Because you do not intelligently select the president because he is well-informed or even because he is overly intelligent, you select a president because he is possessed of character and political philosophy which will see us through at 3 a.m.
Posted on 09/10/2008 11:31:39 AM PDT by Schnucki
The endlessly readable and highly combustible Camille Paglia has written a scorching piece for Slate on Sarah Palin and the trouble the Democrats are having in pitching their attacks on her. Paglia supports Obama and thinks little of McCain:
"Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let's turn the damned page. "
But she is impressed by some of Palin's qualities: "Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism... A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit."
Palin's single biggest impact on the race so far - beyond her representing the shock of the new - has been to disorientate Obama's team and the Democrats more widely. She subverts the traditional liberal stereotype of who the first female in the White House should be and she's difficult to attack. Any assault on her hockey mom status seems to be an attack on middle-American moms in general. Criticising her inexperience will sound like the political and media elites ganging up to exclude an outsider. It doesn't make her fire-proof, but it does mean her opponents are struggling to get a fix on her that can be translated into a coherent critique.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
I always enjoy the Brit blogs take on our elections.
Because you do not intelligently select the president because he is well-informed or even because he is overly intelligent, you select a president because he is possessed of character and political philosophy which will see us through at 3 a.m.
I read that article earlier today and forwarded it to at least three people.
“Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain’s imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain’s credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain’s sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let’s turn the damned page. “
Leave to a liberal to not understand this. It’s not about not appreciating the service of all veterans, it goes to show his character of sacrifice. That is a word liberals know nothing about because the only thing they are willing to sacrifice for their own selfish altruistic tendencies is other people’s money.
What exactly are Obama’s qualifications for President?
Well said.. Couldn't agree with you more!
I know Paglia likes to be a contrarian so she intentionally misses the point that Fred Thompson made about McCain, that his endurance as a POW doesn’t entitle him to the Presidency - but it does reveal character, which in McCain’s case is of high quality, tested under the most extreme circumstances.
Every new revelation of Obama’s character shows him to be small, petty, thin-skinned, arrogant and not a leader. One should make one’s choice accordingly.
Hey I'm not going to get all bothered by some things I may not agree with her about in this lengthy article. However her premise of Sarah Palin and new Feminism is right on.
This writer obviously has a lot of different viewpoints than mine but is also obviously open minded and doesn't toe the liberal feminist mind set.
She's ok in my book.
Paglia is pretty liberal but I like her spot-on criticism of the left, which she is fairly willing to give. I actually love her columns.
Salon, not Slate. Whatever.
Try it sometime. You might get an idea what freedom is all about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.