Jackson Free Press

I'm curious if anyone else thinks that Sarah Palin is benefiting from a double standard; that it's somehow taboo or verboten to criticize a woman in politics? In particular, I wonder if it's not more of a southern phenomenon, a by-product of our conservative culture and evangelical communities.

When Hillary Clinton was running in the primary, some dismissed any criticism of her policies or Senate votes as sexist and out of hand. However, Chris Matthews and dittoheads on right-wing radio used terminology that was certainly sexist in nature. How ironic that these same dittoheads are now all a-flutter over Palin.

The debate seems to center around two questions: Did Palin subject her daughter to public criticism by putting her on stage at the Republican National Convention, or is Bristol's untimely, out-of-wedlock pregnancy a family issue that should be kept above the fray of public opinion? And, on abstinence-only sex education programs, is Bristol's pregnancy evidence of its failure and free fodder for contraceptive-education advocates?

Neither question seems sexist in nature, but any criticism of Palin seems to cause Republican outrage and charges of sexism.

What concerns me is that Palin has been dishonest on a handful of issues. Otherwise, I think she would make a fine vice president if it were like the old days of Al Gore or Dan Quayle when the VP moderated the Senate, advised the president and met with foreign dignitaries. However, Dick Cheney turned the office into an entity somehow outside the executive branch, a dilemma still unresolved.

Whether or not Palin is being treated fairly or benefiting from a double standard is the question I pose.

Scott Tyner
Hattiesburg

Pathetic Politics
How far will they go? At the most recent McCain-Palin rally speeches to their base constituents, the candidates have tried to dredge up old mud to sling at Barack Obama. In hopes of distracting the public from the actual issues facing our country, they are reverting to the lowest form of campaign rhetoric, the type that smells of desperation.

By misquoting newspaper articles—which it appears they never finished reading—they are attempting to link Obama with terrorists, Muslims and old-school local politics. Nothing on the turned page of the economy, the endless wars, health care or education, but plenty on planting the idea that Obama is some kind of mysterious closed book who may be elected and give the country over to radical Islamists intent on destroy our way of life.

During the prerequisite pauses in their speeches designed to elicit audience responses, shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" have been recorded for all to see and hear with no admonishment from McCain and Palin.

Is this the lowest common denominator their campaign has hoped to achieve? Turn their base into a group of angry villagers in hopes that some nut case will become so incensed that they will rise up and take drastic mortal action against the challenger so they can sweep into office through the elimination of competition? To which with a wink and a nod they can reply, "Aw shucks, it is with great remorse that we say, who could have predicted such a thing as this happening?"

These are truly dangerous people employing truly dangerous tactics during truly dangerous times. Pathetic is an understatement.

Brian Essex
Jackson