Progressive Strategy – Demean Women in Politics to Distract from the Issues

One understands that politics are dirty, and that when one enters the political arena, be it a male or a female, they are subjecting themselves and often their family, to the proverbial microscope of the press. No matter how frivolous a charge or alleged “scandal” might be, and no matter the position sought, a “leak” of the most ridiculous sorts, suddenly becomes “national news”. That said, the disparity between the opposition attacks against women, regardless of party, is fairly prominent, and especially true this past week as the nation has less than 42 days to determine the shape of the 112th Congress, and incidentally immediately following, the candidates for the Presidential primaries for 2012.

One which stands out more than most is the embattled “Tea Party” Candidate Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware. O’Donnell: If one Googles' O’Donnell is the search engines News feature, they will find thousands of articles regarding a videotape of Ms. O’Donnell as a teen, making a silly comment about being involved with Wicca (witchcraft). Of course, Mr. Maher, the HBO talk show host, who if one reviews his past videos will find remarks made by the host that would elevate Ms. O’Donnell sainthood.

For example the video below shows a younger Maher, comparing dogs to “retarded children”. This is the same man who is taken seriously when dismissing a Senate candidate for a comment made while a teen. That said, the media jumped on this nonsense and moved it to the spotlight, which certainly distracts from the issues at hand that affect voters in Delaware. Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent on the other hand, is an avowed Marxist and believes in increasing the size of the U.S. government Of course, nothing to concern Delaware voters about Mr. Coons, also dubbed Harry Reid’s Pet must, according to press logic, be the better candidate.



Aside from the ridiculous, serious charges have been leveled against Ms. O’Donnell, specifically regarding a lean placed upon her by the IRS, which is running in an ad throughout Delaware, what the ad fails to mention (given that it is a DNC ad), Ms. O’Donnell received an apology from the IRS for their mistake. In fact, for every spurious accusations against the woman, she has asked and answered with full documentation (the actual documents) on her website here at Chrstine2010.com. Meanwhile, nothing is being asked and answered by either candidate about issues. But, as a woman, the “witch” tag is sticking and the word “teen” has made its début.

Although one could argue it is partisan politics (dirty, agreed), it is an attack on O’Donnell personally and as a woman. (Bill Maher remarks in his video with a then high school age O’Donnell “what’s with the 90’s hair?”.

Speaking of hairstyles: Hillary Clinton, the woman who should have been President (opinion with a basis in fact (i.e. popular vote in primary dismissed by super-delegates in favor of the brilliant Obama who has failed to show his brilliance) is to this day, under the fashion microscope, this time, her faux pax is a hairstyle. How silly. Yet, in some ways, not at all, as it is the beginning of firing “salvos” should the former New York Senator decide to run against this particular sitting president as rumors suggest. This article by the New York Daily News, goes into detail on Clinton’s “new hairdo” for a UN meeting. Apparently, Clinton had worn a banana clip of sorts, looking as if she had more to worry about, and chose a “banana clip” to get the hair up and away from her face. Herein lies the crux – perhaps Ms. Clinton’s hairstyle is big news to those who hit the salon on a daily basis, but for those of us who work for a living, it looks familiar, and comfortable, and lastly “normal”. The end result, in trying to dismiss Clinton via hair, or what she wore on a particular day, etc., is that she becomes more human to the rest of nation that might find themselves in that same pantsuit situation.

One can, however, bet the house that should John Kerry assume the role as Secretary of State, (rumored to be replacing Clinton as she seeks a way out), then the press will undoubtedly not fixate on the type of tie he wore on a particular day, or the cut of a suit.

Finally, Sarah Palin, who has been criticized on wardrobe, and more, continues to be a target, as she has taken a prominent place in politics and is possibly one of the 2012 candidates for President. One can anticipate the attacks on Palin to be "ramped u a bit" and, should Clinton join her from the opposite side of the aisle, attacks on her as well, not on the issues but on what both women wore, their makeup, their hairstyles, ad nauseum.

This is nothing new in the political arena, when women attempt to cross over into a predominately male “club”. The first woman to break the political glass ceiling (Vice President, not President), Geraldine Ferraro, was also treated with the same hair brush, discussions regarding her were national news.

That was in 1984. A mere 26 years ago, which is current in the scheme of women in politics.

Two stunning Women and politics facts:
1920 - Given the right to vote – last “group” to be given that right.
Ongoing - Categorized as a minority (seriously women and minorities)

Observations:

Are considered to have broken the glass ceiling by merely being a, candidate

Progressives for all their “solidarity” are as sexist as a men’s only club.

However, there are more women candidates for state and federal offices in 2010 than in previous years, specifically in the GOP. Philosophically, (Feminism) and legally (EEO) regardless of party or politics, women should be treated no differently than their male counterparts when applying for the same position, be it in the private sector or the public sector. It is far past time, for there to be two qualified candidates for the nations highest office, and should those candidates be women , then all the better. As the press would be forced to speak on issues, rather than what dress one wore, or what hairstyle the other chose for a particular meeting.

Obama Administration – Desperation Plan – Attack the Tea Party – Bill Clinton Takes a Different Tactic – Hillary, Palin and the Tea Party - Analysis

The New York Timesran an article yesterday here outlining the administration’s plans to air a national television campaign tying the Tea Party movement to the GOP, noting that the source was, as always, anonymous, and that the ad would air only on “cable”. Meanwhile, smart as a fox, and possibly laying the groundwork for his wife’s 2012 run at the White House, former president Bill Clinton believes that the “Tea Party is misplacing the blame” (NY Daily News). In a series of Sunday talk show appearances, Clinton argued that the Tea Party candidates have the right idea in that the public is tired of big government, but that it is “bankrolled” by “people” who would harm the government by concentrating power in the private sector. Seriously, on the one hand, Clinton, one of the few moderates left in the Democrat party, is giving credit to the candidates that either have Tea Party support, or are Tea Party originals, while warning of disaster if the government is reduced.

Both the White House, and a variety of cheerleaders from press, are missing one critical point – the Tea Party “movement” is not about the GOP – it is about the government period and primarily about fiscal conservatism, job creation and individual liberty. The GOP just happens to have some of the qualities Tea Party members are seeking – but it appears to be temporary.

In addition, examine who make up members of the Tea Party, some of them are far right, some of them are also Democrats, most of them are, more to the point, “unenrolleds” or “independent” status voters. Those voters who have never found either party overly appealing, or meeting part or any of their political ideology have finally found a “Party” they like. This is regardless of how many times a member of the Democrat Party or the Press cries “right-wing extremist” (note – Clinton, in his interviews, did not use that particular phrase). Interestingly, the New York Daily used the Clinton interview to segue into a criticism of Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell – who they are desperately tying to Sarah Palin, on the one hand, while leaving out the fact that she upset a Republican Incumbent on the other.

Clinton, one can observe, never went that route, leaving Palin out of it completely, although touching on O’Donnell – as a Tea Party Candidate, having to spell out what had happened as far as several “bombshells” dropped by the press in recent weeks against her, personally.

Bill Maher, a comedian turned “quasi news commentator” on Cable’s HBO network, “outed” O’Donnell recently for “Dabbling in Witchcraft” – in addition, she’s had a slew of financial difficulties and discrepancies in her bio. The dabbling in Witchcraft nonsense is exactly that, as the 41 year old O’Donnell was in high school at the time. In other words, Tea Party candidates who have had financial difficulties, and may have made some dubious choices in high school, are human.

However, Congressmen and women, who have made dubious choices with other people’s money (taxpayers), and happen to be Democrats, get a pass. Gone are the front page articles on Charles Rangel’s (D-NY), with the exception of his recent win in New York’s primary – one in which, on election day voting machines either malfunctioned or did not work (NYTimes). Rangel is up on a host of charges, likewise, Maxine Waters (D-CA) who funneled tarp funds to a failing bank which just happened to have her husband on the Board. Chris Dodd, (D-CT) decided to get out of the kitchen and retire before the financial disaster came home to roots, and Barney Frank (See Maxine) was in the ”middle” of the Water’s bank scam on the Taxpayer. It is the aforementioned that the "Tea Party Members" get.

However, to the majority of the press and the administration, The Tea Party is “extreme” and in aligning with the GOP, one should vote those Democrats back into office or suffer the consequence. Those consequences being the GOP would now include members of a fledgling Third Party (see analysis here Wall Street Journal)that would not bend on issues of taxpayers monies (the crux of the issue) being spent with abandon (a basic GOP tenant, which in that Political Party’s misplaced need to become more “appealing” to Democrats – acted just like them – see out of control spending in Congress held by GOP in the 2nd term under G.W. Bush.)

The problem, overall, is that those that live in Washington D.C. (and pressrooms across the nation) don’t’ get it. One has to wonder however, if the GOP’s Karl Rove did, especially when he went after Christine O’Donnell for besting an incumbent Republican. The GOP had a stalwart tax and spend semi-reliable Republican in Mike Castle and Karl Rove, knew that Castle was not ousted by a fellow Republican, rather a member of a Third Party running on the GOP ticket. One that, had not been “fully vetted’ by the “Tea Party” – you can’t blame Karl, who has to understand that the GOP is being used as a spring board for candidates that would be forced to run as a third party candidate. This is similar to the way that “Socialist Progressives” infiltrated the Democrat Party by running as – Democrats.

Karl need not worry overmuch – The Democrats are in panic mode, Clinton understands this, and also understands the need to be “kind” to those Tea Party Candidates, even though they are running as Republicans’ because, he understands they are not “right wing extremists” at all, rather they are American Citizens from all parties, all races, and all ethnic backgrounds who are taxpayers’ sick of being fleeced.

It’s a win for the Republican’s because, at the moment, they are identifying themselves with the GOP – and it’s a loss for the Democrats because they are not specifically the GOP, and apparently, only the members know that – those members reading the press and having voted for one Barack Obama.

Obama on the other hand if he does recognize the strategy and being a Progressive, is, in all likelihood, a bit perturbed as the independents that propelled him into the White House, have now formed a Party to remove him.

What of Sarah Palin? Palin is being tied by now by more than virtue of endorsement to Christine O’Donnell, which the press is trying to take advantage. The Altlantic article written by one Andrew Sullivan who apparently sees a correlation between the teenage O’Donnell’s “witchcraft” date (Bill Maher), and Palin’s attendance at a church where the pastor used the word “witchcraft” in a service in which Palin participated. Obviously, not familiar with biblical text, nor teenagers, and believing that the rest of the nation is likewise ignorant, he pens a rather ridiculous correlation between the two, with the conclusion that neither woman is fit for office.

The problem those press and politicians – (Obama and like-minded Progressives) (with the exception of one Bill Clinton and one Karl Rove, that actually may “get it”) that demonize both the Tea Party, Palin and of course, O’Donnell is that: One, the Tea Party is a separate movement and - Two, O’Donnell is her own person, regardless of Palin’s endorsement and made mistakes in her youth, mistakes and hard times, being something that happens to every single American at some point in their life.

Finally, Palin is a force to be reckoned with, her endorsements are not straight Tea Party, nor straight GOP, she sees something in these candidates that for, whatever reason, makes them better than the alternative. Palin, who came out of the GOP convention and immediately overshadowed Obama, both in the press (who quickly went to work “fixing that Progressive faux pax”), and in attendance at rally’s nationwide, is seen as one of the GOP’s front runners for 2012.

That is with good reason, as one has to examine the possible GOP 2012 candidates(at the moment – Mitt Romney failed to capture the south and the mid-west, Mike Huckabee, may be able to pull it off, although he will be characterized-wrongly as a “religious nut”, Newt Gingrich, always mentioned, Rick Santorum (former Senator – PA - makes Palin look liberal) – none of the aforementioned, let alone Palin have declared) - Palin may be the only one that can actually carry the states necessary to win the nomination.

One scenario which the press, in its blind ambition for the Progressive movement, sees as a victory for Obama, while, Bill Clinton, on the other hand, looks at Sarah Palin as the woman Hillary Clinton must beat in 2012 in order to win the White House for the Democrats.

Therefore, let the White House air those anti-Tea Party, GOP advertisements and they might as well throw Sarah Palin in the mix – unless it is run only on MSNBC, then the probability that this tactic will indeed have an effect on a base is certain – the problem for the administration is – it will be the wrong “base”.