The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures

Clinton women for Palin? No way

Gender politics
By MARY ANN SORRENTINO  |  September 3, 2008

Memo to John McCain: We may be angry, but we haven’t gone completely mad.

Like many women, I have been disappointed that Hillary Clinton isn’t the Democratic nominee. Beyond that, I don’t feel it was a fair fight. Having said that, however, I am not going to ditch all the values that Clinton and many of us believe in to vote for someone just because she is a woman.

Such behavior would be so typically male, not to mention one of the reasons why women have not yet been able to achieve the equity we deserve.

So John McCain can try to shove Sarah Palin down our throats, but most of us won’t find sisterhood in this ticket.

If former Hillary supporters selected a stridently anti-choice, environmentally impaired creationist, it would prove that they never really understood what Clinton stood for in the first place.

Palin’s beauty queen-PTA-governorship path to political prominence may be enough to satisfy the right-wing fringes. But Clinton supporters, who backed her because they considered her the most qualified candidate, don’t see in Palin what they seek in a leader, regardless of gender.

The notion that women vote solely with their chromosomes is insulting beyond words. On the contrary, feminists have always found that their toughest opponents were also women — women just like Palin, by the way.

Such women tend to see the appropriate place for the rest of us as tied to our husband’s leashes, subserviently waiting for the next command to leap in the air when any male says, “Jump!”

A politician of either gender who believes in forced pregnancy, as does Palin, even if caused by rape or incest, has no understanding of the basic tenet that control of a woman’s own fertility is central to her freedom.

One who would force religious theories of human evolution into the public education system to compete with scientific realities has either never read or cannot comprehend the US Constitution.

Any leader who, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, refuses to acknowledge how humankind’s mindless abuse of the environment threatens our lives, our health, and the planet is either totally insensitive, grossly unaware, or politically bought and paid for by the primary abusers.

The Obama camp need not panic, but it must get a grip on the snake oil show being created by the Republicans.

Proving that Sarah Palin is not and can never be Hillary Clinton should be child’s play.

Real Hillary supporters don’t want McCain or Palin, God forbid, answering that ringing red phone at 3 am. They don’t even want Palin on the commander-in-chief’s speed dial.

Let’s leave mindless rote voting to the fanatical fringes, where it has always existed and cannot, apparently, be exorcised.

Related: Palin around, The feminine critique, Offa my couch, Larroquette, More more >
  Topics: This Just In , Barack Obama, Elections and Voting, Politics,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Re: Clinton women for Palin? No way
More hysteria from the "gentler sex." We are told Hillary wasn't elected because it wasn't a "fair fight." Meaning what? That she should have been allowed to slap Obama and not be kaboshed back? Well, the press DID cut her slack for crying...the same press that scuttled Edward S. Muskie's campaign when HE allegedly teared-up. Was that not enough pro-female sexism for the feminist crowd? Shrillary got her jobs solely due to Bill, the serial-harasser. Everyone but fembots knows that. She's the factory owner's daughter who "somehow" always hits a home run at company picnics. We're also told it's "typically male" to jump ship when one doesn't win, this from the gender that never stands its ground. Feminists cavalierly bash men and expect not to be called on it. They got the right to vote, not the responsibility to protect it with their lives like voting men must. They continue to insist on special vagina-centric privileges. As for the "equity [women] deserve", when will they start to earn it? Feminists seek the benefits of the cushiest male roles, not the accompanying burdens. Women don't work as long or as hard or in the same dirty/dangerous jobs men do...yet complain when a Harvard-educated French-major female working part-time in a card shop doesn't make as much as a blue collar male working overtime on an Alaskan crab boat. Want the same money? Do the same job and LEARN TO NEGOTIATE! (NB: You don't learn the latter by avoiding risks.) We are also told that the "notion that women vote solely with their chromosomes is insulting beyond words." Really? So what was that goose-stepping for Hillary all about? Feminists want "choice," but only for females. They want "rights," not responsibilities. They want equality, but only for those on pedestals. Feminists swore that Democrats would end the Iraq war, then said/did nothing when, post-election, it was more-of-the-same in D.C. Now they're in a tizzy because that imperious, entitled, middle-aged, bloviating cow queen-- Mrs. Clinton-- is being put out to pasture while a gun-toting, hard-charging, anti-feminist, open-minded woman is on the ascent. Too perfect! As for Creationism, Palin only said kids should be told about it. Why does that upset those who supposedly welcome/honor/respect "different voices"? Then again, look what happened to Larry Summers when he suggested several HYPOTHESES (something female scientists should know about) to explain why women aren't at the high end in science research fields. The women ran out of the room calling for his dismissal...just like the Church treated Galileo. Apparently the only ideas "tolerant, respectful-of-differences, inclusive" feminists permit are those in lockstep with Femthink. It's verboten to mention any theory but evolution while, at the same time, it's considered perfectly fine to force crackpot ideologues (like those of wide-load-in-overalls Andrea "Gimme Donuts" Dworkin) on mushy minds. There are no bigger hypocrites than feminists. They howl night and day about being at men's beck and call yet not one in a zillion dares to ask a man out on a date. How BRAVE these wimmin be! This portends to be a sweet election, indeed. Know-it-all feminists will again melt down as reality again confounds their wackjob, anti-male, puerile theories. It's like watching bicyclists get "door'd" who yammer on and on about saving the Earth, and being environmentally this or that, while disobeying all traffic laws, putting everyone in danger. Yes, there is justice, Virginia! "Proving that Sarah Palin is not and can never be Hillary Clinton" is exactly what millions plan to do...the one's who'll elect her to office. You can already hear the harridan howls of feminist sore-losers rising behind the wind.
By YumpinYiminy on 09/04/2008 at 10:08:26
Re: Clinton women for Palin? No way
PUHleeze, Mary Anne!  Did you read your own article?  "Such women tend to see the appropriate place for the rest of us as tied to our husband’s leashes, subserviently waiting for the next command to leap in the air when any male says, “Jump!”"  The very idea that this woman, who was voted to be Mayor, and then Governor would 'see the appropriate place' blah blah blah.  Are you serious?   Sounds like you're shortchanging Governor Palin - but then the Democrats often underestimate their foes. That would explain why we've had George W. Bush for eight years.  I'm not for Bush - but then what have the Democrats offered?  John Kerry?  Please! Better yet, John Edwards.  TOO FUNNY!  Honestly, how do you expect to be taken seriously?  I think after 25 years of reading the phoenix, it's time I just stopped. The bigotry, hypocracy, whining, and just plain stupidity is making me very unhappy. BTW, Philippe & Jorge, why the name calling?  You sound like imbeciles. Are you in this for the money? There certainly can't be any glory. You're sad and pitiful. I know your old and all, but WTF??? Go get a real job.
By American George on 09/05/2008 at 3:25:54
Re: Clinton women for Palin? No way
I don't care if Palin has a million kids under her roof - we're nobody's fools - that's what nannies are for (please note: sarcasm.) The very fact that Palin, who has a child carrying a child and chose to take one of the highest job positions in the world with a special needs BABY at home could possibly be sitting on the front lawn of the White House preaching to MY family about "Family Values" while turning the famous Republican blind eye, scares me back into the 17th century.  I don't care for Obama but I'm sure as hell not voting for McCain.
By lafayette on 09/06/2008 at 9:07:05
Re: Clinton women for Palin? No way
As a one time supporter for Hillary Clinton (and a male) and now staunchly behind Barrack Obama, I think the general public and the Republican party in particular haven't a clue as to what the women of America who worked so hard in their support for senator Clinton are capable of. They as well as the men who supported her historical run for the Presidency are not stupid and do not take their vote lightly. I'm just surprised that the media and the general public in particular haven't caught on to the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket mirrors the Bush/Chaney ticket EXACTLY ! After all, these past eight years saw an awful lot of Chaney pulling his Wizard of Oz routine essentially running the White House while Dubya prattled on. Gov. Palin is now doing the same thing for Sen. McCain using, in effect, George's own words by having her speeches written by HIS speech writer. Do not trust her as she too will bring more of the same b.s. that Chaney did. And she had the audacity to steal portions of Hillary's speech at their convention as well as using it in the days following. I hope Hillary was seething but hope her supporters will mobilize behind Obama/Biden to prevent the knuckleheads from getting anywhere near the White House again.
By skimess on 09/06/2008 at 10:35:48
MA, you should THINK before you write.
"I am not going to ditch all the values that Clinton and many of us believe in to vote for someone just because she is a woman. Such behavior would be so typically male ..."    "The notion that women vote solely with their chromosomes is insulting beyond words."   BUT IT'S TYPICAL FOR MEN? Insulting beyond words. I think you owe men an apology.
By American George on 09/08/2008 at 9:04:23
Re: Clinton women for Palin? No way
Palin is a symbol. She has been governor of Alaska for 2 years. Do you think a male politician with this much experience would have been selected? No way. Palin was selected as McCain's Vice President because of what she represents. She is a woman, yes; and her image has been carefully constructed to represent family- her family might as well be co-VP's they have been shoved down our throats so much. Palin, Inc. is a symbol of the traditionalist Republican base, and not (yet, at any rate) a real, seasoned, top-notch politician. McCain's choice greatly insults me. Yes, I am a Republican, and yes, I actually vote for substance, not just a reflection of myself. Yet as a woman, I am also insulted. A woman is not a symbol- "female" is a mere physical distinction. Traditionally, women have always been used by men as symbols- symbols of a country (France's Marianne, the US' Statue of Liberty) or ideas (the Greek muses, Manifest Destiny). Don't let McCain fool you into taking his choice for VP seriously- his selection of Palin is just another symbol of patriarchy, and Palin, for her own career, has sacrificed her integrity on the altar of patriarchy. Any intelligent, self-respecting woman will vote for a qualified candidate. Maybe she will vote for MCCAIN, or maybe Obama. But not Palin.
By Chucky on 10/15/2008 at 2:37:48

Today's Event Picks
Share this entry with Delicious
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the last "lion" of the Massachusetts clan, finally rests – in peace, I hope.
  •   JUDGING THE JUDGE  |  June 03, 2009
    Women may not yet have full equality, but Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court proves we can compete with the big guys now. It also means that women accepting patronage (and every political appointment is patronage) have an equal shot at getting pounded in the process.
  •   RECESSION LESSON  |  May 20, 2009
    Cigarette tax hikes in Rhode Island have smokers kicking the habit.
    Politics has seldom made stranger bedfellows than those exposed when the RI ACLU hopped into the sack with former state senator William Irons.
    Pope Benedict recently lifted the excommunication of four bishops who had been consecrated without the required Vatican consent.

 See all articles by: MARY ANN SORRENTINO

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group