...and there is so much to attack her for on those.  

But, how do you describe what is clearly sexisim on McCain's part in choosing her.  The message is, women are all the same, I got me one, I'll get me their votes.  That is where the worst sexist behavior lives.

Wander onto the regular Internet tubes (not strictly political ones) and watch it go even faster downhill.

The nomination is the top story on Digg. The fourth ranked comment was "McCain/MILF 2008" at +941. It got 996 uprates and 55 downrates.

Being chosen for VP solely because she's female is an issue. She certainly has no material or personal qualifications to be next in line to an old man with cancer.

Well, shoot, tho.

She's a former Beauty Queen and did a flattering and inappropriate Vogue cover not too long ago.

Why does she get a pass for exploiting her looks?

it seems to me as a fairly new user and that this is a highly misguided comment.  check my diary history - or better yet - since you suggest you were the only one calling it out - why not take a look at CAchemists diary on this topic.

and btw - i think you are mixing up your websites - i dont recall seeing the vile things here on mydd, but rather someone reposting hate filled bile from somewehere else calling it out.  and as to sexism being thrown at MO for being a housewife, hey why not check out my diary on this v. topic.  its a bit old, but still applies.

but a nice bait and switch lolis - well done.

unhappy, looked upset is not racist????

Explain please.

Is that like saying someone is inexperienced is racist???

i may be joining you.

Because he did! Where did you ever see an argument made ANYWHERE for Sarah Palin that didn't start out with the pros by saying something like "Well, obviously, she's female, so that helps."

Oh, dear lord.  Don't be so flapping clueless, or intellectually dishonest, whichever it is.

No man with this woman's resume would be considered a viable VP candidate.  None.  To suggest otherwise is the height of folly.

If by "went after corruption," you mean, "created even more of it," then yes, I agree.

Nope it is all about thinking women are stupid as far as you are concerned

Is it, perhaps, that all about thinking men are stupid as far as you are concerned?  Or are you just still bound and determined to destroy Sen. Obama by any means that you can?

There is no doubt McCain picked Palin in part because she is female. Both McCain & Palin have made this clear and pointing this out is NOT sexist. However, if McCain's only intent in picking his VP candidate was his gender, he passed over much more qualified women in the GOP: KBH, Whitman, Snowe, Dole. The question is why and what does this tell us about his campaign?

I think he ultimately went with Palin because (1) she is a woman, (2) she has the conservative Christian wing of the party going batshit crazy about her -- this pick is also for them, (3) by picking a relatively unknown outside Washington he has driven the media narrative crazy, and (4) its not about actual qualifications but about story -- think GWB, the everyman Cowboy not matter how false it was -- Palin is a gun-toting, moose eating, hocky mom, everywoman.

On top of this they know HRC supporters went nuts over real and/or perceived sexism against Hillary and believe they can use this to their advantage. Interestingly enough, Palin basically accused Hillary of misusing the sexism charge, a strategy that the GOP is now happy to embrace.

Unfortunately, some of the attacks against Palin come off as quite sexist and this really doesn't help. At the same time I agree with those that argue that McCain's pick of Palin is a display of sexism in of itself and his choice does insult me as a woman.

The best way to attack this is to attack McCain and his judgment and decision making processes. Do we really want this man leading this country? What does this first major decision tell us about that choice? Forget she is a woman -- do think Dan Quayle -- he picked an unqualified person for political gain not because it was the best choice for this country.

Nonononononoononono......

Experience is not just something that happens to you, it is what you DO. Obama chose to learn as much as he could as fast as he could, and as a result, he has the knowledge of a man twice his age.

She doesn't have that in her. It's nowhere near sexist. She doesn't know about almost anything else outside Alaskan politics. Some governors are local dogs. They get in office and people love them because they know and love their state. Now sometimes those governors burnish their credentials to shore up a run. That comes over time towards the end of their term. Sebelius did just that. But Palin has NOT gotten there yet. It is toooooo early.

There's nothing sexist about this, it's like bringing someone up to the major leagues when they've been doing well in AA ball. It's just not a good idea, and it actually diminishes their own abilities.

I mean, come on, even calling her "a piece of laughable crappiness" is going way too far.

That might be too extreme for a debate, but let's not go so far as to call that sexist, but it's not.

Look.  McCain made a pledge that he wasn't going to choose a Dan Quayle type running mate, as George H. W. Bush did back in 1988.  If you want to see how a male pretty-boy running-mate would be attacked, you need go back no further than that.  The Republicans still complain, to this day, about the awful denigrating treatment that he received.  And when I say, to this day, I mean, like today, on CNN.

We can't go after her the way we did Dan Quayle because the Republicans WILL claim that it is sexist.  In fact, we should assume they will characterize any attacks on her as sexist, whether they are or aren't.

The best strategy is just to ignore her.  

Barack Obama sponsered 820 bills in the Illinois State legislature.  Since being a US Senator, he's authored 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

He's been in national office more the double the amount of time Sarah Palin is, and serves a constituency roughly 25 times the size of Governor Palin's.

And, most importantly, roughly 18 million Americans voted for him to be Commander-in-Chief.  Population of Alaska?  600,000.

On his own he's no slouch.  Compared to Sarah Palin he's John Quincy Adams.

This isn't meant as an insult, but the sooner you drop the Democratic primary talking points, the better.  They weren't true in the first place, and now they serve no purpose at all.

Great diary, CG.  Democrats should be treading carefully here, and they're not.  For moral and tactical reasons, we need to lock it up fast.

has not been a detriment to most men when it came to careers.  Nor has it been a detriment to be an old average male.
FACT: for women looks have been an issue. It was for Hillary, it is for Palin.  
For Hillary she was attacked for her ankles, her face, her post menopausal age.  Her supporters were often denigrated on so called liberal blogs for being post menopausal b*tches.  
Palin's youth and looks are now being used to denigrate her...she exploited them according to people on this blog.  
As well, she has been labeled a front for her husband (he's really running the show).  She's being trashed for her choice to be a working mom.

Reagan exploited being a movie star.
Kennedy exploited being better looking than Nixon, especially on television.
But no one talked about it.  
Yesterday I heard a young man on a talk show mention how FINALLY we WILL have two women, first lady and first vice lady, worth looking at because they are HOT.   And the audience clapped.

THIS is the world women live in.  When we are young and if fortunate to be "up to the male standard of "hot" we are not taken seriously, and if we do get ahead,  we exploited our looks.  If we are "post menopausal" we are looked at as non-persons, hardly worthy of doing anything but appeasing the children and grandchildren....and oh yea, we would never have achieved anything if we had not married so and so.

SOME democratic folks seem to be clueless.  Republicans are quite willing to exploit the clueless dems who still do not get it.

Most democratic women, especially those of us who have been politically active for decades, KNOW rethugs are sexist and exploit sex and race.  It's a given.

But what we did not know, did not expect is that OUR party, the one we worked for all our lives, would used sexism against one of our own, allow sexism against one of our own.

But many of you on this blog refuse to acknowledge that then and refuse to acknowledge it now.

You think that it was OK that the democratic leadership remained silent while one of our was trashed publicly with sexism. Some will trash Palin for saying "Hillary/her supporters just whine too much." You want us to condemn her for that when it was said here and on many so called liberal/progressive blogs by more than a few.

Most of the same people here continue to trash those of us who were offended by how the DNC treated women, especially older women.  Sexism and ageism (used more against females than males) in our ranks stinks and hurts much worse than what comes from the republicans.  Many of us are dems because we could never be a party of a group who used sexism, racism as tools.  So when dem blogs use those things, the pain is much deeper.

But do you realize that women don't vote in lockstep?  Roughly half of women are pro-life.  55% of married women voted for Bush in 2004.  Knowing Bush's positions on women's right to choose, that last statistic should say something loud and clear.  "Enlightening" all women, as much as I would like to see it done, just won't happen.  

Some women are indeed attracted to the ticket simply because there is a woman on it.  Other women are attracted to the ticket because they agree with Republican ideology.  Should we work to persuade them otherwise?  Sure.  But we must understand that getting even a bare majority of the female vote in 2008 will be no cakewalk.

the Anna Nicole picture comes from a blog run by a woman, no?

Dorset Town council is a well known hotbed of Russian mafiosi posing as septuagenarians. You have been warned.

Where there is a smaller percentage of idiotic diaries?  LOL!