Saturday, September 06, 2008

It's Not Because Palin is a Woman, It's Because She's the Wrong Woman

Enough already with the sexism charge. Not only is it patently false, but it's hypocritical. What happened to the right-wing's chorus of "Why can't we criticize Sen. Barack Obama without being called racists?" Now that the shoe's on the other foot our whiney friends on the right are crying foul over the left's outrage over Sen. John McCain's appointment of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Yes, Democrats are upset. They're scared shitless at the thought of this incredibly inexperienced woman one day having to assume the role of president while the nation fights two wars and terrorists abroad and an economic recession here at home. With McCain being 72 and a 3-time cancer survivor, the fear is well-founded. Palin would be but a heartbeat from the Oval Office which, for any sane, rational person, is a little too close for comfort.

On MSNBC Saturday Republican strategist Brad Blakeman repeated the party-line about Palin's readiness to be president: "Should something happen to McCain, she has the 'executive experience' and will be capable of stepping in to lead the country." I often wonder if these spinheads really believe this garbage or if they're so scared and desperate in the face of Palin's gross deficiencies that they simply have to regurgitate this offensive drivel non-stop in order to feel like they're keeping McCain in the game. But Blakeman and the rest of the GOP spinners wo are singing Palin's "readiness" praises ultimately wince at the thought of her taking direct questions from reporters, which is why the campaign has made the calculated decision to keep her away from the media. Obviously, her knowledge of the broader national and international issues is so weak that she's not even "ready" to stand at the podium, let alone sit in the Oval Office.

The campaign's relentless spin is that Palin, unlike Obama, has "executive experience" (for the record, McCain has none either). McCain, Palin and their surrogates are quite disingenuous when they refer to him as a "community organizer," conveniently leaving out his eight years in the Illinois State Senate and four in the U.S Senate. They also forget the fact that Obama's been running for over a year, has been vetted every which way, has appeared in 23 debates, answered question after question about his experience and positions, and ultimately convinced 20-million people to vote for him. Excuse me, but there are no comparisons to be made here.

In the Los Angeles Times last week renowned feminist, author and publisher Gloria Steinem was dead-on when she criticized Palin's sudden and dubious ascension into national politics: "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need....Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton"...belongs to a party with a "platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for, and that Barack Obama's still does"...and "To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

The GOP's defense of Palin centers on the same framing tactics used with Iraq: that if you're against the war you're against the troops. Hence, not supporting Palin is an attack on women. Of course, this is a ridiculous assertion, as the opposition has nothing to do with her gender but rather the glaring fact that she is a political lightweight and is grossly underqualified to be in her position. Ironically, the very same people Republicans accuse of being sexist are the same people who passionately supported Hillary Clinton. That's hardly sexism.

It's also a sad commentary on John McCain that his campaign has become all about Sarah Palin and not the candidate himself. The passion, excitement and renewed optimism among Republicans about their ticket can be attributed to Palin's one week in the national spotlight, not because of the man at the top or what he stands for. What does that say about conservatives and their misguided expectations? About how low they're willing to place the bar? About how they want to maintain power so badly that they'll pander using the lowest common denominators?

My favorite ReDrunkLican delusionist, Sirius Radio's Andrew Wilkow, railed last week about the hypocrisy of Democrats in their harsh criticism of Palin: "These people are pathetic. They claim to to be the champion of women and minorities." That his party's ticket is headed by a rich old white guy while the Democrats nominated a black man and also had 18-million people vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton seems lost on Wilkow, as are most facts. This from a guy who who refers to the Democrats' lack of support for Palin as "ovarian fascism." Wilkow and his radio/tv cohorts on the right spend an awful lot of time trying to convince voters (and themselves, I think) that over the years the Republican Party, more than the Democrats, has been the true champion of the poor, the middle-class, blacks, Hispanics, women and the elderly. We're talking levels of delusion here that would make Freud's head spin. Either that or these clowns are lying through their teeth.

The Republican hypocrisy in this campaign is embarrassing. How long have they been bashing Obama on the 'experience' issue, claiming he's nothing more than a charismatic orator who gives great speeches? Yet they're so quick to fall in love with a political neophyte who's given voters nothing more than one electrifying speech, albeit one with filled with lies, deception, anger and sarcasm.

Let's be clear: Democrats' opposition to Palin has nothing to do with her being a woman and has everything to do with her being woefully unprepared and unfit for the job. McCain could've chosen any one of a number of highly qualified women as his running-mate, chief among them Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Sen. Olympia Snowe, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and former NJ Governor and EPA head Christie Todd Whitman. He also could've gone a bit out of the box with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina or former EBAY CEO Meg Whitman, both brilliant women, well-versed in economic matters and who already play strong surrogate roles in the campaign. You would not have heard a peep from the left, just as Sen. Joe Biden's nomination has caused virtually no stir from the right. Biden's unassailable, as would be these women. You may disagree with their positions, but you could not question their experience.

To be sure, conservatives have gotten themselves whipped into a euphoric lather over their gal Palin, and rushed to send the campaign $1-million the day after her speech. The only problem for them is, Obama's supporters sent in a whopping $10-million the same day. Palin's inspiring allright, but not how Republicans had planned.



This 2 party charade is killing the country.
This partisan hackery is tiring.
Time is ripe for a third party candidate to come into the race and ether all these assholes.
Does anyone know how to unsubscribe from the daily emails ?
The democrats are a joke but i will admit NOT anywhere near as gruesome of the GOP.
Either way the WAR Corp will win this election and America will remain hated around the world.

Anonymous said...

The stench of hypocrisy permeates the Republican party! They want to expose Sen. Obama to the most minute scrutiny, calling any of his history into question, yet they don't want ANY scrutiny of their VP candidate, claiming bias, sexism, and whatever else they can bring to the forefront. Palin's handlers won't even let her answer any questions from the press, yet they claim she's an "agent of change!" What she represents is the same old, tired, reactionary politics, dressed up in a classic "bait-and-switch" disguise. Woe be to those who accept this cynical attempt at pandering at face value!

Anonymous said...

The 'Mayor of Mooseport' is the most irresponsible VP pick in US history and proves that the GOP would do ANYTHING to secure the White House. If this ticket of McCain / Palin somehow wins the general election (hey, they stole it 2000...anything is possible) then we are looking at a serious dilemma in regards to our status of strength throughtout the world.

Anonymous said...

You are so disingenuous.

" They're scared shitless at the thought of this incredibly inexperienced woman one day having to assume the role of president"

Instead, you want to vote for a guy with no executive experience that has never run anything. Your guy couldn't take a stand on issues when he was in the Illinois Senate. He voted "'Present' 130 times". The Messiah has no backbone.

Not only does The Messiah have no backbone, he's got a checkered past with his lies. This week alone, he stated that if anyone in his staff made comments about Palin's pregnant (minor) daughter that they'd be fired. A long time staff member, Howard Gutman, made derogatory statements on a radio show and Obama didn't have the backbone to keep his word.

Earlier this year, Obama pledged that he would use public financing. That was a lie.

Then there are Obama's lies about growing up poor. He went to an elite private school and was the step-son of an Oil Executive. He lied about his mother living on food stamps while he was going to an elite private school.

Anonymous said...

You pathetic Bush fans remind me of what the great Reagan once said.
"When I look at the quality of those who fight me, I realize I am on the right track."
So stop the whining about who made a sissy remark and who covered up on Obama the terrorist who has been plotting to fly an airplane into the White House.
Get used to it. The polls that both parties have conducted speak of a finished story. Which is going to be a pathetic sad story once Plain faces the press and can not place the Middle East on a map.

Incompetence is written all over her. As it was written all over Bush. And Edwards. There is a good reason why people lose in the end.

Anonymous said...

You know what, I just have to ask this question. It is probably an insensitive question, but your picture of a pregnant (minor) Bristol Palin has put me into the situation where I feel that I HAVE to ask you this question.

As a staunch supporter of Democrats, I have to assume that you do not want to stop the illegal immigrant invasion of America because the Democrats are blocking measures to stop illegal immigration.

We all know that an illegal immigrant murdered your wife. It is a very sad situation and you have my sympathy.

But I have to ask, in light of the picture you posted on this blog entry. How would you feel if someone was posting about you and had a picture of your wife hanging from a bed sheet with quote from you supporting Democrats that are blocking measures to stop illegal immigration ?

I'm sure you will delete this post, but if you do delete it, it means you read it first. You really should stop commenting about Bristol Palin. She is a 17 year old girl for God's Sake. Give the girl a break and focus on an adult.

Anonymous said...

Take down that picture of Bristol and pick on an adult.

Anonymous said...

The stench of socialism is permeating the Obama plan for America.

If you like marxism then Obama's for you!

If not, you better find out about Public Allies and Saul Alinsky fast.

Is it your intent to bring private military-like forces to fruition in the US? If not, then stop supporting Obama.

Anonymous said...

9:48 Yeah, Bush was obviously incompetent -- no doubt about it - it was written all over him and he was elected for two terms. What is your idiotic point, you nut?

And forPalin's not finding a place on the map, Obama didn't know what town he was in when he appeared on TV before the entire world. How's that for incompetence.

And we're sick of his lies or maybe they're not lies but he just doesn't remember.

Anonymous said...

What has our country come to when it's a disgrace to be pregnant and the mother to be is ridiculed and scorned as is her mother. And not to get into the controversy of abortin itself, but I ask why it is all right, however, to kill babies who survive abortions.

Don't get pregmant - that's disgraceful and you will be ridiculed. Instead abort the baby and should it live kill it. You're just a mainstream American then according to the Dems.

Anonymous said...

Even worse, Democrats have fallen to the level of picking on children of politicians. Ostroy's use of Bristol Palin's image is disgusting.

She is a child and Ostroy needs to pick on her. Ostroy has a daughter, I certainly hope that she isn't picked on by people like her father.

Anonymous said...

My friend got this in an email today and shared it with me:

"Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter. Obama supported his cousin before the election process started here. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth."

Some sites on Google confirm this but I have to admit I don't know how reliable the sources are. I'm only in high school but this bothers me.

In my school when a girl gets pregnant we don't care.

Anonymous said...

I feel bad for children and people still in high school. By they time they are in their 30's the Democrats in this country are going to have taken away all the incentives to work because of their tax policies.

Why should someone spend their entire life working hard when they are only going to be taxed so much that it is easier to just not work and receive government benefits off the backs of people who do decide to work?

Athena Smith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Athena Smith said...

My previous comment was deleted so I repeat it.
The difference between the US teen pregnancy rates and those of other industrialized countries are purely shameful. Take a look at these bar charts.
Palin herself expressed joy over her daughter's pregnancy, therefore the photo is not offensive in any way. It simply demonstrates to those of us who have been horrified with abstinence only programs, that people who are not pragmatists should never be in a position to make decisions for the rest of the society.
We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The sad reality is that the teen mothers are far more likely to drop out of school, get on welfare, remain poor, remain single and unfortunately have another kid within 2 years of the first.
As for the kids, they are far more likely to be abused, drop out of school, get into poverty and get into jail. 75% of the robbers in the US have been raised by single moms.

The trends point to an explosive national security issue. We need pragmatists dealing with this danger, not ideologues.

Athena Smith said...

And one more thing on the Dutch rates. I copy from the article Contraception in the Netherlands. The low abortion rate explained
"The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services... The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world."

Athena Smith said...

As for the welfare system we have the weakest safety net in the world. And the president who made it the weakest EVER was Clinton, who limited it to 5 non- consecutive years. After that you are thrown on the streets.

I copy from How welfare reform changed America

The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.

In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.

Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000.

Anonymous said...

Athena. I read all your rants and still don't know what's your point. I guess it's there should be sex ed in schools, with perhaps free condoms and people who are poor should get all the money they want for as long as they live.

I'm not being sarcastic. I truly "got" that from your posts.

Still in the back of my mind I wonder where the responsibility lies:
1. for the families who in the not too distant past were responsbile for sex education and monitoring (raising) their children;
2. and for he women who before ready abortion and "women's lib" saw to it if they had any sense that they did not get pregnant unless they were rich enough to leave the country for awhile.

Who in your view should be responsible and for what?

What I hear from teenages in a group I conduct, is that the boys insist on sex and without condoms and the girls have to "go along to get along." Sex among teenagers has become as essential for popularity as being a good dancer was in the old days. It's not sex ed that is needed, but social values and rules.

And, why are the males not being held responsible. There has been no picture of the boy and no shame for him in the entire Palin discussion. I suspect he had no intention of marrying her either or they would have been married sooner than this. He's been pressured by the circumstances or he'd get away without having to take any responsibility.

Athena Smith said...

Given the fact that one third of our children are born to single moms and 50% of the married couples get a divorce, then we have close to 65% of the kids being exposed to a single family structure that automatically means less suprvision and less teaching. Given this, the school system has to intervene to offer the knowledge that parents have failed to offer. Therefore I do advocate continous sex ed in schools with free availability of birth control.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I support generous welfare support. Maybe if you had not considered my writing as a rant and took it as a response to a previous comment that associated Democrats with more welfare, you would have reached a different conclusion. I stronlgly oppose generous welfare benefits because they encourage dependency.

Anonymous said...

Multiple entries with the same arugments over and over again give the impression of being a rant.

The government was not meant to nor can it assume the responsibilities of the family, either legislatively or financially.

Birth control methods don't always work; and as I said before, boys/men these days have bullied women into sex without condoms. And, the only thing that works for sure is abstinance, Sex is not required to continue living; and it is not a "right" that should be subsidized by a government.

Maybe there should be consciousness-raising groups teaching responsibility and consequences. Maybe the schools should show the girls in particular what can happen should they have an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps -- anything -- but expecting the government to become Mommy and Daddy and with your suggestions "Grandmommy" too.

Some graphic lessons on the consequences of not learning to read and leaving high school before finishing; and, the consequences of drug use might be helpful for our Mother-schools.

Anonymous said...

The experience thing that you whine about with respect to Palin is probably more hypocritical than your disgraceful commentary regarding Palin's conservative views and her daughter's pregnancy.

An essential truth is that even if one accepts the argument regarding Palin's experience, you are talking about a contingent event. McCain would have to die.

On the other hand, Obama is fundamentally inexperienced for the presidency and if he is elected, it will be a fact that the Presidency will be in the hands of a greenhorn.

There is no legitimate argument regarding Obama's lack of experience. He became a senator in 2005 and promtply began setting the groundwork for a presidential run. He has no important legislation to his name. The only bill referred to in these parts is the one co-authored with Lugar that was deemed so inconsequential that it wasn't reported on by the Times, the Wash Post, or any other important newspaper. It didn't even get a noteworthy mention in the Congressional record.

No one legitimately denies that Biden was enlisted due to the undeniable lack of heft at the top of the ticket. That is perhaps the most clear admission by Obama hmself that he lacks experience.

Beyond that, his questionable ties to pro-terrorist Arab groups, his frequent public support of the Palestinian cause - before it became inconvenient is only one of many such unpleasant ties.

He has been a close friend of the bomber Ayers whose interview in the 9/11/01 issue of the NY Times included a statement that he regrets he didn't engage in more domestic bombing.

He was a longstandidng member of a church led by a hateful wingnut and no amount of denial can refute his knowledge of the man's ideology.

Similarly, he has troubling relationships with the criminal Rezko who engaged in questionable transactions to help him buy his mansion in Chicago.

There is one important common thread to all of these warning sign relationships. They are of long standing and were all disavowed ONLY after the hot spot light of a national campaign uncovered them. Meaning that his true instinct is to be a radical leftist who winks at corruption.

Scary that you insist on ignoring it as you put party first, country last.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Is it your intent to bring private military-like forces to fruition in the US? If not, then stop supporting Obama.

10:39 PM

Clearly this guy hasn't heard of Blackwater...

Anonymous said...

One of the plays in the Obama playbook is to time their email fundraising pleas to coincide with major opposition events.

As a past contributor to Obama, I'm on their email list. I've noted late night/early morning hysterical emails after opposition events begging for money. But I am not otherwise solicited.

So while one should give props to the highpowered email fundraising operation, its important not to be misled into believing that either Palin's nomination or any other similar issue did not spontaneously inspire the masses to rise up and support Obama.

It's calculated and orchestrated and claims to the contrary are simply dishonest.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Scary that you insist on ignoring it as you put party first, country last.

9:43 AM

Republican talking points alert!! Clearly, this little small-minded ideologue doesn't get that when you precisely spout party talking points, you generally are putting "party first, county last." If you can't smell the bullshit with your own party's talking points, then you clearly aren't skeptical enough to offer critical, objective judgment. Obama has many flaws, Biden has quite a few of his own. I vote for them despite their flaws. If you can't recognize many, many glaring weaknesses with McCain/Palin, well, you're just further proof that this nation is no longer a "City On the Hill", a beacon of enlightenment values and superior judgment, but rather a "City Of Hillbillies", a nation of "gut-thinking", personality loving, machismo-oozing cretins who care not a whit about substantive issues and only think in sound bites and bumper stickers.

With all the craze over Palin, who is seriously unfit for higher office, an extremist who believes raped women should be forced to keep the child and that CREATIONISM should be taught as SCIENCE, I am finally becoming fairly sure that despite all the Republican failures and incompetence these last 8 years, Obama/Biden will lose. Americans just have a native loathing of articulate, intelligent people who speak well and actually care about solving the many problems that beset our nation. We are a nation of hicks. We will need a disaster of epic proportions, a plunge into a Great Depression, not just mortgage foreclosures, rising unemployment, 50 million without health care, widening income inequality, and unnecessary wars wars wars all financed by long term debt through our Chinese bankers.

No, no. Four years from now, as Vice President Palin and half the nation celebrates her having become a Great-Grandmother (with Bristol's four year old son, Bic, having absconded with a young gal from the Ozarks), our nation will be deeper in its death spiral. At war with Iran? Russia? Syria? Pakistan? It's anyone's guess with Johnny "Bomb, Bomb" McCain at the helm. He's a reactive, hasty-thinking, "shoot-from-the-hip" kind of man like G.W.B. But that's how our nation likes its leaders. Fuck the consequences. Fuck the middle-class and working-class. Keep thinking only about abortion. The world is only a few thousand years old. Darwin was probably French, right? Or a Jew? Ok, I'm going to watch some wrestling and masturbate to the Abu Ghraib photographs.

Our country 'tis of thee, Sweet land of irony...

Anonymous said...

Blackwater's rise happened during the Clinton administration. That’s when Blackwater was actually given its contract to become an official vendor to the U.S. government. The Clinton administration was very enthusiastic about the security privatization.

Anonymous said...

Amen 10:12 Thank God he has indicated he has no intention of reproducing.

Anonymous said...

A war with Russia might just be on the way but it has nothing to do with whomever the President of the United States is.

Russia has been causing problems in Georgia since Georgia left the Soviet Union. You don't understand that Russia doesn't like free nations on her borders. Russia started the war in Abkhazia in the 1990's, they created the 'separatist region' with a minority that represented 20% of the population of Abkhazia in the early 1990's.

Russia's war is about energy. As they invaded Georgia in August 2008, the first target of their invasion was the oil pipeline that travels from Azerbaijan and through Georgia.

Russia understands that the next world war is not about absolute military power - its about energy. They will form an axis with Iran and Venezuela and will control an extremely large percentage of the world's energy. Europe gets almost all of her imported energy from Russia and Russia will step on the EU's neck (this winter) to keep them out of the opposition. They have used energy as a political weapon in the past and they will use it again this winter.

Barack has no experience to be Commander-In-Chief and he is the absolute worst option for Commander-In-Chief during a time of war. Barack's interest is for bringing America into good standing with the people of Europe. 2/3 of all Europeans want America to become a weaker power, so what does it tell you that we have to do for the people of Europe to look kindly on us?

Europe is dead. Europe is an empty suit, like Barack Obama, when it comes to standing up to brutal countries like Russia. Barack Obama wants America to become another empty suit so Russia and China can dominate the world. If that happens, the entire world will be wishing for the strong United States of America that Barack Obama will have destroyed.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Athena Smith said...

Could you substantiate your statements that
1: Barrack Obama wants a strong America destroyed
2: Europe is an empty suit? Please prove it.

( And by substantiation I mean facts. Hard indisputable facts. Pejorative terms or ad honimen attacks won't do the trick)

Sidney Condorcet said...

With Bush's past and McCain's prospective war time tax cuts and with the misuse and over-stretching of our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm afraid that it is Bush and McCain and the neocons who have rendered this "empty suit", or rather "paper tiger", and have destroyed our ability to quickly project overwhelming military force. We cannot defeat Russia in the war you predict given Bush and McCain's policies. We will fail unless we conserve our forces and use them prudentially. McCain, like Bush, has not given any signal that he would utilize our military in a careful and prudent and strategic manner. Obama, however, will. While your well-reasoned argument with regards to a prospective conflict with Russia demands our attention, your partisan, subjective, and hyperbolic conclusions with regard to Senator Obama demands ignoring.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to prove that Europe is an empty suit.

1. Look at the *cough* progress *cough* of the EU-Iran nuclear negotiations.

2. The EU is a slave to Russia's natural gas and oil supply. Look to last year when Russia stopped supplying natural gas to the Ukraine and Belarus, or this year when the cut supplies to the Czech Republic. I reviewed some documents on the EU government websites in an effort to understand how many of the EU-NATO countries import most/all of their energy from Russia. The ONLY EU NATO country that is not mostly dependent on Russia's energy is Denmark. How do you think the EU will stand up to Russia this winter when they REQUIRE Russian energy ? Russia understands this and so does the UK. As proof, I pasted some quotes below:

“If any of the European countries wants to serve someone’s narrow political interests, then go ahead. We cannot stop them. But we think, as they say in such cases, ‘You have to look out for No1’,” Mr Putin said in an interview with the state-owned Rossiya television channel (August 31, 2008).

'No nation can be allowed to exert an energy stranglehold over Europe,' says Brown (August 31, 2008). He promises urgent action to prevent Britain 'sleepwalking into an energy dependence on less stable or reliable partners', including seeking out alternative suppliers of gas and oil, as well as pushing ahead with plans for new nuclear plants and alternative fuels.

Athena Smith said...

Interdependency (in matters of energy) is a global phenomenon.
I am still waiting for facts that prove Europe to be an empty suit (as opposed to the US, Russia or whatever else.)

Anonymous said...

I just gave you facts. The EU has not been able to do a single thing in regards to the Iranian nuclear crisis, and comments from Gordon Brown indicate that he is very concerned in the level of dependence that the EU has from Russia.

Why don't you disprove my facts with examples of Europe successfully standing up to and resolving a crisis.

Your lack of understanding of the dire situation Russia is creating is further proof that the liberal mindset is still stuck in the faux period of 1990's "peace".

Athena Smith said...

And by the way. Putin's propaganda is not a fact. It is simply that. Propaganda of a dictator whose country is on the brink of economic collapse. If he were practicing the same politics in the US or Europe he would have been put to jail. Period.

Anonymous said...

Russia is a country "...whose country is on the brink of economic collapse." ???

WHAT ???

Are you sleeping ? Honestly, you need to stop blogging and start researching, or watching C-SPAN, or doing something other than what you are currently doing.

The fact is: Putin is NOT practicing the same politics in the US or Europe.

He is running a very powerful, very brutal country that happens to control most of the energy for a pacifist ally Europe. I'm not trying to insult the EU by calling them pacificst. I wish every country was peaceful, but that expectation is not reality. Reality will rip your face off and eat it in front of you.

Russia does not care about civilian casualties. Russia does not care about territorial integrity. Russia will walk all over anyone that steps in their way.

Even if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be able to confront Russia without the help of the rest of the world. We could defeat Russia in a war if it was a head-on-head battle without civilians in the middle, but this battlefield DOES NOT EXIST.

Your mindset is exactly why Barack Obama CANNOT be elected Commander-In-Chief

Anonymous said...

Thomas Eagleton was selected on July 15, 1972. His first press conference was July 25, 1972. So ten days is the maximum delay in recent history so far for a vice presidential candidate to take questions from the press. On the tenth day, he announced his history of bipolar disease. On the eighteenth he withdrew.

Lloyd Bentsen gave a press conference one day after being selected.y tomorrow, Palin will be in unprecedented territory. And, of course, the Eagleton delay should also be seen in the context of how much time the country still has to weigh its decision. When Eagleton was selected, there were a little under four months left till election day. Now there's less than two months. And they say the public has no right to know who could be their next president.

Sarah Palin may be one illness away from the Presidency. Yet, she's governor of a far-off place and the people of this nation have very little idea of who she is (other than the pablum that the campaign wants us to know.) Yet, she has so far steadfastly refused to be initiated as a national candidate by answering real questions by the press corps. How long will this go on? Will the McCain campaign keep her in a bubble, shielded from any critical questioning until the election? Will the VP debate be the only real measure voters will have of Sarah Palin? If so, it plays the American public for fools. We have a right to know who we're voting into one of the most important offices in the land.

Sarah, if you are indeed so tough, come on Face the Nation, Meet the Press, This Week or sit down with the NY Times, Washinton Post, Jim Lehrer.
Sadly, I imagine they'll only let her speak with Ellen DeGeneres, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and other sympathetic or soft outlets...

Athena Smith said...

I think you are misinformed as to the Iranian crisis. The International Atomic Energy Agency Board is comprised by both American and European officials. They are the ones with the heaviest leverage. The reaction to Iran has been a concerted multinational effort at times pushed (and only after intranational agreement) by individual countries.No country can take the blame for not stalling Iran yet. However, it is mainly Sarkozy who is behind the "sanctions" option. Not the US. (not that it matters of course because the UN decides in the end. And see what they decided)

I do not get the question about "which crisis did Europe resolve... You can't be serious....A stereotypical assessment of the EU may point to the deficiencies, but crisis resolution? From preventing a new war after 1945 to diminishing the power of the far right, to offering developmental assistance to the Third World, to ending the genocide in the former Yugoslavia... to taking measures against pollution of the Med, to providing structural packages to the new members in order to boost middle sized businesses, to sustainable tourism, to multiplying their nuclear reactors in record time in order to promote less energy dependency... you name it... just like any other industrialized nation. If they had not resolved their crises, they would not be advanced.)
Now, don’t repeat the ad honimen attacks. They add nothing. You failed to present facts that prove Europe being an empty suit.

Anonymous said...

Russia will play McCain so easily. He's erratic and hot-tempered.

Senator Coburn, a Republican, stated that the idea of McCain as Commander-in-Chief sends a "cold chill" down his spine due to McCain's rashness and temper. This is why MCCAIN CANNOT BE ELECTED COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

Russia will lure McCain into making a hasty decision that imperils American military interests. McCain will be too quick to use force that he will make the wrong strategic and tactical decisions. He would be a VERY POOR and ERRATIC commander-in-chief.

Obama's deliberate nature, his calm in the face of the storm, his ability to critically think in order to make informed judgments, will make him a far better Commander-in-Chief than "bomb, bomb ,bomb Iran" McCain. Can anyone imagine FDR or Churchill singing such a fatuous, bellicose speech?

Anonymous said...

Fox News now has a propaganda film up about the possible next president of the United States; but the actual press is not allowed near her. With one single exception: in a staggeringly sexist decision, Steve Schmidt has allowed Palin to be interviewed by a soft-focus, non-political magazine, People. There was also a lifestyle interview on jogging and diet in the WSJ, but that was obviously done before her selection. But no actual political journalists, asking questions about what her, you know, views are on, say, Iran or Fannie Mae or the EITC or the battle between Shia and Sunni Islam. Now: can you imagine a man being selected as vice-president and only giving feature interviews to People?
McCain's treatment of Palin is increasingly one of the most sexist displays I've ever seen in national politics. They somehow think this woman cannot handle the press. Why?

Athena Smith said...

As for Russia the "prosperous" country, may I ask whether you have visited the country?
I have.
And I was scared by what I saw.
The social problems are skyrocketing. POverty is rampant. Rents through the roof ($1000 for 800 square foot apt) when the salary is $500. End result.. couples live with their parents in tiny apartments. Corruption? Everywhere. From the taxi driver to the cop. Sex traficking? It scares you, it is that obvious. Other types of trafficking? Extremely easy.
I am not going to continue because I know the facts, and I have visited and studied Russia.
Out of their Central bank came the following statement.
MOSCOW, April 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's foreign debt calculated by international methodology increased 48% year-on-year in 2007 to $459.6 billion, the Central Bank said on Monday.

Russia's foreign debt grew in the reporting period largely due to private-sector borrowing, the Central Bank said.

State-controlled banks increased their foreign liabilities from $41.4 billion to $65.5 billion and other government sectors from $45.4 billion to $75.1 billion in 2007.

At the same time, the private sector's foreign debt bill climbed 55.7% to $272.6 billion.

There are even more tragic numbers coming out of this country. Europe, US, Japan, Australia, Canada are light years ahead.

Anonymous said...

I have not visited Russia yet, but I have been to Georgia many times and I have a house and family in Tbilisi. I think I know about Russian brutality.

My wife lived in Russia for many years. She went to school there. I dare to think that our experiences trump your visit to the country.

I agree with you that there is a lot of poverty and suffering in Russia. Moscow also has the most millionaires in the entire world.

None of that changes the fact that Russia owns most of the energy for the entire EU and that they will form an axis with Iran and Venezuela in their quest for domination of the world's energy supply.

Anonymous said...

If McCain is catnip to Russia, Obama is a cornered mouse.

Athena Smith said...

Anonymous 12:3
Anonymous 12:3
Thank you for the correction. Indeed income disparity in Russia is mind boggling.
From what I have heard from volunteers that have worked as teachers in Georgia, the social conditions are dramatic.
Now as to the energy problem, Sarkozy has initiated the creation of the Mediterranean Union, a new type of EU that will consist of all countries bordering the Med. The main reason behind it is energy sufficiency for Europe. They are moving seriously toward exploiting the sun in the African desert. As the Spiegel article reports "A tiny fraction of the sun's energy that shines upon the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East could meet all of Europe's electricity demands. .. says Gerhard Knies, a spokesman for the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), a network of scientists and politicians from various countries who have taken it upon themselves to solve Europe's energy problem.
Their vision, which they call Desertec, is to turn desert sun into electricity, thereby harnessing inexhaustible, clean and affordable energy."

That will be a win-win situation for both regions (Africa and Europe).

The Mediterranean Union is a hell of a good idea. I sure hope it takes off.

Anonymous said...

While I agree with you that using Solar energy is a great idea, our friends on the left seem to think otherwise.

In America, there was some effort to do the same in our south western deserts.

Unfortunately, ...

The California-based Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy argues that the push for Big Solar promotes the "permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands designated for multi-purpose use that belong to the people." The Alliance also accuses the development of solar power in the desert of "wilderness killing, unacceptable groundwater depletion and the erosion of hard fought protections of public lands and private rights."

The San Diego-based Desert Protective Council also opposes the construction of a high voltage power line that San Diego Gas & Electric says it needs to transmit renewable power from a solar generation project planned for California's Imperial Valley. The power line would run through an existing right-of-way in a state park, but each of its 141 new towers would average 130 feet in height. "Our take has been from day one, 'Here we go again,'" said Terry Weiner, Imperial County conservation coordinator for the Desert Protective Council to the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Here is where we can do everything out in the desert that we don't want to do in our own backyards in the city,'"

The Desert Protective Council has allies in this fight. "The idea that we're going to sacrifice critical pieces of our environment to protect other pieces of our environment seems a little ironic," said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the nonprofit California Parks Foundation in the Los Angeles Times. "That's an irony I cannot accept. We have to find a way to do both." In other words, no trade-offs. These groups want renewable power to be generated locally, preferably by placing solar photovoltaic arrays on roofs.

"It's not just businesses that have slowed things down, it's not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it's also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down," declared a frustrated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) during a speech at Yale University this past spring. "They say that we want renewable energy but we don't want you to put it anywhere, we don't want you to use it." Schwarzenegger added, "I don't know whether this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it."

What makes you think European Environmentalists won't block that effort like American Environmentalists did here ?

Anonymous said...

Athena? Wasn't the Acropolis considered an eye sore to most greeks when it was built?
Perhaps you don't realize the opposites donot attact. As "hell" and "good", by reason of purpose, should never be used in the same sentence.

Athena Smith said...

Anonymous 1:39
I fully agree with you that environmentalists are the ones that have stalled growth. I have seen what they have done to my own country and I am speechless.
Now, why ma I optimistic as to the Med Union? I have to be disgustingly frank here.
The North African countries involved are underdeveloped and authoritarian in government. Therefore they do not have any "environmentalists" obstructing development. Development in these countries is decided by a centralized governmental body that mainly reports to itself.
If the decision on the investment is taken, it will be carried out. I suspect all sorts of environmental will try to flock to the region. I seriously doubt it that they will make it to the border. They will be turned back, no explanations given.

I'll try to find the map that Spiegel published which showed how little land was needed to generate Europe's electricity and if I do I will post the link.

Anonymous said...

It would be nice if we can move American Environmentalists to an African desert!

Athena Smith said...

Here it is. Go to this page and click on the images. The map I am talking about is picture #9.

Anonymous said...

American Military University?
Which part of Greece are you from, Athena? I visited greece once. Sparta gave me many fond memories, Athen's was a shithole. I only spent two days in the city there and ended up with a throat infection as the air quality was bad.

Athena Smith said...

I am from up north, Thessaloniki, but we mainly lived in Athens. A very ugly place, filthy, noisy,a smoker's heaven...Pure decadence.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how Muslims would react to a female US president giving orders?
And with the 7 year anniversary fast approaching, the media has been all but silent. Everything about 911, from the battle ready airforce claiming confusion, even though it was obvious America was being attacked, the US Government refused to send in an already air-borne offensive to have a closer looksee and check out the area was the first of many clues. Long after the first jet had struck the first tower, and even with all those military and private satellite systems and confirmations from mass witnesses at groundzero.. the military couldn't make the call.

Irving/Papa/William Kristols plans for the American New World Order [PNAC] did request a "New Pearl Harbor", did it not? Yes, it did.
Millons will always remember this, and more and more read about this everyday.

I've always say it is building 7 that will be the Achilles Heel for the neoconservative cult.

Another clue is how the media knows that drawing too much attention to 911 ( without mentioning who hijacked those commercial aircraft) tends to make the lasting fence sitters seriously reflect on the reasons why it happened and begin to look for answers all on their own.

And they are only getting louder.

Anonymous said...

Any Christian can tell you how common it is to accidentally state they are Muslim. Obama did it today in St. Louis:

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."

Anonymous said...

It is circulating via email that Obama was a registered Muslim in the daily school he attended and he kept that faith for 31 years until his wife made him change so he could run for office.

It also says the school he attended in Indonesia was not Christian but Muslim.

Also in the email an article that appeared in the NY Times by Kristol dated February 28 2008 says: "Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a frist-rate accent in a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks). Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narraitve is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'"

THere's not much time left to check everything out.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone on this blog said anything about hating non-christians or killing muslims.

Clinton Democrats floated the Obama is a Muslim story first, you should ask them why they did that.

Obama has stated that he has never been a Muslim, then he accidentally mentioned his Muslim faith today in Missouri. I find that to be an interesting slip of the tongue. I, personally, have never accidentally called myself jewish, muslim, or any other religion that I have never been.

I do have a problem with any religion that practices honor killings or the mutilation of females.

Anonymous said...

10"56 Your remarks sound very much as though you have issues of paranoia.

In fact, this country, which is largely Christian, has welcomed Mulism who have after becoming citizens, ignored our laws and practiced "honor kilings" And, we did suffer 9/11 and we do hear repeatedly how Muslims hate us. So we continue to pray for protection; we continually pray that we have a President we can trust to protect us; and, we continaully pray that "God is love" will be realized by all people of all religions. The non-believers we hope would accept the idea of universal love.

Anonymous said...

10:56 PM,
If you are European, please read up on comments in this thread and explain why Europeans allow Russia to ignore the territorial integrity of her neighbors ? When will you say "enough is enough" ? Are you waiting for America to do something ?

Anonymous said...

Obama Lies Again!

"Our people were not involved in any way with this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought there was someone in my campaign that was involved in something like that they’d be fired!" -- Barack Obama

Why has Obama NOT FIRED Howard Gutman ?

Anonymous said...

McCain/Palin will win.

America and the World are COMPLETELY SCREWED.

American voters are like alcoholics...either we need to hit rock bottom before we wake up from this hazy, self-induced nightmare or we'll need an intervention.

Anonymous said...

Obama is starting to backtrack on the Bush tax cuts.

Add this to the list:
1. Public Financing
2. Leaving Iraq
3. Firing staff members that bash Palin's children
4. Bush tax cuts
5. Change we can believe in

The closer we get to November, the more Obama becomes "more of the same".

Anonymous said...

Obama will not fire Howard Gutman. Gutman has too many contacts with Obama's friends in the Weather Underground.

Sidney Condorcet said...

From Ezra Klein:

HuffPo is trumpeting "Palin's First Gaffe!" as if we should put it in bronze and tuck it in the keepsake box, but it's not a gaffe. Asked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin said they've "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." As McClatchy points out, "The companies, however, aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."

it's not a gaffe. It's much simpler: Palin didn't know the answer. Amidst a housing crisis, she didn't know how the country's largest lenders operate, and wasn't aware that they weren't taxpayer funded. It would be interesting to find out if McCain could give an actual answer as to how the lenders work...

Anonymous said...

From the AP:

LEE'S SUMMIT, Mo. - John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects.

At a rally in swing state Missouri, the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate accused Obama of requesting nearly $1 billion in earmarks for his state during his time as a senator. The new line of attack came after Obama made his first direct criticism of Palin over the weekend, using the topic of earmarks, which are special projects that lawmakers try to get for their districts and constituents.

"Just the other day our opponent brought up earmarks — and frankly I was surprised that he would even raise the subject at all," Palin said. "I thought he wouldn't want to go there."

Obama hasn't asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

The governor did reject plans to build the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere" after Congress had cut off its financing.

Anonymous said...

As an American, I'd like to apologize for the rancid, dumb-as-shit response given by 4:59pm.

I highly doubt 9/11 was an inside job, as well, but 4:59's invective was moronic and indicative, sadly, of how a Bush or McCain voter thinks...

Anonymous said...

3:44 More to the point of competence is:
Obama didn't know what city he was in during the Democratic Convention; his daughter bailed him outl.

Obama responded on TV last night that was was a Muslim. Has he forgotten his good friend and mentor converted him to Christianity? Sounds like pre-mature senility or Alzheimer's.

4:16 One thing to nr consdered is Obamas "pork" went to his wife's hospital, to Trinity Church and to Pfleger.

5:40 Why have you never complained about the foul-mouthed Sidney who too often sounds off with vulgarity?

Anonymous said...

It was reported today that Obama's team is worried about the appeal of Palin and their plunge in the polls. They have decided only one person can "save the day".

It is Hillary.

So they have the gall to force her now to make a more strenuous effort to save Obama's neck. All the "kings horses" and all the Dem men, could not put his campagaign back together again. It is taking a woman and the very woman they dissed so mercilessly. She's like all those women who have to stand beside their man after he's erred.

Anonymous said...

I was a Hillary supporter who was going to vote for McCain or perhaps just stay home. That changed tonight when I saw the Bill O'Reilly ineterview of Obama on Fox. I like Obama much much better in a one to one serious question and answer session than his speeches to huge crowds with no verbal xchanges.

After watching him I'm convinced he is sincerely interested in the welfare of our country and its people; I like the way he argues agressively but never with ill-will; and, he has a good grasp on the economic problems in my opinion Trickle down didn't work for me the last time so I'm convibced Obama is right; it won't work this time. Not only that, I was pleased to see him think quickly - unlike the slow, responses he gave on the Warren show.

As an aside, I hate the seixm against Palin, but I am getting distrubed by some of her thinking. She hopes the Iraq war was God's idea. Bad enough it was Bush's.

Anonymous said...

All I heard on the news today was Palin looks like a "Walmart mom" Not only was it sexist it was an attack from the elite pundit crowd on most women in the country. I find it strange that this "Walmart" mom dresses in better taste than Hillary, Cindy, Michelle and most of the women I see on TV. Her suits are well-tailored, well-fitting and don't "cup" her buttocks as do some of the cheap looking clothes worn by some anchors on TV. The colors are subdued and tasteful. I don't think that's what they mean when they say Walmart mom, although I've seen beautifully dressed women there, also.

Funny thing, Maureen Dowd implied she was "uppity" with her 365 dollar chic Transition glasses. No "Walmart" image from Dowe. Palin will not win with the press because they are sexists. But the Republicans will protect her.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Palin will not win with the press because they are sexists. But the Republicans will protect her."

Yeah, the Republicans will protect her alright, by keeping her in a bubble away from any serious and sustained press scrutiny. Palin is what you may call a trojan horse.

Oh yeah, and the Republicans have a long history of defending women's rights. I'm sure Hillary Clinton has severe carpal tunnel from all the thank you notes she's written to Republicans over the years for defending her from vicious sexist attacks. Wait, didn't Palin herself and many other Republicans decry her campaign's claims of sexism by the media just six months ago? Yes, they did. Seems like the "sexism" line is just used by Palin and Repugs as a broad shield to protect Palin from having to actually prove she's worthy of the Vice Presidency...

What was that joke McCain told a group of Republicans in the 90's? Oh yeah, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."

Talk about sexist.

Remember earlier this year when McCain was asked whether he would "beat the bitch" and he just laughed?

Did you hear when McCain called his wife a "cunt" in front of aides and some press?

Have you heard that McCain divorced his first wife b/c she had been in a disfiguring car accident in exchange for a trophy wife?

Remember when, last month, McCain offered his wife to partake in a topless biker beauty pageant?

Recall how Republicans were against the Equal Rights Amendment and disparaged Hillary Clinton for choosing to work rather than merely bake cookies?

Isn't it true that Republicans are generally against a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Doesn't Palin and many others believe that a woman who is the victim of RAPE AND/OR INCEST should be FORCED to carry the fetus to term?

Yeah, repugs have a long, storied history of being pro-women's rights...

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen Obama's $100,000 Gazebo?

Obama is way too gullible to be Command-In-Chief. Russia will walk all over Obama if he becomes President.

Anonymous said...

Remember when Michelle Obama debased America in 2008 by saying that we're a country that is "just downright mean." ?

Remember when Barack Obama in 2008 said residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

Remember when Michelle Obama said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country" ?

Remember when Barack Obama in 2008 pledged "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." ?

Remember when Barack Obama in 2008 stated "I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans" ?

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for Hillary 2012. Buyer's remorse is setting in with Obama.

Anonymous said...

That's probably wise, 11:22pm...I'm so glad some people thought similar in 2004 and didn't vote for Kerry...Keep this up and we'll never get a Democratic President...

Anonymous said...

3:58 AM,
...hopfully you're right.

Anonymous said...

When I could no longer stand MSNBC,Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and some on CNN (McCafarity) beating up on Hillary I switched to Fox News for relief. I, a Democrat, was very comfortable watching them because they absolutely did not diss Hillary. They didn't agree with her but they did not make sexist remarks. That's why she agreed to be interviewed by OReilly.