The Palin nomination certainly drew a strong response from our readers. Hundreds of letters to the editor poured in last week. Not surprisingly, considering the partisan composition of the Bay Area, the overwhelming majority opposed her nomination. What was striking was that at least half of the submissions were from women, who tend to be underrepresented in letters to the editor.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/06/INMP12MN2G.DTL&type=politics"We did not support Hillary (Rodham Clinton) because she was a woman; we delighted in backing a seasoned, available, capable leader who expressed our views and was also a woman enjoying equal opportunity to serve," wrote Emily Richer of St. Helena. "Offering up a female candidate with nearly opposite views on all major issues is as superficial and unaware as serving a steak to a hungry vegetarian."
Richer was magnanimous toward the nominee, suggesting it was "terribly unfortunate that the lovely Sarah Palin has been misguided to John McCain's side." Others were not so gracious. The term "white trash" was invoked in several letters about Palin. Many writers openly questioned whether a mother of a special-needs children - and a pregnant teen daughter - could balance such daunting personal and professional demands.
Defenders of Palin make an excellent point: Why aren't similar questions asked of male candidates with large families and personal struggles?
For me, the larger issue here is what we don't know - and may not know before election day - about Palin's philosophy and depth of knowledge on myriad issues. The Republicans' attempt to compare her readiness with Obama's is absurd. Americans have been exposed to an abundance of Obama in unscripted settings over the past 19 months of a grueling campaign. Voters now have just two months to gauge Palin's preparedness for high office.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
