Comments: Thar she blows! (now with Profanity!)

I love reading what the smart girl has to say. Bravo!!!

Posted by Greta Perry at October 23, 2008 03:20 AM

Loathing Sarah Palin
Months Hate of feminists.
by Joseph Epstein
10/27/2008, Volume 014, Issue 07
The liberal women I know--and most of the women I seem to know are liberal--loathe Sarah Palin. They don't merely dislike her, the way one tends to dislike politicians whose views are not one's own, they actively detest her. When her name comes up--and it is they who tend to bring it up--their complexions take on a slightly purplish tinge, their eyes cross in rage. "Moron" is their most frequently used noun, though "idiot" comes up a fair number of times; "that woman" is yet another choice. A wide variety of adjectives, differing only slightly in their violence, usually precede these epithets.

Liberal men don't show the same fervent distaste for Governor Palin. They are more likely to say she doesn't come close to being qualified for the job of vice president and is frightening to contemplate as president. They might add that his choice of Sarah Palin is a serious sign of John McCain's flawed judgment, or of his political opportunism. The standard phrase "a heartbeat away" may come up. But then they let it go. They don't take Sarah Palin so personally, so passionately, as their liberal female counterparts do; the element of anger isn't there.

During his presidential campaign Mike Huckabee expressed a set of opinions not strikingly different from Sarah Palin's, yet my guess is that if he were John McCain's running mate these same women would not despise him with the same vehemence they do Sarah Palin. Some of this is due to snobbery, some possibly to envy. Governor Palin is, after all, a good-looking woman with what appears to be a happy family life who has achieved a great deal in a relatively brief time. But above all Sarah Palin's opinions, because they are held by her, a woman, suggest betrayal.

One might think that liberal women would have some admiration for Governor Palin's appearing to have solved the working mother problem that bedevils most contemporary American women. She is very feminine yet doesn't regard herself as a victim, and seems to be entirely at ease with men. Here is a woman raising five children who is able not only to have an active hand in the life of her community but actually win the highest political office in her state. As the governor of Alaska, moreover, she took on the corrupt elements in her own party, which requires courage of a kind liberated women especially, one would think, might admire.

Perhaps Sarah Palin's having a pregnant teenage daughter permits these same women to feel that she hasn't really solved the working mother problem after all. Yet teenage pregnancy is something that anyone who has a daughter or a granddaughter lives in terror of, for it can happen, as they say, in the best of families. Yet Sarah Palin seems to be handling this, too, with a measure of dignified calm and tolerance that most of us, in similar circumstances, probably couldn't bring to it. But she gets no credit for this either, at least not from the women I know who so relentlessly contemn her.

Strongly liberal women get most agitated over the issue--though of course to them it is no issue but a long since resolved matter--of abortion. Abortion, to be sure, is the great third-rail subject in American politics. But when a male politician is against abortion, these women can write that off as the ignorance of a standard politician, if not himself a Christian fundamentalist, then another Republican cynically going after the fundamentalist vote. A woman not in favor of abortion is something quite different.

And it is all the more strikingly different when the same woman not only holds this opinion on abortion but acts on it and knowingly bears a child with Down syndrome, a child that most liberal women would have thought reason required aborting. What else, after all, is abortion for?

A few months ago Vanity Fair ran an article about the discovery that the playwright Arthur Miller, with his third wife, the photographer Inge Morath, 40 or so years ago had a Down syndrome son. Miller promptly clapped the boy into an institution--according to the article, not a first class one either--and never saw the child again. Most people would have taken this for a heartless act, one should have thought, especially on the part of a man known for excoriating the putative cruelties of capitalism and the endless barbarities of his own country's governments, whether Democratic or Republican. Yet, so far as one can tell, Arthur Miller's treatment of his own child has not put the least dent in his reputation, while Sarah Palin's having, keeping, and loving her Down syndrome child is somehow, by the standard of the liberal woman of our day, not so secretly thought the act of an obviously backward and ignorant woman, an affront to womanhood. "Her greatest hypocrisy," proclaimed Wendy Doniger, one of the leading feminist lights at the University of Chicago, "is her pretense that she is a woman."

The daughter of a dear friend of mine used to say of her mother, "I sense her rage." Of course when the daughter said this, my friend's rage would only increase. Suggesting that liberal women feel rage over Sarah Palin is, similarly, likely only to enrage them all the more. But rage in their reaction to Governor Palin is emphatically what I do sense on the part of liberal women--that and delight in any attempt to humiliate her. (Tina Fey, take a bow, and, hey, let's watch that Katie Couric YouTube interview one more time!) I wonder if the women who loathe Sarah Palin with such intensity oughtn't perhaps to reexamine the source of their strongly illiberal feelings.

Joseph Epstein, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is the author most recently of Fred Astaire.

Posted by CS at October 23, 2008 04:54 AM

"People are amazing, and intelligent without a college degree or a fancy job or shared beliefs. That's the whole principle of Academic Freedom. We learn from each other by sharing our diverse ideas. Not by censoring, or dismissing out of hand the ones we think are ignorant."

I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by Michele at October 23, 2008 05:52 AM

I love it, every blessed word! :)

Posted by pam at October 23, 2008 06:44 AM

Beautifully stated!!

Posted by Michele at October 23, 2008 06:59 AM

You, my friend, should run for president! ;-)

Posted by Amanda at October 23, 2008 07:11 AM

ctg i so agree. well said. i especially identify with this part...

'I can see some of you squirming. I know you. I went to school with you. I work with you. Hell, I AM you from time to time. I know what I am talking about and there's no denying it. I freely admit to having an occasional elitist moment'

smart chicks rock.

Posted by kate at October 23, 2008 08:38 AM

You hit all the points perfectly. All the questions I've been wanting to pose to those who think slogans are enough on which to base a vote (for either candidate). Bravo!

Posted by Da Goddess at October 23, 2008 10:02 AM

This is of course if you want to hear what a liberal Democrat has to say.

You raised a lot of questions here but I only have time to first address Sarah Palin. As for the environment, that can be a longer more scientific discussion given that our education is strikingly similar.

There are two things that are striking of what you say. I certainly think 1) she is smart or she wouldn’t have gotten as far as she has in such a short time and 2) I think the American people and the Democratic party overestimated given her huge flips of positive and negative ratios over time and how strong the Democratic party had to work against her. I don’t think the DNC fears her at all…in fact, I think they’re salivating over the fact that McCain chose her now (much like I think Republicans did at first when Palin was chosen after Obama did not pick Clinton as a VP).

I’ll tell you why I could never vote for Palin (or McCain for that matter). I don’t agree with her on any issue that matters to me: taxes, healthcare, research funding/earmarks, abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, creationism in school, gun control, and I would say international/foreign policy but I don’t think she’s clearly formed a stance on that but whatever she has said I’ve disagreed for the most part. Again, it’s not that I think she’s not smart…but I think she’s given off the impression that she’s not smart enough over time.

When she spoke at the RNC, frankly I was pretty blown away. I found her charismatic and strong. I think she made a very telling, positive first impression to the American people. But the dust settled. You had mentioned previously that you didn’t think she should *have* to do the major network interviews. I watched (and still watching the Williams-Pailn interview obviously) every single one of those interviews. There were no “gotcha” questions. There were bad answers. Katie Couric, the queen of “soft news,” did not make her look bad or stupid. Palin did that to herself. And if you think she did well, I really don’t think you’re looking at her objectively anymore. The campaign did a BIG mistake by shielding her from the press because those interviews are scary, stressful, and tough and she needed practice. She floundered. And I feel this is what made the American public turn on her…

Here’s the way I can best describe the letdown of her performance in a nice lab metaphor. Say someone came up to you for a postdoc position in your lab. The person wants to work at your level and in your field but doesn’t have specific training to your projects. But there’s some serious potential…say the person was a rising star as a graduate student. Well, definitely in science you give that person a chance. So the person comes to your lab and after a month the person not only can’t do a Western but couldn’t tell you the difference between HRP or AP as a substrate. Or hasn’t successful made their own clones, or still couldn’t troubleshoot a picky PCR reaction. You would reconsider your initial thoughts, I’m sure. You would probably yell at the person to get their shit together. So, you have lab meeting two weeks later. The results are a little better but when you ask the person why the PCR reaction is still having problems and it’s revealed that the person doesn’t understand what Tms are and that’s why he/she can’t troubleshoot it. At this point, your opinion of the person would be lowered greatly…hell you might have even kicked the person out of your lab at this point because why should you waste your NIH money on someone who can’t get their shit together. For this geeky metaphor, I think this is what people are feeling. And the VP role is a much bigger deal than a postdoc in a competitive lab.

Frankly, I feel bad for her. It’s not that she couldn’t have learned the material she needed to know to show understanding and competency, she was just unable to do it in such a short amount of time. Again, it’s not that she’s not smart, but it now feels that she wasn’t smart enough (in the short time frame).

As for the makeup/clothing thing – first of all, people did JUMP on Edwards for his $400 that he could AFFORD HIMSELF pointing to a potential hypocrisy of trying to be a populist candidate when you spend that much on a haircut. So, don’t think that the MSM is only jumping on Palin for that. And I’m sure Clinton and Obama put money in to present themselves…they should, as should Palin. I think the problem is that when you take GOP donor money to dress yourself up in Ferragamo and walk around as if you’re “Joe-Six-Pack.” Hell, I pay money to the Obama campaign and the DNC and get pissed off with how they spend it. If I donated to the RNC and I found out that 150K was spent on clothing and makeup (not just for her, but for her children) I would be pissed too when you’re down in the polls. I would be pissed that my money went to dress what is now being thought to be the #1 anchor for John McCain’s presidency. Even if I LIKED her, I would be pissed that the money wasn’t spent on, I dunno, OHIO.

As for Troopergate, it wasn’t the scandal itself, but the “coverup.” First there was let’s have transparency and then it was a democratic conspiracy. And I’ve done the Google searches too. She was only found of putting unfair pressure on Monnegan and that’s against Alaskan law. In itself, not a big deal. It was, again, the way she handled it.

It feels from my perspective that she had a promising start and she’s going to at best have a mediocre finish. I will not accept mediocrity (even from own party) for such an important job. But you know, you say it’s the democrats who are scared (which again, all I know is that we’re freaking happy that its become clear that McCain was pandering either to his base or trying to get disgruntled Clinton supporters as opposed to putting “country first” in his pick), I am curious to what you would call Kathleen Parker, George Will, and Christopher Buckley. These are conservative Repubilcans, with long track records, who risked their own party forsaking them while they stood up for their views. What would you say of them?

And I feel I must say this: if you’re going to do that thing where you tie try and tie Bill Ayers to Obama – fine, but then do this. Call out the CONSERVATIVE Annenberg group for putting him on the committee with Obama for EDUCATION, also supported by a Republican governor. It was for a freaking education group and the “relationship” was minimal at best. But if you’re going to go there, then don’t forget McCain and G. Gordon Liddy. McCain has said said he was "proud" of Liddy, and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great at the beginning of his 2000 campaign. Does that include Watergate then? Does that include his admiration of Hitler? Does that include telling people to kill ATF with head shots? Is it stupid to bring this up because there’s no way John McCain supports any of that ugly shit? Of course it is. Frankly, I am surprised you would lower your argument to this shit. It detracts from other points you could be making.

Posted by SBC at October 23, 2008 10:03 AM

I'm unhappy with Palin, because she could be Fred. She could be better than Fred. But she keeps going back to a populist approach. And that's pissing me off. Oh, I'm still going to vote for Palin and McCain. I just wish she'd be the person I want her to be. :D (Yes, said with tongue in cheek).

So, I think there are two issues with Palin, for the Democrats, that you sort of hit on.

First, they are elitist. People really think that only people who go to Ivy League schools are smart. Or really smart. Or whatever. And she didn't, and Obama did. Now the same people can't step back and say that Bush is smart -- he must have cheated. Their logic makes no sense. But anyway, the left is credentialist. They will believe anyone with the credentials (Gore with a Nobel) because they don't actually think things out. They appeal to authority (Paul Krugman) instead of reading different sides and making any sense out of it.

Also, people don't understand that there are more than three levels of intelligence. ;) They see "dumb", "regular" and "smart". Not "smart", "really smart", "super smart" etc. in a nice happy little bell curve distribution with *many* happy standard deviations of smartness. So people who call themselves smart frequently don't understand there are levels of smartness above them. (See: gifted education :D They don't understand it either). THey are so used to thinking that when someone doesn't agree with them, it's because they are of lower intelligence. Because, frankly, if you're smart, there are a lot of people stupider than you. But a lot of moderately smart people have been told they're smart, and think that they're pretty much it, and there isn't smart above them. Surprise! There is! Now, I'm not saying Palin is super intelligent or not, I have no idea. I do not doubt she's at least a little smart. But I think a lot of Dems think that anyone they disagree with is stupid.

Posted by silvermine at October 23, 2008 10:30 AM

Ok, someone needs to explain to me the elitist argument to me. Why is it because that if someone excels at academics they are elitist? Are CTG and I elitist because we to Caltech? Why is that Obama, who actually went to Oxy first and then transferred to Columbia, elitist? Is Bush elitist for going to Yale?

And as for Bush "cheating" in Yale...I don't think he cheated at Yale because even at Yale where the average GPA is pretty high he didn't do all that well (which btw, Kerry had a similar GPA to Bush's but guess who was called elitist). So, let me say this loud and clear -- just getting a degree doesn't make you smart (particularly at the Ivy's where they clearly reward the children of alumni). It's how you went about earning it and what you did with it. And that's where a lot of the criticism comes from. Instead of going, holy crap, Obama got into Oxy did well enough to transfer to Columbia and then he got into Harvard Law and was the first African-American to be editor of the Law Review is IMPRESSIVE in an academic sense, I keep on seeing this damn elitist word. This has NOTHING to do with being president -- plenty of smart people shouldn't be president, but why is it that if someone excels academically AND their liberal, they are elitist?

Maybe its that stupid ass arugula comment Obama made a while back. Are you going to CTG elitist because she gets a lot of her food at Trader Joe's?

Is McCain elitist because he wants to make a "commission of the smartest people" to tackle Social Security? My friends, he did not say ordinary people, he did not say Joe-six-packs, he did not say plumbers, he said smartest people. Is he elitist then, or is he just being smart and thinking about what might be best for the country?

When someone points to me when someone is actually being elitist, I will call them on it. Damn right I will. Because I have had people think they are better than me for a variety of reasons, I feel that sting.

But from anything else, how many of the undecided voters, how many of those independent voters, are elitist now because they might go blue? This elitism word is just the new "sexism" and "racism" card on both sides. I'm just tired of it.

Posted by SBC at October 23, 2008 11:45 AM

To me, elitist is an attitude that some people have based on their blessings and not being grateful for them. I suspect some people might see you and I as elitist because we went to Caltech, and Obama the same for going to Oxy AND Columbia. But the thing is, and you know it, we're not all like that, but many are. And they look down their nose at people like Sarah Palin, and people who LIKE Sarah Palin, as if the ignorance they perceive is as catching as cooties.

I reject that, and I abhor that. Because it's dismissive. And ignorant.

Posted by caltechgirl at October 23, 2008 12:07 PM

WOW! Good rant. Am I an elitist if I went to Fresno State?

Posted by Alan at October 24, 2008 03:16 PM

"People like President Bush, and Sarah Palin, who present themselves to the world as less than uber-intelligent, and succeed ANYWAY, threaten that world view."

I don't think anybody needs to look that hard to see plenty of people in various fields that have suceeded without overt "uber-intelligence" or formal higher education, and they're often actually praised for it. I'd suggest however that many would question actively recruiting somebody stupid to hold the highest political offices of a country.

I'm British, but I'd suggest Sarah Palin (or her British equivalent) would not make it within a mile of 10 Downing Street, not because of elitism, but because of meritocracy. The need to ascend through the parliamentary ranks, and hold ministerial (or shadow) posts means that candidates are tested, and compete before their peers and the country. Those unable to name ANY newspaper, talk in coherent sentences, or demonstrate understanding of fundamental issues of the day just don't cut it. I guess we just expect more of them.

I'm not sure what success you're talking about in the context of GWB. I suspect that he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents the US has had, and possibly the one that presided over the transition of the US from pre-eminence to also ran.

Good luck on Nov 5th. I hope it's not too painful a day. No doubt you will put "country first" and support whoever wins.......

Posted by Spectator at October 24, 2008 11:27 PM

Nobody will deny that GWB had plenty of warts on his presidency. But one success that he has to be credited with is that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. That's over seven years, if anybody's counting. And I have to credit more than dumb luck.

So how can Bush be as bad as Harding? Or Grant? Van Buren? Buchanan? How 'bout Nixon or Carter, anyone?

Posted by diamond dave at October 25, 2008 10:35 AM

"So how can Bush be as bad as Harding? Or Grant? Van Buren? Buchanan? How 'bout Nixon or Carter, anyone?"

Greatest economic crisis since the great depression, largest national debt in history, largest government in history, response to katrina/ike, two wars, gitmo, spying on Americans before getting proper permission, spying on army staffers having phone sex, cronyism in epic proportions, firing of justice department employees based on political beliefs, loss of standing on the international stage, substandard health care for veterans, excessive no bid contracts, government agents having sex and drugs with oil companies, and I'm sure I can think of many more...

That's more than a couple warts. But of course I am thankful we haven't had another attack on US soil. But there have been plenty of people, including GWB's father, who have managed to protect our soil without sinking our prestige and prosperity too.

Posted by SBC at October 25, 2008 05:55 PM

This is long, but I want to give you a clear picture of what I believe the liberal and moderate response to Obama is, and pose some reasonable questions to your own commentary.

Who do I think Obama is? At root, an inspirational figure at a time when this country dearly needs to believe in itself despite recent failures -- whether those failures are truly our own or were out of our control. Is he as awesome as he tries to seem? No. But he's going to try to be, and he fills out the inspirational role pretty well in my opinion. I'd say the same about JFK and RFK -- not perfect men by any means, but they tried to give us something to look up to and inspire us to be better, in positive ways, and I want that in a leader.

Change? If it means getting more of his campaign money from individuals, then yeah, that's change. Ditto for stomping on corporate execs and businesses earning millions for skinning American wallets and selling jobs down the river -- both things Bush and his Republican Congress turned a blind eye to, despite their talk. Do I think Obama will win all those fights, or even fight relentlessly for them? No. But it'll be an improvement on what I think McCain will do. Obama will go to war if needed, but not without considering and planning for every contingency. He is more likely to catch bin Laden than McCain because by pulling out of Iraq he'll have the forces and funds available, and maybe even develop a few Arab (and European) allies as we go.

Got plenty more, but I'll just move on to this: I don't need my Prez or VP to be approachable to me. Why do you? I want him to kick my ass in chess, then Global Thermonuclear War, and then beat Deep Blue and WOPR with one hand tied behind his back right before he suckers the Russians and the French into agreeing to pay us to store our nuclear waste. I want a charismatic brainiac (emphasis on the latter) that's on my side and will FUCK the next idiot to screw with us, who will take advantage of anyone on my behalf and WIN WIN WIN. I have seen reasons to believe Obama is on my side, and lots of reasons to believe he's fucking brilliant -- for one thing, he BEAT the Clinton machine!

As for elitism, what does he need to do to show you he recognizes his blessings? In his stump speeches, Obama invariably brings up his grandparents and everything they did for him, and emphasizes how in no other country is his life story even possible.

"Thinking they're better than me." Grrr. How is the Republican drumbeat on "heartland values" NOT exactly that? All I ever hear from the Reps is how the "heartland" has such better values, etc than the country's largest cities -- though they are home to our financial engines, our centers of learning, and so much more that it boggles the mind that any politicians can manage to insult millions of Americans time and again. Even if it's indirect ("I was praising them, not insulting you"), it's more blatant and constant than anything the liberal politicians do, that I'm aware of. (Yes, "cling to guns and religion" etc -- but that's not remotely as constant.)

"I know he wears makeup; I can see it on the TV."
Is this a serious concern? Makeup is in the nature of TV -- when McCain skipped out on Letterman for a spot with Katie Couric, Letterman cut to a live feed of McCain getting worked over by the makeup person. It's standard; to not wear makeup is stupid. Even Angelina Jolie looks iffy sans makeup on TV.

On to Palin: If you think the only thing the Dems are bothered by is Palin's preggo daughter and wasteful spending on clothes, I'm simply baffled. Dems don't like her because of her stances on the issues. And if Bill Ayers is an honest issue, I'm a Republican. In this vein, is the Fannie Mae CEO thing an issue? Yes, and I do wish it was covered more in depth. But so are McCain's deregulatory votes and adviser, etc.

Palin's misuse of language, hiding from the press, cronyism in Alaska, etc. I believe Americans want our leaders to be smarter and at least less obvious about hiding their mistakes. And the only people slathering to "get at" her are the comedians -- because she IS a joke. She is an easier target than shooting Quayles in a barrel. Ask Leno. And if you haven't seen her shooting herself in the foot time and again, then you're ignoring what she has had to say. Your defense of Palin seems more relevant to four weeks ago than to today.

"And the paradigm shifts born of ignorance have generally changed our world for the better."
Name two. Maybe I simply don't understand what you're trying to say here, but I'll give you a few counterexamples: Nazi paranoia about Jews; the Red Scare; internment camps for Japanese Americans; the first jackasses that landed in Africa and said, "hey, let's enslave these fuckers, they don't have guns"....

"Sarah Palin and George Bush clearly don't fit the paradigm. And well, we fear that which we do not understand."
I think you misunderstand the concerns many Americans have about Bush and Palin. For one, both act as unreflective "true believers" who refuse to acknowledge mistakes that were and will be made -- and therefore they will keep making them. They avoid the press and dissenting opinions, and hide actions and decision-making that should be public. This is wrong behavior, no matter who is doing it. For another, stupid is as stupid does -- and not anticipating the Sunni-Shia conflict that would erupt after Hussein's removal was STUPID. So many other examples, but that's probably the worst.

"I would also guess that many Obama supporters can NOT." re: knowing platforms and believing crazy shit about their opponents.
I have no idea why you think McCain supporters actually know more about Obama than vice versa. That's not my experience. I've seen a horrifying number of McCain supporters whose grasp of reality and truth is almost as hazy as a terrorist's -- and no American has an excuse for that. Obama is a Muslim? An Arab? I'm not even going to expect so much of these people that they understand it's bullshit to package an entire religion or race as Evil. I just want them to know truth that is so easy to find it's ridiculous.

Maybe the press just covers the conservative crazies and not the liberal nuts. But even members of my own family have shared that unacceptable ignorance. And I've not seen the same level of blindness among Dems; thinking McCain will continue the war indefinitely is the most extreme belief I've seen there, excepting "The Man" conspiracies. Oh, some liberals do seem to think Obama will fix "everything" -- that's silly. As for the Rep hoaxer in Pennsylvania, let's call her a total outlier.

"I figure it this way if Obama wins, no one can ever pull the race card again."
Seriously? So if Obama wins, all the racist fucks I've met in my life will no longer discriminate? We'll never see a black man pulled over for driving while black? A white man can walk without fear through the heart of Compton? No one will see Latinos standing on a corner and treat them like they're illegals? WOW. He IS the Messiah! So glad you pointed this out!!!

That had to be a joke, just as my response to it was a joke as well.

Aaaand I'll just leave this at that rather than go on and on and on even more.

Posted by Joe C. at October 25, 2008 06:34 PM

Whoa, that's quite a rant, and a great one at that! I've said it before -- the gender bigotry and ageism exhibited by the Libs is disgusting and hypocritical.

Posted by Pasadena Closet Conservative at October 25, 2008 10:52 PM

Joe, did you seriously read that as "no one will ever be racist again?" that's the opposite of what I meant. What I was trying to say is that no one can ever again claim that the "system" is racist and that people of color are automatically at a disadvantage. How could that argument carry any weight in a US with a Black President?

And really, I think you maybe saw too much of yourself in that, seeing as how you overreacted. I mean the Barry makeup thing was complete hyperbole, simply designed to point out that he has a clothing and makeup budget, too, Just no one ever asks how much he's spending.

Posted by caltechgirl at October 26, 2008 03:56 PM

In Joe's defense, I really could't tell when you're talking in hyperbole in this post and when you're being serious. It's harder obviously when we see text as opposed to talking to you in our living room. When we're in the same room its easier to know when you're making a joke or what you're placing emphasis on. I recalled you making some pretty spirited negative remarks about John Edwards wearing makeup before so even *I* thought you were making comments about the makeup issue (even though I'm pretty sure when you brought it up you were just going on about how much you dislike about Edwards). Clearly you weren't after you explained.

But I would like you to elaborate a little further on what you think "the system" is because I'm feeling that both of you are missing each other's point. I think what you're saying is (and please correct me) that because a man of color reached the highest office of the land the system can't be accused of being racially unfair. If that's the case, I think you're being too broad. There are clearly a few big corporations where CEOs are of color but it is DISPROPORTIONATELY white. Or there are how many female scientists with professor positions but the number of female science professors versus the male counterparts are not close to equal. We BOTH know how sexist science and academia can be despite women having top positions. I think if Obama wins it will help erode racism a lot, but I don't think him being elected will automatically take the race card out of the deck. You mentioned that racism would stop when we stop talking about it. I think people stop talking about when there are different races at every level of society in an approximately proportionate number...not when one is only at the top and bottom.

And I would like to see specific numbers out too on the what the DNC spent for makeup/hair if that matters. It's been noted that nothing on clothes have been spent but makeup and hair has but I haven't heard specific numbers either. I actually think its unfortunate for Palin and a stupid decision by the RNC. Like I said earlier, its not so much that the money was spent as in the context it was spent in, but in the mean time it detracts from real issues and frankly tarnishes Palin's image even more for no reason.

Posted by SBC at October 26, 2008 06:32 PM

Encore! Encore!

Hot Damn Girl! YOU ARE ON FIRE!

Well said. Well said.

Posted by Lauren at October 27, 2008 04:25 PM