[...]It's clear that Republicans believe that what made Hillary Clintonsuch a good candidate was her gender, not her political experience orpositions on the issues. And McCain's decision to pick Palin shows hetook this message to heart and chose to add her to the ticket primarilybecause of her gender. In so doing, McCain has turned the idea of thefirst woman in the White House from a true moment of change to an emptypander.

Why is this a pander? Because Palin is not a woman who has a recordof representing women's interests. She is beloved by extremelyright-wing conservatives for her anti-choice record (fittingly, she's amember of the faux-feminist anti-choice group Feminists for Life).Palin supports federal anti-gay marriage legislation. She believesschools should teach creationism. Alaska is currently consideringspending more on abstinence-only sex education. And when it comes to aslew of other issues of importance to women, such as equal pay, she'snot on the record.

Of course, I'm of the belief that more women in politics -- acrossthe ideological spectrum -- is always a good thing. On a superficiallevel, nominating a woman to the Republican presidential ticket isindeed a milestone. But the real reason many women were excited aboutHillary Clinton's candidacy is that she was the whole package -- apolitician with a solid record on issues like choice and fair pay, andwith a lot of experience, who was also a woman. Even feministsI disagreed with during the primary made the compelling point that itwasn't just about Hillary's gender. It was about her record, too. [more]