[Blue Lion]

Lemme get a link real quick

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced Friday she would not seek a second term and would soon step down as governor.

No clue what's going on yet. At first they said she was going to announce she wasn't running for a second term to focus on a run in '12. Now they're saying she won't even finish this term.

[Blue Lion]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor's Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said.

There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Palin made the announcement flanked by Parnell and most, if not all, of her cabinet.

Parnell ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Don Young in the Republican primary last year.

The stunning announcement by Palin opens the floodgates for the 2010 gubernatorial race. Speculation that Palin might not seek re-election had fueled further conjecture of who might run.

[iamzack]

"There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination."

I really hope that's not the case. Then she'd be even dumber than I thought. You don't get elected President without a title. Duhhhhhh.

[Liberator]

Says the rampant feminist.

I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side.  I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?

OH!  I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.

[Flipside]

I'm pretty sure that Sarah Palin is not the only Pro-Lifer who is also a female and who also believes in women's rights.

I'd say it's more to do with the fact that maybe (most) people are judging her by her policies, rather than her gender?

[Blue Lion]

Says the rampant feminist.

I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side.  I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?

OH!  I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.

You mean they don't like her because of policy and won't vote for her simply because she is a woman? The hell you say.

[Liberator]

Which is a complete and utter reversal of they're stance on other female politicians like, say, Hillary Clinton.  (Who in all honesty would probably be a better president than this joker we've got right now.)

If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.

But I wasn't necessarily talking about not voting for her, it's just the venom that is attached to feminist organization comments on Palin is astoundingly out of character.

[iamzack]

Says the rampant feminist.

I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side.  I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?

OH!  I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.

So... you're suggesting woman are so dumb they will vote for a misogynist freedom-hater just because she has a vagina?

[iamzack]

Which is a complete and utter reversal of they're stance on other female politicians like, say, Hillary Clinton.  (Who in all honesty would probably be a better president than this joker we've got right now.)

If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.

But I wasn't necessarily talking about not voting for her, it's just the venom that is attached to feminist organization comments on Palin is astoundingly out of character.

No. I will not vote for someone for being a female. I will vote for who I believe to be the best person to vote for REGARDLESS of their genitals. Why do misogynists fail so hard at that?

It's not out of character. Palin is a dumbass who is attempting to represent feminism, even though she is so obviously not a feminist.

[Blue Lion]

If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.

So you're saying they should vote for her even if they disagree with her just so a woman gets in? That's crazy.

[karajorma]

If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.

Well I didn't see you extending the same rules to Obama because he was black. So if it's strange that feminists don't support Palin it logically follows that anyone not supporting Obama must be failing some sort of racism test. After all people of colour have just as much of a glass ceiling to break through if not more.

So are you going to say that everyone who attacked Obama as heavily as the feminists attacked Palin is acting out of character?

[Liberator]

Not really, and I just have my back up that when people attack a male politician, even Obama, they attack his policies first.  But with Palin, her attacks from her detractors are just as much on the topic of her gender as her policies if not more.  Going back to the Letterman thing, the NOW or whatever should have been up in arms over that, but there was silence.  I'm not saying they should vote for her because she's a woman, I'm saying the venom in they're attacks is out of character compared to they're usual schtick.

[Blue Lion]

I have yet to see a serious criticism about her being a woman. Too early on the national scene? Yes. Not versed in national policies? Yes. Poor executive? Yes. "She's dumb cause she's a girl!"? No.

[NGTM-1R]

Not really, and I just have my back up that when people attack a male politician, even Obama, they attack his policies first.  But with Palin, her attacks from her detractors are just as much on the topic of her gender as her policies if not more. 

Never mind that this mystical "she's a girl" criticism never made any main-stream media worthy of the name. Nevermind that Palin is a known anti-feminist, or a Young Earth Creationish, or inexperienced, or incapable of listening to her advisors (most of the job of being the President is in reality finding very intelligent people to tell you what you need to do).

[Blue Lion]

There are people literally super excited that this is her grand kickoff to a 2012 presidential run.....

[Ford Prefect]

Palin was a proverbial sacrificial lamb for the Republican Party. They knew long before the election that anyone they fielded had a slim chance at best, so they picked a running mate on whom they could blame their failure without sacrificing a truly viable political figure. Palin was an obvious choice because, well, she's an idiot. (An unfortunate side effect is that she's now under the impression that she's important.) I refuse to believe that Republican Party was incompetent enough to think they could really woo a significant number of Clinton supporters with an anti-abortion candidate. They had to have known that their choice would be interpreted as a counter to Hillary Clinton, and that Palin's political positions could only make her a laughable failure in that capacity.

[General Battuta]

Says the rampant feminist.

I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side.  I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?

OH!  I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.

No.

No

No.

As others have pointed out, if you are a real feminist, you would IGNORE sex and gender and vote on the basis of policy.

And you can be doubly sure that no one would vote for an anti-choice, anti-life candidate (which Palin certainly is, since she's indirectly in favor of endangering women by forcing more illegal abortions) who would set back our slow crawl towards sex equality.

[Liberator]

gods damn it!

Abortions weren't illegal before Roe v. Wade.  All that did was guarantee them.  It's a risky medical procedure with dubious benefits to one of the patients and lethal consequences to the other.

[General Battuta]

Anyone who's not drinking **** from an ideological feeder hose can tell from the data that banning abortions doesn't change the abortion rates in the slightest - it just makes women go get abortions illegally.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare (preferably unnecessary). I hope we can both agree on that.

The fact that you selectively ignored the rest of my post to focus on an ideological talking point that you've been taught how to answer just drives home the point that you're dangling from puppet strings.

[iamzack]

Abortions weren't illegal before Roe v. Wade.  All that did was guarantee them.  It's a risky medical procedure with dubious benefits to one of the patients and lethal consequences to the other.

Less risky than pregnancy, with many MORE benefits to the patient and certain death for the little person that's decided to hijack another person's organs against her will.

I DEMAND your kidney. I need it to survive. If you don't give it to me, you're KILLING me. (See how retarded you sound?)