I'd be particularly interested to see how Palin handles it, considering she didn't do so hot on some of the interviews. This, to me is important, considering McCain's age and all.

Vice presidential debate's format agreed upon

By Robert G. Kaiser
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- Negotiators for the campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama agreed over the weekend on a format for the Oct. 2 debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden, resolving an issue left open in August after the campaigns settled on the structure of the three presidential debates, according to sources involved in the talks.

Under the plan agreed to Saturday, Palin and Biden will have less time than McCain and Obama to reply to moderators' questions and discuss each other's answers. And there will be no guidelines given to Gwen Ifill of PBS, moderator of the vice presidential debate, as to subject matter, allowing her to mix in questions about foreign and domestic matters, the sources said.

Both sides were satisfied with the final agreement, the sources said. The Commission on Presidential Debates, the independent nonprofit organization that manages these events, had hoped the campaigns would agree to the same longer segments for the vice presidential aspirants that were adopted in August for the presidential debates.

In the negotiations, Republicans wanted to limit the amount of time available for their candidate, Palin, to be questioned on a single topic.

Democrats, meanwhile, wanted to be sure Biden and Palin spoke from lecterns rather than sitting at a table the way Vice President Dick Cheney and his rivals in 2000 (Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) and 2004 (Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina) did. Cheney had the upper hand in both debates, said several Democrats involved in the debate process, in part because the setting made it difficult if not impossible for Lieberman and Edwards to go after Cheney aggressively.

Both sides got what they wanted. Palin and Biden will each have 90 seconds to respond to questions, with a two-minute period for discussion between the candidates to follow.

I think Biden is doomed no matter what happens. Either he's soft and comes off as being toothless, or he's tough and Palin gets coddled by the commentators who want to give her a free pass on everything.

here's a pic of the moderator:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/newshour_images/gwen_ifill.jpg

:lol: It's going to be brutal.

This is almost painful to watch. :eek:

iv6CRObROV0

:lol: It's going to be brutal.

This is almost painful to watch. :eek:

iv6CRObROV0

:lol: OMG, who needs SNL, when you have the real thing?

I think Biden is doomed no matter what happens. Either he's soft and comes off as being toothless, or he's tough and Palin gets coddled by the commentators who want to give her a free pass on everything.Are you fucking kidding me?

L8__aXxXPVc

She doesn't know shit about dick and Biden will win just by showing up.

I hope he makes her cry. :lol:

Biden: With all due respect, Governor Palin doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

Palin: Hey now, I know the difference. Ya. You betcha. A strategy is a game played with red and blue pieces, and a tactic is a breathmint.

:lol:

I think Biden is doomed no matter what happens. Either he's soft and comes off as being toothless, or he's tough and Palin gets coddled by the commentators who want to give her a free pass on everything.
Given how the press had treated Palin so far I doubt they'll give her a pass on anything, free or otherwise. I think that the overhyping and overspinning of Palin's credentials by Republicans and elements of the media who are republican-friendly are what caused the harsh treatment.

Bill Maher: Sarah Barracuda, meet Joey the shark!

Biden: With all due respect, Governor Palin doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

Palin: Hey now, I know the difference. Ya. You betcha. A strategy is a game played with red and blue pieces, and a tactic is a breathmint.

No kidding. Her tactic when she doesn't know the answer to something is to rattle on about something else. Sure, good politicians do this to avoid answering questions sometimes, but she's doing it about major, simple questions, constantly. Even the Russia / Alaska border thing...rattle on about whatever comes to mind, covering up for lack of a good answer.

Just saw this nugget from Ed Shultz on Andrew Sulliven. It looks like our wildest Palin fantasies will come to fruition this Thursday.

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

:lol: only people on the inside think this?

It might be possible that they could educate her in time for the debate - maybe not enough for her to come off well, but maybe enough so that she's not completely disastrous.

Although, I would love to see the disaster...

:lol: This is the first time I've ever looked forward to a VP debate. I'm having pizza and beer and having 5 or 6 friends over to watch the carnage. Poor woman is so clueless she doesn't even appear to recognize that she's clueless.

Just saw this nugget from Ed Shultz on Andrew Sulliven. It looks like our wildest Palin fantasies will come to fruition this Thursday.
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”
:dance: :dance: :dance:

Lol. You guys are reminding me of last week's Ugly Betty episode.

Spend Thursday night watching a clueless executive think she's got all the answers even as she fumbles her way through nonsensical statements that make everyone around her wince in embarassment? Isn't that just The Office?

:lol: This is the first time I've ever looked forward to a VP debate. I'm having pizza and beer and having 5 or 6 friends over to watch the carnage. Poor woman is so clueless she doesn't even appear to recognize that she's clueless.

Oh, I think she knows she is clueless. You can see the look in her eyes when she is asked even a mildly tough question by a reporter in the few interviews she has given. I think she got caught up in the moment when she was offered the VP slot, said yes, figured she'd ride the old man's coat tails to the White House, and probably figured the majority of the population never gives two squirts about the VP (after all, we elected Bush with Quale, didn't we?). When she gave comments like, "What does the Vice President do all day anyway?" it told VOLUMES that she was not prepared for what was coming. Now she is in over her head, and drowning. And you can see it...it comes through the cracks, but it is there.

It'd be awesome if she just had a melt down in the next 30 days or so. Can the VP just up and quit? Is there any historical precedence where a presidential candidate changed their VP nominee before the election?

Even though my views are basically the complete opposite of hers, I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for her. She's in way over her head, and it's not really her fault (if someone I'd met once called me and asked me to be VP, I'd probably say yes).

Is there any historical precedence where a presidential candidate changed their VP nominee before the election?
Yes, in 1972 Senator George McGovern replaced running mate Senator Thomas Eagleton with Sargent Shriver, after Eagleton admitted to having received treatment for depression, including, IIRC, electroshock.

This will truly be must see TV.

biden: With all due respect, governor palin doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

palin: Hey now, i know the difference. Ya. You betcha. A strategy is a game played with red and blue pieces, and a tactic is a breathmint.

5/5

More conservatives are hoping McCain takes a mulligan:
Six days to the VP debate, that is. Add this report from Schultz to the first call for Palin to step down from the ticket from a former supporter, and you have the makings of total disaster for the McCain campaign in this next week. The word disaster was honestly the first that came to mind when I heard the VP announcement as I was driving back to Chicago. I remember saying, to no one in particular in my car, “Total disaster.” Because I don’t want McCain to win, I wasn’t concerned that choosing Palin was a disaster for his chances, but I nonetheless felt a sense of wonder about it in the way that insane, futile attacks on fortified positions might inspire a certain strange admiration. I wondered at the time, “What could they have been thinking?” Of course, they had been thinking, “Mac wants Lieberman, which is even more insane, so let’s settle for the merely deranged.” Now they are paying the price.

After the Republican convention, I joked that the convention theme was, “Can we have a mulligan?” It seems to me that the McCain camp would very much like a do-over on the VP selection, but they know that if they dump Palin now it will definitely be over. If he dropped her now, or if she resigned for whatever reason, the combination of media triumphalism (the narrative would be, “so much for experience and judgement!”), liberal Schadenfreude and conservative despair would be so great that McCain wouldn’t stand a chance. Even though his result is now more likely to end up resembling Dole’s rather than, say, a respectable Ford-like defeat, he will have to trudge on and accept whatever happens. He might even earn some grudging respect late in the day; perhaps some generous Obama supporters will liken his campaign to the charge of the Light Brigade. He is, after all, so very concerned about Sevastopol, as he reminded us tonight. The entire Palin episode has been like some drunken bacchanalia that gave way to a terrified awakening several weeks too late. When her critics were painting her as a new Eagleton, her supporters were laughing at them as lunatics filled with hate, and now they are beginning to think that the haters may have been onto something. The GOP is experiencing self-immolation, and I can’t say that I am very bothered by that. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/t-minus-six-days/

Look I know you she is bad at anwsering questons, and could easily see a melt down. But, these guys are just managing expectations. When she comesout and doesn't fall apart, or does ok she will be given the "tie".


It's a game of low expectations.

What better place for this debate than the home state of Thomas Eagleton.

here's a pic of the moderator:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/newshour_images/gwen_ifill.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/Raceist.gif

It seems like the 'geniuses' in the McCain campaign would have spent some time coaching her, and less time expecting her to do it on her own.

For the talk of 'total disaster'... what nonsense.

The picking of Palin was one of the best campaign move sin recent history. Only one of the many reasons was the day after Obama's 'historic' speech in a stadium, no one was talking about it, all they were talking about was the Palin pick.

THAT is stealing thunder. It's good campaigning. To call that a 'total disaster' is idiotic.

Now Palin herself is a different issue.

Like that Couric interview. Well there's just no denying that one. Yikes.

It seems like someone in the campaign would have given her some help in responses, not left her to stumble like she did.

That part where she was asked about the bailout in the context of "wouldn't it be better to use that money to help people with homes, jobs, and food?", which was a pathetically simple minded question like one would expect form a 'journalist' like Couric. That should have been easy to handle and talk about, the bailout is trying to stave off economic failure, which would have neatly led in to the obvious answer of "if the economy crashes and burns all of those things are lost Katie". But Palin goes off on why the bailout is about healthcare reform, and job creation, and spending cuts?

Oh man... Now that I think about it, you guys are right. One way or the other these debates are gonna be incredible television most likely.

If there is anything like that Couric clip, it'll be over for her. People aren't going to give her a pass if she comes across like an idiot.

Dr. Mabuse, you can't separate the pick of Governor Palin with Palin herself.

To call the pick a 'total disaster' is nonsense.

It was a wonderful piece of campaigning, as to the mechanics of it. It gave McCain a 10 point bump to take the lead JUST after the 'bump' from the DNC convention was expected.

I see your point about it's not possible to separate her from the pick, in the campaign sense. Maybe I could have worded it more eloquently, but to say a choice that pulled off the campaign mechanics that the Palin choice did is a 'total disaster'?

Nonsense.

It seems like the 'geniuses' in the McCain campaign would have spent some time coaching her, and less time expecting her to do it on her own.

For the talk of 'total disaster'... what nonsense.

The picking of Palin was one of the best campaign move sin recent history. Only one of the many reasons was the day after Obama's 'historic' speech in a stadium, no one was talking about it, all they were talking about was the Palin pick.

THAT is stealing thunder. It's good campaigning. To call that a 'total disaster' is idiotic.

All of that would be completely true if the election had been held the day after Senator Obama's acceptance speech. Unfortunately for Senator McCain, dominating the conversation for a couple of weeks in August and September does not get you to the White House.

It is, I think, typical of the way the McCain campaign has been run -- win the news cycle, no matter what, and don't bother to worry about what's going to happen tomorrow. Some might say it's the difference between strategy and tactics.

It seems like the 'geniuses' in the McCain campaign would have spent some time coaching her, and less time expecting her to do it on her own.

For the talk of 'total disaster'... what nonsense.
No it is not nonsense. At least to those who aren't partisan.


The picking of Palin was one of the best campaign move sin recent history. Only one of the many reasons was the day after Obama's 'historic' speech in a stadium, no one was talking about it, all they were talking about was the Palin pick.

THAT is stealing thunder. It's good campaigning. To call that a 'total disaster' is idiotic.
It is idiotic because it sacrifices the general election for a one-shot gimmick. It is a gamble. And a reckless one at that. It is idiotic because it dramatically and irrevocably alters his campaign for a single moment of surprise.


Now Palin herself is a different issue.

Like that Couric interview. Well there's just no denying that one. Yikes.

It seems like someone in the campaign would have given her some help in responses, not left her to stumble like she did.
That is why the choice is idiotic. You are parsing and dissecting this thing to spin it in a positive light. The truth of the matter is that McCain could have chosen a more qualified Republican woman that would've achieved the same attention-getting goals WITHOUT jeopardizing his campaign. I'm left to conclude that McCain caved in to the conservative wing to select Palin (who was a gushing favorite of Bill Krystol)... and perhaps they WANTED to torpedo McCain's candidacy since he isn't well liked by them anways. (a sacrificial lamb to Obama's messiah run)



That part where she was asked about the bailout in the context of "wouldn't it be better to use that money to help people with homes, jobs, and food?", which was a pathetically simple minded question like one would expect form a 'journalist' like Couric. That should have been easy to handle and talk about, the bailout is trying to stave off economic failure, which would have neatly led in to the obvious answer of "if the economy crashes and burns all of those things are lost Katie". But Palin goes off on why the bailout is about healthcare reform, and job creation, and spending cuts?

Oh man... Now that I think about it, you guys are right. One way or the other these debates are gonna be incredible television most likely.
Now here is where I disagree with the majority. The stories of flubbed debate practices were deliberately leaked to set an unrealistically low expectation. So low in fact that if Palin simply shows up and doesn't cry, she will be seen as "holding her own".

You heard it here first... Palin is going to do fine in the debate.

I'm not "spin"ing anything man.

That was a hell of a campaign move. Period.

Even if the election is lost. If Palin 'cries' in a debate. The fact that she sounded like that 'beauty queen' girl answering geography questions in the Couric interview.

All of things don't change the fact that the Palin pick pulled off a major impact on the campaign of both parties. Hence using a term like 'total disaster' is stupid, zealot nonsense. Absolutely and completely illogical and without merit.

Saying something like it was gimmick pick that worked amazingly well at first but ultimately bit them in the ass in the end, that's another matter.

'Total disaster' of a pick? Nonsense.

I'm not "spin"ing anything man.

That was a hell of a campaign move. Period.

Even if the election is lost. If Palin 'cries' in a debate. The fact that she sounded like that 'beauty queen' girl answering geography questions in the Couric interview.

All of things don't change the fact that the Palin pick pulled off a major impact on the campaign of both parties. Hence using a term like 'total disaster' is stupid, zealot nonsense. Absolutely and completely illogical and without merit.

Saying something like it was gimmick pick that worked amazingly well at first but ultimately bit them in the ass in the end, that's another matter.

'Total disaster' of a pick? Nonsense.

If Senator McCain began insisting that reporters only address him as Smiley Joe and started answering questions only in Pig Latin, it would have a major impact on the campaign of both parties. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a disaster. In fact, almost by definition a disaster must have a major impact on the campaign.

I'm not "spin"ing anything man.

That was a hell of a campaign move. Period.

Even if the election is lost. If Palin 'cries' in a debate. The fact that she sounded like that 'beauty queen' girl answering geography questions in the Couric interview.

All of things don't change the fact that the Palin pick pulled off a major impact on the campaign of both parties. Hence using a term like 'total disaster' is stupid, zealot nonsense. Absolutely and completely illogical and without merit.

Saying something like it was gimmick pick that worked amazingly well at first but ultimately bit them in the ass in the end, that's another matter.

'Total disaster' of a pick? Nonsense.
Is McCain trying to be elected president or is he trying to grab headlines? If his goal is to grab headlines, then it was a great move... but if he is trying to be elected president the choice of Sarah Palin (as opposed to more qualified Republican women) IS a "total disaster".

If Senator McCain began insisting that reporters only address him as Smiley Joe and started answering questions only in Pig Latin, it would have a major impact on the campaign of both parties. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a disaster. In fact, almost by definition a disaster must have a major impact on the campaign.

If McCain did that, I would have to vote for him... Anybody that crazy deserves to be Pres

If Senator McCain began insisting that reporters only address him as Smiley Joe and started answering questions only in Pig Latin, it would have a major impact on the campaign of both parties. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a disaster. In fact, almost by definition a disaster must have a major impact on the campaign.

:lol:

Not the best of metaphors man. But I see your point.

But if the 'Smiley Joe' stuff ripped the 'big event' of the opposing campaign out of the headlines, put the other campaign OFF of their message and into a defensive attack mode. And gave McCain a big bump in all the polls that took him from being rather consistently down a few points to being in the lead, and the basically tied up until today.

That 'Smiley Joe' stuff would be a good campaign move too. But it would most likely bite them in that ass in the end. As may well be the case with Palin, but maybe not.

The 'fat lady' with the horn helmet is not on stage yet.

I'll add to that, JasonF, since you are known to be one of the most zealous partisans here.

The biggest blunder of this entire campaign season was Obama not having the wisdom and balls to put Hillary on the ticket. He handed the campaign and a possibility of a win to McCain with that spectacular piece of stupidity.

If Obama had made the wise choice this thing would hardly be a contest at this point most likely.

Even with the Palin pick, in it's infamy or glory, it's basically tied.

The biggest blunder of this entire campaign season was Obama not having the wisdom and balls to put Hillary on the ticket. He handed the campaign and a possibility of a win to McCain with that spectacular piece of stupidity.How do you know that he didn't ask and that she just refused?

Cjoosuing Hillary would have been a colossal mistake.

I think its safe to assume that no matter who wins the debate Thusrday, Sarah Palin has no chance, zero, in the court of public opinion. Joe Biden would have to moon the crowd and flip off America for people to say Palin wins. The cultural cliches in these elections are so f*cking predictable. The media and public at large will digest Biden as boring, old, but smart and tough and Palin as attractive, young and fiesty, "motherly", but air headed and aloof on the issues. Biden will be praised for being "smarter" but perhaps lightly chastised for 'bullying" the woman. Palin will largely be mocked as stupid and a barbie doll (largely by the "feminists" and "progressive" left). I can already predict all the stories and polls, regardless of what happens.

How do you know that he didn't ask and that she just refused?

According to the Clintons he did not ask. Further it is reported that Obama's wife canned an Obama Hillary ticket, which is no surprise, since he is an emasculated liberal "man", his wife controls him.

I love it. :lol:

According to the Clintons he did not ask. Further it is reported that Obama's wife canned an Obama Hillary ticket, which is no surprise, since he is an emasculated liberal "man", his wife controls him.

Wait, if his wife controls him, and his wife hates America, why is she making him run for president? An inside job type thing?

:lol: This is the first time I've ever looked forward to a VP debate. I'm having pizza and beer and having 5 or 6 friends over to watch the carnage. Poor woman is so clueless she doesn't even appear to recognize that she's clueless.

Someone needs to get a life.

To call the pick a 'total disaster' is nonsense.

It was a wonderful piece of campaigning, as to the mechanics of it. It gave McCain a 10 point bump to take the lead JUST after the 'bump' from the DNC convention was expected.

I see your point about it's not possible to separate her from the pick, in the campaign sense. Maybe I could have worded it more eloquently, but to say a choice that pulled off the campaign mechanics that the Palin choice did is a 'total disaster'?

Nonsense. Yeah, she's a homerun for the McCain campaign and a trainwreck for the country should she ever have to step into the old man's shoes. Start thinking about the big picture beyond Nov. 4th and any rational clear headed person should be very scared. I've said it before, based on her lack of knowledge and real experience, McCain had no business extending the offer and she had no business accepting it.

Wait, if his wife controls him, and his wife hates America, why is she making him run for president? An inside job type thing?

Huh? They obviously want to change America to fit their viewpoint, which is to turn everything on its head. A liberal utopia where standards don't mean shit, minorities get even more handouts and benefits, the military is castrated, the US becomes isolationist, and we have coffee visits with the world's terrorists who figuratively "rape and pillage" us into blackmail scenarios, and the educated working class pays for all of it. Sounds like a great idea!

Yeah, she's a homerun for the McCain campaign and a trainwreck for the country should she ever have to step into the old man's shoes. Start thinking about the big picture beyond Nov. 4th and any rational clear headed person should start being very scared.


Hey if it makes the Congress and Judiciary stronger relative to the Executive Branch, I say bring on the ineptitude.

Yeah, she's a homerun for the McCain campaign and a trainwreck for the country should she ever have to step into the old man's shoes. Start thinking about the big picture beyond Nov. 4th and any rational clear headed person should be very scared. I've said it before, based on her lack of knowledge and real experience, McCain had no business extending the offer and she had no business accepting it.

I absolutely love how you can criticize her lack of experience in light of Obama's! Unreal! Especially considering both of their total lack of foreign policy experience. Neither of them are really ready for the job. One is "only" running for VP however.

What you ought to be scared of is a socialist liberal with long time ties to terrorists and angry radical black religious nutjobs running the country from the Oval Office.

Someone needs to get a life. How is someone interested in listening to the two VP candidates debate lacking a life? Sounds pretty civicly conscious to me.

How is someone interested in listening to the two VP candidates debate lacking a life? Sounds pretty civicly conscious to me.

Its one thing to be interested, its another to invite your socialist friends over and order pizzas and drink beers. This isn't Monday night football, though I suspect the group in question isn't allowed by their wives to partake in watching football anyway, so that might explain the gleeful anticipation for a VP debate.

I absolutely love how you can criticize her lack of experience in light of Obama's! Unreal! Especially considering both of their total lack of foreign policy experience. Neither of them are really ready for the job. One is "only" running for VP however.

What you ought to be scared of is a socialist liberal with long time ties to terrorists and angry radical black religious nutjobs running the country from the Oval Office. Based on her "thoughts to nowhere" responses so far, I defy you to state you honestly believe Palin has 1/10th the knowledge and can speak as cogently and confidently about foreign affairs as Obama.

Even though my views are basically the complete opposite of hers, I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for her. She's in way over her head, and it's not really her fault (if someone I'd met once called me and asked me to be VP, I'd probably say yes).

I agree. This NY Times editorial sums up my thoughts fairly well:

September 25, 2008, 9:30 pm
Poor Sarah
By Judith Warner

I spent the past week in New York, helping my mother recover from surgery. It was a new role for me, taking care of my mom. It must, I think, have been somewhat destabilizing.

Perhaps when previously untapped wells of care-for-others are accessed, there’s no stopping the flow. Or perhaps it was just that, after five days locked in stare-downs with my mother’s cat, my eyes were playing tricks on me.

This may explain why, on Tuesday afternoon when I went to The Times Web site and saw the photo of Sarah Palin with Henry Kissinger, a funny thing happened. A wave of self-recognition and sympathy washed over me.

That’s right — self-recognition and sympathy. Rising up from a source deep in my subconscious. I saw a woman fully aware that she was out of her league, scared out of her wits, hanging on for dear life. I saw this in the sag of her back in her serious black suit, in the position of her hands, crossed modestly atop her knees, and in that “Mad Men”-era updo, ever unchanging, like a good luck charm.
Governor Palin met with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. (Photo: Stan Honda/ AFP-Getty Images)

Why, all of a sudden, was I experiencing this upsurge of concern and kinship? I knew, on the one hand, that this new vision of Palin had to be a mirage. Only a few hours earlier, I’d nodded along knowingly as a band of old-school liberals, gathered in my mother’s apartment to cheer her through her convalescence, tore the Alaska governor apart.

“He’s probably the first Jew she’s ever met,” one older gentleman, who himself had grown up as one of the only Jews in pre-World-War-II Lincoln, Neb., said of her meeting with Kissinger.

“No, there was Joe Lieberman,” his wife reminded him, putting me in a mind of the comedian Sara Benincasa’s utterly hilarious Palin parody, as a chorus of “despicable” and “disgusting” filled the room.

My friend Mary has long said that I have a tendency to develop a Stockholm-Syndrome-like empathy for the people I write about. But I don’t think that’s what was going on here.

I think — before I blinked — I had an actual flash of insight. I think I finally stumbled upon a major piece of the puzzle of how it is that so many Republican women can so passionately claim that Sarah Palin is someone they relate to. (It’s worth noting that polls have definitively shown that John McCain’s Palin gambit has not paid off in attracting disgruntled Democratic women voters.)

That the women who agree with Palin would also like her is not surprising. But the whole business of relating? That has remained mysterious for me. What, I’ve wondered, could the kinds of suburban moms I met, for example, at the McCain-Palin rally in Virginia, some of them former professionals with just two children apiece, one a former grad student making links between Palintology and the work of Homi Bhabha, have in common with a moose-killing Alaska frontierswoman with her five kids, five colleges and pastoral protection from witchcraft?

I think I’ve seen it now. In her own folded hands, her hopeful, yet sinking posture, her eager-to-please look. Sarah Palin is their — dare I say our? — inner Elle Woods.

I had thought of Elle Woods, the heroine of the 2001 and 2003 “Legally Blonde” and “Legally Blonde 2” films, a great deal during the week that Palin became McCain’s running mate and made her appearance at the Republican National Convention. The thoughts didn’t actually originate with Palin; my daughter Julia had recently discovered the soundtrack of “Legally Blonde: the Musical” and then the movies that inspired the Broadway show.

Re-watching the movies with Julia, I’d been surprised at how time, and motherhood, had tempered my affection for Elle Woods — a frilly, frothy blonde who charms her way into Harvard Law School and takes the stodgy intellectual elitists there by storm with her Anygirl decency and non-snooty (and not-so-credible) native intelligence.

I’d found the “Legally Blonde” movies fun the first time around. Viewing them in the company of an enraptured 11-year-old, who’d declared Elle her new “role model” after months of dreaming of growing up to be a neuroscientist in a long braid and Birkenstocks, was another story.

“You can’t,” I’d admonished Julia, “accomplish anything worthwhile in life just by being pretty and cute and clever. You have to do the work.”

“It’s just fun, Mom,” she protested.

Right.

You don’t have to be perennially pretty in pink — and ditsy and cutesy and kinda maybe stupid — to have an inner Elle Woods. Many women do. I think of Elle every time I dress up my insecurities in a nice suit. So many of us today — balancing work and family, treading water financially — feel as if we’re in over our heads, getting by on appearances while quaking inside in anticipation of utter failure. Chick lit — think of Bridget Jones, always fumbling, never quite who she should be — and in particular the newer subgenre of mom lit are filled with this kind of sentiment.

You don’t have to be female to suffer from Impostor Syndrome either — I learned the phrase only recently from a male friend, who puts a darned good face forward. But I think that women today — and perhaps in particular those who once thought they could not only do it all but do it perfectly, with virtuosity — are unique in the extent to which they bond over their sense of imposture.

I saw this feeling in Palin — in a flash, on that blue couch, catty-corner to Kissinger, as her eyes pleaded for clemency from the camera. I’ll bet you anything that her admirers — the ones whose hearts really and truly swell with a sense of kinship to her — see or sense it in her, too. They know she can’t possibly do it all — the kids, the special-needs baby, the big job, the big conversations with foreign leaders. And neither could they.

The “Legally Blonde” fairy tales spin around the idea that, because Elle believes in herself, she can do anything. Never mind the steps that she skips. Never mind the fact that — in the rarefied realms of Harvard Law and Washington policymaking — she isn’t the intellectual equal of her peers. Self-confidence conquers all! (“Of course she doesn’t have that,” said Laura Bush of Palin this week when asked if the vice presidential pick had sufficient foreign policy experience. “You know, that’s not been her role. But I think she is a very quick study.”)

Real life is different, of course, from Hollywood fantasy. Incompetence has consequences, political and personal. Glorifying or glamorizing the sense of just not being up to the tasks of life has consequences, too. It means that any woman who exudes competence will necessarily be excluded from the circle of sisterhood. We can’t afford any more of that.

Frankly, I’ve come to think, post-Kissinger, post-Katie-Couric, that Palin’s nomination isn’t just an insult to the women (and men) of America. It’s an act of cruelty toward her as well.

Further it is reported that Obama's wife canned an Obama Hillary ticket, which is no surprise, since he is an emasculated liberal "man", his wife controls him.

Someone needs to get a life.

A liberal utopia where standards don't mean shit, minorities get even more handouts and benefits, the military is castrated, the US becomes isolationist, and we have coffee visits with the world's terrorists who figuratively "rape and pillage" us into blackmail scenarios, and the educated working class pays for all of it.

Its one thing to be interested, its another to invite your socialist friends over and order pizzas and drink beers. This isn't Monday night football, though I suspect the group in question isn't allowed by their wives to partake in watching football anyway, so that might explain the gleeful anticipation for a VP debate.

Why is this tone necessary? It is possible to disagree with somebody and still be polite. 99% of the posters here do it all the time.

Based on her "thoughts to nowhere" responses so far, I defy you to state you honestly believe Palin has 1/10th the knowledge and can speak as cogently and confidently about foreign affairs as Obama.

Just because Obama might be able to eloqently discuss foreign affairs, doesn't mean he is experienced or qualified to discuss it. The man has zero, none, 0 foreign policy and foreign affair experience, unless you consider his disgraceful campaign visit to Germany a few weeks ago.

I absolutely love how you can criticize her lack of experience in light of Obama's! Unreal! Especially considering both of their total lack of foreign policy experience. Neither of them are really ready for the job. One is "only" running for VP however.

What you ought to be scared of is a socialist liberal with long time ties to terrorists and angry radical black religious nutjobs running the country from the Oval Office.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L8__aXxXPVc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L8__aXxXPVc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I agree. This NY Times editorial sums up my thoughts fairly well:

September 25, 2008, 9:30 pm
Poor Sarah
By Judith Warner

I spent the past week in New York, helping my mother recover from surgery. It was a new role for me, taking care of my mom. It must, I think, have been somewhat destabilizing.

Perhaps when previously untapped wells of care-for-others are accessed, there’s no stopping the flow. Or perhaps it was just that, after five days locked in stare-downs with my mother’s cat, my eyes were playing tricks on me.

This may explain why, on Tuesday afternoon when I went to The Times Web site and saw the photo of Sarah Palin with Henry Kissinger, a funny thing happened. A wave of self-recognition and sympathy washed over me.

That’s right — self-recognition and sympathy. Rising up from a source deep in my subconscious. I saw a woman fully aware that she was out of her league, scared out of her wits, hanging on for dear life. I saw this in the sag of her back in her serious black suit, in the position of her hands, crossed modestly atop her knees, and in that “Mad Men”-era updo, ever unchanging, like a good luck charm.
Governor Palin met with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. (Photo: Stan Honda/ AFP-Getty Images)

Why, all of a sudden, was I experiencing this upsurge of concern and kinship? I knew, on the one hand, that this new vision of Palin had to be a mirage. Only a few hours earlier, I’d nodded along knowingly as a band of old-school liberals, gathered in my mother’s apartment to cheer her through her convalescence, tore the Alaska governor apart.

“He’s probably the first Jew she’s ever met,” one older gentleman, who himself had grown up as one of the only Jews in pre-World-War-II Lincoln, Neb., said of her meeting with Kissinger.

“No, there was Joe Lieberman,” his wife reminded him, putting me in a mind of the comedian Sara Benincasa’s utterly hilarious Palin parody, as a chorus of “despicable” and “disgusting” filled the room.

My friend Mary has long said that I have a tendency to develop a Stockholm-Syndrome-like empathy for the people I write about. But I don’t think that’s what was going on here.

I think — before I blinked — I had an actual flash of insight. I think I finally stumbled upon a major piece of the puzzle of how it is that so many Republican women can so passionately claim that Sarah Palin is someone they relate to. (It’s worth noting that polls have definitively shown that John McCain’s Palin gambit has not paid off in attracting disgruntled Democratic women voters.)

That the women who agree with Palin would also like her is not surprising. But the whole business of relating? That has remained mysterious for me. What, I’ve wondered, could the kinds of suburban moms I met, for example, at the McCain-Palin rally in Virginia, some of them former professionals with just two children apiece, one a former grad student making links between Palintology and the work of Homi Bhabha, have in common with a moose-killing Alaska frontierswoman with her five kids, five colleges and pastoral protection from witchcraft?

I think I’ve seen it now. In her own folded hands, her hopeful, yet sinking posture, her eager-to-please look. Sarah Palin is their — dare I say our? — inner Elle Woods.

I had thought of Elle Woods, the heroine of the 2001 and 2003 “Legally Blonde” and “Legally Blonde 2” films, a great deal during the week that Palin became McCain’s running mate and made her appearance at the Republican National Convention. The thoughts didn’t actually originate with Palin; my daughter Julia had recently discovered the soundtrack of “Legally Blonde: the Musical” and then the movies that inspired the Broadway show.

Re-watching the movies with Julia, I’d been surprised at how time, and motherhood, had tempered my affection for Elle Woods — a frilly, frothy blonde who charms her way into Harvard Law School and takes the stodgy intellectual elitists there by storm with her Anygirl decency and non-snooty (and not-so-credible) native intelligence.

I’d found the “Legally Blonde” movies fun the first time around. Viewing them in the company of an enraptured 11-year-old, who’d declared Elle her new “role model” after months of dreaming of growing up to be a neuroscientist in a long braid and Birkenstocks, was another story.

“You can’t,” I’d admonished Julia, “accomplish anything worthwhile in life just by being pretty and cute and clever. You have to do the work.”

“It’s just fun, Mom,” she protested.

Right.

You don’t have to be perennially pretty in pink — and ditsy and cutesy and kinda maybe stupid — to have an inner Elle Woods. Many women do. I think of Elle every time I dress up my insecurities in a nice suit. So many of us today — balancing work and family, treading water financially — feel as if we’re in over our heads, getting by on appearances while quaking inside in anticipation of utter failure. Chick lit — think of Bridget Jones, always fumbling, never quite who she should be — and in particular the newer subgenre of mom lit are filled with this kind of sentiment.

You don’t have to be female to suffer from Impostor Syndrome either — I learned the phrase only recently from a male friend, who puts a darned good face forward. But I think that women today — and perhaps in particular those who once thought they could not only do it all but do it perfectly, with virtuosity — are unique in the extent to which they bond over their sense of imposture.

I saw this feeling in Palin — in a flash, on that blue couch, catty-corner to Kissinger, as her eyes pleaded for clemency from the camera. I’ll bet you anything that her admirers — the ones whose hearts really and truly swell with a sense of kinship to her — see or sense it in her, too. They know she can’t possibly do it all — the kids, the special-needs baby, the big job, the big conversations with foreign leaders. And neither could they.

The “Legally Blonde” fairy tales spin around the idea that, because Elle believes in herself, she can do anything. Never mind the steps that she skips. Never mind the fact that — in the rarefied realms of Harvard Law and Washington policymaking — she isn’t the intellectual equal of her peers. Self-confidence conquers all! (“Of course she doesn’t have that,” said Laura Bush of Palin this week when asked if the vice presidential pick had sufficient foreign policy experience. “You know, that’s not been her role. But I think she is a very quick study.”)

Real life is different, of course, from Hollywood fantasy. Incompetence has consequences, political and personal. Glorifying or glamorizing the sense of just not being up to the tasks of life has consequences, too. It means that any woman who exudes competence will necessarily be excluded from the circle of sisterhood. We can’t afford any more of that.

Frankly, I’ve come to think, post-Kissinger, post-Katie-Couric, that Palin’s nomination isn’t just an insult to the women (and men) of America. It’s an act of cruelty toward her as well.


Looks like my prediction for post debate discussion is already coming true. The elitists on the left looking down their nose at the "barbie doll" is all too predictable. It will be doubly satisfying that they still won't win a presidential election with one of their own as head of the ticket against such a "sad" team of McCain Palin.

Its one thing to be interested, its another to invite your socialist friends over and order pizzas and drink beers. This isn't Monday night football, though I suspect the group in question isn't allowed by their wives to partake in watching football anyway, so that might explain the gleeful anticipation for a VP debate.

I think you have anger issues.

You do realize...every single time you throw a jab at your opposing party, you get a simple retort on how your own political party has done the same, and in many cases, is the epitome of what you dislike/hate. Socialism for instance. Experience for instance.

And as a courtesy, many of us would give you a :up: for letting your wife/GF out of her specially-made cage so she can watch the upcoming VP debate alongside you. Of course, you probably will already mention she's out of her cage for this event, since she's been trained to fetch beer.

I think you have anger issues.
And as a courtesy, many of us would give you a :up: for letting your wife/GF out of her specially-made cage so she can watch the upcoming VP debate alongside you. Of course, you probably will already mention she's out of her cage for this event, since she's been trained to fetch beer.

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

So you can call people names but they can't do the same? Are you in grade school?

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

wow.

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

:lol:

I think MACD23 may possibly be doing a far right parody in his postings.

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

Wow rotfl

Anyone that replied "wow" or with a smilie, please explain what you take issue with, and I'll gladly expand on exactly what I wrote. Thanks.

-notrolls-

Anyone that replied "wow" or with a smilie, please explain what you take issue with, and I'll gladly expand on exactly what I wrote. Thanks.

Please don't.

Exactly. You have nothing......Otherwise, please, parse out anything you take issue with.

Exactly. You have nothing......Otherwise, please, parse out anything you take issue with.

I think it's the other way around there champ.

I think it's the other way around there champ.

Prove it. IT should be easy if my comments were so outrageous. What is it that bothered you. Expand to something substantial please.

Prove it. IT should be easy if my comments were so outrageous. What is it that bothered you. Expand to something substantial please.

You used the term "p*ssy on a pedestal" and claim you're not a neanderthal? What are you, in high school?

Thats it? Thats what caused your reaction? Weak. Its an expression, look it up.

Thats it? Thats what caused your reaction? Weak. Its an expression, look it up.

You went on about liberal men and how their women treat them. I doubt you even know a liberal the way you carry on.

You think I was offended or something? Don't flatter yourself champ.

Yeah, she's a homerun for the McCain campaign and a trainwreck for the country should she ever have to step into the old man's shoes. Start thinking about the big picture beyond Nov. 4th and any rational clear headed person should be very scared. I've said it before, based on her lack of knowledge and real experience, McCain had no business extending the offer and she had no business accepting it.

First of all people need to stop bringing up the whole 'Mccain is gonna die in office.' Yes he's old but that doesnt give people the right to wish death upon someone. A few times mentioning it is okay but when you constantly hear it every day it gets annoying and offensive. How would Obama supporters like it if people kept saying 'Obama is Black and is gonna be assasinated!'

And even if Mccain dies in office it doesnt mean the US is going to fall If Palin takes over. The president surrounds himself/herself with many intelligent people that make those tough decisions. The country will be fine.

Champ? Now thats high school. What you going to call me next, chief? LOL.

My rant about liberal men is less about the women in their lives, and more about their own mentality, which when it comes to gender politics is often weak and submissive. Half the shit that liberals carry on about in terms of "social equality" is entirely made up or perverted, like the "wage gap" lie that they continue to use to maintain their base of "feminists". It's easily manipulated men who buy into this myth without questioning it. Are you one of them?

First of all people need to stop bringing up the whole 'Mccain is gonna die in office.' Yes he's old but that doesnt give people the right to wish death upon someone. A few times mentioning it is okay but when you constantly hear it every day it gets annoying and offensive. How would Obama supporters like it if people kept saying 'Obama is Black and is gonna be assasinated!'

And even if Mccain dies in office it doesnt mean the US is going to fall If Palin takes over. The president surrounds himself/herself with many intelligent people that make those tough decisions. The country will be fine.

McCain's old, he's been treated for melanoma 4 times, his father died of heart disease in his 70s, and he's had a tough life. Why shouldn't we be concerned? It's not the same as wishing him dead, and I wish people would stop saying that.

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.


Do you even listen to yourself?

Again, I've offered to the lazy who took issue with my rant to explain what bothered them. So far I've had 1 taker. Would you like to discuss what I wrote further Bandoman? Please explain what bothers you about it.

Apparently you think that liberal men are pitiful, and that "equal pay for equal work" is either laughable or not worth fighting for. Or that women are getting equal pay and that the fact that they're not is a "liberal myth eaten up by the ignorant masses."

I'm tired of people using the term "liberal" as a pejorative.

Champ? Now thats high school. What you going to call me next, chief? LOL.

what else would you prefer, something like sugar tits?

My rant about liberal men is less about the women in their lives, and more about their own mentality, which when it comes to gender politics is often weak and submissive. Half the shit that liberals carry on about in terms of "social equality" is entirely made up or perverted, like the "wage gap" lie that they continue to use to maintain their base of "feminists". It's easily manipulated men who buy into this myth without questioning it. Are you one of them?

Yeah, women never get less pay, that's just a myth. They probably even make more than men. :rolleyes:

Women have run the world for millenia. They're just too smart for us men to see it.

Or that women are getting equal pay and that the fact that they're not is a "liberal myth eaten up by the ignorant masses."

I'm tired of people using the term "liberal" as a pejorative.

The "wage gap" is an embarassing lie and distortion. Do you believe it exists in the way its presented, that women are not paid the same as men to do the same work? I can educate you on the subject if you like.

You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

Last I read, women held 16% of the congressional seats; I believe there are 13 female CEOs in the Fortune 500.

Statistics like these lead me to believe that society is still struggling with the idea of gender equality---but I suppose you can shrug such statistics off and label me part of the "ignorant mass" who fall for liberal propaganda blindly.

But at that point we'll have to stop arguing because you'll have discounted decades of research that demonstrate gender inequality, and I don't know how to proceed when people ignore such things.

Women have run the world for millenia. They're just too smart for us men to see it.

See only a liberal man would say that. Though you aren't entirely wrong. The side that is weak and manipulated the most are liberal men. Soft.

Last I read, women held 16% of the congressional seats; I believe there are 13 female CEOs in the Fortune 500.


And this has what to do with "equal pay for equal work exactly"?


Statistics like these lead me to believe that society is still struggling with the idea of gender equality---but I suppose you can shrug such statistics off and label me part of the ignorant masses who fall for liberal propaganda blindly.

I can open your eyes perhaps on reasons why we see few female CEOs or congressional leaders. Hint: choice has a lot to do with it.


But at that point we'll have to stop arguing because you'll have discounted legitimate research that proves gender inequality, and I don't know how to proceed when people ignore such things.
Legitimate research? Or a radical twisted perverted agenda that requires women and minorities to be portrayed as "short changed" in order to continue the movement and garner money and support for the liberal viewpoint? You see if women and minorities have an equal shot, liberals are out of a job. Its not in their interest for that to be the case.

Let me ask you something.

If it is against the law in the United States for a company to pay a woman anything less than a man to do the same work, as it should be, how would thousands of companies be getting away with this today without lawsuits? Why would a company even hire a man when they can supposedly pay a woman 75 cents on the dollar to the same work? Start asking these obvious questions and the "wage gap" lie starts to become exposed. Canada, a country that is very far left has gone crazy over the wage gap for years and passed law upon law, yet the gap remains. Did you ever wonder why and exactly what the gap was? Or do you just accept it and repeat wrong information about it to other ignorant people? Start asking questions.



The Wage Gap is a hologram folks, its a giant distortion and lie perpetuated by the liberal left and radical feminists, and the facts are on my side on this one.


Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice?
Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity
May 27, 2005 —


Last month on Wage Equity Day, politicians demanded new laws to protect women from what they say is an unfair pay scale. We hear about the so-called wage gap over and over, and many studies have found that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Activists and politicians say the pay difference is all about sexism.

"No matter how hard women work, or whatever they achieve in terms of advancement in their own professions and degrees, they will not be compensated equitably," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

Activists have convinced some young women that even if they work the same hours, have the same education and do the same type of work, they will be paid less than men.

But how could this be possible? Suppose you're an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, why would any employer ever hire a man?

Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, gave me this simple answer: "Because they like to hire men, John. They like to hire people like themselves and they darn sure like to promote people like themselves," she said.

In her new book, "Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What Can Be Done About It," Burk concludes what we've all heard. "Women make less. Even if it's the exact same job title and it is the exact same work and the experience is comparable," she said.

But author Warren Farrell, who spent about 15 years going over U.S. Census statistics and research studies, said Burk is wrong. Farrell's research found that the wage gap exists not because of sexism, but because more men are willing to do certain kinds of jobs. "The average full-time working male works more than a full-time working female," Farrell said.

Farrell illustrates his findings at lectures by asking men and women to stand up in answer to a series of questions about their job choices, such as whether they work more than 40 hours a week, or have held a job that has required them to work outdoors, or if they have 20 years experience in their current occupation.

Again and again, more men stand up.

Different job choices are why men earn more, Farrell says in his new book, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It."

"The women themselves say they're far more likely to care about flexibility. The men say I'm far more likely to care about money," Farrell said.

What about the fact that almost all of the biggest money makers -- the company bosses -- are men? There are some female chief executive officers making big bucks, but they are the exception. Isn't that discrimination?

"We have been suckered into believing that because there are more men at the top than women at the top, that this is a result of discrimination against women. That's been the misconception. It's all about trade-offs. You earn more money, you usually sacrifice something at home," Farrell said.

If they aren't discriminating, why do companies give out multimillion-dollar settlements? "They're afraid ... of getting publicity for a year saying that they're anti-female, so you settle," Farrell said.

Decades ago, Farrell was a man who joined Gloria Steinem in feminist protests. He's the only man to have been elected three times to the board of the National Organization for Women. "I used to wear a '59 cent' pin to protest the fact that men earned a dollar for each 59 cents that women earned for the same work. And then I asked myself one day: "If men are earning a dollar, maybe I'll go out and start an all-female firm and I'll be able to produce products for 59 cents that male firms are producing for a dollar," he said.

He came to realize that there's something wrong with the statistic.

Farrell combed through jobs data and found that higher-paying jobs are more likely to require longer commuting times, safety risks, frequent travel, long hours and other factors that, on his tests, led the men to stand while the women sat.


Those jobs pay more because fewer people want to do them. It's not sexism. It's just supply and demand. In some fields, like office jobs -- finance for example -- women make as much or more than men.

However, activists say America needs a law like the one passed in Ontario where employers must rate every job to make sure women are paid fairly.

Companies say the law is complicated and costly. "We spent months, spent thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars on this project to do a 3-cent adjustment that may not have even been necessary," said Sheldon Caplan, who works for a Canadian company that sews and sells sofa cushions.

While the law may have helped some women increase their wages, a broader study in The Canadian Journal of Economics found the law has had "no effect on the wage gap."

We don't need a law, Caplan said. Any company that discriminates by sex or anything other than work ability will have higher costs. "I hope my competitors discriminate. I want my competitors to discriminate because then they will go out of business," he said.

But the wage-gap myth persists, Farrell said, because nobody wants to confront it.

Feminists and activists now see Farrell as the bad guy, but he's just saying what's true.

"Women and men look at their life, and women say, 'What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?' And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives, men should be learning from women."

But some politicians say we should import the bureaucratic mess Ontario has created?

Give me a break.


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=3


Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction

As much as feminists love to parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they rarely bother to provide an explanation or solid evidence for this claim. But fortunately a smart new book has hit the shelves just in time for Equal Pay Day to help them out.

Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More." Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.

Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."

Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.



http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

McCain's old, he's been treated for melanoma 4 times, his father died of heart disease in his 70s, and he's had a tough life. Why shouldn't we be concerned? It's not the same as wishing him dead, and I wish people would stop saying that.Ooh, he's gonna die soon! Booga booga!

This argument is radiculos. McCain has the best of health care. Even better than Hillary would have given him.

If you want to get into longevity, an even stronger argument could be made that there's even a higher probability that the first black president could be assassinated. There's a reason Colin Powell didn't run for president, but somehow we just don't hear anything about that. I guess some people consider Biden an acceptable substitute. I don't.

Whew, that's what I've been thinking since the start of this thing. If, God forbid, either one ends up passing away in office I'd say it's far more likely to be Obama than McCain simply because of the historical significance of his being the first black president. They've already been forced to up the amount of security for him, that happened long ago, and we keep hearing about various threats, no matter if there's much to them or not. Just the other day we heard about another one.

I hope it doesn't happen, I would never want anything to happen to him. I'm not voting for him, but if he does become president I'll support him as the leader of the nation, and will voice my opinion against his policies when I feel that's necessary. I'd never say "he's not my president or anything like that.

Ooh, he's gonna die soon! Booga booga!

This argument is radiculos. McCain has the best of health care. Even better than Hillary would have given him.

If you want to get into longevity, an even stronger argument could be made that there's even a higher probability that the first black president could be assassinated. There's a reason Colin Powell didn't run for president, but somehow we just don't hear anything about that. I guess some people consider Biden an acceptable substitute. I don't.
So you believe that of the 4 that McCain's no closer to dying than the other 3?
Because that is what your response implies.... that it is unreasonable to factor McCain's age into the equation.

Why would a company even hire a man when they can supposedly pay a woman 75 cents on the dollar to the same work?

Because companies don't have to worry about men getting pregnant and having to go on maternity leave.

My turn:

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C366_RIB.pdf

Now, you can argue that there's a difference between the male jobs and female jobs in the different levels of pay, in Table 3. What's notable is Table 5, in the Female Sector. What it shows is that even in female jobs, the average hourly wages for males were more than females.

I'm going to keep my response brief because I truly believe neither of us will be persuaded by the arguments of the other.

(1) And this has what to do with "equal pay for equal work exactly"?

(2) I can open your eyes perhaps on reasons why we see few female CEOs or congressional leaders. Hint: choice has a lot to do with it.

Let me ask you something.

(3) If it is against the law in the United States for a company to pay a woman anything less than a man to do the same work, as it should be, how would thousands of companies be getting away with this today without lawsuits? Why would a company even hire a man when they can supposedly pay a woman 75 cents on the dollar to the same work? Start asking these obvious questions and the "wage gap" lie starts to become exposed. Canada, a country that is very far left has gone crazy over the wage gap for years and passed law upon law, yet the gap remains. Did you ever wonder why and exactly what the gap was? Or do you just accept it and repeat wrong information about it to other ignorant people? Start asking questions.


1) I was broadening the issue, as I see the "equal pay for equal work" issue as symptomatic of a larger, inherently gender biased ideological system.

2) The "choice" argument fails to take into account how women decide (or choose) where they should place their priorities---that is, if society still tells women their proper role is to be the "flexible" parent, then it makes sense they will continue to choose this way.

3) It is, of course, very hard for women (or anyone "in the job," really) to prove wage discrimination---but you've ignored this. Moreover, the continued gap despite the laws simply illustrates to me how deeply entrenched (yours and others) male-centric viewpoints are in the world.

You also imply that we liberals think that there are masterminds in suits and monocles devising ways to discriminate against women. As I (and many feminists) see it, the discrimination isn't a conscious choice: it merely results from messages propagated by society's various ideological state apparatuses. In other words, the boss doesn't consciously decide to pay a person less, it's merely the end result of the subconscious ideology at play.

Ooh, he's gonna die soon! Booga booga!

This argument is radiculos. McCain has the best of health care. Even better than Hillary would have given him.

If you want to get into longevity, an even stronger argument could be made that there's even a higher probability that the first black president could be assassinated. There's a reason Colin Powell didn't run for president, but somehow we just don't hear anything about that. I guess some people consider Biden an acceptable substitute. I don't.

Oh, he won't die.

I just picture McCain in Bethesda, on life support machines, and Sarah Palin sitting next to him, interpreting his wishes for US policy.

Yeah, that kinda scares me, bro.

My turn:

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C366_RIB.pdf

Now, you can argue that there's a difference between the male jobs and female jobs in the different levels of pay, in Table 3. What's notable is Table 5, in the Female Sector. What it shows is that even in female jobs, the average hourly wages for males were more than females.



Bangs head against wall. Did you even read any of the articles I posted? If you actually account for the type of job, experience, education and hours worked, the gap disappears. This is bact by FACT in census and tax documentation. If this were not the case there would be THOUSANDS OF LAWSUITS every day. There are virtually none.

Your tables explain the reason for the gap, in the sense that traditionally female jobs don't pay as much. This is true for females or males working in those roles. Vice versa for traditionally male jobs. A female working those jobs earns just as much. If women choose to work less hours and less dangerous more desirable jobs (for instance being inside nice and warm doing data entry vs being outside in the winter digging trenches), thats a product of choice. Job salary is not determined by gender or race its determined by the market. The market determines salary by how difficult a job is and how many people are willing to do it. Please give my links a read, it explains it all.

Ooh, he's gonna die soon! Booga booga!

This argument is radiculos. McCain has the best of health care. Even better than Hillary would have given him.

If you want to get into longevity, an even stronger argument could be made that there's even a higher probability that the first black president could be assassinated. There's a reason Colin Powell didn't run for president, but somehow we just don't hear anything about that. I guess some people consider Biden an acceptable substitute. I don't.

I don't see either hypothetical situation happening. With that said, I'm more comfortable with Biden than I am with Palin. To see why, please watch the videos in this thread.

I'm going to keep my response brief because I truly believe neither of us will be persuaded by the arguments of the other.



Because one of us ignoring fact. Hard data proves the wage gap is merely a product of agenda diven manipulation of numbers. How is it meaningful to throw all men into a pool and all women into a pool and calculate the average wage? The only thing we should be concerned about is equal work for equal pay, which in the United States we have, by law. And this is what I am discussing.





2) The "choice" argument fails to take into account how women decide (or choose) where they should place their priorities---that is, if society still tells women their proper role is to be the "flexible" parent, then it makes sense they will continue to choose this way.


So women can't think for themselves? This notion though I don't firmly disagree on, society definitely presses women to be more of the child rearers early on, though I don't find this a crazy notion (I think mothers are more important when children are young, fathers more important in the teen years).

3) It is, of course, very hard for women (or anyone "in the job," really) to prove wage discrimination---but you've ignored this.

No its not. More often than not a job is a job. If a company was willfully paying women less to do the same work they'd be opening themselves up to easy lawsuits. Further, why ever hire a man if you can get significantly cheaper labor through women? Answer that one.


Moreover, the continued gap despite the laws simply illustrates to me how deeply entrenched (yours and others) male-centric viewpoints are in the world.

As long as women choose the careers and hours they do, the gap will persist. Look at Canada. No amount of laws will ever change this. The day you understand the wage gap for what it is, the day you will understand this.

You also imply that we liberals think that there are masterminds in suits and monocles devising ways to discriminate against women. As I (and many feminists) see it, the discrimination isn't a conscious choice: it merely results from messages propagated by society's various ideological state apparatuses. In other words, the boss doesn't consciously decide to pay a person less, it's merely the end result of the subconscious ideology at play.


Wrong. The facts are there. Women are paid less on average because of the careers they go into, and the less hours they choose to work. Any woman who goes into the same field as men and works the same hours will get paid roughly the same as her peers. This is protected and guarenteed by law. You and the feminists are misguided badly on this one.

If there was not equal pay for equal work, it would be very easy for the Federal government to probe companies and go after them on it, very easy. Why haven't Hillary or the liberals in Congress done this already? Because its fiction and they know it. You liberals and feminists who rail against it are merely pawns in their game.

What bothers me most about the "Wage gap" myth is how ignorant and misinformed the public is about it. I urge anyone reading this to try this: Ask anyone you know what the wage gap is and almost all will tell you "women getting paid less to do the same work" or "women getting 80 cents on the dollar for doing the same job". Its pathetic. And not one of them actually looks into it to find out how its computed. But let not pretend equal pay for equal work doesn't already exist.

Draven, if you want to have a much deeper discussion about why women aren't pursuing more math and science and engineering jobs and that type of education and are opting for administrative and social type jobs I'm with you. There is definitely a lot (societally, culturally, etc) behind the choices. But lets remember in the end its personal choice that plays the largest role, by far. And maybe thats what women want to do. No one ever wants to accept that maybe a lot of women don't want to join the rat race and work every last hour, or don't want to become geeky computer nerds.

Anecdotal, but my girl and I illustrate the difference in attitudes. We both make decent money, she is a nurse at a major hospital, I'm an IT network engineer. I work 40 hours a week and then take all the OT and bonus money I can get. She chooses to work (3) 12 hour shifts per week for 36 hours a week, and defers the option of (4) 10 hour shifts for 40 hours per week. She also, more often than not turns down optional OT. In other words she doesn't want to work extra hours to bump her pay. (Granted her job is much more physically demanding, so I really don't blame her, though I'd like to think I'd take the OT, but you get the point). Her job is female dominated, but I'll bet, and I can ask her, that most of the people in her department taking the extra hours are the men. Sexism or choices?

See only a liberal man would say that. Though you aren't entirely wrong. The side that is weak and manipulated the most are liberal men. Soft.

Yep. Conservatives like Larry Craig are hard. Rock hard. With a wide stance.

:lol: MACD23 is funny. Let me guess, short for "Mac Daddy?" :)

Even though my views are basically the complete opposite of hers, I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for her. She's in way over her head, and it's not really her fault (if someone I'd met once called me and asked me to be VP, I'd probably say yes).

maybe you are that way, me, i certainly would not take the VP position, if offered to me.



You heard it here first... Palin is going to do fine in the debate.

well as I said in the OP, I'm particularly interested in how well she does. Perhaps she put on an act, in which case it'd be pure genius. also, her expectations are so low that, so long as she doesn't say something stupid, she'll probably skate by.



Even if the election is lost. If Palin 'cries' in a debate. The fact that she sounded like that 'beauty queen' girl answering geography questions in the Couric interview.


i see...so you think Palin, the the beauty queen runner up, sounds like ms. teen south carolina. i don't think it sounded that bad, at least she was able to put together mostly proper sentences, granted they didn't make much sense...

Yeah, she's a homerun for the McCain campaign and a trainwreck for the country should she ever have to step into the old man's shoes. Start thinking about the big picture beyond Nov. 4th and any rational clear headed person should be very scared. I've said it before, based on her lack of knowledge and real experience, McCain had no business extending the offer and she had no business accepting it.

it is not rational to be a rationalist in an irrational world.

Based on her "thoughts to nowhere" responses so far, I defy you to state you honestly believe Palin has 1/10th the knowledge and can speak as cogently and confidently about foreign affairs as Obama.

agreed

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.

Please, can you keep the off-topic trolling out of here?


First of all people need to stop bringing up the whole 'Mccain is gonna die in office.' Yes he's old but that doesnt give people the right to wish death upon someone. A few times mentioning it is okay but when you constantly hear it every day it gets annoying and offensive. How would Obama supporters like it if people kept saying 'Obama is Black and is gonna be assasinated!'

And even if Mccain dies in office it doesnt mean the US is going to fall If Palin takes over. The president surrounds himself/herself with many intelligent people that make those tough decisions. The country will be fine.

well, if, God forbid, Obama was assassinated, then at least, IMO, there's a qualified person to take over (I say qualified, compared to Palin).

And if, God forbid, McCain dies in office, and Palin takes over, then I don't think she knows enough to make the right decision. Sure, she has advisors, but how do we know she'll use the right advisors? I have doubts on this because, based on the interviews, it would seem that she can't even form logical and rational thoughts (to me at least) on major current event topics.

This, of course, assuming that she's not stubborn and strongheaded, and does whatever the hell she wants, regardless of what the advisors say.

Personally, i'd like see someone who's level headed,can form ideas that make sense, and can make rational decisions in both the pres and vp office.

Yep. Conservatives like Larry Craig are hard. Rock hard. With a wide stance.


Are those homophobic comments coming from the "tolerant", "progressive"? How ironic.

Are those homophobic comments coming from the "tolerant", "progressive"? How ironic.And your "defense" of homosexuality is not?

Biden: With all due respect, Governor Palin doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

Palin: Hey now, I know the difference. Ya. You betcha. A strategy is a game played with red and blue pieces, and a tactic is a breathmint.rotfl

Someone needs to get a life.My time is better spent ranting and raving like a lunatic about liberals every other post?

And why aren't you claiming I'm wrong? That Palin is going to wipe the floor with Biden. Come on - put your post where your mouth is and say right now that we've all got it wrong and the Palin is going to kick some ass in the debate. Show us that you're not a weak man like the rest of us liberal "pussies".

Ah, the old knuckle dragging neanderthal accusation at any man who doesn't put p*ssy on a pedastal. My girl is her own strong person, but she doesn't dominate the relationship either, which can't be said for many men, unfortunately for them. If you are male and liberal, I feel sorry for you. Truly. You still fighting for your, as you would call her, "better half" for "equal pay for equal work"? Another liberal myth and lie that is eaten up by the ignorant masses. But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.Somebody forgot to take their mood stabilizers.

I thought we weren't allowed to make generalized slanders about political leanings? But clearly it's okay. So I will just state that most people agree now that Palin is very clearly a moron. However, given the current GOP mindset, she is a very apt pick.

MACD23: You are so obsessed by your hatred of liberals, that you fail to see when your own party has done something truly disastrous. Seriously, if after that Couric interview you don't see what's wrong with Palin, for your own mental health there's really not much point in coming here to read comments. They're literally making you go insane with rage.

But I'm a neanderthal. Got it.Not so much a neanderthal, but more of a troglodyte (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm).

Guys, there's an ignore list for a reason. It's easier to have a conversation with someone on the street if you ignore the crazy hobos.

My time is better spent ranting and raving like a lunatic about liberals every other post?

Leave wm_lopez out of this.

hahaha, this mad character is genius! macho, macho man. he wants to be, a macho man. i imagine he's phalically stroking his gun right now, feeling his inner warrior purr with contentment. god, i hope he keeps posting! it's like watching that care-in-the-community guy get into full on rant mode.

oh, yeah, palin.. i'd imagine they'll have to find a reason to cancel this debate. right now she's dragging mccain back pretty badly. i can't be the only one who watched the letterman show and wondered what effect that evisceration of his character will have on his presidential asperations.

Because one of us ignoring fact. Hard data proves the wage gap is merely a product of agenda diven manipulation of numbers. How is it meaningful to throw all men into a pool and all women into a pool and calculate the average wage? The only thing we should be concerned about is equal work for equal pay, which in the United States we have, by law. And this is what I am discussing.






So women can't think for themselves? This notion though I don't firmly disagree on, society definitely presses women to be more of the child rearers early on, though I don't find this a crazy notion (I think mothers are more important when children are young, fathers more important in the teen years).



No its not. More often than not a job is a job. If a company was willfully paying women less to do the same work they'd be opening themselves up