it seems like "if i offer someone they don't know, they can't hate her." and choosing someone so close to him seems.... nepotistic?
and while i am glad they are considering a woman, at the same time they/he seem(s) to be focusing on her accomplishments not as a lawyer or person, but as a woman. first woman leader of blah, in the top 50 women lawyers of blah.
i am not a politico, far from it, but from what i've heard on NPR, it all seems a bit hokey.
It's this standard Republican/conservative/right-wing/neocon/whatthefuckever tactic of appointing, nominating, or otherwise running a woman for a political position and when she's opposed by the left for some undesirable trait or other, accusing us of not meaning what we say when we say we want women to have a greater role in the public sphere. Of course they completely overlook the fact that we believe women should have a greater role in the public sphere where qualified to do so--in other words, among equally qualified candidates, women should have an equal chance at any given job. Of course it'd make them look bad if they actually, I dunno, accurately represented the arguments of the left... so...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-04 05:24 pm (UTC)and while i am glad they are considering a woman, at the same time they/he seem(s) to be focusing on her accomplishments not as a lawyer or person, but as a woman. first woman leader of blah, in the top 50 women lawyers of blah.
i am not a politico, far from it, but from what i've heard on NPR, it all seems a bit hokey.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-04 06:10 pm (UTC)