exactly! couldn't agree more. i'm not a woman, but i'm still offended.

Hillary Clinton = *experience*, not *gender*. Sarah Palin VP pick is not a bold move for McCain. it's political suicide. that is all.

~C

P.S. +1 for Meg Whitman! http://bit.ly/1yUpHz

If you're against protectionist politics, sounds like you shouldn't be with Obama.

Does he honestly believe that women in this country are so stupid as to believe that any woman is a substitute for another woman? That all that us women boil down to is our XX chromosomes and estrogen?

I agree with you 100%, Danah, but I think H.L. Mencken said it best when he said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Plus, by choosing Palin, McCain is attempting to force Hillary to come out and fight harder for Obama, and that gives the GOP a target they can hit. They saw how gender issues hurt the Dems in the primaries, and now they're going to use it as a weak spot to get the female swing voters. It's as ugly a tactic as you'll ever see, but that's politics for you.

very well put, danah.

Thank you for this. Well said.

Palin certainly lacks experience. It cracked me up when she talked about her experience from being mayor of her town--a town of 5,000. Student council chairs have larger constituencies than that!

But an issue we hear less about is education. She's got a bachelor's in journalism. Period. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I really doubt this "hockey mom" has read many books on political philosophy.

The sad, sad, sad, horrible thing is that to many American voters, that's a good thing. We seem to equate sophisticated thinking with some kind dangerous elitism. While in reality, being president of one of the most powerful nations on earth is an INCREDIBLY complex job. It requires incredibly complex thinking, the kind of thinking that MUST be scaffolded by education (formal or informal).

Forget charisma, forget folksiness, forget get-it-done attitude, what I want to know from a candidate is what books they've read.

I think it's great!

Here in Central England, we're bombarded with American politics on our news bulletins.

Quite frankly I'm sick to death of hearing about the American Primaries, so it's nice to see some eye candy, and she seems to be a nice ordinary mum to boot, about time someone ordinary got in rather than some wrinkled crone spouting platitudes and gathering stories for a multi-million pound autobiography after the next scandal.

We had Thatcher here, and we have the Queen, God bless her (stands to attention and sings the national anthem). I wouldn't get on the phone to Liz and tell her that we're patronising her, because of her gender.I'd be impaled by the steel implements of a dozen Beefeaters and have more than half of the population demanding to string me up.

I've licked the back of stamps for 40 years with the Queens head on, and it's not done me any bad at all. We're not afraid here of putting women in power, why are you?

I have to say that I do find your political system rather odd though. Here in the UK, we announce we're having an election, we put up with some dreary nonsense for around two to three weeks, we vote, and get it over and done with. There's little or no razmataz, we vote and move on. No kids tumbling, no brass bands. Politics here is a little like taking refuse to the council tip, though less enjoyable. If people whooped and hollered at a council by-election, they would be committed, or be clubbed to death, or, even worse, be stared at in a very menacing way and ignored by everyone at Asda.

We've had politics for a thousand years, it's become functional and a necessary evil - a little like using the loo.

England's voting system is very much like my buying a pair of shoes. I get the job done because I'm bored of shopping. I go to a shoe shop, ask for a pair of size 11 shoes, I try them on, buy them and go home. Job done. I've had to endure shopping for 9 minutes, nasty business that it is.

American politics reminds me a bit of my wife shopping for shoes. She goes to the shoe shop, picks up a pair of shoes, looks at baby clothes (my kids are teenagers), wanders over to look at Boots, wanders around a perfume shop, goes back to look at the first pair of shoes, tries to find them cheaper at 6 other shoe shops, wanders around a chemists, looks at wigs (honestly, I'm not kidding), goes to a toy store, back to the chemists, goes home, goes back to the shoe shop, comes home with the shoes, a dozen photo frames from Poundland, Christmas cards (in August) and dozens of other bags then takes them back the next week. Get my gist?

Wheel her on I say!

I'm offended that you think this is all about "getting Hillary's supporters".

Governor Palin was selected primarily to get the Republican base enthused about the campaign."Moderate McCain" doesn't resonate with the ideologically diverse Republican coalition for the same reason he is so well liked by Democrats when he wasn't the GOP nominee. Governor Palin appeals to both social conservatives and libertarians.She is a small government, pro-liberty conservative.

This isn't about "you". Except to the extent it drives you nuts to have an exciting,appealing, Vice-Presidential Candidate from the opposing party. Some Hillary supporters may decide they like Gov Palin but she will appeal much more to the undecideds,moderates,and first time voters.

You should applaud the fact that the GOP is running a strong, feminist, intelligent, skilled, working mother. If you oppose her ideologically that is fine. I'm sure many American men and women will find Gov Sarah Palin an inspiring leader as Vice President.

I am completely insulted by McCain's choice for VP! I cannot believe he would choose someone with such only a degree in journalism who worked for a while as a sportscaster before becoming a small town mayor and governor of a state with a small population. I will continue to hope that our voters have better sense than to fall for such a ploy! Hillary supporters like me did not vote for her just because of her gender...now, those like me are committed to supporting Obama!

Thanks, danah, for such interesting writings! I definitely enjoy them.

Best wishes on your dissertation...I can feel your pain, I am writing mine, too...the work never seems to be enough!

I posted this this morning and am passing it along...

Sarah Palin -- what a slap in the face to politically active women

Sarah Palin -- what a contemptuously cynical selection -- as cynical as replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas -- a puppet who can be counted on to parrot the party line:

"Hey you Hillary fans -- she's a woman, right? Look, breasts, vulva -- what more do you want? So what if she's against a woman's right to choose? So what if she's obsessive about drilling in ANWR and everywhere else? So what if her "reform" of the oil laws and "opposition to big oil" was no more than a demand that the state of Alaska gets a bigger piece of the oil pie, increasing taxes on the companies drilling in the state? SHE'S A WOMAN so what more do you bitches want?"

I always thought the worst of the Karl Roving of McCain in the year 2000, the most vicious and egregious slander was that he was brave and all but the torture in the POW camp unhinged him and made him really kind of insane .. can't trust his mind any more...

But after months of hearing him speak, hearing reports of his insane short temper, such things as (verified by reporters) calling his wife a "cunt" who was "painted up like a trollop" in front of a group he was addressing... I'm actually starting to think that was the ONE attack that actually had a basis in fact...

Whats this I hear? A political decision driven by politics. Madness I tell you! You know, this is not all about you. The conservative base of the Republican party is pretty happy with this pick. At least there will at least one person on one ticket with some executive experience. She is a member of the NRA. She shoots. She has gone after corruption. She is from outside the beltway...That is change I can believe in.

Jeff,

i agree. political media circus it is.

"The conservative base of the Republican party is pretty happy with this pick."

i doubt it. yeah, some may be happy. GOP talking heads will defend this choice for the sake of party loyalty. but i think deep inside the GOP party is divided with McCain's decision. maybe worse than the DNC tension between Obama and the Clintons.

for instance, when GOP talking heads are asked whether Palin is the *best* Republican choice for VP, nobody could answer the question with a straight face. they immediately go on the Obama "experience" offensive. go figure.

mark my words. when all is said and done, Obama-Biden will win by a landslide. the millennial (and conscientious women) demographic will make sure of this.

more of my thoughts here: http://bit.ly/4uFAsx

~C

Palin's credentials are 2 years as governor of a state with population about the size of Boston (600,000+), mayor for 2 terms of a hamlet of about 7000, runner up for a beauty contest, and mom of 5. That last number is pretty impressive - but the other stuff? Chump change. McCain's insane. She's eye candy for an old coot hoping to pull one over on the country. I'm disgusted.

Danah, you ought to send this in to the editorial boards of the big newspapers. It ought to have as wide a readership as possible. Well done!

Jeff_NH and SIV: Point taken. Palin definitely has her appealing side and it's simplistic to argue that she was only chosen to win over Hillary supporters. I think Danah's strongest (and central) point is experience. No matter how well she might play to the GOP base, it's a stretch to think that she's ready for a vice presidency (with a very real possibility of succeeding to the presidency) with a paltry two-year governorship and some small-town Alaska mayoral experience. Can you point out historical counterexamples? (Wish I knew more history myself.)

Well stated. Take a look at my blog, I'd like to link to this with your permission.

Sarah Palin is the anti-women female candidate.

And if you didn't think the republican ticket is an extension of Bush's term before, you better believe it now. With a evangelical, extreme pro-creationism, anti-women candidate like Palin, it really is Bush's third term and mess all over again.

You said it so much more eloquently than I did as I was picking my jaw up from the floor just moments after reading the news on my Twitter SMS from cnnbrk... http://beta.friendfeed.com/e/37d431c6-1180-c67c-467f-4d2ddb089ab7/Hah-McCain-picked-a-woman-for-VP-to-try-to-pick/

None of this is to disparage Ms. Palin, who and what she is, or what she has accomplished. But she's clearly not the best person to lead the US in the event that McCain is elected but becomes unable to lead.

Your the same person who would cry if he didn't pick a woman. Get a life. Oh and don't hate because she is beautiful.

Wow Danah, you took the words right out of my mouth. I admit, today I was busy and I didn't take time to speak. I was swallowing it all.

The first thing I thought when I read the pick this morning was, "I'm offended. Do they really think that we, as women, are THAT stupid. Will just any woman do as long as it's biologically a female?" Personally, I have nothing at all against Sarah Palin as a human... as a mother. I don't agree with her politics, but I do admire her tenacity. Her bulldog style. Even her sports-mindedness. I identify with that...

All that said, I don't think for a single second that she has the experience YET to be the vice (maybe some day). Especially with one-foot-in-the-grave McCain. Whomever his running mate is has as much possibility of being president as he has. The job of president is highly stressful and looking at his history, it's doubtful his body can handle much more stress.

I'm more than a bit concerned that, even though she's all about "calling out" corrupt politicians, she resigned after serving one year as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She resigned because of "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. Does she REALLY think it will be different in Washington? Yes, it may be different (read worse). Hillary knows enough of the good ole' boys to hold her own -- I fear Sarah and her idealism would be eaten alive.

So to cut it short, yes, I'm offended as well. I'm offended that he thinks that picking the female gender is enough to get women on his side. And I'm even more offended that for some, it may work.

Hopefully Biden will not be seen as condescending during their debate. Her lack of experience will show, even with McCain's staff prepping her.

Initially I didn't quite understand why you're so offended. But I think I know why now. You think McCain made this pick to appeal to you. Clearly he didn't, and when you realize that you'll be able to think more objectively.

Your claim that McCain thinks that all women are equally substitutable is silly and unfair. It's fair to think that she's unqualified. I think you'd sound more credible if you focused on this.

You're pretty inconsistent here with some of your more substantive criticisms. For example, protectionist policies are usually associated with liberalism. Why are you suddenly against it if it happens to be a Republican pushing it?

Also, you think Palin is out to physically destroy the environment of Alaska. This is almost too ridiculous of a claim to address. I'll assume you're referring to the gas pipeline. Barack supports this as well. The wells in question contain natural gas and oil, although I'm not sure if it makes sense to extract the oil. In either case, the drilling process is basically the same from what I understand.

Palin is not the woman for you, and McCain has completely lost your respect due to his picking her. Fine. But your claim that McCain picked her solely because she's female is, to borrow a theme, offensive. It's a baseless claim. Imagine if someone accused you of supporting Barack solely because he's black. It's unfair and it damages the debate.

"We the Rockefellers funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television so we could tax the other 50% of workers and so we could get kids into schools sooner so they would accept the state as the primary parent." -Nicholas Rockefeller

My sentiments exactly! As a woman who was a Hilary supporter - and who did hope, up until the end, that she would be selected as VP - I am appalled and insulted that McCain thinks so little of women that he actually thinks he can lure us into his camp with this ridiculously transparent bait. Obama and Biden need to use some restraint at first (lest they come off as bullies) but Hilary can and will make mincemeat of this anti-choice, Fundamentalist, neocon pin-up! Shes about as qualified to be VP (or, Goddess forbid) President, as Bush's famous female pick for Chief Justice - that illustrious intellectual giant: Harriet Meirs!

Obama and Biden DO need to heap the scorn on McCain for his choice though. He really has no respect at all for women if he expects that Hillary Clinton's bright and politically savvy supporters will fall for this obvious ploy. Yeah! Like ANY woman as VP (even one who represents everything we abhor) will swing MILLIONS over to the McCain fold. I agree - totally insulting and patronizing thinking on McCain's part. Shame on him!

Come to think of it, though, we should all be happy that McCain has so clearly and publicly demonstrated his incredible lack of presidential judgment.

Here! Here!

For those of you who think Palin's VP selection wasn't a transparent, flagrant attempt to make 'history' by adding a woman, any woman, to the Republican ticket, I have just one question. Would John McCain even considered to add "Seth" Palin - first term governor of Alaska, member of the NRA, hunter, father of five and the former mayor of a town of 8,000 or so to the ballot? Remember, "Seth" Palin, is a man who has been governor for roughly the same amount of time that Barack Obama has been running for President. How would "Seth" Palin have compared to Tom Ridge, Mitt Rommney, or Mike Huckabee? How would "Seth" Palin have compared to Condi Rice or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson? How would "Seth" Palin have compared to Barack Obama. Heck, how would "Seth" Palin have compared to MICHELLE Obama!

The answer is "Seth" Palin would not have been on the ticket. "Seth" Palin would not have even been invited to the table and the same goes for Sarah.

The gender equality women have fought for has nothing to do with just giving us an invitation - it is about treating us as equals because we are EQUAL and because we are just as intelligent, just as hard working, and just as qualified, if not more qualified than the next person - whether that person be male, female or transgendered, Black, White, Latino, Asian, or Caublacasian. I respect Sarah Palin for being a working mother, for fighting against unethical fat cat 'public servants', for governing a state with less than a third of the population of the city of Chicago, but that's where my respect ends - and my outrage begins.

First, I would like to open by saying I love reading your blog and keeping up with your thoughts and opinions. 90% of the time agree but this time I must decent.

I would concur with Jeremy above. I think you assume too much.

You wrote:
It is clear that the decision is primarily driven by politics, by the belief that to get Hillary's supporters, all you need to do is play the gender card.

The statement is a straw man fallacy as you make the choice to be bigger than it is. I contend Hillary supporters are cult-like and are a very small percentage of the available votes. Most Hillary supporters are party line people and will support Obama.

I could care less who McCain has as VP. The issue at hand is an issue of GW wagging the dog over the next couple months. Regardless of who wins, Obama or McCain, both are in trouble because GW has created such a quagmire that neither have the experience to get us out of it. At best, they can prevent a downward spiral.

In conclusion, this was a good post but don't assume too much. I think you give McCain's choice too much credit. Finally, every choice a candidate makes is political. Gone is the "right" decision and remaining is the "electable" decision. Tie the idealism to the pole on the corner.

"Danah's strongest (and central) point is experience. No matter how well she might play to the GOP base, it's a stretch to think that she's ready for a vice presidency (with a very real possibility of succeeding to the presidency) with a paltry two-year governorship and some small-town Alaska mayoral experience."

That is still two+ more years executive experience than Obama - and he's the guy at the TOP of the Dem ticket. This is definitely a losing argument for you liberals. How can you complain about her experience when all of Obama's adds up to a paltry 143 days in the senate? Any way you slice it that's a pittance by comparison - and she's had to carry the load of executive - a position Obama knows nothing about. And she has some real-life experience. Short of having a silver spoom shoved in his mouth his whole life, Obama has none whatsoever

A perfect echo from my own thinking (except I'm a guy but I believed his selection would be offensive to women). Well written.

Great points, but...

Now as a black man, I'm offended that Obama is the nominee. Y'all are just tryin' hard to appease me for 300 years of slavery. Well it's not gonna work!

are you also offended by the women of alaska who have made her the most popular politician there in years? And im offended that you place an over emphasis on one's education. It's quite possible that some of the smartest and wisest people around have no "professional" education at all. Im curious if you have children? If you continued on past your undergrad with five kids then i bow down to your greatness.

are you also offended by the women of alaska who have made her the most popular politician there in years? And im offended that you place an over emphasis on one's education. It's quite possible that some of the smartest and wisest people around have no "professional" education at all. Im curious if you have children? If you continued on past your undergrad with five kids then i bow down to your greatness.

Are you also offended by the women of Alaska who have made her the most popular politician there in years? And I'm offended that you place an over emphasis on one's education. It's quite possible that some of the smartest and wisest people around have no "professional" education at all. I'm curious if you have children? If you continued on past your undergrad with five kids then i bow down to your greatness.

This VP pick is so baffling I can only conclude McCain wants to loose. As a Libertarian I think long and hard about my vote. I feel that for the first time in my life that voting for the Democrat candidate is the only choice -
for good or ill Mr Obama now has my vote.

Sorry fellow Libertarians but Bob Barr isn't worth my vote - maybe if you reconsider and draft Ron Paul.

Found this post via Twitter. Thanks for confirming what was obvious since McCain's announcement, that Palin is infinitely MORE qualified to be president than Obama. Comparing her to Hillary is offensive, since Hillary's only political qualification is being married to the biggest embarrassment in Washington in the last 30 years (probably more than that, but I'm too young to remember any further back). Obama's economic platform is either going to skyrocket our already beyond control national debt, or it's going to tax half the population into bankruptcy. I would LOVE to see a leader on the Democratic ticket, to give the people a true choice, unfortunately for the last several elections it's been nothing but a parade of puppets for the faceless puppeteeer leaders of the Democratic party.

McCain-Palin 08!!!!!

Who cares if you're offended? Its your choice to be offended, not McCain's intent to offend. Get over yourself.

To all the posters above who defend this choice on it's merits and claim it has nothing to do with gender.

Is there anybody on this planet who thinks this person would be the nominee if his name was Paul or George or John or Denis or Patrick or Bart?

Anybody?

Never mind the qualifications of Palin... Is this a pick derived at on the basis of what is best for America, or on the basis of what might be the best way to get McCain elected.

Think about that for awhile and then consider:

What does this say about the judgment of McCain? A man who clearly puts the needs of John McCain over the best interest of America.

Well, I have no intention of voting for McCain but thought the choice was a definite attention getter. I don't see the point in putting her down just because she's not the "right" kind of woman. She'll do more to unite pro-life Republicans--that's one of the issues that my more conservative mother will be voting on...

You should be more than offended, Dana. You should be scared. This is more than about grabbing a few Hillary votes. This is about removing Palin from a situation in Alaska that had a corrupt GOP on its heels. Its about pushing the Big Oil agenda as hard as possible. It's about Karl Rove and the GOP being so desperate to hold on to power that they'll do anything possible to win. They really don't care if she can run the country because it's not about leadership. It's about winning at all costs, even if that means starting a war with Russia or shoving a child with Downs Syndrome in front of the camera.

Obama picked a man with experience and understanding to match John McCain.
McCain picked a woman with a quality of youthfulness and passion for change to match Obama.

But the reasons for the picks do not end there. It is wildly open to interpretation and the force the forms of these interpretations take are stunning. For dannah it is about Hillary and women. For me it is about Obama. For another it may be about further pitting the Hillarites against the Obamites. Suddenly 'experience' becomes a question concerning Palin and - voila - what about Obama's inexperience?

Instead of outraged, I am excited by how well this political game is being played by these two strong competing candidates for president. Scratch that. ...by how well this political game is being played by the voters and their non-voting attendants who seek to make meaningful the next four years and an exercise of the will this November.

The word my daughter used was "insulted." Nice blog post, danah!

Thank you, John. Honestly, all of you who are so insulted by McCain's Palin pick need to take a really good look in the mirror. First of all, what is Barack Obama other than an affirmative action pick? All you Hillary supporters know that spot was hers for the taking. But the Dems played the race card instead of the gender card and ended up putting a way less experienced candidate in her place simply because he is black. And how did Hillary get where she was anyway? Some feminist! Riding on the coattails of her husband for 30 years. Then gets herself elected to Senate in a blue state she never lived in. So if you're a Hillary supporter insulted by Palin's candidacy, please, get over yourself.

Second, the claim that Palin is not for women and women's issues? THAT's insulting. Why, because she doesn't toe the liberal party line: Male bashing and unlimited abortion on demand? Ya know, feminism does not equal left-wing politics. Good for her she's pro-life! In case you didn't know, the *original* feminist pioneers, like Susan B. Anthony, were "militantly" anti-abortion. They're surely rolling in their graves with all the millions of babies that have been murdered in the name of authentic "feminism."

Third, you gotta be kidding me that Palin is some puppet of the party line. And Hillary's not? Obama's not? McCain hardly toes the right-wing party line of the Republican Party, but he managed to grab the candidacy anyway. Joe Lieberman tries to be his own man by being practically the only Democrat to support the War in Iraq, and the Dems threw him under the bus.

Here's so I see it: Palin represents what all American woman should be, and you know it: education, marriage, children, and a leadership career. She has more experience to be president than Barack Obama. And that's what bothers all of you.

If you Democrats truly believed in feminism, you would support her AND McCain's picking her. But I know you're going to vote for the ultra-left-wing empty suit, because it's ... um ... historic.

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt

It seems to me, that you are so worried about being offended that you have stopped thinking. Not everything is a conspiracy.

What a classic example of women cannibalizing their own gender. Instead of looking at her as a quality candidate, you look to slight her. As my wife would say, "women love nothing more than to tear down other women." Thank you for proving that point.

I don't think the Palin choice was meant to appeal to Hillary democrats or women in general. I think she was chosen to energize the anti-abortion and pro-gun GOP base, which she has, so in that sense she has been an effective choice. As an added bonus, she stole most of Obama's post-convention thunder.

I also think she will be forced to withdraw her name once her baby and brother-in-law scandals come to full light, and i think McCain may have been counting on this when he selected her. She will be replaced on the GOP ticket by a white male who will be a lot scarier than a dimwitted hockey mom from Alaska.

So, who was McCain supposed to pick, and more importantly, who turned down the invitation? As much as I'd like to see Rice as VP, I think the taint from involvement with the Bush administration disqualifies her (for at least one cycle).

The content and politics industries seem to have divided by zero with this VP pick. They have exploded into a tantrum of pasta-flinging, the stickier bits of which end up in places like this blog. So, I'm still pointing and laughing at the ongoing mess. :)

*Whoops! That should be "Rice as VP nominee"... I just wanted to see an epic Rice/Biden foreign policy debate. :D

does any candidate really have any experience in pulling a nation and the world out of the mess that has been orchestrated? we need someone with wisdom and compassion and who is committed to fostering dialog--not someone who leads the small-minded masses in chants of "drill baby drill!"

Why wouldn't McCain think all women are interchangeable? Any man who calls his wife a cunt and a trollop in public (or anywhere!) as he did in 1992(don't quote me on the year) certainly only sees women as having one purpose. He's just trying to screw us, one way or another. Don't let him and the rest of that OWME (old white male estab.) BTY - anyone besides me notice how FEW dark faces there were in the crowd last night? Will it be the same tonight or did they get smart and rent some minority (or is that now majority?) bodies?

danah,

I think you are mistaken about McCain's intent, although not entirely. Surely, gender was a factor in picking Palin - having a woman on the ticket was seen as "necessary" but not "sufficient". Palin brings a great deal more to the table than her gender.

The fact that the additional qualities she brings are not about her actual fitness to serve in office is true - but largely irrelevant to the process.

Those who make the point that she was chosen because of her conservative credentials are somewhat closer to the mark - surely that also was an important factor - but I don't think that's the whole store either.

The ingredients that have not yet been mentioned are two. The first and less controversial is her effectiveness as a campaigner. By being an "outsider" to the extreme, she appeals to those who hate the hypocrisy and corruption of "politics as usual". If fact, although I oppose most of the conservative agenda, I was almost ready to admire her and decide she would be a good addition to the Washington scene (until I found out more about her, to be discussed in point two). She is an effective speaker, and she is also good looking.

And before you say that being "good looking" is a quality only considered significant for a female candidate, and therefore offensive to bring up, let me refer you to the Nixon Kennedy debates which won Kennedy the election for precisely that reason. Attractiveness is a widely recognized plus in a campaigner of either gender.

The other big asset she brings to the McCain campaign has been fairly well documented over on Daily Kos by a user called dogemporer (sp?). This is the Christian fundamentalist connection, and more specifically the connection to the "dominionists", speciifically in and around the pentacostal denomination Assemblies of God. Dogemporer makes a powerful circumstantial case that Palin is part of or is close to a "stealth" faction of Christian theocrats whose agenda is to bring the US politically under the "dominion" of Biblical (Old Testament) Christianity.

The supporting details for this claim are too involved to discuss here. However, we can surely go with the weaker but still significant claim that the Christian Right, who are lukewarm to the point of tepidity toward McCain, will be placated as well as energized about the ticket by the selection of a running mate who is clearly one of their very own.

And, let's not forget, that although the Christian right may not bulk large among the population as a whole, they are *huge* as a factional power within the Republican party activist base.

So, I would guess at Rove's motives for the selection as

(1) The Christian right / social conservative factor
(2) The "outsider / maverick factor (probably how he sold her to McCain)
(3) The gender factor

So, if you must be offended, why not be offended as an American that these folks, for the sake of political expediency, would endanger the nation by running with a candidate arguably unqualified for the duties of the office, and probably a closet theocrat into the bargain.

It's much more about that then any attempt to appeal to presumed weak-minded women - although I'm sure any votes picked up on that score will be more than welcome.

Just a thought,
-Steve

Steve I had to point out the absurdity of your 'theocrat' statement (well, not really) but there is NO christianity in the old testament. It might helo if you actually did some looking instead of mindlessly repeating of tripe that comes from the talking heads on the left.

Awesome Larry, it's great to know that there's no Christianity in the Old Testament - now why don't you try telling that to the right-wing Dominionist nutbags you have over there in the US! I've been watching them for a while now and have observed that they routinely pick and choose Bible verses from both Old and New Testaments to reflect their anti-women, anti-gay and anti-freedom views.

Oh and DogEmperor, who was mentioned in a previous post, is an amazing researcher who has been studying the Dominionists for YEARS. She was brought up in one of their groups and, as far as I can tell without having lived through that experience myself, knows what she's talking about. She is very well respected in the anti-Dominionist crowd (a crowd that contains both right and left wingers btw, you don't have to be leftwing to be concerned about what Christian extremists are attempting to do in the States.)

Kirsty,

Thanks for the additional info, and for correcting the spelling of DogEmperor (I was trying to spell it from memory).

Larry,

The question of Christianity in the Old Testament is a fascinating one, which can be approached on a number of levels. The question breaks down into two major subthemes.

(1) Do professed Christians consider the Old Testamen tto be part of their heritage and authoritative to their faith? (This is not controversial and with few exceptions can be answered affirmatively.) We find in general 3 major points of support for this.

(1)Jesus conducted his ministry within the Theocratic Jewish state of his time, and worked within the religious traditions of that community - although being sharply critical of much of the contemporary practice nominally derived from those traditions. Thus Old Testament Judiasm is very much the theological/cutural "soil" out of which the teachings of Jesus grew. (Hellenistic influences in the early church and in the teachings of Jesus are a fascinating topic to explore, but are beyond the scope of this discussion).

(2) Biblical literalists among Christians generally consider the Old Testamant to be "incorporated by reference" (to borrow a legal term) by a New Testament scripture passage which goes something like "All scripture is profitable for..." followed by a laundry list of good uses). Since the canon of New Testament scripture had not then been established, this passage is generally interpreted as referring to the Old Testament and validating it as authoritative for Christians.

(3) Christian theologians who may or may not be Biblical literalists consider many Old Testament prophecies and imagery to foreshadow the life and ministry of Jesus. FOr instance, The image of Israel "the suffering servant" is widely regarded by Christians as a foreshadowing of Jesus's suffering for humanity in the Crucifixion.

All that being said, the more interesting question is what is the true message of Christianity, as distinct from that taught Sunday mornings by confused pastors and lying theologians, and to what extent can the Old Testament be considered Christian in the light of whether it coheres with that message. Obviously, your mileage may vary, but my understanding of Jesus's message rests heavily on the question of "the Law" as it was understood by the theocratic culture of h/His time and place. I understand him to have been critical of the notion that righteousness consists in attempting to adhere to text-based behaviorial constraints and prescriptions with something approaching infinite precision - which roughly describes the teaching of the influential Pharisee faction within the Judaism of that period. In fact, one of my very favorite lesser-known New Testament quotes is where Jesus rants "Ye tithe mint, dill and cumin but know not righteousness!" I think a really huge poiny of mis message, and arguably the point that got him crucified, can be unfolded by exploring the implications of that short quote - in the context of the rest of his ministry, of course.

Now we can ask, if I'm right about that being Jesus's message, and thus a necessary basis for anthentic "Christianity" in subsequent generations, to what extent does the Old Testament cohere with this message.

I'm not going to dwell on this question at length. To my mind it's a mixed bag. There is much in the Old Testament thaat would be right at home in a Jesus-centered approach to life. Mainly where they exhort the people to righteousness, call upon the powerful to deal justly with the weak, etc. On the other hand, the bloodthirsty parts where God's people are commanded to mercilessly slaughter God's enemies does not seem to me to be compatible with Testament 2.0 (Jesus fork). (The book of Joshua is full of it). In like manner, I find little Christian in the legalistic passages full of nitpicking dos and donts typified by much of Leviticus, for instance.

Larry, I hope this makes a start at an adequate answer to your point.

As a side note, one of the fascinating ironies to me, if indeed is turns out that Sarah Palin is of a Pentecostal tradition which practices "speaking in tongues" is that any unbiased reading of the New Testament story of Pentecost must find that it fails to support such practices.

At Pentecost, it is said that a multitude from many nations were assembled and that via the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit people speaking different languages were able to understand one another. This is commonly regarded by Christian theologians as a reversal of the curse of Babel. Now look at "tongues" in a modern "Pentecostal" church, such as the Asemblies of God (Palin's alleged former and perhaps present denomination). They speak not in the tongue of their nation, but in an *unknown* tongue. And far from people being able to understand one another when their native tongues are diverse, those of the same nation cannot understand the tongue being spoken by their compatriot. Only one with the "gift of interpretation" can decode the secret message. So, th the extent that these gropus claim the miracle of Pentecost as their scriptural authority for this practice, they are engaging in a falsehood which is trivial to refute.

Just a thought,
-Steve

Steve:

'Faleshood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being'
- Jean Jacques Rousseau

Perhaps I can clear this up for you without writing a thesis. Jesus' preaching was based on relationship, not on the law of ANY testament (or government). The main point He was(is) trying to make is that, in order to truly fulfil His purpopse and become all that we were designed to be, we must put away the dogma of law - especially the law that attempts to use the power of ths institution of 'religion' to control the people - any people, and any institution - this includes the precious state.

That means that any law created by man that tries to regulate my relationship with others is 'of man' not of God. Therefore, as a Christian, my first authority is always God - not what the state says. and it seems to me that the libs are trying VERY hard to regulate the way I spend my money (i can use it for the good better that ANY government agency), the way I interact with my children (I don't need an extra year of state-run preschool to teach my kids to read), the way I plan for the future (I know what I'll need to survive in my old age better than any politician, AND will invest it in ways that will show a REAL return on my money - unlike social security). The same premise applies to the way I interact within His creation. The arrogance of puny humans to think they know how to take care of an entire PLANET is not only appalling, but entirely false.

It seems to me that this (and most) political debate boils down to control - the libs feel it is their right and privilege to control the 'unclean masses' simply because they are part of the educated elite. God's answer is much simpler (though not as easy to disseminate): "Do your best, love Me and I'll take care of you AND my creation."
I think that G.K. Chesterton said it best - 'once abolish the God and the government becomes the god' I'm not ready to equate 'governent' to 'God' just yet and it makes me sad that you seem perfectly willing to become another puppet for the socialist state

Larry,

Unfortunately, an attempt to discuss fully the points you raise is beyond my present resources. These are issues that touch on fundamental philosophical questions such as the nature of humankind, and also what is sometimes called the "paradox of the one and the many". (For example, social progress is not possible without individual effort - but at the same time the development of individuals is not possible with out the existence and support of the larger society.)

In my youth, I was for a time an anarchist, and I rejected the idea of any behavioral constraints that were not freely chosen. On further thought, I now believe that some kinds of commonly accepted constraints are necessary in order for people to live together in society - as a practical matter if nothing else. I see Jesus as making the point that following those constraints is not what makes somebody a good person ""righteous") and that the constraints themselves, though they may be motivated by moral intentions, are not themselves the same thing as moral goodness.

All that being said, I acknowledge the government does a lot wrong - although you and I might disagree about which things those are. But I think accepting the principle of government authority as a social necessity, and trying through political action to cause the government to make better decisions, is preferable to not having one. (Of course, your mileage may vary).

As to the particulars of your beefs against the government, it's too big an issue to argue about effectively in this venue. I think we will just have to note that we disagree. I will just say that IMHO the government does do quite a bit that is right and necessary, and if people who think their individual decisions about spending their money would create a better life suddenly found themselves thrust into a libertarian utopia, they might be rudely surprised at the results.

Best wishes,
-Steve

I applaud McCain's decision to choose Pallin. I applaud his decision because it means he now has less chance of getting into the Whitehouse. As an Australian I've suffered watching George Bush run roughshod over international relations. His legacy will not be pleasant reading. The thought of another four years of Republican war-mongering is too much to bear.

I'm glad McCain has made such a disdainful, insulting, and, let us hope, career limiting, move.

Bring on Obama.

As a man, I'm offended!

Muumm! I don't know. Shall I be offended as a working class person or as a white person becouse Obama choose Biden?

I couldn't have said it better. Beautifully written and nothing but the truth. Kudos to you

danah- mom and i were JUST discussing this over breakfast at the cheesecake factory.

Peter F.- well said. I had respect for McCain until he ran for president. Now I shudder to think that IF he is successful and has any health issues we could end up with her for president. I really hope picking her has lessened his chances, but with my 80-year old grandma stating she "likes" Palin and will go vote, I AM SCARED.

Someone who is the governor of a state like Alaska (I am referring to numbers) and whose previous job was mayor of a city with less people that my alma matter frightens me as a prospective president [which let's all admit, is a high possibility with McCain's age and health history]. This is not about her gender, because any MAN with such limited qualifications would worry me too. IF McCain is elected I for one would gladly pitch in to make sure he stays healthy for at least the four years he would be in office.

I am not going to even address the comparisons people have made between Palin and Obama, they are beyond ridiculous!

This reminds me of why I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican even though I'm planning on voting for Obama. When will both Liberal and Republican women accept women from other parties without being personally offended by it? It was a brilliant move by McCane and let's be honest, it was going to be a close race without having to pick Palin. Palin was all McCane and after watching him for 20 years it doesn't surprise me that he'd pick who HE thought was best. If anyone is surprised by McCane then they've ignored or are ignorant to his political career. My only disappointment in Obama has been him not taking a stance like McCane to expose and make politicians who try and pass pork barrel laws.

I think we'd be better off if we stop typecasting women to be the sole bearers of environmental issues and other such matters. When Obama said we could fine middle ground on issues such as high gas price and Alaska oil reserves everyone applauded. When Palin said the same thing, she pissed off democratic women everywhere and everyone was outraged. This is one of those, "why I can't call myself a Democrat issues" because I see the bias and it sure isn't pretty.

Seriously, where's the third party that gets this crap right?