Yep. Good from the Joe too. It's just hard, after dozens of debates, not to visualize Hillary behind one podium & Palin behind another... and Hillary clobbering her. I think it wouldn't be as easy as that - e.g. the Republicans would have no qualms about how they attacked, and spun. We saw it in the 90's, but ANOTHER chance to loose that 90's hatred/bile, coming from Palin? Rove'd be in heaven.

I think Palin's gonna go down for who she is, what's she's done, her decisions, statements. And IF that happens, it's another interesting step in maturing on this. Because the Dems & bloggers & such are now going at her for her positions. The light is not so much on sex & family. VERY different that if a woman ran against the Rovian Right.

Well said. I'm afraid it might attract some trollish behavior, but that won't be your fault.

I'll admit to thinking that it's easier for one woman to address another woman's claims of sexism, but that attitude no doubt contributes to the atmosphere of sexism around us. A comparison can be made to those who genuinely didn't want to vote for Obama in the primaries because they were afraid that racism would prevent him from winning the general election. (I stress the word "genuinely" because some people were no doubt using that as an excuse. The genuine ones who were worried about that are the ones who are supporting him now.)

The point is that there's real logic behind both of these attitudes (people are less likely to scream sexism when it's a woman pointing out the shortfalls of another woman, and there are people who would vote for a Democratic president but who won't vote for a black candidate), but that doesn't make them helpful. Those that hold on to either claim are likely to accuse me of idealism here (not such a bad insult), but I'd also wager that most here would think I was right about one of these claims (i.e., that they're not helpful).

What's needed is a level playing field, Desidero: female sexism should ALSO be called out for what it is. I for one am tired of the unstated LIE that only MALES are/can be sexist. I've seen some pretty nasty comments here, about/against men, by women, who'd be the first to scream "Sexism!" if the exact equivalent were said in reverse.

Thanks for saying it Des. Hillary should be out there speaking to the issues that matter to women voters such as Equal Pay, healthcare, college tuition - and so should Obama and Biden. She should also be out there speaking to the blue collar voters who were drawn to her message in the primary. Let's not leave all the womens issues to Hillary (or other female surrogates) to handle.

Using Hillary as an attack dog against Palin would be beyond hypocritical. Yes we can criticize Palin on issues without being sexist, and you don't need to be a woman to go on the attack.

This is the same sentiment I've been expressing here and on dKos about this issue.

Hillary Clinton wouldn't ever be useful as a foil for Palin. They play to completely different audiences. HRC's strength has always been Democratic women. She's had trouble with independents, and she doesn't get much crossover traffic at all. They play to completely different audiences.

Clinton is perfect for sticking it to McCain with her populist approach, and I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign is using her in that role. What Hillary will do is help bring home any Dems (especially women) and make a more issues-based case for undecideds.

Finally, Sarah Palin just isn't worth Hillary Clinton's time. Palin needs to add a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Clinton's already established herself as a national force, on par with Obama and McCain. Leave the light work for the lesser surrogates, I say.

1) I agree with the broad thrust of your thesis, dear Desidero (for what little my opinion is worth).

2) To go just a step further, why does all of this fall on Sen Clinton's shoulders? That is to say, I agree with you that it is absurd to think that Clinton is the one to take on Palin simply because Palin is a woman and Clinton is a woman, with no regard to the issues which motivate Palin-voters and the issues that motivate Clinton-voters. Even if we grant, however, this absurd premise, it is still not clear why Sen Clinton specifically should be regarded as the go-to-gal to lead the charge. It is not as if there are no other Obama-surrogates who are also women.

Why are the folks who are fussing that Sen Clinton is not attacking Gov Palin more volubly not also decrying the lack of such attacks by Gov Sebelius, or Sen McCaskill, or Gov Napolitano, or Gov Granholm, or Mrs Obama herself? Why is Sen Clinton's lack of attack singularly offensive to these critics?

Palin called herself a B***h.

When she said she was a pitbull with lipstick. She told the American people she was a female canine which is a bitch. Not only that she is saying she is one of the most feared of canines, a pitbull.

The imagery is that of a bitch pitbull who will, with her sharp teeth and overdeveloped jaw, clamp down and never let go.

John McCain probably should be watching his back, based on what is being reported. She is much like the vindictive "popular" women I know who use their influence over others to demolish those who they do not like or who will not walk in lock step with them. You know the "bully" type, doesn't that remind you of someone currenly seated in the White House?

I always agree with Alex. So here goes:

I agree with you, Des, but I thought the Obama camp had conferred privately with Hillary and they kind of jointly agreed that Hil pounding the kitchen table issues was good, and that there would be an idiotic circus-distraction were Hil to be relegated to/placed into a FauxNews/MSNBC grade catfight meme.

And that I think that resolution is correct.

Hillary's convention speech was great, as was her June 7 speech, and she's been a very good party leader since her withdrawal. I think the Obama campaign is both working with her and respecting her appropriately as a general matter. Citing Biden, your post seems to agree, and I hope you feel that way as to the campaign as a whole.

Actually, Clinton does "take on" Palin --- every time she appears anywhere, discussing anything. Simply the contrast between someone with background knowledge, and dignity, and speaking her own words reminds people that women who are truly powerful and fit for high office DO NOT look, act, or talk like Sarah Palin.

If someone were really crafty (and able to get the information) and if Palin were ever giving speeches on her own or doing interviews, having HRC in the same forum the day after or the day before would be the most effect "counterargument" there could possibly be. Hmmmmm ... maybe she should sit down for a Barbara Walters interview sometime soon -- you know, what are her plans for the future, etc.

Joe B is taking a LOT of flack for those remarks in the blogosphere and with the talking heads, but I was so damn PROUD of our candidate and our party. They never show it but apparently his statements came in response to someone who said they were so pleased he got the VP nod instead of Hillary, and he immediately went into "don't even go there" mode.

Thanks to the last month or so of Hillary's campaign, when (it seemed) she was really doing things *her* way, I don't sense any falseness or for-appearances-only in the respect they show one another when in public - the joint speech in NH, at the Tubbs-Jones funeral, etc. I think they each earned the other's respect (doesn't mean there's not anger and disappointment still but that's really a separate question). I don't think HRC would have played that unnecessary (and unexpected) part in the rollcall, being the one to move for nominating by acclamation. That was a very special thing - very.

On the other hand, thanks to the campaign he is running, I think it's going to be more lonely and awkward when John McCain returns to the Capitol, no matter what his position at the time. He's lost the respect of people who have championed him for decades. So even if he wins, he loses - unfortunately, so would we.

Glad to see this post as well. The calls for Sen. Clinton to step in wipe the floor with Palin have been just adolescent. It's the Obama campaign's job to combat Palin and no one else's.

Agree also that what Biden had to say was totally appropriate. But I saw it interpreted in the press as his having said he's the wrong guy for the job and Obama should've picked Clinton.

What else is new? The press is on it and ass backwards as usual.

Earth to desi, Howard Wolfson and other defective chromosome sexism sniffer dogs:

Using the term "catfight" to refer to two women engaging in political debates is sexism of the nastiest kind:

"Catfight is a term also used on occasion to describe a political campaign between two women candidates. This use of the term however is considered offensive and demeaning."

You're welcome.

Lally the femnazi.

What a totally fab post!!!

Love the Cooter Club expose. LOL!