Sarah Palin’s Actions Speak for Me
August 18, 2010
by Kitt
|As a nonpartisan gender parity enthusiast who believes our country is sorely in need of capitalizing on the talents and contributions of the other half of its population, I have been very encouraged and excited by Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzly effort to get more Republican women elected. I’ve been wishing that Democrats had someone like her who was willing to use their power and influence to elect more women in their party. I’ve been hoping that someone or some group would emerge soon, even in time for the midterm elections, because I strongly believe that we need many, many, many more women in both parties. But instead of getting the much-needed, hoped-for, wished-for, proactive effort on behalf of women candidates, a negative, reactive video emerges. Instead of an effort to elect women, we get a video and a website targeting a woman who isn’t even running for office. Instead of a person promoting women, we get technology asking us for money and votes – and NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE MENTION OF A WOMAN CANDIDATE.
Is this the best that liberal and Democratic women get? Just a negative ad and an ask for money? Just a low budget video with women in costumes? Couldn’t you at least show us one woman’s face, perhaps one who is running for office and very likely needs our support? Couldn’t you put the same amount of public relations effort surrounding this negative ad behind a promotion of Democratic women working their behinds off trying to win primaries and general elections? There is a problem here.
If any liberals are scratching their heads wondering why so many women view Sarah Palin as an icon for women’s empowerment, this could be why. If anyone is wondering why Sarah Palin is emerging as the most direct path to achieving representational parity for women, this could be why. If anyone is wondering why most women don’t self-identify as a “feminist”, this could why. Traditional women’s groups, liberals and the Democratic Party get bogged down in issues and policies. This sounds very intellectual and lofty until you realize that this basically leads to any excuse not to vote for women, even women in their own party. This is the problem.
Let me make it simple for any head-scratchers out there: SHOW US THE WOMEN!
No more excuses. Run women. Support the women who do run. Vote for women. Elect women. Elect women. Elect women.
Sarah Palin is on to something and women know it. Let’s hope others catch on.
Emily’s List has lost it’s freaking mind:
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2010/.....-mind.html
That’s the left’s attempt to do what they only know how to do, namely try to ridicule Sarah Palin, not criticize her or debate her on issues (they can’t do that), but simply ridicule her. And as usual, their effort fails, as they make a fool of themselves looking moronically ridiculous in kindergarten type Halloween costumes.
While watching this video, just remind yourselves what’s behind it: abortions. just picture one of these ridiculous looking “bears” performing an abortion on another ridiculously looking stuffed “bear.” Then, one can get the full idiocy of this effort by “Emily’s group” and the leftist intelligentsia.
Disgusting.
The ad is demeaning and embarrassing….for the women wearing the silly hats and rubber noses. I feel bad for Emily’s List.
It’s also really sad that they are investing so much time and energy into attacking another woman who isn’t even in political office, instead of promoting female candidates. Where is the Left’s version of Palin? Oh that’s right, every time women try, they get kneecapped by their own party.
The bears are embarrassed for them………. mortification in the extreme omg ..
EMILY’S LIST DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME
Left-wing women will do ANYTHING but openly support other women. They will turn themselves into logical knots to support “women’s issues” and “women’s concerns” but not actual flesh and blood women. Not Republican ones, not Democratic ones. Emily’s List is insane — it amazes me how they will claim to be all about getting women into office and translate that in their tiny little minds as only destroying women of the other party. They really are a perfect example of the ugly truth about female primates: they under-rank every male around, and the only primates they will ever attack will be the females of another tribe.
Stop being monkeys, Emily’s List. Try walking upright for a change, instead of acting like a troop of girl baboons.
Peter, sorry to disabuse you of the notion, but I am pro-choice. Many women here are. Many are not. We are not interested in being balkanized over it anymore, by anyone. The solution is for ALL WOMEN of ALL OPINIONS to get into power — then, WE get to make the decisions about abortion. Not you. And we won’t have to beg and plead with men to please make YOUR decisions the way we like, either. We’ll work it out for ourselves, which is precisely what choice means.
This furry video could win the stupidest video contest this year. I think it was written by one of their sons in an h.s. film class, with script by the younger brother.
As for Emily’s List associating itself with such drek, it has lost its effing mind, but worse that they have sunk to such a depth for going after Palin and being such devoted Lefty Dims.
I think they used parts of the Ewoks costumes from a Star Wars convention
AMEN, Janis, yttik, Swannie and Hughes! You all speak for me…not some watered-down sad excuse for an organization supposed to promote women in office! Gimme a friggin break!!!!!
I am pro choice, as is the female head of the Republican party here in my district . I am a former life long democrat now independent. This video will live long in infamy …it belongs in the mortification hall of fame .
Wolf Blitzer turned red when he played it on The Situation Room , actually he couldn’t speak for a few seconds …….funny as hell ..
I’ve seen this video discussed for days now and I still don’t know what the actual point of it was supposed to be for Emily’s List. I mean, were they going to use it as a fundraising video or something?
And if so, to what target audience?
‘Cause otherwise, I’m stumped. o.O
“And if so, to what target audience?”
Not an audience that wants more women elected, that’s fer sher. Including Democratic women, because like the article says they didn’t even mention any that were running.
This is a fucking humiliating joke. This is their idea of “empowered?” Flouncing and whining and snarking in a goddamned kiddie costume?!
OMG talk about handing Republicans a talking point in the war for women’s votes which is the majorities vote. This is why I no longer identify as “Feminist” but as pro woman. What a joke.
Another thing that always stuns me… in this messed up world how is it that a bunch of women who have access to birth control, many of whom don’t even have male lovers and many of whom are post menopausal and so have zero rish of pregnancy, come up with abortion as THE major issue in women’s lives? And if they do see abortion as THE major issue why would they vote Democrat after the Dems sold women out in the health care bill for absolutely no reason since they control the House, Senate and Presidency?
This piece of feminist crap ad needs to be put up permanently and Liberal women need to keep being reminded of it.
I still can’t figure out why a bunch of women who think abortion is the be-all and end-all can:
1) hate the shit out of a woman who never once legislated against abortion nor used her office to promote her own stance, and
2) adore a party that did more to destroy abortion rights than any party in history with the healthcare horseshit that barred women from even buying insurance on their own to cover it?
Can someone please explain it to me? They only seem to care oh-so-deeply about abortion rights (which are indeed vastly important) when it can be used as an excuse to hate That Bitch Over There. The minute it ceases to be an excuse to knife some chick, they cease to care.
The ONLY thing I can think of Janis , is that so many women missed the feminist message , and are still buying into the patriarchal competitive crap … and are willing to demean themselves in the extreme , even to the point of opening themselves to the most obvious comments like “nice beavers” to try and bring down the “competition”
BevWKY, If you look at EL’s website your question is answered.
I always thought EL’s mission was about electing prochoice Dem women, which is great. However, now that seems to be watered down a bit and also includes some other goals:
“Women have incredible power to shape this critical election — and EMILY’s List is capturing the power of women as candidates, as contributors, as campaign professionals, and as voters to turn our nation around.”
This statement belies EL’s real purpose for the Dem party: to deliver the votes, the money and the volunteers for the Democratic Party. The candidate part is just one small piece of the EL pie.
Apparently, EL has become the keeper of the “women vote”. Notice a box on the left “mobilizing women voters” which describes The Women Vote program. It seems it is not all about voting for women, it about women voting – and EL must be the “go to” group when the “women vote” is required.
This video is all about EL and their management of The Women Vote. The powers that be of the Dem party are not happy about Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzly program. Enter Emily’s List.
What Emily’s List should be telling themselves in their private little board meetings is:
“Look. Although we strongly dislike Palin’s approach to policy she IS aggressively campaigning for women candidates in her party and damn it if she isn’t doing a better job at it than we at Emily’s List are doing for Dem Women.
How about we use Palin’s activism as a model! Like, we can start campaigning THIS agressively for Dem women as well as encourage big-named Dem women politicians to get in on the action by blatantly stating that it is important to have female representation in our party.”
But noooooo….. they have to come up with this LUDICROUS video! “Empowering” women by dressing them up like stuffed animals! This is the most absurd reaction to Palin’s clear strength as a leader for Repub women. They might as well say that they prefer a Repub to be male versus female!!!!
I am horrified by this video and Halane absolutely nailed the absurdity of it all in this article.
Janis, you make a very good point about the anti choice health care reform bill vs Palin’s record which includes no antichoice actions and, in fact, includes some prochoice actions. This must be one of the logical knots you mentioned above that Dem women have to tie themselves into to explain this one.
The EL web site devoted to this anti Palin effort also has a list of Palin endorsees and their extremist views on important issues with these headings: Anti Choice, Against Health Care, Pro Big Business, Pro Big Oil. All of her endorsees get a red check mark in these categories. So, apparently abortion is not the only issue which can be used as an excuse not to vote for a woman. I hope these women are taking yoga classes b/c it will take a lot of tying themselves into knots to logic themselves into supporting all the men in their party who would also get checks in these categories.
Back to your health care reform example Janis, how many Democratic men and women voted in favor of the health care reform bill? If so, they are anti choice according EL president who called a part of the bill “an assault on women’s reproductive rights”. So which is it, if they were against health care, they get a red check mark and if they voted in favor of health care, they are anti choice and also get a red check mark?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....49623.html
In recognition of the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, Palin has just endorsed a whole slew of additional women candidates for 2010:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....0211583434
http://www.conservatives4palin.....l#comments
She also went more than halfway in inviting Emily’s list to call a truce, get on board with supporting strong women candidates, and not let the divisive issue of abortion get in the way.
I really like her leadership style, and that she always seems so willing to reach out her hand in friendship and understanding, even to those with whom she disagrees.
Swannie, it’s def monkey behavior — that’s how I saw it in response to Bes’s comment, anyhow. Left-wing women are godawful insecure about finding hubbies and boyfriends, and see knifing another woman in the back as the ultimate “see? See? I’m all feminist-n-stuff, but I’m totally nonthreatening to men!” argument they can make with potential SOs. It’s pure, unalloyed baboon behavior. They haven’t got and never will have the nerve to take on men, so they shoot for the bitches on the other side.
It’s absolutely an inability to shake off patriarchal conditioning, the ultimate part of which is horrific insecurity around men and a fear of being without one.
The thing is liberal “feminists” have never been known as politically savvy. You know that NOW has become nothing but a ladies axillary for the Dems and my guess is that other politically unsophisticated, formerly feminist, groups have also be infiltrated by male Democrat functionaries and the remaining women march around saluting every five seconds and being grateful that someone is paying attention to them for once.
Janis got me thinking about the absurdity of supporting Dem men who voted for the most restriction to abortion rights while hating a woman who has no anti choice record. I found a post on EL’s blog reflecting their opinion of the health reform bill and I found an amazing quote by EL president Ellen Malcolm.
“There’s absolutely no way this would have happened if half the members of the House and Senate were women.”
This is totally true, see the link to verify. http://emilyslist.org/blog/a_sorry_tale/
So, here we have the EL president fully recognizing the value of having gender parity in Congress, yet her org’s efforts are slamming women who don’t happen to 100% agree on a handful of core Democratic party issues.
As Greta pointed out, time for yoga class…
I am sorry I just can’t process that this ad was thought up by women. I just think it was instigated by a bunch of idiot male Democrats who think it would be appealing to liberal Democrat women who they think are too stupid to know that the Dems sold women out in the health care bill when they didn’t need to because they controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. The Dems use reproductive rights in fear campaigns which is they only way they have communicated with women voters, so if they ever make Reproductive rights the indisputable law they lose their biggest weapon to use on women. Male Democrats will never let that happen.
Bes, it was women, believe me. I know women who would have come up with this lamebrained scheme and thought themselves empowerfulated for having done so. Trust me, it was women.
…you’re cherry-picking. Finding something that allows you to say what you want to say. It’s a commercial. Yes, let’s light the torches. Also: you seem to imply there aren’t any women in politics, particularly in the Democratic party which is just…well it doesn’t make any sense. Not to mention other more important positions like…oh what’s it called…the Supreme Court. That’s right. Two female nominees in a row. But it’s more fun to get upset about a commercial.
One of the comments mentioned how women have to buy additional insurance for abortions in the new legislation –
(1) That only applies to those who don’t stick with the insurance they already have (which will be most people).
(2) You’re blaming Democrats when it was a (sad) compromise forced by a single Republican who used it to get his fifteen minutes and campaign contributions. He’s the one who deserves the largest share of the blame, not the people who achieved the largest expansion in health coverage in decades.
Palin is boring and not qualified. A person’s gender isn’t enough to make a person qualified or unqualified — that’s one of the central lessons of gender equality and it applies here. Voting for someone because she’s a woman is just as silly as voting for someone because he’s a man.
Hughes, I read the link you posted in your comment and I had to share an inconsistency I couldn’t help but noticing. Look at the EL anti Palin site listing Palin’s endorsees. http://sarahdoesntspeakforme.com/endorsee/
In the “say what?!” column, they post a comment or action by the extremist endorsee to prove how extremist they are and why they “don’t speak for me”. Kelly Ayotte’s says “Called health care reform a “deeply-flawed law”.
Guess who else used these same words? Ellen Malcolm, EL President:
“A compromise ultimately was forged to preserve health care reform, but it is deeply flawed and the choice groups are working hard to improve it.”
I kid you not: http://emilyslist.org/blog/a_sorry_tale/
“Working hard to improve it” by mobilizing the women vote for Dems in November by slamming candidates who are “against health care reform” which includes a “deeply flawed” compromise referred to by EL Pres as an “assault on women’s reproductive rights” and by setting up a website and video strictly for the purpose of slamming a non-candidate political figure in the opposing party who has the audacity to endorse women candidates in her party.
EL’s short version of their mission is “an organization that helps elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.”. Maybe it is time that EL gets back to that mission, after all:
“There’s absolutely no way this would have happened if half the members of the House and Senate were women.”
Notice, she didn’t say Democratic prochoice women, she just said “women”. And I agree with her 100%
quick correction….i forgot stupak and nelson were democrats — and nitwits to be sure but no more representative of all male Dems than Palin is representative of all Republican women (i hope). Stupak and Nelson, however, are highly conservative Dems from red states – call them what you want, Blue Dogs etc.,, but they’re conservative.
greta, the difference is palin’s objections had nothing to do with the abortion provision — i’m sure she probably thought that part was just dandy. instead, she imagined “death panels” and a bunch of other silliness that wasn’t even real. if Palin had objected to the bill because it failed to provide benefits for abortions then EL wouldn’t be criticizing her, but that’s not the case. she was one of the people who contributed to the haze of misinformation that, one could surmise, distracted from more substantive discussions — like the abortion provision. in case it’s not clear, i agree with you that it’s lousy they didn’t include it in the bill but palin did nothing to fight for it so shouldn’t be placed in the camp of those who did, and i think she’d agree with that. i know that’s not quite what you’re saying but…i’ve said enough.
Yes, you have. Clearly you haven’t a clue what the hell we’re talking about. You’d have to actually read the articles and comments to get that.
What? Actually read all the posts and comments here to get an idea of what we’re saying, why we’re saying it, and where we’re coming from? Read what a bunch of dumb chicks think? Totally not worth it!
Good bye.
Steve: Our point is why are you Dems talking about Palin? Is she running for something? Why are you not talking about you slate of women candidates and doing something to help them? Is Palin bashing all you all are capable of? You know what, The Dems don’t speak for me. That’s because I saw the “alleged” sexism in the Dem Primary and how the party told Hillary to sit down and shut up in 2008. I am not going to forget that. Ever. And if you think a platform of Palin mocking, Bush blaming and Reproductive rights fear mongering is going to impress women voters you are an idiot.
Bes, I still can’t believe that he had to justify hating on Palin over the anti-choice healthcare fiasco because, well, um … she said something about something else having to do with it that was sort of connected that I didn’t like one time … so she’s totally responsible for Stupak and Hyde!
Logical Knot #2 — thanks for the demo, Steve.
He doesn’t KNOW of any other Dem women running for office, and if he did, he’d vote against them because they were women … to prove he wasn’t voting based on gender, dontcha know …
Well, today sarah palin speaks for me:
“Today marks the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment which granted American women the right to vote. Words cannot express the depth of gratitude we owe to those brave feminist foremothers who struggled and sacrificed, endured imprisonment and ridicule, and fought fearlessly to grant future generations of American women a voice. We stand on their shoulders. Our opportunities are their legacy; our achievements, their monument…”
http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....0211583434
It may well be age and crankiness, but I was incensed by this video and by the continuous degradation of feminism and of liberalism…by psuedo-liberals?! Who are these people???. During the primary, one MSNBC-Beavis made a “joke” about pimping out Chelsea Clinton. (HEH!HEH!) I see the MSNBC boyz have been matched by the Buttheads at EL. I’m trying to envision Geithner or Bernanke making a serious announcement about the economy while dressed like a widdle, biddy muppet. The message these women attempted to convey was trivialized and infantilized by an unfunny attempt to target Palin. What’s worse is they evidently have no idea how ridiculous this looks and sounds. The medium is the message, as the saying goes.
Palin devised a potent motif in using the term “Mama Grizzlies”, but she didn’t hand out funny ears and noses for the women in her audience to wear. Why? I can only conclude that she has greater respect for the dignity of women than EL does. This is a complete disgrace.
Steve,
We are upset about the commercial b/c, in the recent past, traditional women’s groups have let women down time and time again and this is just another example. Women need women representing them in Congress not men who are strong on Democratic-party-designated “women’s issues”. This will never happen if we don’t just bite the bullet and vote for women and realize the world will not explode if women obtain some actual power to make the world a better place. It will never happen if we continue to put all of our eggs in the Democratic party basket. It will never happen if we continue to use issues as excuses not to vote for women or as an excuse to slam Republican women. It will NEVER happen if women’s groups continue to hold real progress for women hostage by one end-all/be-all issue or handful of issues deemed “women’s issues” by the Democratic party. When will the Democratic Party and their women’s groups realize there is no such thing as a “women’s issue”. Women are affected by all issues. We are half the population and we have diverse lives which are affected by different experiences. We don’t all think the same way and we don’t all have the same priorities. But we have a different perspective to bring to governing which is 100% necessary to address all of the problems our country faces. Our country needs the talents of both halves of its population involved in developing solutions which affect the entire population. We are ready for this. The video commercial is a symptom of the “women’s issues” school of thought which has reached a dead end. Women’s progress must continue on a new Pro-Women path: Elect women. Elect women. Elect women. The rest will take care of itself.
We hope that discussing the video commercial will highlight the dead-end nature of the school of thought behind its creation and encourage people to embrace the fact that the path to progress is very simple: elect women. It is a very simple concept but very hard to break out of old ways and accept. Dialogue and discussion can be very helpful in moving the process along. So I ask you not to cherry pick on the video but rather focus on the message. Move forward. Elect women.
Thank you.
Bes — I agree, I think focusing on Palin is silly, a waste, unproductive…etc., etc. If you can provide a few articles demonstrating the Dems aren’t supporting their female candidates and are running against Palin in multiple races I’ll gladly read them. (I assume the ones where she does come up are places where she’s inserted herself into the campaign in terms of campaigning for other candidates — in that case she should be part of the discussion.) If I’m mistaken in that, I’ll gladly admit it but I’d like to see where this is happening. Honestly, the way you read the way Democrats are running doesn’t wash with what I’ve seen. Is it wrong to point out that Bush *did* leave us with some serious problems that can’t be neatly tidied up in a couple years? To me, it’s a fair point because it’s true. Have they performed flawlessly? Not at all.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most accomplished politicians in decades and I don’t see her as letting anyone tell her to sit down and shut up, but that’s your read on it and that’s okay — the main thing I’m curious about is the above.
Janis, the point was she contributed to misinformation that was not productive. That’s not a logical knot, that’s well-reasoned analysis easily backed up by fact and free, by the way, of random personal assertions. There aren’t any Democratic women running in my district, which is unfortunate. We did manage to elect several women to the city council (one of them lesbian, how ’bout that?) and I voted for all of them. My mother was an ordained minister and fought sexism her entire life and raised me by herself. Am I an acceptable person yet? Can I breathe? Post a comment or two on a blog? Thanks.
Hughes — all of that’s fair, and I agree with about 99% of it; particularly the focus on “women’s issues” for all the reasons you suggest. Obviously Palin strikes a chord with me, as does Angle in Nevada. I truly believe she is not someone who should be elected to higher office and I wish the debate would focus on substance, not kids and hair and all the other silliness women candidates get hit with. The cable talking heads are dumb as are the people who make commercials which, like soap ads, are aimed at the lowest common denominator. I susppose I like to think that the people making the decisions are smarter than their marketing; one would hope.
Steve, the point was that she said something at all. She had the temerity to join the debate and thus took on total responsibility for everything that ever goes wrong in the universe from now until the end of time.
How about YOU prove to ME that you have been just as much of a pain in the ass about men who have obfuscated about choice regardless of party, like — just pulling a name out of thin air, here — our fearless leader? Is Palin more front and center in your crosshairs as a woman than the MAN who actually did it?
You have a funny definition of “fact.”
BTW — no, you aren’t.
BTW:
LOOK EVERYONE it’s a MAN! Let’s make him the fucking center of attention!
Steve,
Thanks for voting for women. I’m sorry there aren’t any women running in your district nor, I assume, your state. You still can support women in other states by donating to their campaigns, “liking” them on facebook, asking your friends to do the same or friends in her state to vote for her. Here’s one for you: http://www.debforvermont.com/ Deb Markowitz is running for Gov in VT. Latest poll shows she has the best chance to beat the Republican in the general. But she has to win the Dem primary next Tuesday first. There have been some very, very close primary races. (I’m talking women losing by less than 2500, 1500, and even 700 votes.) Your involvement could make a difference.
BTW, to further explain, we’d like to see more high profile promotion (on the level of the video discussed in this piece) of Dem women candidates from Dem party and its various women’s groups. We’d like to see no bashing of Pub or Dem women. This is what we expect from women’s groups or any party referring to itself as “the party for women”. It is a reasonable expectation and we’re not getting it, hence our frustration. I’m sure you understand.
BevWKY, If you look at EL’s website your question is answered.
I always thought EL’s mission was about electing prochoice Dem women, which is great. However, now that seems to be watered down a bit and also includes some other goals:
“Women have incredible power to shape this critical election — and EMILY’s List is capturing the power of women as candidates, as contributors, as campaign professionals, and as voters to turn our nation around.”
By dressing women in fur Halloween costumes.
Rrrrriiiggghhhttt.
Does anyone from their organization honestly believe that any part of any message is going to make it past those visuals?
OTOH, female Democratic candidate might want to be grateful they weren’t mentioned in that mess, just in case.
The other thing that sticks out to me, once one gets past the visuals, is that they make such a point of having the women say what they do (but not who they are) and then their occupations are at such odds with the lunacy of what they’re doing.
Yeah, so authentic and reassuring. o.O
Janis, that’s…just not true. I never once heard anyone say that the problem with health care reform was all due to Palin…that’s just not, well, fact. Honestly, she was a bit player on the outside — the people who really effected it were legislators, and United HealthCare, among others — all of whom had a harder job than the talking heads on the outside.
As to your second paragraph, sure, I’ll happily prove to you that I’ve been disappointed with how Obama didn’t fight against the Stupak amendment…sure…because that’s…possible? Good to know you’re open to those who question your assertions. That’s a way to healthy debate.
Palin just keeps speaking for me:
“….On this anniversary of women’s suffrage, let’s take a moment to be grateful for the diversity of the debate. Women don’t walk in lockstep with each other in politics, any more than men do. We should be proud of our ability to engage in a civil discussion and healthy debate. I know I am. Unfortunately, I’ve recently come under attack for speaking up for sisters who seek to serve in public office. The sad part is that the attack comes from other sisters who happen to be on the other side of an issue that has been of great importance to American women from the time of our feminist foremothers, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, down to today. I’m speaking of the issue of life. I feel compelled to offer some advice to our sisters who like to throw stones at those of us who respectfully disagree with them on this issue (and they sometimes refuse to even countenance the fact that some of us can call ourselves feminists and disagree with those who claim the mantle of “real feminists”). First, ladies, it’s hard to take a critic seriously when they lecture you wearing a bear suit. So, it’s difficult for me to drum up much outrage at this latest ad. But, really, lying about a sister while wearing an Ewok outfit is no way to honor our foremothers on the eve of the 90th anniversary of their victory. But, that aside, I’d love to know where you got those get-ups. Halloween is just around the corner, and Piper and Trig would look adorable as little grizzly bears……
http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....0211583434
Hughes, I hear you — and I admit that for me, regardless of personal matters that need no airing on the ol’ InterWeb, it’s likely easier for me to see these things from a remove/distance, however you want to call it. I’m glad Obama was elected but would have voted for Clinton in a heartbeat — honestly my only worry with her was that the Rs would go crazy and it’d be exhausting, plus I kinda thought the idea of the last president’s alternating between Bushes and Clintons didn’t paint the most, err, democratic picture…all of which is trivial. My state has never even had a woman governor which is odd and has been a subject of discussion; we just haven’t had women run, why, I don’t know. I like Markowitz but am not that familiar with her (also don’t live anywhere near VT) and will look at her stuff — I can’t donate to her or anyone (grad student, meager funds). Anyway, wasn’t trying to be obnoxious; I do have a visceral reaction to Palin and given that my inclination has always been to support women candidates it’s not gender-driven, but no need to repeat all that. And, yes, fur costumes…silly.
Steve: At least half of the men in elected office are idiots and plenty of them should be in prison instead of office holders, everyone know this. So I support Angle, idiot or not, for once lets have some female idiots in government at least she doesn’t belong in prison. You and other Dems need to stop trying to idiotize every woman who runs for office because it makes you look like knee jerk misogynist pigs. You never idiotize the male politician.
The Dems ran a crooked primary in 2008 full of “alleged” sexism. They threw out the Primary votes of several large states. They ran corrupt caucuses. And then instead of a traditional convention with a real vote which Obama couldn’t have won, they told Hillary to sit down and shut up. Not even the courtesy of a real vote. Yeah you Dems can do anything you want in your primary but the whole world was watching and they aren’t forgetting the Banana Republic politics.
Dems need to STFU about Bush. They have ruled for 2 years, I want to know what they have done, and what they will do, Federal Dems also need to STFU regarding education which is a states issue because they are suing Arizona for taking on the federal border issue. And they also need to STFU about reproductive rights which they just sold out for no reason, the scare tactics are condescending to women.
Love’er or hate’er, Palin never backs down, does she? The rest of that Facebook post is great, too.
P.S. Isn’t it better to just ignore the concern trolls rather than feeding them?
It’s better to ban the fuckers. Otherwise they just fucking run roughshod and invite their buddies.
It’s sad. EMILY’s List used to be such a strong, constructive org. They have truly lost their way.
Just an admin note for everyone here – at 9 p.m. EST our website will be coming offline. Check back tomorrow. You’ll LOVE what you see…..
“Voting for women simply because they’re women…”
Have you ever heard somebody say, I’m voting for this candidate just because he’s a man??! Anybody ever accused somebody of being a penis voter?? No, because it is always presumed that a male candidate obviously has something more to offer than his genitalia.
I suggest this is an incredibly sexist thing to say and should be stricken from the dialog. It implies that female candidates have nothing to offer beyond their gender and I find it really offensive. It not only insults female candidates, it insults female voters.
Steve,
Don’t forget that Sarah Palin is endorsing a ton of women candidates. In this crowd, that is considered a good thing. I would hope it would be for you as well. I’m sure this is painful for you to read but Sarah Palin is very powerful and influential. Her endorsement carries a lot of weight. Her endorsees may not always win but they definitely get get a boost in their message outreach and will have a much easier time running the next time around. Many of her endorsees have won their primaries and are likely to win in November. (And there’s no way you can honestly say that all of her endorsees are extremmists not fit for public office. I can tell you aren’t so viscerally against Sarah that you’d be willing to go that far. Plus, even my super lefty lib mother told me that she doesn’t have a problem with any of Sarah’s mama grizzlies except Angle.) The “quitter” term just doesn’t apply. There are many women out there who consider her a hero for being an active “fighter” (to use your term) to get women elected. Just her existence and the existence of her endorsements have inspired and will continue to inspire, embolden and empower more Republican women to run. That’s a fact. Liberals gut reaction is to find that “scary”. But they need to get out of the box and look at it honestly and they will see it is for the best. Sarah Palin will have an effect on how many women get elected this year. This starts a domino effect. The more women who are elected and serve in office, the more likely women will run. The more women who run, the more women will win. These women who were helped by Sarah’s endorsement will be likely to help other women to win and encourage women to run. The wins for Republican women will cause a momentum that will effect 2012 elections. Sarah will likely still be doing her mama grizzly endorsement thing in 2012 and beyond. I also think the momentum of Republican women started by the 2010 and 2012 wins will bleed over to Democratic women. Liberals may moan and groan about Sarah, but her effect will ultimately be that more Dem women will run. The whole thing is good for Dems and Pubs. I really think Sarah Palin’s endorsements have the potential to pop the seal and get women down the road to a critical mass in representation. Sarah Palin will go down in history as the woman who jump started gender parity for women. I really believe this. So, to call her a quitter is really off base. Sarah has found a great way to use her unique political circumstances and sizable influence and power for the greater good. Seriously, out of all the scary things that liberals can think of Sarah Palin doing, isn’t working to get women elected really not so scary? I think liberals should egg Palin on and encourage her endorsements of women. Despite what liberals say and what they wish, Sarah Palin isn’t a quitter. She’s not going away. She’s not going to suddenly turn into a cookie cutter liberal feminist who works for the Democratic party. So, if liberals bring themselves to face that reality, they will see that Mama Grizzly endorsements is really the kind of thing they want to see coming out of Sarah Palin. Think about it Steve and it may help calm your visceral reaction. Reason has that effect.
Well Hughes you are assuming that the Dems have the goal of gender parity and everything they do and say indicates that that is not the case. They want to have women represented by the benevolent male progressives. The male progressives will tell us what are women’s issues and they will do the representing they don’t need input from those pesky women.
Oh, and Sarah isn’t a quitter she just doesn’t waste her time playing a loosing game and that is the game her political opponents, the Democrats and crooked Republicans are playing. We have very complex problems in this country and those problems are most likely to be solved by practical out of the box thinkers like Sarah not by political junkies who waste their time playing the system and filing bogus law suits.
Hughes, thank you for a very perceptive description of Sarah Palin’s incredibly positive effect on our political landscape, now and in the future.
One reason I support her, and REALLY hope she runs for (and therefore becomes) president, is that unlike most women politicians she never EVER apologizes for being a woman.
[This is probably what gets Steve's goat, and all the others who have a "visceral" reaction against her -- after all, women are SUPPOSED to apologize always, and especially for being women. It certainly explains why wannabe alpha males from obama to o'reilly have a REALLY hard time dealing with her!]
IMHO her unthinkable boldness on this score is what, more than anything, has enabled her to maximize her strengths, talents and vision, and translate them into her many extraordinary accomplishments.
And it is what makes her an incredible and much needed role model for all girls and young women — indeed, for most women of any age.
As a Democrat I find this Emily’s List Ad true to the immaturity and and lack of intelligence that also harbors itself within other organizations such as NOW. I am not Pro Choice but do favor abortion only in specific circumstances yet am an activitis on femine issues both regarding equality and politics. Why should anyone question why these organizations have become extensions of the left wing and have little to no effect on women anywhere in the world, especially the US even though some spend most days on the hill?
Excuse the lack of proofreading above but I think the point is made and I have just two seconds left. Off to attending to the business of Virginia, the August 28th rally in DC with Sarah Palin and a town hall with the VA Gov.
For what it’s worth, I just called EMILY’s list in D.C. and gave one of their representatives a piece of my mind about the ridiculous ad. I let her know that I was a Hillary supporter and that I became an Independent because of the Dems mysogynistic primary.
I talked about obama being advertised as “this is what a feminist looks like…” and made it clear that it was Hillary, not obama, who is a true feminist and should have gotten that honor.
I also told her about The New Agenda and how fair and open this women’s blog was towards women of all political affiliations and beliefs and how they should follow the example being expressed here, instead of attacking Sarah Palin to appease the misogynistic sickness that apparently is still just as strong as it’s always been, except it’s gone “underground”.
Interesting Kathleen.
I’ve also had folks email me to say they got fundraising calls in conjunction with this “video” – and told EL to not call them again.
What a shame for EL. I had hopes that they had seen what putting all of your progressive eggs in the Democratic Party basket had gotten them in 2008, 2009, and 2010…NADA! I had high hopes that they would take the initiative to gather momentum for Democratic women to run in primaries for many of New York State’s open federal spots, but they didn’t. I am sure they may have had a few women that they wanted to run for maybe Governor, or for the 29th district of congress, but were told, “no, its Cuomo’s turn or support just Louise cuz we don’t want a high profile Dem running for the 29th if it might have the winner running against her after redistricting.” Just amazing what opportunities they missed by remaining with the Democratic Party status quo.
EL has a history of disappointing their female constituents, now this ad. It really is a shame.
Interesting Kathleen.
I’ve also had folks email me to say they got fundraising calls in conjunction with this “video” – and told EL to not call them again.
Simply telling them not to call is great but doesn’t always drive the point home. Over the last year, a lot of Tea Partiers and conservatives – which are not the same thing – have been telling the RNC that they were sending their money to SarahPAC or straight to individual candidates instead of the organization when approached for money. And the money trails show that’s exactly what they’ve been doing too.
The point being that it doesn’t matter where you choose to send your money, including nowhere, as long as EL, NOW or whomever know it’s not going to them but it also helps if they at least suspect where else it could be going because then the bells do eventually start ringing in their heads. Like when the RNC finally resorted to having Sarah do a phone thingie for them, just to raise some money.
Money talks. Always.
it is really amazing to me how so many liberals have a gut reaction against Sarah because of alleged lack of intelligence, at a time when her brilliant strategy cannot be overlooked anymore. one does not need an attack with all stops pulled to fight a dumb person. ignorance toward her would be quite sufficient.
what I find brilliant is how Sarah goes for great and meet the pro life activists to show support, but her headlines are small government, mama grizzlies can save us and self reliance. this is a concept which reaches beyond the republican party, includes the tea party’s furor and many other unhappy citizens. the brave support for conservative and moderate women from well-known to unknown status has the potential wake up more independent and feminist women.
Regarding the top liberal “women’s issue” item abortion, I would not draw too many conclusions from her appointing the pro-choice female judge in Alaska. After all she had no pro-life alternative and I have no knowledge whether there was a procedure to reject the choices she had. But interestingly she did not appoint the Alaskan higher court judge in quiet but with fanfare for her pro-women stance. I personally believe that Sarah Palin’s interests are aligned with getting the government out of people’s lives wherever possible and work outside the government against unwanted pregnancies. Hopefully she thinks about work family conflicts, which I think are hugely important in women’s lower financial status. Can this be addressed without government involvement? I would be very curious.
So far, I am just like the author and the many commentators very happy with all her female endorsements.
NOW and EL have to start listenting and not attacking, if they don’t want to go into extinction.
Instead of a person promoting women, we get technology asking us for money and votes – and NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE MENTION OF A WOMAN CANDIDATE.
I think it finally sunk into my head that this EL ad is part of a “get out to vote” campaign and it only took several of you saying it in different ways to get there. Talk about muddying the message with distracting images. Sheesh.
But if that’s so, then this whole thing truly is a “get out to vote against women” campaign? Oye. Or do they mention any men that she endorsed on their website? ‘Cause I honestly can’t bring myself to go there to find out. o.O
I mean, seriously, I am honestly not the type of person to vote across the board for women simply because they’re women. I place more value on my own freedom and intelligence to choose than to do that. But for the same reason, I will however give them more than a second look, just because they’ve gotten out there to run in the first place.
And I believe that’s a large part of the reason why Palin is endorsing the way she is right now. Is there a long term “Presidential” strategy behind her choices? Maybe. For some of them. OTOH, I also believe some of them are simply to highlight people, female or male, who might not get the boost into the spotlight that they need, win, lose or draw. To get people like me to take that second look.
Simply because she is who she is right now and can do it.
If that pays off politically in dividends she can use later, then so be it. If not, whatever. I’ve never thought she was lying when she said “If I die, I die.” all those months ago.
But the simple truth is that she knows the ultimate decision is up to the voters. We think it through and we choose. Which is why that EL ad is so doubly insulting by being “get out to vote against women” if it is.
Who do they think they’re talking to? Children? Because that boat has sailed.
It seems it is not all about voting for women, it about women voting – and EL must be the “go to” group when the “women vote” is required.
That’s a very insightful comment. It reminds me of how Obama’s 2008 campaign website was set up. There was nothing about what Obama would do for women or what he did for women, but there was a section on “Women for Obama”.
Anna anytime someone sees a woman they see “stupid”, especially men. They see stereotypes, and what type of girl/woman is that. But for the most part they see “stupid”
As an early member of EMILY’s List I am so embarrassed for the new leadership. I feared that Ellen Malcolm’s stepping down would be a problem; however, it appears to be more than a problem — the new leadership has turned the powerhouse into a dollhouse. What a shame!
Bes, I don’t need to post another word as you speak for me:
“Steve: At least half of the men in elected office are idiots and plenty of them should be in prison instead of office holders, everyone know this. So I support Angle, idiot or not, for once lets have some female idiots in government at least she doesn’t belong in prison. You and other Dems need to stop trying to idiotize every woman who runs for office because it makes you look like knee jerk misogynist pigs. You never idiotize the male politician.”
You know, I hadn’t really thought about it or thought it through – probably because I don’t normally pay much attention to the entire life/choice debates – but in the last 24 hours I’ve seen quote after quote, as in I’ve lost count, from various blogs, some of them even left-leaning, that rephrase basically the same sentiment regarding the EL video.
It’s biggest mistake isn’t its misfired attack on Palin.
The worst part by far could very well be the blow it gives to the pro-choice movement by attempting to portray themselves as Mama Grizzlies protecting cubs at the same time they’re complaining about wanting the freedom to do away with their own grandchildren.
Uh, huh?
Not exactly the way to win the argument. o.O
This is by no means an attempt to get into a discussion about the issue. I’m just pointing out what people are saying about the video and the impression they’re gettin from it. On reflection, they have a valid point about it, I don’t care which side you’re on. What a mess. I think I’d be asking who side those people are actually on if I was supporting them.
Its biggest mistake to me was that it didn’t support any Democratic women running ror office. Okay, so Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for you, Fuzzy. So why don’t you start speaking for yourself and tell me what YOU think, instead of just pointing at the other one?
What women do YOU support?
Oops, sorry — that’s right, you’re askairt to tell me that because some chucklehead idiot like Steve might think you were voting for a woman just because she’s a woman!!!! Can’t have THAT! Better vote against all women everywhere instead just to play it safe, because we all care so much what the Steves of the world think!!!!
With the way that Palin, Clinton, and lots of other women running for office were treated this part two and a half years, voting for a woman just because she’s a woman (vagina-voting, yall!) is a lot like defending a rape victim just because she’s a woman. Would I do that?
You’re GODDAMNED RIGHT I WOULD.
Does that make me sexist?
Mail it to someone who cares.
Its biggest mistake to me was that it didn’t support any Democratic women running ror office. Okay, so Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for you, Fuzzy. So why don’t you start speaking for yourself and tell me what YOU think, instead of just pointing at the other one?
What women do YOU support?
Oh, undoubtedly. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that, Janis. That’s certainly what we who read this site should be upset about but since EL didn’t endorse any women in the ad and instead spouted off on policy issues, what is everyone else supposed to think about as a result of it?
Other than those images, I mean.
They’re left with what was actually said–combined with the images–to meditate on. And if I was sending money to EL to speak for me, I’d be asking who wrote/produced that piece of brilliance and want their head on a platter.
Well the other thing is the Dems just sold out reproductive rights in the health care bill for no reason. They own the Senate, the House and the Presidency and they are the ones who put in the provision that women have to write a separate check for completely different coverage if they want reproductive care.
So why make the point that you vote Democrat because you care about reproductive rights. It is just an idiotic point to make.
But that is the main problem with old school feminists, they live in their own echo chamber and they don’t allow reality or other peoples comments to penetrate their world.
I was extremely disappointed in the video Emily’s List produced.
When I saw Sarah’s “Mamma Grizzlies” ad I felt proud to be a woman. I felt a connection with ALL women in a common cause–to improve the lives of everyone in this country.
When I saw the video from Emily’s List I was almost embarrassed to be a woman. It protrayed woman as mocking, petty, and divisive.
Thank you for writing this.
Bes….I saw it as a calculation that there was an overall greater benefit to the overall population if they made that compromise…plus, they couldn’t get the super majority they needed without the (two or three) Dems and a couple Rs who worked the situation masterfully to their own benefit. For me, it doesn’t make sense to demonize an entire party (or any group) based on the actions of a few individuals.
Bev…. is saying, “at the same time they’re complaining about wanting the freedom to do away with their own grandchildren” really a fair way of reflecting their position? Is that the best way to advance the discussion? How much better is it than the ad a lot of people are complaining about?
Just asking…
Can anyone tell me who funds New Agenda…?
The question comes up in one of the videos embedded on this page:
http://jezebel.com/5133025/pis.....e-off-easy
Kelli,
We are a 501c4 that collects membership dues and holds fundraisers. We are 100% volunteers.
Bev…. is saying, “at the same time they’re complaining about wanting the freedom to do away with their own grandchildren” really a fair way of reflecting their position? Is that the best way to advance the discussion? How much better is it than the ad a lot of people are complaining about?
Fair? Probably not. But that’s what happens when a message isn’t conveyed clearly in an ad like that.
Thanks so much for this article. I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton during the dem. primaries and I was disgusted with the way the dem. leadership and many in the women’s movement treated Hillary. This is the reason I left the democratic party after 40 years of membership. Sarah Palin is a wonderful example of a woman who shows leadership and supports other women. I remember her complements to Hillary Clinton when she became John McCain’s running mate. She was a woman after my own heart. We can “agree to disagree.” It seems civility and debating the issues without attacking others on a personal basis has become a lost “art form” in this country. However there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Your blog was extremely timely and insightful.
Any self respecting woman should run for their lives from the party named Democrat. These women in their ridiculous costumes are high on something. How pathetic! They should have dressed in the costume that the DNC perfers their obediant women voters wear-the cheer leaders for abortion costume. Do these women hold any right dear besides their right to save their men from supporting an unwanted child?
Bev… i think it’s important to fight fair and raise the dialogue when possible — i also realizing we’re just posting quick notes on a blog comment page and they shouldn’t be held to the same standard as a written, edited, hashed-over commercial so don’t get me wrong. In a very general sense, i think a lot of discussions could benefit from people asking what the original intent was but even that’s hard because some people here will say the Mama Grizzly thing had an intent to empower women and others would say it’s a cagy ploy by SP to use a soft feminist message to obscure other ways she “partners with the patriarchy” so to speak. as i can’t read minds i can’t know so am not about to assume so but i think that’s why some of this stuff turns off so many people – it just feels mean and maybe intentionally ungenerous (if that’s a word)
.
Juliette….the way you’re talking about the issue is exactly what i’m talking about as far as being rude and unfair… first of all, the ad was satire, you may not like the joke or idea behind it but they’re going for a laugh and it’s a tv ad after all…but anyway, when you talk about the issue that way you turn off a lot more people than you convince — anyone who’ll agree with what you said likely already agrees with you. wanting choice and control over reproduction isn’t exactly the same as “cheering” for abortion. one of the most offensive things i hear from anti-choicers is that women like me “love” abortions…they say this..who talks like that? no one’s ever happy about it but if it happens it means a lot of other things haven’t gone well and that happens sometimes in the messy business that is life. and, after all, choice also means you can choose *not* to. maybe i don’t want to be told what to do, maybe i want to be able to make that decision because it’s right for me. as for the list of things “these women” hold dear…it’s a pretty long list. at this point, everything i’ve said if old news, if it seems new then something wrong.
i agree with a lot of what cathy said… and you’re right SP was/is after your own heart; but she’d prefer your vote, too.
she’s still a politician. the old rules still apply. and actually a lot of people gave Hil and SP compliments, but that doesn’t necessarily mean i want to support everyone who did…complements are pretty easy to give when it gets down to it. my 2 cents.
I understand what you’re saying, Kelli. There are easily people who honestly come away from Sarah Palin’s message with a negative image and are not simply spouting spin in saying so. I can accept that.
However, no one made EL chose Palin as the target of their “get out the vote” ad nor write and illustrate it the way they did, did they? They chose the content, failed miserably and now must deal with the consequences.
That’s not being mean and intentionally ungenerous. That’s politics.
it’s definitely politics….the more i think about it the more i think it’s not that different from a lot of media outlets who feature SP stories in large part because they’re sure to get read, click-throughs etc… it’s a way to get eyeballs – maybe more attention than it would have otherwise and for the people it turns off there are probably others who it’ll motivate — at least i’m sure that’s their thinking. it would be interesting to know what the result is but i don’t think (unfortunately) for ads like that, that there’s any way of measuring effectiveness/ineffectiveness unless i guess you asked in an exit poll which i doubt will happen. i guess one way of knowing would be if they had a spike in donations after it aired. i know a lot of people on here wouldn’t but that would be one sign it did what they wanted it to do…which is partly what advocacy groups are all about. getting the bucks in to keep funding the message. it’s sad but true that the more moderate a message is the easier it is to get lost in all the other messages out there — the loudest ones are the ones that get heard. if that’s the rule of the game then they’re playing it, like you said. i’ve heard with negative ads that the public always says we don’t like them but they always, always work to get people out. as long as people keep responding to negative ads they’ll continue to be made. my two cents. lol…
Kelli
You asume by my comments about these foolish women that I oppose a womens right to choose. You are wrong in that assumption. I am and have always been pro-choice. The abortion issue was the only political issue anyone in this ridiculous video directly refered to. Like so many women during the 2008 presidential election this hot bottom issue IMO was used to manipulate women and yes I have witnessed too many liberal women being reduced to cheerleaders for abortion during this past election. Is this the only right we are worthy of? And do pro-lifers have the right to their own position on this issue? I personally am more concerned about my right to respect as a woman and a citizen of this country. My right to cheer for a women candidate, democrat or republican, without having to hear a multitude of “liberal democrats” and the media call her a cunt, whore or a bitch. I am more concerned with my right to fair and uncorrupted democratic elections than my right to abortion. I am more concerned with having my former party dominated by Muslim apologists and misogynist who tell us “we have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it.”
Barak Obama never won an election clean in his life.
Research if you will, how he “won” his state senate seat, his US senate seat, and well we need not even mention the travisty that was the democrat’s presidential primary. American was a great country even before abortion was legal. Abortion is far from the right I hold most dear, but since these women-teddy bears did not bother to mention any other real concerns or rights other than their right to choose abortion, I quess I can safely assume that is their most precious right, even more precious than their right to choose who will be their president.
Bes
Thank you for the many goods points you make in the second paragraph of your comment-August 18 2:57pm.
It amazes me that Obama supporters who believe that
Obama voted against the Bush Authorization of Forse in Iraq, who don’t know that he voted in favor of the Bush Cheney energy bill( which both HRC and John McCain voted against), FISA and the Bush Bank bailout known as TARP, who don’t know that; when Bush’s Patriot Act expired Obama subsequently put that Patriot Act on steriods (as he did with FISA,) who are ignorant to the fact that Obama kept Bush’s national security advisor and secretary of defense as his own (a rare occurance in a new presidency), who throw the race card at anyone who does not pray at the alter of Obama while their candidate intrusted the spiritual upbring of his children and venerated a man in his own book (Reverend Wright) who just before the presidential election, at the Washington Correspondence dinner was seen by all of the nation PREACHING THE BELL CURVE!!!!!!!! think that Sarah Palin is the stupid one.
And women who become pregant with an unwanted pregancy (by any means other than rape) which leads them to have an abortion in this day and age of endless possibilities for safe and effective birth control; are they all smarter than Sarah Palin.
Really!
i’ve heard with negative ads that the public always says we don’t like them but they always, always work to get people out. as long as people keep responding to negative ads they’ll continue to be made.
The problem here is that the EL list ad doesn’t even rise to the level of being a negative ad. It’s a bunch of women dressed up in bear costumes while spouting stuff that no one’s listening to because everyone’s jaws are on the floor watching them making fools of themselves. To put it as bluntly as I can, what specific candidate or proposition does that ad encourage anyone to get out to vote for and in what city, county, district or state?
Someone making a political ad and in particular a negative one should at least drive their point home instead of letting it get lost in translation. Otherwise, what’s the point?
juliette…my point was i try and respond online in the same way i would in person and only care to speak with those who abide by the same rules. you make a lot of assumptions and create a nice strawperson to serve as a target…not only am i aware of what you’re referencing but am also aware of how your view of it all is so twisted up that i see no reason to engage it. participating in this discussion has literally made me sick to my stomach in reading the way some people speak to each other so i won’t be back.
To Bev: i hear what you’re saying…i think we’re mostly agreeing…i was talking about it all on a very general level. it’s a little like when a politician goes on a talk show and tries to be funny, and isn’t. they were trying to be funny and weren’t — they should stick to a serious message if they want to be seen as serious and leave the jokes to others.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...