CLINTON PALIN

CLINTON PALIN and the SISTERHOOD of the BELL

The words “disapproval of the McCain-Palin ticket” attributed to young women and the photo worded “Women for Obama” struck a chord with my inner self that I did not know I had (“Praised, panned in Costa Mesa,” Oct. 5).I have heard since I was a young boy that there was a sisterhood among all women. What women experienced in life was very different than the good old boys’ world experience. Most women had insight into the pain and glory, that bound them together based on life experience. Any time one of the sisters was unfairly treated or physically harmed it was an attack against the sisterhood as a whole.If the theory is true, it has met it’s greatest test. What is that test? The crucifixion of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin.No, not questions of policy or experience, which I would expect. An all-out personal attack regarding her lifestyle, beliefs, husband and her children. Not unlike what happened to Sen. Hillary Clinton as she campaigned for the Democrat Party nomination for president.Both Palin and Clinton have been the target of demeaning slurs and personal questions of all types. Saying she is only qualified to run the PTA or that her daughter proves she is an unfit mother is a slur against all women. Because Palin and Clinton both have more experience than Sen. Barack Obama, I can only conclude that the crucifixion of each has more to do with their being successful moms and successful in their chosen fields.We know the good old boy network does exist, and Palin and Clinton do not belong. Each in their own way, remind me a little of Margaret Thatcher. Is that so bad? The sisterhood did rise up somewhat to the personal attacks against Clinton from many sides of the political arena.The great test: Will any of the sisters rise to the occasion and object to the crucifixion of Palin regardless of personal philosophy, beliefs, faith or culture?Then, possibly the message be all that you can be is intended for all women.My best guess, and just a guess, the answer is no. However, if there were a true sisterhood they should realize that if they do well in life the good old boys and the media will crucify them!Things could change.



el tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Elllie,Madam Speaker is a real woman. I would love her to be our next president. We need a strong and knowledgeable woman in the White House. Paulin is neither Hillary nor Nancy. "

elllie abernathy wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" She is running for VP not President! when was the last time a VP took over? 1944+/- the likelyhood she would take office is small--I know anything can happen, but the reality is she most likely will NOT take office. I would be more scared that both would be gone and "Madam Speaker" would be president- YIKES!! she is way more scarry then Palin! "


Eliza wrote on Oct 10, 2008
Sarah Palin does not represent 'tolerance and equality.' Nor does she have much in common with Hillary Clinton besides their common gender. You continue to make the mistake of rounding up all women into your Norman Rockwell-designed cage.And your continued sentimentality over a lost 'sisterhood' that never existed simply proves that you'd rather pine over the imaginary feminine ideal in your mind than hear and respect the women speaking to you on this very web page. "
El Tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Sorry, there's nothing similar between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin other than the two are women. Hillary is clearly the most polished and smart. I'm sure Hillary reads magazines like Foreign Affairs, Int. Affairs, The Economist, and some academic magazines to get knowledge on the world. Palin didn't know any of them when asked by newswoman Couric. If someone seeking a top public office doesn't know the "Bush Doctrine", then he/she shouldn't be elected. After all, we suffer today due to the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Palin is no Hillary. "
Concerned_Citizen wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" The scariest part about Palin is that she would only be ONE heartbeat away from being our president. Conservative column writers are being honest that she is clearly NOT QUALIFIED to be in that position. It has nothing to do with gender. She is more of a detriment to the McCain ticket than a positive as she only appeals to the ultra right base, which she alread had going in. "
gericault wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" There is no comparison between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.This is like comparing John McCain with Ronald Reagan because they are both old.John McCain is NO Ronald Reagan!What media? Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren. Nice handholding. Did Katie Couric give Sarah too much rope? Those hard questions like"What do you read , and Name a supreme court ruling"?You Republicans should have not been so against Romney because he was a Mormon.He might have helped you a little with the economic meltdown. Not much, but better than Palin.McCain went for the rabid base and lost the election. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Sounds like Eliza is one of those zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" walking around this nation without common sense. Most zombies cannot count to 100. "
Eliza wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Gosh, thanks, Billtheswede! I always thought that preserving the planet we inhabit and defending the bodily autonomy of half its citizens was pretty important, but thank goodness you're here to school me (and, I assume, the rest of the sisterhood)!Just so we're clear, Palin and I disagree on nearly every crucial issue. However, since I don't believe her views on the war, the nation's foreign policy, the economy, or the deficit are much more than talking points rehearsed in the past month, I opted not to address them in my 100-word comment. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" In response to Eliza's comment regarding Palin anybody who considers a candidate's stance of being anti-choice and anti-environment as the most important issues facing the USA today is a very short-sighted individual. "
Mike O'Reilly wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Crucified? Oh, stop. Palin has been ridiculed in the public prints not because she's a woman, but because she's so spectacularly, preposterously unfit for higher office. McCain pulled her out of bag during the convention, and since then she's done nothing but smirk, wink, and utter consummate gibberish. The woman is an utter bonehead, pushed in front of McCain to soak up the grapeshot fired at his inept campaign.
SoCalboomer wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Just as you can get misunderstood when you try to speak to a native, when you are learning a new language, there are a lot of complexities in the sisterhood. First of all, women have brains and access to all kinds of thought and decision making processes that have little or nothing to do with gender. Secondly, women have only been able to vote since 1921, and not always had female candidates to choose from, so women have more expertise in evaluating candidates as a whole person, not just on gender alone. Also we're choosing a president not a VP. "

stepping_up wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Yes, when a sister is unfairly treated or harmed, it is an attack on all of us. Sarah Palin unfairly treated the women of Wasala when she decided to save the city some money by billing rape victims for the kits used in the investigation. So yes, as a sister, I very rightfully question her decency as a woman and a human being. I'm outraged that you have the audacity to tell me that I should be defending this woman. She deserves to be held accountable for her personal beliefs when she issues legislation that harms women. "

Gina wrote on Oct 9, 2008
Your comment alone is sexist. You offend me by assuming I should not think for myself, only my gender and suggesting that women who do 'crucify' Palin are petty and jealous? Palin in no way represents ANYTHING in my belief system. Her experience thus far has been a scripted mess and the most recent personal attacks on Obama fill her 'speeches' with venom and fear mongering- again, Mrs. Jane Six Pack does NOT speak for me with her homophobic, anti-choice, book banning, $1.2 million dollar voice. AND Republicans DO NOT own the American flag- we all do! "

proud mom wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" I am a Christian mother of five and I don't support Sarah Palin because she is not who she says she is. First, she says she's a mother. Real mothers put their children FIRST. Second, she says she's a Christian. The Christian church opposes pre-marital sex, and Ms. Palin was pregnant before marriage, and so was her teenage daughter. Third, Ms. Palin says she's an American. Americans speak English, not Alaskan Ebonics. There's a reason why a pronunciation is included in American dictionaries. Sarah Palin is not representative of motherhood, Christianity, or America! "

Eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" By the way---sexism should offend all PEOPLE, not just all WOMEN. :) "
eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
You're right: No woman should have to withstand attacks because of her gender. Feminists like myself have spoken vociferously against the rife sexism directed at both Palin and Clinton.But you, too, engage in sexism when youthrow all women into the "sisterhood" pile---as if we're interchangeable and indistinguishable, one big giggly sorority with a common charter. The notion that we should shelve our principles in order to elect a shockingly unqualified candidate just because she's female is the biggest insult of all.The anti-choice, anti-environment, homophobic Palin does not speak for me. Neither should you.

jamisings wrote on Oct 8, 2008 " Of course it should offend all women. It should offend anyone of any gender with half a brain. The problem is most of the attacks are being done by hypocritical women (and a few men) who can't see that Palin is the better choice for VP then Biden. Who are afraid because the Republicans were brave enough to do what the Democrats could not do. "

Balboa Res wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" It is more offensive to think that women should stick up for a woman who doesn't believe in women's rights. "

Published LA Times Daily Pilot Freedom Newspapers OC Register

The OLD and the NEW

August 14, 2004

KABC Radio 790 AM




Mark,

You said the Democratic Party has changed....the only change I see is party members are less violent....which is good!!!....but not a change in core beliefs. The old Democrats wanted to restrict jews, blacks and catholics from indivudal progress. The new Democrats won't to restrict caucasians and asians from individual progress, especially in education opportunity......and I think jews are making the list again. The old Democrats supported and were members of racist groups like the KKK, and supported racist public policy (Jim Crow Laws). The new Democrats support and are members of racist groups like Mecha and La Raza and still support racist public policy (affirmative action, and all public laws based on race). And again the change is.............?