What’s wrong with cute is the same thing that is wrong with profane.
Diane Stafford was very thorough in pointing out the downside of Sarah Palin’s wink and folksy manner of speech (10/9, Business, “Let’s not wink at careless gesture”).
It would be nice to look past the superficial aspects of a candidate’s appearance or speech or behavior — not to mention race or age or gender — and focus on the content of their character and ideas. But for most of us, surface matters, speech matters and behavior matters.
When protestors at Kent State University in May 1970 were vilified as subhuman and shot by the Ohio National Guard, I was shocked. I laid the blame on the narrow-mindedness of the pro-war “adult” generation.
Now that I am 65, I know that the grooming habits, drug use, “free love” and profanity of some of the protestors gave excuses to those who despised dissent anyway.
Let us try to focus on the issues and the leadership strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. It would help if they would show us their true depth.
Diane Stafford’s recent column chastising Sarah Palin for her wink during the vice presidential debate officially raises this non-issue to the level of absurdity.
To Ms. Stafford and all who would characterize the gesture as that of a red state Mata Hari, let the record show that Palin explicitly directed the wink and accompanying greeting to her father, who was seated in the audience.
If your preferred rhetorical style is Harvard-educated gravitas, I respect your choice. But to confuse colloquial expression and being plainspoken for a lack of professionalism or credibility is more than misguided. It’s prejudiced.
Diane Stafford’s comments were so true. After a long struggle by professional women to advance in the business world, it is unbelievable that someone as unprofessional as Sarah Palin would be considered by anyone as a good pick for vice president of the United States. But then, John McCain is an old boy from the era of women being considered tokens.