I guess what this article doesn't explain is, given that (lack of) policy and competence are the factors driving the author away from Palin, what drew her in the first place? "Common sense"? Lack of Birkenstocks?
I mean, I'm happy that she and so many others are finally seeing what's so wrong with Palin, but as someone who felt she was a terrible, irresponsible choice from the get-go, I don't really understand what's changed. It seems to me that now that she's made a few Quayle-esque verbal gaffes, women have decided it's okay to hate her. But she could be an intelligent leader and executive with bad public speaking skills. Yes, her fake-folksy-ism is cloying, but it's not the reason she's unqualified.
On another note, I couldn't be more sick of women like Parker who label others "anti-woman" for disliking Palin, or "feminist" for supporting her, or pull for her because she's of the same gender. If we were really liberated women equal to our male peers, we wouldn't feel the need for this baseless empowerment, which only seperates us further.
You know, that's a really good point. What the hell did they see in this chick in the first place? It goes against their credibility that they ever supported someone who has everything but gender in common with George W. Bush (unlike John McCain, who despite his recent turn to evil doesn't match the current president when it comes to evil, incompetence, and disregard for facts), even if they had the guts to admit it.
I guess maybe it really took seeing her in those interviews. I mean, as president the question is how she would respond in crisis mode. And when the candidate is clearly in crisis mode because she's sitting across from Katie Couric, that's got to be quite the awakening.
Finally - that joint interview they did was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Everything he said amounted to "Good God, woman, shut up unless the man speaks first," and everything she said amounted to "Good God, I should have let the man speak first."
I guess what this article doesn't explain is, given that (lack of) policy and competence are the factors driving the author away from Palin, what drew her in the first place? "Common sense"? Lack of Birkenstocks?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I'm happy that she and so many others are finally seeing what's so wrong with Palin, but as someone who felt she was a terrible, irresponsible choice from the get-go, I don't really understand what's changed. It seems to me that now that she's made a few Quayle-esque verbal gaffes, women have decided it's okay to hate her. But she could be an intelligent leader and executive with bad public speaking skills. Yes, her fake-folksy-ism is cloying, but it's not the reason she's unqualified.
On another note, I couldn't be more sick of women like Parker who label others "anti-woman" for disliking Palin, or "feminist" for supporting her, or pull for her because she's of the same gender. If we were really liberated women equal to our male peers, we wouldn't feel the need for this baseless empowerment, which only seperates us further.
You know, that's a really good point. What the hell did they see in this chick in the first place? It goes against their credibility that they ever supported someone who has everything but gender in common with George W. Bush (unlike John McCain, who despite his recent turn to evil doesn't match the current president when it comes to evil, incompetence, and disregard for facts), even if they had the guts to admit it.
ReplyDeleteI guess maybe it really took seeing her in those interviews. I mean, as president the question is how she would respond in crisis mode. And when the candidate is clearly in crisis mode because she's sitting across from Katie Couric, that's got to be quite the awakening.
Finally - that joint interview they did was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Everything he said amounted to "Good God, woman, shut up unless the man speaks first," and everything she said amounted to "Good God, I should have let the man speak first."