> > Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice > > president, and McCain was a fool to choose her. If she > > had been a man with the same capabilities, then I'd be > > saying "he" was an idiot and McCain was a fool to choose > > him. > > Sure. But that's the point--she had so many negatives > politically, she wouldn't have been competitive if she > had been a man. So why did the left (including the usual > suspects here) feel the need to use sexism against her? > Criticism of her abilities and lack of experience should > have been more than enough.
If Obama had chosen a gay man as his running mate, and if the gay man had shown his, er, womanly qualities, the Nutjobs would have pounced on his limp-wristed-ness with "do we want a wimp in the White House who'd cry and yell mommy when he 'fall down go boom?'" It would still be a sin of anti-femming, right? But maybe not. Maybe it's a deeper issue of "what side of the brain do you want to dominate when certain decisions are to be made." A gay man or a "regular" woman (hee hee) can be expected to favor the tender feeling levels, whereas the macho side of the brain will be conceptualizing away the need for being tuned into that level of life. It's the old "Arjun, get up and be a man, cuz the woman part of you just made you drop your fucking bow and arrow." Just so, the question about Hillary-as-a-regular-woman being able to say "fuck the heart values, nuke the bastards," does arise to me. Personally I think she showed her balls when she stayed with Bill after the adultery became so much more public. It showed she could tell her heart to shut up and let her win an election with her manly other side of her brain. What we want is someone with a balanced yin/yang, right? And, hmmmm, maybe a homosexual man or woman would be a good candidate just based on the fact that that person will have had to "manage" his/her heartful urges daily since birth. Wait, I think the next American president should be a hermaphrodite. That's the ticket! Edg
