Why Is Sarah Palin's Politcal Run MORE Historic Than Geraldine Ferraro's?

Well, that is exactly why it is historic: no one ever thought the Republicans would put a woman on the ticket.

---

Actually they did it before. Google Margaret Chase Smith please.

And guess who she ran against? Hint: his son sought the GOP presidential nomination this time. Same result though. Like father, like son.

---

Speaking of Gerri Ferraro, does anyone remember how she met with the press head on to tackle allegations of her husband's ties to the mafia and charges that her parents ran a numbers racket? The media ripped the woman apart. This business with Palin has been child's play comparatively speaking.

Gosh, I can't believe she was only 49 at the time.

If Palin can withstand the scrutiny that Ferraro was dished out she almost deserves the nomination.

---

It's historic because it's the first time a (half) African-American was the nominee.

It's historic because it's the first time a Republican woman has been on the ticket.

It's historic because McCain/Palin will win the election and pave the way for Palin to be POTUS, thereby having the first woman POTUS.

---

"But Smith did not end up on the ticket."

Correct you are. It bothers me though that she's sometimes omitted in the discussion of firsts.

Also, my Libertarian partisans are quick to point out that Theodora "Toni" Nathan beat Palin to the draw.
Palin Not the First Female VP Nom

---

It's historic because it's the first time a Republican woman has been "allowed" on the ticket.

---

See that straw over there, Goth- grasp it! GRASP IT! CLUTCH AT IT AS IF YOU'RE LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!

So JoeK answer the question. Why haven't the Dems put a woman on the ticket in the past 24 years? Where Dems are concerned, the only chance a woman has of getting in the Oval Office is if she wears a blue Gap dress and knows what to do with a cigar.

---

Goth you NEVER answer my questions, but I will, however, answer yours and show you how it's done: Sadly, there is a shortage of women who are qualified to hold the highest office. Governor & US Senator have been the two offices that generate presidents and there have been way too few women elected to those posts in the past. You almost saw a woman nominated for president this year as the "crop" of female politicians are maturing. I am confident that in 2016, when President Obama leaves office there will be several women who seek the nomination. I am quite fond of two female politicians here in Illinois- Lisa Madigan, currently Attorney General but I hope she is appointed senator to take Obama's place and Pam Althoff, a Republican State Senator who I'd like to see run for Illinois governor this year and eventually president.

See how easy it is when your opinions are backed by facts, and not the other way around?

Updated On: 9/3/08 at 03:59 PM

Looking at your list, Goth, I'd have to go with whichever of those women who's PTA work counts as "executive experience."

---

And indeed, Clinton came in second this year- she'll run again I'm sure. Sibelius by all accounts was considered for VP also. The others are reasonable names I suppose but I wouldn't put any of them at the top of a list for either office. I do salute you for coming up with 6 names. Let's just try to think of a few MEN who might be considered for VPOTUS- Here are the ones who ran this year:

Obama, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Gravel, Richardson

Some others: John Kerry, Roemer, Nunn, Kaine, Webb, Powell, Roemer, Daschle, Strickland, Vilsack, Bayh, Nelson, Clark, Bob Kerry, Byrd, Bob Casey, Durbin, Feingold, Leahy, Nelson, Reid...do I need to go on?