I'll be the first to admit that I nearly did a spit-take when I on CNN that McCain picked the unknown governor of Alaska as his running mate. I let out a very audible gawp of surprise, causing all of my co-workers to look at me. I furrowed my brow and looked as though I was working on some particularly hard data entry to throw them off the scent of my lack of productivity at that moment.
I can't stress enough that I'm not sure Sarah Palin is right for the job right now. A lot of people are making a big hubbub over her political standings, most of which I disagree with, but that's not why she's unqualified. You can read copious reasons why people believe she is wrong for the job on the horrendously misguided message board of the facebook group "Sarah Palin is Not Hilary Clinton"* if you choose to do so.
I can't hate her for being anti-gay or anti-choice or anti-science: in fact, I can't bring myself to hate her at all. She's an honest woman who sticks to her guns (literally and figuratively) and I respect that a lot...even if her guns are rusty and old. She's not unqualified because she has conflicting beliefs.
She's unqualified because she's governing a state that is vastly different from every other state in the union. Alaska isn't like the rest of the country. It's just not. What is good up there (Palin is arguably good for up there, as her approval rating is enormously high: 89%) is not necessarily good for down here. The fact that she is one of the most popular governors in the country, judging by approval ratings, says something about Alaska. Alaska in comparison to the continental US is like comparing apples and...baseball bats.
How can she possibly have any frame of reference for what is good for our country as a whole? That's why she's not a qualified candidate and it's a shame McCain doesn't realize this. The sad thing is that I do think it was a smart pick. She's going to take some of the disenfranchised Hilary supporters away from Obama (which is kind of silly seeing as how Clinton is more like Obama than McCain when it comes to policy), so let's hope McCain finds a way to screw things up irrevocably so that we don't have to find out whether they're good for the country.
* The first problem I have with the name of this group is that it presumes that we can't tell the difference between the two. The message board is full to the brim of "feminists" spouting off about how Palin (a self-described feminist) is anti-woman. Yet the title of this group implies that there are those that can't tell the difference between two completely different women. We're not idiots. They're also presuming that there were not people who voted/supported Clinton only because she was a woman! Like it was okay for some ill-informed voters to support Clinton because she's a woman, but not the other way around. There's one particularly cantankerous young Iowan who claims that Palin is a "fucking idiot" and doesn't know the meaning of being a feminist. Ah...there's nothing halfway about the Iowa to treat you. First, to imply that there is a certain way in which a woman should be a feminist is inherently sexist in itself. Feminism doesn't have a owner's manual. Secondly, I'd counter our young Iowan with: "What the hell do you know? You're 19. You go to a great college. She's been a beauty queen, a governor, a sports journalist, has taken on the pork-barrel spending of Alaska political mainstays like Ted Stevens (she nixed the Bridge to Nowhere plan, which should be praised more than it is) and is now is entering into one of the last vestiges of glass-ceiling sexism: the United States presidential race. I think she knows a thing or two about being subjugated, so give her some credit where credit is due." I'm glad I got that off my chest.
Yahoo's 100 Movies You Should See Before You Die
-
Is this list like the video tape in *The Ring*?
I almost feel like if I finish reading it and I've seen all of the movies
on it, I'm going to get a call f...
15 years ago
16 comments:
You yourself invite facebook groups like that by parroting the talking heads who think that hillary supporters only supported her because she's a woman (a bit of a sexist assumption). She's NOT going to attract the disenfranchised Hillary voters, because a beauty queen/sportscaster/mayor of a podunk town does not have the same appeal as a kickass feminist/lawyer/public figure. She doesn't look, sound, or seem presidential in any way.
McCain already screwed up. In fact, I think he just lost the election. The only Hillary voters she'll draw are the complete knee jerk, want a woman in power folks. Whatever gains he gets there, will be nothing compared to the hard line conservatives who will be turned off by an inexperiecnced milquetoast housewife being a heartbeat away from the presidency. This also brings McCain's age back into play...
I think McCain's electoral count is going to be somewhere inbetween Mondale and Dole.
"The only Hillary voters she'll draw are the complete knee jerk, want a woman in power folks. "
A bit of a sexist assumption, huh.
Yesterday, I went to work, cashed my paycheck, went to Centreville for a party, got home at 6am, crashed until I woke up and wrote this entry. Which of these talking heads am I consciously parroting? How am I being sexist when I say that there are in existence some Hilary supporters that voted for her solely based on her gender? Where did I say that Palin is presidential? Where did I say that she compared favorably to Clinton?
In fact, didn't I say specifically that it was obvious that she WASN'T like Clinton?
And isn't it presumptuous to ascribe your own feelings for Clinton onto all of Clinton's supporters? Not everyone likes her because she's a kick ass feminist/lawyer/public figure: some people like her because she doesn't have a penis.
The craziest thing about Palin is that she has more executive experience than anybody running.
I think my language was more insulting than I intended it to be. I'm just saying that Clinton's appeal is more broad than that of Geraldine Ferraro or Carol Mosley Braun. There's a reason she was a legitimate candidate and it wasn't because women just suddenly wanted a woman in the white house. There have been a small vocal group of them for quite some time. I don't think they are enough to swing a school board election, let alone a presidential election.
ALSO, the facebook group might be populated with complete ninnies (I'm sure it is) but you're wrong that they just assumed that she should be a feminist. Palin framed herself as a feminist. look at this.
"Palin noted that she was following in the footsteps of former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who Palin noted had made “18 million cracks” in the glass ceiling in her presidential bid this year.
“It turns out that women in America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all,”
That is a quasi-feminist statement and without clarification some morons might vote for her thinking she is a feminist. Clarifications must be made.
Yeah she has executive experience, but you astutely pointed out that this experience does not exactly translate well. Plus, being the governer of Alaska sounds more impressive than it is. Alaska has roughly the population of Baltimore (just the city, not including the outlying county) so you could say that Martin O'Malley is far more qualified than anyone currently running...
I think you're talking about Feminism (as are the facebook groupers) while I'm talking about feminism? Does that make any sense?
Either way, exactly: Alaska isn't the same as anywhere in the country and being Her governor is impressive on it's own, but in the context of the Presidential race it seems to be a bit lacking.
Despite all of that, though, I can't help liking her as a person. It's not enough to make me want to vote for her (I'll wait until after the debates to make that decision, but it'd be hard for McCain/Palin to win my vote), but it probably is enough for some people. A lot of people voted for Bush twice because he seemed like a nice guy.
People support candidates for crazy reasons.
Points for the reference to The Music Man.
I was trying to say: One big reason I think McCain chose Palin is for her position on oil drilling in Alaska; Anbar.
I think it is just incidental serendipity for McCain that Palin is a female.
Think about this: With Obama, the mayor of Chicago will have the president's ear; with McCain, officials of Alaska will have the president's ear.
Humility is always a good thing. Never fear to admit your mistakes quickly. I meant ANWAR, not ANBAR!!
I was confused. It's okay. I am not an idiot, though I may look like one sometimes.
Stop being a coward and leave a name.
I'll never understand your political beliefs if I don't know who you are.
It has nothing to do with being a coward -- it has to do with not having a google account with which to sign in and LEAVE a name.
And obviously you only called upon one person by name in this entry. Unless your deductive reasoning is flawed, your comment was unnecessary.
I really am flattered that I can inspire so much bitterness and hatred in someone I've never met or with whom I've never conversed.
There's no hatred or bitterness at all.
Just annoyance. I'm sure you're a very smart and nice person, but I think you invite criticism upon yourself when you post such an extreme and obviously reactionary post to the group's page.
I only asked for a name because I don't remember who you are or what your name is. I'm not going to apologize for what I wrote, but I will apologize for calling you a coward. That was unfair.
In the interest of fair play, if you think I don't understand your political perspective and you think I'm an idiotic hypocrite, why not write something up for this blog telling my readers and me why you think this? I'll run it whenever you finish, unedited. By having a blog, I invite just as much criticism and I'm giving you a platform (albeit small) to voice your opinion.
"What the hell do you know? You're 19."
Anyone who directly insults ME like that -- not my statement(s), not my candidate(s), not my beliefs -- is not deserving of ANY explanation from me.
Why should I write something up for you when you obviously automatically discredit my opinion(s) by referring to me as "you child"?
I'd be glad to do so if this was a respectful environment, but it's not.
And I still turn down your offer because of exactly that attitude -- you assume that you are superior because of your politics.
Not that it matters in the least, but after much research, my political opinions HAVE changed from that "reactionary" statement I previously made.
I could give you a list of labels I'd apply to you based upon YOUR blog entry, but I will, as you say "restrain" myself.
The fact that you chose to directly single me out by name and directly insult me (someone you've never met, never spoken with, and know nothing about) certainly shows something about YOUR maturity level. If you're calling me a child for making a reactionary statement about Governor Palin, the same applies to you.
You're basically saying that because I said something over-the-top, it allows you to do so, as well. THAT, my friend, is flawed logic.
I just have a few things to say:
First of all, Karissa, if you think Palin is anything other than a fucking idiot as of now, then I have lost any respect for you. Anyone who's seen the Katie Couric interview could tell you that all comedians are voting McCain for the sheer amount of material.
Jim, I would like to point out that some of the evidence you used namely that Palin "has taken on the pork-barrel spending of Alaska political mainstays like Ted Stevens (she nixed the Bridge to Nowhere plan, which should be praised more than it is)" all of that has been exposed as a big fuckin lie. Not your fault, that was the spin at the time. But I think it bears mentioning.
Now both of you: Karissa, Jim hates it when people are disrespectful of public figures, so you calling Sarah Palin a fucking idiot made him want to call you names, and then you called him names right back, and then he... etc. I think if you stop bickering, you'd find you have more in common than you realize.
In retrospect, naming you was a mistake. Maybe writing the whole entry was a mistake since Sarah Palin has, in my opinion, proven herself enormously unqualified and somewhat fucking idiotic.
It was a mistake because it was immature and because I, essentially, did exactly what I was chiding you for. I don't know you, but my assumption is that you wouldn't call Sarah Palin a fucking idiot to her face. I certainly wouldn't call you a child to yours.
My pride isn't important enough to continue arguing about this. I was wrong. I stand by what I said because I still believe that ripping people who aren't able to defend themselves is fundamentally wrong. Especially when I do it. I have removed your name and I do so in hope that no temporary or lasting damage was done.
Post a Comment