Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Heh. Think THIS may be how Palin was vetted?



thanks to Joe at AmericaBlog

7 comments:

polar donkey said...

You know what I miss, the old days when democrats and republicans would engage in flame wars on the blogs. It's not 2005 anymore. It's kind of boring today. I went looking to pick a fight today over at Blue Collar Republican and you had to be logged in to make a comment. Do I really need to be logged in to say Sarah Palin's husband is a traitor? It just isn't that fun anymore. Everybody is siloed in their own blogs now. The Commercial Appeal is about the only place to go and pick fights with wingnutters.

Katydid said...

Donkey, if I didn't agree with you most of the time, I'd suckerpunch you in a heartbeat.

ContrAltoDelete said...

Actually, I'm thinking of the old Jonathan Winters routine about "We paint the wagon all day long" and "How did she get the part?"
"Sing it honey. Sing it just like you did in my office....heh, heh.."

But seriously, folks: I'm of the school that OTOH the problems of one's teenage children should be off-limits, but that OTOH it's still OK to think and to say that maybe just maybe, if a woman has several kids including one pregnant teen who'll be keeping her baby, and another young baby with special needs, it may not be the ideal moment in her career to move up the ladder to vice president to a president who is a cancer survivor of relatively advanced age.

It's certainly OK to raise the issue of how she was chosen and vetted (or not) since if McCain wins he'll be looking for a cabinet and a couple of Supreme Court nominees. It's certainly OK to say it proves abstinence-only sex ed isn't so effective, and that her life is very different from the lives of both career women and stay-at-home moms whose votes she seeks.

Katydid said...

Oh but contraltodelete, saying that makes you sexist. I mean I said it on the flypaper theory, and aparently that makes me a self-loathing woman.

ContrAltoDelete said...

Well, katie, it depends on whether you think the goal of women's liberation was for women to be able to use their unique talents, or for everyone to be just alike. It depends on whether you believe that every woman is a superwoman or whether superwoman really exists.

Women do not get to be full time mothers and full time workers simultaneously without some accommodation, whether that accommodation is a supportive partner, a good nanny, on the job daycare and accommodating boss/coworkers, or an extended family to pick up the slack.

It's fair to ask whether a woman like Palin preached one thing and practiced another. Nothing sexist about that. BTW, the first time I voted for a woman for President was 1972 primary campaign, and I voted for HRC in the TN primary.

Let's admit that women feel torn between their first- and second-shift work, and that the answer isn't the same for everyone, but that it's not possible for a single parent to raise 5 children while being a "heartbeat from the Presidency" without some kind of support. No one does it all by herself except the fictitious woman in the "W-O-M-A-N" lyrics.

Katydid said...

I totally agree with you. I believe that women's lib existed to give women the choice to do whatever we want to do. It did not give us the superhuman ability to do everything we want to do. I mean, there's multitasking, and then there's effing your family in the ass.

Matthew Hurtt said...

Cracker -

I've added you to the "Liberal Lunacy" tab on the blog there. I appreciate your contribution to these discussions and to the local, state, and national debate.

Keep up the good work!

Matthew