Is it sexist ?

Hmmm I didn't know they were the same thing. I figured that the "handler" was some weird position within the staffers. I would have to say it is pretty sexiest because there seems to be a lot of men in politics that could use some handlers but, for reasons that are probably really different LOL

well it sounds very sexist. i am not in the usa so i don't know the background here but handler sounds derogatory, it is a word you'd use for somebody showing an animal. having a handler sounds, to me, like implying somebody is a pedigree goat or something, whereas staff sounds like somebody is reasonably important. however i don't know the context fully so i could be barking up the wrong tree.

To be perfectly honest, I hadn't taken notice of this. I guess I've heard both terms used but never paid much attention to who they were talking about. Right now, at this moment, I remember Sarah Palin telling Christine O'Donnell via Twitter not to "listen to her handlers". Does that mean Palin is sexist? Annie

This could be a difference in culture. I've never heard the term "handler" being used for a female before in Asia (but I've had heard it been used for celebrities, male and female, which implies something else completely) but the term is usually staff. I think it could be a subtle ploy aimed at undermining the female candidate in your country. It plants the idea that she's not fit for office. So yes, it is sexist, and it is meant to discredit her.

I don't think its sexist, what about when a President has a secretary and he is male, is that sexist or stereotypical? Men usually have staff working for them because they are usually in charge of people and employ a staff of people. Women, who are not new to politics have handlers because they are usually the person behind the scenes.

There still is a double standard in politics when it comes to gender. Sad...but true. The last presidential campaign should have showed us that with Clinton and Palin.