In his radio show today, Lush Rimbaugh constructed a mocking list of questions that Sarah Palin could answer - said questions coming from Obama. Among the gems were questions such as:
- What's it like to live so close to Russia?
- Do you bait your own hooks when you go fishing?
- Did you teach your son to shoot?
It was another effort to eviscerate Obama's masculinity and paint Obama as 'elitist'. But what a trap Lush set for himself, and his foot is poised above the steel jaws of a intrepid caller.
What needs to be pointed out to Lush is that - in all fairness - Lush's list includes the only questions that Sarah Palin can definitively answer. Unfortunately for the GOP, none of the questions appears high on the list of questions that America will have for our future leader.
I don't believe the constitution sets out roles for VP that includes baiting hooks - although McCain may very well need that assistance before too long (and that concern will now be on voters list of questions).
IMHO, I feel that the selection of a mother with young children is not appropriate. There are far too many presidential tasks that require a more aggressive posture than that which can be provided while estrogen is coursing through a woman's veins. It's simple biology, a mother has too much in the way of hormones pushing her towards a nurturing role - and that could come at a time that said president must deal with a situation far worse than that of Putin and Georgia.
Does that make me sound horribly old-fashioned?
By my thinking, it's realistic: a mom's job is very difficult and demanding and my wife finds it difficult enough to transition from being momma to being artist even when I'm helping with our 10 month old son. The presidential job is even more demanding and unrealistic of what it asks of a human.
However capable the woman is, the transition from child care to president is asking way too much.
More so, it's even the international perception of Palin that counts as much as the reality. Foreign countries and leaders (Putin and Middle East types come to mind) would feel that they could take advantage of a momma president. That could lead to avoidable conflict.
Update: To those who call this sexism....
Are you saying that there is no link between biology and psychology?
If you say there is no link, that would make you rather old-fashioned and it would be quite the attack on science.
If you acknowledge that there is a link, then please explain why motherhood hormones would not affect aggressive behavior. Nature has constructed biology and the estrogen hormone spike during motherhood to influence psychology in such a fashion that a woman can handle the demands of motherhood in a non-aggressive fashion (e.g. to prevent shaken baby syndrome and ensure the survival of progeny).
Dispute this argument in a non-ignorant and knee-jerk fashion.