What Say You, Women of America?
Posted in Public Affairs, Bush, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Biden, McCain, GOP, Democrats, liberal, astroturfing, News Media, Clinton, America, United States, obama, hillary, Opinion, Abortion, Gov Sarah Palin on September 7th, 2008 by Stanford Matthews 
It is one report on speculation about Sarah Palin’s effect on voters or more correctly, asks a question on what her effect will be. Specifically from the standpoint of those who supported Hillary Clinton and perhaps the gender vote. As an aside, while preparing this post other sources of this AP report were viewed with an interesting result. The links to the sources are offered below the AP report excerpt. KGET in ‘the Bay Area’ and KRON have what can only be a truncated or edited version of the AP report. The content they provided along with the original AP report title convey a much different idea than the original. And the MSM wonders why they are being criticized. (more on that later)
Reference to an ABC News Poll suggests Palin attracts 6% to McCain while Biden attracts 12% to Obama. That information, on its own, is of limited usefulness except to say that shortly after her appearance on the national political stage, Sarah Palin is already drawing half as many voters to McCain as Biden is to Obama. And Biden is a much more known quantity in US politics. Another interesting poll result from Gallup suggests 8/10 Clinton supporters will vote for Obama but that information was gathered after the McCain VP announcement. Number one, things may have changed since then. Number two, where is the information about the other 20%? Are we to assume they are voting for McCain/Palin? Or are there intentions something different than voting for either major party ticket?
If there are the now famous 18 million Clinton voters from the primary elections and 20%, or 3.6 million are not voting for Obama, that could mean McCain/Palin had close to 4 million of Obama’s party voting for them simply by announcing the selection of Palin or even without her on the ticket. But that is the problem with bits and pieces of polling data. It always leaves you needing more information about the data and it is hard to tell what significance, if any, is demonstrated by polling data.
A repeat or additional set of comments by or from Gloria Steinem and Ellen Moran from Emily’s List present some generalizations that may play or be rejected by anyone reading the report. The concern on this blog is that their sort of ’sound bites’ may play and influence unsuspecting voters. The disaffected Clinton vote, gender vote or whatever subgroup Steinem or Moran are talking about is not likely a 100% up or down vote on either major ticket. For either commenter to suggest that there are very few or no liberal voters selecting McCain/Palin this year is as much hogwash as saying no conservatives are voting for the Democratic party ticket. The more compelling question is which ticket will succeed in drawing the largest segment of voters from the other ticket’s core voters or base? Even after the election we may not really know based on how skimpy the MSM is with real facts and data that can be validated. Ya, I know, another shot at the fourth estate or whatever the artist formerly known as journalism calls itself these days.
Which brings to mind one of the fine examples of the few remaining journalistic practitioners on the planet; George Will. If you already read columns by George Will you need no prodding by this blog to continue. If you are not familiar or have not read his material, you should. The style of writing alone is enough to bring back readers. Combine that with inspiring viewpoints, apparent knowledge and historical references provided, George Will is a must read. In these days with an abundance of media hacks, it suggests there may be hope for journalism yet. (Okay, enough uncompensated plugging for George Will)
The last comment in the AP piece is especially telling about people’s viewpoints and how twisted they can get in politics as well as other parts of life on the planet. A woman not fond of Palin suggests that the ‘18 million cracks’ in the glass ceiling did not include Sarah Palin. Oh, I get it, some die-hard liberals don’t really believe their own Kook Aid about championing the cause for the people and apparently if you don’t share their viewpoints you do not qualify as a ‘people’.
If Hillary Clinton’s challenge for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee furthered the cause for women and the ‘glass ceiling’ issue, it applies to Sarah Palin as well as any other woman. Or do liberals apply their own sniff test as to whether or not any person qualifies to be treated fairly? You know, you only get rights if you submit to the Liberal Kool Aid Acid Test and pass as a certified kook fringe far left liberal.
Rant concluded. The central point for offering this post besides a few shots at the MSM and liberals was to suggest that polling data is of limited usefulness and it is just as reasonble to suggest that McCain/Palin is benefiting from the Democratic party division more than the liberal commentary may be willing to admit.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Most Clinton backers say Palin’s too far a stretch
By JOCELYN NOVECK – 21 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYQV5v00aLCnUUTZpVfPejgbPeZQD930Q53G0
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/most-clinton-backers-say-palins-too-far-a-stretch/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=8961814
http://www.kget.com/political/story.aspx?content_id=e5886927-8f3c-4d73-b0dc-7f1ab051eb02
One of the MSM’s political reporters that annoys on a regular basis is Jake Tapper of ABC News. On his Political Punch Blog Tapper tries to make a convincing argument that perhaps the McCain/Palin campaign is feeding the Palin media frenzy by attacking smears from third rate media outlets like the National Enquirer. Some may have given the Enquirer credit for the Edwards’ story of an extra-marital affair but it is simply another case proving the point of their, at best, third rate status. The Edwards’ story was right up their sleazy alley….. a story about celebs and sex.
Among what are regularly referred to as conservatives, GOP members of the Senate are in the minority. So some who are regularly referred to as liberals, namely Dems, would have had to vote along with the GOP in order to defeat amnesty.
Hey Chavez, the best thing about defeating amnesty other than defeating amnesty was everyone is PO’d about it. The conservatives got a great deal of help from liberals and indy’s and you just can’t stand it. You liberal freak, you just cannot resist blaming conservatives for something you don’t particularly like.
approval ratings are in the tank for all of Washington and the citizens were fed up. The New Direction Dem majority self-destructed in January 2007. They have accomplished nothing. The GOP finally pulled together and enough liberals and Indy’s helped out to override the majority wish for amnesty.
Possibly more interesting than the fact the Queen of Cringe’s campaign announced she will be outdone in fund raising by the Obama campaign this quarter is the fact her Communications Director’s top resume item is crisis management. And it is funny that the Dems will not debate on Fox yet Howard Wolfson’s association with The Glover Park Group featured NewsCorp as a client. You know, Rupert Murdoch, NewsCorp, Fox News, Fox Broadcasting, etc. And the connections to Rupert Murdoch are just the beginning of Hillary Rodham Clintons’s contradiction in alliances. Glover Park Group has much to do with that.
The not so subtle predictions that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the default Democratic candidate for 2008 is largely a product of people like Penn and Wolfson or others linked to the Clinton crew. Stay on message, cultivate the middle of the road liberal appearance, speak to the concerns of the Democratic base and lie your way to the White House.
So where do you get your news and information? What sources do you trust and how do you confirm the validity of what they offer? What do we really know after consuming reports, stories and other claimed facts that form our opinions? Questions like these are usually only answered after someone working for a large news organization is caught plagiarizing and the competitors are only too quick ‘going to press’ and gaining a leg up.
The BBC news ticker is listed in the top 100 at Alexa’s Top 500 Global sites. The New York Times and the NBA’s website make the top 200 but one is hard pressed to find many traditional news and information sources ranking high on net viewership. The younger you are the less likely your are to stay informed with the old standard sources for information. What does this mean for what we know and how we respond to events and conditions developing around the globe?
The first post I saw was a shot of and at Kathryn Harris of Florida voting fame. The unflattering picture was funny. And the post was fairly tame. It at first seemed like the common practice of having fun at someone else’s expense. So I opted to post a comment. I already gleaned I was at a left-leaning blog. Yup, I don’t miss much.
I returned later to post again. The topic was pregnant mothers, children and immigration. The concern was poor services for and courtesy to pregnant immigrants and their children. After seeing the word xenophobic or xenophobia leveled at those opposed to immigration in some way, I had to post. I wondered why they were adding another talking point on immigration with the lack of consensus on current points. I also pointed out that words like xenophobe are divisive and do nothing to solve the problem. And last, that not everyone opposed to unrestricted immigration has an irrational fear of immigrants. You guessed it. That post was entirely ignored. But then they claim they had been spammer bombed as happens regularly. Reading the comments it was difficult to tell.
