In all the discussions I've heard and read about Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's heir apparent, the best word I've come across to characterize that choice is "cynical." Cynical, not because Palin herself isn't a remarkable politician--clearly, she is--but cynical because Palin's presence on the GOP ticket suggests the McCain campaign's calculation that Americans care more about personal charisma than they do about governmental experience. Cynical, because her presence on that ticket suggests Team McCain's estimation that those much-discussed Disaffected Hillary Voters will vote against the pro-women policies their erstwhile leader espoused--a pro-choice stance on abortion, the support of equal pay for women, etc.--simply to get a woman, any woman, in office. Cynical, because it suggests that those women's votes can be bought at the low, low price of Putting a Lady on the Ticket.
In the current issue of The New Republic, Michelle Cottle provides an examination of that cynicism that is as thorough as it is biting. "The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels," Cottle writes.
For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care.
Though Palin, by virtue of her inexperience, "makes Dan Quayle circa 1988 look like an elder statesman," Cottle continues, in Team McCain's estimation,
female candidates are pretty much interchangeable and women voters too addlepated to know the difference. We don't care about issues or experience; we just want someone with the same reproductive parts as ours.
Cottle's conclusion? Palin's selection is a blow to the feminist movement. She makes a strong case for it, too. While I'm not fully sold--my own sense is that it's simply too early to judge The Impact of Palin's Candidacy on Feminism--Cottle's verdict in this regard is thoughtful and compelling and, in the end, well worth a read.
Meggan dear, the biggest story of Palins nomination is not the spin coming from any of the papers or campaigns, but it’s the complete and total rejection of one of the biggest tenants or dogmas of feminism.
Remember when Steinem and her merry NOW brigade of womyn were telling all the little girls that they could have it all, the career and the family? But now what’s that we hear: Palin needs to get back in the kitchen and take care of her kids.
I am almost shocked with the hypocrisy, but then again, for all the anger and conviction leftist thought never struck me as all that deep or sincere.
Who's saying Palin needs to get back in the kitchen? You're arguing with a figment of your imagination, TDC.
Sarah Palin shouldn't be vice president because she's unethical, hypocritical, and ignorant.
She's campaigning as a reformer while she's under investigation for abusing her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. She has been lying about her record on the Bridge To Nowhere. She's a close political ally of the notoriously corrupt Sen. Ted Stevens, who is under FBI investigation.
Her radical religious and social beliefs are far outside the American mainstream. She wants to outlaw all abortions and favors teaching young earth creationism in public schools.
Today, she revealed that she didn't even know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private companies. She thought they were part of the federal government. A few months ago, she let slip in an interview that she didn't even know what the vice president did.
She's an embarrassment.
Lindsay, I appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate your ignorance.
How in the name of GOD, can she even think about leaving her child or taking her child on the campaign trail for 70 days?- Andrew Sullivan
Kristan, we've talked this morning about whether a mother of five can handle being the vice president. who looks after the kids when she's working? do you know?" Maggie Rodriguez CBS
Some men, who appear otherwise quite normal, seem incapable of looking at the United States vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin without suddenly having their legs turn to spaghetti and their minds to mush. The idea of a moose-hunting, attractive young woman being a heartbeat away from the White House is casting an erotic spell that's seemingly swamping ordinarily rational critical faculties.- Canberra Times, Australia
The whole rhetoric around conservative family values has everything to do with mom – with a capital M – being at home, with the kids preferably home schooling them. So, she's appealing to that particular segment of the population, she's presenting herself as being in that place. But, obviously, she's not. She's governor of Alaska - Meredith Michaels
Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at 3 in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make Sally Quinn
You’ve come along way baby! (this is just a small sample)
Face it, McCain made the gutsiest move of his career and America and the RNC base absolutely loves it! This is going to lead an electoral skull fucking of Obama/Biden this November.
Surely you can do better than that, TDC. Can't you come up with even one well-known liberal or feminist?
Andrew Sullivan is a self-proclaimed conservative. Maggie Rodriguez is a CBS anchor and hardly a liberal or a feminist.
The Canberra Times quote has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Sally Quinn is a DC socialite and dilettante religion writer who is neither a liberal or a feminist.
I've never heard of Meredith Michaels, but she seems to be pointing out that Palin isn't living up to social conservative ideals of wifely submission and domesticity. Micheals isn't saying that Palin ought to go back into the kitchen, she's saying that Palin is a hypocrite for implying that a woman's place is in the kitchen in her own campaign for higher office.
I've never heard of Meredith Michaels, but she seems to be pointing out that Palin isn't living up to social conservative ideals of wifely submission and domesticity.
I realize you spend most of your life with bag on your head and your fingers in your ear, but what rag did you read that in?
Micheals isn't saying that Palin ought to go back into the kitchen, she's saying that Palin is a hypocrite for implying that a woman's place is in the kitchen in her own campaign for higher office.
When has Palin ever said, or implied (certainly not be her own example) that a womans place is in the kitchen? Talk about "from the made it up department".
The prosepect of McCain and this right wing babe mauling the living be-Jesus out of Obama and Biden really has your panties all up in a bunch, dont it?
I can hear you quaking from miles honey cake.
You still haven't given me an example of any liberal or feminist who says Palin should get back in the kitchen.
You've listed a bunch of people who aren't liberals or feminists, or who aren't saying Palin should get back in the kitchen.
You lose. Make me a sandwich.
Honey cakes, they have a term for ignoring any evidence put in front of you because it conflicts with your worldview: cognitive dissonance.
You lose sweetie, and come november it will be freaking spectacular!
The point is, every feminist alive is out there beating back against Palin's anti-woman policies, which would have real effects on them should she gain office. These feminists are concerned with issues, legislation and judicial verdicts, not your useless identity politics wedge about "staying in the kitchen". Crow all you want about Palin's energizing of the base (which has some sexist connotations of its own, methinks), there's no hypocrisy here.
The point is, every feminist alive is out there beating back against Palin's anti-woman policies, which would have real effects on them should she gain office.
Anti-woman record? Oh, that’s right, any one who opposed legal abortion is “anit woman”, how silly of me to thing that I could usurp this lexicon.
But not every feminist alive thinks this to be true. I read a great piece from Camille Paglia the other day (I know, she’s not a “real feminists”)
These feminists are concerned with issues, legislation and judicial verdicts, not your useless identity politics wedge about "staying in the kitchen".
These “feminists” are concerned that they will no longer be the gatekeepers of “feminisms” and with the loss of that status so to goes the political and cultural power and influence they have amassed. How ironic that they have worked so hard just to pave the pay for a right wing woman to fulfill their birthrights. Makes me all warm and gooey inside.
Crow all you want about Palin's energizing of the base (which has some sexist connotations of its own, methinks), there's no hypocrisy here.
Crow I will Evan … all the way to January when McCain/Palin takes office. LOL! I will laugh at every tear shed by every Obamabot.