So I'm not sure I entirely buy Jeri Thompson's argument about Christine O'Donnell. I honestly don't think her sex has anything to do with it. You don't hear Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina called unqualified on the basis of sex. I'm not even sure I'd even call O'Donnell unqualified, though I really don't get how she got where she did, without looks and charisma being a factor. I think she does appeal to ordinary, every day citizens who are tired of the elite politicos in Washington not giving a damn about their perspectives. Joe Biden was sort of an every man, wasn't he, who commuted on the train and was one of the least wealthy members of the Senate. Frankly, it can't be too big of a surprise that a non-wealthy, every day type of person won the GOP nomination over a long-term Washington insider.
So I don't think it is sexism that is driving these charges of her being unqualified. I think it's more the fact that she has ethical issues, she hasn't really had a real job and the one she had at ISI resulted in a law suit, she has made all sorts of other charges like insinuating that Castle's staff broke into her campaign office/home. She seems a little unbalanced.
True, there aren't a lot of smart conservative women in politics, but it's changing. Susana Martinez will be elected governor of New Mexico. California could elect both Whitman and Fiorina. There are women running for senate in Nevada, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. It's not about sexism. It's about finding the best candidate, the most conservative candidate, and the one with the highest character and ethics. I don't think Christine O'Donnell fits that bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment