1.) In the Pelosi threads, go back and count how many times the word "woman" comes up...on average, every other post. What does this say?

2.) In the first Palin thread, and in the beginning of the new one, there is a great deal of talk that refers to her attractiveness. What does this say?

3.) The whole "feminazi" issue...who are they? As a female and a Clinton supporter, if I don't blindly get behind McCain BECAUSE he chose a woman, am I a feminazi?

 

What part do the "boys club" really want women to play in politics? Most detest Pelosi...and for some, it has a least something to do with her being a woman...or maybe that just makes it worse. (Again, count all of the many "that woman" comments in those threads.)

 

Great post TB&G. From a societal view, most Americans view women as subservient homemakers. A woman in a role outside of that preordained status in society causes one to either view her as less capable than her male peers or a heretic. One being a knee-jerk, subconscious response, and the other being a very conscious sexist response.

 

I've posted this twice before, but it is an experiment you may take yourself with noticeable results. It produces an immediate, subconscious reaction that is often at odds with our conscious thoughts. It is certainly worth of view.

 

Do you really like Palin because you think that she can handle the job? Or had Obama picked the democratic equivalent of Palin (female governor of less then two years, no Washington experience), would you have crucified him?

 

That answer is obvious.

The gaping hole in all of this logic is that Obama, while inexperienced in terms of years of service, has articulated and explained his stances on issues, his plans and policies for every aspect of the Presidency, which is not true of Palin. I do not know where she stands (and it isn't for a lack of trying) on some of the more supremely important issues, including foreign policy and the economy. If a person votes for Obama, they know where he stands and what they are getting whereas a person voting for McCain does not know what they are getting if he were to be unable to perform the duties of office.

 

I'm on record here as saying that no one line of a resume makes a person qualified, or experienced for that matter, to be President. It is an incomparable job. I don't begrudge Palin for being the governor for a short time, or for being mayor of a small town. What I do, however, criticize is a complete lack of stances, thoughts, etc. From what I can tell, she hasn't had her eye on the national scene (at least not just yet), so she hasn't bothered to do so, as one would do if they formally announced running for national office. I, and the rest of the voters, know precious little about her politics, and what I do know I do not like.

Running for president is not in of itself a qualification for being president. The US Senate was in session less than 150 days before Obama decided to run. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on that fact, it does not speak loudly about his qualifications for the office.

 

Which positions that Obama has articulated should voters accept? Those that he espoused to win the nomination, those that he proclaims now, or the extreme left wing views that he held as an Illinois State Senator and community agitator?

 

Obama is a person willing to stand by while newborn babies die in agony while a hospital denies the infant any medical treatment. That one little character flaw disqualifies him for any elected office, IMO.

 

For most human beings, trying to ease human suffering comes naturally. Apparently, maintaining the political support of the nation's abortion lobby trumps human decency in Obama's book. Besides voting to allow infanticide, Obama had the audacity to lie about the reason for his vote and he lied about the content of the bill that his committee killed.

What I do, however, criticize is a complete lack of stances, thoughts, etc.

 

1) Pro-Life (talking the talk AND walking the walk)

2) Pro-2nd Amendment

3) Pro drilling for our own energy (in her own state)

 

I know that those are only 3, but don't give us this "complete lack of stances" non-sense.

Obama is a person willing to stand by while newborn babies die in agony while a hospital denies the infant any medical treatment. That one little character flaw disqualifies him for any elected office, IMO.

 

Couldn't agree more. That is cruelty to "the weakest among us".

 

 

Unacceptable.

1) Pro-Life (talking the talk AND walking the walk)

2) Pro-2nd Amendment

3) Pro drilling for our own energy (in her own state)

 

I know that those are only 3, but don't give us this "complete lack of stances" non-sense.

 

Did you read the rest of the post?

Did you read the rest of the post?

 

Yes. You had made a "truth-claim": that she had a "complete lack of stances". That is wholly untrue. (actually, I think it was hyperbole on your part - but it was still false)

 

 

Do we need to hear more? Yes. But don't say we don't know ANY of her stances.

Running for president is not in of itself a qualification for being president. The US Senate was in session less than 150 days before Obama decided to run. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on that fact, it does not speak loudly about his qualifications for the office.

 

I didn't say it was a qualification for being President.

 

Which positions that Obama has articulated should voters accept? Those that he espoused to win the nomination, those that he proclaims now, or the extreme left wing views that he held as an Illinois State Senator and community agitator?

 

Most reasonable people will analyze his positions and his records and determine the appropriate weighting.

 

Obama is a person willing to stand by while newborn babies die in agony while a hospital denies the infant any medical treatment. That one little character flaw disqualifies him for any elected office, IMO.

 

For most human beings, trying to ease human suffering comes naturally. Apparently, maintaining the political support of the nation's abortion lobby trumps human decency in Obama's book. Besides voting to allow infanticide, Obama had the audacity to lie about the reason for his vote and he lied about the content of the bill that his committee killed.

 

I'm struggling to find where this fits into either my post or this thread.

Yes. You had made a "truth-claim": that she had a "complete lack of stances". That is wholly untrue. (actually, I think it was hyperbole on your part - but it was still false)

 

 

Do we need to hear more? Yes. But don't say we don't know ANY of her stances.

 

If you read that line in conjunction with the rest of my post (context) it has a different meaning.

 

I do not know where she stands (and it isn't for a lack of trying) on some of the more supremely important issues, including foreign policy and the economy.

 

I, and the rest of the voters, know precious little about her politics, and what I do know I do not like.

 

Obviously, she has stances on issues. But, can you tell me what her stance is on Iraq? Free trade? Foreign aid? Taxes? Alternative energy? Diplomacy? Russia? China? Education? The developing world? Should I continue?

If you read that line in conjunction with the rest of my post (context) it has a different meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously, she has stances on issues. But, can you tell me what her stance is on Iraq? Free trade? Foreign aid? Taxes? Alternative energy? Diplomacy? Russia? China? Education? The developing world? Should I continue?

 

I'm waiting to be enlightened as well.

I didn't say it was a qualification for being President.

 

 

 

Most reasonable people will analyze his positions and his records and determine the appropriate weighting.

 

 

 

I'm struggling to find where this fits into either my post or this thread.

I am sorry that it is not obvious to you. Campaign promises are irrelevant to me. I look at what a candidate has accomplished. Obama spends a lot of time talking about relieving people's suffering and has detailed plans of what he plans to do for people using other people's money. But when he had the opportunity to stop the barbaric practice of infanticide in his home state he declined and in fact fought to allow the practice to continue.

 

Sara Palin has a real record of reform and has taken tough positions while placing her political career on the line. Fighting corruption within her own party is a great qualification for any candidate.

 

The contrast between Obama's rise to prominence through the corrupt Chicago Daley machine, which apparently finding no corruption to fight, is a stark contrast to the courage shown by Sarah Palin.

 

I like politicians who know right from wrong and strive to do right. Palin qualifies on that count and Obama fails miserably.

I am sorry that it is not obvious to you. Campaign promises are irrelevant to me. I look at what a candidate has accomplished. Obama spends a lot of time talking about relieving people's suffering and has detailed plans of what he plans to do for people using other people's money. But when he had the opportunity to stop the barbaric practice of infanticide in his home state he declined and in fact fought to allow the practice to continue.

I've searched and searched for a vote on infanticide in Illinois. I'll admit...I can't find one single reference to an Illinois vote on infanticide.

 

Sara Palin has a real record of reform and has taken tough positions while placing her political career on the line. Fighting corruption within her own party is a great qualification for any candidate.

 

The contrast between Obama's rise to prominence through the corrupt Chicago Daley machine, which apparently finding no corruption to fight, is a stark contrast to the courage shown by Sarah Palin.

 

I like politicians who know right from wrong and strive to do right. Palin qualifies on that count and Obama fails miserably.

 

I'll admit...she ousted an upopular governor, stood up for ethics in her own party in Alaska. I haven't seen her attacking the Republican party on the national stage, or for that matter, speaking out about ethics in National Politics at all.

I'm waiting to be enlightened as well.

 

 

It keeps being swept under the rug, and attempts to divert us into the mythical Illinois Infanticide vote are presented instead.

I am sorry that it is not obvious to you. Campaign promises are irrelevant to me. I look at what a candidate has accomplished. Obama spends a lot of time talking about relieving people's suffering and has detailed plans of what he plans to do for people using other people's money. But when he had the opportunity to stop the barbaric practice of infanticide in his home state he declined and in fact fought to allow the practice to continue.

 

Sara Palin has a real record of reform and has taken tough positions while placing her political career on the line. Fighting corruption within her own party is a great qualification for any candidate.

 

The contrast between Obama's rise to prominence through the corrupt Chicago Daley machine, which apparently finding no corruption to fight, is a stark contrast to the courage shown by Sarah Palin.

 

I like politicians who know right from wrong and strive to do right. Palin qualifies on that count and Obama fails miserably.

 

So, when Palin does answer a question on an issue she has yet to voice her position on, you will let us all know not to trust it as there is no record of past action on said issue?

So, when Palin does answer a question on an issue she has yet to voice her position on, you will let us all know not to trust it as there is no record of past action on said issue?

 

And as we've already heard, we cannot go to the candidate's website for information. I don't know why the candidates bother to have a website...

I haven't been frequenting P&R too much these days. My mind has been made up since day 1, as the war is the overarching issue for me.

 

So, pardon me for not going through hundreds of posts to get a handle on this and possibly missing some discussion in another thread, but is the choice of Palin merely an attempt to garner a significant portion of the undecideds and/or female vote? Or was it choosing someone eminently qualified to step in if, heaven forbid, something should happen to the President (and I believe that Obama hit one out of the park in this regard with his choice, by the way)?

 

Just my opinion, but the usual cast of characters (not just here on BGP, by the way) would be wetting their pants with joy had the GOP veep pick been Ted Stevens, Pete Domenici, Ernie Fletcher, Benito Mussolini; anyone, really. These folks are going to go to any means necessary to justify to themselves and convince you and me that the pick - whoever it is - is THE PERFECT pick.