... there was this commentary in today's Boston Globe:
I can appreciate that this is a historic moment for women but what is insulting and shameful is that it comes as a result of political tactics and not merits. As a woman, I am insulted. I can't help but asking how does he dare insult the intelligence of millions of women who voted for Clinton with this tactic of trying to appeal to them by choosing a woman with no qualifications as a vice presidential candidate. What does he think, that women are stupid? Or is he implying that people supported Hillary just because she was a woman? People supported Hillary because they thought she was the best qualified person for the job. It just so happened that she was a woman, which made the decision to support her even more exciting.
19 comments:
Exactly!
Don’t you know there are LAWS against bugging my house? After all isn’t this my private domain? Your comments are EXACTLY what I told my wife this morning. If this woman had any real sense she would have REFUSED him flat out.
Here is my favorite quote of the day....obviousouly it applies here!
"...Suddenly the party of diversity thinks a woman is a cheap political ploy..."
Maybe the outrage should be that a supremely qualified candidate who happens to be female was bypassed by an inexperienced nominee... in favor of one of the good ol boys!
That has to hurt!
Blessings
Seraph
We couldn't agree more.
Dear Rev. Russell:
And yet, she has more executive and real life experience than the head of the Democratic ticket.
Let's be honest, whoever McCain had picked (unless it was Hillary herself) you would have opposed.
He is not your candidate (and not rally mine yet) but the problem with politics today is that whoever opposes us, we tend to demonize.
When Obama picked Biden, the Republicans were quick to trot out that he was (and is) part of the good old boys network in Washington, D.C. Hardly an agent of outstanding and dramatic change.
It was a trick, Republicans said, to balance a complete lack of foreign relations credentials and Washington experience of Barack Obama. Whatever.
Why can't we simply choose the candidate who most closely represents us and support them rather than tear down and demonize our opponents.
From what I've heard today, Sarah Palin is a terrific person, a good mother and from what my wife and I experienced in Alaska during a cruise this summer and extremely popular governor. Her credentials and accomplishments, like those of Obama, Biden and McCain are to be admired, if not agreed with.
We will never change the conversation and no leader will ever have a chance to really lead until both sides stop this destructive gotcha mentality.
Joe Biden has a compelling personal story, so does Sarah Palin. Can't we simply honor that instead of knocking people down. Is that what Jesus would do?
Barack Obama has been in the Senate less time than Dan Quayle was and remember how everybody jumped on him (rightly so) for his inexperience.
So take all the cheap shots you want, I've decided not to participate in that this election.
To win my vote you have to give me a reason to vote FOR you, and not give me reasons why I should vote against the other person.
When I see McCain ads the downgrade Obama I cringe, ditto for the ads I see knocking McCain. This is not political conversation, this is warfare and it bodes ill for whoever gets elected.
If we are ever going to change the temperature of politics in this country it will start with the grassroots no longer putting up with the politics of personal destruction.
A sinner saved by God's Grace
Jim of Michigan
Dear Rev. Russell:
One more thing: There are now four candidates, all who say they know just what it is like for a middle class person like me to survive.
All pretend to be like me. The only one, so far, that comes close is Sarah Palin.
The men in the race are political millionaires whose lives have as much resemblance to mine as a goldfish does to a lion.
A sinner saved by God's Grace
Jim of Michigan
Suddenly the party of diversity thinks a woman is a cheap political ploy
No, Seraph, we think THIS woman (Sarah Palin) is a cheap political ploy.
Are there Dumb Blondes in the world? Nagging harpies? Slutty gold-diggers? Of course there are.
Sexism is the prejudiced belief that ALL women have these negative traits. The fight against sexism, is to see each woman as an individual.
...and from what I see thus far of the individual woman who is Sarah Palin, I don't like one bit. [As far as the "good mother" line goes: if the rumors are true, we'll have to see if she's a better grandmother, than she's been a mother ;-/]
As a woman, I am thrilled with the choice of Sarah Palin. What an interesting person! Her life story makes me laugh out loud. A breath of fresh air! (And I am thrilled, as an Episcopal priest, that she is most definitely pro-life.) I will also add that, in contrast to your experience, I have heard many women in the church say that they are for women such as Katherine Jefferts Schori, Hillary Clinton, and myself, only because they/we are women. That's what makes me feel ashamed: knowing that it's not what I believe, it's just that I'm a woman. I find that difficult to take.
jcf said: "This woman is a cheap political ploy.."
Dear one...we are not going to see eye to eye on this one! A cheap political ploy was very definitely to deny Hillary her due!
So far, from what I can see of this woman, she is quite admirable...not perfect!
Its funny some liberals seem to be "open minded" only when they are agreed with. Surely we can see the potential and good in others even when we disagree...or not?
The "grandmother" comments are of course quite tasteless and completely irrelevant to the race even if true!
Its quite humorous that you would label someone you barely know as a "cheap political ploy" after the antics we have witnessed over the last year from BHO and his campaing surrogates, pastor, friendly clergy and the like...!
I also know what sexism is, it was clearly demonstrated in the Democratic primaries! Or does that not count if it is done by somebody who has a nice smile and approves of abortion?
Blessings
Seraph
The Democratic primary had some sexism, and also some racism. Certainly one thing it had was two smart, hard-working, and qualified senators and the convention showed that the Dems can turn their attention to issues, rather than politics. The Clintons stepped up to the plate and passed the torch.
Gov. Palin's 20 months in state office is certainly less than HRC's years in the Senate.
It is also less that obama's elective experience; he has been in the US Senate for nearly 4 YEARS, and before that, he served in the Illinois State Senate for over 7 years.
So, 20 months as Governor does not match either Dem candidate. I don't get where the "more experienced" meme comes from. Of course, she was a mayor, leaving her town in debt, and the REpublican head of the Alaska Senate isn't very impressed either. Oh, and Palin has a tendency to dismiss police chiefs when they don't do what she wants, law ad process be damned.
She's anti-abortion, pro-creation, wants to shoot wolves as bounty hunting, against listing the polar bear, and never met an oil-company check she wouldn't cash. Oh, and that bridge? She never turned down the money for that, either.
And she thinks that Alaska's geographic proximity to Siberia counts as foreign experience. Of course, she's not really sure what a VP does.
The only thing Gov Palin shares with Hillary Clinton is a uterus. Their policies are 180 degrees opposed, and to say that Hillary's supporters are m ore interested in an XX chromosome than in actual issues is an insult to the smart and hard working women who helped make Hillary a truly viable candidate for goernment, and an insult to HRC's candidacy.
Regardless of what a concern troll says, it's apples and peanuts to compare Gov Palin to HRC. The only people who think this is a good pick are social conservaitves who are obsessed by other people's sex lives.
IT, proud Obama supporter, and actual real-life feminist.
The most remarkable aspect of this to me is that McCain had exactly two conversations with Palin IN HIS LIFE before selecting her to be potentially a heartbeat away from the most powerful executive position in the world. That's both cynical and irresponsible.
Yes, Obama is now wealthy, mostly due to the sales of his books. Consider his humble beginnings and then calculate the odds on becoming the Democratic nominee.
McCain was born into military royalty. He then left his wife for a beer heiress worth 20 times worth the net worth of Obama. To say that both Obama and McCain are wealthy, while true, doesn't quite tell the whole story.
One could argue that's it tougher to become editor of the Harvard Law Review (something achieved by Obama) than to become the president of the United States.
Can anyone tell me what Bush's qualifications were, other than opposing gay marriage and vowing not to raise taxes? And how has that worked out for us? He still can't pronounce "nuclear," and neither can Palin. Isn't it time to demand more from our candidates?
Jim, I hope you decide to partipate. The U.S. already has a pathetically low rate of voter registration and participation. Billions of people around the world have no voice in the chossing of thier leaders. Thanks to the sacrifices of untold mulitudes of good people, we do.
The party of diversity wants diversity of race, sex, nationality, etc., but God forbid it embrace diversity of thought ....
Oh, and Palin has a tendency to dismiss police chiefs when they don't do what she wants, law ad process be damned.
What she's actually doing is trying to dismiss a State Trooper who has committed various offenses (such as domestic violence and driving his police car drunk) but has been protected by the "old boy" network.
McCain was born into military royalty.
There's no such thing as "military royalty". The American military is the closest thing to a meritocracy we have in the U.S. Yes, both his grandfather and his father were Admirals. But note that while he was a kid his father was no more than a Captain for most of his childhood and he spent most of his time knocking around on (mostly lousy) military housing while his father was collecting (mostly lousy) junior officer's pay. John McCain was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
As far as worrying about Sarah Palin's foreign policy qualifications, let's remember she's running for VP, not President. She's wouldn't be negotiating with the Putins of the world, John McCain would. What the Democrats offer us is an inexperienced President with an experienced Vice President. The last time we did that, the VP's name was Dick Cheney. How did THAT work out?
If "Change" is to be the mantra of this election, then Gov. Sarah Palin has more claim to it than Sen. Barak Obama.
Palin was elected Governor of Alaska because the electorate finally got sick and tired of the "good old boys" network. If you check her record, she ran on that and since she's been elected she's been as good as her word, helping bust up the corruption and "go along to get along" attitudes and actions that apparently pervade Alaska politics. She has bucked the system rather than become part of it.
Contrast this with Sen. Obama. I have been a resident in the Chicago area for some time. Look at his record in the State Senate. He voted "Present" more than anyone ever has there rather than commit to issues. He embraced being co-opted into the system rather than try to change it. He was there 4 terms, in a body that is full of corruption, but rather than try to change the good old boy network he ran to the center of it. Once he made a name for himself candidates that were trying to reform the Illinois General Assembly asked him for his endorsement. But he spurned them and endorsed all of the Daley Democratic Machine candidates. The man who is running on "Change" can't point to any record in 12 years of where he has actually done anything significant. The woman we're talking about hasn't just talked - she's done it.
ron ... diversity of thought is not the issue.
An extraordinarily unqualified candidate selected at the 11th hour in a "Hail Mary" desperation effort to pull in the social conservative vote and committed to a pro-gun, anti-choice, creationist political agenda is the issue.
The change Obama is talking about refers to reversing our policies re torture, spying, pre-emptive war, national security, corruption, cronyism, secrecy, health care, the environment, science, jobs, etc. McCain thinks no changes are needed, based on his support of Bush policies 95% of the time.
McCain, at 72, clearly has memory problems. What if Palin has to assume his duties for some reason? Does being governor of a state with less population than the borough of Brooklyn provide her with the international diplomatic skills to lead the free world?
Does anyone really think that McCain and Obama started out in life on equal footing? Obama's path was far more difficult. He gives people hope because he beat the odds, and he can relate to "regular" folk because he's been there. He's also brilliant and articulate. We have no idea what challenges face us over the next four years. I want the smartest people I can find making the tough decisons, and, for a change, I'd like to elect some people from the reality-based community.
uffda51 said:
McCain thinks no changes are needed, based on his support of Bush policies 95% of the time.
I'm curious as to where you got that number. According to the Washington Post's Voter Project, John McCain voted with his party only 79.4% of the time in the last complete Congressional session, the 7th lowest of any Senator.
Do you have anything to back up the statement you just made? And how are you quantifying "support of Bush policies"?
I don't think she's anymore unqualified than Sen. Obama, and he's heading the Democratic ticket. When it comes time to negotiate with the President of Iran, neither Palin nor Biden would be running the show; it'll be either McCain or Obama. And unlike either Biden or Obama, she has some actual experience in shaking up a government and acting in the people's interests instead of the settled powers.
Hmmm ... well, there's this report from CQ (Congressional Quarterly) noted on today's Huffington Post:
According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007.
Post a Comment