Maybe I was naive. I have voted democrat my entire life and this was partly due to my perception that they were the ones that represented women the best. After the attack on Hillary Clinton, and now on Sarah Palin, which were sexist in the most vile and contemptable way. I truly cannot say that the party represents women in ways that mean the most. I hear the patronizing lip service now and I want to puke.

Which Democrats have attacked Sarah Palin in a "sexist and contemptible way"? Do you think that she should be free from any scrutiny solely because she's a woman?

The real sexism is her selection in the first place. Imagine John McCain had to select his VP after winning the election. Is her pick even remotely plausible?

lubbesuh:

Maybe I was naive. I have voted democrat my entire life and this was partly due to my perception that they were the ones that represented women the best. After the attack on Hillary Clinton, and now on Sarah Palin, which were sexist in the most vile and contemptable way. I truly cannot say that the party represents women in ways that mean the most. I hear the patronizing lip service now and I want to puke.

Yes,and look which group is calling the most names. Check out the nasty post below.Men pretending to repost what another says. Words they do not dare use in person,they spill it out on the net.

The women of XXfactor are presumably all Democrats, unless there is another party more Left with enough status for them to belong. Governor Palin has nearly the same credentials as the male candidates who were on the short list. The only difference being that she is a female with a young child and a pregnant teenager simultaneously. I believe if any of these men had been chosen, for example Governor Gyndahl of Louisiana, that there would be no comments regarding ability to lead. If Democrats are serious about improving the status of women in the United States or world wide, they are going about it in a very counter intuitive way.

First, the Democratic party's agenda is set by Obama, not the women of XXfactor. Obama has been crystal clear, leave children out of the debate.

Second, she was never on anyones short list, she was never vetted, and she has significant problems.

1). Was a member of a radical group that tried to succeed Alaska from the US.

2). Lied about the Bridge to Nowhere. She didn't say no thanks, she took the money, spent it, then cancelled the bridge project.

3). Troopergate... it's serious.

4). Doesn't believe in global warming.

5). Doesn't believe in Sex Ed.

6). I can name a dozen women EASILY more qualified than Palin. The problem is, most of the Republican women are too moderate for the radical base to accept.

7). Her record isn't one of reformer, but of political opertunist. Playing hardball politics at the local level.

I wasn't pretending. I did repost what the top poster posted.

Anyhow, it appears policy issues do NOT matter to you. OK vote with your heart! BUT I'm going to call that petty.

Can you really say that voting 'anti-mean' instead of based on policy issues isn't petty? If not petty, how would you define it?

Um, I got news for you, the women of XX Factor are not all Democrats. See Rachel Larimore and Anne Applebaum.

No --

I think you are wrong here. Sarah Palin's credentials were nothing like Mitt Romney's, or Tom Ridge's, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson's. There were much, much better names that were on -- or should have been on -- the short list, including the names of many women.

If Jindal, who was never on the shortlist, had been tapped -- he would have been called too young (he's in his thirties), too inexperienced (first term governor), too religiously weird (he was present at an exorcism). In other words -- Jindal would have been attacked in just the same way that Palin has been, with one exception -- Jindal's life is not a National Enquirer meets Lifetime TV real life soap opera, so his personal life would not be subject to such handwringing. However, that indicates that Jindal and his family have made more normal and defensible choices in their personal lives than Palin and hers have done -- and that seems like a fair point to make.

Palin is not attacked because she is a woman. She is attacked because of who she is as a person and what she stands for as a politician.

Beathan

Nah, I have heard this since February. Please do not add insult to injury by saying this is all just in the collective imagination. We even have a term for the latest permutation "mommy wars". But as for the point regarding credentials, sure everyone expected a very safe choice, like Mitt Romney or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and we would have all gone to sleep until November, when Obama would have the election. Palin was the fresh face and energy that McCain badly needed. No one can accuse him of being boring or stale now. What is a better candidate? The one that gets the job done.

This post isn't about Palin is it? It's about Hillary isn't it? It's over, and if you believed in what Hillary was fighting for you'll vote for Obama.

Hillary ran a good campaign but she made some critical mistakes that proved fatal to her chances, chief of which was not understanding the rules of the primary that split the delegates. Her Iraq war vote didn't do her any favors either. Her ability to manage her own campaign proved lacking, and she accrued quite a debt spending money she didn't have to defeat Obama after hte numbers showed she couldn't win then expected him to bail her out, which leaves in question her financial managerial abilities.

You can bring up Michigan and Florida if you wish but keep in mind she agreed not to count the delegates before the election, and even with those delegates she still would have lost, so it's a moot point.

I hope this has convinced you that, while Hillary DID indeed suffer sexist attacks, her loss stemmed from multiple legitimate problems within her candidacy.

First, the Democratic party's agenda is set by Obama, not the women of XXfactor. Obama has been crystal clear, leave children out of the debate.

lol