Vox

Even those who don't hate her tend to give her very little credit. I have no problem saying that Joe Biden came off well the other night, and may even have "won," all things considered. But if you go to some of the liberal sites--at least the ones I can stand to read--it's hard to find anyone who's willing to concede that Sarah Palin did well and deserved to be up there with Biden. They're just so dismissive of her. Mickey Kaus on Slate is about as close as you're going to get to an honest, prominent Democrat. (And he, by the way, said that both candidates did "okay.")

It's been said many times elsewhere, but it bears mention yet again why she's so reviled by the left. In the estimation of the left, the definition of feminine success is to be single, childless (whether abortion was employed to achieve that status or not,) humanist, independent of men in general (much less a husband,) a vegetarian who has never even seen (much less touched or held) a gun, an environmentalist plain-faced woman who consistently supports a liberal agenda. Sarah Palin is the pure antithesis of all this. She is a married mom of 5 who very deliberately (and now very publicly) chose to avoid abortion - she's a strong, vocal Christian, happily married to a strong man, a carnivore who kills animals to feed her family, and a conservationist who loves nature but recognizes that Man must dominate and exploit it to survive. She is also obviously politically conservative. In spite of all these character flaws, she's still incredibly successful. She has taken on the powers of both political parties in her state and has risen from hockey mom to governor in a meteoric fashion. The left hates her because she proves them wrong. By virtue of her resume, she ought to be a complete and utter failure, but she's not. She's highly successful exactly due to who she is and what she believes. The left doesn't want any woman in the world to know that. If the secret gets out, many women who would otherwise drink the feminist-leftist Kool-Aid may go astray, which would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the left. There ya have it, by golly!

I read something the other day in National Review that was so true, I can't believe it's never been said before. (Or if it was, I didn't notice at the time.) Here it was, paraphrased: "If the GOP had nominated a black candidate for president, it would not be considered grounds for general celebration, and the historical significance of it would be downplayed. Same story if the GOP had nominated a woman for president."

(Think about it...would Gwen Ifill be writing her book if Alan Keyes were the GOP nominee?)

The argument was not, though, that the media and opinion leaders would want to deny the GOP any credit for making history. The argument was that a black Republican candidate wouldn't be a "real" black, and wouldn't genuinely represent "the interests of black Americans." Because of that, you might as well have nominated a white guy. And the same logic extends to a female nominee; you might as well have nominated a man.

I'm sure there are many more thoughtful responses than the ones I have, but here are my two. First, it's good for blacks, and women, and Americans in general, for blacks and women to earn positions of power, authority, and respect that they typically have not had in the past. That's true whether an "R" or a "D" comes after their name.

Second, opinion, needs, interests, and experiences are highly diverse among blacks and women. (Unfortunately, voting behavior at the presidential level is not nearly so diverse, at least in the case of blacks.) There are undoubtedly many respects in which a standard GOP candidate is a better advocate/representative for blacks in America--or at least large subsets of blacks in America--than your standard Democrat. Again, same goes with a female GOP candidate and women in the electorate in general.

One irony here is that while the left has no problem saying that Democratic candidates are the only real, legitimate representatives of black America or American women, if we on the right refer to "black America" or "American women" as a group, we are lectured by those same lefties to this effect: blacks, women, name your group are highly diverse, so please, let's dispense with the stereotypes and generalities, huh?

It reminds me of an argument I got into with an otherwise lovely Australian woman during my travels last fall. Her position was that the United States should just shut up and defer to the United Nations. That, she said, was the only legitimate form of foreign policy-making. About a half-hour later, she complained about the role of Israel in the Middle East, how Israel has a state and the Palestinians do not, etc. I said, "Back in 1948, the United Nations worked out a two-state agreement. It was world government in action. The Jews accepted it, the Palestinians did not." Her response: "Yes, well I'm sure the United States exerted undue influence in that whole process. One could hardly consider it legitimate."

Principles are principles until they collide with self-interest.

I should note that Hillary, too, said kind things about Palin's showing in the debate. Good for her. And good for that one Democrat who admitted that he and his party weren't paying enough attention to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Yeah, I know he said Republicans bore some of the blame, too, but at least it's a start.

I don't hate Palin. I'm just disappointed and disgusted by the strong focus people/media have regarding her looks and superficial qualities. As a woman in politics, it seems you're either a MILF (Palin) or a bitch (Clinton). People seem to accept that as a valid reason for supporting a candidate.

Even though I don't support McCain/Palin, I am disappointed in how she did in her interviews with Couric. She blew those, and she did much better in the debate. But the difference in performances makes it difficult to give her credit she may deserve for the debate.

There's a lot of articulate men in politics. I'd like to see articulate

Feminism is about treating all women with dignity. It takes a certain amount of ego and confidence (arrogance?) to run for office. I'm glad Palin has been able to make her choices. She has the energy and drive to be a mother and governor. I don't knock her for that at all.

Then again, I'm not a hater, so maybe your point, Vox, doesn't apply to me. Does it help that most of my left-leaning friends are lovers, not fighters, too? :-)

Oops, there was an unfinished sentence in there. My neighbor's little girl was selling lemonade, so I hit post so I could buy a couple glasses.

Anyway, this cartoon is what I don't want to happen. It kind of finishes the thought I started.

http://xkcd.com/385/

Wow she does look great in that photo. To me she is "what you see is what you get" and I do like that in ANY person. It is a shame there is SUCH HATE from the other side. It's very obvious they are scared and jealous.