And no disrespect to Palin, but her nomination was a political trick. A young female Republican governor who’s pro-life and pro-gun rights? How many of those can you find? Being able to find a woman who supports the conservatives’ patriarchal ideas must have been a coup for the GOP. So they get to have a first female candidate as a counter to the Democrats’ first black candidate, without actually having to change the way the system works. Ingenious.

They might have done even better with another black candidate, but I read that there weren’t all that many blacks (or any other minority, for that matter) at the Republican National Convention, were there? I wonder why?

…and prove once and for all how far women can make it: Vice President.

You have no idea how funny you are Intentionally at that

Third Party Candidate (specify in comment section)

Any with a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

My point wasn’t about whether Palin will help, just whether she really deserves to be a role model for women in the same way Hillary arguably was (by -doing- things worthy of the P/VP nomination). I think we agree, but if your argument is that she will attract female voters and thus “deserves” the VP slot, I think the issue is that I consider “deserves” to imply something “earned,” not given because of one’s gender.

Anyway, I don’t know much about Japan, but I believe women are still more gender-role forced than in America, so who knows, maybe they’re both a step up for Japan. It’s beyond my knowledge to say more.

McCain picked Palin because she’ll get him more support from the Republican base and because she’ll help him get more female votes, particularly those women who supported Hillary largely because she’s a woman but aren’t too high on Obama. She has an 80% approval rate in Alaska, so she must have been doing something right at the state level. Will it carry over on the national level? Was it a smart choice? Nobody knows until election day.

Obama picked Biden because he needed someone with experience, because while Obama has plenty of ideals, he doesn’t have a long track record. It’s not a flashy pick, but he had no real option other than to choose a Washington veteran.

Also, read above for my explanation as to why Hillary (for whom I honestly have no fondness) may be viewed as a ‘step forward’ for women, while Palin may not. It’s true she didn’t marry into power and so on, but she also hasn’t really done much of anything deserving of a VP nomination.

They aren’t really understood by the Democrats either.

Sorry, the set up was irresistable, and besides, some Democrat is probably thinking the same joke about Republicans. [Except my version is more funny, because it's true.]

Still, the Democrats spinning and betrayal of their now-former feminism is amusing. I don’t really love Palin, but she didn’t marry into power, nor have to leave her home state to get elected.
And then Dems crying about it just being a politcal trick, as if nominating the half-black Obama and then calling any of his critics “racist” isn’t.

Personally, I find Clinton grating and offensively wishy-washy as a politician, but there’s no doubt she was controlling the political game as was well as any of the old boys in Washington, D.C. Palin, on the other hand, is basically a playing piece in McCain’s game. Palin as a role model for women, if true, is just depressing.

Of course, Clinton owes her start in the senate to the fact that her husband was president. So maybe the lesson is that it still really is an old boys club, and there aren’t yet US presidential female candidates that you can really say “made it on their own steam.”