Feminist Hypocrisy

The feminists are howling that Sarah Palin doesn't count as a woman, because she holds the wrong political views.

This is revealing—as I have always argued, feminism is not pro-women, but anti-women. Sally Quinn and Susan Reimer, for example, argue that picking Sarah Palin is actually an “insult to women,” because she is, unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, not actually qualified for the job. Reimer writes, “He [McCain] seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.”

Right. Let's compare Sarah Palin's experience with that of Hillary Clinton, remembering here too that Palin is auditioning for understudy, Clinton for lead role:

Sarah Palin – born 1964

1992 - first elected to public office—Wasilla City Council.
Since then, she has run for office seven times, counting her VP run, winning five of these elections, with a sixth still to be determined.
Eight years' executive experience.

Hillary Clinton – born 1947

2000 - first elected to public office—US Senate.
Since then, she has run for office twice, counting her presidential run, and won once.
No executive experience.

In fact, Palin has eight years more political experience than Clinton; and eight years more executive experience. People keep confusing Hillary Clinton with her husband--obviously helping her political career. Palin did it all on her own.

But let's not stop there. We have already seen that Palin has more experience than Barack Obama too. How about the last major Democratic presidential contender, good old John Edwards?

John Edwards – born 1953

Six years in public office (US Senate).
Since then, he has run for office three times, counting his presidential run—and lost every time.
He has no executive experience.

Sarah Palin has more qualifications to be Vice President than any of the major Democratic contenders--for President.

Next, the feminists accuse her of hypocrisy because her daughter is pregnant. Let's have a look at what hypocrisy actually would be in this situation: hypocrisy would be pressuring her daughter to have an abortion. Had the Palins done that, in all probability, nobody in the national press would have been the wiser. There would have been no story. Instead, they stuck to their principles—by keeping the child, as they did with their Down's syndrome daughter—despite the very public, and national, embarassment. This is the opposite of hypocrisy. This is living one's principles.

The hypocrites are those who support abortion for themselves, and yet condemn Palin and her young daughter for a decision they would never have had the ethical courage or the selflessness to make.

Now let's recall that Barack Obama was raised by a single mom, who gave birth to him at age 18 (some documents suggest 17). Should he too have been aborted? Is he responsible for what his mother or father did? How about John Edwards? No—let's not even go near John Edwards. And we'd better not mention Jesse Jackson either. Or Ted Kennedy.

Allan Combs suggests that Sarah Palin was irresponsible in continuing her duties as Alaska governor when pregnant with her most recent child, implying that she might have been responsible for the girl's Down's syndrome. With regard to her daughter's pregnancy, Sally Quinn asks “whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.”

Idiotically enough. Down's syndrome is a genetic condition. It cannot be picked up during pregnancy. And anyone who has either raised or actually ever been a teenager knows that parents are just not responsible for what their teenage children do. The minister's daughter is always the worst behaved; the professor's son is always the worst student. It's called teenage rebellion.

But if Sarah Palin should have been in the kitchen with her shoes off instead of holding a job outside the home, why doesn't the same apply to Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton? Neither put aside their legal careers for motherhood, though they hardly needed the money. For that matter, why doesn't it apply to Joe Biden, who did not after all resign his Senate seat for the five years that he was a single parent to two seriously injured sons?

I wonder—wouldn't it be wonderful if the Palin candidacy ended up killing off feminism altogether, by showing how dishonest it really is?

The National Enquirer: Paper of Record. Really.

I’ve seen once or twice some surprise expressed that the National Enquirer was the outlet to get the goods on John Edwards’affair. There seems to be a general idea out there that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source.

Perhaps not reputable, because of its subject matter, but certainly reliable. Kathy Shaidle, a journalist, points out that, quite to the contrary, they tend to hire the best and the brightest of the Fleet Street breed. As an editor, I can also point out that the National Enquirer probably has the best fact-checking in all the media. They have to; in their business, they are way too vulnerable to lawsuits otherwise. Exactly contrary to the conventional wisdom (as usual), if you read it in the National Enquirer, you can probably take it to the bank.

Just don’t believe what you get from Reuters, AP, the New York Times, CNN, NBC, or any given academic book.

They rarely check their facts at all.

A Note on John Edwards' Admitted Affair

I do not care and it is none of our business.

South Carolina

Obama has won South Carolina. I would expect Edwards to drop out now. South Carolina was his last best hope. If he stays in, it is with the support and as an agent of Hillary, to split the anti-Clinton vote. The obvious deal, of course, is the Vice Presidency. Edwards has denied he wants it; but he is obliged to. Edwards would balance Clinton nicely on a ticket, helping in the South and with the party’s left wing.

Even if Edwards stays in, though, the anti-Clinton vote will now tend to further coalesce around Obama. Given Clinton’s high negatives, this gives Obama a real chance.

Last Thoughts on Iowa

Much of the analysis of what is about to happen in the Iowa caucuses seems to miss an important factor. The voting system for the Democrats is essentially a preferential ballot. In each county meeting, candidates must poll at least 15% of the vote. If they do not, they are eliminated and a second vote is taken. Their supporters move to their second choice.

Nobody seems to notice that this dynamic, not just the straight polls, must be factored in when predicting results. And the dynamic is quite interesting. Second choices matter.

Based on this, and the current polls, shaky as they are, what is likely to happen?

On the Democratic side, a tight race—which we seem to have--almost certainly means Hillary is doomed. Because of her perceived frontrunner status, she already has almost all her likely supporters. Expect her to come in third. Edwards is most popular as a second choice—in a close race, this should put him over the top, unless Obama is well ahead of him on the first ballot.

Because nobody is factoring in the preferential aspect, this will play in the media as a surprise. Making it news, and giving Edwards (or possibly Obama) big momentum. Hillary, by contrast, will look like a loser. The wheels could come off her bandwagon.

On the Republican side, the rules are more straightforward--attendees just vote once, for their favourite.