Posted on 09/26/2008 3:24:39 AM PDT by acsuc99
WASHINGTON -- If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream -- away from Sarah Palin.
To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president -- and possibly president -- is to risk being labeled anti-woman.
Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick -- what a difference a financial crisis makes -- and a more complicated picture has emerged.
As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan's president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)
And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she's had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).
Finally, Palin's narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain's running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood -- a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.
It was fun while it lasted.
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there. Here's but one example of many from her interview with Hannity "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this."
When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?"
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.
What to do?
McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
Asking for clarification of WHICH “Bush Doctrine” is NOT the same as not knowing what it is.
Some league. Joe Biden is a human dribble glass of blow hard blarney and the accomplishment-challenged Obama is a mumbling stuttermeister without his teleprompter/pacifier.
Palin is being held to a standard that can't even be met by either man on the Democratic ticket.
This statement, no matter how true, under the current circumstances is so far from reality that it is funny - if it weren't so sad.
“The POTUS should have both. Like Mitt.”
Well, should those degrees be in business management, or history, or diplomacy, or economics, or law, or agriculture,or medicine, or from a military academy, or...
That’s the problem with attaching too much importance to degrees. Presidents (and those in Congress) must deal with issues in every field. Common sense and good judgment are far more important than advanced degrees, or what one majored in. Presidents have practically unlimited access to advisors with advanced degrees and years of experience in various fields.
And with the politically correct and multicultural content of most curricula these days, too much advanced education might not be a plus, especially from the Ivy League which has “led” the nation in PCness for years.
Sarah is a QUICK Study and fully capable of listening to experts at all levels of industry or foreign or domestic policy and MAKING decisions as a result...JUST LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT DOES!!!!
Too bad you missed a FULL HALF of the interviews, Kathleen. Sarah has just added YU to her growing bag of trash that needs to be put out on the curb.
“I will comfortably assume by making this statement that you do not have an advnaced degree. Of course you are not running for President so that does not matter”
You know what happens when you “assume”. ;-)
“An advanced degree in the form of a Masters degree is a much deeper look at a broad field - for instance business, finance, engineering, agriculture. The real focus comes with a PhD - which indeed is far more than a President needs.”
“A much deeper look at a broad field” - lol!
“Education teaches you how to analyze problems. AAn advanced degree will help you focus on particular field, but it also helps with thinking in general.”
As will thinking outside the campus. Thinkers think, those who are disinclined don’t.
“The degree thing is a proxy for that - the current POTUS doesn’t appear to think enough either.”
Thereby torpedoing your entire point! Great job! :-)
(President Bush has a Harvahd MBA after all...)
This election involves a very simple choice. Don’t let all your education get in the way! ;-)
As a retired Foreign Service Officer and someone who has worked for 36 years in the USG, IMO, none of the candidates are experts on foreign policy. Far from it. The real problem is that that they think they are. FYI: There are plenty of foreign policy "experts" in the USG, but they rarely agree on anything, so ultimately, the President must decide what is the best course of action. Judgment rather than expertise is what is required from the President.
I would prefer history. It provides perspective. It humbles and it requires a mind that can comprehend large amounts of information. Although I don’t always agree with Buchanan, he has a very sharp mind. I think he a better historian than politician though.
Several things are off in your post. Some excellent presidents either did not have a post-graduate degree or one at all. Neither Lincoln nor Truman had a college degree, and Reagan only had a bachelors. And at a very small midwest college with no national reputation. As to the Bush doctrine there are four different versions of the Bush Doctrine. Her version was very close to the original. Reagan never traveled much outside the U.S. either, but where does it say foreign travel makes great leaders? And if you thought she wasn’t bright judging by her acceptance speech at the convention (where she wowed many non-Republican observers), then I guess you’re going to not like her no matter what.
Elitist nonsense.
And this is bad because....? This is an asset quality and can be used both ways. My own personal favorite heroine from the Old Testament was Jael, who was also gracious, charming and hospitable to her enemy...just before she drove a tent stake through his head! The dumb lug never saw it coming!
Kathleen Parker is Out Of Her League in pretending to be a savvy political analyst.
I second that.
There you go again. Reagan didn't have foreign policy experience either other that the state/foreign country business dealings similar to Palin. Bush II wasn't an expert on foreign policy either. But maybe you think ousting two Islamo-fascist governments has been a disaster.
Education teaches you how to analyze problems. AAn advanced degree will help you focus on particular field, but it also helps with thinking in general.
I'll agree and disagree. First, some fields of education teach you to analyze problems. Others teach you more and more mechanics. I think it is fair to say that you are painting with an overly broad brush. Go talk to a Masters in Education if you want an example.
I think what your analysis misses is that good leaders establish direction based on a set of principles, then rely on others for technical guidance and implementation. We had a "technician" president in Carter, and to a lesser degree, Johnson. That didn't go so well.
In that situation, there are two parameters to consider. First, how do the candidate's principles compare to my own? Second, does he/she consistently adhere to those principles? McCain's deviation from stated his stated principles, evidenced by many of his populist positions, always made me a little uncomfortable with him. Obama's adherence to principles that go against everything I believe make him a non-starter.
Palin's commitment to conservative principles of smaller government, free markets, and individual liberty has yet to be determined IMO, but I like what I see. If she is smart enough to surround herself with good technicians who would adhere to her principles, and to insist on support for those principles will determine if she is a good leader. A graduate degree doesn't cause that to happen, nor does it prevent it.
Romney had some great techical ideas, but his history showed that he was too often willing to compromise on his stated principles for political purposes. Sadly, that didn't make him unique among those who ran for the nomination.
I don't need the smartest guy in the world to be President. I want the wisest. Wisdom in not necessarily a function of education.
A perfectly acceptable answer. How is one supposed to answer a question that's based on a non-scientific opinion poll of people who don't have a clue about the economy?
For most of us, even the very articulate, there is a desire to fill dead air with sounds, and we start our mouths working before we have even fully digested and considered a question. There’s no time to digest and consider when you’re on TV, especially when you know you’re going to be producing a 15-second sound bite. This, I am afraid, is what Palin does. It is what the vast majority of politicians do. It doesn’t indicate a lack of intelligence or preparation. It does indicate that one really can’t say directly what is on one’s mind, because speaking the way people do in private life is not acceptable on TV.
Obama’s stuttering is partly due to lack of life experience and partly because he is slowly and laboriously thinking out loud while he delivers his answer.
I like your anaylsis. I will go with Wisdom. It is certainly better than a piece of paper. However, does Wisdom not come with experience? One of Reagan’s greatest assets was years of experience.
What body of experience has Palin had really? Two years as governor is all well and good, but it certainly is nethier unique nor does it make her that well qualified. Especially since Alaska is not the most complex state in the Union in terms of the challenges it faces i.e. it gets a ton of money from oil and from taxpayers.
She is a mother of five, but I cannot make a leap from that position to POTUS.
She might have what it takes, but she is a roll of the dice. I am not inspired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.