Why Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President

"I have a question for the women in the audience," the Alaska governor began, "Are you willing to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America?"
What a cruel joke for a woman who is against everything I believe in – environmental reform, animal rights, a woman’s right to choose, the importance of education, peace, and freedom from persecution – to surround herself with feminists and ask me to help her break the glass ceiling.

It took women 50 years to get the right to vote after freed slaves did. Fifty years! These were women married to politicians, raising their children and running their homes and yet it was easier for white men to view a black man – whom only a few years was considered property – as a citizen than the women they shared a bed with. I bring this up because it’s vital to understand the deep-seated fear and resentment men had for women wanting the vote (and by proxy, full citizenship). They must have viewed us as children, demanding something that we could neither understand nor be trusted with. But in 1917, Montana (who had given women the right to vote) elected the first woman into Congress, three years before the Constitution was amended.

Nearly a hundred years later, there are still far too few women in Congress. Out of 535 members, only 90 are women: 16 of 100 senators are women (two of them are from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, both of whom I’ve met!) and 74 of 435 representatives are women. So it really irks me when I read about "Palinmania" in The New York Times, describing how popular Sarah is with the "dudes." They paint their chests and shout Maverick and "marry me" at her rallies. They say they prefer Palin over both Obama and McCain as if she’s running for president! A few are quoted as saying men have screwed things up enough, maybe it’s time to let a woman run the country for a while. While I couldn't agree more, I find it difficult to believe that these dudes felt this way when Hilary was running or that they’ve ever spent a minute in their lives thinking about the gender inequality in politics. No, because the Joe Six-Packs say Sarah's different, she's "their kind of woman."

The feminists have always said that in order to be regarded by men, a woman has to be sexually appealing, non-threatening and assume, in some way, the role model of wife and mother. But if she wants to be taken seriously, she can't be seen as using her sexuality. Maybe that explains the glasses? They say "I know I'm hot but I want you to take me seriously, okay? [wink, wink].” She certainly has that over Clinton who, as formidable as any man, didn't advertise her role as mother and was more concerned about being seen as qualified instead of sexually appealing. Many of these men said they came to the rally just to look at Palin, because she's so beautiful. I'd like to point out that this is not sexism by the other candidates or by the media, this is pure unadulterated sexism from the American public. What could be more dismissive than supporting a candidate because she's a VPILF?

The strategists that picked Palin specifically wanted a good-looking woman because they intended to play the gender card. People tend to be more sympathetic to an attractive woman and they're less likely to rip her apart (or expose her flimsy credentials). Despite what her supporters think, the reaction to her has been quite kind compared to the way Hilary Clinton was treated or even the way Nancy Pelosi is talked about these days. Women are crucified for being tough and attacked for being soft, but less so if they're pretty. I'm so tired of reading the public's comments about how Palin is being "picked on," a phrase that is decidedly sexist in its assumption that she can't take it. The charge that the media has unfairly focused on her appearance and clothing is completely unfounded. No one cared about her wardrobe until they discovered how much it cost and her attractiveness has been made an issue because the more we learn about her, the more we believe it's the reason she's a candidate. She thinks her family life has been delved into more because she's a woman. Really? We haven't heard about Obama's interracial parents, his mother leaving him with his grandparents, getting food stamps while going to medical school? We haven't heard about McCain's affair and leaving his crippled wife for another woman who just happens to be filthy rich?

A female supporter remarked at the same rally that she trusts Palin because she’s a mom. In any corporation in the country, the fact that she has five kids including a disabled newborn, would subject her to possible discrimination over a fear that she wouldn't have enough time for her job. When most women take six months to a year getting their full energy back after having a baby, Palin's running all over the country like Superwoman. No one's afraid she might exhaust herself or neglect her baby or her husband or her job? Such a curious exception to what is practically a rule in the working world. I met a woman who, while presenting her thesis for business school, was asked how she planned to start a business with a baby (she was pregnant at the time). If Palin were truly getting the sexist treatment, questions like this would be asked without impunity. While I have the utmost respect for the job of mother - and most of my girlfriends are mothers - I hardly think it is an automatic qualification. Andrea Yates, Deanna Laney and Dena Schlosser, all God-fearing Christian mothers, killed their children. I'm just saying, think before you speak people.

What bothers me most though is simply that Palin is the first female nominee on a presidential ticket. How utterly unfair that after all these years (the first serious female contender for president was in 1964) we should get a woman like her. Hilary Clinton was a serious candidate – smart, savvy, experienced, well spoken – and she deserved it as much as anyone. I would have been proud to call her my president but not this woman. She sounds like a third grade teacher who hasn’t spent a lot of time speaking to adults and if she doesn't have an answer to a question, she blames the question! She’s either as dumb as she appears or she’s feigning it in that “math is haaaaard” way that girls do when they first discover that boys are threatened by girls that are smarter than they are. Either way, it’s behavior unbecoming a woman promising to break the glass ceiling for all women. Men are threatened by women who are smarter than them which means the only woman capable of breaking the ceiling is as smart as the men around her and isn’t afraid to show it.

When I watched John McCain announce her as his running mate during the Republican convention, I thought it was a stroke of genius. I imagined all of his advisers in a room after the Democratic convention thinking that they didn’t have a chance in hell. How could McCain possibly compete against the youth, optimism, intelligence and charisma of Obama? We all heard that sucking sound when Hilary was pulled out of the race, though, and in that vacuum they decided to bring in a woman of their own. But unlike Hilary, this woman would be pretty and approachable in a fifties housewife kind of way and she’d be a real woman with a lot of kids and strong views against abortion. They also imagined, I’m sure, that if she literally had never been to Washington, she wouldn’t have any enemies there or anyone who really knew her background. Plus, they thought she’d be easy to manipulate.

The Republicans don’t give a shit about women. Oh sure, they’re happy to use the fire of pro-life conservative women to get elected but once in office, they don’t do a damn thing about it. The irony is, Roe v. Wade would probably have a better chance of being overturned if there were more women in office, or in the courts, because women care about this issue. Pro or against, it affects us profoundly. Out of 110 Supreme Court Justices that have sat on the bench in our history, only two have been women. Plus, since 1990, the number of female Republican representatives has been dropping. While women in state and U.S. congresses were split evenly then, now Democrats make up 69% of the women in state legislatures and 70% of the women in the U.S. Congress. When the Democrats had a black man and white woman as their top contenders for President this year, the Republicans had a bunch of white men. They weren’t looking for the candidate that would make the best Vice President; they were looking for someone that could help them win. They’re using Sarah Palin, exploiting her "aw shucks" ignorance and her bald-faced ambition, to try to win an election as if what happens after that is meaningless.

The flip-flopping that Palin's doing right now on whether or not she's a feminist further demonstrates that the strategy isn't working. The Republicans don't know how to position her and because of it we haven't a clue who she really is. At a rally a few days ago, Palin appeared onstage with a number of high-powered feminists who previously supported Clinton. The fact that NOW (National Organization of Women) has already endorsed Obama hasn’t stopped these women from aligning themselves with a candidate whose most fervent supporters want to take us back into the dark ages. So they too prove to be sexist by backing a candidate simply because of her gender and basically reversing their support on every major issue. During her Katie Couric interview, she answered the question about whether she's a feminist with a decisive "yes" but now she doesn't want to be labeled. The public thinks she's being asked the question only because she's a female and isn't that sexist?

Yes, she's absolutely being asked the question because she's a woman, but no, it's not sexist. Let's not pretend that gender neutrality is possible in this highly critical and personal arena. Equality is being treated with the same respect and being offered the same opportunities without rewards or punishment based on race, gender, etc. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. We women are being asked to consider her despite her shortcomings, which can only mean that she intends to represent us in a way that a man can't. Besides, if she were really an intelligent leader, she would jump at the opportunity to educate us on what being a feminist means to her. She could say that being a feminist does not mean subscribing to a single political doctrine because that would be saying that all women are the same. (Clearly, we are not.)

She could say that being a feminist means taking the women's role as creator very seriously and that is why she cannot condone abortion. I would respect her if she could articulate a position, any position, even if I didn't agree with it. She could outline for us how she has promoted and stood up for women's rights – in the same way that she exposed corruption in the government and negotiated a pipeline in her state, which I also haven't heard her speak cohesively about. She wants to break the glass ceiling, so what's wrong with asking her how she's going to help me do it too? One editorial suggests that we haven't heard anything intelligent from Palin because the Democrats haven't asked her any real questions and suggests that they're being sexist by not engaging her. I say bullshit. I say she's had plenty of opportunities to say something worth listening to and has failed miserably. While sexism definitely contributes to the gender gap in political representation, it isn't the reason Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President.

That isn't to say this has been easy for me. I'm a dyed in the wool feminist who would probably draw blood to defend Palin if I saw some of the crap she's putting up with in person, but I also cringe at everything that comes out of her mouth. Clearly, we need more women in politics to choose from for these roles. One theory for the inequality is a lack of candidates. If nothing else, Sarah Palin has shown us that being a gutsy and attractive woman and mother are enough to run for office. So perhaps she will inspire women all over the country to get their names on the ballot. I'm planning for a woman president in 2016 but let me make one final note. People forget that we've already had quite a few women in the White House, the First Ladies. Many of these women have worked just as tirelessly for our country as their husbands and some have made enormous contributions. While it's not an elected position and they don't get paid, they also get very little credit for their efforts so I'd like to thank them now.

Do we really hate each other?

Holy mackerel, every time I’m about to post about what’s going on in the election, another ridiculous thing happens. Why just this week…
- Famous conservatives jump ship to endorse Obama.
- Colin Powell, the only man in the White House who didn’t want to invade Iraq, endorses Obama and is dismissed by McCain because he's got the support of plenty of other military folks.
- Joe the Plumber turns out to be a fraud in every way but Palin's still chanting his name at rallies.
- The McCain camp continues to call Obama a terrorist and supporters at a rally in Minnesota held signs comparing him to Charles Manson.
- Palin is suddenly a feminist and shows up at a rally with a cadre of Clinton supporters despite the fact that NOW and Hilary herself have endorsed Obama.
- A Republican club in California mails out a racist anti-Obama flyer and makes one of their members cry for 45 minutes.
- Palin makes an appearance on SNL and Alec Baldwin, who made fun of her on Bill Maher only a week before, tells her she’s hotter in person.

I mean, you can’t make up stuff like this! It’s juicier than any TV show. Once again, this election has brought out the worst behavior and the ugliest thoughts of the Americans. But here's what’s really disturbing to me. Last night I saw these videos from the Alfred E. Smith annual charity dinner that all these people were at: McCain, Obama, and Hilary Clinton. It's traditional during election years for the candidates to roast themselves/each other, so John McCain gets up there and makes jokes about replacing his staff with Joe the Plumber and hiring him to work on his seven houses while Barack Obama makes jokes about his middle name really being Steve and how he wasn't really born in a manger, and they both joke about Hilary voting for McCain. They make jokes about Acorn registering Mickey Mouse and are all cracking up at each other; they can barely contain themselves.

So here they are, really, making fun of all of us for getting sucked into the bullshit: Democrats versus Republicans, us versus them, everyone calling each other ignorant and stupid and even the candidates call us names. And all the while, this is just what they do to win. It doesn’t mean anything. McCain doesn't REALLY think Obama is a terrorist; it's just a campaign tactic and Obama knows it. They oh-so-casually make stuff up about themselves, relying on the fact that we'll use it to make assumptions about how they'll govern. But while Americans are hating each other and fighting over this stuff, these guys go to a fancy dinner and have a laugh about it. At the end of the day, they're all buddies and they’ll still be running our government no matter who ends up as president.

Noam Chomsky said in an interview that if anyone is undecided, they should just vote Democrat because most people’s lives improve when a Democrat is in office. It’s that simple. Unless, he says, your personal beliefs are more important, in which case, vote that way. Then he said something else, about how public policy isn’t based on what the people want anyway. Politicians don’t talk address issues that are important to us, they talk about issues that are important to business and sometimes they just happen to be the same thing. For example, he says, health care has been the number one issue for the voters for decades. It’s a horrific system, totally broken, and another embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world that has already socialized their medical system.

Here we are being brainwashed, repeating “socialism is bad” without most people even understanding what it means. We have already socialized parts of our government and taxes are a form of socialism that, in fact, enable the American Dream and McCain knows that as well as Obama. Socialism is a red herring, it's just a campaign strategy to get elected. The reason health care is on the agenda this year, says Chomsky, is because big business is finally complaining about it. When GM says it’s cheaper to make cars in Canada because of the outrageous cost of providing health care in this country, lawmakers start to listen. See, the fighting isn't real. They just pretend to fight and disrespect each other so they can get into office. The two parties, Chomsky says, are really two branches of the same party, the business party.

I just finished watching Why We Fight, which is totally excellent and I highly recommend it. One point made in the film – which was also discussed at length in Gore’s book, Assault on Reason – is where was the fighting when it really mattered, when our Congress was deciding whether to go to war? The truth is, there wasn’t any debate. Republicans largely voted for it and Democrats mostly voted against it but they didn’t convene for a week or two to hash out the details and make sure this was the right thing to do. Not only that, they gave Bush the power to decide all of that for himself! They totally circumvented the checks and balances and said “Sure, the President can do whatever he wants in Iraq with our permission,” and sent us war with no budget and no exit strategy.

See, here’s what I think. I think people are angry, and rightfully so. We inherently know we aren’t being represented. We can’t trust our government and frankly, we don’t know whom to trust. We’re seeing our lives get worse and don’t know how to make them better. We see other people’s lives getting much better and suspect massive corruption, but aren’t sure if laws have been broken or if those people are just smarter than we are. We might also understand, although it’s difficult to admit, that for the last fifty years this country has taken whatever its wanted from the rest of the world and we’ve prospered even as we’ve fallen behind in education, health care, industry and infrastructure. The anger, though, has mistakenly been directed at each other as if all of this is the fault of people who don’t believe in God, people who hate gays or Jews or blacks, people who abort babies, drug addicts, perverts, socialists, because it must be someone’s fault, right?

This is, I must admit, the main reason that I support Obama. It's been a very long time since a politician has been so positive. He has managed to keep his head above the negativity and continue to call for togetherness and understanding. It's also a major reason that Colin Powell endorsed him. He says this country can't afford to be torn apart and I agree completely. Of course, the internet amplifies the negativity with its continuous critique and rehashing of every moment. Now a negative event doesn't happen once, it happens thousands of times. And people don't seem to need much encouragement for joining in the fray. But it makes me wonder yet again, if we are as backward as we appear. After all, we're about to elect a black man as our president, so clearly we are a progressive society no matter what the candidates or the media lead us to believe.