Saturday, August 30, 2008

Maybe Herenton Was Overqualified As McCain Running Mate

Maybe Republican presidential candidate John McCain should have selected Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton as his running mate.

After all, he has as many constituents and 14 more years of executive experience than Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

It seems to us that this time around, even the Republican spin doctors know how thin their case is, explaining the frantic, over-the-top efforts to glorify the “executive experience” that apparently impressed Senator McCain so much that he just had to have her on his ticket.

If you know anything about Alaskan state government, you’ve got to find all of this hilarious. There’s just no question that state affairs in Juneau require less skill and knowledge than those found with most big city mayors.

After all, if the population of Alaska was a metro area, it would rank between #73 Sarasota and #74 Springfield, Massachusetts.

Well, to give Governor Palin her due when compared to Mayor Herenton, she does actually have about 9,450 more constituents.

Of course, Shelby County Mayor AC Wharton tops the number of Governor Palin’s constituents by slightly more than 26,000, so in truth, we guess he would make the ultimate vice-presidential candidate, but then again, maybe he’s overqualified for the job, using the McCain yardstick for executive experience.

Meanwhile, as for Governor Palin’s much-vaunted foreign policy experience – complete with video of her with National Guard members – it’s worth noting that Alaska has less about 1,600 troops. Tennessee has 14,000.

Amazingly, so far, the talking heads for the Democratic Party and the incessant chatter by cable political reporters haven’t managed to put all this experience into the context that it deserves.


Anonymous said...

So give us a run-down on all of Obama's experience.

Let's hear it.

Midtowner said...

While I'm still planning on voting 3rd party but I must admit that Palin has piqued my interest. I'd actually be more interested if she were the top of the ticket.

Let's see, which is better, four years in the Senate, or two years of running the largest state in the union? Yea, I know it's not the most populous but does that matter? How many governors of more populous states have had to wrestle with oil companies over revenues?

The state's population isn't so important otherwise we'd elect the mayor or governor of New York. In fact, Texas is a much more populous state than Arkansas ... so who do you think was the better president? The one who was the governor of the large and populous state or the governor from the state with the smaller population?

In fact, I think her two years as governor tops McCain's years in the Senate. There is one heck of difference between being one of a hundred debating wording of bill and being the one person help responsible for implementing the law and running things.

Altho I will concede that McCain has had some command experience.

Just the fact that Alaska Nat'l Guard is deployed to Iraq gives her more "foreign policy" experience that Obama.

Unless McCain dies in office on inauguration day, she will be more like an apprentice. So the argument that her inexperience negates Obama's inexperience is non sequitur.

You want to criticize her inexperience as a liability for the #2 spot even tho you support a guy with certainly no more experience and IMO less experience for the #1 spot. Now how illogical is that?

Like I said, I'm still planning on voting 3rd party, but I'd be much more interested in the ticket if Palin were at the top of ticket. I'd be more likely to believe that someone would actually push reform if the person was from outside of Washington than from someone working or living inside the Beltway.

anon - Don't expect a long list. Obama graduated from law school, became a community organizer (whatever the heck that means), and became a politician.

Palin has run a business, a town, and a state while Obama hasn't run anything but his mouth.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon and Midtowner,
Wrestle with Oil Companies??? She is quite literally in bed with the oil industry; do you know what her husband does? Think we already know what the governor of a large state can do, remember where Bush is from? By any objective measure of government success, the governor of the smaller state did better (Clinton not Bush). McCain's command experience, he commanded a plane that he crashed. As a platoon leader then company commander in 1928-1969, I have more command experience than McCain. Elect me.

Smart City Consulting said...

Here's our thought:

She believes that women should not be able to get an abortion even if a child is the result of rape or incest.

She believes that global warming is not caused by manmade factors.

She believes that creationism is actually science.

She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

Obama's experience is in opposing a war that destabilized the entire Middle East and that has created thousands of new terrorists. His experience shows that he understands that it's hypocrisy to restrict women's rights and then cut programs for children's services. His experience in the Senate shows that he's been right on the big issues.

The state's population is relevant, midtowner, because it drives the level of a candidate's experience. The notion that someone was 20 months ago mayor of a city smaller than Millington.

We've not been particularly anti-McCain, but if this is the evidence of his judgment, we're in trouble. There's no way any one believes that she is the most qualified Republican woman for this job, if that in fact was the gender that he was looking for.

Of course, he really wanted Leiberman or Ridge, but when the far right opposed them, he backed up to appease a base that's out of touch with America.

Anonymous said...

These conservative shills just can't stay on point, can they? You were talking about Palin, not Obama. They never know how to have a conversation. They'd rather attack someone even though they were the ones who were saying that experience really matters for hte past 10 months. What a bunch of goofs.

Anonymous said...

Let's get real and quit talking in soundbites. Just tell the truth - do you think Palin is ready to decide if we bomb Russia tomorrow?

Tom Guleff said...

I don't think its fair to transfer our problems on the rest of the country.

antisocialist said...

Isn't Alaska larger than that organization Obama worked for in Chicago as a community organizer?

McCain raised $5 million on Friday! I love how the left is floundering around and questioning her "experience", of all things.

I vote present!

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for that laundry list of Obama's experience.

antisocialist said...

anon 10:03

Let me help you out with that list:

- worked as a Saul Alinsky style community agitator in Chicago

- got a sweetheart deal to buy his mansion courtesy of convicted felon Tim Rezko

-launched his political career from the home of, and served on a couple of boards with a terrorist involved in bombing NYC Police HQ, the Pentagon, and the Capitol

I'm sure I am overlooking many of this winner's accomplishments. Maybe someone else can add a few more.

I vote present!

Anonymous said...

For the record, both Creationism and Evolution have their own respective and passionate "belief-camps" both of which of claim their theories are backed with scientific evidence. The fact remains that they are both theories which can not be reproduced in the laboratory. So while believing creationism has scientific data to back it up as factual is silliness, believing that evolution is scientifically sound is equally incorrect. Both are theories and should be given equal attention in textbooks as such. Evolution provides the belief system or world view for many scientists to explain phenomena that lacks scientific evidence while creationism also provides a belief system for scientists that are comfortable with the notion that a creator was behind the genetic programming of it's creation.

I am continually amazed that scientists can attribute a genetically intense program such as embryogenesis to a spontaneous random process carried out in tandem with selective pressures. Bottom line : let's be fair- they are both belief systems. In a nutshell evolution is a valid process essential for the survival of species but it has been elevated to the status of a creator in it's capacity to randomly "create" complex hierarchies of living matter.

I'll leave you with this analogy, what is the likely hood that the computer code behind the Windows OS could be written by randomly typing on a computer and perhaps over a billion years you will get a working OS? You may laugh and say yea right! Well.....embryogenesis is orders of magnitude more complex then making an OS. In the end even this kind of analysis won't change the views of people in either camp because they will staunchly defend their BELIEF as to whether the unit of life was created via a creationary or evolutionary mechanism or wait- perhaps we can think outside the box and recognize it's a fusion of both theories where one theory is a mechanistic subset of the other.

So SMC, theories regarding origin of life have no role in predicting the political outcome of a candidate. What we need is a scientific community to be more honest with itself and admit that even as scientists they have their own set of beliefs- which does not make a person evolutionarily inferior or ignorant , rather it's just part of being a human being.....

Anonymous said...

Next time the Supreme Court takes away some more of our freedoms, I hope you'll be proud of your vote for some silly third party candidate.

Smart City Consulting said...


The "scientists" who profess that creationism is a theory on the same level as evolution are the equivalent of those who critized Galileo. There is no scientific stature for creationism in the real world, only in the polemics of those who think that somehow they have to attack evolution to protect their belief in God.

The fact that the miracle of evolution in fact proves the existence of God more strongly than allegories of Genesis seem to escape the people who claim that they have faith, but at the same time try to make the Bible into a science or history book.

Gravity too is a theory, but the evidence - like that of evolution -is compelling and overwhelming. The fact that theory means something specific to scientists seems to escape the flat earth crowd who want to use it as if it's the same as a notion.

And if the vice-president of the U.S. has so little regard for science - the same kind of disregard that has been exhibited too many times in the Bush years - that person is not only out of touch, but they are intellectually challenged.

Smart City Consulting said...

Again, anonymous 10:03, we weren't talking about Obama. We are talking about the lack of qualifications for the candidate that Senator McCain - out of all the Republicans in the country - thinks is prepared to be president.

If you really want us to compare qualifications, we think we've hinted at that, but we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

To continue the ad hominem attacks, to the person who said a Alisky style agitator, one person's agitator is another person's agent for change. We vote the latter.

Anonymous said...

Screw the experience arguments. I'm just excited to finally vote for someone smart enough to be president.

Let McCain enjoy the $5 million he raised Friday. Now he's only $175 million behind Obama.

Smart City Consulting said...

From August, 2005:

There are times when the Religious Right would try the patience of Jesus Christ Himself.

The growing battle over “intelligent design” is the latest evidence of the literalism that threatens the independence of school districts by imposing the religious beliefs of a few onto the education of the whole. We predict that any day now the Shelby County Board of Education will wade into the religious thicket and try yet again to inject Christianity into the school curriculum.

It seems a strange irony that the Religious Right, the professed people of faith appear to lack any faith at all. Rather than have faith to accept and worship the Bible as a sacred book, they instead are compelled to insist that it is a science book and a history book. Oh, ye, of little faith.

It’s hard to believe that on the 80th anniversary of the Scopes’ “monkey trial” in East Tennessee, we are heading toward another showdown with the fundamentalists determined to impose their religious views on every one else. We could only imagine if Muslim-Americans, or even Jewish-Americans, were trying to do the same. The outrage from the Right would be deafening.

But people engaged in holy wars rarely reflect objectivity. Rather, they claim everything is evidence of anti-Christian bias and use the word, agenda, to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them. There is the gay agenda, the atheistic agenda, the liberal agenda and the anti-Christian agenda.

What is most remarkable of all is that they make these kinds of inflammatory, simplistic statements in the most religious country in the history of humankind – the United States. If there is indeed an anti-Christian agenda that is undermining this nation, it would represent the greatest upset since David beat Goliath.

But, back to creationism, excuse me, I mean intelligent design…in about a month, scientists and creationists will battle in Dover, Pennsylvania, over the teaching of evolution in public schools. You may have thought that we had already resolved this issue. After all, the courts have ruled over and over that these religious-based theories about the origins of the species are violations of separation of church and state.

Then again, the Religious Right discounts the principles of separation of church and state, too. It’s a myth created by Godless liberals (like Jefferson). Once you can dismiss historical precedents this easily, science is relatively simple.

“Intelligent design” is the latest disguise for that good old-fashioned favorite of the Religious Right -- creationism. Proving that they have learned the lessons of Karl Rove, they have dressed up creationism in new clothes and given it a new name. At the same time, they attack anyone who has the temerity to question them.

Of course, creationism did need some updating, since it was based on the argument that our world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old; the fossil record shows they are off about 4.6 billion years old.

This time around, no one argues such a wrong-headed position, and proponents calmly suggest that “intelligent design” should be taught in the interest of fairness, because Darwinian evolution is nothing but a “theory.” Of course, so is gravity and the atom, but that fact doesn’t slow down their efforts in treating textbooks like rap cd’s. They would label them with a warning: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

It sounds so reasonable and so fair…until you look under the hood. There lurks the latest pseudoscientific version of creationism. Actually, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Darwin uses the word, evolution, precisely one time in On the Origin of the Species. (By way of comparison, the Bible never uses the word, rapture, even once, but that’s another story.)

In truth, it is hard to understand why Darwin’s writings engender such visceral rhetoric from the Right. The central proposition of evolution is this -- millions of years ago, a species of primates split into two branches. One became chimpanzees and the other become humans. In other words, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but from the common ancestor for both of chimpanzees and humans.

(At this point, it’s hard not to hear the voice of Mark Twain saying: “It now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one...the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.”)

Our connection to ancient ancestors seems obvious. Our appendix, the thin coat of hair that vanishes shortly before we are born (apes keep theirs and it becomes their fur) and the vitamin C in our diets unlike most mammals are vestiges of our genealogy. Or consider the oddity of goosebumps; coming as a response to the cold, they are intended to fluff up our fur to keep us warm. Such peculiarities certainly don’t point to intelligent design, because the presence of these characteristics is meaningless in modern humans. More to the point, the presence of these peculiarities indicate the evolutionary process that is still at work.

In response to such obvious facts supporting evolution, the intelligent design school offers up Of Pandas and People, offered up as a textbook. The book doesn’t mention religion, but it might as well. The name, “intelligent design,” begs the obvious question: who was in charge of such intelligent design? The book trots out old creationist fiction that organisms appeared spontaneously and have remained unchanged since their creation.

Every high school student knows this is not true. Different organisms and animals appear in different fossil records. First, bacteria; then algae; then animals with shells and marine life; then the Cambrian explosion that produces an array of life including vertebrates. The timeline is about three billion years.

The truth is that never have we had so much historical, physical evidence of the evolution of living organisms as we do today. The fossil record is rich in details and gives no support to the view of instantaneously created species that remained the same since their sudden appearance on the scene.

In light of the insistence of intelligent design advocates, it would stand to reason that its theory would be the subject of intense scientific research. That is hardly the case. Virtually no research has been done, and that is the strongest reason that it can find no respect from the scientific community.

In the end, intelligent design is not the solution to a scientific problem. It is the latest response to a religious problem among fundamentalists whose faith is not strong enough to countenance anything short of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The latest evolution case comes up for a ruling in a few weeks, and at least some of us will be praying for reason to prevail.

We remain baffled as to why there is any contradiction between evolution and belief in God. To us, evolution is the most intelligent design of all.

Zippy the giver said...

Midtowner, comment #2 was great.
#3 was off.
VP does things the pres can't be seen doing and VP won't be seen when the prez's mouth is moving.

SCC, no one has scientifically proven that man has actually had the effect that is happening now, they have proven that what is happening is cyclical scientifically. 40 years ago the biggest fear on earth was not nuclear war, it was "global cooling" look it up. To those actually in the know, it still is.

Created thousands of new terrorists? Prove that. They don't come here anymore.

Anon,3:50, considering that Russia is almost walking distance from Alaska, yeah, I'd say she's well versed on that scenario.

Anti-socialist, that list sounds like Hillary (Rostenkowski) lite.

Who cares about whether you were created or evolved? You can't change it if you're right or wrong, just like people's minds when they suppose that presidents are elected on the infantile info they get through media.
If Russia in conquest mode takes over Armenia, it becomes much closer to establishing an impenetrable route for Iranian oil (in trade for nuclear weapons tech), if that is stopped, Alaskan proven oil reserves are just a walk and a short puddle jump away. Maybe a gnat like memory or revisionist degree would have you forget we took it from them.
What if they take action to take it back?
Napoleon couldn't stop them, Hitler and all the meth on earth couldn't beat them. We can, but there would be a lot of carnage and morally questionable death tolls under a democrat president.
If you want a lot of death and no conscience about it, elect a democrat, if you ant the pretense of moral high ground and a more tech savvy approach with less American deaths, you better go republican.
Tom Guleff is a genius.

Midtowner said...

anon 2:42 - Palin as been referred to as the "Hugo Chavez of Alaska"; I refer you to "The drill-down on Sarah Palin" for an article showing Palin wrestling with "Big Oil".

After being released from the POW camp, McCain commanded one of largest training squadrons in the Navy which I believe is larger than a company command. I may be wrong since I'm not familiar with the Navy's organization tables.

If it makes you feel any better, as a company commander you probably have more command and leadership experience than Obama and I would probably vote for you over him!

SCC - As for some of your thoughts on Palin ...

Abortion - My belief is that once there is a heartbeat and brain activity, then there is a small developing human which is deserving of protection.

One's right to control one's own body does not allow for the mother to initiate aggression against the developing human. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. A parent has no right to evict his/her child from the crib or from the womb and let it die.

I too am a AGW skeptic. I do not believe that man caused GW nor can man stop it.

Her comment on creationism has been blown way out of proportion. Not that I really care. Evolution is theory as is Creationism ... give them both time.

Obama's experience is opposing the war??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That should make the terrorists rethink their positions. I'm surprised you even threw something like that out. You can make a better argument than that.

If the state's population is relevant, then name something Obama has been in charge of? Again, I point out that almost any, if not all, democrats would agree that the governor of a small state, Arkansas, was better than the governor of the large state, Texas. With Clinton, size didn't matter ... now it does???

Personally, I think he made a great choice. It has actually made me pay attention to him. I hope my schedule permits me to watch the VP debates because I'm willing to bet she does great against Biden.

Anon 3:50 - I'd be more willing to count on someone who has hunted a moose to face down the russkies than a "community organizer". I've been to Alaska and have come face to face with a moose. They are huge and dangerous.

SCC - back to you ... btw, it's the Law of Gravity ... it's more than theory.

Midtowner said...

Anon: 11:28 -"Next time the Supreme Court takes away some more of our freedoms, I hope you'll be proud of your vote for some silly third party candidate."

And which justice would you be referring to? So far the republicans have appointed 7 of the 9 justices. To what end? Two have turned out to be ultra liberal and one is a swing vote. Conservatism should have a lock on the supreme court but doesn't.

By voting for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

Zippy the giver said...

I like the OS comment, millions of years of random typing would bring about WINDOWS? You better hope it brings MacOS. There is code that does something and there is random typing that amounts to nothing (like this) and the difference is the functionality. You can't argue that. That there is a difference and a distinction of "What works" and "what doesn't work" IS your Lord.
I am pro life and pro choice, you don't have any rights, what you have are privileges. You can choose to kill, but, you will pay for it while your still alive, by your own hand.
Cavemen debating what's inside a wristwatch they can't open is a fruitless pursuit. If they get it right it is mere coincidence.

What is very apparent is that Hillary is from Chicago and was the protege of Dan Rostenkowski, the most corrupt political figure ever convicted in American History, she got Bill the money and provided no moral obstacles, not that he would have overcome them, obviously, he wouldn't. Murder incorporated was a chicago creation and there is a definite Capone connection in Hot Springs and a body count behind the Clintons over 71.
Now you have "the liberal messiah" from the same house.

This is a return to the most corrupt government that ever existed, This is a way to "massage in" slavery.

Do not go back that way again.

antisocialist said...

It's funny to me. . . I don't recall a single Smart City post calling into question the qualifications of any of the candidates except for the woman in the race, Governor Sarah Palin.

I am confident that whatever Governor Palin lacks in experience will be exceeded by her judgment, leadership, and tenacity.

It is telling that some here take umbrage when anyone else contrasts Governor Palin's experience with that of a less experienced candidate.

It strikes me as sexist that Smart City would single out Governor Palin with respect to qualifications and never comment on the qualifications of the men in this contest.

Misogyny seems like a great platform for you "progressives" - I hope you make it a key part of your strategy this fall.

I vote present!

Smart City Consulting said...


some of us here were for a woman for president, so don't try to force the Republicans' latest line of assault - that questioning Palin's credentials are sexist - on us. This isn't about gender. It's about being completely out of touch, and we'll continue to call it like we see it, regardless of gender or race.

Frankly, from where we sit, we should turn government over to women. God knows, white men have sure screwed it up.

Anonymous said...

I'm a woman, and all of these comments are patronizing and condescending. And Palin doesn't represent what most women believe or are concerned about. The notion that because she's a woman, the rest of us will jump in line to vote for us is insulting. We see her for what she is.

Anonymous said...

Just when I don't think I can get more concerned about this crazy city, I read people who are so backward they don't know that it's mankind causing global warming and that the world is just a few thousand years old. No wonder we're a backwater time.

Anonymous said...

Palin's daughter -- she's pregnant! LOL!
17 and unwed
wonder who vetted her?

Anonymous said...

I'd just like to note that I don't read this blog for the authors' opinions on national politics. Obviously, you're free to talk about what you want, but I'd much rather read about your opinions about Memphis.

Anonymous said...

Wow...all I can say is that I've voted in every presidential election since 1984. In every one except 2004, I voted republican. In 04 I voted Libertarian. This time I'm voting for Obama, and I don't even agree with much of the left's economic policies, but I'm sick to death of the republican party and their pimp/prostitute relationship with the religious freaks; moreover, they had complete power and managed to totally screw it up, so as far as I'm concerned, they need to be spanked back into some Goldwater bedrock principles. The neocons and their ilk are nothing but AUTHORITARIANS, folks. That's what REALLY drives them. My thoughts on abortion: if you don't like abortion, don't have one (I know over a dozen of now church-going republican women who had abortions in college, so don't think it's ever going to stop). On creationism, anyone who sincerely believes the earth is only 6000 years old is cognitively impaired or just a plain idiot, imagine believing that because some collection of mythical stories handed down from a bunch of pastoral semitic goatherding tribespeople 2500 years ago says so...talking snakes, sheesh.

Blind Libral said...

Mayor Herenton is also in the running for worst mayor in America! I can't believe you are even using Willie as an argument for this. Appointing his bodyguards to run our city.

It seems like there is another young candidate with little/no experience running also, who could that be?...

The media is awful in its coverage of this. The media conveniently never mentions Obama's experience, which is None, and this argument is suddenly valid when describing Palin. Any experience Obama has had consists of getting elected as a Senator and then running for President since then. Palin has actually managed public organizations, regardless of size.

It should also be noted that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote with zero days of experience, not to mention all the military leaders that have become president without any "experience" as it is so conveniently defined today.

Why is this happening? Why is Obama the messiah, and Palin a joke to the media?

3 reasons:

1) Not the change they want: You see--they've been telling you we need change--but not THAT kind of change!!! Also translated as typical liberal bias.

2) Harvard vs Mom: Obama is smart, Palin is "just" a mom. He went to Harvard, therefore he's qualified. She only went to the University of Idaho! She majored in communication/journalism and minored in political science. (Communication and political science! What a crazy combination of attributes to be vice president!) While Obama majored in AWESOMENESS!. He can organize communities, as evidenced by his time as a community organizer! (All of Chicago's problems have been solved by organization.) All she can do is fish (and run a business/town/state).

3) Small town factor: The truth here is that the media doesn't consider Alaska a state. I hate to say it, but it's true. They think running Alaska is akin to running a zoo. "Isn't that the place with all those caribou?" They also don't think small town life prepares you for anything outside of bake sales and soccer/hockey practice. To be honest, if it wasn't for Chicago, they wouldn't consider Illinois a state either.

This is the media at their most obvious. Keep lapping up those Keith Olbermann talking points guys.


Anonymous said...


please stick to local issues. you have much more of an impact there than trying to keep up with the national media about national politics/commentary.


Anonymous said...

I posting on day #5 of the Sarah Palin Experiment. Needless to say, it sure is looking good for Obama and the Democrats. Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.
-Ran Wasilla into $27 million in debt during her term as mayor
-Was a member for 2 years of the Alaska independence Party: That is a secessionist party (Not really country first is it.)
-Believes there are more Polar Bears today than in 1950
-A month before her baby was due, she was in Texas giving a speech and her water broke. Instead of going to the hospital, she went to the airport and flew from Dallas to Seattle, not telling the airlines. She than got a plane to Anchorage. When she got there, she drive 45 minutes to the small hospital in Wasilla. After her water broke, she traveled 13 hours and several thousand miles before going to the hospital. How is that responsible.
-Good thing she is an NRA member because she is forcing her daughter's boyfriend into a shotgun wedding.

Keep on ranting wingnutters because you are proving to 60% of the electorate you are batshit crazy.

Smart City Consulting said...

Anonymous 11:47:

We appreciate your comments, but we actually are writing on national issues most of the time, because it's our intent to plug Memphis into more of a national conversation about what's working and what urban trends are taking place. We write on national political issues from time to time, because if you care about cities' futures, you better care about the next administration, because this one has been dismal for cities.

Anonymous said...

My first reaction was shock. Then anger. John McCain chose a running mate simply because she is a woman and one who appealed to the Republican's conservative evangelical base. Now, with news that Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant, McCain's pick may not even find support among "family values" voters.

It has happened before, of course. Geraldine Ferraro was chosen as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1984 because she was a woman, but that was 24 years ago. I thought we were past ithis. Apparently not. McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical and calculated move. It is a choice made to try to win an election. It is a political gimmick. And it's very high risk. I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country.

This is nothing against Palin. From what little we know about her, she seems to be a bright, attractive, impressive person. She certainly has been successful in her 44 years. But is she ready to be president?

And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.

McCain claims he knew about the pregnancy, and was not at all concerned. Why not? Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.

McCain's cynical choice has created a dilemma for many women. For still-angry Hillary Clinton voters, they will have to decide if they want to vote against their concscience and political interests by voting to elect a Republican woman who's even more conservative than McCain.

Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.

Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain's choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

Palin's lack of experience and her family situation are both valid and vital considerations here, especially when she will be running with a 72-year-old presidential candidate who has suffered four bouts of a deadly cancer.

And by the way, how can McCain call Barack Obama unqualified, inexperienced, not ready from Day One, not able to be commander in chief, and then put someone like Palin in a position that is a heartbeat away from the pesidency?

I don't blame Palin for accepting the position. How could she or anyone turn down such an opportunity? I was once in a similar position. After four years of reporting at the Washington Post, I was chosen by CBS to be the first network anchorwoman in America, to co-anchor their Morning News. I had never been on TV a day in my life. I was 32. There were women at CBS who were much more qualified than I was and certainly other men. They chose me because they wanted a woman. I didn't even want the job, but I didn't feel I could turn it down. Of course it was a disaster. I lasted four months. I wasn't ready for Network TV. Palin isn't ready to be leader of the free world.

The calculation on the part of the McCain people is clear. Palin's candidacy could draw some of the 18-million Hillary Clinton voters who are not happy she lost and who want to vote for a woman on a national ticket. Palin is not of Washington and that will be appealing to some. Most importantly for McCain, Palin is decidedly anti-abortion and that will keep the Republican base under control and appeal to some evangelicals who might be considering Obama. She has a son who is headed to Iraq.

Those are positives for a McCain-Palin ticket, but what about the negatives?

She has no national political experience, especially in the area of foreign policy. That fact that she is not of Washington also will be difficult for her. Barbara Bush once told me that her husband had been a congressman, UN ambassador, ambassador to China, and head of the CIA and they thought they were prepared for the vice presidency (under President Reagan). But she said nothing can prepare you for the criticism and scrutiny of being in the White House. Sarah Palin is not prepared for that.

Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I'm the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I've done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn't get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother's role is different from a father's.

These are dangerous and trying times for the entire world. This is no time to to play gender politics. The stakes are too high. And given McCain's age and history of health issues, the stakes for choosing a qualified vice presidential candidate have never been higher.

Maybe this will work. Maybe McCain will win with Sarah Palin as his running mate. But if he does, it will be for all the wrong reasons.

Anonymous said...

Hahaha Antisocialist. Love the name. You are concerned about liberal sexism. Which is more sexist? Having a woman compete for months a presidential primary and be judged by the voters of her party. Or throwing an unqualified person on the national ticket with no vetting because that person has a vagina. Liberals actually like their women competent and thinking.

Anonymous said...

Here is a general question for the Palin supporters out there. Should the 14th amendment be extended to the unborn at conception?

Zippy the giver said...

Then you better keep your eye on the real global resources ball. Arabia can not prove it's reserves. Iran has not much left. Iraq has a bit, but not enough, it's the last few drops of the middle east unwarranted wealth account.
Land and resources, that's what it's always been about. You did go to college and take history. What is Obama's plan to deal with land and resources? Is he going to jump on the T.Boone Pickens bandwagon or what? I haven't heard a thing. So, I'm not decided. It was Bill Clinton who TWICE stalled of mandatory manufacture of electric or alternative fuel vehicles, so, if you're looking for that house to solve anything for YOU, you're looking the wrong way.
Other nations do not want us to actually solve that problem, they want to hamstring us financially then over-run us because we are now out on a limb. Part one, accomplished. How'z your stocks doing, are you into gold and oil yet? Don't get comfy.
It doesn't matter what experience either of them have, there is nothing that will prepare you for presidential office other than the "ramp-up" you get after being elected. That's when you know for sure that none of your preconceptions are valid and your reality isn't what you thought or as important as you thought. The candidates already know that their stances don't mean crap on the petty aforementioned issues/red herrings.

People need to go elsewhere for news sources than those "network entertainment outlets masquerading as news outlets" like CNN and MSNBC. They are crap. That's like waiting for someone to shove a bowl of dog food under your nose and eating it because you're too lazy to go to the grocery store.

"I have come to the conclusion that there are no qualifications for the office of president."
John F. Kennedy.

I think he proved it too.

The writing is on the wall, can you read it?

Zippy the giver said...

Hey, Anon 2:59!
Bill Clinton didn't.

Midtowner said...

Anon. 9:56 - you should vote Libertarian again ...

For others, Palin was vetted. She told McCain about Bristol's pregnancy before she accepted.

Anonymous said...

Vote Obama-Biden said...

Smart City Memphis, I loved your post on exposing McSame and Failin-Palin. What a JOKE! Now, let's see, should McSame die in office...gee...this country would be in the hands of a PTA president and loser of the Alaska state beauty pageant. And, let's not forget a woman who cannot effectively manager her own family. Gee, these are things to look forward to. Oh, one more thing, she knows absolute nothing about the world outside of the her town. And, hear tell it, she doesn't know even that. One thing she knows is how to take millions of pork barrel dollars for a bridge to nowhere that she supported vehemently and not denies but kept the money. She knows how to misuse her so-called authority to harass her brother abuse him per the judge that heard his case. And, let's not forget, she knows how to allow her daughter (a minor) to make the CHOICE to keep her baby. But, Palin does not want any other woman to have a CHOICE to make the decisions concerning them. What a joke and a hypocrite.

And as far as McBush thinking that he will garner support from the Hillary supporters as a result of this dumb pick, he should think again. Failin' Palin is no comparison to Clinton let along any of her fellow women republican politicians. If McSame was really serious about this country and cared about progressing women participation in the political process, he would have selected a qualified female VP Condolezza Rice!

And yes, if Failin' Palin's so- called executive experience makes her more qualified than Obama, then that means she is more qualified than McCain...sorry McSame. Hahaha!! What a JOKE.

Vote Obama-Biden and let's restore this country to its greatness!