John McCain has got to have some really big balls, much larger than Obama's, because he has done what Obama was too afraid to do - choose a woman as his VP candidate and face all the consequences with the rabid liberal media.
It's amazing to hear the liberal media and their constituents going into conniption fits over McCain's choice of Palin for his running mate. It's almost hard to believe all the stupid, petty, idiotic crap that they are trying to throw around about Palin. Let's just look at some examples:
1. "She isn't experienced enough."
Please, and Obama is? At least Palin has had real executive experience that has resulted in actual change and progress in her state. All Obama has done is serve as a state Senator for a few years and then the US Senate for a few years, most of which has been spent campaigning for President. How much real change and reform has Obama actually brought about in his time as a Senator? As for foreign relations, I'd say they are just about the same, and that is why Obama chose an old white guy, Biden, as his running mate - to give his ticket some foreign relations credentials. Why is it okay for Obama to pick Biden (especially over Hillary who arguably really earned the VP candidacy) as a ploy to add that to his ticket, while it's not okay for McCain, who has plenty of his own foreign relations experience, to pick Palin who adds an element of "reality" to his ticket (where one of Obama's biggest criticisms of McCain is that he isn't "in touch" with the "common people"). Aside from her government service, Palin is very much an example of "common people."
2. "Conservative women aren't allowed to have careers and a family at the same time."
Wow, I really shouldn't have to explain the idiocy of that one, but apparently, it is necessary after all. I didn't make this up either. I just heard some old crotchety bag actually say that on TV about Palin. She actually said that it was hypocritical for conservatives to support a woman with five children, one of which is a Downs baby and another of which is a pregnant teen. She implied that Palin is a bad mother because she has common human family problems. So, somehow just because someone is a conservative they are automatically held up to some ridiculous higher standard than a "normal" person. Well, sorry, that's complete bullshit and pretty much as stupid as saying that because Palin had an amnio test during her pregnancy (certainly ordered by her doctors because of her mature age) then she shouldn't be against abortions. Yes, I have actually heard people say that too. Very stupid isn't it? That's about the same as saying that someone who has had a surgery shouldn't be against stabbing murders. Someone please explain to me why the rules must be different for conservative women than for liberal ones. What ever happened to equality and equal rights for all women?
3. Jane Smiley: "If the red phone rings in the middle of the night and she's breastfeeding, will she answer it?"
You know, how can a woman actually attack another woman in that way? It's really beyond horrible and hypocritical that so-called feminists would even imply that being a mother somehow reduces a woman's ability to do her job effectively. Doesn't that pretty much contradict all of their own philosophies and agendas about women being as capable as men and expecting equality, etc.?
I'm not sure if the above is a completely accurate quote of Smiley, but here is an equally stupid article about Palin's "hypocrisy" based on her own private choices as a mother and so on.
Smiley calls Palin "a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it." Say what?? "... a woman who attaches herself to men in power and then does them one better. She uses the freedom that the women's movement has brought her [to] quash the liberation of women with other views than hers." I really do hope that everyone can see how incredibly hypocritical and stupid Smiley's statements are here. So, according to Smiley a successful female politician should be a childless lesbian who hates men? It just confounds me that feminists are the first ones to attack a successful woman. Palin isn't trying to take away any other women's "liberation". If Smiley is referring to Palin's anti-abortion position, then that only refers to being against killing babies in the womb, not any kind of "women's lib."
There are many other such ridiculous statements and implications in Smiley's article. She says that Palin is hypocritical if she isn't breastfeeding her baby (even though breastfeeding also supposedly makes her unfit to work), as if it's anyone's business anyway. So does that make any woman who supports abortions a hypocrite is she doesn't actually have an abortion? You just cannot follow these liberal arguments because they all conflict and nullify each other. And it never matters what someone does because it is always the wrong thing to these rabid liberals because they are so confused themselves that they don't know right from wrong.
Smiley also says, "Who is taking care of the kids while she is away, including the baby? If it's the husband, I'm glad. If it's a nanny and always has been, then I want to know how a wealthy woman with a nanny helps women in general -- wealthy women with nannies are nothing new." Okay, so it's okay if she's making enough money for the hubby to stay home and care for children, but it's not okay for her to be making enough money to afford a nanny? Wow. Stupid idiots who get paid for writing tripe are nothing new either. Why isn't Smiley asking all of these questions of Nancy Pelosi's (who is actually in a pretty powerful position) childrearing practices and childcare history?
Another 'brilliant' point by Smiley: "If she produced a child at 44, I want to know if she believes in birth control, because birth control is a political issue. I also want to know her views on the government's obligations to the disabled. Do the disabled children of rich people get special treatments that their parents can afford, while the disabled children of poor people get nothing?" My God, does this Smiley woman have a brain at all? Does she even have any children herself? Has she never seen that the disabled children of the poor get all kinds of help for free and how exactly is it fair to desire for rich, disabled children to suffer needlessly? Just because a child has rich parents he is automatically less deserving than a poor child? Who does she think pays all the taxes to care for the poor kids anyway? It's those rich people, honey, who are paying for their own kids *in addition to* those poor kids.
Well, I kind of went off on a tangent away from the big balls of conservatives. But maybe it's just that conservative men have bigger balls and conservative women know how to handle them better (than the rabid liberal bitches who just want to tear them apart). ;-)
*I'm not saying that all liberals are rabid. Just making that clear.