# OUCH That is gonna leave a mark!



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

September 26, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

Palin Problem
She's out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream - away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president - and possibly president - is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick - what a difference a financial crisis makes - and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan's president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she's had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin's narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain's running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood - a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there. Here's but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this."

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?"

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman - and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket - we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

- Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I see you are still picking and choosing your posts Bob, like if a outfitter gets busted your Johnny on the spot. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I strained to understand what she was trying to say at times. One phrase for example:



> She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute


*She is the direct opposite and the retribution of the hairy???? *

I have always used the term hirsute to describe botanical attributes. 
What in the heck does that mean? It looks like a kid trying to be eloquent, but doesn't know English. I can't understand some of the things she is saying. Is it just me?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I have always used the term hirsute to describe botanical attributes.
> What in the heck does that mean? It looks like a kid trying to be eloquent, but doesn't know English. I can't understand some of the things she is saying. Is it just me?


Yes, Plainsman, it's just you. I read the sentence in its entirety and understood it:



> She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood - a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.


The author is referring to the ultra-feminists that live in places like Berkley, CA and Madison, WI. Having lived in Madision for a few years, I know how these hirsute feminists are. They are the women that don't shave their armpits or legs because of their views that doing so subjects them to caving into the pre-conceived ideas of beauty that have developed by male-dominated society.

The author of the story contrasts this image with the image of Sarah Palin.. still feminine but independent.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They are the women that don't shave their armpits or legs because of their views that doing so subjects them to caving into the pre-conceived ideas of beauty that have developed by male-dominated society.


I see, I had forgotten about those nut jobs. They still exist? I got to hung up on the first part. All I could think of was _Nassella viridula _(formerly _Stipa viridula_) ligules. You would think the brain could turn that stuff off after retiring and start thinking about important things like hunting.

Her diatribe would have been more graspable if she didn't try be so loquacious. Us old guys are kind of slow you know. As a matter of fact you were very clear. I think you have her beat hands down.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Yep, they still exist. In fact, I dated one for a short while. Man, you needed a weed wacker...... Oops, this is a public site and I shouldn't get crude. Better suited for a conversation over beers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I had one working for me back in the late 1970's. One day the pickup hit some bumps and she put her hand on the ceiling so she didn't bump her head. If you would have braided those pits you could have made a set of reins for a team of clydesdales.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

thats gross


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I happen to know Ms. Parker from several years back. I enjoy her column and often I am in agreence with her....I am almost in agreement on this one BUT, I think that Candidate Palin is exactly the right choice because of the exact same pro's and con's that she states in this article.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

g/o said:


> I see you are still picking and choosing your posts Bob, like if a outfitter gets busted your Johnny on the spot. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Um hey g/o, don't you and every single other person on here do the same? I do.

Are you saying that you do not pick and chose your posts on here? So you just post random articles and fictional/factual literature that you find randomly running rampant through the woods?

I should hope that you pick and choose what you post...otherwise your posts have very little meaning and impact...


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Blah Blah Blah, the dems want to keep banging on Palin as being unqualified, although it's not really an arguement because she runs a state, but she is the VP candidate, which about 90 percent of all VP candidates don't have the qualifications to be president right away.

All the while, they need to look in the mirror towards the totally unqualified pair they have. The frontrunner, totally unqualified, unable to completely answer a question with one iota of detail, whom has never run anything bigger than a campaign. The man behind him, totally unsuited to deal with the least bit of controversy without getting bent out of shape that can't keep from sticking his foot in his mouth. Now thats a real pair to deal with issues both foreign and at home.

Looking more like an sure deal all the time.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

true, as usual NO-bama was caught talking in generalities at last night's debate.....that is because he has "hopes and dreams" but no plan with numbers to support his wild accusations........is anyone dumb enough to believe he can cut taxes on 95% of the people and STILL pay for his huge entitlement programs, plus the bailout, plus the deficit, plus fund SS and Medicare going forward? sorry, that is an insult to the intelligence of the American taxpayer.......


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ms parker is obviously skilled at passionately disecting people she doesn't care for, and that is evident in the article posted here, but even more evident in some of her past writings concerning the Clintons. Look up her Aug 29th article titled "The Billification of Barack Obama" if you want some good reading. Also shows she is a very smart woman because some of her points of back then are starting to look possible now.

But my point now is I haven't read any of her past articles that shared that same passion when discussing the common exhileration of the conservatives (she is supposed to be) concerning Palin. Even immediately after the convention when most were jumping for joy and high fiving everyone and everything within arms reach, Parker was almost guarded or cautious, at least judging by the standards shown in the posted article.

So I wonder if she really liked her anyway?

Just curious .


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Parker has fat thighs :lol:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

:rollin:


----------

