Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’

In order to avoid offending  Homegirls and Homeboys here,  I will refrain from posting a picture of the perpetrator.  We all know what she looks like.  Back in 2009, this Op-Ed  was posted on HuffPo quoting  Sarah Palin’s claim that what is now known as “Obamacare” would result in “death panels” that somehow would have decided   ordered that her son Trig should be aborted.

Palin: Obama’s “Death Panel” Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 09/07/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:50 PM ET

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has laid pretty low since resigning. But on her Facebook page, Palin suggested Friday that President Obama’s health care plan might kill her child.

Via Talking Points Memo:

Read more >>>>

I wonder why I do not hear allusive arguments today to Palin’s claims then.  Given the now infamous “panel of men”  assembled to decide exactly what kind and how much, if any, health care women should receive, I wonder where Palin is and all her followers who were crying “foul” in 2009?

There is plenty wrong with “Obamacare.”  No one will deny that.  The biggest fault, in my book, was the withdrawal of the single-payer option which would have obviated the conflict with religious institutions we all witnessed last week.  What we did not get with Obamacare are “death panels.”

The Republicans, across the board, are bent on repealing Obamacare.   Where do they attack first?  Coverage of prescriptions and procedures known to be vital to women’s well-being and therefore family health and welfare.  But I hear no voices harking back to Palin’s  prognostication as this panel of men assembles to decide whether women  live in pain and life-threatening conditions or receive the medications and procedures that mitigate these conditions.

Anyone who has lost a mother at a young age,  Madonna and Rosie O”Donnell are two who come to mind, can attest to the devastation that brings to a family.  There are ways, now, to prevent such losses to young families that were not available to mothers of their generation.  My own mother lost her mom in childbirth when she was only six.  That might have been prevented today.  But Republicans think men, some of whom are educated in theology rather than medicine,  should be the voices to be heeded.

Among the Republicans, and specifically among those running for President, there is one who seems to believe essentially what Palin did about “death panels” and all that horror.

I ran across this article in Jezebel today, and there is an opposing argument.   The absolutely beautiful and healthy little baby,  if pictures are worth a thousand words, is testament to the value of pre-natal testing and monitoring.  This story is a must read.

Why Rick Santorum Would Have Killed My Daughter

Next month, my daughter Ella will turn 11 years old. She’s a beautiful girl, with blond hair and green eyes. She’s an amazing artist, a brilliant writer, and she can do the splits without even warming up.

And if I hadn’t had an amniocentesis, she would have died the day she was born.

Read More >>>>

She is a beautiful little baby girl, and she has the whole world in front of her.  Who knows what she might become?

Full disclosure here:  My sister and I were both Rh+ born to an Rh- mother.  We were both born blue.  We both developed jaundice,  and this was in the late 1940s,  so we never knew how we survived.  We do know that our mom had at least two miscarriages, perhaps for this reason, one before I was born and one between the two of us.

I am glad for the procedures, monitoring, and insurance coverage that allowed this beautiful girl-child to survive and thrive.

So WHERE are those “death panels?”

(more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

In the jargon of their profession, I suppose news anchors have a name for the last question in an interview. I do not know what they call it, but it appears to be a kind of “free” question off-topic from the boilerplate nature of the body of the interview. If you watched Secretary Clinton on the Sunday talk show circuit this past weekend, you saw her answering pretty much the same questions on the same subjects on all three shows, but at the end, each interviewer threw in a “free” question. Schieffer asked her about airport pat downs (a coup for him, I thought – the cable and network news are still looping that clip). Wallace, lamely I thought, asked her about running for president, and Gregory asked her about Sarah Palin. Here is how it went.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, before I let you go, I have to ask you this just as a political observer. What do you make of what happened on election day? And all this talk about Sarah Palin – when I interviewed you a while back, you said you’d be willing to sit down and have coffee with her. She may be someone who is in a position to try to equal what you accomplished in the political arena. What advice might you give her and what do you make of what’s happened politically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, David, the best thing about being of Secretary of State is representing the United States around the world, but the second best thing is I’m out of politics. So with all due respect, I am not going to comment on the political scene right now other than to say that I’m focused on making the case to 67-plus senators in the Senate to pass the START treaty because that, to me, is the most important task facing the Senate and it goes way beyond politics.

QUESTION: And here I thought I’d lulled you into a moment of candor. (Laughter.) Secretary Clinton, thank you very much, as always.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, David.

Given an opportunity to remark about Palin, Hillary Clinton gracefully danced around the question, and put her agenda out in front instead, refocusing the moment, and the end of an interview is a powerful moment, on New START, a formidable product of her tenure at State.

I have seen Hillary do this before.   Remember back in 2008?  She was asked about a “lipstick” comment that had been made about Palin and responded, “I like lipstick.  I use it, but let’s fix our financial institutions.”  (Something like that – probably not her exact words.)

So I was befuddled as to why someone whom Hillary Clinton has taken pains NOT to attack has chosen to launch an unprovoked attack  on her.  With the release of Palin’s book today came some excerpts, and this one, for me, is the final straw.

[Palin] says she admires Hillary Clinton, but that her “baking cookies” remarks sounded like “someone frozen in an attitude of 1960s-era, bra-burning militancy.”

You can see more about this section at this Huffpo page>>>>

It is more than harsh. It is an unwarranted, gratuitous, unilateral attack.   Unlike many of us in her generation, Hillary Clinton did not choose the militant route.  While we were shouting at demonstrations, she was studying law.  She was a singularly focused young individual who saw some things that needed to be changed and pursued a route that would equip her to address them.  She was and still is a very disciplined person who found her time better spent in the library than carrying a poster.

I am not disparaging what the rest of us did.  Ultimately, we did, I believe, make America aware of the reasons why we needed to withdraw fron Viet Nam and of the inequities in the culture.  We were noisy while Hillary was quietly studying in the library.

So to brand her with a descriptor like “bra-burning militancy”  is not only inaccurate,  but completely uncalled for since Hillary has not said anything unkind or untoward about Palin.

She has called Hillary a whiner when she herself has whined about her treatment.  Now she brands her unfairly as something she never was.

More than so many of my generation, Hillary Clinton has always been goal-oriented and on-task.  For someone who was not even there to witness the era to brand her this way over a remark she made to explain her personal choice is unacceptable and mean.

This is it, Sarah.  You have crossed the line with me.  I will never defend you again.  The next time I go to B.J.’s I will be turning your pile of books face down and putting a few copies of James Patterson on top so no one will know your book is there.

I dare anyone to tell me I am unfair in calling Sarah Palin on this base and baseless shot at my Homegirl.  She had no reason to talk about Hillary at all.  Hillary does not talk about her.

Read Full Post »

Yes, I have been thinking all week that I would be required to address here at DeHoS the appalling judgment exhibited by Time Magazine (which is getting no link from me here,  at least not to their latest issue)  which has done a good deal to alter the connotation of the word “influential” in the American English lexicon.   And I do mean judgment!

Masquerading as a poll, the Time “Most Influential List” is actually the product of the assistant managing editor Radhika Jones who decided who was on the list and who was not as she explained so enthusiastically on The Today Show the morning the list was unveiled.  She said she decided “to let” Bill Clinton be on the list for his humanitarian work.  She also said she “wasn’t going to be the one to kick Oprah off.”  But in admitting this, she also admitted that she IS the one who kicked THE HONORABLE Hillary Rodham Clinton,  HER EXCELLENCY, off the list!

There are 18 million Americans who have seen this kind of “poll” before (it was called Primary Season at the time), and it is no more defensible now than it was then.  If Time is going to put up a poll, the true results of the poll should be available to readers.  The results should not be cherry-picked and doctored by anyone on the Time staff.

How it is possible that the woman who was the cover girl on the November 16,2009 issue with the feature article of the week,  is NOT among the most influential while Sarah Palin IS, is very hard to fathom.

It should be noted that the article by Joe Klein was not a slam dunk for Hillary.  He is wont to be critical of her but grudgingly had to afford her deserved credits.  Certainly, within the ensuing six months since that article appeared we have seen the excellent results of all the efforts put forth tirelessly by our outstanding, diligent, dedicated Secretary of State, the Very Honorable and Esteemed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  • START Treaty (engineered by her with Russian FM Lavrov )
  • Help for quake-stricken Haiti – immediately!  As well as to Chile.
  • Outstretched hand to the world – most recently Syria
  • Women and girls as her (always) signature issue arising most prominently during the  Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship

Right now I am watching for probably the 100th+ time, Dirty Dancing.   As Jen and I always have said, “Nobody puts Baby in a corner!”

You do so at your own risk, Time. You look quite comic, actually, and somewhat grotesque at the same Time.  Shame on you!

Your own stats here make your list suspect.

Hillary Clinton is mentioned in 682 articles and has appeared on 16 TIME covers

Read Full Post »

***Last UPDATE ***

She dropped the challenge.

**Update** According to Reuters,  Tymoshenko very much intends to contest this election result.  Ukraine’s Tymoshenko girds to contest result.   Meanwhile, VOA News reports  New Ukrainian Leader Faces Weak Public Support.  You have to wonder how fair this election was.  How can he have been elected with “weak public support?”  So the Homegirls say, “Go Yulyia!  Go after him!”

Yuliya Tymoshenko is hanging tough in the Ukrainian election even while Foreign Policy Morning Brief hands off the victory to her opponent Viktor Yanukovych.
Nonetheless, while this may mean a loss of a woman leader on the global stage, the victory of Laura Chinchilla, elected the first woman president of Costa Rica, replacing Oscar Arias, serves to boost, perhaps, the spirits of those dismayed by Tymoshenko’s probable defeat.

I am not really one for keeping score cards. I do not find that there is necessarily justice in who gets to wear the title first. The first woman president was Isabel Peron in Argentina who acceded to the presidency from her office of Vice President upon the death of her husband, President Juan Peron. Isabel, in fact, was a devoted follower of Peron’s second wife, Evita, and was conscious that the title she held as Vice President was one Evita wanted and should have had, and that if anyone should have been the first woman president of Argentina, it should have been Evita.

So the international drama of women rising to national office in various countries continues even while Sarah Palin teases the Tea Partiers about maybe running in 2012 unless Barack Obama “plays the war card” as she put it, and goes to war against Iran, which would, in her opinion, salvage his approval ratings. Excuse me? WHAT is she saying? That declaring war is a political move? Taken to garner votes?

Well, I know that Hillary was hawkish on Iran during the 2008 campaign, and I cannot really say that her statements were not for political advantage, but saying what YOU would do, given the authority, in a hypothetical situation differs from labeling a hypothetical future move on the part of someone else. Palin has NOT said what SHE would do. She is predicting what Obama MIGHT do which is very different from Hillary Clinton’s 2007-2008 statements.  If I remember correctly, Hillary refused to predict what others might do stating that she could only answer for what SHE would try to do.

So why am I here today in the wake of two elections on two different sides of the globe and a splash by Palin that some have dubbed “spectacular?” Well, as we enter the second week of Black History Month and are reminded of Martin Luther King’s admonition to judge men not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and in the run-up to Women’s History Month, for which this blog has received year-long traffic at this post from last March about the Mirabal sisters of the Dominican Republic, I guess I am here to remind myself of King’s teaching. Neither should we judge a woman by her sexuality alone.

While I believe it is good that women are rising to these positions world-wide – good for humanity, I am reminded  from Hillary Clinton’s celebratory remarks on Friday about another victory toward devolution of justice in Northern Ireland, an objective she has long worked toward, that another woman, Maggie Thatcher, did nothing reach out to the hunger strikers in Long Kesh Prison in 1981. Content of character – very important.

I know some of my friends and readers wish Hillary would espouse these principles more universally, and I see their point, but in contrast to what I have seen from Thatcher and expect from Palin (neither of whose images I will insert here), my faith is in my Homegirl.  We can ALL do better, and that includes Hillary (and me and probably you, too), but we could also be doing so much worse!  Glass half full.  No score card.

(Congratulations to Saints fans and to the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana!  You SO deserve this!  Party on!)

Read Full Post »

Yes, THAT list, the one that includes Dana Carvey (co-alum of SNL), Robin Williams, Bill Maher, and Keith Olbermann (among others) who had harsh words for or imitations of our intrepid Homegirl and Secretary of State.  In your slick “endorsement” of Sarah Palin on O’Reilly, you fired a shot across MY bow, and I am firing back right into your bulwarks because the entirely unnecessary comments about my Homegirl were out of line, mister! *In my best Sister Mary Ruler Bearer voice*

Here is what you plopped into the middle of your rather insubstantive endorsement for president of the woman who failed to complete more than two years in the post her constituents elected her to.

…as Dennis Miller says, there is probably a bit of a sympathy vote for Clinton, ‘She’s been cheated on more than a blind man playing scrabble with a bunch of gypsies’. Harsh (but undoubtedly true)!

Another point he makes is that Clinton has managed to give an aura of competence when lined up next to the other players in the democratic party right now. Of course, her tendency to laugh at enormously inappropriate times and during serious ceremonies is more than a little off-putting. Not to mention that she laughs The Laugh. That cackle she’s become known for. It’s very off-putting. But by staying a couple of steps away from the inner workings of the Obama Administration, she’s managed to avoid having the air of incompetence flow over her.

I have heard Miller defend and even praise Hillary. I never trusted him when he did that, and my instincts, it appears were good.  He turns on her with withered old broomstraws, exaggeration,  and personal criticism.   Wow!  What a manly man you are, Dennis!  And, like many (but not ALL, by any means) men you lodge this criticism as if the only judges on earth are men and the only contestants women.  As if measuring up to male standards is the only rule.

Tendency to laugh at enormously inappropriate times?   I spend a good deal of time following Hillary Clinton.  I challenge you to show me the videos!  There was one incident, early in her tenure as Secretary of State, I believe she was meeting with the Foreign Minister of Morocco at the time,  when she broke up inexplicably when discussing piracy at sea.  I will not pretend to know why that happened, but anything could have explained it, including fatigue.  It was not sustained.  She immediately brought it under control.   In the hours of footage of Hillary Clinton that I have followed in the past year, I have never seen her do that again.  That, Dennis, equals exaggeration.  Arguably, it might have occurred once.

Click on the image. The animation ia adorable!

Now THE laugh,  that you refer to as a cackle,  is her personal laugh and your characterization of it is your personal opinion and amounts to personal criticism.  For many reasons, not the least of which are attacks similar to yours,  Hillary’s admirers happen to love to see and hear her laugh.  In fact, if she does see the video of what you said,  I have a feeling (and hope) she will crack up and laugh long and loud because, as she says, “I’m used to that.”

I have no intention of addressing your thesis except to say that comparing a woman who resigned her elected post after a mere two years with a woman who bravely puts on the most cheerful of attitudes and faces while serving her country in dangerous places and in dangerous ways is a false analogy.  Excuse me, what is it?  Sarah vs. the mean media as opposed to Hillary vs. the terrorists who target her?   The analogy is ….what?

Hillary Clinton has faced down dangerous men and made explicit accusations and statements to their faces on their land.  She soldiers forth in regions where many are probably plotting against her, and may have (August, Nairobi – enough said).  The smile and the laugh are always there and they charm many.  She reaches out to populations wherever she goes (unlike her predecessor) putting herself at risk.   If you hear it as a cackle, well that is your own personal disorder.  We hear the bell of freedom ringing,  and we see populations responding.

Some of us, many, when we see and hear Hillary laugh, feel emboldened, braver,  as Americans, against the threats we face.  And MY opinion is that Hillary has a great sense of humor and a terrific laugh.  I love it when our Homegirl laughs!  She is beautiful, brave, and funny!  (You, on the other hand, are none of the above.)

Read Full Post »

This today in the Boston Globe:  Sexism knows no political bounds by Joan Vennochi

Written by  a WOMAN, yet, begins thus.

THERE’S A new girl in town to kick around.
Hillary Clinton used to be everyone’s favorite target. Now it’s Sarah Palin, who is younger, sexier, and easier to trivialize.

The emphasis is mine.  Sarah Palin is sexier than Hillary? Based on what?  You know, when somebody  just throws a comment like that out there as if it is a statement of fact all the alarms and sirens start going off in my head.  The only comparative that is fact up there is “younger.”   Yes, Sarah Palin is younger than Hillary.   That is a fact.   The other two comparatives are opinions, not fact.

I think sexiness starts between the ears. That’s my opinion, and it makes Hillary the sexier one. Sarah Palin is very inner-directed. It all about her, and she seems to crave being the center of attention even though she does not seem to have much to bring to the party. Hillary, on the other hand, is outer-directed. She is a problem-solver, and cares more that the problem gets solved than that she gets credit for it. To me, the one who is not self-absorbed is much sexier than the one who is.

As far as being easy to trivialize, well I do not think it is possible to trivialize Hillary, and Palin has done a good job of trivializing herself.

Vennochi ends her article with this:

The two would have a lot to talk about if they ever had that cup of coffee Clinton said she would be willing to share.

They could discuss hardball politics and sexism. Liberals and conservatives both know it when they see it.

The Hillary Clinton who keeps telling everyone that you can’t move forward by looking in the rearview mirror – that Hillary Clinton? She is going to sit down for coffee and discuss stuff that happened two years ago?

Reality check: Hillary has moved on! This is her fourth day home this month, and she has a ton of stuff to read and attend to.

There is no comparison between these two – none!  Last week, Hillary was the covergirl for Time magazine.  They did not seem to think it was necessary to sex her up.   She looks pretty and sexy without stripping down.

Read Full Post »

Man!  Or anyway THIS man!  Right on the heels of all the cute body language stuff in the previous post, this comes up on one of the news feeds,  and I am amazed since heretofore Dennis Miller has been pretty positive about our Head Homegirl.

Speaking with Palin, Dennis Miller transitions from calling Newsweek cover ’sexist’ to insulting Hillary Clinton.
Earlier this week, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page that Newsweek’s choice to use a Runner’s World photo of her in running shorts for its cover was “unfortunate” and “sexist.” Palin’s criticism has since been echoed on both the left and right. Interviewing Palin on his radio show yesterday, Dennis Miller added his voice to those calling the cover “sexist.” But he then did something that most of the other critics haven’t done. He immediately followed it with a joke about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that could also be easily characterized as sexist:

MILLER: Listen, Sarah, I have to ask you. This Newsweek cover. First off, I have two thoughts on this. To me it seems blatantly sexist and secondly I’m just glad they didn’t decide to do it with Hillary during the primaries. But your thoughts on it. You a little POed at this? I mean this was for another magazine, right?

Well, it is sexist, Dennis,  and now you are on my list that includes Bill Maher, Dana Carvey, and Robin Williams, for making  nasty comments or innuendo about our Homegirl’s appearance. Actually, Dennis and cohorts, physical features and their appeal are very much a matter of taste. I, for one, just do not think Sarah Palin is all that attractive, although it seems a lot of guys think she’s hot on that Newsweek cover.

I have, but will not post, two very hot pictures of Hillary Clinton wearing less than what Sarah is on that cover – in a bathing suit – and she is very beautiful. She has a very curvy figure, a tiny waist, nice bust and hips, and yes, pretty legs and looks smashing – very feminine. So, Dennis, I do not know what you mean.

I am really sick of men who think they are so hot (and are not) making remarks about women’s physical appearance. This goes for you, Dick Morris, and for you too, Lame Cherry, too cowardly to come out from behind your screen name making negative comments about Michelle Obama’s appearance.

These women (all women) have their own personal styles. The cover picture on Newsweek (I will not give them the satisfaction of a link) was an inappropriate choice, and I believe Mrs. Palin (she is not Governor of anything anymore) should have been allowed input as to what picture went on the cover.

But, reality check, Dennis and the rest of you: You and your “parts” (that includes the parts between your ears) are none too attractive to me! You are not going to make headway with women by speaking with forked tongues – by petting Sarah then slamming Hillary. I am boycotting the appearances of all these guys on my list and invite my Sistah Homegirls to do he same. The portrayals by all of them of Hillary were shameful. Shameful!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »