Question
mammasan
Posts: 5,656
I was watching the news last night and they had a clip of McCain's campaign manager stating that Sarah Palin would no longer be available for interviews until the press starts treating her fairly. Now I will admit that some portions of the media have been harsh on Palin, Olbermann for example, but for the most part the media has not been any harder on her than most candidates. I've heard Hannity come out and say that the media's treatment of Palin is sexist. My question is where was all this outrage when Hillary was running in the primaries, when the media was portraying her like a power hungry bitch. Where were all the cries of sexism when Michelle Obama was being attacked in the media or when Teresa Heinz Kerry was being attacked in 2004. Where was all the outrage when during the Clinton administration Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton, then a 13 year old girl, the First Dog. Where was all the outrage when Ann Coulter stated that women should not have the right to vote.
Why all of a sudden does this double standard exist that a female candidate can not be asked tough questions? And is that mindset in and of itself not sexist?
Why all of a sudden does this double standard exist that a female candidate can not be asked tough questions? And is that mindset in and of itself not sexist?
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'm also glad to see that she is following in the footsteps of the current administration in refusing to testify in the "Trooper-gate" scandal.
In this case I think that they're claiming sexism when they're really scared of what people might find out about her.
There are nice and dick ways to ask quesitons and depending on how it's done you can make a guest look good or look stupid depending on thier ability to handle it. It's really pretty stupid to have put her in front of Charlie Gibson. Charlie caught her basically reciting prep material and focusing on energy and he nailed her ass on it when he said... "but Sarah national security is a lot deeper than just energy policy.." or something to that effect and she fumbled the response to that pretty badly.
Basically this is spin control because she's not a very good in an interview.
This is akin to putting an unprepared witness on the stand and wrecking your case. They waited a long time to announce this for a reason and they are pulling her from interviews for a reason. If she was a great interview and adept and or adroit with handling an interviewer they'd put her out more often.
THis is all about image. She's making herself look bad so retain all the image you can and don't make yourself look stupid.
As far as outrage.... most of that is for show anyway and not really worthy of a comment or show of anger. I mean... Sean Hannity is outraged... really... ok now fly your G4 back to your house and roll in the money you make from advertisers who love the income they rake in from the people who listen to you be "outraged"
We over use the adjective "unbelievable" way too often around here when talking about things that our elected officials do, but it might be warranted in this case. We have presidential election that is less than 2 months away, and the republican party will not grant access to their vp candidate who the voting public knows nothing about because they are afraid that the press will be too mean to her?
Added to the fact that she is no longer cooperating with a bi-partisan ethics investigation in her own state....
And the real kicker is, she is on the campaign trial talking about her desire for "open government".
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I agree with you, but isn't the call of sexism really a form of sexism itself.
Well, some people only care to defend a woman from sexist remarks when when they think that woman is a "milf".
:rolleyes:
that is absolute bullshit. they're scared. she has singlehandedly saved his campaign, but they know she can't handle the heat of national scrutiny. i hope this backfires.
i thought liberals were supposed to be the party of petulant whiners?
*edit* the more i think about this, the more infuriating this is. let's change washington, by making sure our candidates are utterly unaccountable. we can't ask her tough questions because she's a woman and can't handle it. people are very skeptical of an inexperienced unknown from alaska, so rather than putting her out there so people can learn about her, they hide her. it's very clear now that they aren't even pretending she's qualified. she was a political choice and it's starting to backfire on them. i can't even think of words to adequately describe how angry this makes me.
yeah, I guess you could say that. I mean the whole Idea is treating someone differently because of thier sex right?
Then again Sexism and Racism what have you are always used politically to incite feelings in people about the connotations of those words. They are meant to evoke specific emotional reactions... and they work.
if GWB can survive a debate - so can she ... they'll have her prepared to keep saying a whole lot of nothing ...
There is a lot of dirt under her carpet?
Wow C, that's below the belt
I think it is a total crock of shit..
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Speaking of avoiding things...
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=301792&page=2
agreed. it's a pretty cynical ploy on their part. unfortunately, since i think most americans are dumber than dogs, i suspect it will work.
if she can't handle the media, how is she going to handle being vp?
she won't. that's why they're hiding her. they don't want people to figure that out.
You know, you are so going to hell for that sexist thought. See you in Sizzletown.