is it unsisterly to think that Sarah Palin is horrid and the worst possible example of a woman in power

[beforesunrise]

ok, I used to think that as women we ought to support other women to almost unreasonable levels. i was totally for Hillary despite Obama's star appeal.... but then came Sarah Palin. i abhor her and everything she stands for. i am incredibly disgusted by the level of PC that prevents people from stating the obvious, ie that she is an incredibly BAD mother and she gives women a bad name.. i mean WTF, going back to work after 3 DAYS of giving birth, exposing your pregnant 17 yo to national attentionand not being there for her while she needs you most... she keeps banging on about being a hockey mom but having delivered 5 children is not the same thing about being a good mum. she is also incredibly, scarily unqualified for the job. i cannot find one ounce of feminist feeling for her... and it makes me question my beliefs!

"They criticise that in women that they would not criticise in men."

That is simply not true these days. Again, check the boards. There is alot of talk about paternity leave - both men and women want a better work life balance.

lol, my apologies for the laughter (not) Xenia. Being American it amuses me how we as Americans all get lumped into one group or another just because we lost an election to someone who doesn't agree with what we want.
You can look up the demographics easily. The main problem is that those ideals...creationism, sheep and goats and whatever else is wrong (and this is considered wrong only by which end of the political "stick" you are on) is usually someting that is put upon the losers for a good four years until the next election.
I'm not taking sides...I'm just saying if you want to "change" the viewpoint you have to find someone to run that agrees with your viewpoint...and then get them into office...and then have their viewpoint turned into laws.
As for remaining with "your colony". I don't think so. I'm quite happy with freedom of speech, religion, etc. Even if I don't agree I have the right to state my opinion and if I don't agree I have the right to dispute it without being chastised for it under the scrutiny of some government.
It's not perfect...but I'll take it.

dittany, I think you make a lot of good points but you're ignoring the 'man bites dog' aspect. SP is a suprising choice for a number of reasons (not just her sex), especially for liberal Europeans who find the whole pro-guns, anti-abortion stuff quite alien. That's one of the reasons that she is such a talking point.

Well, "teach both" is a message of educational cowardice and bankruptcy which presumes there is a "debate" to be had. Why "both"? Why not "all"? If you are going to present creationism as some kind of equal and opposite argument to evolution, why not also devote equal time to the stork bringing babies, or the Great Green Arkleseizure, or the existence of fairies?

If you would look up BBC news, Sept. 2001 on Condolezza Rice. They give her background and education.
After reading this...it gives (me anyway) the impression that the MaCain party may have chosen SP particularly for her family.
To me that really is disturbing. Condoleezza Rice has qualifications, years of experience and has shown that she can do the job.
She is a woman, of African-American descent...grew up with parents teaching her that education is important.
She is athletic, etc. She just doesn't have a extensive family of her own.
She holds the same values as the Republican party obviously. Doesn't that make you wonder? It makes me wonder.

Whabt - condolezza rice is too close to the Bush administration, that's why

I just hope that this time they count the votes properly

dittany - you're right as far as it goes. But never before has there been a candidate who is a woman and a mother of five who gave birth recently and has an SN child and has a pregnant teeenage daughter despite being a proponent of abstinence and has been a governor for less than a full term and hunts moose for fun and is a former Miss Congeniality and thinks that abortion should not be provided even in cases of rape and asked the librarian of her local town to consider proscribing certain books and wants to drill in Alaska RIGHT NOW and is an arresting public speaker... you get the picture. She is an electrifying choice. Obama was electrifying too when he launched his campaign and he was similarly picked over; the difference is that his centre-right politics are more comfortable for a lot of the people who like to sit around discussing these things, so he took a lot less stick.

She is scary, whether she is male or female. You know pro-gun, pro-life, great conbination when backed by a pro-Christian.

the thing that concerns me is that I don't think she is really that good....

I can't get the measure of how intelligent she is. She is eloquent, but I can't shake the idea that she is a total dumbass beeyatch. I mean, Bush is a total dimwit and so I can understand his believing in Creationism. What I can't get my head round is intelligent and educated people believing in any of it.

It wouldn't matter that she (CR) is close to the BA. That would be taking away from her boss anyway.
That is exactly my point...they may have chosen SP just because of her family. It certainly has brought out the womens rights argument.
They might figure they can get voters just on that. As far as "change" I don't see her changing anything for the better...or from the Republican viewpoint either.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I think she is a typical woman in power. They have to out macho the men, then they are admired

I agree completely that there's a double standard WRT the family life stuff, and that that is absolutely attributable to sexism. However, that aside, you have to make some allowance for the sheer gossip factor involved in an abstinence-advocator having a pregnant teenaged daughter, or an anti-abortionist having an SN child. It's sheer human nature to find these things compelling.

As to the Alice Roberts stuff, I think the short answer is that the media simply haven't covered them - as you say, largely because the (European at least) media is uniformly for Obama. Mind you, I must say that I read the link you posted the other day about the Alice Palmer stuff and I didn't think it was political dynamite. Sure, it illustrated that Obama is prepared to behave like a cynical, hard-knuckle politican and not the quasi-saint he is portrayed as, but I don't think there was any evidence there of corruption or illegality. The meat of the story seemed to be that he challenged hastily-gathered nominating signatures. Given that the challenges were upheld, then the signatures must not have held water in one aspect or another. That's how US politics works. Palmer should have got her act together sooner.

As an American I find the whole European take on this very interesting.

Pro-gun: It's the second amendment. It comes from our history as a colony when we weren't allowed to have guns. It implies that all Americans have the right to defend themselves and their homes. Why do we want that right taken away. Also there are many people that still live in a culture of hunting, and why should that be taken away?

Pro-death penalty: Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people commit crimes that they deserve to die for. Besides most people that commit really sick crimes (Jeffrey Dammer sp?) get killed by other inmates anyway. Also it's up to the individual states to decide to have the death penalty, mine doesn't but I wish it did.

Pro-creation: Why are people afraid of having different points of view taught. Evolution and creation are both theories, no one was there and knows for sure, so why not teach both.

Pro-life: Why do women get upset when other women believe that all life is precious and should be protected. Also so many women say, "I don't believe it's right, but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't do it" I used to think that way, and the more I mature I realise that if I don't think something is right, I shouldn't support it at all. Maybe we should repeal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which pro-choicers didn't support while we're at it.

I agree with all of that dittany - I can't find it within myself to devote much energy to defending Obama. I prefer him to Palin though, just about.

I'm American and am anti death penalty, anti guns, non creationist view, and pro choice.

Does this make me any less patriotic?

No, Ilovemydog, it makes you just as patriotic because thank goodness we can have our beliefs and voice them. And our country wouldn't be as great as it is without the variety of opinions.

and whoosh, dittany misses my irony...