so, they choose Palin not to court females but as "racism charge proof" way of attacking Obama?

[zazen]

There is clearly a rift to varying degrees on the left as was evident in DU about racism/sexism that I don't need to rehash. Both are real in American society and mitigated by class of course as well.

But there's also a more complicated history of white women on what is now the political "Right" doing the dirty work of Jim Crow propaganda and whipping up the white masses into anti-Black hysteria while the white guys stand back as the mighty protectors. A few female pro-lynchers called themselves feminists in the early 20th century, because after all lynching was about protecting the sanctity of (white) womanhood.

McCain didn't need a woman with these family props to attract women voters. He needed her to viciously attack an African American nominee while wearing the armor of "woman," simultaneously leaving anyone who holds her accountable for her outrageous slanders as unchivalrous and/or "sexist," a concept he comprehends about as deeply as he does exploitation of workers. Simultaneously, as their 21st emblem of embattled pure white womanhood, she's stirring up the deep fear among Republican whites of African American males in power. Is he a "Sambo" entertainer with no real substance? Or is he a dark threat to that white teenage girl and her white baby?

You know, I was the first to write on this board about the white women (Paris and Britney) and phallic symbol imagery in the first anti-Obama commercial, and I thought the creators of that ad were acting unintentionally out of a deep cultural meme about which they weren't even conscious.

I'm beginning to think they are quite conscious of it.

[zanne]

1. As I mentioned in another post...

We don't have to worry about upsetting delicate little Sarah. We can always just accuse her of playing the gender card, the way they accused Obama of playing the race card. She claims to be so tough she hunts and fishes and supports the NRA? Good. Then she'll be expected to be tough in the face of criticism, too. No pity. :nopity:

[Lint Head]

2. The Republicans are quite conscious of it and I think she will

blatantly state it during the debate because Joe Biden knows how to frame a question and response to bring these things out.

1. What do you think of MLK?

2. What should be done about the 17 year old young man in jail for 10 years in Atlanta for have consensual sex with a 16 year old?

:dem:

[zazen]

3. great questions LintHead: do you really think Biden would do it? n/t

[secondwind]

4. K&R - great post!

[qanda]

5. Excellent post

[pearl]

6. It is downright Creepy

And yes what you are saying is very much what I've been feeling this week. Living on the northside of Chicago and having had the privilege of voting for Obama in primary in '04. I am remembering the way the Repubs imploded and they brought in Alan Keyes of all people to run against him in some cynical way of something related to race. And this situation is just a very creepy race baiting thing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. The same thing occurred during the primaries when sexism was the main charge

That's why Obama cannot go negative in the same way. It's baffling to me why people continue to berate Obama for not "fighting back," but when he does, he's accused of attacking the defensless white woman. I think you've hit it on the nail with the thread. I'm befuddled, however, that we are just now having this conversation. Your points should have been made during the primaries as well.

[sofa king]

8. No, she's supposed to be cover for election theft.

The GOP needs to find someone who has the potential to explain the flipping of about ten percent of the votes for Obama over to McCain. Nobody's going to believe it, especially not former Clinton supporters themselves, but that's what they're going to try to sell you on election day when the exit polls diverge from results by over ten percent.

[zazen]

9. good point sofa king, but they'll also blame "secret racism in the booth" to explain the poll diff.