Sarah Palin: Good, Bad or just the wrong choice?

[NaddiaAoC]

Mr. P said:

We need more Independents...and not just party fence-sitters that switch their tag.

What we need is a communist revolution to topple this broken ass political system that governs the United States of Corporate America. Palin and Biden are two sides of the same rusted coin. Arguing about which one is more qualified to lead this country is like debating who sells better clothes, Gap or Old Navy. The beneficiary is the same. Fuck 'em both.

Cheryl

[Dissident Heart]

Besides being wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Economic Bail-out, Biblical Literalism, American History, Constitutional Law, Climate Change, Sustainable Industries, and the Failure of Corporate Capitalism...Palin is the worst sort of cynical ploy to distract US voters from the disasterous policies and practices her Party has forcefully enacted over (in the very least) the last 8 years.

[GentleReader9]

First, I apologize for just disappearing for the whole weekend. I had a lot going on, but I could have quickly explained that somewhere. It wasn't personal, just life intervening.

Second, it's perfectly valid to ask "Who is being racist?"

I meant that the general tenor of the race has been impacted by speculations in the media along the lines of "Is America ready for it's First Black President?" or pitting the supposed appeal/drawback of supporting women in the person of Hillary Clinton against the supposed appeal/drawback of supporting people of color in the person of Obama. This framing shows our society is still racist enough to seriously ask these questions. In a non-racist, non-sexist society candidates would be assessed according to their stand on issues and whether or not they had the skills and experience that make a person a good president. Period.

In addition to this generally racist atmosphere of our media, there have been specific smear tactics, including the dissemination of racist misinformation (I'm not repeating any) that has had to be countered about Obama, inappropriate comments (such as "he should stick to basketball" when Obama was revealed not to be a great bowler -- a skill not needed in a President of the U.S. at all) and even hate crimes, such as the recent hanging of an effigy of Obama on the George Fox College Campus accompanied by an anti-affirmative action message. (George Fox would have deplored such an act of violence, by the way.)

In that sort of atmosphere, McCain and Palin both should be careful to be clear about what they are talking about when they discuss disagreement with historic Supreme Court decisions. To state vaguely that you are for "States Rights" in answer to that question "Which other famous decisions of the Supreme Court do you disagree with?" in such a context, when that is most famously known as the code word reasoning used to argue for the rights of states that wanted to oppress African Americans in at least two famous instances, really begs the question that no journalist in our current media is asking. I think we should ask: what cases is she talking about? Why doesn't she mention the names or at least what the issues in question were?

As has too often been the case with recent politicians from Ronald Reagan on, we are left to wonder, did she really mean what that sounds like or is she just too stupid to think of one Supreme Court decision she doesn't like? Either way, it's not the quality of thought a politician needs for me to want them to represent this country to the world.

Does that explain it? I wish people would ask Palin to explain her comments about States Rights that thoroughly.

[Robert Tulip]

Now for the Dan Quayle test - can Sarah spell potatoe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potatoe#Spelling

I wish people would ask Palin to explain her comments about States Rights.

Oh - and in Australia we call that sort of 'states rights' talk 'dog whistle politics' because it is intended to appeal to a racist electorate without making overt racist comments, and even better, the comments are in code that will be understood by the targets but not by others - just as the high pitched dog whistle is heard by the dog but is above human hearing range. Except SP seems to have accidentally used a fog horn.

[imnosalinger]

I'm not sure the question is if she's too inexperienced, I think the real question is if she's smart enough.

Obama may be inexperienced in certain arenas, but I've never heard him tell a reported he'd try to find some examples and get back with him, though his 57 states comment was embarrassing, but much different than the whole interview situation, IMHO.

[Mr. P]

I'm not sure the question is if she's too inexperienced, I think the real question is if she's smart enough.

Obama may be inexperienced in certain arenas, but I've never heard him tell a reported he'd try to find some examples and get back with him, though his 57 states comment was embarrassing, but much different than the whole interview situation, IMHO.

Yes. Intelligence matters more to me than experience as I have outlined in another thread somewhere around here. Palin has none at all. Obama has more than McCain.

But unintelligent Presidents have been the flavor for the past 8 years.

[imnosalinger]

Yeah, what's up with that Good Ol' Boy, red-neck image.

I'm so embarrassed that he's from my state. We already deal with enough unflattering stereotypes, then Mr. Bush gets elected and for the first time in history there is an inaugural hoe-down and the newly elected president of the United States is showing off his 5,000 boots to the press.

[Mr. P]

Wow...how can anyone not want to beat the crap out of people like this?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... etter.kcal

[Dissident Heart]

Christopher Hitchens on Sarah Palin http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

[GentleReader9]

Mr. Pessimistic asked:

Wow...how can anyone not want to beat the crap out of people like this?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... obama.news letter.kcal

I would like to give my answer to Mr. Pessimistic's really good question. I think it's important to try to answer it.

I do not want to beat the crap out of those people because, first and foremost, I think if I tried to, they would win and I would really get hurt. This is not just silly. It's about power and privilege, what kinds there are, who has them, how we can best use ours, and why or why not we choose to do so. We live in an oppressive society that uses all kinds of -isms, the one starting with "race" being only one of them. It is very much in my interest as a completely worthless fighter with delicate little hands to want a civil society where I won't break their bones while slightly annoying someone tougher with an inexpertly delivered punch. Now on the other hand, I do seem to be somewhat smarter than these people, or perhaps just more educationally privileged. If I can trick them into letting me educate their children and employ strategies like that, maybe even speak to them, at first listening compassionately, then carefully steering them toward tolerance, honest introspection in a safe environment, model owning my own deficiencies and working on them, maybe they will feel less threatened than when a camera is in their face and someone is asking them in front of the nation to justify their racism.

I admit I have sometimes felt tempted to encourage people like you, Mr. P. to do the beating the crap out of people for me, but I've found it doesn't pay. There comes a time when you are going to be mad at me and how I think and what will I do then? You might also think I owe you something, like someone running a protection racket, and in any case, I will feel responsible if you hurt someone and I have been complicit. (I know you probably aren't actually planning to hurt anyone and you just said "want to," which is different, but I'm making a point, I hope.)

But most important in this whole issue is whether or not we are willing to walk our talk in teaching and learning tolerance. If I want people to learn to be civil with others who are now outside their comfort zone, I need to be willing to relate outside my comfort zone, to engage people gently and kindly about the ugly -isms that we all grow up with. We know what chicken and watermelon and ribs and koolaid on the Obama dollar are about. We can't pretend not to belong to this society. Having Mexican relatives (video woman) or Indian relatives (me) does not exempt us from the capacity for internalized or other-group focused oppressiveness. In a racist society, anti-oppression is an ongoing learning project for everyone.

I have to try to come from a place where I realize, authentically, that I am not better than those people denying they are racist, or Mr. P. for that matter. I have some strengths, and so do they. I have some vulnerabilities and so do they. I am sure you didn't mean for me to take this this seriously. My daughter really thinks I'm a drag when I do this kind of thing. Sorry if you share that view. I just really don't want to live in a place that's any more violent than it has to be and I want people to feel safe to be honest, to differ, to grow. Does that make sense, Mr. P.?