The Hypocrisy of Hasselbeck at Palin Rally

I cringed when I first heard a few days ago that Elizabeth Hasselbeck of The View would be speaking at a Palin rally this week. While Elizabeth was fighting for her own opinions when Rosie O’Donnell was moderator of The View, I defended Elizabeth’s right to have her own opinions many times. I still agree she is entitled to her own opinions.

But now, not only do I not have the desire to defend her opinions any more; I actually become sickened every time she opens her mouth. Elizabeth now has the nerve to accuse Palin opponents of being "fixated on her wardrobe" and "deliberately sexist."

I do not agree with Elizabeth, in fact, I think her comments show the hypocrisy in the republican campaign. The true sexism here was when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to begin with. My opinion is that the McCain campaign so wanted to capitalize on the fact there were eligible voters out there who may have been disappointed that Hillary didn’t win her party’s nomination, that they were willing to select ANY woman as a running mate. It seemed that McCain believed that disillusioned female voters would be dumb enough to vote for any woman at all, regardless of qualifications, just because she was a woman.

That is sexism. And the McCain campaign only has themselves to blame by selecting someone with such thin credentials as Palin, which only has invited scrutiny on every level possible. By the way, if I recall correctly, it was the republicans that released the information on the wardrobe to begin with.

According to CNN, Palin stated at that same rally:

"This whole thing with the wardrobe, you know I have tried to just ignore it because it is so ridiculous, but I am glad now that Elisabeth brought it up, cause it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," she said.

"Those clothes, they are not my property. Just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased, I'm not taking them with me. I am back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska. You'd think — not that I would even have to address the issue because, as Elisabeth is suggesting, the double standard here it's — gosh, we don't even want to waste our time."

Personally I do not have a problem with the campaign footing the bill for some clothing for her. But, I do have issue with the overall price tag. She did not need designer clothes. I’ve bought dress suits off the rack for years that look great and don’t cost a lot. Same for my dress shoes – I have 5-6 pair of dress pumps that look stylish and were priced reasonably. I probably could have done very well with less than one tenth of that $150K for my wardrobe for a political campaign. But, then again, I’m not one of those “elite” people that have to wear something with a designer label. So here’s one woman who isn’t being sexist when I say that Palin would have scored more points with voters - and women - had she resisted the urge to buy the expensive stuff. And frankly, if this is Palin’s biggest worry that she has to make it part of her campaign speeches, she’s not ready for the office of Vice President.

And Elizabeth, it’s time to put a zipper on it.

Clip of Elizabeth at Tampa, Florida Palin Rally


Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

The View: Hard Hitting Journalists?

After watching John McCain and his wife Cindy appear on The View today, I came to the conclusion that the women on the panel of The View are doing a better job of asking the tough questions of the presidential candidates. While I am sure Elizabeth Hasselbeck was initially in her glory, I think the rest of the panel simply wanted to get some answers.

Even Barbara Walters, who usually annoys me with her constant need to keep a middle ground, went after John McCain like a pit bull…WITH lipstick. She pressed McCain hard on what exactly it is that Sarah Palin is trying to reform, seeing that it's been a Republican in office for the last 8 years? McCain also stated that Palin never had earmarks when she was Governor, which we know is not true.

McCain digs himself into a huge hole when he states that judges should interpret the constitution as the founders intended. When Whoopi asked McCain if this means she has to worry about becoming a slave again, he backtracks. And when McCain calls Roe vs. Wade a "very bad decision", the load groans from the audience was hard to miss.

Cindy also came out looking as if she were dressed for a formal cocktail party. She also gets prickly when asked about how many houses they have. When she says that this issue isn’t part of the campaign, she then goes on to talk about her parents and what they did for her. So I suppose that only her houses are off limits, not her family. So much for Elizabeth's veiled comments the other day about Michelle Obama and how much more open Cindy is in comparison. Cindy did admit that she doesn't agree with Palin, on Palin’s no exemption for abortion in cases of incest or rape.

If John McCain thought that being interviewed by a group of women would be easy, he was sadly mistaken. They (Whoopi, Barbara, Joy) skewered him, and did it well. In fact, they did it much better than the mainstream media has been doing. They tried hard to get solid answers to the questions on everybody’s mind than the other national news shows and talking heads. Sadly, McCain didn’t get it, at one point, he gave a heavy sigh, seemingly frustrated that they were asking real questions! And I for one felt that at least there ARE people out there trying to get real answers, and I’m glad that it came from a woman’s talk show.








Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
here.

Part 2: Will Elizabeth Hasselbeck Please Shut Up

Please shut it! Thank you.

Back in July, I wrote about my disdain for Elizabeth Hasselbeck, begging that she just shut up.

Clearly, she didn’t listen. Speaking in Minneapolis at a Republican function, she took a shot at Michelle Obama, which even seemed to elicit a collective gasp from the audience:




Personally, I'm confused as to what Elizabeth refers. Is she saying that Michelle Obama is a primadonna that makes topics off limits to people? This is a new allegation to me, and I have yet to be able to substantiate Elizabeth’s attack. Is she trying to make Michelle out to be unreachable and elite? Again, I have never heard or seen any evidence of this, in fact, everyone seems to speak very highly of Michelle's approachability. Frankly, Michelle seems like an open book whenever she has appeared in television interviews. And that includes her appearance on The View.

In all honesty, it’s getting to be a little tiresome seeing Elizabeth try to use The View as her personal soapbox for the Republican Party. I was actually sickened when they gave her so much air time earlier this week to show her "behind the scenes" coverage of the Republican convention. It’s clear to me that she is just as opinionated as Rosie O’Donnell was on the show, and it’s getting in the way of encouraging true debate and intelligent dialog on the show. And her comment at this Republican function seemed so out of place that even the audience seemed a little uncomfortable.

So I ask one more time, Elizabeth, please give it a rest.

If anyone out there has any information that could substantiate, or rationalize Elizabeth’s accusation, I’d sure like to see it.


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
here.

Will Elizabeth Hasselbeck Please Shut Up?

I switched on The View today after not watching it for a few days. One lead topic was a recent political ad that was done by the McCain campaign. The ad was saying about how Barack Obama was the “biggest celebrity in the world”, while flashing pictures of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and then Obama. When the panel was asked for their opinions, I think Elizabeth Hasselbeck had a near meltdown while she defended the ad, saying that it was “somewhat successful because we’re talking about it, that’s what advertising is" and that Obama will double taxes, and that Obama did agree to be on Access Hollywood, etc. etc. After she continues to try to talk over anyone who tried to get a word in edgewise, and when I couldn’t clearly see the point she was trying to make, I began to tune her out.

Elizabeth is wrong when she says that the point of advertising is to get people to yalk about your ad. The real purpose is to sell your product. In the ad in question, it seems the McCain campaign is more concerned with smearing Barack Obama, rather than selling John McCain. If anything, it sold the public John McCain as a person who is jealous of Obama’s popularity and charisma. And, by spending time attacking Obama’s celebrity over the issues, it seems that McCain may think it’s easier to attempt to promote discomfort with Obama’s popularity, rather than make the public have concerns about Obama’s platform.

And seriously, why on earth would McCain’s team chose Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as the celebrities with which to compare Obama? I really do not understand the connection that I, as a voter, am supposed to make. Is that because these people have all appeared at one point in time on an entertainment show or entertainment publication?

OK, let’s get back to Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I imagine that for her, being a staunch Republican, it has to be difficult to sit on a panel with other people who seem to clearly lean Democratic. But, she comes across as a puppet for her party, parroting some perceived party line without showing an ounce of thnking for herself. It’s almost as if she goes out of her way to providing almost ludicrous arguments in support of Republican candidates. While others on the panel also often show their strong opinions in opposition to hers, many times they can at least verbalize their points in a much more rational manner. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is going back to being the same close-minded, brainwashed person that we saw when the other close-minded, left-leaning brainwashed person was host of the show – Rose O’Donnell. I do not mind hearing Elizabeth’s opinion, but I think she needs some training in order to get her opinions across calmly and rationally – or she needs to learn when to quit and keep her mouth shut. I sense it will be a long, tumultuous political season for the show.

I know this political season is going to be ugly. It was bound to be that way regardless of the candidates selected for each party. But, once Barack Obama was selected to represent the Democratic Party, the Republicans seem to be going right to the negative ads. It seems clear that they perceive Obama’s popularity with the American people - and the world - as a threat. And, as I mentioned in my blog the other day (here), even the negative political emails, originating from who-knows-where but being spread by grassroots methods like email and political forums, are becoming uglier and uglier.

The Republican Party needs a different approach if they want to impress the voting public. They should look at the campaign as if they were someone interviewing for a new job. No one wants to tell the person doing the hiring what’s wrong with the candidates with which they are competing. The person being interviewed should be talking about what makes him or her better for the job. If the Republican Party wants to have a chance – any chance – in this election, they need to begin to seriously argue the issues. It isn’t helping them to get too personal or too negative.

My own personal opinion is that this negative ad only strengthened the resolve of the Barack Obama supporters, and made John McCain look jealous and insecure. He may think he got his ad money’s worth from all the buzz about the ad, but I don’t think it helped him to his product – John McCain. And that sounds like a fizzle, not a buzz, to me.

Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it:




Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
here.