More Enlightened Feminism from the Obama Campaign

[silverscreenselect]

Politico's Jonathan Martin reports:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

For the record, Carol Fowler is the wife of former DNC National Chairman Dan Fowler who said about Hurricane Gustav: "Plus I think the hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side. everything’s cool.” Enlightenment runs in that family.

[reeg2223]

What's up SSS? My memory is you were one of Clinton's biggest defenders. Why are you so over the top hostile towards the Obama/Biden ticket and so defensive about McCain/Palin? Were you that upset that Hillary lost or is something else going on?

[KillerTomato]

For the record, Carol Fowler is the wife of former DNC National Chairman Dan Fowler who said about Hurricane Gustav: "Plus I think the hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side. everything’s cool.” Enlightenment runs in that family.

Yes, what Mr. Fowler said is ridiculous. As ridiculous as Gov. Palin saying that the Iraq war and a natural gas pipeline were "God's plan" and "God's will."

[BigDrawMan]

What's up SSS? My memory is you were one of Clinton's biggest defenders. Why are you so over the top hostile towards the Obama/Biden ticket and so defensive about McCain/Palin? Were you that upset that Hillary lost or is something else going on?

sss is an old whiny broad who cant get over HillARY LOSING.

[Weyoun]

For the record, Carol Fowler is the wife of former DNC National Chairman Dan Fowler who said about Hurricane Gustav: "Plus I think the hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side. everything’s cool.” Enlightenment runs in that family.

Yes, what Mr. Fowler said is ridiculous. As ridiculous as Gov. Palin saying that the Iraq war and a natural gas pipeline were "God's plan" and "God's will."

I think, in the context of her quote, what she said was defensible. The actual quote:

“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."

It seems like she is HOPING this is God's plan, not saying it IS. And there's a huge difference.

[Appa23]

For the record, Carol Fowler is the wife of former DNC National Chairman Dan Fowler who said about Hurricane Gustav: "Plus I think the hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side. everything’s cool.” Enlightenment runs in that family.

Yes, what Mr. Fowler said is ridiculous. As ridiculous as Gov. Palin saying that the Iraq war and a natural gas pipeline were "God's plan" and "God's will."

I think, in the context of her quote, what she said was defensible. The actual quote:

“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."

It seems like she is HOPING this is God's plan, not saying it IS. And there's a huge difference.

I promised myself that I would not post anything remotely political on this day (September 11th), but this is more of a religious thing.

As I posted last week after another BB tried to recycle BS from Daily Kos, what Palin actually said was essentially a common practice within 21st century Christian churches: praying that we are doing God's will and not our own.

[silverscreenselect]

What's up SSS? My memory is you were one of Clinton's biggest defenders. Why are you so over the top hostile towards the Obama/Biden ticket and so defensive about McCain/Palin? Were you that upset that Hillary lost or is something else going on?

The Democratic Party has gotten completely off track in this campaign, after what looked like a golden opportunity in 2006. Party leadership has been obsessed with two themes: win at all costs (out-Swift Boat them), and punish the Clintons. They have turned to a candidate who is unprincipled, inexperienced, arrogant, sexist, race baiting, but one who recognized what drove the Democratic leadership and encouraged it. The result is comments like this, a witch hunt against Sarah Palin, and a complete abandonment of the principles that this party went by.

By any objective standards, John McCain is a moderate conservative, far more moderate than anyone else running for the Republican nomination. He has run a campaign that is fairly clean by modern standards, and remarkably clean by Republican standards so far. But the Democrats continue to portray him as a cross between Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and Attila the Hun.

In so doing, the Democrats have abandoned any semblance of morality, logic, reason, or ethics. One Democratic blogger whom I at one time respected, yesterday called Sarah Palin the most divisive force in politics in years. By divisive, I guess they mean getting your opposition so angry that they unleash a largely unwarranted firestorm of vitriol. I challenge anyone to show one thing Palin has said or done that's more than the standard level of partisanship. Her attacks on Obama pale in comparison to the McCain/Bush bashing that went on at the Democratic convention.

Another blogger whom I once respected talked about a "very bad campaign appearance" for McCain yesterday, without Palin there with him. When I clicked on the link, I thought McCain might have stumbled around somewhat. Instead, it turns out that his appearance was disrupted by Obama supporters who crashed the rally and were able to shout him down for a while. Taking pride in breaking up an opponent's campaign rally is not something I would have thought any Democrat would do. But the worst elements of the party and the worst facets of our personalities have been enabled and encouraged by Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin is a conservative, but she's not a fire breathing harpy, and she has a record of sound fiscal policy in running the state of Alaska and the city of Wasilla. When the Democrats do attack her policies, they engage in gotcha politics that concentrate on "proving" literal inaccuracies with their own versions of what Palin said rather than looking at the overall picture.

Palin has run the city and the state the way one would hope a prudent CEO would run any business. Increase revenue (by renegotiating oil deals when necessary and restructuring the tax code), improve the infrastructure, cut waste without needlessly throwing people out of work, and expanding the state (and city's economy). So an unneeded plane was listed on ebay but sold privately. So she took a smaller living allowance than her predecessor (in a state in which appearing with one's family sometimes in very remote locations is an unwritten job requirment). So she reassigned a chef, saved a job and saved money. So she abandoned lukewarm support for a project she later realized was a complete waste of money and reallocated the money.

Make no mistake. In my opinion, her views on most social issues are wrong. Her views on the Iraq war (as far as I know) are wrong. Her views on conservation are wrong. Her views on energy are somewhat misguided. But I contrast that with Obama, a man of no principles, and no firmly held convictions.

In my view, the next four years of an Obama administration would probably be, in some ways (and I have no way of knowing just what ways), better than an Obama/Palin administration. In some ways, they would be worse. A strong Democratic Congressional majority could head off any really bad initiatives coming from a Republican White House, while the party would be pretty much forced to fall in line with whatever Obama decided (which is usually whatever seems politically expedient at the time).

And an Obama administration will likely be a failure for which the Republicans will blame "liberal politics" and use it as a weapon to keep Democrats out of the White House for another couple of decades. All this to kowtow to an unprincipled opportunist like Obama.

I can't do that.

[minimetoo26]

And an Obama administration will likely be a failure

See, this is what gets me. You say McCain/Palin are very clear, but misguided, yet you support them over something that is unclear that may well be better than you fear. And you may well be making an unfounded ASSumption here. I know you take a lot of shit here, but I've always considered you to be extremely well-spoken and well-reasoned (now everyone else is going to hate me around here!) until lately. Now you just have me scratching my head since you seem to be digging in your heels just as strongly as some others usually do.

I deal with some real doozies, what with my m-i-l saying we need a president with an "American name" (like, Kennedy? That's Irish) when I know she means "White name", but I know where she's coming from, but I'm still trying to figure you out here. I don't think you're coming from the same place. At least I hope not. (Hee hee--I have the Audacity of Hope....)

[reeg2223]

Yeah, I'd say SSS may want to back off for a while and relax. Clear the head a bit.
McCain was one of the more moderate Republicans running in the primaries, but as he progressed, he seemed to move further to the right. Is that just politics, or has he changed his views? It's hard to really tell, and that uncertainty worries me. I liked the McCain of 2000 more than what I've seen of candidate McCain. My friends who back him say that he's just moved right to win the election and the old McCain will be back in Jan.--but I've seen a man running a savvy, smearing campaign based on fear and personality, out of the Rove playbook. How can I be sure?
I think Obama is a bit too new, but that has happened in the past, and it's often worked out well. His election would change arguements about race--it's hard to be against the man if you are the man. Most of the other charges you seem to make don't seem to be from Obama's mouth, and both sides have backers making outrageous statements.
It's way to easy to fall in line with partisans and go a bit mad these days--but too often the stories that make partisans crazy fall apart because they aren't true. Hopefully this will come down to an election about issues, and basically you have a strong Republican and a strong Democrat trying to replace an incompetent President--and either way, we should be better off!

[wbtravis007]

Yeah, I'd say SSS may want to back off for a while and relax. Clear the head a bit.
McCain was one of the more moderate Republicans running in the primaries, but as he progressed, he seemed to move further to the right. Is that just politics, or has he changed his views? It's hard to really tell, and that uncertainty worries me. I liked the McCain of 2000 more than what I've seen of candidate McCain. My friends who back him say that he's just moved right to win the election and the old McCain will be back in Jan.--but I've seen a man running a savvy, smearing campaign based on fear and personality, out of the Rove playbook. How can I be sure?
I think Obama is a bit too new, but that has happened in the past, and it's often worked out well. His election would change arguements about race--it's hard to be against the man if you are the man. Most of the other charges you seem to make don't seem to be from Obama's mouth, and both sides have backers making outrageous statements.
It's way to easy to fall in line with partisans and go a bit mad these days--but too often the stories that make partisans crazy fall apart because they aren't true. Hopefully this will come down to an election about issues, and basically you have a strong Republican and a strong Democrat trying to replace an incompetent President--and either way, we should be better off!

I'll give a big REC! to this, but also highlight this part:

iHis election would change arguments about race--it's hard to be against the man if you are the man.

This is a great post.

Good to see you, reeg.

[silverscreenselect]

Yeah, I'd say SSS may want to back off for a while and relax. Clear the head a bit.

My head is clear. I am given proof every day of Obama's general level of immaturity and sleaziness.

I don't believe for one second that Obama has any strong conviction about what are usually considered core Democratic principles or ones that I hold dear. Not even about ending the Iraq war. This makes my decision easier, but it isn't the primary reason behind it.

Even if I was firmly convinced that Obama from an issues standpoint would be the reincarnation of FDR himself, I wouldn't vote for him. Voting for him would be voting for someone completely without scruples, ethics, or morals, a corrupt, boorish race baiting, immature sexist with a litany of slimy characters in his background, who wants to bring the Democratic party and this country down into the lowest gutter level of Rovian politics. I could go along with Obama if he disagreed with my position on some or a lot of issues, or if I merely felt he wouldn't fight for principles as hard as I would like (I've got the same problem with Reid/Pelosi, but I'm voting Democratic for Congress and Senate). I can never vote for someone who reduces the Democratic party and the office of the Presidency to the level Obama has.

The difference I've noted between Republican opposition to Obama and Democratic opposition has been that Republicans are generally opposed for policy grounds. Either they believe Obama to be a radical socialist or feel that he should be defeated merely because he's more liberal than McCain. Whenever they criticize Obama for slurs and sleazy tactics, it's usually just an attempt to find any reason to bring him down.

For us Democrats, the slurs and sleazy tactics are the reason to bring him down. We don't like what the Democratic party has become and feel that we should not support someone this unqualifed for President. The fact that Obama's policies aren't going to be what Democrats are looking for makes the decision easier to tolerate, but the reason many of us aren't voting for him is a matter of character, not disagreement with his policies or commitment to them.

I will not take part in "end justifies the means" politics or surrender for fear of "losing" Roe vs. Wade or nonsense like that. Obama will get what he deserves in November, we will muddle through another four years and then try to rebuild in 2012.

[reeg2223]

Thanks for the shout out wbtravis! I try to check into the board when I can--I even play for the BAM's fantasy football league.
Good luck SSS--hope you can find some peace in the upcoming election.