Over the weekend, Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin spoke at a California rally, where during her speech she repeated a quote she read on a Starbucks cup from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
As an article in The Huffington Post writes:
â€œThe statement came after Palin had recounted a “providential” moment she experienced on Saturday: “I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, okay? The quote of the day… It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. … Now she said it, I didn't.
She said, ‘There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'”
Actually, Albright didn't say that. The accurate quote is, “There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women.” “
Women around the world have responded to Palinâ€™s comment and have blogged about it.
Canadian blogger, Ashtraygirl, writes that the women cheering after Palin made the comment was â€œpathetic.â€
â€œPalin cites a quote from Madeleine Albright that she saw on her ‘Starbucks Mocha Cup’ *insert clapping and faint cheering here* why are you cheering at the mere mention of starbuck's?? Pathetic.â€
She further adds one statement:
â€œShe's really giving Ann Coulter some competition for my most hated harpy.â€
Journalist Larisa Alexandrovna from Ukraine writes that many notable people must be in hell, if Palinâ€™s statement is true.
â€œI would not support Palin for litter box duty, let alone for anything relating to government. This obviously means I will be going off to hell soon, which in Palin's tiny, pink pom-pom and fluffly shot-gun (and shot-gun weddings) world is likely a collection of sane, decent, honest people. In other word's, Palin's hell is likely populated with people like Ghandi, MLK, Thoreau, etc. By all means, let me go forth then.â€
While Jewish American Jill Miller Zimon writes that Palin may have misquoted Albright to garner votes.
â€œIn the above context, itâ€™s the difference between Sarah Palin suggesting that women must vote for her because sheâ€™s a woman or else they will go to hell, and Madeleine Albright, via the quote attributed to her by Palin, but misstated, that suggests that women should provide assistance to other women whenever they can or else they should feel eternally miserable.
One little word? One big change in import.â€
In another blog, Women Against Sarah Palin, women from around the globe have contribute their opinions on why theyâ€™re against the Republican candidate. Jennifer, an American living in Switzerland, writes that Palin is a representation of what women have fought against.
â€œThe nomination of Sarah Palin is a very obvious and painful slap in the face to every American woman. To have chosen a woman who is the antithesis to everything for which we have fought is surely an abominable insult to every one of the women and men who have helped the advancement of woman in Americaâ€”and around the world.â€
And for Helen Philpot, an 82-year-old blogger and American, her dislike of Palin is simple.
â€œLook. I am going to say what everyone at CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC is thinking but is afraid to say. Governor Palin is a stupid, conniving bitch. And itâ€™s not because she is a strong woman – I like strong womenâ€¦ worship themâ€¦ Itâ€™s actually the opposite. She is a weak, pathetic woman who thinks big hair, winking, baby talk and self deprecation is somehow becoming of a woman who wants to lead the free world. My god, where is Margaret Thatcher when you need her!â€
To all of you ladies, Ukrainian, Jewish, America, whatever: Just because you aren’t or can never be what Ms. Palin has acheived, you are proving at least to many of us guys that women truly are catty to each other. I am sure if a man were in Palin’s place and done everything she has done, including wink, you all would be yelling “rape”. Now, if Palin were a Democrat, I have no doubt you would be clucking like hens over a favourite chick, even more so if she were a man.
I certainly feel insulted that the Republicans feel that she is a shining example of our gender!! Single-handedly, Palin has dragged women in America down to levels unknown. How can she be representative of any women in the rest of the world? Even countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and many other European countries have had women leaders, who were examples of how far women can go, even in those countries. Now, to have Palin expose every shortcoming of women through the ages, and in the United States, is beyond belief. Are we that stupid a country that we can even tolerate this? Is that why this country is going downhill over the last years? Are we destined to be a second-rate country, because we allow ideology to dominate us, rather than use the best we have to move us ahead?? If people can’t ask themselves this, and come out with a more coherent answer than Palin, then I am afraid that the future for us will be dim and dimmer with the dumb and dumber.
You know, in the beginning we heard how dynamic and motivating this woman is. So I was willing to give her a chance. And I am a democrat. But She has proved to be a uninformed cheerleader with absolutely no idea of current affairs let alone the understanding of the Constitution of the United States in regards to the role of Vice President of this country. It is a travesty to think she can fool women with her country-girl-beauty queen act. Where is the substance? All I have seen is the parroting what she has heard from her coaches. And to think this women could possibly be President if McCain dies. She has insulted the intelligence of women around the globe. Get her off the stage, please.
How utterly sexist of you. First of all, how dare you call it catty if a woman chooses not to support Sarah Palin! Do you think that we have such an inferior intellect that we are willing to support any woman who thinks she’s capable of high office?
I did not support Democrat Hillary Clinton and I do not support Sarah Palin. I am an intelligent woman who would love to see a female president…but not just ANY female president, the RIGHT female president.
Ignore the troll. There are lots of very accomplished women who have done as much and more than Palin who are aghast at the tokenism and gimmickry of her selection as McCain’s running mate? If he wanted someone of substance, he could have picked Dole or Hutchinson. Why not? Because he’s gone off the rails and really thinks the rural and self-identified rural voters will support him because of her.
I have had a wide vareity of discussions with women in working environments, social occassions and family discussions. These women generally have a wide viewpoint on many and varied subjects ie. politics, economy, sport, environment, engineering, science, home and family, etc. The one outstanding characteristic is that they generally listen to other viewpoints and do not have narrowminded views. They do have principled views that they do not want to change and that can be respected. Gov Palin seems to have a very narrow viewpoint. Her principles seem to be some ‘dogma’ that she has followed blindly. A person that has 44 years life experience and cannot site a single change in view in her life tends to support this, that she considers her views as the only acceptable viewpoint. She has quoted many others or should I say misquoted others does she not have any original thoughts of her own other than ‘hockey mom’. I would be concerned that such a person represents ‘according to her’ the average mom in the US.
Reply to Kathy:
I believe that Palin was more right than Biden was regarding the constitutional role of the Vice-President. As far as I know, the senate is a part of the Legislative Branch of the US governmenet. Here is the relevant part of Article 1, section 3 dealing with this:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.” (spelling of “chuse” is as it is in the constitution)
You admit you are a Democrat. It is great to know that you at least were willing to give her a chance. I wonder what your threshold was for reverting. And of course you have similar opinions of both women and men who have opinions contrary to yours. I also wonder if you would have even taken the time to post an opinion if it hadn’t touched a nerve. And to be honest, the comments above have touched a nerve in me, and I am NOT a Republican.
Reply to Clement:
I hope Clement reads his/her own comments, first the one on 10/7 and then the earlier comment on 10/6.
The 10/7 comment comes with facts, references the constitution, and then ends with a comment, “…the comments above have touched a nerve in me…”. All fair statements, in my opinion.
Then we look at the earlier 10/6 comment, with statements along the lines of “I am sure if a man were in Palinâ€™s place and done everything she has done, including wink, you all would be yelling â€œrapeâ€.” Ouch.
The duality of quality in the two sets of comments definitely speak of hypocrisy. And I would agree with GHWaite’s comment that Clement’s 10/6 comment would be considered “troll” material. After all, Clement is definitely capable of researching issues and citing sources and not being blantantly imflammatory, yet chose to write the 10/6 comment, which had no facts and instead merely insulted women. Clement claims not to be a Republican. Perhaps he’s a Republican in sheep’s clothing, like Lieberman. (And yes, I am indeed a registered Republican, but unlike some people, I have no problems living with family and friends who are Republican, Democrats, Independents, none-of-the-above, without hating them, even during election season.)