Running for the Presidency and Vice Presidency: sauce for the goose…
Campaigns are quick to respond to any perceived inequities and sexism doled out by the opposing camp and by the so-called "liberal media."
Let’s not, however, have half truths and exaggerated indignation dribble out of both sides of our mouths.
1. Anyone running for public office and for the highest office in the land, whether at the top or bottom of the ticket, is subject to intense scrutiny. There are no exemptions for race or gender. Period.
2. If a personal issue is used to reflect on a political stand, then that issue is subject to scrutiny. No one running for office can show many photo opportunities of family, use personal decisions in pro-life and special needs to further one’s political career, and expect no analysis. How can references to such be considered sexist, low and Palin-bashing?
3. If one’s commitment to religion is brought out on the campaign trail and is used to lure voters with that religious bent, then that also is subject to scrutiny. Not all scrutiny and spin can be accurate, but scrutiny and sifting out of truths vs. half and untruths are an integral part of our democratic process and free press.
3 Our politicians are held accountable for all words spoken. This is part and parcel of public office. Joe Biden has had his words scrutinized and analyzed. So has Obama. Words used by one side may be used by the other. Thus, the furor over "lipstick" is astonishing. It was first uttered by John McCain in talking about Hillary Clinton, then picked up by Governor Palin in front of an enormous television audience. Why should an apology be expected when used by Senator Obama, especially when sandwiched between two utterances about Senator McCain?
If double standards are so prevalent before political parties have taken office, how does it bode for the future? Surely the process of winning should not preclude basic decency and fairness to ALL parties.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
