It's time we re-define the word "POLARIZING" for the sake of all women candidates, past and future.
The call has been sounded at HILLBUZZ. Now let's take action!
Your mission, should you decide to accept it....
"We need to embrace it as a *good* word. Political parties are, inherently, POLARIZING. That is the way it will always be with a two party system. A candidate that moves people into the party is “polarizing” (aka MAGNETIC.)
In this scheme MAGNETIC and POLARIZING are synonyms. And who does not want to be MAGNETIC?
Obama is, in fact, *POLARIZING* by nature of the fact that he drew independents into the Dem party. He acted like a magnet in this sense. Why would that be a bad thing??
Oh, I forgot… it is *bad* if a woman does it. Like Hillary or Sarah. Such nonsense.
Reclaim the word and redefine it! That is the answer. “POLARIZING” = “MAGNETIC.”"
And further (from AFinch, in the same thread):
"Name a successful leader who hasn’t been “polarizing.” As fondly as people remember Reagan today, there was a distinct group of people who hated him while he was in office. Bill Clinton was described as polarizing. Think about it–Lincoln (whom Utopia likes to invoke when it is useful for him) presided over a country that was literally divided against itself. People who have strong beliefs, who have a clear vision of where they want to lead and who are not afraid to describe their vision in certain terms are naturally going to repel those with a different vision and different ideas. If Sarah Palin is repulsive to the Leftists and makes the contrast between them and the rest of us more clear, that is a good thing."
2010 will be a good year for project "POLARIZING means MAGNETIC" to make it's maiden voyage. Before 2012.... when we will have both parties, and all the boiz in the MSM, accusing primary (female) candidates.
Posts
