Sarah Palin represents the feminist triumph

After pointing out how ignoble the attack on Palin is coming from the self-appointed coastal elites, Victor Davis Hanson sums up how Palin is the ultimate feminist triumph:

Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Ymarsakar says

    SueK talks of superdelegates, but Hillary couldn’t even begin to claim a majority of votes without them. Do you also want to argue the world is flat? This is a moronic argument you’re making. And I have no idea what you would call the primaries, if not elections…

    You think it moronic only because it challenges your prejudiced views of what the Democrats actually are.

    That is not moronic, that is only inconvenient, to you that is.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    DG – “Ronald Reagan is regarded as having (done?) a great job as the leader of the 7th largest economy and political entity in the world (California) having only served as head of the SAG–kind of like a community organizer in Hollywood.”

    Now, DG, I have to believe that you know better than this, so this must be a deliberate misrepresentation. The SAG was/is the leading Hollywood union, of which Reagan was the executive officer (salaries, negotiations, results) etc., during which he successfully fought huge battles to sever the communist influence in the SAG and other Hollywood organizations. That was no mean feat for that period.

    Also, you (it must be) deliberately omitted that Ronald Reagan was a very successful governor of California, the U.S.’s largest state economy, during very tumultuous times. Again, he was the senior executive. However, I note that it is the Democrat talking point that somehow Palin was only a mayor, not a governor. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. We see through this – please don’t take us for idiots.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    Sorry, Dg. I must apologize – you were referring to Reagan’s stint as governor and my fingers responded faster than my brain. Oops!

    However, you do realize that the omission of Palin’s tenure as governor and the emphasis on her job as PTA leader and mayor of podunkville by the Democrat opposition is no accident, right?

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    Here! “But Ronald Reagan is regarded as having a great job as the leader of the 7th largest economy and political entity in the world (California)…”

    My criticism of DG’s (I think she is a she, by the way) position regarding Reagan’s role as union boss still stands, but on the question of recognizing Reagan’s role as governor, I was wrong.

  5. dg says

    Danny, from an executive experience standpoint, what is the difference between Obama and Reagan’s work prior to elected office? I understand that you would believe that Reagan was more successful than Obama because he pursued goals that you agree with and, in your opinion, had more success achieving those goals (although it is hard to quantify). But aren’t their respective roles and responsibilities similar? I mean, they both were responsible for looking after the interests of a given constituency and had a P&L to manage in that effort. My point is merely that Reagan’s executive experience before ascending to the California governorship was really very light, and it had ZERO PREDICTIVE VALUE on how he would perform in that role. Your thoughts?

  6. dg says

    Y, I don’t know what to say to your posts. I went back to look at some of the end-game scenarios toward the end of the primaries earlier this year, and they seem to support my point. Recall that the Democratic Party faced a quandary in that it had to “punish” states that moved their primaries out of order by not counting their delegates. Hillary supported the move initially and then changed her tune when she needed the delegates. By the end of the race, Obama, under virtually any scenario would have the majority of the non-super-delegate votes. If you assume that Edwards’ backers supported Obama, which polls suggested that they did in healthy numbers, he wins. If you assume that super-delegates peeled off of Hillary, which they were doing toward the end of the primary, he wins. And, though I am not entire sure of this, even if Hillary held onto all of her delegates and super-delegates, he wins. Please show me the scenario in which she could have won, so I understand how the race was “called” in his favor unfairly. Otherwise, please stop pushing this idea that he is an illegitimate candidate.

  7. suek says

    >>My point is merely that Reagan’s executive experience before ascending to the California governorship was really very light.>>

    What do you base this on? His office was elective, Obama’s was not. He _was_ the SAG president for some years…I don’t know how many. I also don’t know if he stood for re-election during that period. I can’t say I’ve done any SAG research, and I wasn’t in California when he was governor.

    >>I mean, they both were responsible for looking after the interests of a given constituency and had a P&L to manage in that effort.>>

    What P&L was Obama responsible for? to whom did he report? How could he lose his job?

  8. dg says

    SueK, since when does valid executive experience need to be elective? Obama would have had to report back to the 501(c)3 non-profit that gave his organization the money, and they would have the option of witholding additional funds. Without funding, he would lose his job. But all of this is beside the point. The real point is that running SAG or a little non-profit in the Chicago inner-city are hardly big, important executive positions that will supposedly prepare one for the Governorship of California or the Presidency of the US. One produced a very good governor, so I conclude that Obama’s thin resume does not preclude a similarly admirable performance in an all-important executive position.

  9. BrianE says

    My goal is to convince as many voters as possible that Obama should run for governor of any state he chooses, assuming he meets state citizenship criteria, and get a little on the job training before he applies for the big job.
    He would,of course, need the approval of the citizens of that state, though with his oratorical skills that shouldn’t be a problem.

Leave a Reply