Posted by Helen on: 09.04.2008 /
I watched Sarah Palin’s speech last night.
To me it felt more like a show than a substantive speech that would give me confidence in her ability to be a good President.
Her talk was full of one line put downs of Barack Obama, drawing lots of loud “boos” from the audience. The one liners and the audience response irritated me. I didn’t think booing was considered decent adult behavior. And do put downs really win anyone over? Or are they just a way of getting easy affirmation from people who already like you? Easier than spending that same time putting more substance around how you would address the pressing problems in America today.
Admittedly I already had issues with Sarah Palin before listening to her speech. I’ve been reading all the discussion back and forth about whether she’s running at the expense of her family. I’m not against working parents. I do have a hard time with men or women who choose to have children and then make career choices which surely mean other people have to raise their children for them. I ran across a post by Elyse on Skepchick which is more strongly worded than I would write but nevertheless expresses my own concerns well:
Sarah Palin is a selfish, shitty mom. She needs to be at home with her family. Not “at home” in a pearls-and-heels-while-vacuuming kind of way. Not “at home” in a that’s-where-women-belong kind of way. She needs to be “at home” in a not-on-the-other-side-of-the-continent kind of way. She needs to be “at home” in an emotionally-available-for-her-family-in-crisis kind of way.
Elyse goes on to say this is not about gender: she feels the same way about men who make similar choices.
Sarah was up on the stage and her family were watching from a distance, her husband or one of her children alternately holding her baby. This is how things will continue if she becomes Vice-President.
In general I’d like a President whose judgment I can trust, who seems likely to make careful thoughtful decisions. Someone who draws a response from a crowd because he/she inspires them, rather than entertaining them. To me Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to be that person. Even though she is courageous and confident, two wonderful qualities. And I appreciate women like her who are willing to step up and be leaders in a world which is still primarily led by men.
Comment by: julie
1 09/4/08 6:34 AM | Comment Link |The days leading up to last night have been a show. Not from Sarah but from the liberal media. Sarah has every right to defend herself before a watching nation. Also Sarah is running for Vice President not President.
Comment by: Leo
2 09/4/08 6:51 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
Went and read the link…and thought, “Wow…why the anger?” I have to ask - how do we know what emotional support she is providing her family? Until they speak out (which they won’t) - or until we move into that house - we don’t.
As to the teenage daughter getting pregnant…well…dangerous ground to trod on. I have a teen daughter - her mother and I are “emotionally available” for her. And still - her life as a teen is incredibly tough. I firmly believe teens now have it much harder than I did a scant 25 years ago.
I guess my point is - let’s debate Gov. Palin on her merits as a leader, as a political candidate, as a Governor, and as a potential VP…NOT as a mother. I don’t need an emotionally present mother in the White House…I need a leader.
That said - what do we truly know of her qualifications, and what has she done as Governor? How does she lead her state? Got any links that might help? (OK - being lazy here…haven’t had a chance to Google her yet!)
Comment by: Leo
3 09/4/08 6:54 AM | Comment Link |Oh - and I missed her speech last night - storms kept getting between my sat. dish and the satelite…when is our government going to invest in some genuine weather control!
Have you seen a link with a manuscript of the speech?
Comment by: Craig
4 09/4/08 6:56 AM | Comment Link |I think it’d be difficult for anyone in that kind of position to be emotionally available to their family, if even possible. While I don’t think this should be the case, I do think that our society demands this. A politician is not going to win the American vote without being a workaholic. Anyone elected president or vice-president is probably going to be a shitty parent one way or another by default. I find it ironic that Palin’s “family values” may help get her elected, but I think that getting elected will have a significant negative impact on her family. But I’d suppose that Palin’s supporters would say that one family’s loss is worth the “greater good”.
Comment by: Jason Horton
5 09/4/08 6:59 AM | Comment Link |Is her speech available anywhere? I’d like to see it as well as Obama’s, Palin’s and McCain’s various speeches. You’re obviously closer to it that me (by about 6000 miles) but I’m concerned by some of the rumours about the Republican team.
Comment by: joe
6 09/4/08 7:11 AM | Comment Link |As truism: anyone who wants to be a politician should be prevented from being one. Quite what you should do with anyone who wants to be president, I’ve no idea.
Comment by: Leo
7 09/4/08 8:03 AM | Comment Link |Sounds like a “Catch 22!” That’s quite a catch, that catch 22…
Comment by: Helen
8 09/4/08 9:01 AM | Comment Link |For those who’ve asked, there’s a video and transcript of the speech on the Wednesday page of the GOP convention site (look in the right sidebar near the end - because she was near the end of the evening).
Julie wrote:
Right; but if she is elected Vice President she could become President, so I think it’s important to consider her qualifications for that position before voting for the Republican ticket.
Leo wrote:
So do I; but the reality is she is a mother, by choice, and that means she has responsibilities to her five children. And if she can so easily set those aside because of career goals, that makes me wonder how easily she’d set other groups of peoples’ concerns aside, who aren’t even related to her.
When you’ve had time, come back and tell us what you found out :)
Craig wrote:
Me too!
It bugs me when people say she’s being supportive of her pregnant daughter. If she’s not around then she’s only being supportive with words from a distance. Which counts for something but not nearly as much as being there in person.
Comment by: bradm
9 09/4/08 10:17 AM | Comment Link |“And if she can so easily set those aside because of career goals …”
Do you have any evidence that she’s she’s setting aside her responsibilities? I don’t see any evidence that she’s any less “emotionally present” than, say, Barack Obama to his kids.
Comment by: karen
10 09/4/08 10:39 AM | Comment Link |It’s surprising to me how many women are critical of Palin over her family issues. To me, it’s her business how she balances work and family. Plenty of high-powered women do it all the time.
The reason I am so perturbed by Palin is that she has absolutely no national or international experience. She’s not well educated. She’s got no positions on the record about most national or international issues. She “hasn’t thought much” about the Iraq war. Two weeks ago she said she doesn’t know what the VP does.
It’s irresponsible for a 72-year-old man who’s a cancer survivor to put someone as lightweight as she is in line for the presidency. Could she step into the job if need be? I’m doubtful.
Can you imagine him picking a male small-town mayor and 20-month governor who has no national profile? She was chosen not because she’s qualified or ready to lead but for her gender and for her appeal to the religious right.
She far more conservative even than the majority of Republicans and she has a history of ruthlessly terminating her political peers and advocating things like an outright ban on abortion (even in rape or incest) and wanting to ban books from her local library. It’s frightening.
Comment by: Helen
11 09/4/08 2:18 PM | Comment Link |bradm you raise a good point. I think this issue is coming up more now people with younger children are running for office.
However hard it is for Barack to be present for two young children it surely is harder for Sarah to be present for five. When she choose a larger family she choose higher collective needs. But I agree that Barack also ought to be emotionally present for his children. All parents should be.
Karen I agree that the choices of women with careers aren’t my business - unless their careers affect me. I would say that the career of the Vice Presidential candidate potentially affects me.
I agree with your concerns about Sarah Palin’s experience and since I’m not in favor of banning books or abortion those are also reasons for me not to vote for her. She seems fairly extreme in her views hence my comment about being concerned whether she’d make thoughtful decisions. Her decisions seem to be already made which doesn’t leave room for nuance.
Comment by: Elizabeth Chapin
12 09/4/08 2:51 PM | Comment Link |Interesting post and discussion. I wonder if the minimum age requirement was originally set to ensure the president would not likely be distracted by small children while in office? With people waiting longer to start families nowadays, we will expect to see candidates with younger children. I agree with Karen,
and disagree with Craig,
If what Craig says were true, we should only allow single people who have nothing else to do in life but devote themselves to the office they are running for. Although the job of president can be quite consuming, I don’t think it precludes involvement in everyday affairs of family life.
Comment by: David H
13 09/4/08 4:31 PM | Comment Link |Palin is emblematic of the self-contradictions (some might call it hypocrisy) that is politics.
A candidate touted for her family values who is seeking a job that will likely require a 200-hour per week commitment at a time when she has an infant child with a disability that would probably require a similar commitment of time from an average mom. I’m not saying her motherhood disqualifies her from being vice-president, just that it flies in the face of her supposed focus on family values.
Likewise, her choice makes McCain (not so long ago a conservative political pariah) a “Maverick” the GOP neocons can embrace because it indicates he wants to be like them. Of course, to truly be a maverick, McCain must be his own man — not theirs.
As for her insults of her opponents, that’s old school politics. People can talk about how she is a breath of fresh air, but it smells much the same to me. Perhaps we could focus on her plans and policies if she wasn’t so busy slinging mud. But that, for both Dems and Republicans, is campaigning as usual in this country. Americans claim to dislike that approach, but studies show it works. If the electorate really didn’t like politicians who talked trash they wouldn’t keep electing them.
Finally, I am of course prejudiced as a member of the main-stream media, but I don’t find it surprising that she attacks news media. I could cynically suppose why Republicans have steadfastly opposed, attempted to thwart and worked wholeheartedly to undermine the fourth estate for the past 8 years. A practice McCain-Palin seem poised to continue. But I won’t. If the American people don’t want anyone asking candidates tough questions, if they prefer propaganda, then they will simply have to live with what gets elected.
Comment by: David H
14 09/4/08 4:43 PM | Comment Link |From a news story about the McCain-Palin show at the convention:
Obama, campaigning in swing-state Pennsylvania on Thursday, said he wasn’t surprised at Palin’s criticism of him, and said Democrats intended to focus on her record.
“I think she’s got a compelling story, but I assume she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated,” he said. “I’ve been through this 19 months, she’s been through it - what - four days so far?”
Comment by: benjamin ady
15 09/4/08 5:34 PM | Comment Link |damn, he kind of nailed it. He seems to do that regularly, actually.
Comment by: no offense
16 09/4/08 5:45 PM | Comment Link |Questions about Palin’s ability to mother are pure sexism.
No one has ever (to my knowledge) raised these issues about a male candidate (ever!), and certainly never raised them about Obama specifically, until people point out the obvious sexism in bashing Palin as a bad mom without ever having bashed Obama as a bad dad for attempting to do the same thing to his kids that Palin is accused of doing to hers…
Not to mention, if liberals are going to make being a bad parent an issue then we might have to rethink all of the rhetoric surrounding the Clinton impeachment…
If we are going to question a candidates judgment and compassion based upon his/her family life then that throws out most politicians!
I don’t necessarily have a problem with using these as criteria, but it sure seems hypocritical to bring it up for Palin when it has been taboo for the last few decades.
Palin has enough problems on issues of policy (kill ‘em all, both Iraqis and wildlife) and political experience, (only a few years of state level experience, albeit executive, and no real national or international experience) why make it about anything else?
Same with Obama, he has enough problems on the issues of policy (infanticide) and political (little experience, and none of it executive) experience, why call him a ‘muslim?’
Comment by: Bob
17 09/4/08 8:28 PM | Comment Link |Wow — Elyse doesn’t mince words. I think that’s a bit harsh since we don’t really know how present she has been up to now. Public life doesn’t give us much to go on as to what kind of person someone really is. I’ve watched both conventions and it’s all posturing and preening, along with a dose of forced enthusiasm for the camera. Yecch. It feels dishonest. McCain’s speech tonight I actually enjoyed, he seemed to be himself and credible as such. Palin’s speech seemed calculated and contrived. I don’t dislike her but the speech did not impress. The funny thing about Obama is he can say absolutely nothing but he says it so well you don’t even notice. I’m still searching for the substance in the candidates, the conventions have not satisfied me and as far as Palin I don’t feel like I know much more about her than I did four days ago.
Comment by: David H
18 09/4/08 10:22 PM | Comment Link |Just ran across a brilliant bit on the hypocrisy raising its rosy head with the Sarah Palin pick. You can see it here, at one of my favorite journalism blogs.
Comment by: Minnow
19 09/5/08 3:24 AM | Comment Link |Wow! Sexism 101 right here. Because a woman balances her home life the way men have been doing for decades she’s not qualified to be the vice-president–can anyone explain that to me as anything other than sexist.
@ Karen: She’s not highly educated? Excuse me–since when is a college education not good enough? And let’s hold the presidential candidates to the same standard as the VPs. If elected Senator Obama will be the least “qualified” candidate in history. He has not written one piece of important legislation. He has not made one excutive decision. I guess ruthlessly terminating her political peers is one way of looking at getting rid of corruption and cronyism but I wouldn’t put it that way.
Comment by: Jason Horton
20 09/5/08 6:32 AM | Comment Link |I see she’s described herself as “a pitbull in lipstick”. If she chooses to play upon her gender as a selling point for voters then her gender is fair game for her detractors.
She said:
Which is an effort to place her in the same arena as every worried parent who is concerned about someone fighting on behalf of their nation. As such she opened herself up to having her parenting examined.
I’d love to see an election fought soley on policy issues but that can only happen if the politicians talk about policy and not personality.
Comment by: Helen
21 09/5/08 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Minnow, thanks for stopping by.
This conversation has made me think about whether my attitudes are sexist. It’s true that I hadn’t thought about how Obama running for President will affect his children until the issue was raised regarding Sarah Palin.
I still think that Sarah Palin’s (and Barack Obama’s) choices, including how they balance work and family, are my business more than other people’s choices because they give me some information about how they might make choices as President and in a couple of months I’ll be voting for who I think will be the best President/Vice-President team.
I’m not against women having high powered careers and I agree that there has been an unfortunate double standard when it comes to mothers and careers and fathers and careers. I’ll try not to perpetuate it.
Comment by: David H
22 09/5/08 10:58 AM | Comment Link |A while back a football coach called Andy Reid had an incident involving his sons. One was stopped for poor driving and drugs were found in his car. His brother was involved in a traffic accident rushing to the scene. Drugs and a gun were found in his car.
As football coach for the Philadelphia Eagles, Reid had (still has) a demanding job. Practically 24/7 during the season. This incident occurred during pre-season. My first reaction to this was to hope Reid dropped everything to be with his sons. They were obviously in trouble on multiple levels. I couldn’t help but wonder if Coach Reid’s job had played a role. They were old enough that maybe he couldn’t help them. But I know what I would have done.
Reid took a couple of days whilst the edia speculated whether he would quit or take extended leave of absence. Reid then held press conference and said he was going back to work. I felt disappointment. I couldn’t help but wonder if his children did also.
My experience tells me children don’t usually have problems in a vacuum. Likewise, powerful people often put family second. I’ve interviewed some who admit that.To question a politician about how they are facing problems in their family is SOP. It happens with all public figures. However, it may also tell us something important about who they are. Especially when they are making decisions about who to put in harm’s way.
Comment by: karen
23 09/5/08 1:43 PM | Comment Link |An undergraduate degree doesn’t really cut it for a prestigious position these days, I hate to tell you. Most people seeking a professional job need a graduate degree, and the top people get one from a premier university. That’s just today’s reality.
Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987. She did get a bachelor’s degree - in journalism - but one has to wonder how coherent her education was when she was moving around so much and also changing majors. Last I heard, the University of Idaho - while likely a fine institution - isn’t exactly Ivy League.
This is a blatant lie being circulated by the right wing and it works because people don’t do the research for themselves to find out it’s not true. Here are a couple of places that list Obama’s legislative accomplishments on issues from ethics reform to civil rights legislation in Illinois to securing loose nukes.
Comment by: David H
24 09/5/08 9:45 PM | Comment Link |The view of a purported resident of the town for which Palin was mayor in Alaska.
Comment by: Minnow
25 09/5/08 11:08 PM | Comment Link |@ Karen–I read your second link. I couldn’t get through on your first. I agree that Senator Obama has worked on some very important legislation, he even co-sponsored some, which incidently is very easy to do–a legislator acts and you agree. He might have even authored the bill he introduced. Your link doesn’t say. The point of your link does not refute what has been said about the senator however. It merely indicates that he has worked on legislation and I would certainly hope that that was true of all the senators in Washington and the various state houses.
As for the need for a graduate level education from and Ivy league school I will simply have to respectfully disagree. Smart people don’t all come with silver tongues attached.
@David–The writer brings up some interesting questions–worth checking into.
Comment by: karen
26 09/6/08 10:35 AM | Comment Link |Minnow, here are some highlights from the first link (which works for me):
You can also check out this link and this one for additional information.
Please do not spread that lie that he is a “talk pretty but do nothing” politician. It just ain’t true, and it’s the kind of vicious personal attack that the Republicans (and Palin especially it seems) specialize in. It particularly seems ironic that as self-annointed True Christians they are ridiculing his work as a community organizer. As someone pointed out this week, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor!
Oh, she’s got a silver tongue, no doubt about that!
The reality is that I defy you to go to a top corporation or any other organization (government, nonprofit, etc) and demand the chief executive job without a graduate degree these days. If Palin had a stellar career (not PTA mom, small-town mayor and 20-month governor) I would be more likely to overlook her weak education, but the truth is she just doesn’t.
She’s a featherweight with a sharp tongue and a lot of appealing personality. That doesn’t make her qualified to be a heartbeat away from the position of leader of the free world.
Comment by: benjamin ady
27 09/7/08 4:17 AM | Comment Link |Alas, as a recent bachelor’s degree graduate, I’m finding this too true. It seems it’s back to school for *another* 2 or 3 or 4 years.
I think Palin, Biden, McCain, and Obama are all fairly *nuts*, at one level, to *want* to be elected to such high office. The payoffs, in terms of what they might be able to accomplish, don’t seem to be worth the insanity they have to go through.
I mean honestly, in 2012, after the first term of whomever, how different will the world be? Maybe some Americans will have health care that didn’t have it before. Maybe we won’t still be killing people in Iraq. But on some kind of larger scale, war, and poverty, and famine, and drought, and people the world over treating eath other horrifically both by omission and comission, all this will still be going on, at … mostly very nearly the same levels.
There’s your hopeful thought for the day.
In terms of availability to children, I’d be curious see some historical data on the children of presidents and vice-presidents–how their parents being in the white house affected them? Is there any story-ish stuff out there on this subject? How many living children of presidents and vice-presidents are there? How many of them were quite young when their parents were in office? Have they talked about how it was for them?
Comment by: Jason Horton
28 09/7/08 5:39 AM | Comment Link |benjamin ady, you are a pessimist. :)
Perhaps the world won’t be dramatically altered in the next four years but it might be in forty years, or a hundred years as a result of the policies introduced by the next government.
If you look at the National Health Service in Britain as an example. It is 60 years old and came about from one government’s commitment to providing a free health service for all people. Complain about it being inefficient all you like but the fact is that it helps people who would have no access to medical care without it. Looking at it another way I’d be paying lower taxes without it. Either way it’s a significant change.
What about government support for leading edge technologies? America put a man on the moon and developed thousands of new technologies in the effort because one President said that they could.
If a President and party leads for four years and achieves nothing then they’ve wasted that time. I don’t think that a government ever tries to do nothing.
Comment by: Elane
29 09/9/08 8:52 AM | Comment Link |There is so much in these comments. I’m sort of torn - where to begin to respond.
1. I do hear a lot of sexism in the comments. In the short time Jack Kennedy was president, Jackied delivered a premature baby who died and later gave birth to John John. No one asked, if Jack was taking time off to care for Jackie & Caroline. There have been other Presidents with young families, but I don’t remember hearing it be an issue about where is Dad. Palin’s husband could be the First Gentleman.
As a working mom, the hardest thing I ever had to do, was go back to work when my youngest was 6 weeks old. BUT, I had to do it. I don’t envy Palin - even with a nanny to help. Does that mean her husband will fill in for her? What does it say about us that this is an issue for Palin, but not others?
2. I think anyone who runs for President must have a big ego and be a little crazy - even the good ones. The only exception in my life time, might be Jimmy Carter. Maybe a big ego is a prerequisite to be president.
Would an average person really want to have that responsiblity and work those kinds of hours?
As with most jobs, you don’t really know what you will be doing until you land there. And a job like President of the USA, must be a moving target. What would equip someone for the office?
3. I do find it disturbing that Palin has limited experience running a small town and a small state. Alaska has a population of less than 700,000. Smaller than Cleveland, OH. So, saying she has executive experience doesn’t mean much in this case.
I don’t think I’d want the mayor of Cleveland being a heart beat away from running the country.
Having said that, I’m not sure anyone (except for former VPs) who runs for President has a clue what they are getting themselves into. And which of their skills will help them in the job?
What if we could know more about their character, competence, and collaboration skills? I would like to measure the candidates on those points. What I get from the news doesn’t tell me much about these 3 qualities.
Regarding Palin’s experience, there are lots of stories out there of large companies who brought an executive in because they had been an executive for another company - only to discover their skills and knowledge didn’t transfer. Can Palin take the skills she has learned as mayor and governor and take them up several notches to VP and President?
4. Ben - I think every election is important. There is no way of knowing what will be the fruit from this next Presidency. We will continue to feel the ramifications/blessings from this current president. For me, I want a change. And that means not only a change in power, but a change in citizens. As long as we are not engaged in the process and our local communities, we have abdicated our power to the White House, governor, mayor, etc. Bad move. One does not have to be involved in politics to be engaged in building community, exercising your voice. That is my goal to become more engaged than I am now.
5. It is disappointing to me that both McCain and Palin are in Cincinnati today - and refused to talk to the local news networks last night. Is this standard practice for Obama too? It concerns me because Bush has modeled not taking hard questions from the media. We need our free press and real journalist to help keep us all honest.
Comment by: marion
30 09/20/08 7:16 AM | Comment Link |yes, that is why it is different to Obama
and even though I am a biblical feminist that does not mean that I don’t think the female is better disposed physically, and emotionally, to be the main carer for a 4 month old baby.
this is not sexism [which I hate], but practical realism - having been there twice.
Comment by: marion
31 09/20/08 7:28 AM | Comment Link |Karen,
well said in refuting the lies about Obama.
One got away though, [by 'no offense' no.16] such a tiresome lie, one that demonises him in an evil way [if people would only stop to think what they are saying], saying that he is in favour of infanticide.
this makes me angry - sorry - that anyone could be so unthinking as to label him with that…even if they haven’t bothered to check the actual detail that is a ludicrous thing to say, especially of a caring father.
The Facts on it:
http://www.matthew25.org/paf/index.htm#infanticide