McCain/Palin hypocrisy and Why doesn't he support childhood abuse prevention?

Can the McCain camp's hypocrisy get any worse?

Obama referenced McCain's new claim to change Washington, and called it "putting lipstick on a pig."

"That's not change. That's just calling something that's the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig," Obama went on, and the crowd erupted in cheers. "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink, after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

McCain reaction: It's a "sexist" comment against Palin.

McCain a year ago about Hillary Clinton's health care plan:

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," McCain said of the plan last October as Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination.

Either both candidates made sexist remarks, or both candidates used an extremely common analogy. Please at least pick one.

The funnier part is that Obama says "pig" and the McCain camp assumed he's talking about Palin. He's certainly made the lipstick analogy many times before Palin came on the boat. I would more quickly reexamine the McCain camp's attitude about their VP candidate.

They are trying really, really hard to make Obama out to be a sexist, no matter how much they have to ignore pretty much an entire lifetime of McCain's antics and comments to do it. Need we be reminded of his opposition to a bill in support of equal pay for women? That American women, instead of the ability to demand equal pay, need "education and training."

Yes, someone in this campaign could be accused of sexism, but certainly not my candidate.

McCain's "a little less than totally truthful" ad attacks continue with the truly disgusting one released about "Education." Despite being endorsed by the NEA, and an incredibly strong record with education, the McCain campaign is trying to discredit that just by saying enough times "Obama" and "poor record on education" as many times as possible.

This latest attack takes Obama's support of preventing sexual abuse of children as "teaching sex ed to kindergartners."

I worked with young children (before they reached kindergarten!) for five years, and one of the things that was very important to teach them the difference about was "good touch, bad touch" and how to recognize predators.

McCain's assertion that they would know "sex ed" before reading, is somewhat true, but not because Obama is in support of abuse prevention. In actuality, there are far, far too many children who will be sexually abused before they learn to read, and they will know far too much, far too early. Children who know the basics of recognizing a predator are more likely to speak up, and prevent the abuse in the first place, or report an offender to prevent him from further abuse.

The abuse of children is a cause to act upon, not a cause to turn into political sliminess. What's more, in Alaska, the abuse rate is off the charts, and the abuse rate for Alaska Native children is even worse. It's reported that 1 in 3 Alaska Native women will be abused in their lifetime, but I think if you have worked at all with abused Alaska Native people, you could only imagine that was low-balling the real number. It is prevalent, it is decimating to our cultures, and we need every help available to get it to stop.

I'm sorry McCain disagrees with one of the options we have open to us for prevention. If we cannot agree on anything else this election, can we agree that anything and everything should be done to prevent the sexual abuse of children?

_