Defining Sarah Palin makes me think of 1950’s and early 1960’s television programs. She has a little of “Our Miss Brooks” (good put downs), a lot of Beaver (complete naivete), a touch of Bambi (more naivete), a smattering of Cruella Deville, a bit of all the character on Little House on the Prairie…., I could go on.
What she doesn’t seem like to me is a person who has her own views. The views are Alaskan in every sense of the word. Is that wrong? It might be for the rest of the United States. Her qualifications would be laughable if she were a man, but as she is a viable token, we have to take her seriously.
I am sorry about this. I think this is a terrible put down to women, paritcularly if she is instrumental in a McCain loss. If she is a winner and she becomes, by chance the president, she will have to shuck all those television characters and be something I don’t think she has ever given a thought to–the leader of a democracy that is more than just Alaskans.
Should Alaskans take offense at this? I would say the same about anyone whose provincialism was an alleged asset, be they from New York City, Columbus, Ohio or anywhere else. George Bush’s provincialism (those “gut” decisions have cost us dearly) is a case in point.