Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 09/09/2008 6:15 pm

The wOw Women Weigh in on Sarah Palin, Republican Strategy and Slow Democratic Response

JONI: The election. There are so many angles here, I’m going to let you all decide which one you want to discuss. But here we are. I mean, at the end of the day the choice is really John McCain vs. Barack Obama. But, you wouldn’t think that today. You would think, well, all we’re doing is talking about Gov. Palin. And I guess every day talking about her is a bad thing for Obama, because we’re not talking about him. And another angle on all of this is about how the press has been so dismissive of her. And then yesterday you had Maureen Dowd completely turning around and saying she’ll probably be president in four years. So, the whole wrangle of vilification. Cynthia, since you’ve been to the Republican Convention, perhaps you’d like to start. Where are we on this election today?

CYNTHIA: There is no question Sarah Palin changed the conversation. And I think that’s exactly what John McCain hoped would happen. You know, we can debate her merits but, I mean, John McCain has achieved what he wanted politically, at least so far. Coming out of Denver and Obama’s Invesco speech, you know, the general feeling was "nothing can top that," and on Friday McCain did — by announcing Sarah Palin. And he and Palin have dominated the news cycle since. There’s still an awful lot we don’t know. And I’m not so sure that all of it, all of the vetting, has been terribly attractive. I think her daughter’s pregnancy – I’m not saying it’s off limits – but I don’t think it really matters very much and I don’t think the American people think it matters very much. And the sort of glee with which the mainstream media jumped on that seemed to me to be rather unattractive. Whether or not Sarah Palin is competent to be Commander in Chief has little to do with whether or not she is or she isn’t a good mother, which seemed to be what the debate was focusing on last week.

JOAN C: May I interject that I think it was focused as much on hypocrisy, Cynthia, as it was on anything else that she has – for purity balls and abstinence and all of that good stuff, and would not have sex education in schools and that’s why it was gleeful, I think, more than —

CYNTHIA: But you know, Joan, we like to gossip about it all. I just think that, you know, boy do we have more important things to worry about than whether or not her daughter’s pregnant.

JOAN C: But she uses her family politically a great deal in Alaska. There’s a very good piece – I think it’s in The Washington Post. They’ve done a lot of digging and her family is — her husband sits in on almost all the meetings in the governor’s office, and as her chief advisor; and sits in meetings with oil companies, even though he works for one, and advises her. And the children are everywhere. She takes them everywhere. And they’re very much part of the package. And so she’s in … that has invited some of this. But I’m telling you, it’s got to be news when someone brand new comes along to be one of the four major figures in the election and announces their teenage daughter is pregnant.

LESLEY: And not married.

JOAN C: And it was circulating on the Internet that her latest baby was really her daughter’s baby.

LESLEY: Can I step back for one second, step back about a mile, and just look at what’s happened from a distance because, Cynthia, I didn’t go to the convention so I was watching it, you know, at home. And what strikes me today is how brilliantly skillful the Republicans have been through all of this. They had no idea when they … when John McCain chose Sarah Palin at the very last second because he realized, or they forced on him that he couldn’t have his first pick, Joe Lieberman. When he picked Sarah Palin, and all these stories came up because she hadn’t been vetted very much, that they’ve handled all of this with just remarkable shrewdness and political genius because this really could have blown up in their faces.

259 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Dona Howlett
Co I’m a Democrat and we probably disagree on most things………… The First election for the President of the United states was between George Washington and John Adams. George Washington got the most votes so he became President. John Adams came in second so he became Vice President. Maybe we should return to the original format.
By Dona Howlett on 09/10/2008 7:30 pm
C Hardy
Dona, if that was to ever happen could you imagine how awesome that could really turn out to be?
By C Hardy on 09/10/2008 8:16 pm
Dorothy W
Come on folks. If Senator Obama’s daughter was pregnant at seventeen years old, trust me, it would matter to some Americans. Why would it matter you may say? It’s the elephant in the room which most people do not like to discuss. But rather act on their beliefs silently. It’s because Senator Obama is black. Some people say they will vote for a black person but when they get in the voting booth they choose the white candidate. In addition Karl Rove is managing Senator McCains campaign whether anyone care to admit it or not. So another eight to sixteen years of BUSH! So just like Senator Obama has repeatedly said, another eight years of Bush is enough! Senator McCain has been in office for 26+ years, and he will not take care of the social issues working class folks are facing today, i.e., the economy, gas prices, jobs, foreclosures, health insurance, social security etc. But what Senator McCain will do for us is bring on more unjust WARS. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb IRAN. Think it out folks. Think about the issues. John McCain has voted against working class issues the entire time he has been in the Senate. Just check his record.
By Dorothy W on 09/10/2008 9:05 am
DeBúrca obj
Also, can you even IMAGINE if it were Obama’s 17 year old daughter, and the Obamas paraded her “baby daddy” on the stage, and that young black male had a face book page with the profanities that the Palin’s future son-in-law had before they cleaned it up? The Right is just a bunch of hypocrites. And James Dobson who is gushing all over Palin now and drumming up donations for a ticket he could not even endorse before, only a short time ago was raging about how working mothers are hurting the family!
By DeBúrca obj on 09/10/2008 9:18 am
Dorothy W
You got the point :)!
By Dorothy W on 09/10/2008 9:27 am
Diana T
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0910/p09s01-coop.html This is the editorial of the Christian Science Monitor. It has some very good food for thought in regards to the media and its roll in all of this. So many outlets forget, or perhaps don’t care, that they are called The Fourth Estate. They are supposed to be the eyes and ears that we can’t be and give us fair, objective and balanced journalism. I guess they forgot that over time when the Fairness Doctrine was gotten rid of back in ‘85.
By Diana T on 09/10/2008 9:22 am
DeBúrca obj
You know what, I always look at the two parties and what they need and hope for in order to be elected and what it says about each party. The Democrats tend to NOT vilify the media and they depend upon and work toward a high voter registration and turn out. The Republicans since Nixon have used vilifying the media as a ploy to discredit the information the media is obtaining and disbursing and they also put an aggressive effort into limiting the numbers of voters, ie. requiring photo id’s, using negative campaign tactics to promote voter fatigue, etc. because they know that a low turnout is good for them. Does that tell us anything about which party is best for the people?
By DeBúrca obj on 09/10/2008 9:37 am
Diana T
Last night on Charlie Rose, Friedman mentioned the magic word to my way of thinking. Complacency. After the Fairness Doctrine was done away with during the Reagan administration, and also because of deregulation of ownership of the airwaves, these toxic(in my opinion) shock jocks have taken over the whole field and set the benchmark to such a lower denominator. And, the print news is struggling to keeps its market share because everybody is going to the web for their resources, and they are running out of capital. And, in the meantime the public is just letting it happen. Why else would LImbaugh be commanding such a huge paycheck? From what I’ve read, he was wanting Palin to be on the ticket for some time, and that is probably why whoever makes such decisions put her on the ticket. Sadly, there are lots of folks who base their political decisions based on what he says rather than what the real facts and circumstances are.
By Diana T on 09/10/2008 9:58 am
DeBúrca obj
I agree Diana. And not only do we have the shock jocks messing with our election, like Limbaugh telling Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary for Hillary after the Republican Primary was decided. Limbaugh and Hannity were having coronaries at the thought of a McCain nomination, until he was nominated, now they are carrying HIS water. But what is even more disturbing is what has happened to the so-called “main stream media”. First, it is really just a Corporate media with the owners deciding what to report, not report and how to spin it based upon their own Corporate interests. Add to that the fact that the public airwaves are no longer required to provide a set amount of NON-profit time soley toward reporting the news, therefore, the what used to be news has been absorbed into the entire profit making entity and now fits in under the catagory of “entertainment”… so our news programs must now compete for ratings in order to bring profit. And finally, the news media has twisted the idea of being “un biased” into meaning that it is their job to merely let all the sides present their case… ie. it doesn’t matter if “their case” is a pack of lies… the media just let’s them lie without calling them on it and leaves it to the public to figure out what is a lie and what is not.
By DeBúrca obj on 09/10/2008 3:36 pm
eleanor roche
Rush Limbaugh did not “want Palin to be on the ticket for some time”. He mentioned her name on his show one time back in February and at the time knew nothing about her—he didn’t even know how to pronounce her last name. Limbaugh never really gave a preference for VP—he mentioned Bobby Jindl as a possibility a couple of times and only because he was impressed with Jindl. He only talked about potential VP picks on his show if they had been mentioned as possible choices by the McCain campaign or the Republican party. I really wish you people would get your facts right.
By eleanor roche on 09/10/2008 10:30 am
K O
Hi Eleanor, I wonder if I may ask you a favor. Would you tell me you personal take on the economy, Iraq, health care, women’a reproductive and Constitutional rights? I am not trying to “bait” you, but I had this conversation earlier with Bonnie, and we found that we had a significant amount of agreement in spite of the fact that we are registered in different parties (she, a Republican and I, an Independent). Thanks in advance, if you care to answer.
By K O on 09/10/2008 11:07 am
Diana T
By Diana T on 09/10/2008 4:19 pm
eleanor roche
Why yes, Diana, they are mistaken or that particular blogger is. Rush never “openly argued” for anyone for VP. He was actually amused that people were saying that he “advocated” or “pushed” for her as a choice before she was picked——he mentioned that on his show the other day. That’s when he played his previous reference to her in February. That was the only time he mentioned her name on the air before she was chosen. He is obviously extremely happy with her as the pick since she fits the conservative profile, but he never openly favored anyone in particular for VP and he certainly did not advocate for a particular person. The only thing he was concerned about was that a solid conservative get the slot and not a pro-choice person and he mentioned names of some solid conservatives—like Jindl—who he mentioned more than once.—Remember—You can’t believe everything you read!
By eleanor roche on 09/10/2008 5:22 pm
Sherrie Crews
Hillary has been painted as an aggressive, domineering, bitch by the reps for so many years now that if she goes after Palin, as she certainly and has the ability and the right to, all it will lead to is the McCain campaign’s Rovian politics spinning and twisting it until they wring more sympathy for Palin out of it. All Hillary can really do is try to get the message out to the people who really supported her (the ones that were only supporting her gender and either don’t know or don’t care about the real issues are lost anyway) and try to make sure that they realize that voting for McCain out of spite is NOT doing her any favors and keep people focused on the issue differences rather than the lipstick and “Hockey Mom” BS. Maybe the Obama campaign is being a bit smarter about this than we’re giving them credit for. Right now the reps are riding high on the media buzz that Palin is creating. That’s all it is really is media buzz. The only change is Palin and most of the rhetoric about change that’s coming out of their campaign is based on out and out lies that can easily be proved. Maybe Obama’s camp, and maybe rightly so, think it would just turn in to a dirty mud-slinging match against people who are much better at slinging it and wearing it than they are if they try to break into this frenzy. Perhaps the wiser and in the long run more beneficial course is to wait until the insanity dies down and time for the VP debate to get closer, then begin to chip away at them then when the issues will (at least I certainly hope) be at the forefront rather than the lipstick.
By Sherrie Crews on 09/10/2008 12:24 pm
DeBúrca obj
I was going to respond to your post by saying, well at least they can’t accuse HILLARY of being sexist if she goes after Palin. But then I realized, just this week Obama criticized McCain’s economic policy as being the same as the failed Bush policy, but just re-packaged… THAT is when he said “You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig”… yet the Republicans are now saying it was a sexist remark aimed at Palin! And he wasn’t even referring to her! So, I don’t doubt that somehow in the Twilight Zone of Republican politicking Hillary will be called a sexist if she criticizes Palin.
By DeBúrca obj on 09/10/2008 3:42 pm