Can You Say ‘Sexist’?

Hmm.. Let's see, African Americans have acted like a total solid block of support for Obama yet where is the outcry chiding them for supporting biology over ideology? There is also an additional nice dose of hypocrisy in all this being that the first women to decry supporting Sarah Palin as ideologically not good enough usually didn't support Clinton either, and are yet now trying to appeal to her voters. The fact is biology has sadly been very important. If it wasn't then why the unbroken string of male presidents? If anything Sarah Palin's candidacy is proving how important running is to advancement. Why? Gasp? Well because her candidacy makes their leaders mouth the words publically that their party supports working women with families. Once those words leave the mouths they start entering some of the minds. It becomes an assumption, a right, not a fight. Yes some of Palin's other values and ideologies are not a liberals cup of tea, and as a liberal they aren't mine. However all you press Obama people, who love to point out the hypocrisy in others but not in your own support, well, why not worry about what is good for women for a minute, women, not just african americans just for a minute, and applaud the progress and be proud of women advancing wherever they come from. Now I know that you all think you are the most progressively advanced people on the planet and your thoughts are so far advanced they don't include the notion of supporting a woman because of her biology yet you can fathom supporting a man because of his race or the cause of racial equality, that set's your heart aflutter of course. Biology trumping ideology is not the ultimate evidence of true sexism. No, it's the opposite. No matter what the woman's ideology in this election, you were for Obama weren't you? Somehow even Clinton's ideology wasn't good enough, somehow Obama was just uhhmm more like you or how you wanted to be. That's not sexism, oh no not you. Never you.

No I won't vote for Sarah Palin however I think she has done much more to advance women by being there than the press women supporting Obama, the same ones who bashed Clinton, will ever do.

Well Anna, I guess you don't think much of Sarah Palin. But here is some news for you. Conservatives and Republicans have known about Sarah Palin for almost a year now. She was considered a rising star in the Republican party in much the same manner as liberals and Democrats saw Obama four years ago. Charasmatic leaders are extraordinarily hard to find, (I challenge anybody to name one charasmatic Republican other than Reagan in the last 50 years)and in Sarah Palin, we have found one. This is not about attracting Hillary Clinton voters, this about finding the charasmatic leader we have desparately been looking for since Reagan. She is our Magaret Thatcher. If McCain wins, Palin instantly becomes the leader of the conservative movement. If McCain loses, she will become the leader of the entire Republican party. In addition, she will become the republican nominee for President in 8 to 12 years. Just think, the first women president of the US will be a Republican. After reading all the hyperventilating articles from liberal women this past week, that should be enough send them packing for France.

Ms. Palin introduced herself to the national stage with a scripted speech in a very sarcastic, and demeaning way - insulting most Americans who were not there. I shudder to think of her as VP. I still can't believe McCain chose someone only for his political gain! What a gamble! So this is how he will be making future decisions as President? Oh my God - worse than Bush!

Thank you. I'm glad the GOP message to blame the "elite media" is not working. We need journalist to continue to truly do their job and not be silenced. It would be unfair to the American public for a candidate to be treated differently due to their gender.

this woman is 1. a bitter clinton supporter, 2. a narrow-minded woman that can't consider the option that maybe palin and others like her don't want to take women's rights away; rather, maybe they are supporting teh rights of a smaller victim in the matter, 3. a left-over liberal from the left-wing women's lib movement (which had some good, but is now outdated and just sexist), 4. a hypocrite because she is throwing stones at palin for throwing stones at others , 5. a person that has serious connections at newsweek and just can't be fired. either way, i don''t feel compelled to follow her. i'm not a conservative, nor am i a liberal. i like to sit back and watch both b*tch at the other for doing exactly what they themselves are doing. with that said, what happened to unbiased reporting. the baby-boomers seem to be so incapable of this (for the vast majority of which are reporters). get over the race, sex, nationality, religion thing. allow people to disagree with you and put your b*tching away. this is why mccain agreed with the person that called hillary a b*tch...not because he's sexist, but because...well, she can be; hence, i understand how her and this writer sound so similar. anyway, enough said.

I'm sorry, but Hillary was not the most experienced Democrat running before. Of the candidates whose names were originally in the urn, Biden was the most experienced (30+ years in the Senate). Of the last two, Hillary may have had a tad more experience in the U.S. Senate, but Obama was also involved in state politics in Illinois before the U.S. Senate. Also, Obama wasn't just "chosen" at the convention, he was elected by those that participated in the primaries who decided based on a host of issues that he was the better choice, and ultimately found as his running mate Biden, who is far more experienced than Palin. Is Palin more experienced than the alternatives that McCain had on his short list? No. Was Palin elected to be VP? No. Palin was chosen virtually out of thin air due purely to her perceived marketing potential for the party. She is a gimmick, and underneath that ageing beauty queen exterior is an ultra conservative who will not reward those interested in furthering women's issues if they vote for her, nor would she take the nation out of its current rut should, in the worst nightmare scenario 1) McCain be elected and 2) he become too incapacitated to lead. Instead, she would likely use her "experience" in Alaska to run up deficit spending to record levels, shunt any considerations for environmental protection aside, and, in the aftermath of that, we will see America's glory fade in the face of environmental and economic disasters that our then-hamstrung political system would be unable to respond to.

In the first paragraph, the office Sarah Palin is seeking is misidentified. Palin is the candidate for Vice President, not President. Anna becomes a rather incompetent writer when she gets all self-righteously indignant, doesn't she?

Ms Quindlen's experience has been with democratic politics and it shows in her lack of understanding of republicans. The GOP has had some very good women working within the party; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condi Rice, Jean Kilpatrick, et.al.. While they were doing what they were doing the democrats rolled out Geraldine Ferraro as a gimmick in 1984. Ms Quindlen refuses to give conservative women their due. In the Quindlenosphere the appropriate women are liberal democrats. Reality should set in soon and I hope the Ms Quindlen survives the breakdown because Sarah P and the others will be with the GOP for some time to come.

Many people forget that the Democrats were forever the party that upheld segregation in the South and that Lincoln was a Republican. I tend to see the Republicans as at least standing for something, whereas the Democrats are an ad-hoc catch-all for anybody and everybody who has a grudge, or wants something for free.

Protecting innocent human beings from being mercilessly slaughtered is now, "intruding into the family lives of women?" Well, gee...when you put it that way, I suppose throwing wife-beaters and other perpetrators of domestic violence is a somewhat more perplexing form of "family life intrusion." I mean, I bet the end result is death a far lesser percentage than abortions, right?

And the left-wing that has, for almost 40 years, championed at all costs the woman-in-workplace ideal, suddenly has reservations about a woman with 5 children pursuing her career goals? Can you say "hypocrisy"? Quindlen's diatribe gives the lie to the notion that the women's movement is an advocate for all women. It is not, nor has it ever been. The women's movement is concerned only with those women who walk in lockstep with them.