On the issue of choice, for example, the views of men and women are often framed very differently (on both sides of the table) and for good reason. I find strongly antichoice women to be more disturbing than strongly antichoice men* though I generally detest them both.

I have to say that considering Palin to be a tool of the patriarchy is somewhat prejudicial. Obviously, as a member of the Republican party she is tied somewhat to their patriarchal values… but that speaks nothing of her personal beliefs. She considers herself a feminist despite being pro-life, to the point of being in an organization that refers to them as exactly that - Feminists for Life.

Feminists for life is a faux feminist organization. In my personal opinion any woman claiming the political beliefs that she does is staunchly anti-feminist, and in fact a colluder. Taking on a title and then acting against it, is false representation. I don’t care how many babies the woman has, attempting to control the bodies of other women is anti-feminist.

But, Christ, I’m not going to attack her for going back to work too soon after her kid was born. I mean Bush went golfing the day of one of his sibling’s deaths or funeral or something (I’m not looking this up) and that seems cold. But blaming mothers for doing it wrong is like a national fucking pass time. It’s bullshit. So she wanted to go back to work, so what? The kid has two parents. She loves her job. What the hell is wrong with that? Do people blame dads for going back to the job so soon? No, they do not.

(This is futile and probably stupid, but woman =XX and woman = vagina is cisgenderist. I mean, yeah, most people are cis, but . . . )

She went back to work *2* days after her youngest child was born. Given that maybe Dad is around to take care of the child, etc. etc., I think such a decision is a clear indication of her priorities or her affluence or whatever.

The only other person I have heard of going back to work so quickly (and it was a week after the baby was born) was someone who worked for dirt wages as a nursing assistant and the choice was starve or work.

Is Palin capable of compassion for a single, working mom of 1 or 2 who is having a rough time of it?

I really do believe that the personal choices that politicians make reflects the public, political, economic decisions they inflict on the rest of us. Her anti-abortion, creationist views are scary in and of themselves, but they are just a part of the picture.

And, her “executive” experience has been in a state with a population of 700,000 and no taxes because the state is flush with money from its production of oil. Any bill that she has refused to sign has had nothing to do with hard economic choices.

I don’t (entirely) share Joe’s cynicism, but I agree with this. Considering her combination of social conservativism with her anti-corruption record and her apparent come-from-nowhere, fight-like-hell-and-win record, she looks like someone the old, sincere, stright-talkin’ McCain would have really been impressed with. So I think it is entirely possible that, while political calculations and the need for a Hail Mary pass were certainly part of this decision, a gut-level feeling of sincere belief that she is what the country needs may also have been part of McCain’s decision.

Doesn’t mean he’s right, of course. She is ETREMELY inexperienced in both the skills necessary to run the country as well as compete in a national campaign. You can win election to mayor of a town of less than 6,000 people by just walking up to nearly evry single voter and talking to them personally. winning a smal state gubenatorial election during a scandle that wipes out your oppents is nothing compared to jumping into the U.S. Presidential race(*). Dealling with the Alskan press might be tough, but it doesn’t prepare you at all for being the subject of the intense focus of the national MSM. And being able to smack down the best debaters in Alskan poltics prepares you to debate someone with the debating experience of Biden the way being the star of your state championship high school football team prepares you to sub in as a halfback in the SuperBowl.

May she is up to it, but damn, what a risk. Luckily for McCain, I think RonF is right. If the Republicans can win with Agnew, Quayle, or Cheny on the bottom of the ticket, it would be hard to blame Palin if McCain loses.

(*) Actually, the cercumstances under which she won the governor’s job probably put her though a tougher campaign than Obama went through to win his U.S. Senate seat. Which is one reason primaries are better on a practical level than smoke-filled rooms. The primary season certainly vetted Obama’s campaigning abilities on a national level as well as taught him how to be a better candidate. Palin’s jumping into the championship game without having played the season.

The experience thing is pretty hypocritical. But that sword cuts both ways.

I don’t think he picked her because she’s a woman. I do think it was part of the calculation. Identity politics are a fact of life. Biden is popular with working class white folk. So I’m sure that was part of Obama’s decision.

Whatever. Neither candidate will accomplish much that I approve of when they get elected. Until then it’s just political theater.

Obviously, I disagree with her on most of her positions - I’m generally pro-choice, and despise creationism in the classroom and a number of her other political opinions. But I haven’t yet heard anything from her that would be considered anti-feminist otherwise. But I think the “with us or against women” attitude that some feminists carry is very unhealthy. There are only two parties in the USA, and I doubt that the Democratic party would ever carry someone of her fundamentalist anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage values, so obviously the Republican party is the main venue for her to enter politics (Independants are a realm for celebrities and the polically irrelevant).

Obviously, I’ll grouse with the rest if she ever mentions getting the women back into the kitchen - but at this point, it’s a little unfair to start slinging the mud on that issue.

I don’t mean to imply that anyone who favors abortion rights would automatically abort a Downs’ Syndrome affected fetus.

There’s some sympathy with the fact that her fifth child has Downs’ Syndrome - and that she knew in time to abort it, yet had it anyway. Now THAT’S pro-life.

Maybe I’m just reading this wrong and this is what you see some hypothetical Republican thinking, but I’d just like to point out that I’m sure there are plenty of pro-choice women who would choose to keep a Downs Syndrome child too. Because that is their choice.

We’re writing about this over at the CA NOW blog too: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/mccains-vp-choi.html

This temporary ban is made because of a pattern of contemptuous behavior displayed particularly over the course of the past few weeks. It is temporary out of deference to Ampersand’s sensibilities. Anyone who wishes to discuss this decision (apart from Daran) may do so in an open thread.

Daran, was that a joke?

Was what a joke?

My comment about Clinton was rhetorical irony, intended to point out the contradiction between what Fecke said, and what feminists generally do. (When I wrote it, I hadn’t seen this comment, which illustrates the contradiction even more starkly.)

My reference to a cabinet of beauty queens (and Hilton’s possible position in it) was exaggerated. But the underlying question about whether McCain has an eye for pretty women, and whether this, rather than their qualifications for the job, might influence his appointments was serious.

Now I get it. I just pressed a hot button by suggesting that a woman might owe her position to her looks, rather than merit. So strong, I guess, is the injunction against this that you mustn’t criticise the sexists who might allow women’s looks to influence their appointing decisions (unless it’s a negative influence of course).

I stand by what I said. Palin’s candidature should be evaluated on the basis of her resume and nothing else. McCain’s candidature should be evaluated on his choices, and the motivations behind them. Those choices include his selection of a running mate.

Edited to add: “her resume and nothing else” is not intended to exclude her motivations. Such questions are legitimate in evaluating her candidacy, but they are not at issue here.