Hillary ostensibly supports Obama, but presumably she still wants to be President. So we might think she secretly wants McCain to win, so she can run in 2012. She'll get to start running immediately upon Obama's loss and will instantly spring back to into place as the most important Democrat, with 4 more years of being in the spotlight as the presidential frontrunner, the glamorous life she's been accustomed to. If Obama wins, she will probably have to wait until 2016, and she'll be older than McCain is now, i.e., really old. [CORRECTION: She'll only be 69, i.e., rather old.]
How does Palin change anything?
[I]f McCain wins, Palin is vice president and at least gets a very good shot at becoming the heir apparent to Republican nomination for the presidency. This would take Hillary's issue -- her firstness -- away from her, and Hillary would become a lot more like just another Democratic pol.But if Obama wins, he's first-y too, and firstiness will lose pizzazz.
And many liberal women and feminists will be horrified at the idea that the first woman President would be an anti-choice conservative, so if McCain wins and Palin moves forward as the next Republican nominee, support for Hillary could galvanize.
ADDED: I just reread "She'll get to start running immediately upon Obama's loss and will instantly spring back to into place as the most important Democrat, with 4 more years of being in the spotlight as the presidential frontrunner, the glamorous life she's been accustomed to" and felt a surge of support for Obama!
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
And many liberal women and feminists will be horrified at the idea that the first woman President would be an anti-choice conservative
I respectfully nominate this passage for Understatement of the Year. (Perhaps you could host such a competition on or about December 31?)
And many liberal women and feminists will be horrified at the idea that the first woman President would be an anti-choice conservative
The only question that really matters:
Are there enough of those bitches who will actually vote and make a difference in the election?
I think Hillary will slowly morph into Teddy (not physically) if she's smart. She could craft law instead of polarizing people.
Maybe after Bush, we'll have learned that two presidencies per legacy family is enough
Stop communicating in brain dead buzz words. She's not "anti-choice." Anti-abortion is what she is.
If Obama wins, she will probably have to wait until 2016, and she'll be older than McCain is now, i.e., really old.
Um - Wrong. She was born on October 26th, 1947. That means she'll be 61 this innauguration day. In 8 years, she'd be 69 on innauguration day. That's 3 years younger than McCain is today.
Clarence Thomas had a difficult childhood in straitened circumstances--much more so than Obama or, for that matter, the Rev. Wright. Although he has a darker skin and greater knowledge of hard times than those two, he no longer qualifies as black. He is much whiter than Bill Clinton even. You are not black unless you share the offical liberal position on black issues. Although Obama felt stricken, when he had to let critical words about the Rev. Wright pass his lips, he felt no such reticence about Clarence Thomas. That's because Clarence is not black like him......So it is with women. Although many right wing fools will mistake her for a woman, she clearly isn't. On the one key issue that defines femininity, the issue of abortion, she is clearly a transvestite. You cannot be a real woman and opposed to abortion.
Hillary! wants to be president very badly, but can't run at all in '12 if O wins this time out. And she'll be pushing 70 if she has to wait until '16, at a time when she won't have the "I told you so and would have beaten McC" argument to help her along. From her perspective, I don't see much of a "conundrum."
Palin doesn't change anything. She may set up the possibility of a Hillary! vs. Sarah contest, but so what. "Liberal women and feminists" don't often rally to Republicans, regardless of what flavor the particular Republican may come in. And the abortion issue is just a way of talking about SCOTUS nominees. From the "liberal women and feminist" perspective, all Republicans look pretty much alike when it comes to potential SCOTUS nominees.
Hillary's objective is to return to the White House, this time in the top spot rather than as first helper. So she is probably rooting for McC to win. Best case for Hillary is if McC wins as Bush did in '00, i.e., an electoral college majority while losing the popular vote.
The real conundrum for Hillary! is whether there is anything she can do to bring that about, in a way that Team O won't notice. I think that exceeds even the talents of the Clintons, assuming she were inclined to try. And I don't think she is so inclined.
Froma the comments to the WaPo "The Palin Stunner" piece:
"gronamox1 wrote:
Aside from her grating voice, her spunkiness, her belief in letting men decide how her body should function, knowingly bringing a severely handicapped child to term and abuse of power charges looming-she is a treasure. A forty four year old mother of five with one year in Govt. running for the VP. Yes, she is like the little lamb to the slaughter. Where do you think we are? This is post 9/11. Planet Earth. My wife was educated at Yale. Do you think anyone with any sense will vote for this fool. Why don't you just spit in the faces of all those who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan while Mrs. throwback to the 1950's takes the braces off her brains and finds out where Washington D.C. is located on the big map. Republican Party-dead on arrival. McCain is a disgrace to everything and everyone in the Armed Forces.
8/29/2008 2:28:21 PM"
Most.Entertaining.Election.Ever!
But if Obama wins, he's first-y too, and firstiness will lose pizzazz.
But if Obama wins and he does poorly at the presidency, wouldn't it be better for Hillary to challenge Obama?... As opposed to challenging a successful McCain Palin first term?
Of course a poor Obama administration would have to be worst than Carter.
Jessus.
It's well understood that if Obama wins he is president for eight years.....
Why is this a given particularly with all the problems we will face, e.g., deepening energy crisis, further crisis in banking/financial institutions, continuing housing crisis, possible/probable recession, crashing dollar/inflation ...
If he wins and if he is a one-term president, she won't have a chance in 2012. Chances are country will go Republican.
After that who knows. The problems are myriad and I think, fundamental in nature that band-aid solutions will not solve.
Listened to T.Boone Pickens interview in which he mentioned speaking to both McCain and Obama. Good chance her energy background is why McCain selected Palin. She recently signed licensing for a natural gas pipeline.
It's interesting that no matter what Clinton does, it's interpreted by some in the most devious, Machiavellian manner possible by some people even though her campaign showed that she doesn't excel at hardcore underhanded scheming.
I recall (cite details are fuzzy but I could probably dig them up) that in one study teachers were given (randomly chosen) labels like 'gifted', 'troublemaker', 'slow' etc about students before dealing with them in class. Once they had the label to guide their perceptions, anything the student did was seen as evidence for the label. 'Slow' students talked in class because they couldn't keep up and were disengaged, 'troublemakers' talked in class because of their disruptive tendencies, 'gifted' students talked in class because they were so far ahead they got bored easily.
Let's go with Occam's razor and leave out the Spider Lady scenarios: Clinton ran a credible hard campaign, lost a very close race for a variety of reasons, has endorsed the victor of the race and is probably too disappointed/tired/disoriented to do any real clear planning (or scheming) for the time being. And her future plans will depend on what happens in the general election.
It makes one wonder. Does Hillary cry herself to sleep at night? Alone, without the comfort of what's his name.
Labels: emotional Hillary!
They just don't get it! Out-of-step Heather Mac Donald says McCain "has just ensured that the diversity racket will be an essential component of presidential politics."
The Dems just don’t get it. They created the diversity racket. It is nice to see their own weapon pointed at their head. Yep, Palin was a suicidal pick for John McCain. Suicidal for the Democrats.
But how awesome would that be: a Sarah Palin v. Hillary Clinton race!
For a fleeting minute, I considered making an in-poor-taste, sarcastic quip about girl fights. Then I discovered there's a website called girlsfightdump. The temptation fled. Sigh.
William said.. On the one key issue that defines femininity, the issue of abortion,
I dont think that is the case anymore. At least as much as it used to.
Hysteria to the contrary, Alito and majorities after republican appointment majorities since Roe have ostensibly failed to exorcise abortion on demand.
You don't hear the cries of wolf as much as we used to ;)
Re: woman for woman's sake.
I'm not exactly sure people understand what a woman as President meant to women.
Take my mum. Please. Boomtish.
A lifelong Liberal but a staunch Catholic, she's not terribly political or ideological either way. She voted for Reagan in '88, twice for Clinton, then for Bush twice.
She was ecstactic to vote for Hillary this year, and I thought I was losing another McCain vote in my household. It wasn't to be.
But she was horrified at what they did to Hillary in the media, and by the commentaries she heard (especially by men) around her.
So when Palin came along, she threw in her lot with McCain.
Hillary is a die-hard pro-Choice feminist. Palin is a principled pro-Life feminist.
To my mother, what matters is that they are women who are making history, and are competent in what they do (Hillary showed guts in the campaign, Palin she likes for months now, since I haven't been able to shut up about her).
Those of you thinking that this is a stupid way to vote for people and that they are bigots, I would say: yeah, maybe.
But something tells me that if a black person told you they were so upset that a black man didn't get on the ticket after all, that they wouldn't be voting, very few people would point fingers and chastise them.
Hillary ostensibly supports Obama, but presumably she still wants to be President
It is said (by Arianna Huffington) that Cindy and John McCain told her that they didn't vote for Bush in '00. Bad feelings, if you believe the story is true.
(Little Meghan McCain revealed she voted for Kerry in '04)
I think Hillary will vote for McCain, secretly, in the dead of morning.
Team Obama dislike the Clintons enormously. Their have been ostracised ex-Presidents in the past. Truman during the Eisenhower years. Carter, during the Reagan years.
(Curiously, Clinton was always gracious to GHW Bush, largely because they shared the same economic ideology)
IMO, this serves Hillary well. If Obama wins, she will have to distance himself from him anyway, because WHOMEVER takes over will have a rough time. USA's enemies always like to test a new president early, to see what they are made of. The economy is rebounding, but it's still in the end of decade market correction.
So yes, if I were Hillary, I would cheer on McCain.
Cheers,
Victoria
I think the question for many feminists is how can I have a fling with Palin (it's like the Olympics, not many opportunities) and not completely leave Hillary.
Remember how well loved Ms. Palin is in Alaska?. The know her well. So, what are they saying today:
Fairbanks Daily News: Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation’s when he created the possibility that she might fill it. It’s clear that McCain picked Palin for reasons of image, not substance.
Anchorage Daily News: “She’s not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? said [State Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla].
Juneau Empire: “Some in Ketchikan react to nomination with concern, ire”: In her acceptance speech as McCain’s running mate Friday morning, Palin held up her opposition to the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina - the “bridge to nowhere” - as an example of “the abuses of earmark spending.”…When campaigning in Ketchikan in September 2006, Palin promised Ketchikan residents the bridge.
Althouse would be the first to recognize all of these criticisms if she was not blinded by, well, a haircut and some lipstick. gloss. apparently.
Remember how you claimed this election was all about national security; that was your first concern! Now you are willing to fawn over a complete lightweight who has no qualifications whatsoever to take over if/when old man McCain dies.
Imagine what a “cruel neutrality” approach to Palin would be!! And you’ll have to imagine it because nothing close will ever be written by Althouse.
“She’s not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?
2x president Bill Clinton said.
"You could argue that no one is ready to be president"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_d3KwdneBk&feature=related
"The job is sui generis. The presidency is an act of faith."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but if McCain is elected, it makes it very probable that there will be a female President of the United States in 2013 or 2017.
If McCain doesn't run for a 2nd term, a female President would be virtually assured, since the likely match-up in 2012 will be Clinton v. Palin, both of whom would be nominated by acclimation.
If McCain does run for a 2nd term and wins against Hillary, it's unlikely she would run again in 2016, but Palin surely would, so the chances would still be decent.
Hillary Clinton should do everything she can to see that McCain/Palin wins. How long before it becomes conventional wisdom that women can't win national election if the second female vice president choice in 25 years goes down in flames?
First is overrated. Power is not.
Downtownlad,
You should (but likely won't) appreciate this.
Basically, the Obama campaign has put up a website saying that a vote for McCain-Palin is a vote for gay rights.
Oh True Patriot,
You are so scared of a woman.
Here's also what Alaskans say about her that you so conveniently left out:
80% approval rating. Highest for any Governor in the nation.
But you and your kind would rather suck the media tit, so you wouldn't actually even know that, now would you?
How sad!
Oh True Patriot (what will you leave us this time?),
Now you are willing to fawn over a complete lightweight who has no qualifications whatsoever .
So, I guess this means you won't be voting for Obama, doesn't it?
"and felt a surge of support for Obama"
Pathetic.
And as for you dolts who think any newspaper (or traditional network) in the US is objective about anything to the right of Marx, get a life. Quotes from the liberal rags are just that - liberal rag quotes. Stop trying to ascribe some actual value or meaning and present the junk as "argument". You are talking to yourselves.
Althouse lives in the NYT and WaPo and various other left-leaning (or devoted) garbage dumps. If she has an excuse, it's to stimulate discussion. Beyond that is only a wasteland inhabited by libtards who enjoy contemplating each other's navels and seeing great "truths" therein.
Question for the Obamaniacs.
You seem to have a problem with Palin's experience level, and claim Obama's is much higher.
Please detail the accomplishments of Obama; then we can have the accomplishments of Palin provided by one of the Republican backers here.
Not positions held. Accomplishments.
Thanks in advance.
William said...
"Although many right wing fools will mistake [Palin] for a woman, she clearly isn't. On the one key issue that defines femininity, the issue of abortion, she is clearly a transvestite. You cannot be a real woman and opposed to abortion."
This may actually be the most idiotic thought that anyone has ever seen fit to overdignify by articulating into words. And given the Anti-Althousian Horde, it faces some stiff competition for that title without even leaving these four walls. Women are defined by abortion? Only pro-choice women are real women? For your sake I hope you're very, very young, or already a ward of the state.
True Patriot sinveledRemember how you claimed this election was all about national security; that was your first concern! Now you are willing to fawn over a complete lightweight who has no qualifications whatsoever to take over if/when old man McCain dies.
First you are making the assumption that McCain is going to die while in office.
Second. You are claiming that somehow Obama is more qualified to be Commander in Chief and secure the United States against enemies. Just how excactly is Obama more qualified in either being Commander in Chief or having more diplomacy skills? Seriously. Give us the ways.
Personally when it comes down to the security of the US I would rely on a person like Palin, who is a tough cookie, than a cream puff like Obama.
Just in case you haven't noticed or don't have the brainpower to figure it out. Palin is not running for President but rather the second in command, and that position IS an on the job learning experience. Obama, who has much less experience IS running for the first position. No comparison at all.
You are just afraid because you know that a McCain/Palin ticket is energizing and represents TRUE change, unlike the Obama/Biden ticket which merely reflects politics as usual and the good old boy network. You are going to lose this election and all the baby faced whining, shit throwing and holding your breath until you turn blue isn't going to bring you any new voters.
I'm going to not read any of the other comments here (I don't know any of these folks and couldn't care less about their opinions), and I am simply going to say "Thank you, Ann, for keeping what appears to be an open mind on Governor Palin". I'm still learning about her, and nothing has really turned me off so far, and unlike so many other blogging sites (DailyKos, The Daily Dish), you have not torched the woman for her beliefs OR spoke out of both sides of your cyber-mouth on her. Thank you for not joining the typical internet scream symphony and for keeping a cool dispassionate head.
(I don't know any of these folks and couldn't care less about their opinions)
LOL Well now!
Well now indeed.
This is interesting.
But so is this response:
"Actually, she should be treated as the yokel that she is.
She's a horrible person as far as i'm concerned, from a strip mall town of almost all white people. She wants polar bears off the ES list. She kills wolves. She is for corporate rural sprawl.
You're helping the narrative by giving her credence.
Stop it.
She's a butthole. "
Clinton would only be 69 in 2016. McCain just turned 72.
Simon: It is my sincere belief that Clarence Thomas is a black man and Sarah Palin is a woman. I was using a rhetorical device called irony. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Simon should probably be a little embarrassed for missing the obvious irony.
But then, maybe he's been hanging out where similar thoughts are expressed sincerely.
(I don't know any of these folks and couldn't care less about their opinions)
LOL Well now!
Yes, I'm torn between "Same to you, buddy!" and sheer admiration for the Express Straight Talk!
Jeff with 1 f was quoting someone at 12:28 --
Why don't you just spit in the faces of all those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq while Mrs. throwback to the 1950's takes the braces off her brains and finds out where Washington D.C. is located on the big map.
Uummm .... you can check this out, (google: Palin Hoover Institute -- first hit) You'll see Gov. Palin addressing the Hoover Institute Board, the Stanford University-based public policy research center, on Feb. 26, 2008, in Washington, D.C. about the Alaskan natural gas pipeline.
Gee whiz. She found her way to Washington D.C. Must have been her team of huskies that helped her get there.
Did they understand her Alaskan, I wonder?
Correction: Hoover Institution
Ann,
"ADDED: I just reread "She'll get to start running immediately upon Obama's loss and will instantly spring back to into place as the most important Democrat, with 4 more years of being in the spotlight as the presidential frontrunner, the glamorous life she's been accustomed to" and felt a surge of support for Obama!"
As a consolation prize, should we Republicans loose in the fall, at least the Clintons will be dead as a political force. Forever.
Yep, True Patriot, prominent machine politician Lyda Green, who has taken so many hits from Sarah Palin's reform efforts that she's leaving the Alaskan Senate, trashed Sarah Palin.
You know, I also heard that Al Capone disliked Eliot Ness? What a black mark for Mr. Ness.
William - apologies. the trouble with making an effort to be open-minded and to read liberal blogs is that you end up seeing things so absurd that it dulls one's sensitivity with an endless parade of things written seriously that one would hope were in jest.
Steven:
Thanks - you saved the rest of us having to research why Lyda Green, a Republican, dislikes Palin.
It would be fun to see McCain and Palin win and cut ties with all the ancient incumbents in Congress huh?
Anyone here think Palin might look a bit like Margaret Thatcher in 25 years?
Much of the entrenched establishment, Republican & Democrat, fears and loathes Palin because she is a reformer, so there are many people grinding their axes up there right now, particularly amongst that faction of the GOP that wanted to keep things the way they were. They will be useful tools for the Obama campaign and its enablers in the mainstream media.
Victoria,
"But something tells me that if a black person told you they were so upset that a black man didn't get on the ticket after all, that they wouldn't be voting, very few people would point fingers and chastise them."
If it was someone I actually knew, or someone who asked my opinion, I'd say that I certainly understood their disappointment, but not their ceding the vote to others. (If it was just a random passing stranger, I'd probably just shrug and pass on by, rather than lecture them on their politics.)
Palin has been a governor, and a mayor, and these are both closer approximations to the job of POTUS than any job Obama, or Biden, has ever held.
Biden graduated law school, and then became a senator 3 years later, and has done nothing else. Obama has been a "community organizer", a lawyer, a law teacher, a state senator, and a US senator. Neither of these two turds has ever hired anyone (except maybe a gardener or a pool boy). Neither has ever had to make a payroll, or lead men into combat, or actually produce anything constructive -- they've done nothing but turn arugula and chardonnay into poop. Arugula and chardonnay that was ultimately paid for by you and me, the American tax payer.
So Palin, who's actually done real work, who's run a city government and a state government as an executive, is unqualified...to be Veep? Wow. If it wasn't for the overpowering stench of hypocrisy, I'd swear I could detect the subtle background aroma of sexism. Liberals believe she's too soft and unqualified because she's female, just as they believe that blacks need a hand up because they're genetically inferior.
And as for being tough enough: She regularly kills, field dresses, and cooks her own food. There are chunks of men tougher than Obama and Biden in her stool.
Liberals just got done deciding between Clinton and Obama as their POTUS, not VP, nominee -- and neither has any executive experience. What exactly is the value of experience in the Senate, with respect to the position of POTUS? We don't need someone who thinks they know everything, some idiot who whats to push troop pawns around on a giant earth-shaped chessboard and "tweak" the economy with their brilliant economic theories. We need an executive: Someone who surrounds themselves with experts on these topics, and uses their judgment to determine the best course. Senators have no demonstrated ability in this sort of position.
Fortunately, McCain has experience beyond the Senate. He led the largest squadron in the Navy. He served in combat. He's demonstrated judgment and character. He's not my first choice (Romney's background as a successful businessman is, in my opinion, the ideal background for the position of POTUS), but he's a damned sight better than Obama or Biden. And Palin might actually be the best of the 4.
She eats moose burgers, for phuck's sake. Moose burgers. The debate is over -- the science is settled.
A lot is riding on Palin now.
She's being rejected by pro-Choice feminists, but not by women in general.
However, all of us are watching her every step -- her future appearances have to be at the very least, professional.
Given the aplomb in her speech (she writes her own, which could account for the fact that she doesn't use teleprompters, as much as others), I'd say she can.
But like Dubya, the media are ready to pounce on her every mistake. Instead of the Bush Method, which is to smirk at the hypocrisy of it all and cocoon himself with his cronies, I think she's going to take it to the media, and get the people, the little people -- the ones who find all these "podunk nowhere'sville town" references you hear everywhere to denigrate her, THOSE people will get on her side.
Just like the "first" of anything has to be a success, because it makes life easier for the same kind that follows, Hillary needs Palin to do well now.
If McCain/Palin is successful, and Palin is not spectacular but competent, it smooths the path for Hillary if she wants to be President. Visuals are very important. Once you get used to something, it becomes commonplace and welcome.
Two things about this:
- Hillary could possibly use Palin's incompetence against her, if that turns out to be the case. "I'LL do it better!", will be her unspoken rally cry.
- But a lot of the reason Hillary was rejected, not just by men but women, is that there are a lot of people out there, that are still uncomfortable with a woman leader.
Same deal with Barack and black Presidents, of course.
Not that the Palin thing translates to him, obviously. But I think it does with Hillary.
Cheers,
Victoria
"She's being rejected by pro-Choice feminists"
Well, at least by the loud ones and the ones with liberal media buddies - no doubt the same bastions of integrity who swooned over Slick Willie and his woman hobby. I wonder if any of the little lefty "journalists" have the balls to ask Hillary what she thinks of Palin's selection? Or did I miss the mushroom cloud?
It would be awful hard for Hillary to denigrate Palin after Palin's acceptance speech, don't you think?
I almost never agree with Bill Kristol but it happens. Yesterday,he claimed the MSM Beltway buzz was aghast at the Palin pick "because she has never even been on Meet The Press".
True patriot said...
Remember how you claimed this election was all about national security; that was your first concern! Now you are willing to fawn over a complete lightweight who has no qualifications whatsoever to take over if/when old man McCain dies.
What qualifications does Obama have again?
having obammah lose would help hillary. there will be large democrat energy asafter 00 and 04 because of the loss, but likely transferrable to her. akso we are heading for a rough 4 vyears so likely that whoever is stuck with the keys will get blamed. plus of course the 4 years later to run aspect.
Ann Althouse said: ADDED: I just reread "She'll get to start running immediately upon Obama's loss and will instantly spring back to into place as the most important Democrat, with 4 more years of being in the spotlight as the presidential frontrunner, the glamorous life she's been accustomed to" and felt a surge of support for Obama!
Well that's pathetic, don't you think?. You translated a fear into an impulse- and wrote about it!
disappointing.
AJ Lynch said...
"Anyone here think Palin might look a bit like Margaret Thatcher in 25 years?"
No. But I'll say this for Margaret Thatcher: No one who lived through those years has the slightest doubt that a woman can be tough enough to lead a nation in war and peace. (Victoria and Elizabeth, RR., are not counterexamples, regina regnant sed non gubernat.
truly amazing--men are commenting on Gov Palin--but I am much more interested in our female commenters--who, at this point, seem to applaud Gov palin Victoria, reader, dust bunny--your views are far more important on this question than the mens--I continue to look forward to your takes
Simon wrote:
But I'll say this for Margaret Thatcher: No one who lived through those years has the slightest doubt that a woman can be tough enough to lead a nation in war and peace.
What a woman, my God. What a woman.
(Did you hear that Carol Thatcher has recently written a Mommie Dearest, wholly contrary to her previous devoted daughter routine?)
She reminds me of Robert DeNiro's line in an upcoming film, where he says about being a policeman:
"Some people respect the badge. Everyone respects the gun."
Margaret Thatcher was the human equivalent of being the gun.
P.S.: I posted this photo on blog.
Palin has a bit of iron in her, I fancy.
I got nostalgic just now, for more Margaret Thatcher.
All Palin needs is one line like this during the VP debate, and all that "experience" chatter will die right off.
I don't think Palin can cultivate the look of utter steely disdain in so short a time, however.
Though being from Alaska might help. That look could freeze summer itself.
The whole question presumes a much longer term view. I'm sure a McCain win would be a long term aid to Hillary's ambitions. But there's no way she can do anything about it or say anything about it without sabotaging those ambitions.
Looking at the short term, a tight race is in her favor. And the Palin pick also helps. It makes it all the more important for Obama that Hillary be out campaigning for him.
This allows for the Clintons to push the Obama campaign to give them what they want in exchange for a more active role. Especially if they still haven't made a deal for their campaign debts yet.
Roger J.: Hmmmm. Don't think I've applauded anyone.
"--your views are far more important on this question than the mens--"
Um...
Why?
I mean, why would my (female) views on this element of politics be more or less important than my other views of politics, policy and world events?
My opinion (for example) of the affect that a Sarah Palin win might have on feminism is formed pretty much the same way as a man's opinion on the same subject would be formed. I would like to see a different focus to feminism... a fourth wave?.. because I don't like the third wave much and I feel that some of the older feminists I know and respect are still living in a different world. And maybe a conservative, pro-life, female VP (or president in years ahead) will help us get past this "Feminism = Liberalism/abortion" thing that is going on.
That would be good. I think.
But it wouldn't be a case of me, as a woman, changing my views about anything at all, and what *other* women might do is pretty much as opaque to me as it is to men or anyone else.
Frankly, I think that men have a tendency to defer to women's opinions on some things, not out of respect, but out of pure moral laziness.
Frankly, I think that men have a tendency to defer to women's opinions on some things, not out of respect, but out of pure moral laziness.
Hey, it's not always moral laziness. Sometimes we just don't want to get off the couch.
If Governor Palin can make some small progress towards correcting the mistaken notion that "feminist" has any correlation with "female", I'll tip my hat to her.
I rather think she will.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा