Posted on 09/03/2008 7:47:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
"There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once remarked.
Where, then, are the liberal women when it comes to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin?
Palin became the first woman to grace a Republican ticket on Friday, August 29, when Senator John McCain selected her as his running mate. The following day, a diarist at the mainstream left-wing Daily Kos (Barack Obama himself appeared as a Kos diarist back in 2005) suggested without any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin's son, Trig, recently born and with Down syndrome, was birthed not by Palin but by her daughter. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic jumped on the bandwagon, demanding that the McCain campaign release Trig's medical records.
The rumor, of course, was demonstrably false -- Kos took down the post. Sullivan, however, stubbornly claimed that the questions about Palin's pregnancy were legitimate. And certain deranged leftist bloggers continue to speculate that Palin wore a padded suit in order to disguise her supposed non-pregnancy.
On Monday, September 1, Palin released the news that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant, and that she would have the baby and marry the father. To Barack Obama's credit, he quickly condemned the focus on Bristol's pregnancy, noting that he was born when his mother was 18. But that made little difference to his followers. The left was already trembling with new paroxysms of delight. They immediately blamed Palin for her daughter's pregnancy.
"Sarah Palin opposes programs that teach teenagers anything about contraception," complained Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post. Max Blumenthal of The Nation obnoxiously wrote, "Could Bristol Palin have benefited from the sex education and contraceptives the GOP seeks to deny to public school students?" The New York Times writes that some wonder if Palin should have stayed out of politics in order to raise her family: "With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try." A few commentators on the left have written that Palin should have told Bristol to consider abortion.
There is no question that the left's attachment to both the Trig Palin non-story and the Bristol Palin story are dramatic examples of sexism. Attacking a female politician's pregnancy without any evidence -- accusing her of lying about her own baby -- is simply sickening. Exposing a female politician's 17-year-old pregnant daughter and then implying that the politician is an unfit mother and should have stayed at home to tend to the children is simply discriminatory. Liberal women should feel free to oppose Palin's candidacy on policy grounds -- but they have the moral obligation to defend Palin from such sexist attacks.
When Palin accepted McCain's offer, she thanked Hillary Clinton for her breakthrough candidacy. Where is Hillary Clinton, defending Palin against such blatant sexism? After all, Clinton recognizes that sexism remains a prevalent force in American politics, saying: "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and ... there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head." How about rejecting sexism when it raises its ugly head, Senator Clinton?
Where is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House? "I'm a victim of sexism myself all the time," Pelosi recently stated. How about confronting sexism in its tracks, Madam Speaker?
Where is Katie Couric? "Like [Hillary] or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued -- and accepted -- role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media," Couric stated about Hillary's failed presidential bid. How about standing up against the continued role of sexism in American life with regard to a vice presidential nominee, Katie?
The Democrats' support of women's rights, it seems, is restricted only to the most convenient political situation: liberal women versus white males. When it's liberal women versus black males -- see Clinton vs. Obama -- the left dumps women's rights in favor of racial gains. When it's conservative women versus anybody, the left ignores women's rights completely.
For Sarah Palin, according to the left, it's back to the kitchen and the minivan. And for liberal women who sit by idly as Palin is excoriated for her gender, there's a special place in hell. At least according to Madeleine Albright. Who, so far, has said nothing.
Their silence speaks volumes about their so-called "morality." They don't have any.
That is why they are helping attack Palen.
But, I believe that the more the MSM and other DNC pundits like NOW and others instigate these tactics against the Palin's, the more the public will be made aware of them, check them out for themselves, and then be drawn to the Palin's side.
...and the worse and worse it will reflect on the instigators who are digging their own political graves.
Women are supposed to be at home wearing a burqa and tending the goats.
Madeline Albright meant that liberal / radical / feminist women have an obligation to help other liberal/radical/feminst women. They don’t feel the obligation to help a “soccer mom/hockey mom” type woman.
In fact the politically correct crowd has scorn for mothers who try to have a traditional family life. They want women to stay single and have a career, or at least stay childless as they pursue that career. The career is the most important thing to them.
Sarah troubles them because she has successfully combined career and family. And Sarah is conservative; in their world, you gotta be liberal.
Excellent article and spot on.
But, let these idiots misstep. My wife (who is the farthest thing from a politico) is VERY PISSED OFF at how the media is treating Sarah Palin and her daughter.
Let them keep it up.
No ethics, no morals, nor integrity!
Collectivists/Leftists (ie, FASCISTS)
are the worst sort of pragmatists.
The end goal is collectivism, the forceful imposition of THEIR goals over YOUR goals.
Anything that has to be done to achieve that WILL be done.
The main reason that the LSM is on this like a fly on sh!t is because Palin scares the crap out of them.......
I became a single mom at age 23, a decade before Women’s Lib. I had no trouble getting good jobs because I was qualified, though I was paid about half what men earned. That was bad enough, but when the libbers got started, I was greeted with suspicion and scorn rather than the polite welcome I was accustomed to. And I could sort of understand it.
I’d attended a Lib meeting when it first became popular to do so. Two-thirds of the women there said they’d married their second husbands to help them raise children from their first marriages, now that the kids were grown, they were dumping #2 and collecting alimony. THAT was their definition of liberation.
And this is the sort of self-serving woman today who espouses every liberal cause because it’s “in” and denigrates women who can actually do things and are not dishonest users.
...these damn wimmin and the damn blacks...when are they going to learn??!! You CANNOT wander off the plantation! Leftie-Master g’wan git mad!
I agree totally!! The MSM wants her out and it isn’t their call...its ours. They are afraid when America sees Sarah, they will love her fresh new face and approach to the political game and love her right off. The MSM can’t stand being upstaged, and our girl has done that with just one go at the cameras...love her, you bet!! She will be outstanding tonight.
It’s hard to decide whether to laugh or cry when gays and lesbians start clucking their tongues and making judgements about families and childrearing.
In some cases they can’t do it and in other cases they won’t do it. Despite these fatal flaws they still have no trouble climbing up on the high horse to decide, as 100% of liberals do, how to tell others to run their lives.
Privacy, privacy, privacy is the cry from the militant left until they decide others should have none.
When Pat Shroeder, spearhead of the ERA, was running for congress in Colorado in the 1970’s, someone asked her how she could possibly be an effective congresswoman when she still had young children at home. Her reply was priceless, ‘Because I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both’.
Why is that an OK thing for a dim but when it’s a pubbie they are supposed to be barefoot and in the kitchen?
Great post and excellent question
Yet she still stood and applauded Ted Kennedy a well known woman killer.
But in the end it turned out that Schroeder only had a uterus.
‘Because I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both’.
I will be sure to use the male equivalent whenever someone challenges my ability to balance job and family. :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.