Via TalkLeft, we learn that some presidential historians are popping off about Sarah Palin, calling her “the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.” Notice who wasn’t consulted in the reporting for this article: maybe some women’s historians could have pointed out how women’s paths to political power–what few examples in this country we have–are very different from men’s paths? And maybe they could have said something about how there isn’t exactly a deep bench of women senators or governors to choose from in either party? (I think it’s only 16 Senators and nine governors of either major party.) And they might have asked people to consider how exactly do they think women will ever achieve anything close to parity in national political leadership unless some elder male statesmen take some chances on grooming and promoting women candidates? In other words, consider this a follow-up post to my post last week about the total absence of women’s historians on the PBS panel of historians commenting on the Democratic National Convention.
Since as the McCain campaign points out, all of these guys (plus Doris Kearns Goodwin!) are major donors to the Obama campaign and other Democrats, and one is even a former Dem speechwriter, you’d think that they would want to help their presidential candidate instead of highlight an argument that the Democrats will lose. (And what about all of those comparisons to failed one-term Congressman Abraham Lincoln, which was such a useful rejoinder to people who questioned Barack Obama’s lack of experience?) Silly me: I forgot that when girls presume to rule, there will be different rules for girls!
It’s times like this that I wish Alice Roosevelt Longworth were still around.