61. It is amazing that this year we have one woman taken down, followed immediately by another being put up and the exact same (if not worse) treatment applied to her by the same candidate and the same media. If the women ran in different years, or if one were not a real contender, one could argue that we were comparing apples and oranges, but they are (were) both in direct contention for the top jobs. Because they are from different parties, you are left to conclude that the only reason for the appalling behavior is pure sexism.

The starkness of the media’s blatant partisanship and sexism has relegated them to buffoonery. I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC, for example, cannot see that they are even more off the reservation than most of the Party for which they are advocating. There are Democrats that are blushing at such advocacy masquerading as journalism.

Dick Morris had this observation on the sexism issue.

"The turning point was the designation of Palin and the personal attacks on her. By stirring up a storm, Democrats assured that Palin would speak to 37 million Americans - just a million fewer than watched Obama’s acceptance speech."

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that women may have a gut reaction to the establishment’s sexist assault on a woman candidate - and flock to McCain. They’ve seen him stake everything on this one big move of turning toward a woman - in direct contrast to Obama’s deliberate decision not to name a woman.

They’ve seen the media and Democrats gang up on her and do their worst. And they’ve seen Palin stand up and stuff the challenge right back down the establishment’s throat. All this may have created an entirely new dynamic in the race.

One woman fights back hordes of jackals. One woman now, and millions more in November will teach them that America does not approve of such thuggery.

Mary at 3:24PM on Sep 6th 2008

62. 30. Beth says: " I am a moderate conservative, normally vote Republican, and I understood everything that Roland Martin said.

And I agree with his points. A black or Latino single mother has children and she is condemned for being an unwed mother!"

I don't think the "condemnation" stems from being an unwed single mother, as much as who's going to be footing the bill for this offspring. Whereas Whites would see this unplanned event as a "lesson learned" and deal with their responsibilites, Blacks and Latinos see this as opportunity, a "right," and entitlement that John Q. Public must pay for, then continue cranking out multiple "unwed" births. This seems to be one minority stereotype that actually 'sticks.'

Lizard at 3:35PM on Sep 6th 2008

63. Rolan Martin is 100% correct! The unintelligent, the uneducated, the ill informed all blindly follow the Republican party and get angry when the intellectuals tell the truth.

YEah for Roland Martin!!!! Sarah Palin needs to go and get an education and find some chastity belts for those other promiscuous daughters of hers!!

Shan at 3:53PM on Sep 6th 2008

64. >>>I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC, for example, cannot see that they are even more off the reservation than most of the Party for which they are advocating. There are Democrats that are blushing at such advocacy masquerading as journalism.>>>

As this guy Roland Martin says in the above interview with Cenk, "the Democrats don't have attack dogs". Now bear in mind he's saying this directly to Cenk Uygur, one of the biggest politicizing leftist thugs of all time. Throw in MSNBC's journalistic laugh in along with the HuffPost, DailyKos., numerous lefty bloggers & we've got a manifestation based more on militant thought.

It's also noteworthy Oprah Winfrey, champion of women's rights has the perfect subject, Sarah Palin to interview & she refuses to. Poliitical bias perhaps? Maybe even a deeper motive if one wanted to go there.

You hit it right Mary, this election coverage has been skewed 3 to 1 in favor of the Democratic ticket. It wreaks of mind screwing the public & openly rigging the election....

Bobby at 4:04PM on Sep 6th 2008

65. Ah, I see. I didn't understand where you were coming from Tor.

You're right that liberals need to work harder to actually win and that often means dirty fights and dirty tactics. But you're right in that we need to push to win more. Sadly it's not a very inate trait. We want the best president, so we go for substance. Conservatives want the best candidate, so they strive for appealing facades.

Very annoying all around.

And Lizard, spoken like a man who has never been on welfare. Or tried to live on it. Liberals understand that not all pregnacies happen under ideal conditions. Conservatives conversely demonize sexual education and then condemn those who become premature mothers while removing their access to abortion. Palin is an outstanding example of this two faced approach to reproduction. A sad comparison to the liberal progressive approach.

Incidently that would be don't have sex till you're ready, but if you do then please have it protected, but if you don't and get pregnant then please allow these people to adopt your baby, but if you don't then please use these social programs to help raise the child, but if you can't then you can terminate the pregnacy.

Somber at 3:59PM on Sep 6th 2008

66.
Does the GOP, want more facts about your POW:

McCain's Voting Record: He Does Not Support Our Troops and Veterans

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call
votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I
present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled
off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel
free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double
Talk Express". But here is a very quick statement - John McCain
sk
ipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10
occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops,
providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for
health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14
votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that
he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq,
funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I
have also included other snippets related to the time period when the
vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for
adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of
people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either
moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in
Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion
was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents
wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require
the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal
of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this
time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that
the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number
has not moved si
gnificantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain
didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution
condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of
respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since
declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be
withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start
withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20
million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care
facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against
$430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical
Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services
funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate
tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over
veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for
an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating
abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes
for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that
called f
or an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United
States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for
reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which
never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and
Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents,
bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for
medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also
voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making
permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in,
and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts
unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle
class.

So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military
veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the
support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of
his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our
military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the
troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the
support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in
chief?

LINDA at 5:04PM on Sep 6th 2008

67. STEP ONE IN HOW TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

Here's a PRIME example of what I'm talking about:


http://rightvoices.com/2008/08/28/new-game-wheres-the-flag-at-the-democratic-national-conventionhint-look-in-the-trash/

(note: don't razz me because this is a right wing website. I heard the issue on CNN, and this is one of the first Google hits that I came up with. This issue is all over the news today.)

What a bunch of LOSERS!

Way to go democrats! This is just the kind of thing that pisses the people off that may be on the fence as to whom to vote for. I know it's not a deep issue. I know that the democrats love the flag and their country just as much as anyone else. This may be shallow in the whole scope of things, but what the fuck?

There are veterans groups that would retire those flags and dispose of them properly. The democrats could have done this right - but noooooo! Morons. What great fuel for the republicans.

And the official democratic response? Those flags were waiting to be shipped back to be recycled and were just waiting in and near trash dumpsters. The republicans stole them.

Now who's bullshitometer is going off?

Way to go people!

torquemada at 5:10PM on Sep 6th 2008

68. STEP ONE IN HOW TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

Here's a PRIME example of what I'm talking about:


http://rightvoices.com/2008/08/28/new-game-wheres-the-flag-at-the-democratic-national-conventionhint-look-in-the-trash/

(note: don't razz me because this is a right wing website. I heard the issue on CNN, and this is one of the first Google hits that I came up with. This issue is all over the news today.)

What a bunch of LOSERS!

Way to go democrats! This is just the kind of thing that pisses the people off that may be on the fence as to whom to vote for. I know it's not a deep issue. I know that the democrats love the flag and their country just as much as anyone else. This may be shallow in the whole scope of things, but what the f*ck?

There are veterans groups that would retire those flags and dispose of them properly. The democrats could have done this right - but noooooo! Morons. What great fuel for the republicans.

And the official democratic response? Those flags were waiting to be shipped back to be recycled and were just waiting in and near trash dumpsters. The republicans stole them.

Now who's bullshitometer is going off?

Way to go people!

torquemada at 5:16PM on Sep 6th 2008

69. wtf aol?

torquemada at 5:17PM on Sep 6th 2008

70. sorry for the duplicate posts aol is a little slow putting things up today.

torquemada at 5:18PM on Sep 6th 2008

71. Wow...looking at the comments it is clear that the right-wing talking point machine is working overtime. What brain dead idiots they are.

The Cons should go to some country where the leaders share their views...Iran is a good choice.

The anti-America traitor arm of the Re-pud-lickins is running scared

Lib at 2:18PM on Sep 7th 2008

72. I STILL CAN'T GET OVER THE YOUNGER DAUGHTER LICKING HER HAND TO HELP SMOOTH TRIG'S HAIR.

THAT'S NASTY! NASTY! NASTY!

TruAmerican at 6:40PM on Sep 6th 2008

73. can you say wahhhhahhhwahhhhahawahhh the poor black dem cant stand the fact that his boy has lost the election, to bad. I have to laugh at this black '' reporter '' condeming palins daughter for having a baby out of wedlock and under age when in fact if you check statistics you will find that black women top every list of un wed, and under age girls having children and contracting STDs

James Page at 6:41PM on Sep 6th 2008

74. This is rich,

UC-Berkeley can't get "tree protestors" out of trees they intend on cutting down for a new campus sports arena. Protestors are pelting hired arborists with bottles & sticks to thwart their efforts.

So the Berkeley establishment is turning against it's liberal own.

UCB's president hasn't decided if & when to use "force" to remove the protestors....

Bobby at 7:44PM on Sep 6th 2008

75. 69. I STILL CAN'T GET OVER THE YOUNGER DAUGHTER LICKING HER HAND TO HELP SMOOTH TRIG'S HAIR.

THAT'S NASTY! NASTY! NASTY!

TruAmerican at 6:40PM on Sep 6th 2008
----------------------------------------
I'll bet money your face has been in nastier places than a seven year old's spit. You are an idiot, idiot, idiot.

Dedmanrisn at 7:50PM on Sep 6th 2008