Technically, this is supposed to be a post about Mormon Lit. I even had a post ready to go on whether or not writing can be taught. (Well, almost ready to go. And yes, writing can be taught. Kind of.) But over the last few days I’ve been thinking and thinking about Sarah Palin and my gut-level reaction to her candidacy, and whether that reaction is justified, and why it’s so scary for me, as a woman, to admit to some of the feelings that have been roiling around inside me.
Then I thought, hey, you. Stop being such a chicken. If we women can’t talk about issues like this together—thoughtfully, kindly, with the intent of coming together in understanding—then we’re as good as silenced.
But, first, a caveat. This has nothing to do with party politics, Democrat or Republican, Blue State or Red State. I’m not trying to persuade anyone to vote (or not vote) for anyone else. I’m mainly interested in exploring the issues brought to the fore by Sarah Palin’s candidacy, and I want to know what a bunch of smart Mormon women think, because I like smart Mormon women, and trust them.
So, here goes.
Gut Level Reaction #1: Sarah Palin’s lack of significant qualifications for the job makes me feel pandered to. I firmly believe that a woman can—and should, and hopefully, someday, will—serve as Vice President (or President) of the United States and do a bang up job of it. But it seems to me that Palin’s “womanness” was the main quality that got her picked. Not her background. Not her experience in government. If the governor of Alaska had been a man with the same background and qualifications, would he *ever* have been considered for this post? My best guess is no. So to me, Palin’s nomination seems a like a backhanded attempt at appearing progressive, like the powers-that-be were looking for a woman who was pro-life (check), not bad to look at (check), and appealing to the middle-class (Moose burgers! Snowmobiling! check), instead of looking for whomever would be best for the country.
Gut Level Reaction #2 (and this is the really tricky one): I’m not sure if I can get behind the idea that Palin *should* be the Vice President (and possible President) of the United States given her current family situation. Now, intellectually, I know this is inherently sexist. The argument that a woman can’t raise a family and succeed in the “outside world” is one that we’re all familiar with, and one that (usually) makes me very uncomfortable. I am a mother of four, but I also write, and I also teach, and I am grateful to live in a time and place where such things are possible. But writing and teaching (or working as an accountant, or a small business owner, or even as a doctor or a lawyer) isn’t the same as being second-in-command to the Leader of the Free World, and one heart attack away from being the Leader herself.
When a parent has five children 18 and under—and one is going to Iraq, and one is 17 and pregnant, and one is a newborn with special challenges—it goes without saying that said parent has a lot on his or her plate. And if Palin were a man, the family situation would still give me pause. But as much as it (kinda?) troubles me to admit it . . . not as long a pause. Because, dang it, Sarah Palin is a mother, and I’m a mother, and I know how it *feels* to be a mother, and these feelings lead me to wonder two things. First, is it really possible for Palin to give her full time and attention to the monumental task of running the country when she has so much going on in her family life? And second (and this is the REALLY tricky one, and I’m not trying to offend anyone, I’m just trying to be honest with myself and, now, you): if she IS able to give her full time and attention to her job during a time in her life when her children need her so desperately, what does that say about her as a person? And do I want a person like that as my Vice President?
Ack!! Segullah is usually such a nice, safe, peaceful blog. I hope I haven’t spoiled it. But I’d love to know what you think.
Ang, because I’m a working mother and TIRED, all I can say is AMEN!!! You nailed it. I have every one of these same fears and reservations and strange guilts.
And pandered to is such the right word.
Wish I could bring something more to the conversation, but I’m hearing you loud and clear.
I agree. 100% agree.
i didn’t even get to the personal life concerns because i got stopped in my tracks at the professional qualifications part of the package. i think it’s great that there is a woman who is out there, involved in politics in her area, etc. but to go from her background to president does seem a mighty big leap. i admit i’m pretty uninformed about her though. if her qualifications were up to snuff, i honestly believe it would sit well with me, family situation aside. i think in some families having a “mr. mom” just works out best. who knows, they may be one of them. so that part is mute from where i sit. you’re spot on when you say if she were a man there’s no way she’d be on the ticket right now. so that rankles.
I agree, I feel pandered to in a way that feels a little icky.
Kind of how like Hollywood thinks that if they put Meg Ryan in something I’ll go watch it because I have ovaries.
Yes, yes, yes. I absolutely agree.
your first reaction was my reaction. i still feel that way. yuck.
I don’t have any answers to all your questions but I just wanted to echo the validation parade here and say that you are not alone in having these visceral reactions (again, regardless of political affiliation). It’s been a very surreal week for me and your post helped me put some of my conflicted feelings into words.
I mostly agree. I wish I was eloquent, or had the time this morning while getting my kids off to school, but you all are moms, you know how it goes.
I agree to feeling like this is a woman who should maybe be staying at home and dealing with her children. I have never been much of a feminist, and although I have no problem with women in the workplace, I feel like there is a time and a season for everything. If a woman decides to have children, raising them should be her main priority. I know this isn’t always possible, and sometimes there are reasons a woman has to work, but surely there are some issues in Mrs. Palin’s life that need to be addresses, rather than her trying to run on a presidential ticket.
That said, I would like to address the experience issue, because I feel that her experience is more than adequate when compared to Obama’s. Although she was mayor of a small town, and hasn’t serve as governor very long yet, her accomplishments in those capacities are fairly impressive, and I just don’t think Obama measures up when comparing the two.
So I guess what I am trying to say is, I have mixed feelings about her. Yes, she fits the checklist… I think the best thing to do will be to wait and see what kinds of speeches she gives, what she has to say, and from those it will be easier to determine how capable she is.
I have paid too little attention and didn’t even know what her qualifications were beyond being Alaska’s governor, let alone the personal info.
As soon as I heard she was a she, however, I knew it was a tactic (I had been waiting to hear some familiar political name). Considering the info you wrote above, “pandered to” is perfect.
I can NOT imagine taking on the role of VP with her family situation. So let me add my amen AND a Holy Cow.
Yup.
Yes, I had these same thoughts, but didn’t know what to do with them!
I feel exactly the same way.
As a mother I just can not fathom that she would put her family in this position at this time, and right or wrong, that makes me wonder about her character (and her ego). There are others qualified to be the Vice President, but her kids only have one mom.
I guess I’m a cynic because when I heard –and then researched –about Sarah Palin, I thought: “Good. I hope she becomes President.”
I figure, why not? Why not someone with little experience? The last 20 years have shown us nothing but crap (excuse my language) and it all came from “experienced” politicians. So, if that doesn’t work, why not go the other way? Find somebody totally unaffected and stubborn and see what happens.
Obama can’t get my vote because he makes promises he can’t keep and morally is the opposite camp of mine (morally in policy, not person). But Palin? We should have a mother running this country. And a mother with 5 kids? That’s the real “experience”.
So, I don’t know. As much as I agree with most of what’s been said (i.e. mothers putting their kids first, an obvious election tactic, etc.), I’m kind of thinking that she might be worth voting for anyway.
Isn’t that weird?
I understand these icky feelings. And I’d be more excited about Palin if she were, say, 15 years farther down the motherhood road. And I wouldn’t want her to be president at this point. But I think you’re trapping her here. You’re making harsh morality judgments (”a woman like that”) based on assumptions (she’s neglecting her family). Any “family” woman in this level of politics is going to be putting her family on the back burner to some extent. Again, I’d feel more comfortable if Palin didn’t have so many YOUNG children. But I also think that the sacrifices she’s making may be necessary to some degree if this country ever wants to see a mom-woman in a position of great political power. The question is, do we?
Think about it–for Palin to show up 15 years from now with no young children and lots of experience in big government, that would require her to have a strong focus outside the home for those 15 years.
Imho, the very things that make us think she’s not the “best for the country” may, in some ways, the things that make her best, in a totally nonconventional way. The risk factors are, when flipped around, are the very things that draw me to her. A mayor of a small town can speak for the population who live in small towns. A mother of a large family can speak for mothers of large families. A mother with a special-needs baby can speak for all mothers of children with disabilities, as well as disabled individuals themselves.
And a mother sending a son to war is in a prime position to make decisions about war. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.
This is politics. Obama chose his VP to balance himself as an individual too–basically, he HAD to pick someone white. If McCain had chosen someone non-white, we’d be accusing him of pc pandering there as well. And we’d probably be doing the same if he picked a prominent political figure of any stripe. He’d be making a power play by adding some other person’s political clout to his own. That’s the whole point in choosing a VP. Palin’s political clout includes her gender and her brand of experience and her family situation.
Again again again, I understand the hesitations–I have them myself (although to a much milder agree than some of those who have commented). But I think there’s a compelling flip side to the issue.
I think an important question is, what kind of woman would we want to see as VP or POTUS? We’ve vilified Hillary. Palin is going to be vilified too, for opposite reasons. What kind of woman can stand up to the nation’s scrutiny? And is it possible for that kind of woman to exist? In other words, do we require a list of qualifications that are impossible for any real woman to acquire? You can’t have an experienced political powerhouse who’s also a family woman who’s being (or has been) the stereotypical SAHM, or anything even close. It’s just not possible. Therein lies the trap. And I say it’s not fair to trap Palin that way.
I had many of the same reactions. I wrote about it sort of at length on my blog if you’re interested: http://ginaandnephi.blogspot.com/2008/09/picture-that-i-cant-let-go.html
I think we’d really have to come to terms with the fact that if she’s elected she’s essentially opting out of mothering that baby in any real sense. Dads do it all the time. Are we ok with that?
Thanks for all of the comments so far. And no, Cheryl, that’s not weird, and that’s exactly why I wanted to have this conversation.
And I do want to say that I’ve heard very little from Palin’s own mouth. I can’t really judge how intelligent she is, or inspiring, or how well she commands a room (all qualities that I think are important in a President). It will be interesting to hear her speak tonight at the Republican convention.
And I’m interested, too, in what some of you think about the statement (not quoted directly above, but implied) that “Women *can* have it all, just not all at the same time.” I heard someone say this on a radio show yesterday in relation to Palin, but most of the political talking-heads jumped all over the woman, saying “We should be beyond this!” and “This is the essence of sexism!” and whatnot.
But I tend to agree with the statement to a certain extent. At least as it applies to me personally. I am willing to concede that other women might be able to juggle things better than I do (e.g. working part time and mothering 4 kids with a VERY involved father who works from home is just about doing me in some days).
And (another potential ticklish spot) . . . should the way we see this issue be particularly informed by the fact that we’re Mormon women??
Now go!
Ah, Kathryn and Gina, you posted while I was posting. But I have to get my 7th grader out the door. Ahhh! Motherhood getting in the way all the time! I’ll respond soon.
I think being Mormon women for sure puts a damper on any excitement one might have with a mother of 5 in a high political office. I think it’s because we are told constantly about the role of women and we tend to have a different perspective and view of why we are here on Earth in the first place. Knowledge is power and knowledge creates priorities. Now, what those priorities become obviously depends on each individual situation.
But holding Palin to the same standard that Mormon women place upon themselves really isn’t fair. She’s not Mormon, is she? And the fact that her husband has quit his job to stay home with the kidlets kind of alleviates fears that the children will be neglected by their parents.
Like I said, as much as this reeks of political chess-playing, I’m thinking this could actually be a gold mine.
Or a land mine.
Either way, I’m quite thrilled with the chance to find out!
I don’t have time to read all the other comments, so sorry if I repeat, etc. But, I absolutely agree, and I too was waiting for someone to write about this. I think the reasons she was chosen are obvious and I think it was *almost* a low blow to the intellect of women. I’ve heard some argue that the VP isn’t all that important anyway so it shouldn’t matter, AND, that if - God forbid - anything fatal were to happen to McCain during his presidency that she would only be a talking head anyway. I don’t know that I agree. I think there were MANY more qualified individuals to choose from… hello??? Romney!
Anyway, I agree with you and really do hope the best for her personally, and of course want what and who is best to lead our nation.
I can’t stand how Palin is being villified by the conservative evangelical community for being a non-Biblical leader and should be at home. I don’t think we should be so judgmental.
Have you seen the pictures of here with Trig in a baby sling signing bills in her office?
I personally don’t have reservations, because I’m so excited about having someone different, with a TRULY different perspective. Not just another politician with another slick phrase. She’s not a politician because it was her lifelong goal. I truly feel she’s been called to this position by God, and she’ll be great–whether or not it was a politically calculated move by McCain’s campaign, I think having someone with clear moral and family values will be wonderful for America.
And she’ll probably forego most of the SAHM tasks in order to focus on her top two priorities–VP and her kids. She won’t be taking her special needs baby all over the world to see specialists, they’ll probably come to him. She’ll have plenty of help in the non essentials for this time of her life. Which is fine by me.
I know I’ve bemoaned how no one can get to the top in politics without sacrificing their integrity in some respect or another. I’m not about to complain that someone without loads of political experience *cough* OBAMA *cough* would be VP under someone who has tons. It could be the perfect solution.
gold mine/land mine–cheryl, that’s perfect! I agree completely.
I think Mormon women are conditioned in a way that makes us take an extra-critical eye to any woman seeking power that’s traditionally been male.
I also think that sometimes even women who know what we know might be called (or simply choose of her own free will) to take a different path in order to be able to bring about positive change for millions and millions of other moms.
“I think there were MANY more qualified individuals to choose from… hello??? Romney!”
Please explain how Romney is more qualified than Palin. And at what point would you say Palin has enough experience. 4 years as governor? 8 years? What’s the line? What would she learn in two more years as governor that she doesn’t already know about leading a state?
Four years ago, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. Palin was a small town mayor. It’s not that big a difference.
I hope one day that most of you here get turned down for a job because your family life is deemed too difficult. I also hope you get offered a job simply because hiring you would be symbolic and only because the company is in need of a woman.
My first thought after reading your post was yes, her children will probably suffer some if she becomes the vice president. They certainly will not see much of her for at least four years, and how can that be a good thing? But then I thought, could it be that sometimes, for some people, the need for social change, leadership, etc., trumps the need to be at home? When I read President Hinckley’s biography, I was struck over and over again by how little time he was able to spend at home with his family. But the Lord needed him to do other things, and blessed him and his family that it would be enough. Of course that’s a divine calling, and not an elected position, but I do wonder if there are certain situations where the benefit to society of having a mother in a position to make decisions, be an example, influence policy, etc., may trump the benefits to her family of having her at home more. I’m not sure what I think, just a thought.
Whoa, Tim! We’re having a friendly argument here. Let’s keep it that way.
Sorry, I think I’m turning into “Right-Wing Dan”.
I find it curious that Obama, as a father of small children, gets a pass on this, but Palin doesn’t. Not sure what that says other than, perhaps, sexism. I also think that her experience compares favourably with Obama’s. All that said, I think it comes down to simple politics. Which ticket’s positions are more closely aligned with yours.
Let me try to flip the discussion a little:
Would a man with the exact same experience as Palin, say Jindal (elected Gov. in 2007) or Crist (2006), be an issue?
Also, if it were Biden in Palin’s family shoes would it be a problem? Should Biden have quit the senate after his wife and infant daughter were killed to care for his surviving two sons?
I guess I’m just scratching my head at some of the reactions here and elsewhere. Palin’s nod is more about pandering to the conservative base (who had serious reservations about McCain) than it is about women. If he had chosen anybody else (Pawlenty, Romeny, etc.) it would have been met with a big shrug of the shoulders and the base would not really care.
My initial gut reaction was, “I can’t believe he (McCain) thinks I’ll fall for that?!” I have to admit, I picture him looking over these potential vp candidates, their lists of qualifications and what they bring to the table as he considers who will help balance him and help him get elected. In that light, the choice makes sense. And, wow!, the media is hardly even talking about Obama at the moment except to say how Sarah compares. It’s a game. I don’t like it… but there it is.
And as I said, that was my initial reaction. I’m a little surprised that my feelings are changing as I get to know her. I would expect to agree with many who say her time should be devoted at home. And it’s not that I don’t see the need for there to be attention from both parents, I’m just not ready to say she hasn’t been giving her children attention based upon what we’ve read.
When a parent has to be out of the home for an extended period of time (for example, deployed) it is possible to find ways for the children to know they are loved. One parent has to take care of the other needs of the family at home on their own, problems at school, special needs of children (IEP meetings, OT Therapists, Speach Therapy), illnesses, doctor appts., broken down appliances, car problems, etc. It sounds to me as if they have decided on who will be the parent to hold down the fort at home. We aren’t privy to any of the measures they have put in place to help their children know both parents love them on a daily basis.
I actually like that she might know what it is like to face these struggles as a family.
Tim, those are good questions. I agree it’s interesting that nobody seems to care about Biden remaining in office even though he was the sole living parent of his young children. imo, that’s a lot more questionable than a woman running for VP who has a husband providing full-time parenting at home.
But I do think McCain is playing the gender card here, among others.
And yes, I absolutely think we judge men and women differently when it comes to the caring of young children in the home. (I don’t think that’s necessarily wrong, but it certainly can become an ugly discrimination factor.) For example–I wouldn’t bat an eye if Biden had the same current family situation as Palin. The fact that she’s the mom and not the dad makes me pause. But again, the very thing that makes me pause moves me forward again with greater vigor. I believe that generally speaking, mothers should raise young children, not fathers. But I believe in exceptions to the rule, and I believe this is a formidable exception.
Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. Your questions about Palin were my thoughts exactly. I also agree with Maddison, I feel that McCain choosing Palin is kind of insulting to women. [Taking it out on a limb here], He’s banking on the fact that we will vote for her solely because she’s a woman. She’s not qualified. [I know, Obama lacks qualification too.] Anyway, so Palin is a woman and she is a mother of 5 and so we’re automatically supposed to relate to her. Does McCain really think that I don’t think about the issues or about her qualifications?
Anyway, one last funny thought. I’ve seen a lot of people justify Palin by saying that, if McCain dies, she would surround herself with qualified people to help her lead. But that’s not how it works. It’s been a few years since my AP US History class, but I believe that if the VP becomes the President, the next VP spot is automatically filled by the Speaker of the House– who currently is Nancy Pelosi. Ha! Wouldn’t that be a hilarious presidency and disastrous working relationship?
MidCityGal-
Ha! I never thought of that. Pelosi and Palin?! Ha!
I think McCain wanted to pick Lieberman (pandering to Jews? maybe not), but couldn’t pull the trigger. I think he decided instead to pick someone outside of Washington in order to be able to play the change/reform card. That left him with a few choices:
Pawlenty
Romney
Jindal
Crist
and Palin
Palin is the only one that would cause any stir whatsoever with a dormant base and her history as a reformer and one who has taken on the powerful Alaskan GOP fits McCain’s style. I’m not going to say being a woman didn’t matter, but I don’t think it’s merely a move to get the female vote.
Hey Right-Wing Dan! I’m sure you *really* weren’t wishing career calamity to rain down upon all the women here who are experiencing conflicting emotions about Palin’s candidacy. But I understand–it’s a passionate topic.
The truth of it is, most of us have experienced both gender-related prejudice and gender-related promotion. Men AND women. Then Kathy said this–
“What kind of woman can stand up to the nation’s scrutiny? And is it possible for that kind of woman to exist? In other words, do we require a list of qualifications that are impossible for any real woman to acquire? You can’t have an experienced political powerhouse who’s also a family woman who’s being (or has been) the stereotypical SAHM, or anything even close. It’s just not possible. Therein lies the trap. And I say it’s not fair to trap Palin that way.”
Kathy did made me stop and think. It’s true that women get punished for not being motherly enough (too manly, too pushy, to Hillary-in-a-pantsuit) then get whomped on the other side if they’re TOO motherly (I mean, five kids, egads!).
I disagree with Kathy, though, that it’s impossible for a woman to be both a mother and have the political experience necessary to become the President of the United States. To me, it’s an issue of timing. As I said before, if Palin had been a man, the family situation still would have me worried about his ability to focus on the nation’s concerns. And I admitted my (yes, probably sexist) gut reaction that it would be even harder for a mother to focus in such a situation.
The moment I really started worrying about Palin as a candidate was when I found out she had a new baby. And it’s not because the baby has Down syndrome (as a matter of fact, I didn’t even know that at first). But the first few years of any baby’s life are so important, and so hard . . . and then when you add in all the other family stuff I just wondered if it was possible for *anyone* to have her head all the way in the game under those circumstances. And as a US citizen, I want to have my Vice President’s entire head, as it were.
Sexist. Sexist? Ahhrgh. But I feel that while it might be possible for Palin to govern Alaska given her family’s needs (hard, but possible), being VP or even President under such circumstances is a whole nother kettle of fish, as they say. (Alaskan fish. That she caught and gutted herself. While wearing her Miss Alaska runner-up tiara. Kidding!) Five years from now, she would probably be in a better position family-wise to use her experience in state government and take it to a national level.
I think timing is a legitimate concern. The job she’s angling for is a very big one, and as citizens I think we’re allowed (even ought to be encouraged to) look at every possible pro and con our potential leaders bring to the table. And to me, Palin’s timing is a con.
25th Amendment: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
I also 100% agree. You expressed my exact thoughts!
It keeps taking me way too long to respond and I miss all the other comments. Sorry.
BJK brought up the question of Obama’s small children. To me, if Palin had two grade school kids, I wouldn’t be that concerned about it. It’s not that I don’t think ANY mother with young children should be VP. I just think that Palin’s family’s needs are exponentially more pressing.
And as far as the qualification thing goes: Yes, Obama doesn’t have much experience either. But he’s also spent the last few years of his life preparing for the Presidency, whereas I get the sense that for Palin had this sprung on her pretty recently and she’s playing some major catch-up. And even though I realize that Palin’s “real world” life experience as a sports caster and hockey mom and owner of a snowmobiling company could be appealing in that it seems refreshing, I wonder how practically all of it translates to running the country.
The truth of the matter is I (personally) just don’t think she’s ready yet, and I think this is a really difficult time in her life to face such a steep learning curve.
I might get hate mail for this and I will admit I’ve thought all of those things and I still have mixed feelings, but I’m not afraid to say this out loud:
I like her. She’s got spunk.
I crave someone who is not one of the good old boys.
I crave someone who works hard to put food on the table and make the mortgage and who has some understanding for blue collar and middle class. (I feel no more pandered to now than I do when a bunch of rich and elite people talk about tax cuts for the middle class.)
I crave someone who might have a clue about what’s going on in my head and might actually care about it.
Pandering? Sure. The veep pick is all about pandering–I think the entire presidential election is all about pandering. What’s new?
I’ve no love lost on McCain, but I do love that he shook things up a bit. Quite a bit.
I say bring it on.
Concerning the teenage daughter’s pregnancy, we do need to remember that the child will have another set of grandparents who could take part in the raising of the child, though admittedly we don’t really know anything about them.
Angela, I didn’t say it’s impossible for a mother to have the qualifications to be VP or POTUS!! I’m saying exactly the opposite.
You criticized Palin for not having experience, and you criticized her for neglecting her family. My point is this: she can’t gain the experience while being a typical SAHM. If she retained the devoted-homemaker role we so value for the next 10-20 years and then ran for VP, she’d still have little experience in big governmment. And if she DID show up with that experience, that would mean she’d had to abdicate the homemaker role. You can’t have it both ways.
Are you backing down on your first criticism (little experience)? Because 5 years as state governor isn’t going to change much as far as her qualifications for VP.
I agree timing is a concern. I agree this might not be the ideal time for her to run for VP. But imo, the risks are far outweighed by the benefits of having a woman with her family experience in office. The risks and the benefits are two sides of the same coin, and you haven’t addressed that other side at all.
To add what Tim J said, the only reason they had to announce her daughter’s pregnancy is because the Dem’s were screaming that the new DownSyn. baby was actually the daughter’s and Palin had been lying.
Dalene? Amen, girl. Amen. But no matter who wins this election, I’m just going to be so darn glad that it’s not a Clinton or a Bush!
Thanks Gina, you’re right. The 25th Amendment passed in 1967 supercedes the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
“Because 5 years as state governor isn’t going to change much as far as her qualifications for VP.”
Exactly.
Kathy, I misspoke when I paraphrased you as saying it’s impossible for someone to be both a mother and VP. What I gathered you were saying is that it’s very difficult for someone to have both the qualifications of being a “stereotypical” SAHM and a political powerhouse, so it’s unfair of us to require both.
But I still disagree with that. I think that a woman could take ten, fifteen years to raise a family (if she *wanted to*) and still have plenty of time to build up a political resume and commensurate experience. I mean, heck, look how old McCain is! Life is long!
And I’m not backing down on my experience argument. As I said above, my main concern is that this all seems so precipitous. While I’ve had my concerns about Obama’s preparedness, too, there have been rumblings about the Presidency for him since he spoke at the Dem Convention in 2004 and he’s been readying himself ever since. Palin, on the other hand, has been running a small state for less than two years and hasn’t been preparing herself to run the nation. That’s the difference as I see it.
And Dalene, I hope you don’t get hate mail. Your take on Palin is just as valid as mine.
don’t think of it as pandering so much as that McCain had some problems and if he wanted to stay in the race with a chance of winning, he had to find someone who would work for the greatest number of voters. Lieberman, isn’t even a republican and would have alienated a bunch of rank and file. Romney, as much as WE might like him, is a problem for the Christian Right. these ar blocks of voters who, if alienated can drop McCain out of the running. Palin is a risk, but she mixes things up in a way, none of the others could. I heard a voter the other day on NPR say, that the thing that excited her now about this election was that EITHER way it goes, history will be made and she is actually excited for which ever way it turns out. This wouldn’t be the case without Palin.
just chiming in here that I think you are right on Dalene. I am a working mom of five (I work from home) and went to bed the night before thinking “I can’t possibly do all of this.” When I woke up to the news the next day I thought “WOW! this woman really understands!” I am a Republican who was not wild about McCain. I thought this was a a brilliant strategy and made me rethink his ability to work with a wide variety of people and choose wisely. Politics are “political!” As far as pandering- would we as Mormons felt pandered to if McCain had picked Romney? that might have been a play to keep the Western states from teetering to the Dems. Frankly, it’s like watching a chess game and I say McCain is a much better player than I gave him credit for.
Ang, she *did* take fifteen years to raise a family. Her oldest kid is a young adult. If we ever want a woman with a large family to be in office, and we don’t want her to spend a lot of time outside the home until her children are grown, AND we want her to have considerable experience in big government, we’re asking for the impossible.
It reminds me of a saying I saw once in a copy store: you can have it fast and good, or fast and cheap, or cheap and good, but you can’t have all three.
Yes, a woman could have a couple of kids when she’s thirty, and launch them into middle childhood a decade later, and launch her political career at the same time, and show up for a VP or POTUS nomination when she’s sixty. But if she has more than, say, 2 or three kids, some of them are going to be very small when she lauches that political career. And if she waits until those kids are tween-ish, she’ll be pushing seventy. And yeah, look what that’s doing to McCain–it’s making everyone flame his VP because they’re afraid he’s going to kick the bucket.
I think your ideal works very well as an ideal, but it breaks down on a practical level. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a heck of a lot harder for a woman than a man to achieve that ideal. And if we hold to that ideal, it makes it much, much less likely for a family woman to ever be in major office. That doesn’t necessarily mean we should chuck the ideal, but I think we should be aware of its ramifications. And personally, I’m willing to chuck it in Palin’s case.
Again, still waiting to hear what you think about the potential benefits of having her in office, Ang.
Angela, so Obama is qualified to be President merely because he has been campaigning to be President? Seems like a pretty low threshold to me. Running a state versus running for President has to, at the very least, be no more than a toss-up. That said, I find this election to be deliciously intriguing.
I realize that she took 15 years to raise her family. I suppose one of the problems I have is that she has a baby *right now*. And now I’m just speaking in hypotheticals, but in four years Palin’s youngest would be school-age, and she would have five more years of executive experience, and she could be boning up on national issues. And even then she’d only be, what, 49? I would feel much better about her in those circumstances.
And it’s true that it can be hard for women to achieve things in the same way, and on the same track, as men do when we choose to get pregnant and have babies. It’s not impossible, but it’s harder. I agree wholeheartedly.
I hear you, Ang. I agree, I’d feel better too. But I’m excited about her anyway.
And I think that’s what it boils down to. Either someone excites us, or they don’t. So to speak.
I think lots of people overlook Obama’s weaknesses because they’re so dang excited to see a guy like him in office. I think I have a touch of that with Palin. But, to be clear, I might lose that excitement based on how she presents over the next couple of months.
No, BJK, it’s not the campaigning. It’s the preparing. Anyone who’s considering such a run most likely spends a coupe of years gaining understanding regarding topics of national and international significance (at least I’d hope they would.) Even someone like, say, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has been having his name bandied about for a while and I would assume that he’s been studying. Learning. Getting ready. My impression of Palin’s candidacy, though, is that it was quite a surprise, even for her, so she hasn’t had the time to build up her understanding on a lot of important issues.
And now I’ve gotta run. I’ll check back on this great conversation later today. Thanks for all the interesting comments so far!
Kathryn pretty much summed up everything I wanted to say.
I’ll just add that I think it’s difficult as women not to project our own experience as mothers onto Palin. (For instance, I can’t imagine leaving a newborn child with special needs to go back to work just weeks after the birth.) But not every family is the same. Stay at home dads are becoming more and more common - just at my local playground there are several there with their kids every day. Evidently that’s how it works in the Palin household, and I have no problem with that. I believe men can be just as good at nurturing as women and I applaud dads who take such an active interest in their kids’ daily lives.
What Dalene said. I won’t vote for McCain/Palin, and don’t agree with very many of her views, but I kind of admire Palin herself, at least so far.
And of COURSE it’s a pandering pick, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t perfectly capable. Some of our worst presidents have been the ones with the most experience - Nixon, Carter, Buchanan, BUSH. Some of the presidents history looks upon most kindly have had very little experience - for example, Lincoln, Reagan, Jefferson, Kennedy, Washington.
All I can say is I am disappointed. I hoped I would come and see an article supporting Governor Palin and I was wrong. Thank goodness some of the readers seem to get it.
When she was announced and I read a bit of her history, the first thing I thought of was a Doctor I knew years ago. She was the fulltime worker in the home. I don’t remember how many children she had, but there were at least 2 maybe three. She was the one that worked fulltime, and her husband was the one that stayed home and took care of the kids. Now, maybe I am off my rocker, but is being a VP involve that many more hours in a day than what a DR. would put in on an average basis. I had worked when Dr.s worked more than 24 hours, but most of the time, the work was pretty average. I would expect the same in the Presidential offices. I figure if this woman has a family that supports her and works with her then more power too her and that family. Also figure that if this woman is elected, she will not be doing most of the mundane chores most women are responsible for, maids, cooks, and housekeepers. This leaves her with the ability to have that quaility time with her family when she can be home.
How does her experience differe from the democratic candidate for PRESIDENT? Don’t belittle her experience and more than the rest of us should belittle his.
Sorry if this seems a bit terse, and combative. I have just been reading some other sites, and I am rather angry, but not angry at you.
What are the issues for me that she supports that I am in favor, and why I like her.
1. Prolife
2. Pro 2nd ammendment
3. Member of the NRA
4. She understands energy issues
5. She as the Governor of Alaksa has had to have international talks with both RUSSIA and CANADA.
6. She is not afraid to take on members of her own party to decrease corruption.
7. She is smart and articulate
I know those are just a few things and I am sure I could come up with more given some time to think more clearly.
I haven’t read through all the comments yet so forgive if this is a repeat of someone else.
I wonder what the daily schedule looks like for the First Lady and other wives of higher-ranking government officials. Perhaps Michelle Obama’s possible position as First Lady would keep her from her home every bit as much as Sarah Palin’s possible nod to the VP role.
Just a thought.
I’m sorry, Angela, if all your guy has in the experience category is some studying to be the President and one trip across the pond while at the same time running for President, I think he’d be wise not to try to trump his experience over Palin’s. Yesterday, Obama compared his experience running his campaign to Palin’s as mayor but made no mention of her governorship. Obviously, I for one, do not find this line of attack particularly persuasive. What I find interesting is Obama talking about Palin at all. I don’t remember McCain spending much time on Biden. Perhaps, the Obama team has determined that Palin being on the ticket is a real threat and so must pull out all the stops to undermine her. I guess only time will tell if that works.
Yes, but Tanya, some people are Democrats, and despite Palin’s good points, they won’t vote for her simply because of her party affiliation. So, to support Palin because of her policies, one would have to be in align with her policies. I think Angie’s reactions weren’t because of her platform, but because of her situation, so this means a totally different discussion.
what about obama’s lack of experience? and he’s headed for the #1 spot, not #2. seems hypocritical to me to say she doesn’t have enough experience while ignoring his lack of experience.
“what about obama’s lack of experience? and he’s headed for the #1 spot, not #2. seems hypocritical to me to say she doesn’t have enough experience while ignoring his lack of experience.”
Oh you must not have heard, McCain is dying soon.
I’m sorry, but I just disagree with your concerns.
I think the question of experience is not relevant here because Obama lacks experience as well. Sarah Palin will be the VP, a place where there is a little room for error. Also, she is the only Governor (sorry, can’t spell today) running. I think a governor has a lot more experience applicable to being a president than does a senator. A governor essentially deals with a mini-nation.
We also keep forgetting that should McCain and Palin be elected, Sarah’s husband will most likely take over the majority of childcare. The baby will not be with his?? can’t remember the gender, mother every waking minute but will most likely spend a lot of that time with his father. I’ve known a lot of children raised by their fathers and I’ve only positive things to say about it.
Pahlin’s small experience as governor of Alaska is very helpful because she deals with energy issues that are critical for our country.
I also think it is hypocritical for every woman in this country, including LDS woman, to villify another woman who is working for her country and for her children. Yes, she has a special-needs baby. But she has a loving husband who is with her. She’s not a single mom. Her husband seems to work hard in her behalf. We don’t have to like her only because she is a woman. But I think that we ought to take an extra look at her, examine our prejudices about leadership and gender, and examine positions and then make an informed decision.
Sometimes other women are the worst enemies of women.
And the final question is, would you even ask these questions if the VP was a man? No. We don’t even examine their family lives as we do with women. It’s not a fair standard.
I think you hit it on the head when you said that a man with Palin’s professional resume would not have been considered for the position.
And, as I said over on my blog, if McCain was looking for a qualified candidate and not someone to pander to the Republican base, there are women in the Republican party who have that experience. No, he was looking for a figurehead, a cheerleader, someone who looks good as opposed to someone who is qualified to be vice-president, and possibly president.
Elaine, could the same thing be said about the Dem party as a whole and their pick of Obama, the inexperienced black man, over other more experienced candidates? Just asking.
One last comment. I have to say that for the first time in years, there is a candidate on the ballot who actually speaks for me. Can you say that about your senator or president? I can’t. But here is a woman who is a mother, politician and is not used to an easy life. I feel like she’ll be looking out for my interests in a way that has been completely overlooked in the past.
“I think you hit it on the head when you said that a man with Palin’s professional resume would not have been considered for the position.”
Wrong. Jindal and Crist were both on the list for potential VP’s.
“if McCain was looking for a qualified candidate and not someone to pander to the Republican base, there are women in the Republican party who have that experience.”
Only two come to mind, Hutchinson and Dole. Neither were ever mentioned as possibilities, and neither would be considered “outsiders” giving McCain the opportunity to make “change” his message.
There were a couple other women being looked at that would have been equally interesting though, Whitman (eBay CEO) and Fiorina (HP CEO). Would that have been pandering had they been chosen.
Also, after Biden was selected, the talk was that this helps him with older, white, working-class Americans. Pandering once more.
“No, he was looking for a figurehead, a cheerleader, someone who looks good as opposed to someone who is qualified to be vice-president”
Looks mentioned again. A good-looking woman is obviously not qualified I guess.
Angela, Elaine, and others who feel that Gov. Palin was chosen for her “womanness,” I feel that you are being unfairly critical and willfully ignorant regarding her qualifications. Her political history is like a McCain fairy tale with a “maverick” taking on the unethical within and without her own party and defeating the firmly entrenched establishment.
Prior to her gubernatorial run, she was the chair of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in Alaska, where she took on her own party leader for ethics violations.
Her name has been on the list of possible VP’s for about a year. And no other Governor, male or otherwise, has the maverick personality that would appeal to McCain.
I agree with Tiffany, and this thread demonstrates it succinctly: “Sometimes other women are the worst enemies of women.”
Okay, popping back in for a sec. First of all, I don’t want this to devolve into an Obama vs. Palin thing (or a Democrat vs. Republican thing.) Obama is lacking experience, too. I concede that. And there are plenty of people who’ve hammered him for his lack of experience in the same way that Palin’s getting hammered now. I’ve explained why I, personally, feel there’s a difference between Obama and Palin’s level of experience, but those of you who disagree with me have some good points as well.
I guess what I’m saying is that comparing Palin to Obama isn’t the heart of the matter for me. I’m more interested in Palin herself, and the complex and difficult and often conflicting issues that her candidacy has stirred up in me and in a lot of other people.
And while I agree that there are passionate feelings about this issue, I would hope we could avoid using demonizing language in our discussion. Is it possible to concede that thinking, caring people can have differing opinions on an issue like this without assuming that they’re vilifying Palin? Or working women in general? We’ve got to be able to talk about issues like this, woman to woman, without striking our battle stances. I’ve got to be able to express my reservations about Palin without being accused of being an enemy to womankind. In my opinion, language like that just forces us into silence, which does nobody any good.
This is a passionate issue. I understand. But especially here at Segullah, I’d like to maintain a tone that reaches for common ground.
Very interesting discussion. After reading all the comments as a sympathetic outside observer, I have a growing suspicion which is based on some overt statements in the comments as well as some more subtle turns of phrase. I know Angela said this is not about politics, but do I correctly divine a trend in which political leanings are playing a big part in the reactions here? Both sides of the Sarah Palin coin are represented well in the thread, but I get the sense that conservatives naturally make the case for Palin and liberals naturally have a negative reaction to her.
I agree with Dalene. What I love about Palin is that she is not the kind of Mom who shoves her kids into the background. She’s still pumping bottles for Trig (bet that will stop soon!) and got rid of the cook at the governors mansion because she wanted to cook for her family. Her kids are in her life and they come with the deal. She’s not trying to be a man. She says very loud and clear “I’m a mom and proud of it.” And that’s a huge deal to me.
I think being a mom of many keeps a person incredibly grounded. It will keep her political perspective real.
As far as her being a working mom, this isn’t some crappy clerical job we’re talking about. Her husband will be Mr. Mom, and yes, the kids will definitely miss out on some prime Mommy moments, but it’s a sacrifice for a great cause.
She’s also got that sexy schoolmarm thing going on. I’m totally jealous!
Jacob, I think you’re right. I’m an Independent (although I voted for Bush twice, once pretty enthusiastically, once holding my nose) but I must admit that this go round I do like Obama. At least right now. I’m trying my best to keep an open mind, but I think that political affiliation *can* affect the way you see a candidate. And it’s probably impossible to divorce that from a situation as fraught and as complicated as this one.
And Jennie, she does look really good in those glasses. (Can I say that? :-)).
I’ve scanned through all the posts and no one has brought up the Proclamation on the Family. Do we have an obligation as members of the church to uphold the Proclamation by not voting for a woman who has small children at home and multi-family crises? It’s just a question that I don’t have an answer to, I really don’t know. Maybe being a family oriented woman she’d do more to defend the ideals in the Proclamation if she were in a position of power.
And before you jump down my throat, re-read the proclamation in light of what has been discussed.
And also remember what Elder Oaks said: “Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”
Sarah Palin’s lack of real qualifications for the job makes me feel pandered to
Stopped reading there.
Sarah has more experience than Barack Obama. BO is running for top spot, Sarah is running for second.
Sarah has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama. If you think a Governor of State doesn’t deal with negotiations with foreign nations you’re mistaken. Governors deal with foreign trade constantly. Alaska more so than many other States with their oil, and commercial fisheries used by other nations besides just the United States. Than there is the issue of Russian jets skirting Alaska airspace on occasion.
Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain….COMBINED. Need I remind you that Alaska is the largest State, and it’s not the least populous either.
If you think Palin was chosen simply because she is a woman you could not possibly be more wrong.
The more I read about other mothers judging Palin, the more I want to defend her right to run for the VP spot. She’s not competing for the “Mother of the Year” award. I realize a lot of mothers may say that they wouldn’t want someone in the White House who fails to put her children first, but I don’t see the relevance in that argument. What does that even mean? One could easily argue that because she believes she can make a difference, that because she believes she can make this country a better place, that SHE IS putting her children first.
To scrutinize her choices as a mother is completely off base from the topic of whether or not she can do the job or not.
Heavenly Father put us on this earth to be many things. We are not here solely for the purpose of baby-making. As women we are given many talents, and I understand a lot of women believe that we are to hold off on other talents while we raise our children, unless of course, under the category of “talents” you find scrapbooking, blogging, and water-skiing. You know, the stuff that REALLY matters in life.
Others, like myself, don’t see it that way. We live in a day where our roles must cross. This is not a time to procrastinate.
But here’s the thing, it is villifying a woman when we, as women, question every choice she has made about her family. We wonder how she can do certain things but we continually refuse to even ask these questions about the male candidates. If you want to have this discussion, great. But be prepared to ask the hard questions about each candidate. Ask how being president will impact the families of the candidates. Then I will be happy to discuss them in a calm, collected manner. Because then it seems less of an indictment on a woman and more of a balanced concern about the candidates. And finally, is it really our business? I want to know how Palin will conduct herself as a VP. I think her previous experiences show that she will be strong and interesting.
Kathryn Soper makes me think……and I LOVE that!
Tiffany, just to clarify. First, I hope I made it clear that I’m conflicted about the way I feel. I’m speaking to my “gut level” reactions upon first hearing about Palin’s candidacy and I want to explore what those reactions might mean. And I realize that I’m sticking my neck out in daring to voice those concerns in a public way. But speaking for myself, I in no way have “questioned every choice she has made about her family.” I’m questioning this ONE choice, at this one particular time.
And as to the question “is it really our business?” Well . . . yeah. I’ve never understood the argument that we should completely divorce political candidates’ private choices and circumstances from their public desire to serve. When people said Clinton should get a pass because the Monica thing was “private,” I disagreed. And now I think I’m also justified in considering the ways that Palin’s family circumstances at the specific point in her life (*not* all her past choices, but what her life looks like right now) might affect her ability to be VP.
Here’s the beauty of it. Some people will look at Palin’s family circumstances and see them as a plus (as many on this thread have done). Some people will look at those same circumstances and see them as a minus. Both sides are justified in considering those circumstances, are they not?
Now hold it, Jendoop. How do we know that the family is in crisis?
Palin’s teenage daughter has been pregnant for a few months and the family has been aware of it. I imagine that it has been discussed and it is now rather more in the lines of following through with the plan that has been established. That is not a crisis.
Palin knew before her baby was born that there were problems. She accepted those problems. The baby is 4 months old and this is not a crisis situation. It is one where things are being taken care of. Palin frequently takes her baby to work.
I think Palin is a family-oriented woman. You don’t have five children if you aren’t focused on your family. Her approach is being scrutinized in such an intense fashion because she is basically in the running for one of the highest positions of power in this country.
And finally, I don’t see the Procalmation on the Family as material for how we are to judge others and their families or how we are to vote at an election. I see it as a direct guide for my own family and how I am to conduct myself. I see it as a model for governments to follow when implementing policy about family.
I consider this whole “But how will she care for her children?” a non-issue. I wish, as women, we could support what an AWESOME thing this is that a 40-something mother of five could potentially be in office and not judge how she will care for her kids. Clearly, she has managed her family as mayor and governor up to this point. I’m sure proper arrangements will be made for her children if she ends up in office. Living in DC and interacting with national and world leaders? I can’t think of a better education and experience for her children.
How many other vps and presidents have come into office with kids? The position as First Lady doesn’t exactly produce a schedule or lifestyle for a traditional SAHM…
“Living in DC and interacting with national and world leaders? I can’t think of a better education and experience for her children.”
That’s a really good point.
I voted for Palin as an Alaskan woman. I like that she is less “experienced” in politics in a way that I dislike how “experienced” the other scandal-ridden officials of Alaska are. She’s positive, intelligent, capable, and sincere. She has worked very hard in Alaska, thinks outside the box to get things done that have been on the to-do list for years.
During that time I have no doubt the home front has paid the price. Enter the pregnant teenage daughter. Who has ever heard of a politician, male or female, who neglects home and family for the good of their office? Yeah, everyone has. There is a lot you can assume about one’s priorities from this. And you’re probably right.
She has been snatched up in this campaign as a token. But then again, isn’t that the role of the VP during elections? Pandered to? Of course.
The fact that so many women are not swallowing it whole tells how intelligent and cautious we are. This election should be scrutinized.
Sarah Palin is not running for my nanny or my daughter in law. Consequently, how she parents her kids or who is the primary caregiver is between her and her husband. As long as they aren’t locking them in a closet and starving them, I’m pretty much fine letting that part of her private life remain private. She may be a great politician and a horrible mother. Who knows? If she’s a great politician who can force real reform (not Obama’s ambigious feel-good Oprah-fied change mantra–he’s my least favorite Democrat), I want her in Washington kicking insider butt.
Anyone who wants to start jumping to conclusions about whether a working mom’s busy schedule has contributed to her teenage daughter’s pregnancy needs to start looking long and hard at how many wonderful families with SAHMs that end up with kids in trouble. Kids get in trouble and there are many factors that contribute to that. For me personally, using this logically flawed line of thinking to justify a case against Sarah Palin is insulting–and I’m a SAHM.
I don’t expect male politicians to account for their paternal choices to the electorate; it would be hypocritical of me to expect female politicians to account for their maternal choices to the electorate. I didn’t judge Hillary Clinton by how Chelsea turned out. I judged her on her record.
Whether or not Sarah Palin would be a great “First Mother,” or rises to my standards of what I think a mother should be and do, doesn’t figure into my decision of who to vote for. The fact that Obama, McCain and Biden are slick politican operative Washington insiders is more relevant and disturbing to me than whether or not Sarah Palin can adequately care for her Down’s Syndrome child if she’s VP.
I wish I could say I’m glad to see this kind of discussion at Segullah, but I’m not. It’s topical and interesting, but not particularly uplifting–and that’s why I come here–for spiritual food or enlightenment. Oh well. I guess the best refuges are overrun eventually.
Although I personally agree that a candidate’s personal life can and should have a bearing on how I view a candidate and even whether I vote for them, I don’t think the Monica Lewinsky comparison is a good one, because in that case, the issues were not just of an immoral personal life, but of *professional* misconduct (abuse of power by having sex with an underling; lying under oath.) (I’m biting my tongue to not go further on that issue — well I guess I’m not a very effective tongue-biter: it’s always been a huge proof to me of feminist hypocrisy (I’m talking about the radical feminists at the top of the feminist food chain — the NOW types) that they so completely embraced one of the worst womanizers our national leadership has ever seen, because he was so completely in their pocket, policy-wise.) Anyway, Sarah Palin leaving her baby at home with daddy so she can be veep doesn’t seem in the same category as the Lewinsky affair at all. But, as I said, I think we’re all smart to try to do all we can to make good judgments about the character of our chosen candidates, and their personal lives do factor into that.
I share your hesitations about Palin’s being veep while her baby’s young, because I share the Mormon view that it’s best for a woman to be the primary caregiver for her children whenever possible. But at the same time, I’m also willing to look at her as coming from a different paradigm from mine, and within *that* paradigm, I think she’s (ironically enough) excelling both from a liberal feminist point of view AND from a conservative family-values point of view. (This means she’s opening herself up for the ire of both groups, if we think those two types of success are incompatible.) I also agree with whoever said (I think it was Kathryn?) that sometimes a woman has a vocation or calling that goes beyond what most of us can achieve or are called to achieve. That’s tricky territory, (and extremely personal/individual,) but I’m at least willing to consider that, while I *really* don’t believe I could succeed at a high-powered job of any sort while caring for young children, some women can, and do, and even are meant to.
I think the comparisons to Obama’s lack of experience are very valid, since he’s the other choice, so if we’re criticizing her based on a lack of experience, it should matter whether he has more or less experience than she does. I’d rather both candidates had more experience, but that’s not the reality we’re faced with. (And personally I agree with those who say that Palin has more executive experience than Obama. For that matter, some of Obama’s experience is opposite to what I would want — 20 years in a black supremacist church, with one of its most outspoken leaders as a mentor? Would we give the nod to anyone who’d spent 20 years being mentored by the leader of a WHITE supremacist church?)
I think I’ve gone far more political than you’d prefer with this response — but I don’t see how not to, since it’s really a political issue. And I also agree with the person who said that all or our perceptions of the candidates, and how quick we are to forgive or defend their foibles, will be strongly colored by our political preferences.
(Now I’m wondering how many comments will have made mine redundant while I took so long to write this.)
Aw, shucks. Thanks, b.
And everyone, remember not to kill the messenger. Angela’s points are valid ones to consider. Remove Obama from the picture, and we’d still wonder “is this woman really ready to be VP?” We may decide yes, we may decide no. But it’s a valid question.
Ditto for how personal life may affect political office. It’s wise to ask questions. It’s not wise to draw hasty conclusions, though–and that goes for everyone, perhaps especially those who thought there should be no questions to begin with.
I was excited to see Angela’s post, and I think she’s sparked a valuable discussion. It’s risky to speak up on such volatile issues. I’m glad she took the risk.
As for division along party lines, I will say that for me, Palin was the tip-the-scales factor in favor of McCain.
This is a really worthwhile discussion.
FWIW, Jacob J., while I a moderate conservative, I am one who has some of these concerns.
But I think Kathy and others have brought up interesting points that I am grateful to mull over as well.
FWIW, it’s not just Mormon women concerned about this. I happened to see this yesterday.
I’m torn on this one. I think on one hand, having a fresh, family-oriented perspective could be really good. I, too, am weary of the good ol’ boy stuff of politics. And I do like that this has shaken things up a bit, even if I’m conflicted about the shake-up.
But I agree that private life in public office isn’t so private anymore, and can and should be considered. I also wonder about role modeling here, and wonder if this is the kind of woman I want as a role model for girls in general. At some point, I don’t care if that sounds sexist, because I think girls are often confused by the idea that they can have it all, and it really isn’t true. Men can’t either, frankly, but that is why traditional roles can be important. I’m not saying there can’t be exceptions, such as Palin’s hubby staying at home, (which isn’t insignificant in this situation, imo). I’m still conflicted. I do think there is something to upholding what we believe in re: The Proclamation. But how much that should influence my voting is still something I’m mulling over. That is why I appreciate this post.
I don’t think we should be afraid of being labeled ’sexist’ in considering these concerns, because I think they are legimate to at least consider and to be able to discuss without someone trying to shut down the discussion by labeling it sexist.
I’m glad you were brave, Angela, in bringing this up, and I have really appreciated those who have been able to discuss this thoughtfully and respectfully.
Newsweek has chimed in on this issue. A good read.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156923
I guess I should have said Obama’s ticket is the other choice — obviously if we’re doing straight-across comparisons, Biden has much more experience than Palin — and Obama has MUCH less experience than McCain.
I wish I could say I’m glad to see this kind of discussion at Segullah, but I’m not. It’s topical and interesting, but not particularly uplifting–and that’s why I come here–for spiritual food or enlightenment. Oh well. I guess the best refuges are overrun eventually.
Of all the comments I’ve read, this one surprised me the most. One of the purposes of Segullah, per our mission statement, is to “provoke thought.” That’s exactly the purpose of this post.
Angela has not overstepped any boundaries. The topic of a female VP candidate is of huge importance and interest to many, if not most, LDS women.
The trouble I have with the word pandering is that when we are taking aggressive steps to thwart something, say racism, we actively seek out minorities to balance out the imbalance. If McCain chose Palin in part because of her sex, does that make it inherently pandering? Or just part of the equation? Tim J is right that many of the short list VP names had very little experience on the national stage.
Palin is actually the only one of the four candidates that has ANY executive experience at all. I don’t even know who I’m voting for yet, but I think that she’s just as likely to do well as anyone else is.
Zina, you’ve made a good point that the Clinton/Lewinski thing and Palin’s candidacy are not really the same. They’re not. I was just using that a as quick example of my own belief that personal choices do affect the way I see a person. Clinton’s past infidelity before Monica colored my feelings about him, too.
And due to many of your comments, I’m rethinking my final (and probably most inflammatory) statement in my initial post about what it means about Palin as a person if she chooses to become Vice President during such a crucial time in her children’s lives. That was the gut-reaction about which I was most ashamed, but I wanted to be honest about feeling it. So after much mulling today (I mulled and mulled while I pushed my cart through Target, feeding my toddler BBQ potato chips from an open bag to keep him quiet) I think I can come around to the fact that some women might be “called” to do certain things that put a strain on the family, but that the greater good might be in accepting that call. Men *and* women are put in this situation. I see that. And I also see that I was probably conflating my own sense of what *I* would do and wouldn’t do with my sense of what Palin should and shouldn’t do. And that’s not really fair.
Does this mean that Palin’s been “called”? Dunno. Truly, I hardly know a thing about Palin. So few of us do, besides (maybe) the woman from Alaska who posted above. (And I appreciated your insight).
I still feel strongly, though, that I should be able to take into consideration the toll her family situation will take on her ability to do her job. I still think that’s fair.
And Kathy, thanks for the backup. I know that this isn’t the type of post one often sees on Segullah, but I too believe that discussions like this can be beneficial and are important, especially if they are conducted in the right spirit.
My hesitations about her are similar to yours, Angela. It seems clear to me that choosing her was a strategic move: they chose her because of her gender and family status, because they thought she might “speak for mothers of large families,” as Kathy said.
And I can see that she just might do that–speak for mothers of large families . . . who also have careers, and who believe in furthering their careers sometimes at the cost of family life.
I think that society is moving in a direction that is frightening: more support for women who choose to work, less support for women who feel they should be home with their kids. Because of the choices she has made, we can see a little bit about what she values, what she’ll work for, what she cares about. From what I can tell about her choices, I can see that she won’t speak for me. So their strategy didn’t work for me.
I, like Angela, would like to see someone (male or female) who wants to work to change our society to make it easier for people to put family first. I’m not sure Palin would have that as a priority, based on what I see.
To distil my tangential rantings to something shorter and clearer: I share some of your concerns about Sarah Palin’s choice to run for VP when she’s got a young baby and other children to care for, but, unless other greater concerns arise between now and November, my concerns are not great enough to keep me from voting for my preferred platform.
I also noted with some amusement that, while you have referred to this as a “woman to woman” conversation, this thread brought more male commenters than any I remember noticing around here before.
(I wrote this offline while waiting for this site to come back — maybe it was having trouble with heavy traffic? And I should also say that I’ve enjoyed how respectful and thoughtful this whole thread has been.)
And, responding to Darlene’s comment — I agree that she’s not likely to specifically promote the cause of families, which I also see as a negative. (I just have other reasons to vote for her — barring some future more-shocking revelation.)
Darlene, you’ve described perfectly the hasty conclusions and the trap for high-ranking women I’ve been referring to. I’m not going to dig in to your argument, but I couldn’t disagree more with the logic you’ve presented here, or your conclusion.
You know, Justine, as far as the pandering thing goes, I think in a perfect world I’d love to have a really qualified, ready, kick-butt candidate who *happens* to be a woman. What makes me feel pandered to is the sense that her being a woman was the first and most important quality. I don’t like that. I wish that as women there wasn’t the whiff of gender-based affirmative action following us around, and if one of the candidates had chosen a woman with a really strong track record, instead of one that needs so much defending, that whiff wouldn’t be as strong. So I guess that’s what makes me feel a little deflated.
I realize that some of you do think she’s already qualified, ready, and kick-butt as she is, and you’re entitled to that opinion. But I’m still not so sure. I guess I just want the whomever is going to be the first female VP (and possible President, even) to be rock solid.
Who knows? Maybe when I hear her speak tonight, my opinion of her readiness will change. I’ve never said I’m not open to change.
Now Kathy, I don’t think that Darlene’s comment was particularly hasty. I think that if a person feels Palin speaks for her (or doesn’t speak for her), i