sholio | (no subject)

(no subject)

I keep writing and deleting various rants on the whole Palin nomination.

The thing is, I don't agree with her politics, at all. She's 180 degrees opposed to me on most of the things I hold dear. I didn't vote for her as governor and I don't plan on voting the McCain ticket no matter who's running with him; I have more interest in seeing Obama win the election than I've felt for any politician in a long time.

But, as a woman and as an Alaskan, I am finding it hard not to take all of this venom personally. I think it's horrible to see a smart, politically savvy career woman, with a history of standing up to her own party, dismissed as a "vagina", her kids' names mocked, her parenting decisions slandered, her youth and attractiveness used as insults. I find it awfully hypocritical that people are so very quick to dismiss Palin for her "lack of experience" when, with Obama, that same lack of experience suddenly brands him a "maverick outsider" who's going to shake up Washington. I find it hard not to feel offended that being governor of Alaska apparently counts for nothing at the national level; Vermont has a smaller population than Alaska - does that mean Dean is unqualified to chair the DNC?

I really appreciate the people here and there around my f'list and the liberal blogosphere who are sticking to the issues, avoiding personal attacks, and discussing Palin as a serious candidate for VP and not talking about her as if she's some trollop that McCain picked up on a Saturday night. Of course McCain has cynical/practical political reasons for choosing Palin, just like Obama did for choosing Biden, and hopes to pull in more voters by doing so. But it's a huge leap from that to assume that because she's young/attractive/a mom/from a small state/hasn't served in the Senate (take your pick, I've seen all of these and more, yesterday and today) that she's an incompetent VP pick and would be a terrible president. Because you don't know yet. At the very least she deserves to be given consideration -- attack her politics, for pete's sake; there's certainly plenty there for liberals to hate. But lobbing personal insults at her, and dismissing her out of hand for the same reasons that a lot of us have been excited about Obama (youth, energy, fresh ideas, not part of the old guard) makes me want to say, "Get off my side, people, you're making us look bad!"

I think I just need to stop reading political discussions, because I'm starting to get more and more incensed and hurt and upset about the whole thing, and I pretty much said my piece over here, so ... probably good to shut up now before I dig my hole any deeper.

Edited to add: Now that I've calmed down a bit from this morning/last night's blogsurfing, I did want to make it clear that I'm honestly not talking about any one specific person here. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or imply that anyone doesn't have the right to hold whatever political opinions they so choose. I think I'm just getting much too emotionally wrought over the whole thing, and I need to back away and clear my head a bit ... so apologies in advance if you commented on this post and I'm slow to answer or don't answer at all.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I absolutely agree, and initially thought she was actually a great pick for him (not for Obama or, well- ME) because she would get (and has gotten) the evangelist vote. I do think the idea that she has foreign relations experience because Alaska is next to Russia is a little ridiculous, but well- you're right, Dems can't use the inexperience card very much either.

I HATE her politics, and know very little about her as a person. What bothers me as more info comes out about the pick, however, is that it seems she wasn't vetted very well. She is under investigation and the results will come out ten days before the election, most of the advisors NEVER met her before the nomination and McCain only met her once. He's known for months longer than Obama that he would be the nominee- that's just lazy. And no, that doesn't reflect on her, but rather on him.

I'm not actually happy at all about this nomination, because I think the side I'm not rooting for might actually win without expending that much effort (unless the investigation shows she was actually corrupt)... And it IS possible- we are a country that voted Cheney in twice and Quayle once. I don't like her politics, I don't like that she makes a big deal out of the fact that her kid is going to Iraq on 9/11 because I think it's her party's trick to conflate those two things, I don't like that she talks about herself as this great women's rights leader a month after giving a speech on TV where she asks to get the VP position explained to her, and I don't like her stance on some pretty key issues. I don't know enough about her to make any conclusions about her character, so I'll stick to disliking her public persona.

There is a difference, and I hate when people forget it too.

There is a difference, and I hate when people forget it too.

Yes, exactly! This whole thing is putting me in the weird position of defending her all over the place. I don't agree with her politics, I don't want to see her in office, but I'm deeply uncomfortable (and, on a totally personal level, upset and angered) by the ad hominem attacks on her.

As far back as June, it was in the news up here that Palin was being considered for the VP slot, and then it kinda dropped off the radar. I'm thinking that Palin's selection as VP is almost certainly a knee-jerk response to Obama picking Biden -- McCain was holding back to see what Obama would do, and when Obama went for the old guard, McCain jumped for a VP who is, basically, an anti-Biden. It may turn out that it wasn't a very well-thought-out decision, and it's going to be very interesting indeed to see how the debates go, but I'm not writing her off sight-unseen. In the 2006 governor's race, Palin turned out to be phenomenally charismatic and good at appealing to undecided voters. It may well be that her detractors are right, and that she can't make it play on the national stage; she might still turn out to be more of a liability than a help for McCain. But if she can adapt -- I'm scared.

I've been curious to see what you have to say about this. I'd never heard about Palin before yesterday, but I can see why it was a smart move for McCain to pick her.

I can wholly identify with your emotions - defensiveness at something you don't want to have to feel defensive about, at something you don't even support. So, *hugs*. Hopefully the initial hysteria will blow over soon.

Yeah ... it's just a weird situation. *hugs back* I'd kinda like to do some more substantive posts about Palin, since I live in her home state and therefore have a better insider's view than most people I know online, but ... not right now. I think I just need to step back and ignore politics for a little while until I can be a little less invested/angry.

I'm sorry if some on your f-list and crossed the line. My remarks have been plain..it reflects badly on McCain--as in he's the one being hypocritical. His entire platform has been that Obama is inexperienceed, yet picks a person who has just as little as his VP. He can't have it both ways.

I find it odd that he's met her once and up until the other day was going to pick Lieberman. I think it reeks of desperation.

Yahoo has a great article on the choice if you want to read it..and uses the pick as I did--a reflection on McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12997

I know nothing about her..except her voice is a little annoying :-P I have no opinion on her really. I'll watch the debate and get an idea I'm sure.

Good article - thanks!

It's fascinating to me how McCain's and Obama's choices of VP mirror each other inversely. Obama, the young firebrand outsider, goes for a relatively safe, uncontroversial pick from the Washington insiders; McCain chooses a young firebrand unknown who could turn out to be a total loose cannon for him. I'm honestly very curious to see how the debates are going to play out.

This is so very not unexpected. I'm sorry, but I find most liberals disgusting in their two faced politics. They're all for 'free speech', but only as long as it's something they agree with. They're all for 'equal opportunity for women' as long as she's a liberal. They're all against racism, unless the minority in question is a conservative, and then the vitriol and name calling is a-okay.

I have concerns about John McCain's pick because she is too conservative for my tastes, and she does lack national experience. But I was also very impressed with her speech yesterday, and by what she's accomplished in her short tenure as the Governor of Alaska.

I am very sorry to say that all the ugliness is not surprising in any way.

Um, I openly admit there are plenty of liberals who can get nasty over politics, but I'd argue that for every liberal you see acting that way, liberals see a conservative acting the same.

And I know plenty of liberals who don't act in the way you say "all" of them do.

A lot of us can get very passionate about political issues and that can bring out the worst in people, and I think it's important to try to step back and realize the "other" side isn't always all that different and try to find common ground rather than labeling them "all" as behaving in a certain bad way (and thus implying your side would never do so).

[sorry to butt in, but it's just something that raises my hackles - I hate seeing liberals labeling "all" conservatives as "x" just as much]

Which is why I said "most". The 'all' I used was in the "I'm all for open discourse" kind of way. And you can argue with my term 'most' if you wish, but I can only go by my own experiences which may be different from yours.

I don't think it's accurate or fair to single out liberals - as far as I can tell, there are equal amounts of hypocrisy and mud slung on both sides. Case in point: the McCain campaign using Obama's lack of experience as a fighting point, and then choosing a running mate who is equally inexperienced. As I pointed out above, I don't think she's unqualified - I don't think either one of them is unqualified - but it's bloody well hypocritical to accuse your opponent of something you are yourself guilty of.

Conservatives, as a group, are all about personal freedom unless it involves something they find icky (e.g. gay sex, flag burning). Ditto for liberals, only with different "ick" zones. Individual members of the group have a much more varied range of beliefs; I don't think I know anyone who toes the party line exactly, on either side.

Interesting. I've pretty much avoided LJ, both for personal RL reasons but also because I find a lot of the commentary around me bordering on offensive--I am now remembering why the last elections were really depressing for me above and beyond Bush winning (I spoke at length about what it means for me to live in a deeply red state here (http://cathexys.livejournal.com/136349.html)).

A lot of my friends are women who might have been swayed by Hilary but are not put off by Palin's stance necessarily. One thing that amazes me in our little corner of the universe is how little we realize that there's a lot of political ground between us and extremist rightwinged. There area lot of people for whom many of the issues we care strongly about are not all that central (meaning, they don't vote for or against these issues which for many of us are dealbreakers!) To call all of them stupid really bugs me.

And that's before we even get to the issues that you're addressing (i.e., the personal stuff).

Anyway, sorry to place my own rant here in comments...

I don't mind your rant. :) Actually, I suspect that your experiences are probably similar to mine - due to the political and demographic makeup of this state, most of my co-workers, family members and RL friends belong to the political right wing, to varying degrees. It's human nature to want to see the "other side" as a monolithic entity and their beliefs as based in ignorance and/or stupidity, but of course, it's not that simple, and it can be very frustrating to see the whole situation painted in broad strokes of good vs. evil.

I listen to NPR, which, fortunately, avoids getting personal. Criticizing a female candidate for any reason other than her qualifications (or really heinous lapses like fathering an love child while your wife is dealing with cancer, for example) is inexcuseable. The musing I've heard concerning Palin's inexperience as governor of
Alaska centers not on the office but on the fact that she has not been governor for very long. Less than two years, is it? And that her work prior to that was relatively undemanding--small-town mayor and so forth.

However, in politics as in love, people tend to get personal. Back when Geraldine Farraro was running for vice-pres with Fritz Mondale against Reagan and Bush during the 1984 elections, I worked the sound crew at a Republican fundraiser. Outside the dinner venue were tables piled high with pamphlets and buttons and bumper stickers--the usual go-team flotsom. One of the buttons "Goodbye Fritz, Goodbye Tits, Hello Ron!" I found this button so offensive and got so angry, my co-workers had to restrain me.

I'm actually frightened at the possible outcome of this election. If Obama loses, I can't imagine another four years of the same old crap.

And how sad is it that in 24 years we've still not grown beyond that mentality.

Absolutely. Most Americans prefer candidates stick to the pressing issues, and to a large extent they are doing that. Sexist critics of Palin fail to understand how gender bashing undermines their preferred candidate and the election as a whole.

In so far as I have an opinion, my main concern with her is what you said, her lack of experience. On the other hand, we're talking the vice presidency, and how many of those can you name? I think if McCain weren't so "old", it wouldn't be an issue at all. These people aren't worried about her being vice president. They're worried about her being president, and I agree that she doesn't have the experience for *that*.

She definitely has nothing in her background to prepare her for the responsibility of leading the nation. McCain's age worries me but even if he were younger I'd still be concerned about his choice for VP. Anything can happen to a president at any time. The VP must be able to fill his shoes from day one. When George McGovern ran for president in 1972, his choice for VP, Thomas Eagleton, was discovered to have suffered from depression so severe that he underwent electroshock therapy. At first McGovern wanted to keep Eagleton on the ticket, but changed his mind. My own mother, a die-hard Dem her entire life, told me that had McGovern not dismissed Eagleton and chosen Sargent Shriver, she would have had to vote for Nixon. "A heartbeat away from the presidency!" she said.

I think what bothers me is I feel like the McCain platform is blatantly doing this in a political move to try to get women to vote for him - I feel like he's saying I'm *supposed* to be all impressed with him because he chose a female running mate, and I shouldn't care that her platform is against my views on pretty much every woman's issue (and plenty of other issues).

I, honestly, hadn't heard of her until the announcement, so I don't have any strong opinions on her, but I don't like what McCain's campaign appears to be saying in this choice.

(also, I'm sorry, but the lack of experience *does* bother me. No, Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but he does have more years of experience at both a state and national level. And there is the very real consideration of McCain's age and health in terms of who he chooses for VP.)

(and, yes, Biden was a political move. Every VP selection is a political move. But Biden is also a well-respected politician with a boatload of experience and a strong ethical record and I think he fills in places where Obama's campaign is weaker. He wasn't my first choice for VP, but he's a choice I respect and one I don't think was made *only* for political reasons)

I'm also not impressed with McCain making his announcement the morning after Obama's speech (there had been rumors it would be during) and effectively removing Obama from the headlines as soon as possible. That's just dirty.

Anyway, I am sorry that the campaign is turning this way and that it's wormed its way under your skin. Stupid politics.

(also, I'm sorry, but the lack of experience *does* bother me. No, Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but he does have more years of experience at both a state and national level. And there is the very real consideration of McCain's age and health in terms of who he chooses for VP.)

I kind of think that if I were a hair better at conflict - a little less concerned about being liked - *I* could be a decent president. Any reasonably bright, curious, stable person could be. Like every job, you just sort of jump in and figure it out as you go, I assume.

- Helen

I think it takes a little bit more than that.

A President doesn't need to have all the answers or know everything about the issues but he/she needs to be well aware of them - both domestically and internationally, he/she needs to have a thorough understanding of the constitution and American Government and some experience working within that framework - it's not the kind of job that gives you any time to learn as you go, really - there's no training period or anything. And you have the lives of billions of people semi in your hands.

But, honestly, what I think is the most important thing for the President to do is to surround him/herself with people who are smarter than he/she is - with people who are experts on the issues (and ideally, multiple sides of the issues) because the President CAN'T know everything and can't do everything and that's why those advisors are so very important. And it takes a certain type of personality to not be intimidated by surrounding yourself with people like that - one I *think* Obama has.

So, um, I agree with you that in theory a lot of people would be very capable of being President - but there's a reason you have to be above a certain age - so theoretically you have the experience and maturity necessary for the job and I think having that knowledge and experience *is* important.

I've known too many women for whom "I don't know anything about X" means "I could teach X 101 w/o notes, but would have to do some work before teaching X 102." It's a communication thing - and, actually, not a way I'd want my president to communicate, but I don't see it as a huge weakness (absent any real data).

Plus, if she's at all bright (and I think she's decently bright), she's cramming this instant; and there's a 1.5-month gap between election day an inauguration... it all seems very doable to me.

But, honestly, what I think is the most important thing for the President to do is to surround him/herself with people who are smarter than he/she is - with people who are experts on the issues (and ideally, multiple sides of the issues) because the President CAN'T know everything and can't do everything and that's why those advisors are so very important.

ITA. I'd add, know when to trust your advisors, and trust your own gut. And know when you're being intentionally mis-led, and have the guts to fire people. These are things I think Palin might be unusually good at. Or not - I'm calibrated for New England Kucinich voters.

Sigh, I mostly just wish she was on our side.

True. All I know about Palin at the moment is vague details of her political experience, a small handful of her political views and that she apparently commented a month or so ago that she has no clue what the Vice President does. (but, um, how many Americans who don't work at Washington know that?) But it is true that women are much less likely to be confident in their knowledge than men.

Plus, if she's at all bright (and I think she's decently bright), she's cramming this instant; and there's a 1.5-month gap between election day an inauguration... it all seems very doable to me.

I really, really hope so.

I'd add, know when to trust your advisors, and trust your own gut. And know when you're being intentionally mis-led, and have the guts to fire people

Ah, yes, incredibly good point there!

Someday we'll have a she on our side! They're starting to appear in other levels of government!

I stay so far out of politics that I don't know right from left. What I find amusing is that she's in her 40's and referred to as being so young. Try sticking her in Hollywood and see how young she is.

Perception's a screwy thing, isn't it?

Well said - for the most part. I mean - I do sort of wonder why McCain who keeps talking about how Obama is "not ready to lead" is willing to pick a VP with just about the same amount experience at least on the national level. It takes away from on of the biggest strengths that McCain had. But that is not a slam on Palin so much as it is how elections are fought these days. (On second thought - that doesn't mean anything. We are talking the Republicans here - these are the guys that went after a war hero's record with two draft dodgers on the top of the ticket.) And it does deal Obama's "Change" mantra a blow. Palin is about as far "outside the Beltway" as you can get. How big a blow remains to be seen, but given how close this election is, it doesn't take much.

That said - McCain has his reasons for selecting Palin - and while her gender might one of the reasons - it sounds like her politics is also a big part of it. Now, I may not agree her stances on the issues, I don't really matter. I was never going to vote for McCain anyway - no matter who he selected. But McCain does need to get the conservative base of his party to have a reason to go out and vote for him(as opposed to staying at home on election day). Given what little I have heard/read of Palin it sounds like she is a good choice for that. (not that I agree with said politics but I will admit the conservatives are good at getting their people out to vote.)

Funny that people are questioning her qualifications based on the fact that she has not been in the Senate given that this is the first time in almost 50 years that someone has been elected to Presidency directly from the Senate. The last 4 of the last 5 Presidents have been Governors. Now all of the sudden one has to be in the Senate to be qualified to be President?

I'm another who's been waiting to hear from you on this...

And I just cut my rant and posted it in my LJ, becuase it was getting a bit out of hand. ;-)

But thank you for weighing in, and yeah, I'm with you on this.

I'm afraid this election is going to make us all expire of high blood pressure!

Ahh, yes. Nasty comments and politics. Mixing since the first time two guys decided that they should make the other guys decide which one of them got to be the leader, instead of just whacking each other over the head with sticks to settle it. Doesn't make it any more enjoyable today, though. (Though I would pay good money for the occasional electoral stick-fight!)

...yeah, I'm not going to add anything political to my comment. Just checking in to sympathize. ♥

...America still does stick-fighting! Well, beating to unconsciousness with canes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks), anyway...(...okay, yes, it was over a century ago. Still, no one can fault US politics for being boring! XP)

*adds sympathy to the pot. When I saw that other post I was very curious what your (Layla's) response would be*

I am ardently opposed to what I have been able to find out about Palin's politics - and I absolutely agree with you about how appallingly sexist responses have been to her nomination. Even beyond liberal venom, just the mainstream media have been sending my blood pressure through the roof.

When I saw Yahoo! News's lead article on Palin's nomination next to a link about her *exercise regimen* (does anyone care whether or not Biden uses a treadmill?) I knew that this was going to be as painful as some of the rhetoric surrounding Clinton's race for the White House. And the thing is, as an Obama supporter, I worry that this type of sexism and offensive scrutiny on the part of his supporters might generate personal sympathy for Palin among swing voters less concerned about her intense social conservatism. The identity politics floating on both sides of this race have been so demoralizing for me that I think I'm going to have to follow your lead and *avoid* political discussions for a while ...

I worry that this type of sexism and offensive scrutiny on the part of his supporters might generate personal sympathy for Palin among swing voters less concerned about her intense social conservatism.

I agree. As people adjust to the nomination, the commentary seems to be swinging more to issue-based and fewer personal attacks (though admittedly, I've been avoiding it for the most part) and I'm very glad, because everyone loves an underdog and the last thing we want to do is do the McCain campaign's work for them. *g*

What's dismaying to me is the breathtaking cynicism of this choice. I suspect, too, that most of the more egregious insults being flung her way would be more properly pitched at McCain's head, not hers or Alaska's. She's being offered the nomination because they think she'll appeal to the 17 disaffected Hillary voters who weren't actually listening Tuesday night & give cover to racists who can now point to having voted for a woman, and because they think she'll shore up his "maverick" pose after Bob Casey called him a sidekick. It has nothing to do with her talents or abilities, as impressive as they may be. (Her judgement, possibly, not so much.) So I'd hate to see what might have been an interesting career trashed if the inevitable digging into her background turns up more on the thing with her brother-in-law.

I would also prepare for a lot of pearl-clutching anytime someone criticizes her lack of knowledge in a debate.

But the republicans are woefully short of talented women leaders precisely because they don't really believe women can *be* leaders; I'm naive enough to think a couple of sharp, high-profile women in that party might do a lot more to bring them around to the notion of equal rights than more yelling from progressives is going to. As long as it's the dreaded liberals telling them about feminism, they can dismiss messenger and message. If Sarah Palin is as competent as you say, *and* a conservative republican, she is in a position to change the entire narrative from within.

Of course, she's still wrong, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make...

But Palin's 44 already and only a governor and a mother of five. If she weren't so obviously stupid she'd at least have managed to be born and raised in a bigger, more prestigious town, in a state with more people.

(End sarcasm.)

Sheesh. Major hackles raised here, esp. by comments in the post you linked to.

- Helen, mother of two, governor of nothing, and pretty darn competent anyway

Personal attacks are uncalled for, certainly! But as much as I'd like to dismiss all gender/race/age differences, they do affect how I view the various candidates (not all negatively). I personally feel that McCain is too old--not for health reasons, but because he grew up in an era with very very different views on issues that are important to me. I mean, the man was already an adult by the time Brown v. Board of Education hit the Supreme Court!

As for Palin, when I heard the first bio on NPR, I thought, Ok, here's a woman with five kids, one of whom has Downs Syndrome and another who's being deployed to Iraq. I bet that health care reform, education, helping families through the economic crisis, helping disabled children, and getting better care for Veterans of the war in Iraq are going to be high on her list. And those are all things I'm in favor of... Also I love that she doesn't allow lobbyists into her office. So stated opinions on issues aside, I still form an opinion based on who they are.

I know that a couple of the older guys at work heard Palin's name and went WTF? How is a young woman who practically gave birth at her desk going to decide on issues important to me? Not that it ever devolved into personal attacks...at least not in my hearing.

Anyway, if I'm going to dislike McCain because he's an old man, I have to let others dislike Palin because she's a younger woman. Even if I think they're wrong ;)

On the other hand, I DO count stated political views as very important. I don't like Palin's environmental views, for example. The fact that she's openly denied that humans are adding to global warming and the melting of polar ice caps; that she doesn't want polar bears put on the endangered species list--I have a huge problem with that. And obviously the anti-choice and anti-gay stance.

Was that fake campaign ad making fun of McCain supposedly calling his wife Cindy a trollop, or what?

The point isn't that she's inexperienced--it's that McCain has been hammering on Obama's lack of experience for months. Her lack of any foreign policy background has been dismissed by saying, "Well, the doctors say our guy's good for at least four years."

McCain doesn't think she's ready to take over if he dies. He thinks that the disappointed Clinton partisans will vote for anyone who has two X chromosomes, never mind the fact that she's an environmental disaster, is under investigation for misusing the authority of her office, is a creationist, and is hardline anti-choice.

The other thing is that the people who are pushing the "beauty queen" meme? Not the left. Most of the Republicans interviewed yesterday barely know who she is, and they're the ones bringing up her PTA membership and pageant history because they don't know what else to say. She's not unqualified because she's a woman, and calling her on that is just as legitimate as pointing out that Dan Quayle was a moron and that Clarence Thomas was a legal nonentity who was picked because Bush needed a black face for Thurgood Marshall's seat.

And when she's on record as saying things like "I don't really know what the Vice President does" and having no real opinion on the war, well, that's pretty mockable.

And when she's on record as saying things like "I don't really know what the Vice President does" and having no real opinion on the war, well, that's pretty mockable.

The thing is - every job I've ever had, four months before I took it, I had no clue what it entailed. So this argument just puzzles me.

Sitting where I am, every blow at her for anything except policy and how she has actually governed feels like a blow to myself and all the other 40-something women I know whose resumes aren't as spiffy as they'd be if we hadn't had kids, but who can still, well, learn new things. (And I expect ANYONE who takes on the presidency has a heck of a lot to learn. Obama's (seeming) flexibility is one of the reasons I support him.)

There's a difference between having a lot to learn and not giving it any thought. And I'm sorry, but if you're being considered to possibly lead the country if something happens to the 72-year-old man in poor health, then you'd fucking well better have given some thought to the subject of the war we're currently engaged in.

There's also the fact that under Cheney, the Vice President's office has taken on a lot of power. If the nominee for the office doesn't know that, then that tells me that she can't be trusted to know what to do with said power if she's in the office.

I think she's had plenty else to think about (though without really knowing how she communicates, I don't know how to interpret the bits of quotes I've read).

Cheney may have a lot of power - but how much of that power will transfer to the next administration? We don't know. That will up to the next President.

The US Constitution gives very few powers to the VP. "First in line for the presidential line of succession" should anything happen to the President and as "President of the Senate." That's it. Even the second job only comes into play if there is a tie vote in the Senate.

If McCain were to win VP Palin could have a great deal of power and have a great deal of influence on the administration. Or she could just be sent of the represent the United States at state funerals and the like. It's all up to McCain.

I will admit Palin could have been smarter about her answer - saying something like "I am not going to answer that until I know more of how Sen. McCain views the office of VP".

The point is that based on her answer, she hasn't even thought about it. If that's the case, then she's not someone who is prepared to step into that role, period.

The other thing is that the people who are pushing the "beauty queen" meme? Not the left.

I've seen it on the left - here (http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm), for example.

But I honestly don't have an issue with Palin being slammed on substantive issues - it's the ad hominem attacks that were frustrating and angering me when I wrote this post. I mean, it's one thing to think the woman is unqualified; it's quite another when a major online news site spreads rumors that her baby is actually that of her 16-year-old daughter. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223) I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign; and I'm also aware that I am ridiculously biased on behalf of my home state and I keep wanting to wade in and defend Alaska (which is sort of stupid, and I'm working on it *g*).

I just want the criticism to stay on a level that doesn't make me ashamed to be on this side, that's all I'm saying. And, for the most part, it really has; it's just a few bad apples that have left me feeling bruised.

I think it's horrible to see a smart, politically savvy career woman, with a history of standing up to her own party, dismissed as a "vagina", her kids' names mocked, her parenting decisions slandered, her youth and attractiveness used as insults.
Holy carp! That's nuts! I'm glad I haven't seen this stuff.

I've seen her called "inexperienced," but then I have seen a lot of people call Obama that, and that was my first reaction to him as well. That at least has some validity. But this personal stuff? That's shameful.

What do you mean I don't get to vote?

You calmed down, I ranted...

http://indusnm.livejournal.com/31620.html

*sigh*

It's a good rant. :)

I'm all for people criticizing Palin on actual issues. I just don't want to end up feeling ashamed to be on this side. It's not okay to sacrifice our principles to win.

I just wanted to say yes, yes, yes, and thank you for this post -- both for articulating thoughts I share in a way that I can link people to when the subject comes up and allowing me to read everyone else's responses as well. I, too, neither voted for Palin as governor nor plan to vote for her ticket in the upcoming election but reading my flist and my usual blog roundup has been making me recoil. Either it's calmed down a bit or I've developed a thicker skin since the initial announcement, but still... anyways, thanks. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only