Just like who?

Ellen Goodman said it first -- and better -- but allow me the liberty of repeating it for those who might have missed her column a few weeks back: "Palin may yet be the fulfillment of an old feminist prophecy that Texan Sissy Farenthold once described with her tongue firmly planted in her cheek. We will have achieved equality the day mediocre women take their place beside mediocre men. Check that one off the to-do list."

Unfortunately, we seemed to have skipped over some more important matters on the agenda to get to that one. A few that come to mind include, oh I don't know, equal pay for equal work, better representation in Congress and on the Supreme Court, paid maternity leave, and a dozen other issues that offer concrete proof that we need women in power to understand that equality does not mean being treated like one of the boys. We need women who understand that their individual ability to have their children at work does not translate into every woman's ability to juggle work and family. We need women who value their children's right to quality education as much as their right to own a gun. We need women who recognize there are other kinds of mothers than the soccer/hockey variety, and that the problems and challenges these women face are not limited to domestic matters.

Sarah Palin does none of this. In her haste to relate to women, she never stopped to consider the variety of women out there. She has turned us all into modern-day Harriet Nelsons, juggling cell phones and practice schedules rather than vacuum cleaners and oven mitts. For the purpose of reconciling the Republican Party's "family values" platform with a society that is finally recognizing the power women have and are gaining, she has consistently equated "woman" with "mother," thereby further undermining the pitiful attempt the party has made to appear part of the 21st century. Her tactics are only slightly less outdated than the corset. Not once has she spoken to or of single women, single mothers, executive women, elderly women, college women, lesbians, Hispanic woman, urban women, Black women, widows, women in the military, or even how such categories overlap and intersect. Her tunnel vision is frightening. If she can't recognize the diversity of women in her own country, how will she ever handle international differences?

In case I haven't been clear on the issue, Sarah Palin scares the living daylights out of me. In addition to her exclusive focus on those of us with white husbands and children, how in the world does a woman who can't name one newspaper she reads, can't name one Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade, and has less formal education than I do make it onto a presidential ticket? Furthermore, in what reality does a vice-presidential candidate with negligible understanding of national issues and little concrete experience feel it's an asset to trade an image of professionalism and competence for one of parochial simplicity? With a wink and a smile, no less!

Have we really reached a point where we don't want the leaders of our country to be a little more prepared than the average hockey mom or dad? While formal education shouldn't be the only mark of a person's ability, do we really scorn education and intelligence so much that we can't even address the fact that it took her five years and four colleges to get a degree in journalism? And most importantly, haven't we learned over the past eight years exactly how dangerous it is to have someone in (or near) the White House who is not prepared to be there? We can't afford to make that mistake again.