Palin couldn't name a single SCOTUS decision besides Roe v Wade

[metta 0]

What's the problem?

She doesn't have the know-how for the office to which she aspires. That's the problem.

I don't really care about the crowds she draws. I think I'm right to be suspicious of a campaign that tries to hide the shortcomings of one of its candidates by altering the format of televised debates to compensate for their weaknesses, and which feels the need to "remind" people of the superficial reasons why they liked her to begin with - not by addressing key areas of national policy but rather by fixating on her "hockey mom" public image.

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

Using the same criteria that democrats have used to pick Barack Obama, she has the same deficiencies that Obama has.

For heaven's sake half the country is about ready to elect a community organizer and former law professor to redeem American and the world from the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

We're about to take the biggest roll of the dice either way ( Obama or Palin).

People on either side differ only in whether they are picking heads or tails...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

[doodlebugg 10]

Every time I see SCOTUS, I somehow always read it as #######...... But then I think how apt that is.... hairy, wrinkled, and full of nuts.

I read it the same way!!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

What's the problem?

She doesn't have the know-how for the office to which she aspires. That's the problem.

I don't really care about the crowds she draws. I think I'm right to be suspicious of a campaign that tries to hide the shortcomings of one of its candidates by altering the format of televised debates to compensate for their weaknesses, and which feels the need to "remind" people of the superficial reasons why they liked her to begin with - not by addressing key areas of national policy but rather by fixating on her "hockey mom" public image.

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

Using the same criteria that democrats have used to pick Barack Obama, she has the same deficiencies that Obama has.

For heaven's sake half the country is about ready to elect a community organizer and former law professor to redeem American and the world from the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

We're about to take the biggest roll of the dice either way ( Obama or Palin).

People on either side differ only in whether they are picking heads or tails...

Goodness!! Do you even KNOW what feminism is??? Or you just pull terms out of somewhere and pretend you know???

You're funny, I give you that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

Not forgetting of course that we've already had someone intellectually unqualified for the Presidency occupying the Oval Office for the last 8 years, I hardly think we need another such person waiting in the wings. As they say - stupid is as stupid does.

As to Palin's feminism - She worked her way up through the ranks in an arena dominated by men - kudos to her. But as with GWB, this may well be a case of ambition outstripping ability.

Again - I can't understand how anyone can defend that interview performance. Already there are howl's about "Catie Couric" and "CBS" liberal bias and "gotcha journalism", but these weren't really trick questions that she was asked. When Palin says "the country is waiting to see what John McCain will do, they're not waiting to see what Barack Obama will do" and you ask "why do you say that?" its not an unreasonable question. I mean... what's the alternative - to let politicians get away with spewing stale party political talking points and never address any substance?

Edited September 30, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

Not forgetting of course that we've already had someone intellectually unqualified for the Presidency occupying the Oval Office for the last 8 years, I hardly think we need another such person waiting in the wings. As they say - stupid is as stupid does.

As to Palin's feminism - She worked her way up through the ranks in an arena dominated by men - kudos to her. But as with GWB, this may well be a case of ambition outstripping ability.

Again - I can't understand how anyone can defend that interview performance. Already there are howl's about "Catie Couric" and "CBS" liberal bias and "gotcha journalism", but these weren't really trick questions that she was asked. When Palin says "the country is waiting to see what John McCain will do, they're not waiting to see what Barack Obama will do" and you ask "why do you say that?" its not an unreasonable question. I mean... what's the alternative - to let politicians get away with spewing stale party political talking points and never address any substance?

Oh my gosh, that was such a stupid, stupid thing to say. Talk about meaningless drivel How can anyone defend that kind of statement? Never mind that one you posted earlier that I can't make head or tail of. I actually thought that was a piss take, someone making out that she is really dumb as well as ignorant. I'm still kind of hoping that it is...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You mean this one?

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the--it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

The only bit I made out is the bolded bit - that in order to have tax reductions you've got to lower taxes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm also not sure I understand how the bailout helps those who are concerned about healthcare reform.

[jundp 191]

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

What other U.S. Supreme Court cases are currently still generating a lot of political heat?

well maybe not "political heat" but certainly there are US Supreme Court Cases that a potential Pres or VP should be aware of. For example:

Marbury v. Madison (every US 11th grader knows this one)

Amistad case (even if you only know about it because of the movie....it is about slave ownership and was rather important)

as well as the Dred Scott decision (also for the slavery and citizenship issue)

Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal....who the heck doesn't know that one?!) (again every US 11th grader learned it)

Brown v Board of Education

These are all Supreme Court cases that I know off the top of my head. How can a future leader of my country not know these?

[metta 0]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

With regard to whether she is or isn't a feminist, i'll have to ask you what your definition of a feminist is. Admittedly, I am not an expert on feminism but what little knowledge i have of on this topic, there is even disagreement among feminist. perhaps, you are an essentialist who maintains that to be a feminist a woman must qualify a litmus test comprised of criterion1, and 2,and 3, etc. I understand even some like Paglia is considered anti-feminist by some. My contention is that at this point even who is a feminist is quite moot...

I called her a non- traditional feminist in this context:

6 Reasons Feminists Can Be Glad John McCain Picked Sarah Palin For Republican Vice-President

Submitted by News Staff on 7 September 2008 - 2:00am. Culture Lynn Sanders, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, says there are plenty of reasons feminists can be happy about the Republican Party's nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to become vice president. While it's tough to dispel notions that political parties have sexist components, she says, and Sarah Palin's Republican voter registration and anti-abortion stance may at first seem antithetical to feminism, one position in the culture wars does not invalidate her value to the cause of women everywhere.

Palin's presence on the Republican ticket gives feminists at least six good reasons to celebrate, she says.

1. Since there's never been a female Vice-President, any woman is a good woman when it comes to breaking that part of the 'glass ceiling.'

It makes sense that in positions where there have been few women (or none) it is harder for women who want to break in. So if we have a female President in 2012, women may have Sarah Palin to thank, regardless of whether Republicans win or not. Heck, it may be Sarah Palin in 2012. Geraldine Ferraro was a politically correct pick for Democrats in 1984, and a bold one, whereas Sarah Palin is instead the savior of her candindate in 2008.

You've come a long way, baby. No one understands the magnitude of the distinction better than Ferraro, who feels like media attacks on Palin are sexist (and who would know better?) - so feminists who are against Palin because of one cultural position are playing into the hands of the male heirarchy.

You don't have to be a feminist to be a good female role model, says Sanders, and having a female VP eliminates the stigma that the job requires 'maleness.'

2. Having both parties in a "who's less sexist" contest is a very good thing.

Last Wednesday night, to the cheers of Republican social conservatives (supposedly the enemy of feminists, in the past), Rudy Giuliani castigated Democrats for daring to ask whether Sarah Palin's family responsibilities are too heavy for a vice president. Not to be outdone, Thursday morning Joe Biden appeared on Good Morning America to denounce the Palin attacks as "over the top" and "sexist."

Complaints about the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton are no longer dismissed as feminist whining but are now Republican talking points.

Someone tell Gloria Steinem, who has never supported a woman that competed with a Democrat, who said Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton - here's guessing she also thinks Condoleeza Rice did nothing for women in politics either.

3. The new race to be anti-sexist will reduce sexism in politics.

Racial wedges in campaigns, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-white sermons, can expect immediate scrutiny and criticism. Sexism is not reacted to as quickly but political opponents and media critics may one day be as alert to sexist politics as they are to attempts by national campaigns to mobilize racial resentment among blacks or whites.

4. Palin is a gun-toting, hockey-playing mom who is also a popular governor, and that explodes gender stereotypes.

What more needs to be said? If you take out the abortion litmus test issue, what feminist can't like a mom who hunts, runs a whole state and contrasts herself and a bulldog only by their lipstick?

5. A non-traditional feminist like Palin undercuts mythologizing about the "women's vote" and oversimplifications about the "gender gap."

It's a standard argument in politics: if you vote as a bloc based on one issue, you eventually get taken for granted. Steinem's assault on Palin, solely because she is a Republican, is a perfect example of unsuccessful feminism mired in the past. If a Republican is an outstanding role model that causes women to not lockstep with the party that favors abortion and be an assumed vote, both parties will listen to the broad spectrum concerns of women voters, and recognize woman as a complex group with different interests. Competition for females vote is a good thing.

Feminists need to recognize that it's a big umbrella. Women who have to sign a paper agreeing to every position or register in only one party before they can be thought of as advancing the cause of women is 1970s thinking. No one thinks 'men' vote as a bloc on one issue.

6. Having a woman who really juggles work and family responsibilities will put family-friendly policies like paid leave and affordable health care at the front of politics.

This isn't just a feminist issue but it impacts women more than men today. If both parties are convinced that the votes of women are truly up for grabs, they will begin tailoring policies to secure that vote. Palin has a special needs child she chose to keep - that makes pro-choice people happy (unless they're in the segment that thinks only one choice counts) and will be a terrific advocate for the needs of other working mothers everywhere.

If feminists really want to take a big step, a Republican vote in 2008 would do it. Why? McCain almost cannot run again and Hillary Clinton certainly would if Barack Obama were to lose in 2008. That means the 2012 major-party tickets would most likely have Clinton on one side and Palin on the other.

Whether feminists like either of them or not, there's no denying that conquering the last frontier in politics, and the most important position in the world, would be true advancement for women of all political persuasions.

[metta 0]

What's the problem?

She doesn't have the know-how for the office to which she aspires. That's the problem.

I don't really care about the crowds she draws. I think I'm right to be suspicious of a campaign that tries to hide the shortcomings of one of its candidates by altering the format of televised debates to compensate for their weaknesses, and which feels the need to "remind" people of the superficial reasons why they liked her to begin with - not by addressing key areas of national policy but rather by fixating on her "hockey mom" public image.

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

Using the same criteria that democrats have used to pick Barack Obama, she has the same deficiencies that Obama has.

For heaven's sake half the country is about ready to elect a community organizer and former law professor to redeem American and the world from the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

We're about to take the biggest roll of the dice either way ( Obama or Palin).

People on either side differ only in whether they are picking heads or tails...

Goodness!! Do you even KNOW what feminism is??? Or you just pull terms out of somewhere and pretend you know???

You're funny, I give you that.

no, ma'am, not a whole lot. But I am learning everyday, from gurus like yourself...

[Amby 490]

I'm not voting for mccain because his old azz is too close to death and then we'll be stuck with her stupid azz. no thanks.

[metta 0]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

Not forgetting of course that we've already had someone intellectually unqualified for the Presidency occupying the Oval Office for the last 8 years, I hardly think we need another such person waiting in the wings. As they say - stupid is as stupid does.

As to Palin's feminism - She worked her way up through the ranks in an arena dominated by men - kudos to her. But as with GWB, this may well be a case of ambition outstripping ability.

Again - I can't understand how anyone can defend that interview performance. Already there are howl's about "Catie Couric" and "CBS" liberal bias and "gotcha journalism", but these weren't really trick questions that she was asked. When Palin says "the country is waiting to see what John McCain will do, they're not waiting to see what Barack Obama will do" and you ask "why do you say that?" its not an unreasonable question. I mean... what's the alternative - to let politicians get away with spewing stale party political talking points and never address any substance?

Let me be the Devil's Advocate and say this. Palin did not get to be Governor of Alaska for nothing. She rose from PTA member to mayor to commissioner to governor without being privileged by family background, wealth or membership in a political machine or anything. She did it my the dint of her own hard work, passion and beliefs. So, I would not underestimate her .

As for the interview, this is her first bout with hostile media. I can imagine the pressure she is under in addition to being such a newbie to this environment.

Mind you, even professional electioneers make doozie utterances like this one...

[Peikko 1,575]

1.Her strong suit is that of a reformer and a maverick.

One who when she sees that things don't look right , has taken on the powers that be and quite successfully.

2. She has the bona fides to appeal to the other half of America, the conservatives...

3. She is non-traditional feminist who has proven that she can do it all...

She is/does?

That might be the image you are taking away from this, but it isn't what's been put on public display over the last couple of weeks. Not forgetting of course that Palin's interview appearances have been strictly controlled and limited by the campaign - and if the CBS interview is any indication - this is likely the reason why.

Better hope she comes across a bit better in the VP debate than she did in those interviews. If she doesn't....

Obama is lightweight, but at least his pick of Biden was sound. There were better choices McCain could have made, but rather than stick to his principles he allowed himself to be persuaded to pick Palin and pander to the Evangelicals.

Agreed, politically he is a lightweight, but intellectuallly, definitely not and it is quite clear that he does have a handle on most, if not all, of the political issues that are facing the US today, whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his position regarding their solutions. When he speaks he doesn't sound like an idiot - Palin does. His ideas are not all wonderful, and I don't think he's the best person in the entire US to do the job, but he is definitely not near the bottom of the list - Ms Palin is.

It's all very well for a party to appeal to their grassroots, but to actually pick someone for VP who can't construct proper sentences when attempting to answer pretty simple questions about policy really is simply mind boggling. As for being a 'non-traditional' feminist, come again? She's not a feminist, full stop. She may be a working mom and all power to her for that, and her other accomplishments, but they simply do not qualify her for the VP position and quite honestly, I am surprised at how doggedly you defend her weaknesses, but it is certainly your privelage to do so.

With regard to whether she is or isn't a feminist, i'll have to ask you what your definition of a feminist is. Admittedly, I am not an expert on feminism but what little knowledge i have of on this topic, there is even disagreement among feminist. perhaps, you are an essentialist who maintains that to be a feminist a woman must qualify a litmus test comprised of criterion1, and 2,and 3, etc. I understand even some like Paglia is considered anti-feminist by some. My contention is that at this point even who is a feminist is quite moot...

I called her a non- traditional feminist in this context:

6 Reasons Feminists Can Be Glad John McCain Picked Sarah Palin For Republican Vice-President

Submitted by News Staff on 7 September 2008 - 2:00am. Culture Lynn Sanders, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, says there are plenty of reasons feminists can be happy about the Republican Party's nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to become vice president. While it's tough to dispel notions that political parties have sexist components, she says, and Sarah Palin's Republican voter registration and anti-abortion stance may at first seem antithetical to feminism, one position in the culture wars does not invalidate her value to the cause of women everywhere.

Palin's presence on the Republican ticket gives feminists at least six good reasons to celebrate, she says.

1. Since there's never been a female Vice-President, any woman is a good woman when it comes to breaking that part of the 'glass ceiling.'

It makes sense that in positions where there have been few women (or none) it is harder for women who want to break in. So if we have a female President in 2012, women may have Sarah Palin to thank, regardless of whether Republicans win or not. Heck, it may be Sarah Palin in 2012. Geraldine Ferraro was a politically correct pick for Democrats in 1984, and a bold one, whereas Sarah Palin is instead the savior of her candindate in 2008.

You've come a long way, baby. No one understands the magnitude of the distinction better than Ferraro, who feels like media attacks on Palin are sexist (and who would know better?) - so feminists who are against Palin because of one cultural position are playing into the hands of the male heirarchy.

You don't have to be a feminist to be a good female role model, says Sanders, and having a female VP eliminates the stigma that the job requires 'maleness.'

2. Having both parties in a "who's less sexist" contest is a very good thing.

Last Wednesday night, to the cheers of Republican social conservatives (supposedly the enemy of feminists, in the past), Rudy Giuliani castigated Democrats for daring to ask whether Sarah Palin's family responsibilities are too heavy for a vice president. Not to be outdone, Thursday morning Joe Biden appeared on Good Morning America to denounce the Palin attacks as "over the top" and "sexist."

Complaints about the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton are no longer dismissed as feminist whining but are now Republican talking points.

Someone tell Gloria Steinem, who has never supported a woman that competed with a Democrat, who said Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton - here's guessing she also thinks Condoleeza Rice did nothing for women in politics either.

3. The new race to be anti-sexist will reduce sexism in politics.

Racial wedges in campaigns, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-white sermons, can expect immediate scrutiny and criticism. Sexism is not reacted to as quickly but political opponents and media critics may one day be as alert to sexist politics as they are to attempts by national campaigns to mobilize racial resentment among blacks or whites.

4. Palin is a gun-toting, hockey-playing mom who is also a popular governor, and that explodes gender stereotypes.

What more needs to be said? If you take out the abortion litmus test issue, what feminist can't like a mom who hunts, runs a whole state and contrasts herself and a bulldog only by their lipstick?

5. A non-traditional feminist like Palin undercuts mythologizing about the "women's vote" and oversimplifications about the "gender gap."

It's a standard argument in politics: if you vote as a bloc based on one issue, you eventually get taken for granted. Steinem's assault on Palin, solely because she is a Republican, is a perfect example of unsuccessful feminism mired in the past. If a Republican is an outstanding role model that causes women to not lockstep with the party that favors abortion and be an assumed vote, both parties will listen to the broad spectrum concerns of women voters, and recognize woman as a complex group with different interests. Competition for females vote is a good thing.

Feminists need to recognize that it's a big umbrella. Women who have to sign a paper agreeing to every position or register in only one party before they can be thought of as advancing the cause of women is 1970s thinking. No one thinks 'men' vote as a bloc on one issue.

6. Having a woman who really juggles work and family responsibilities will put family-friendly policies like paid leave and affordable health care at the front of politics.

This isn't just a feminist issue but it impacts women more than men today. If both parties are convinced that the votes of women are truly up for grabs, they will begin tailoring policies to secure that vote. Palin has a special needs child she chose to keep - that makes pro-choice people happy (unless they're in the segment that thinks only one choice counts) and will be a terrific advocate for the needs of other working mothers everywhere.

If feminists really want to take a big step, a Republican vote in 2008 would do it. Why? McCain almost cannot run again and Hillary Clinton certainly would if Barack Obama were to lose in 2008. That means the 2012 major-party tickets would most likely have Clinton on one side and Palin on the other.

Whether feminists like either of them or not, there's no denying that conquering the last frontier in politics, and the most important position in the world, would be true advancement for women of all political persuasions.

Not every woman is a feminist, I have been over my definition of what one is, and it's a very narrow view point, and not necesssarily one that I have much time for. However, that being said, being a woman, even one who works, does not a feminist make.

As to whether having a woman per se nominated is a good thing for feminism. Again, I don't really care for the idea that any woman is better than no woman at all, in fact I would go so far as to say that diminishing the requirements for the VP in order to accomodate this woman is wreckless and does noone any favours. I don't think it will matter one way or another in some ways, intelligent women have been in politics long enough now for this appointment to have very little effect on the way women politicians are are percieved in the US but I also think it is very disappointing that the first potential VP for the GOP is such a weak figure intellectually.