My problem with Palin is a cultural one, and the GOP would be wise to take heed.

Barack Obama did not win the presidency because he’s an extraordinary candidate, but because he ran against an extraordinarily weak opponent who had an even weaker running mate in Sarah Palin. John McCain’s selfish, reckless decision to put Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency marked the beginning of the end of his presidential ambitions, and proved once and for all that John McCain did not put country first. Though he was a war hero, John McCain is not the man he used to be.

Explain as the pundits might, the McCain camp was not attempting to rally the social conservatives with the Palin stunt. Had the intent been to rally the base, the selection of the more experienced Mark Sanford or Rick Perry from the south and their ilk would have been more likely. The McCain camp chose Palin for two reasons: 1) They were so arrogant to think they could secure the women voters Hillary Clinton left behind by replacing one woman with another-this was evident with Palin’s call to women to “shatter the glass ceiling once and for all” in her first speech. 2) They wanted to win over Independents by touting Palin’s “reformer” and “maverick” image. McCain wasn’t aiming to rally the base of social conservatives, but simply to not alienate them. The pick of Palin was a huge miscalculation because women and Independents were largely repulsed by her, while her rallying of social conservatives was largely inadvertent.

As a registered Independent and a woman, I fall squarely into both demographics of voters McCain was aiming for. So, pundits, step aside. Republicans, if you’d like to win back the White House in 2012, take heed.

My problem with Palin is not an intellectual one. I don’t believe she lacks capacity; rather, she lacks knowledge and experience. She’s simply very inexperienced and not ready for the national stage. Twenty months of “executive experience” as governor, while significant, is not enough for presidential office. I, along with others I know, have had years of “executive experience” running companies; it doesn’t render us qualified to run the country. George W. Bush had years of executive experience as governor prior to taking office. His “execution” of the Iraq war strategy, the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and a host of domestic initiatives were disastrous by all performance metrics. To be qualified for presidential office, one must possess a unique blend of depth and breadth of knowledge, along with vision, experience, intelligence, and problem-solving propensities and facilities. In time, however, Palin may prove capable.

While consumed with demographics, the McCain camp ignored the equally important quality of psychographics. My problem with Palin is a cultural one. For one, her playing to the “Joe six-packs” was disturbing. No, I do not desire my president to be another “Joe six-pack”. I do not care to see my president pounding beers or moose hunting. I do not want my president to be “just like me”, like a next-door neighbor. The office of the presidency should be aspirational, not relatable.

I found troubling Palin’s political ambitions, given that she had four children plus an infant Down syndrome fifth. No, the media was not unfair to ask how she might balance family and career at the same time. In every society, without exception, the mother is the primary care provider of children, so this was a perfectly fair question to ask. I also know, from personal experience with a close friend, that a Down syndrome child demands a great amount of care. My friend was valedictorian of her engineering class in college, yet she quit her engineering career after giving birth due to the demands of attending to her Down syndrome child (she has only one child). True, many women successfully balance the demands of family and career, but few modern women have five children, let alone a special-needs child, and certainly no woman has had to balance that with a career as VP or President of the United States. While it’s not impossible to balance both, it’s not conceivable to be great at both.

Call me old-fashioned, but I was ill at ease with Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Yes, people make mistakes and yes, sometimes people should not be harshly judged, but pregnancy before marriage is not a conservative value by any stretch. There’s a dignity, decency, and exemplary quality that comes with the Oval Office, and to put Palin’s family in the limelight is to send a permissive message to young girls of this and future generations that it’s okay if they encountered the same fate as Bristol Palin. After all, if it’s acceptable for the VP’s daughter, why isn’t it acceptable for all girls? While I sympathize with Bristol Palin’s predicament, our country would be better served to idolize an exemplary family who got it right. Parents have it hard enough trying to discipline children swimming in a cultural cesspool of filth; the portrait of permissiveness the Palin-family predicament would paint would only augment this burden.

I was also very disturbed by the “Mr. Mom” image Todd Palin represented. As if the modern man isn’t confused enough about his role these days, we must shove down the public’s throat a “Mr. Mom” playing domestics in the White House? I’m all for female empowerment, but an approach that embraces the contributions and strengths of men, not one that diminishes. Without alienating their strengths, a man should embrace masculinity as a woman should embrace femininity. Todd Palin, by the campaign’s admission, was a full-time stay-at-home dad. Nothing would be odd about this if there were a bit of balance between Sarah and Todd’s roles and credentials. Say, Todd is more educated while Sarah is more powerful as a public official. Or maybe Todd is more prominent and respected in his career while Sarah makes more money. But when your wife is more educated, more powerful, more prominent, AND brings home the bacon, it doesn’t boast well for you as a man. Call me crazy, but there’s something very backwards and regressive about a man who’s been so emasculated.

The constant whining by Sarah Palin about the “sexist media” was dishonest and annoying. As a woman, she must admit that her gender has helped her at least as much as it’s hurt. Being attractive makes this even more probable. Any woman who does not acknowledge this is not intellectually honest. Case in point: If she weren’t a woman, she would not have received the VP nomination. To whine about the media is simply weak and unbecoming of a leader. We’ve come a long way from the days of sexual discrimination: We women have the ability to vote, to be educated, to have equal rights, and, as I’ve learned first-hand, have just as great of opportunities in the workforce when we’re as committed, talented, intelligent, and hardworking as our male counterparts. Sometimes, we even have a few additional perks, such as having our doors opened or meals paid for on dates. It’s time to stop pushing a feminist agenda; we’ve reached equilibrium. It’s time for women to be able to achieve based on our merits, not by falling back on excuses like Sarah Palin, or riding our husbands’ coattails like Hillary Clinton and Jeri Thompson, or calling largely upon our family’s wealth like Cindy McCain. Perhaps the media isn’t that sexist after all. Perhaps merit matters.

Let me be clear: I don’t discount any of the above women’s accomplishments, but the office or respect they seek should be commensurate with their qualifications and merit.

As an aside, it’s interesting that no one discussed the sexist treatment Mitt Romney encountered during the primaries, what with talks about his looks, his hair, his plasticity, and his Ken-doll attributes. For that matter, hardly anyone cared to discuss his being a victim of religious bigotry. Whining is not in a true leader’s DNA, and as such, Mitt Romney soldiered on. By whining, Sarah Palin displayed an opportunistic pettiness ill suited for a leader.

Some pundits and Republican partisans tried to explain the McCain loss by arguing he should have unleashed Palin and let her engage with the press more often. “Let Palin be Palin”, they said. Obviously, if Palin hadn’t botched the initial Katie Couric and Charles Gibson interviews, the McCain camp would have used her more often. Understandably, they kept her restricted because she performed embarrassingly. Stubborn GOP strategists insisted that Palin’s selection didn’t hurt the ticket, but the economy did, and they cited the jump in poll numbers prior to 9/15 as evidence. This theory is flawed. The public was excited about Palin initially because she gave a great speech crafted by a talented writer, and it was curiosity about an unknown that kept voters tuned in. Once the curiosity factor subsided and voters learned the facts about Palin, she crashed and burned, and would have encountered the same fate regardless of the status of the economy.

The downward economy was every bit an opportunity for candidates to showcase their prowess as it was a crutch. John McCain proved incapable and erratic as the focus of the election turned to the economy, and subsequently, voters had a hard time pulling the lever for an incompetent 72 year-old who might just expire shortly into his first term, leaving an unqualified, culturally undesirable, and overextended woman at the helm.

While I hope the GOP learned a lesson after this election cycle, I won’t hold my breath.