Do I love the Washington Post or do I love the Washington Post? Answer is I [bleep]ing LOVE the Washington Post. Mainly because I love 1984 references. Also, for pointing out craziness.
Here's what I'm talking about.
Some quotes for people lazy to read it:
See, the thing is...this is what people were saying about Obama too. You know, he's the embodiment of the American Dream, blah blah blah, and really shows how anyone can become president if they really want to. The thing is, though, that this election has really brought out the strangest, most disturbing criteria for a president...ever. Some people won't vote for Obama because he's "too skinny" and therefore...is unable to rule? Or, or, how about because he doesn't have a dog? And it disturbs me SO MUCH that one of the biggest Google search for Sarah Palin also includes the phrase "hot photos." EW. EW. Yeah.
We don't live in an age of looking up to authority anymore. We don't cotton to the idea that there are people who are our betters. In this time of "American Idol," bedroom bloggers and the belief that experience, knowledge and education don't necessarily mean a whole lot, Palin is a symbol, a statement that anyone can make it if he or she really tries.
And McCain definitely knows the power he has now.
But this also scares me to an extent - hundreds, possibly thousands of people, are voting for McCain because they like Palin, and might be sitting somewhere, waiting for McCain to have some sort of emergency, when their true hero(ine) can step in.
McCain knew it; he led the audience in a chant of "Sar-ah! Sar-ah!" Still, did the man who might be the next president know that hundreds would start streaming out of the park as soon as Palin finished speaking, leaving a noticeably sparser audience to hear from the top of the ticket?
Seriously? That's a big, bulk-sized BJ's Wholesale Club "Crock o' Shit" there. And anyway, isn't that what we were bitching Kerry out for in the 2004 election? Being a flip-flopper. But, wait! There's more! We've flip-flopped our stance on flip-flopping. It's important in this election! It's just their moral and ethical background that counts. And as a pro-life stance is the only thing that can be moral, clearly Sarah Palin and that guy who hangs around her a lot is the best choice omgz!!11!!!
Most people I spoke to readily conceded that Palin lacks experience with or knowledge of many important national and foreign issues. But, as Allison McGarvey, a teacher who lives in Stafford County, said, Palin is "a courageous woman, and what she doesn't know, she can learn quickly. Let's face it, no president knows all the issues. Anyway, I don't see how a candidate can pick one stand and just stick to it. The world situation changes every day. It's their moral and ethical background that's important."
Like many at the rally, Victoria Robinson-Worst sees Palin's lack of experience as an asset. "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent," said Robinson-Worst, who lives in Loudoun County, designs wedding flowers and raises two children. "And I know people who have no experience who step in and get it right. I mean, women can do amazing things."Okay, this is all I have to say. (Fisher, the writer of the article, notes that FDR and Reagan were not exactly people on welfare, yet managed to be some of our greatest presidents.) As a person and an American citizen, I don't want someone like me running the country. You know why? I know shit about foreign policy, I'd probably inadvertantly piss off the Premier of Denmark or whatever, and I make mistakes ALL THE TIME. I want someone who went to school for this. I want someone who KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING. Not just someone who'll figure it out on the way. NO. DO. NOT. WANT. At all. If I were to accept inexperience at all, it would not be during an economic crisis when gas prices are going through the roof and we are in a war. WE ARE IN A WAR. I NEED SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT TO DO IN A WAR. And yeah, yeah, let's bring up Obama's inexperience oooooone more time. But still, his cabinet is experienced.
This whole Sarah Palin business needs to stop being about "omgz! a woman in power!" and more about can she accomplish what we want her to? And her being a mother of five does not apply.
And I leave you with this, which is quite possibly, the best line ever:
In other news, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, that herald of truth, got on McCain's bad side. They published an article claiming that Palin had an affair with her husband's colleage, and McCain threatened to sue. Which, fine. The National Enquirer is skeezy and I totally get it. But then they had to go and make a snarky comment and garner some of my respect, damn it.This is where culture wars, identity politics and self-suffocating academic theories of deconstructionism have led us: Authority is suspect. Experience is corrupting. Ignorance is strength?
Next will be "war is peace." Or have we already heard that one?
Our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process.Bwah. Oh, National Enquirer. Don't ever change. Anyway, if you look at the various things going on, people in Alaska thought she did a bad job as governor, politicians are saying she can't articulate a single policy and are only voting for her because they like her (because we didn't do that 8 years ago and we certainly didn't figure out that it was a big mistake), and biologists are angry at her because, despite her father being a science teacher, she's a proponent of teaching creationism in public schools. Not intelligent design, which pretty much got PA senator Rick Santorum booted from the presidential race because it made him look like a jackass afterwards, but creationism. Which is worse. So yay, let's elect her to the VPship.
