Wasilla is also the home of April Flowers. Wiki says she is a porn actress of some fame. Until today she was the most famous person of the village.
Again, ridculous. There is NO evidence whatsoever that she was selected because she’s attractive. You yourself said she was only selected because she has a vagina…so which is it, that she’s a woman, or that she’s an attractive woman?
Even if she is underqualified for THIS particular job, you stated that she has “gotten by” on her looks, which you have zero evidence for.
Egad!
I’ll stand by my assertion that “Has a vagina yes/no” was as high on the vetting list as “pro-life yes/no”. I don’t think that make me a misogynist.
I’m also not a hypocrite (I think). I honestly believe that Barak’s selection as keynote speaker was made largely along racial lines. The most obvious difference, though, is that selection for keynote speaker and VP are vastly different.
An interesting possible difference is that Barak was a “good” choice, while Palin, at this time (and it’s wayyyy too early to tell) does not appear to be as good (a choice). She could very well get into the debates and mop the floor with Biden over domestic and foreign issues (irrespective of whether one personally agrees with her stance). She could be a lot of things, but at the moment, she’s coming across as a lightweight, unvetted, underqualified, and politically inastute choice.
A lost thread had a great list of other women candidates that seemed more qualified than Palin. There were plusses and minuses (as there would be for everyone), but by and large in comparison the choice of Palin strikes many of us as a sophmoric attempt at capturing the Hillary/women’s vote.
I don’t think anyone has outright complaints about McCain picking a woman. Some of us think Bush should have chosen a woman to replace O’Connor. But Palin’s apparent POTUS shortcomings are so much stronger than the other potential female picks that it strikes as an extraordinarily superficial choice, and highlights the idea that he was looking for a vagina first, leader second. Party loyalties and particular issues aside, do you honestly feel comfortable with this woman as POTUS in six months?
I’m not one to delve into ad hominems (e.g., Shrub, McBush), but understand labeling/basely satirizing someone on their perceived affront – calling her four-eyes wouldn’t cut it. Since she’s perceived as being chosen mainly because of her gender, and perceived as being outstandingly lightweight, Governor Cupcake and the like reflect that impression. Misogyny has nothing to do with it (er, for the most part. There’s outliers everywhere).
If anything else, some blame should lay with McCain. Had she really been a top choice all along (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment), it was a political mistake not to recognize this possible backlash. Dropping/hinting at her earlier, giving her a chance to establish herself earlier on, and securing wider support could have painted her in a much different light than she is now.
Instead, he seemed to want to go for the Gotcha Ya effect. Well, yeah, he took a lot of us by surprise, and he let a lot of us down. The Economist had a great cover/article a while ago. Something like “America Gets it Right.” I was inspired, and thought that this time 'round, for the first time in my voting life (since Bush I), while there’s a stark choice in platforms we can’t really go wrong. IMHO, this changes that.
It’s obvious McCain wanted a woman, so a vagina was his first criterion. Whatever his second criterion was, itwasn’t qualifications, since he completely discarded that as having any relevance at all. I do think that he wanted a social conservative to keep the fundies from throwing a tantrum, but there are still socially conservative Republican women who are better qualified than Palin. That leaves only one reason she was passed through to the head of the line. The cheesecake factor.
Excuse me, but speaking as an Obama supporter, I don’t like her because she’s a right-wing wacko who thinks Jesus pours her cornflakes, wants to teach Creationism in the public schools, thinks it’s murder to squash a blastocyte, et cetera.
Even if her status as a woman was one of the deciding factors (and that’s all speculation), there’s more to her than JUST being a woman, and there’s sure as hell a lot more to her than just “having a vagina.” It’s not only the claim that she was only picked because she’s a woman that’s offensive, it’s the dismissal of her personhood and turning her into nothing but a body part. Horribly offensive.
Well that too.
What, he wasn’t after her boobs as well? :rolleyes:
It’s McCain that sees her as nothing but a body part and assumes that it’s enough to make other voters with the same body part come running.
Given his history, who knows?
And of course, if you don’t see any, then none can possibly exist.
Right.
Why don’t you tell me what it is, then. Why is Palin more qualified than Olympia Snowe or K.B. Hutchinson?
No, of course not. But, most left-leaning women aren’t.
The last time I heard “cupcake” used as a taunt, it was used against a man.
Personally, I also don’t hold her experience or education against her. The record of past presidents shows that there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between either experience or education and quality of the president him or herself.
What I dislike is that this woman, who is supposedly an “agent of change” in the Republican party seems to me to resemble no one so much as George W. Bush. She is a fundamentalist Christian, whose approach to governing is both simplistic and rather hands-off. She shows little curiosity, as testified to by her lack of interest in Iraq. Regardless of whether she fired Monaghan because of his not firing Wooton or not, she, her husband, and her staffed all pressured him very hard to fire the man ( that part is pretty clearly established), which shows me that she has a pretty fuzzy idea of where her concept of executive power leaves off and abuse catches on, and there appear to be instances of this in the past, like her having fired a couple of officials in Wasilia because (and she said this openly, I gather) they hadn’t supported her election). I detest her policies. You would think that the pregnancy of her daughter might actually make her question the efficacy of “abstinance only” sex ed, but clearly it has not.
It seems to me that in the disastrous event that this woman should become president, we would see the same kind of incompetent ideology and loyalty/crony-ism first policies that W followed for roughly the first six years of his administration. I don’t see a thing about her that says “Change” except that she has boobs.
Just my $.02
So what about her other accomplishments? All because she’s just a pretty face, right?
But that’s not what DtC asked. He asked why someone like Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson was passed over in favor of this woman. But I think I can answer that; she appears to the rightest of the right, especially on the life/choice issue.
Well, this is just meant to be blunt, slightly jocular metonymy. You may find it coarser than to your liking, of course, but I do not think it is reflective of sexism in some further way than “She was only picked because she’s a woman”; one who is fond of this particular style of synecdoche would be just as willing to use expressions like “He was only picked because he has a penis”. The language is not, in itself, an example of sexist reduction of women to body parts in a way which would not also be applied to men; if there is sexism here, then it is properly attributed to other actions.
He said she’s gotten by on her looks. I want to know at what point this started. Has she gotten by on her looks all her life? Or did this only just start? And where’s his evidence?
I don’t believe that it’s only meant to be blunt. I believe it shows underlying misogyny. I have never, EVER heard anyone say such a thing about a man. EVER. Certainly, never around here. If you have an example, I’d love to see it.
And a vagina. Don’t forget the vagina.
Otherwise, I agree with everything you just posted.
Ah, I think that’s exactly it!
I believe that’s where our premises differ, and why there is bewilderment on both sides.
To some, there are clear, articulable reasons why there wasn’t more to her selection than just being a woman.
To some, there are clear, articulable reasons why she is well qualified to serve as POTUS.
(Put aside the “there’s more to anyone than just their gender" for a moment, I’m hoping you’ll understand my attempt at brevity.)
If, for a moment, you can accept that someone holds an honest belief in the first premise, that had another female of greater stature (e.g., one from that lost list) been put forth the debate would be much different, then you’ll understand the bewilderment at being called a misogynist.
The problem with the latter (and again, if McCain really was thinking of her for a while he deserves quite a lot of blam), is that as a relative unknown, there isn’t much to go on with regards to her qualification to be POTUS. Yes, she holds strong views that many on the right agree with, but there isn’t much of a record save resume lines to bolster her case. This is a political failing, not a candidate failing, which those on the left seem to confuse.
Sarahfeena: Do you believe Palin would’ve been chosen if she’d been a man, all other things being absolutely the same?
I’m curious to see if your answer agrees with famed liberal Ramesh Ponnuru. 