<thread drift>
Ann said:
Quote
In other words, Arne Olsson would make a black man his superior in order to avoid the indignity of having to make a woman his equal. I do find that interesting.
This is totally off topic, so I apologize, but this is very simple: Arne Olsson must take his Bible seriously. In the Bible, we're all brothers and sisters no matter what the skin color (not that Christians have always been good about demonstrating that, but it is the way the Book is written) but that men and women have separate roles in life. Equal worth, but different roles. It seems pretty obvious that the Bible sees only men in the position of pastor or spiritual leader. I know lots of people disagree with that, and I'm not going to argue the point, but since you found the decision interesting, I thought I'd supply my guess at the logic behind it. smile

</thread drift>

Back on topic -- I agree with Carol that the media coverage was brutal towards the women running this year. Who talked about McCain or Obama as having "cankles" or screeching? There is a different standard, but then the media is expert at double standards. Still, I have hope; as Roger said, there are qualified women out there. I'd love to see Hillary vs. Sarah, but I don't know how likely that is. Hillary's not getting any younger, and running against a sitting president of one's own party is generally a non-starter.

PJ
whose new password at work is "palin2012"

"You told me you weren't like other men," she said, shaking her head at him when the storm of laughter had passed.
He grinned at her - a goofy, Clark Kent kind of a grin. "I have a gift for understatement."
"You can say that again," she told him.
"I have a...."
"Oh, shut up."

--Stardust, Caroline K