It's time we re-define the word "POLARIZING" for the sake of all women candidates, past and future.
The call has been sounded at HILLBUZZ. Now let's take action!
Your mission, should you decide to accept it....
"We need to embrace it as a *good* word. Political parties are, inherently, POLARIZING. That is the way it will always be with a two party system. A candidate that moves people into the party is “polarizing” (aka MAGNETIC.)
In this scheme MAGNETIC and POLARIZING are synonyms. And who does not want to be MAGNETIC?
Obama is, in fact, *POLARIZING* by nature of the fact that he drew independents into the Dem party. He acted like a magnet in this sense. Why would that be a bad thing??
Oh, I forgot… it is *bad* if a woman does it. Like Hillary or Sarah. Such nonsense.
Reclaim the word and redefine it! That is the answer. “POLARIZING” = “MAGNETIC.”"
And further (from AFinch, in the same thread):
"Name a successful leader who hasn’t been “polarizing.” As fondly as people remember Reagan today, there was a distinct group of people who hated him while he was in office. Bill Clinton was described as polarizing. Think about it–Lincoln (whom Utopia likes to invoke when it is useful for him) presided over a country that was literally divided against itself. People who have strong beliefs, who have a clear vision of where they want to lead and who are not afraid to describe their vision in certain terms are naturally going to repel those with a different vision and different ideas. If Sarah Palin is repulsive to the Leftists and makes the contrast between them and the rest of us more clear, that is a good thing."
2010 will be a good year for project "POLARIZING means MAGNETIC" to make it's maiden voyage. Before 2012.... when we will have both parties, and all the boiz in the MSM, accusing primary (female) candidates.
Posts
I think this term was most unfairly used against Hillary. The problem, as you say, isn't with the phrase polarizing -- because politics has inherent division. But they really were just calling Clinton the "b" word. That is unacceptable. I think Palin is a rabble rouser, but she cannot occupy the same stage as Clinton in terms of substance.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. Hutchinson... Nice to see you visiting! I follow your blog pretty religiously. Like much of what you say.
ReplyDeleteBut, the anti-"Polarizing" mission is not about substance. Nor is it about political stripe.
It is about how the male dominated media, and political parties, tend to describe women as "polarizing" and men as "magnetic." When both words actually mean the same thing.
Ohhh... Obama is so "magnetic" and Hillary / Sarah are so "polarizing." It's nonsense, and it's designed to bring women down. They know it and that is why they say it.
As for Palin and substance. Tis true she has less than Hillary. But it's also true she has far more than Obama.
The constant bashing of high profile women drives me crazy. My son and his wife maintain their Alaska residency even though they are on overseas assignment and their goal is to retire to Alaska. Why? Low taxes, high freedom is the bottom line. Gov Palin was/is highly respected in her home state- if I could stand the climate up there I might move!
ReplyDeleteToo many folks took the MSM's (male sycophantic media) version of reality and did not bother to get the facts.
Polarizing/magnetic! Threat to the male dominated staus quo!
I think the polarizing comment relates to substance in the sense that it is used to distract people from quality. Clinton was highly qualified, but in order for people to defeat her, they described her as polarizing, strident, and other sexist terms. Beyond this lure, however, I would rank both Clinton and Obama above Palin in terms of substance (with Clinton at the top) without resorting to sexist stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteMilitaryMom: Alaska's deep oil reserves helps the state to have a budget surplus virtually every year, which means low taxes.
We will respectfully disagree, then, about who has more "substance." Obama or Palin. Neither of them holds a candle to Clinton. Or McCain, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe sad phenomena we now face in American politics is... the electorate wants an "American Idol." And that *means* "little substance, big hype."
If I have to chose between the guy with little substance and the gal with little more... I'll take the gal. At least I have a sense of where she is coming from.
The reality is, though, we are screwed... until the electorate wakes up and smells the coffee.
Proud Mom,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you are saying about Sarah's executive experience. It is valuable... and the MSM really does not want to admit that. They'll portray her as anything but a highly successful young governor.
It's sad.