...the more I wish I'd remained in the blissful state of never having heard of her. Being pro-life is one thing, and it's something that would colour my judgment of her rather unfavourably on its own, but I accept that's not everyone's view. But to be anti-abortion and a lifetime member of the NRA and a supporter of the death penalty? I think it would be a gross misnomer to call that pro-life. That's pro-death and anti-choice.
Is her selection as McCain's running mate *really* meant to be an enticement to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to vote Republican? If so I'd be flabbergasted if it worked.
I find it hard to agree with Heresy Corner's fascinating opinion that there are some Clinton fans out there who may vote for this team on the slightly tasteless basis that should flabby aging skin-cancer-victim McCain die mid-term, there would be a woman at the helm.
You only need look at the On The Issues page for Sarah Palin, alongside the one for Hillary (comparisons of which, by the way, show at a glance just how inexperienced the GOP's choice of VP candidate is, too - all those comments that Obama isn't very experienced seem a bit limp now, huh?) to find a whole list of reasons she shouldn't be attractive to any of the same voters. It's hard to find a single policy area where they aren't completely opposed in their views and records.
I would love to see a good woman in charge at the White House. But if I were an American, I wouldn't vote for a ticket that included Palin any more than I would have voted for Thatcher had I been old enough to when she became Prime Minister.
Being a feminist means, among other things, believing that the quality of a person's character isn't dictated by the content of their pants. To paraphrase Elayne Boosler, Palin is only a person trapped in a woman's body. And frankly, when it comes to comparing people, not genitals, any sane Clinton voter would have to accept that Obama and Biden are much better people for them than McCain and Palin.