LOL.  Republicans do love their cheerleaders.  This time they are going for their idea of the gold with the second in command as a former cheerleader.

Already the sexism whines have begun because of the mention of it.  Last night an interviewer asked Carly Fiona if she thought that the media was being sexist and Fiona replied that she did when they referred to Palin as a "cheerleader".  

Did Ms. Fiona perhaps forget that the current President of the United States is himself an ex-cheerleader?  Bush attended the all-boys school Philllips Academy in Andover, massachusetts and during his senior year was the head cheerleader.

I disagree with Ms Fiona's assessment that using the Cheerleader label is "sexist". It is a label that is used to imply that a person is vacous and in both Ms. Palin's as well a George Bush's cases, it is appropriate and fitting and has nothing to do with sexism. 

Trading one cheerleader on the executive team for another?  Thanks but no Thanks.  And sorry, Carley, but your sexism whine does not apply here.

Yes, you read the title correctly.

John Mc Cain put Palin on his ticket because she is a woman who he believes will gain votes from other women simply because she is a woman. That is a insult and a slap in the face to  all women. He did not put her on the ticket because she was Governor of "Low Populated" Alaska . He did not put her on the ticket because she would be able to step in as Commander in Chief if he were to pass away or become mentally unfit to carry out his term which is more likely to happen than not. He put her on the ticket because she is a woman. Pundits call this a gamble for a reason. It can , and I believe will , cause a major backlash because Americas women are not stupid.

more in extended

Defying social stigma and the culture of shame surrounding rape victims in Pakistan, she not only spoke out about the assault, but in a valiant move, took the perpetrators to court and won. She then used the money she received from her court case to open a school for girls in Meerwala and enrolled in the school herself. This school is the first girls� school ever to exist in her village and the closest one for miles. The school has 5 classrooms, 5 teachers and nearly 200 students - all female. According to Mukhtar Mai, helping other girls and women gives her a reason to live and her school is indeed a testament to her courage.

I really take exception to bloggers who try to portray Hillary and women as victims. I think this is an insult not only to Hillary but to all women.

Yes, sexism is alive and well.  Yes, racism is alive and well.  Yes ageism is alive and well. and YES

Sexism did not stop Hillary she forged ahead.
Racisism did not stop Barack, he forged ahead.
Ageism did not stop McCain, he forged ahead.

Sexism did not stop: Anne Catherine Hoof Green, Suzanne Vaillande, Anne Parrish, Mary Kies, Elizabeth Blackwell, Antoinette Blackwell, Lucy Hobbs, Arabella Mansfield, Victoria Claflin Woodhull (the first woman presidential candidate 1872), Ellen Swallow Richards, Belva Ann Lockwood, Nellie Tayloe Ross (first woman governor serving Wyoming 1925), Gertrude Ederle, Randice-Lisa Altschul  (inventor of disposable cell phone), Mary Anderson (invented the windshield wiper), Katherine Blodget (invented non-reflecting glass), etc.

go here for more on women:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womensfirsts1.html

and here is a great site if you have a daughter or granddaughter . It provides information about all the great women inventors:

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/Women_Inventors.htm

All this talk of Hillary losing because of sexism reminds me of something I heard a long time ago:  It does not matter what the excuse is.  One excuse is as effective as another.   For a list of achievements by people in spite of race or age, read the extended post:

These three people have helped to make many cracks in the glass ceilings of sexism, racism and ageism so far in their lifetimes! Because of Hillary, many little girls and young women now see the possibility of a woman president is real. Because of Obama, many young African American children can realize that the dream of the highest office in the land is not a dream that is limited to white people.  Because of John McCain, perhaps there are job interviewers in America who will look at an older applicant in a different light regarding their job capabilities.

Supporters for all three sides have tried at one time or another to make a case for their candidate being the biggest victim of prejudice.   (Although the Republicans have been less adamant regarding their candidate than the Democrats since they obviously lack the passion that either the Hillary or the Barack fans have for their candidate.)

I chose Obama for my candidate, not because he is my gender, or race, or from my generation and not because I am angry because of the way blacks are treated in my country (even though I am).  I chose Obama because I believe that he was the best choice to lead our nation out of our current mess.  I chose him because his leadership style is inclusive and I believe that our only hope is a leader who will listen to everyone and consider the best solution.

Hillary has a different style.  Loyalty is one of her top requirements. In fact many say that she will choose loyalty over skill.  That is what I have read about her from many different sources.  Hillary likes to take a small group of close, trusted friends and go behind closed doors and slam out the solution.  That is exactly what she did with her healthcare solution in the early 1990’s and that is one of the many reasons it failed.  Hillary is the type of leader who “likes take care of people and do it all herself” and then hand it over to people as her present while Obama is the type of leader who works with a broader spectrum of people to create the solution.  Even though Hillary is a woman and a victim of sexism, I did not choose her because I don’t consider those reasons as a rational basis for choosing the leader of our country.

However, regardless my reasons for my selection, I do not think for one minute that sexism, racism and ageism are not huge areas of prejudice in the USA that need attention.  Following are examples from all three categories to remind everyone of the work we have left to do AND that not any one is any less of a problem area than the other—even though if your are the recipient of prejudice, you might feel like the biggest problem is that area.  ALL still permeate our society.

As a woman, I find it extremely offensive for Hillary surrogates to put forth sexism as a reason for Obama’s impending Democratic nomination.

Hillary began this campaign with a huge advantage over Obama.  She had it all: more money, more promised support, and a well-established Democratic brand against an unknown.  From my observations, Hillary has defeated herself, assisted by her surrogates and campaign managers—not the press, and not Obama.  All three of the candidates have had to deal with some vestige of prejudice whether it is sexism, racism or ageism.

Following is the long laundry list that better explains why Hillary Clinton will likely not get the nomination.  I put this forth not to disparage Hillary, but to insert what I believe are the real reasons so the claims of “sexism” don’t discourage young girls and women who might want to run for the highest office in the land. Hillary did not lose because of sexism—even though it is true that she encountered it. It is just as true that there is probably not a black person alive in the USA who has not had to deal with racism and just as true that any person alive in the USA over the age of 65 and seeking employment has not had to deal with ageism.  All three are still very much alive and well in the USA.

Based on some of the posts that I read here I get the impression that the fires for many myths are being fanned. Here are the ones that I am aware of:

THAT HILLARY LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE BY SOME HUGE MARGIN.
This is not true.  Even when the votes from Florida are counted, Obama still wins the majority of the popular vote.  It is true that if we count the votes of Michigan where Obama's name was not even on the ballot that Hillary leads the popular by less than 1% (+0.15%). The votes of two states and one territory have not been considered yet. When they are, it is projected that the popular vote will again be within a hair's edge whether it is Hillary or Obama.

THAT OBAMA IS SOMEHOW TO BLAME FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
Florida and Michigan decided to not follow the rules of the Democratic Party Calendar. Obama had nothing to do with that decision. In negotations to try to settle this mess that these two states created, there were solutions offered and rejected from BOTH the Clinton and the Obama camps.  It is no more fair to say that Obama is "wrong" for rejecting the Clinton proposed solutions than it is to say that Clinton is "wrong" for rejecting the Obama solutions.  But to blame Obama for this mess is wrong.

THAT OBAMA WILL LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION
That myth is now beginning its slow death as well. Yesterday, for the first time Obama is now pulling ahead of McCain with the lead in electoral votes.  As we move on into the general election and Obama has time to confront his opponent more directly and meet more voters, this margin will widen.

People who put forth sexism as the reason that Hillary will likely lose this race insult all young girls and women. 

Yes, sexism is alive as are racism and ageism.  They have all raised their ugly faces in this campaign. 

But Hillary is losing because she underestimated her opponent, and she really believed the press that Mark Penn and her surrogates churned out about her inevitability. (This is a danger that happens when we surround ourselves entirely with people who only tell us what we want to her.  As I understand it, loyalty was higher requirement for Hillary than skills of the people she chose.)  Hillary herself said that it would be a short race that would be over by February 5.  She said this more than once and it is on record. I remember one of the interviews was in November of 2007 with Katie Couric.  

There can be no argument that she underestimated her opponent. Furthermore, let’s remember that such a belief was not unfounded in reality.  Hillary began with a huge advantage.  On Dec 24 2007, Hillary had 52% of the black vote.  She had twice as much money as her opponent: $38 million to his $19 million.  She had the brand (few had ever heard of Obama).  She had the popular Democratic husband on her arm.  She had everything imaginable needed to win. 

There are so many reasons why she has lost but sexism is not the reason and it is unfair, dishonest, and discouraging to young girls and women to use that as an excuse.  Hillary and her campaign made numerous strategic and statistical errors.  That is what has defeated her--not sexism.  Hillary is no victim and it does all women a disservice to portray her in that light. She has been a valient opponent, not a victim.

Her funding strategy was another strategical error.  It was built following a corporate model from the top down.  Obama built his financial system from the grassroots up--a much more stable, democratic, and ever-yielding system built for the long haul, not a sprint. 

Hillary is no victim. She miscalculated the strength of her opponent and she miscalculated the length of the race.  Hillary went into the race on a strategy that was designed for an inevitable candidate’s sprint to the finish.  She was totally unprepared for the marathon that it turned out to be--unprepared mentally, financially, and psychologically.  On February 5, when Super Tuesday was not the event that declared her the winner, things begin to fall apart.  Since that day she has been in a losing struggle to keep up.

She threw it away because she underestimated her opponent and that is the tragic flaw of her campaign—simply that she underestimated her opponent in the beginning of the campaign.  Yes sexism is alive and well and so is racism, but to blame sexism for the derailment of Clinton’s campaign is not only a denial of reality; it is also a disservice to women and the progress that we have made and to the progress that Hillary has made.  Coming at the end of this long and hard fought campaign, these comments reduce Hillary’s accomplishments and at best portray her and women in general as weak victims.  The accusations of sexism sound like blaming, even whining when one considers what huge advantages that Hillary enjoyed when she came into this race.  To not consider the real reasons for this derailment is a huge disservice to women. 

Hillary did not lose this campaign because she is a woman.  She lost this campaign because of how she played the game.  [And yes, she has lost this race on all accounts.   At the moment, counting Florida and Michigan where Obama’s name was not even on the ballot, she is ahead by not even a full percentage point at +0.15%.  However, when Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana all have their popular votes counted, it is most likely that even in this last area, Hillary will lose.  Imagine that!  Even counting popular vote from a state where Obama’s name was not on the ballot, Hillary will still lose the popular vote.]   Any man who played the game as Hillary did would also be staring these same results that Hillary is looking at today.

Let’s remember how this race started.  Hillary had it all:  She had the brand—who in this country had not heard of Bill and Hillary Clinton?  And conversely, how many had heard of Obama?  She was the favorite among the majority of the DNC insiders.  She had the money.  In December of 2007, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had more than twice as much money as the opponent’s campaign:  $37 million to his $18 million.  AND as late as December of 2007, she also had 52% of the black vote. 

Her game as she explained it in December was a “short run that would be over by February 5.  Hillary’s campaign strategy was one “for the short run”.  The beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton was Iowa.  Her campaign managers totally ignored the importance of Iowa.  There was no excuse for this other than over-confidence.  Hillary finished third in Iowa and she never caught up.  Iowa was a wake up call for Black Americans—if a black man could win in a state where less than 4% of its people were black, then perhaps Obama could win the nomination.  Hillary had the talent within her campaign that could have should have managed that caucus and all the subsequent caucuses better—but they didn’t think they had to put out the effort, and they didn’t, and they lost big time.Mismanagement of her campaign lead to her loss—not sexism. 

This article by Ramesh Thakur from The Hindu (India’s national paper) provides an international viewpoint on this topic:

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/13/stories/2008051353810800.htm

could this man be any more annoying?  mediamatters.org details chris matthews' latest foray into offensive, sexist, misogynistic behavior.  i thought he hit rock bottom when he groped ellen.  i was incorrect.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130010?lid=294913&rid=8096482

susan faludi on hillary clinton, today's ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09faludi.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

and if so, why? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24272452/

from new york magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/

more crimes against women, this one in austria. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24337573

am i the only one who got the chills watching these women being interviewed?  they look, sound and act like total robots.  they all have the same frumpy dress on.  why are they all blue?  what's with the hairdo?  holy crapola!  as a woman, i am outraged by this entire matter.  what will become of the over 400 children?  this is, sadly, the only life they know.  i am shocked and chagrined that this type of cult exists in MY country.  god knows what else is going on out there, disguising itself as "religion".