Can You Say ‘Sexist’?

It saddens me to see Anna attacking Palin. Year after year we see unqualified men (ie: Obama) getting nominated for office -- the list would be long, including the Current Occupant. But who gets the shrill and outrageous chorus of attacks -- Hillary Clinton (experience and capable) and Sara Palin (just as experienced as Bush, and in the opinion of half the electorate, more so than Obama). Anna, save your fire. Women are at the bottom. We need to support our own.

It saddens me to see Anna attacking Palin. Year after year we see unqualified men (ie: Obama) getting nominated for office -- the list would be long, including the Current Occupant. But who gets the shrill and outrageous chorus of attacks -- Hillary Clinton (experience and capable) and Sara Palin (just as experienced as Bush, and in the opinion of half the electorate, more so than Obama). Anna, save your fire. Women are at the bottom. We need to support our own.

I am a woman in my mid 30's fitting the demographic that supposedly Sarah Palin is able to sway: Catholic, fiscally conservative, moderate democrat. I find her nomination to be reprehensible and insulting to American women. She stands on the shoulders of the women whose work she will undoubtedly undercut if she manages to get into office. Ms. Palin is simply the puppet of this election, as George Bush was in the past. The people who will still be running the country, if McCain/Palin are elected, are Karl Rove and all of his horrendous cronies. It's time for people to wake up and realize what the ultimate spin-doctor, Rove, is up to AGAIN! Anna Quindlen - - thank you for your critical thought and bravery. Keep it up!

My colleagues told me you were a good writer - I just don't see it.

sam, I disagree. I am very opposed to this woman being VP and as I learn more about her (the onion peeling thing) the more scared I am for our country should the republican ticket be elected, not because of Hillary, but only because of the far right fringe beliefs and the amoral in office actions of this woman. She may want to refor, but reforming by using tactics matching or worse than the people she is hellbent on bring about reform from does not make a respectable leader. Its a simple matter of using your power to overpower others who are not of your belief system. We live in a pluralistic society and not one that is just of her narrow ideology. She wants to make all of us belong to her ideology and that is the scariest part of allowing her into a position of power like VP, and potentially President, God forbid.

The liberal democrats are just as much to blame for saying one thing and then ignoring the same thing when it's convenient. That's her whole point: Republicans say one thing and ignore it when convenient. I think she is stretching it a bit, but she got her agenda.

Hillary supporters are angry at the choice of Palin. They erroneously assume the McCain camp wants to buy their vote. Truth be told, they're angry because they want their cake (a woman on the ticket) and they want to eat their cake too (a woman who is liberal). You see they have their cake, but it's not palatable, thus setting them off .



Example: If you really wanted an ipod, and your boyfriend bought you a stereo system with awesome speakers (at a much higher price) you would propably be pisst. You have a system that plays music, but not the kind you want. Not the best example, (this one is frivolous) but all the rutkus over Palin has less to do with her than it has to do with the unresolved internal issues of Hillary supporters. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

The liberal democrats are just as much to blame for saying one thing and then ignoring the same thing when it's convenient. That's her whole point: Republicans say one thing and ignore it when convenient. I think she is stretching it a bit, but she got her agenda.



Here's a salient psychological point I don't believe I've heard yet:

Hillary supporters are angry at the choice of Palin. They erroneously assume the McCain camp wants to buy their vote. Truth be told, they're angry because they want their cake (a woman on the ticket) and they want to eat their cake too (a woman who is liberal). You see they have their cake, but it's not palatable, thus setting them off .



Example: If you really wanted an Ipod, and your boyfriend bought you a stereo system with awesome speakers (at a much higher price) you would propably be pisst. You have a system that plays music, but not the kind you want. Not the best example, (this one is frivolous) but all the rutkus over Palin has less to do with her than it has to do with the unresolved internal issues of Hillary supporters. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

Who's better for women?
A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
The most recent statistics are for the half-year from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.00. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

In response to Anna Quindlen, The Last Word Newsweek 9/15/08

???Strong women roared in silence. We roared by doing.??? Judy Blunt from Breaking Clean

I always thought that I would live long enough to see a nonfeminist women break through the so-called feminist ???ceilings???. It is no surprise that an ascribed feminist would not break through. The feminist strategy is winner take all, take men to task and drag them down, kick them while they are there and laugh at them while doing it. The feminist agenda is black and white, self-righteous and has no room for religion because they are their own religious cult.

I have often pondered if I were merely a benefactor of the feminist movement, quota filler, due to landing a coveted, high paying job in an all male, good old boy office. I am a Montana cowgirl that had to make my own way because there were male offspring to take over the ranch. No whining here. I just took it as a challenge. I got my education, landed a job far away from Montana and far beyond me, and wondered, ???why me???? Initially, I gave 100% credit to the feminist movement. Several decades have now passed and I think at most the feminist movement raised awareness of women as capable of working along side men but they were never going to get hired for the job with all the toxic spew that they continuously felt compelled to share out loud.

After reading the job offer a second time, I immediately set out to figure out how to fit in, be grateful, do a better job than anyone else, earn respect, work hard, help people in the company look good and show that I could add more to the bottom line than I cost.

Anna, your focus on ???hypocrisy, direct result of the women???s movement, sexism,??? and the like may win a few battles. In the mean time, Sarah Palin is confident in her morals and ideals. Direct and straight forward in what life has provided her in the way of challenges in her pregnant daughter or Down???s son. Sarah Palin did not change her foundation due to life???s challenges, She has embraced the challenges that so many of us face or will face and used them as further evidence of her conviction without any ands, ifs, or buts. Sarah Palin???s can-do, roaring-by-doing focus on the most important things is what wins wars.

Talk about hypocrisy and double standards ??? If governor Palin???s pro-life stance is an invasion of personal family choices, then I don???t what to say about Obama???s economic proposals. Obama???s ???95% tax cuts??? and promises of hundreds of dollars to millions of Americans certainly do not come out of his personal bank-account ??? obviously, they come out of everyone else???s ???oh wait, not everyone else???s ??? only the wealthys???. Where is the flaw here? Obama???s proposals do not allow the wealthy to choose how to spend their money. What if they chose to buy a shiny new car, or to send their kid through private school? Isn???t that their right to chose? Ms. Quindlen, How can it be wrong to forbid a woman from making choices about her body, when she believes it???s right, but okay to force citizens to make choices with their finances, when you believe it???s right?

WHEN THE LIBERAL ELITE "MAIN STREAM MEDIA" INJECTS ITSELF INTO A NATIONAL US ELECTION, IT LEADS TO THE "LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES"

IF THERE'S WAS NO "MSM" BIAS AGAINST HILLARY, HILLARY WOULD BE THE US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND OBAMA WOULD BE THE VP CANDIDATE

IF THE TICKET IS CLINTON/OBAMA.....THERE IS NO SARAH PALIN EFFECT

IF THERE IS NO SARAH PALIN, THERE IS MCCAIN/ROMNEY REPUB TICKET

THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE 8 YEARS OF CLINTON/OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE 8 YEARS OF OBAMA/KEANE ADMINSTRATION

BY US LIBERAL ELITE MEDIA BACKING OBAMA AND TRASHING HILLARY, THEY LOSE A POSSIBLE 16 YEARS IN POWER AND WILL PROBABLY NOW LOSE 8 OUT OF THE LAST 11 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

FOR YOU ANNA, NO AMOUNT OF OLBERMANN/MADDOW HISTRONICS CAN CUT THROUGH WHAT THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ELECTORATE SEES IN THE "MSM"