . )

And, yes, you may strike back at me if SDSU goes to South Bend and wins on Saturday. But don't bet the farm on the Aztecs.
9.3.2008 11:46am
rarango (mail):
This media buzz seems to be repeat of the buzz that started after Hillary lost iowa--how soon we forget; could it possibly be a campaign tactic from team O? nahhh, they wouldnt do anything like that. Hillary didnt quit then, and Palin isnt going to quit now.
9.3.2008 11:50am
JosephSlater (mail):
Hoosier:

Utah? OK, pal, NOW it's personal.

Seriously, Toledo plays Michigan this year. What am I to do?
9.3.2008 11:51am
Justin (mail):
Two people explicitly did not respond to my post. Anyone care to answer my question? What exactly was Estrich (or anyone) talking about when they said attacks on Palin were sexist?

And let's ease off the Michigan-bashing, okay? We're going through a transitional period.
9.3.2008 12:11pm
percheron:

But, of course, you don't have to watch them to know how liberal they are,


Nah. For me, three-decades-plus of watching them was enough. That and the multiple, sourced scholarly studies demonstrating how liberal the press is. Oh, and the comprehensive self-reporting of of journalists' policy positions, personal choices, voting history, etc., is pretty convincing.

In the end, though, the very real bias isnt liberal bias, it's administrative control bias. It just so happens that, on the American political spectrum, people who favor greater administrative control of society tend to be liberal.

Another interesting example is the "10-15 points" worth of "glow" prmiosed [sic] for Kerry in the last election (quote from a head guy at one of the major networks - CNN maybe? I could go find it if you like).

The media is in the tank for the Dems.



I believe that was Evan Thomas at Newsweek.
9.3.2008 12:14pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Newsweek. The magazine which tried to sit on Lewinski's story and made up a Koran-desecrating story. Hell, I won't read one of those rags if I find it in the dentist's office.
9.3.2008 12:17pm
Hoosier:
And let's ease off the Michigan-bashing, okay?

Sorry. I think the tone of the debate on politics here has been getting to me. I'm a Domer, so I'm suppoed to say stuff like that. Because your school is better academically in every regard (except Philosophy Departments, but ND is working on destroying that one as well).

With a new coach and new QB, this will be a tough year. I wish you much luck. AFTER next Saturday, that is.
9.3.2008 12:20pm
Xmas (mail) (www):
Justin,

The simple way of judging if an attack is sexist is by adding the phrase "If Sarah were a man..." to any issue that comes up about Gov. Palin.

If Sarah were a man, would anyone say she won't be able to be be Vice President and take care of a child with Down's Syndrome? (No, so this is sexist)

If Sarah were a man, would anyone make a big deal about her daughter being pregnant? (Maybe, so this is likely sexist)

If Sarah were a man, would anyone make the claim that her youngest child was actually her grandchild? (No, so this is definitely sexist.)

If Sarah were a man, would anyone make a big deal about her firing the guy that didn't fire the cop that threatened to shoot her sister? (Yes, so probably not sexis)
9.3.2008 1:40pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
X.
If Sarah were not a man and she hadn't fired the guy who hadn't fired the cop who threatened to shoot a woman NOT her sister, what would be the reaction?
9.3.2008 2:17pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
And, if Sarah were a man and hadn't fired the guy who hadn't fired the cop who'd threatened to shoot a woman NOT her sister, what would be the reaction?
9.3.2008 2:18pm
Mac (mail):
Xmas,

Thanks. I was going to answer Justin, but you did a fine job. I might add, if Sarah were a man would anyone suggest that her daughter got pregnant because she had been an inattentive parent by having a career and not paying enough attention to her child? Of course not.

Biden actually wanted to resign his Senate seat after his wife was killed and he was left with 2 young children. He was persuaded not to. Nobody said he made the wrong decision and should have stayed home with his children or gotten a less demanding job, if there is such a thing as a less demanding job. I am thinking of their quite generous time off. That they don't have to show up if they don't want to and about the Senator, whose name I can't recall who had a stroke and was left in a vegetative state and still held his office for at least 3 more years collecting a paycheck.

Some of them don't seem to work any too hard at all, so maybe Biden had it easier than if he got a different job. On the other hand, VP has got to be easier than being a Governor, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

So, Justin, do you see the sexism now?
9.3.2008 2:25pm
theobromophile (www):
Justin,

I'll add a bit to Xmas's list.

Would US make a cover like this of a man running for VP? You wouldn't know from it that she's running the state with the largest land mass, CIC of that state's National Guard, or has energy expertise... you would think she's another Hollywood celebrity.

No one seems to care (in a negative way) that Barack Obama has young children (who undoubtedly need his attention, and whom he, as a fundamentally decent family man, loves very much) who may cause problems with a 3 am phone call, but people say the same about Palin. Tyler had 15 kids, and no one thinks that rendered him unfit for office.

Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister was a blogger for John Edwards. Even she is defending Palin against the attacks. (Google "Sarah Palin Sexism Watch" and her posts - about a half-dozen so far - come up.) As one blogger said, "I'd really, REALLY rather be doing something else besides DEFEND THE &^%$#@(* REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE right now, but...."

The Chicago Tribune is running a poll, in all seriousness, about whether Palin should/will stay on the ticket. People are placing bets on when she'll drop out. Does anyone ever say that about men when the going gets tough, or is it that they are more likely to expect a woman to fold?

Palin is being criticised for "putting her daughter through this" by accepting the nomination. People say that she should have just waited out this election cycle and not put her family in the news, terrible mother that she is. Would people say this about a man, and, if they did, would it stick?

People say, "If she can't run her family, how can she run the country?" Does that get said about men?

Bill Clinton had zero foreign policy experience when he campaigned. Was it nearly the issue that it is with Palin? Both are governors of relatively small states, and were about the same age when they campaigned.

People are questioning Palin's judgment about getting onto a plane while she was leaking amniotic fluid. Her doctor said that it was okay, and she had already delivered four children (so presumably, she knew the drill). Since when did liberals start getting upset about what women do with their bodies during childbirth?

I hate saying this, because it sounds flaky and amorphous, but it's not that one particularly thing is Definitely Sexist, but it's the whole bunch of things - the criticism about her as a mother, the implication that mothers can't be VP, the fact that the state of her amniotic fluid actually bothers people, the expectation that she'll drop out, and the implication that she slept with McCain to get the job.
9.3.2008 2:35pm
Hoosier:
X.
If Sarah were not a man and she hadn't fired the guy who hadn't fired the cop who threatened to shoot a woman NOT her sister, what would be the reaction?


Judging by the syntax, cleary a question originally written in German. I think I'm growing too old to read blogs.
9.3.2008 3:02pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Most importantly, Palin should be attacked/confronted on the issues. The only relevance that Bristol's pregnancy has to that is that if Palin had her way, 17-year olds would never be able to chose abortion if they and/or their parents thought it best for them -- even if the pregnancy was a result of a rape by the girl's father. In other words, Bristol may be making the right choice for her, that's not my business, but the government shouldn't be in the business of banning the choices of other unwed teenagers.

Second, I think it's great that all these folks have discovered sexism in the media and in the blogosphere. I wonder, though, if I searched the archives of this blog if would I find objections to the vile and virulently sexist things said in the mainstream media, right wing blogs, and this particular blog (comments, not VC posters) against Hillary Clinton?

Finally, XMas, while I agree with most of what you say, as to this:

If Sarah were a man, would anyone make a big deal about her daughter being pregnant? (Maybe, so this is likely sexist)

What do you think folks would say if Obama had a 17 year old daughter who was pregnant? I'm thinking it would be pretty over-the-top critical about his "values" and the values of people "like" him. What do you think?
9.3.2008 3:02pm
Justin (mail):
"If Sarah were a man, would anyone say she won't be able to be be Vice President and take care of a child with Down's Syndrome? (No, so this is sexist)"

Who is making this argument? If basically nobody, then who cares?

If Sarah were a man, would anyone make a big deal about her daughter being pregnant? (Maybe, so this is likely sexist)

Yes.

"f Sarah were a man, would anyone make the claim that her youngest child was actually her grandchild? (No, so this is definitely sexist.)"

Only in the sense that the evidence of pregnancy isn't available. If there was some concrete evidence that this was true, then Andrew Sullivan and a handful of liberal bloggers would have made it to a man, as well.

"If Sarah were a man, would anyone make a big deal about her firing the guy that didn't fire the cop that threatened to shoot her sister? (Yes, so probably not sexis)"

Yes.

Any more?
9.3.2008 3:25pm
Justin (mail):
In other words, the only sexist attack is that a mother with kids shouldn't be running for President. But

a) Nobody of ANY consequence is making that argument

b) It is PALIN whose running on the Mother of the Year platform.

I don't see any sexism. You want sexism, see Palin calling Hillary Clinton a "whiner" for complaining about...sexism.
9.3.2008 3:27pm
Justin (mail):
Also, I thought conservatives believed picking someone based on their gender was sexist. ::Shrug::
9.3.2008 3:35pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Hoosier.
The point is that, had Palin failed to get the cop thing straightened out, she'd be considered a colluder in the patriarchy. Had she been a he, instead, she'd have been a patriarchal misogynist for ignoring DV.
But, since the woman in question is her sister....it's a Very Bad Thing.
Justin. Hope your shoulders don't get stuck up there.
The evidence that Palin was chosen for her gender is stronger than the fact that she had a record of busting corruption...unequaled in any of the other likely candidates.

And, the really neat thing is, we're seeing the dems insisting that the reps' choice for VP isn't up to the guy they chose for pres. Two problems there. One is, she's better. The other is, they're comparing the Veep choice to their number one man in all the land. They have to. Comparing him to McCain is impossible.
9.3.2008 3:45pm
Justin (mail):
Hoosier,

May I interest you in the Brooklyn Bridge at a low, reduced price?
9.3.2008 3:52pm
Justin (mail):
Justin,

Sorry that was to Aubrey, who I don't normally respond to, so ignore it everyone.
9.3.2008 3:52pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Justin.
Good for you. But, putting your stuff out on the comments still allows me to see it. How's your shoulder?
And the corruption angle? Who's done more? Romney? Can't be an Illinois governor. I think they're mostly in jail.
Um.
Yeah. Palin.
9.3.2008 4:25pm
Justin (mail):
I'm not entirely sure why I bother, but Fitzgerald and Giuliani are far more obvious picks if that's what you are going for. You don't go anti-corruption by picking someone under investigation for corruption.
9.3.2008 4:45pm
Simon Oliver Lockwood (mail):
Deoxy:

No, Lieberman did not speak at the 2004 Republican convention. He ran for the Democratic nomination that year, remember? Zell Miller was the Democratic Senator who spoke at the 2004 Republican convention.
9.3.2008 4:51pm
Hoosier:
Hoosier,

May I interest you in the Brooklyn Bridge at a low, reduced price?
9.3.2008 2:52pm
(link)Justin (mail):
Justin,

Sorry that was to Aubrey, who I don't normally respond to, so ignore it everyone.


No FAIR!

Why does Aubrey get first dibs on real estate deals?!
9.3.2008 5:02pm
Hoosier:
but Fitzgerald and Giuliani are far more obvious picks

Zelda Fitzgerald?

But that's a horrible idea!
9.3.2008 5:03pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Zelda Fitzgerald?

But that's a horrible idea!


Sexist.
9.3.2008 5:12pm
ejo:
in terms of Illinois politics, justin couldn't tell you who emil jones is and why he is important to obama (clue: he's the guy who told obama how to vote when he was in the legislature; also called female clinton delegate an uncle tom)

in terms of fighting corruption, Obama scores a zero. In terms of enabling corruption and not doing anything to stand up to his corrupt party leaders, he, like most involved in illinois politics, rates a 100.
9.3.2008 5:24pm
Deoxy (mail):

Deoxy:

No, Lieberman did not speak at the 2004 Republican convention. He ran for the Democratic nomination that year, remember? Zell Miller was the Democratic Senator who spoke at the 2004 Republican convention.


Yeah, I came back to this forum specifically to correct myself on that point. I don't know why I was thinking of Liberman for that... weird (and kinda dumb).
9.3.2008 5:43pm
Deoxy (mail):
Justin,

when known and boisterous democratic partisans are defending the Republican VP against stuff, saying it's horrendously sexist, I think it's safe to say that it's probably sexist. As suggested already on this thread (which you seemed to have ignored), go check on some of those people for defenses by people who really don't want her to do well, but can't stomach the misogynism.

The whole "it was really your daughter's baby" thing is a particularly low blow, but there have been plenty of others.
9.3.2008 5:45pm
ejo:
it was really your daughter's baby might represent the nadir of liberal progressive thought-but, to be fair, justin still isn't convinced. surprisingly, the left hasn't started a rumor that Todd is the actual father of his daughter's baby and the hockey kid is just a beard. since I started that one, will andrew sullivan be calling for dna testing?
9.3.2008 5:55pm
Cleanthes (mail) (www):
"I'm not entirely sure why I bother, but Fitzgerald and Giuliani are far more obvious picks if that's what you are going for. You don't go anti-corruption by picking someone under investigation for corruption."

As this is a legal blog and points of legal interest ought to be brought up, if the Troopergate scandal is corruption, then where's the money, as in the rule, "follow the money"? Palin's payoff if she did what she's alleged to have done is purely personal - no money.
On the other hand, the accusers are tied into the money-corrupted old Republican establishment in Alaska. THEY have a monetary incentive to bring these charges, not just to protect one of their own, but all other corrupt government office-holders.

corrumpo mulier
9.3.2008 6:22pm
Justin (mail):
Cleanthas,

Getting back to something I have some particular expertise in, money is not the only form of corruption. The general definition of corruption involves things of personal value, or more exactly, something of value that is considered outside the spectrum of generally accepted reasons of decisionmaking. Getting someone you personally want fired certainly counts.
9.3.2008 6:44pm
theobromophile (www):
Justin,

If you have not been closely following the news these past few days, then you are probably saner than the rest of us. (It's a cesspool, and I would be happier right now if I had spent my time, since Friday morning, on a tropical island, happy about the pick.)

Nevertheless, you seem to have missed the fact that most of the news over the past few days has been extraordinarily negative coverage of Sarah Palin and, sometimes, the McCain campaign.

The question of "says who" is legitimate... to a point. I find it incredible to believe that anyone who has been reading the news online has NOT heard these things, over and over.

I mentioned earlier that Shakespeare's Sister criticised the liberals for the sexism. The following Democrats, who oppose the McCain/Palin ticket, have also made the same comments:
Camille Pagila, Susan Estrich, Ann Friedman of Feministing, Jill Filipovic of Feministe, Christopher Orr of The New Republic, Zuzu of Feministe &Shakesville.

The following conservatives and moderates have made the same point: Jane Swift (former Gov. of MA), Cassy Fiano, Michelle Malkin, Ann Althouse, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Fred Thompson (9/02 am), the Anchoress.

(I may have thrown a few people into categories which they do not belong. If so, my apologies, and feel free to post corrections. I've missed a bunch, because these are only the ones that I've kept track of. Feel free to add.)

If you still doubt me, read Maureen Dowd's "fun, cheerleader from the West" column, which has more sexism in its 500 words than a NOW convention could ever
9.3.2008 6:58pm
Justin (mail):
Only one person has now given a concrete example of what they consider a sexist attack. I've just read Maureen Dowd's column, and while I tend to despise her, the person who suggested her column was sexist probably didn't read it. Dowd's argument is that McCain and the GOP are using the fact that Palin is a cheerful, attractive woman to hide the fact that Palin is unqualified and an extremist. You may disagree with her, but it isn't sexist. At most, you could say some of the phraseology in her post hints of sexism. But neither the thesis nor any of the supporting arguments are sexist.
9.3.2008 7:39pm
GaryC (mail):

Deoxy:

Simon Oliver Lockwood:

No, Lieberman did not speak at the 2004 Republican convention. He ran for the Democratic nomination that year, remember? Zell Miller was the Democratic Senator who spoke at the 2004 Republican convention.




Yeah, I came back to this forum specifically to correct myself on that point. I don't know why I was thinking of Liberman for that... weird (and kinda dumb).

Lieberman was actually on the 2000 Democratic ticket, with Al Gore. In 2004 the Democratic VP candidate was John Edwards, the Father of the Year.
9.4.2008 12:34am
Jay Myers:
Hoosier:

And let's ease off the Michigan-bashing, okay?

Sorry. I think the tone of the debate on politics here has been getting to me. I'm a Domer, so I'm suppoed to say stuff like that. Because your school is better academically in every regard (except Philosophy Departments, but ND is working on destroying that one as well).

Have you been nipping from the sacramental wine, Hoosier? U of Michigan's philosophy department is one of the best in the country. The Philosophical Gourmet Report has Michigan's Ph.D. program tied with Princeton at number three. ND is in a three-way tie for thirteenth. Further, the only area where ND truly excels is in religious philosophy, whereas Michigan is first rate in half a dozen fields.
9.4.2008 2:08am