With all the fluff and nonsense out there in media-land, and all the marvelous doom and gloom diaries here, it does seem to me we are letting some really STUNNING potential "got-chas' maybe fly by, to try and erode this strange identification some women seem to have that Sarah Palin is just like them, and would be a champion for them in the WH?

It's been reported, (and true, I am short of details as to the reasoning here), but supposedly Palin as Mayor changed the police policy for Rape Kits by making the victim of the supposed Rape responsible for the price of the kits?

Now, perhaps this was some kind of budget exercise, and even that is pretty egregious in and of it self.

But, what I think could be going on there is, the world view of the Hard Religious Right that "Feminist" thinking uses the charge of Rape as a club against men.  

In fact, you have ideologues like James Dobson claiming that (again from a biblical sense, and that to them is the only world view) a husband CANNOT be charged with raping his wife at all. It is his God given right to have sex with her, and her refusal is not lawful. You know, a dog can't refuse its owners requests, furniture shouldn't  complain either.

If this is in any way Ms Palin's reasoning for making the victim pay for the rape kit, because she believes rape is a FALSE charge in even SOME cases, isn't THAT something that should be put in an ad and run 24/7 in the Midwest to hit those women that seem to find some kind of identity with the Palin candidacy?

Isn't that something that all but the truly bent anti-feminist women should find exemplifies a mindset so counter to virtually everything the women's movement has stood for?

There was an article on Salon today about a feminist who was dumbfounded, having been on a plane with a woman her age, and struck up a conversation about Palin.

This woman was more than enthusiastic about the Palin pick, and she was saying how great it was, because this showed that a woman just like her (she was obviously self-actualizing with Palin) could be President?  I guess, cause she was a mom, married, same age and demographic.

Here is the really BAD part of that thinking.

Yes, we tell every kid, you CAN grow up to be President. That is why it's so wonderful that Obama has (potentially) broken the barrier of race, and sad that Senator Clinton did not break that barrier for women...

But the broken logic here is, not everyone SHOULD grow up to be President?

This is the "Bush is the guy I would like to have as a neighbor, have a beer with" criterion for choosing the most important position on the planet gone amuck!

Hey, it's a good thing to take inspiration from successful people, I was watching Serena Williams at the US Open and, as an amateur tennis player, I was still feeling that charge playing last night on a gorgeous autumn summer here in Seattle.

But, that doesn't mean I was ever meant to set foot on Center Court at Flushing Meadows!

As John Stewart says, I want the smartest guy on the planet in the WH, and I want to KNOW he is smarter then I am.

If you pull the handle for Sarah Palin because she makes you feel good about yourself and IGNORE she is possible the worst candidate a modern American woman could want to set gender policies, well, then, there is no one to blame for this election if Obama loses EXCEPT the electorate.

Not his campaign, not some idea that he should have picked Clinton as VP...

What we have is, as with Bush, an electorate that for some reason just gets it wrong, votes on who they want to have a beer with, or who makes them "feel good" about themselves.

No wonder the Europeans think we are madder then hatters?  

And, if McCain/Palin wins, they are proven undeniably correct.