The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Part Three

[sauronsfinger]

I guess after the Repubican ad charging Obama with teaching tiny tots about sex - the gloves are now off. The new Obama ad released this morning .......... "Still".

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/still_ad/

[halplm]

SF, your post reeks of sexism, and your reasoning for why she was picked has been shown to be erronious, and was always speculative at best.

Personally, Padme, I think the interview was executed and edited to emphasize the perception you had of it. Charlie Gibson was "talking down" to Palin the entire time and exuding his disdain for her experience and qualifications.

Contrast this to Bill O'Reilly's interview with Obama, and you can see a quality interview that was hard hitting, but not distorting.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

So, had anybody here heard the term "Bush Doctrine" before last night? I sure hadn't. I don't know if it was intended to make her look ignorant but that's kinda what it sounded like to me.

Actually I've heard it many times. It is a policy wherein the USA reserves the right to attack first without regards towards evidence supporting the claims upon which the attack is made.

[sauronsfinger]

Hal---- you are using your false charge of "sexism" as a type of hecklers veto to stifle free exchange of ideas and to attempt to silence those who find fault with your candidates.

Did you see that female members here agreed with me?

Who appointed you as the PC police? Could you please explain to me the rules for discussing anything having to do with Sarah Palin?

Or do you want to hold the charge of "sexism" as a convenient ace up your sleeve so you can throw it in whenever the mood hits you?

If we are going to be calm and rational people, it may be good to thoroughly discuss this so this type of silly charge is not a weapon for some people here to wield as a weapon to silence or intimidate others.

How about it?

[Padme]

What happens when it's not Gibson but Putin and Putin talks down to Palin?

[Ellienor]

I've heard of the Bush doctrine too. Mainly in that by reserving the right to completely ignore the international community in deciding to go to war, it has destablized the world and set the stage for other countries (i.e., Russia) to ignore the international community and attack other countries as it fits their own internal rationalizations.

It's not sexist, Hal, to closely question someone with so little experience in foreign policy and be dubious about their credentials. Particularly when they, as she did, are clearly parroting lines and don't answer some questions. It's what all inexperienced people face. She doesn't get a free pass on that because she is female.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë - you read my intial review of the Gibson/ Palin questions last night and did not indicate anything was wrong with it outside of your renewed objection to the dangerous line. Just like Hal does on a weekly basis, I can get easilly offended too. But I would not want to make that the standard and apply it to Hals posts or anyone else.

4,500 google references to Palin and Stepford in just two weeks time. Its a longtime cultural touchstone and is a perfect reference given the situation.

Please note that Narya - a female member ofthis board - read my post with the Stepford reference in it. She posted after me saying

SF, I agree with you

sf, I don't think that your "stepford wife" comment reached the level of being a violation of the guidelines, but I do think it is tinged with sexism, for the reason that I already stated. No equivalent comment would be made about a male candidate in exactly the same circumstances.

The fact that there are 4500 google references to Palin and Stepford in two weeks means nothing. Or rather, it just means that there are other people making the same kind of sexist remarks. How many results would there be if you googled "Obama" and "muslim"? Does that mean that it would be okay to say that he is a Muslim? Nor does the fact that one female member agreed with your post mean that it couldn't have been a sexist comment.

I happen to agree with you about much of what you say about Palin's interview, but it can be expressed without using insulting terms.

Hal---- you are using your false charge of "sexism" as a type of hecklers veto to stifle free exchange of ideas and to attempt to silence those who find fault with your candidates.

Did you see that female members here agreed with me?

Who appointed you as the PC police? Could you please explain to me the rules for discussing anything having to do with Sarah Palin?

Or do you want to hold the charge of "sexism" as a convenient ace up your sleeve so you can throw it in whenever the mood hits you?

If we are going to be calm and rational people, it may be good to thoroughly discuss this so this type of silly charge is not a weapon for some people here to wield as a weapon to silence or intimidate others.

How about it?

]

This is out of line, sf. If you are going to use unnecessarily gender-charged comments, than people are going to call you out for sexist. Just as if someone made a race-charged comment about Obama, I would call them out for racism. The best way to avoid that is to make your points without making gender-charged comments.

[sauronsfinger]

In the absence of a clear and understandable set of guidelines, this type of this is going to happen again and again. I have started a stand alone thread to discuss just this type of thing and broader implications of it.

Reasonable people will see things differently.

[Primula Baggins]

The sexism/racism/ageism issue seems all of a piece to me. It undermines any discussion of issues to personalize them—"he thinks X is true because he's stupid." Why can't we just discuss whether X is true without that?

[Ellienor]

I agree with Prim and Voronwë. I read the comments on internet blogs and don't want the conversation here to devolve into that. I wish we had more perspective in here from more people, and I think that we (and I am guilty of it too) are driving people away. I want to have my thinking challenged on issues, and simply insulting and defending various personages in this campaign just isn't interesting.

[sauronsfinger]

If you watched the news today on CNN or MSNBC, the election stories were dominated by the charges of sexism. I have followed this campaign from the beginning. There have been more charges of sexism leveled by the Republicans in the last two weeks than Hillary Clinton and her campaign leveled in a solid year.

And now we see the tactic has spilled over into this forum. Is this coincidence? We need to talk about this and we need to resolve it so we can have some intelligent discussion over the next seven and 1/2 weeks.

Unless there is an advantage to some in not resolving it.

I agree that we should be talking about issues. I deeply want to discuss the national deficit, the war, Social Security, the crumbling infrastructure, education, the environment and many other issues. But until this gets dealt with, its just dirt being swept under the rug and eventually we trip over it.

[Frelga]

Well...

I strongly support the line of fire the mods here drew against members insulting other members, either directly or obliquely ("only a stupid person can believe that" type of comment).

I do not necessarily agree that ridiculing candidates and other public personages is out of line, when it is solidly based on the personage's own words and actions, or on the way they are trying to sell themselves and their side. I refrained from doing so myself, but that does take some fun out of it.

I still keep an eye on the course of campaign, but my vote has been decided based on issues, not personalities, and there is little that can happen to change my mind.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The sexism/racism/ageism issue seems all of a piece to me. It undermines any discussion of issues to personalize them—"he thinks X is true because he's stupid." Why can't we just discuss whether X is true without that?

It's a way to avoid talking about the few issues that divide them. Take the Iraq war, one of the few issues that does divide them.

Obama is close to wanting to pull out. McCain is firm on staying there for a very long time. The campaigns and the media are discussing racism and sexism.

So should we play "gotcha" with each other's candidates finding a way to twist things as personal insults to race or gender (protected classes after all), or should we discuss the relative merits of McCain's firm 'stay there' stance versus Obama's weak 'bring them home' stance?

Mind, I wish Obama were even more strongly the peace candidate so I could start to support him somewhat.

[WampusCat]

For the record, I have known for years about the Bush Doctrine, which rationalizes pre-emptive strikes. It's a dangerous policy, and the fact that Palin was obviously unaware of the controversy it has generated says much about her.

You would hope that our nation's leaders would at least be aware of the major debates taking place over whether our actions match our national ideals. She didn't just defend the wrong side (in my opinion) in the ongoing debate, she didn't seem to know that the debate was happening.

That's what bothers me.

I was also dismayed by her cheerful willingness to risk war with Russia.

[Padme]

For the record, I have known for years about the Bush Doctrine, which rationalizes pre-emptive strikes. It's a dangerous policy, and the fact that Palin was obviously unaware of the controversy it has generated says much about her.

You would hope that our nation's leaders would at least be aware of the major debates taking place over whether our actions match our national ideals. She didn't just defend the wrong side (in my opinion) in the ongoing debate, she didn't seem to know that the debate was happening.

That's what bothers me.

I was also dismayed by her cheerful willingness to risk war with Russia.

I agree. I found the whole issue with Russia a bit too cold warish. I don't know if Palin understands that Russia can actually hit the lower 48 with nukes just as easy as we can hit Russia. And I honestly don't want to go back to that fear. Well honestly I am sick and tired of having fear of the unknown being used all the time. Sometimes a country can be too aggressive.

[vison]

When I read that Alaska's proximity to Russia means that Mrs. Palin has experience in international affairs, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It is much, much, much further to Moscow than to Washington, DC. If she has international experience based on that, then she's also a Washington insider.

Looking at it from the outside, I find it utterly, totally, absolutely bizarre that this woman is being presented to the American people as a serious candidate for high office. If she is responsible for McCain winning this election, then all I can say is, those who support her will get what they deserve.

[sauronsfinger]

Vison -- I do know what you mean.... the people tend to get the government they deserve. Only problem there is that all of us must suffer along with those who are actually responsible.

I fear that this campaign will get only dirtier and more vile. I see McCain winning but his party failing to capture either the House or Senate. And there will be such bitterness and outright hatred generated by this dirty election that nothing major will get done in Washington. The Dems will simply hold the line and say NO to McCain and he will be powerless to do anything about it. We play a four year waiting game while things only get worse.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If you watched the news today on CNN or MSNBC, the election stories were dominated by the charges of sexism. I have followed this campaign from the beginning. There have been more charges of sexism leveled by the Republicans in the last two weeks than Hillary Clinton and her campaign leveled in a solid year.

And now we see the tactic has spilled over into this forum.

I don't really care what is being said on CNN or MSNBC, sf. I care what is said here. And here, you chose to use a gender-charged term to attack Palin's responses in the interview, when a non-gender-charged response would have done just as well. Others have done a good job of questioning the validity of her responses without tying them to her gender. You are the only one that hasn't seemed able to do that. If you hadn't chosen to use a gender-charged term to attack Palin, it would not have "spilled over into this forum".

[sauronsfinger]

This site,the people that post here, do not exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of the world. We are all impacted by what happens in the real world especially when we are discussing it.

[Primula Baggins]

But Voronwë and the other marshals aren't responsible for what is said elsewhere, or what atmosphere people choose to create with their posts elsewhere. Whereas here we do have some specific aims in that regard, which have been in place since we founded the site and are prominently posted in the Welcome forum. The site is private property, not a publicly owned forum, so we ask people posting here to be aware of those aims.