The Democrats have picked a candidate so far out of the American mainstream that they’ve once again demonstrated their aversion to winning. Hillary was right in that she, not Obama, was the candidate who could beat McCain; the latter’s VP pick ups the ante. What frightens me in all this is the war issue. Not just the Iraq War, but the possibility of future unprovoked military action. Many evangelicals supported Bush on the war because they believed he was “one of our own,” and look where that has led this country.

No Sarah Palin is not “manly” at all. She’s the exact opposite. She’s a woman who can carry herself with dignity and use her femininity to expose just how ridiculous the other candidate’s behavior actually is. I personally loved her dig at Obama and his journey of “personal discovery” (or whatever). It took a woman to mock these things and show everyone just how sad these Obama-esque statements actually are.

I also have been enjoying watching the Democrats squirm as their usual identity politics are turned against them. They seem to have been defanged overnight by Palin and Obama must be feeling the heat. Palin is both feminine and able to point out the absurdities in her opponents.

My feeling has been that McCain was going to beat Obama. With Palin I’m now certain of it. I think the first woman president of the US is going to be Palin. Aside from her stance on Iraq, I’m not so sure I have any problems with that.

–John Danforth–

I used to think that women liked the sensitive man ideal because that’s what the media always said. What I found out is that many women talk about how nice it would be to have a man who was touchy feely and a “great listener”. However the reality is, I feel, that most women actually like men who are, well, men…

So the gender role I bring up not because I really think Palin is actually manly, but because someone like Obama is just such an incredible Oprahfied sissy by comparison. I think Obama typifies what our society says they want in American men, but deep down they all know they probably couldn’t stand being around the guy for any length of time because he’s such an incredible self-centered drama queen wuss.

I didn’t always think this way, but after looking at ideas, and listening to ‘what women want’ (going to college helps some with that), it is greatly apparent that this idealogy of gender roles is not very natural at all; it’s largely a political and cultural construct. It’s also dangerous to teach boys to respect and protect women; they are likely grow up feeling that they are superior to them, and feel that they need to protect them from harm (has anyone seen the female combat casualties in the Iraq war? or the workplace?).

Palin is not a bad mother, nor is she clueless.

She’s a shrewd politician who has done well for herself.

The only thing that I dislike about her is that she supports institutions such as feminism that does not preach true equality, or economic sense.

It isn’t helpful to a lot of people to categorize what being ‘feminine’ versus being ‘masculine’ is. They are outdated ideas that don’t belong in our modern world.

Again, I point to the picking of a female VP. Do we really need this hashing of gender roles again? Does it have any place when things like this are happening? Maybe women can be masculine, and men can be feminine. If this is the case, as demonstrated by Palin, exactly how out of touch does one have to be to continue to speak about gender roles?

There are none.

I wish the man long life,
eternal life in fact.
But only above, in heavenly bliss
where some country he cannot attack.