My fellow Canadians may not be aware of this, but our own Heather Mallick’s “Viewpoint” column (CBC, September 5, 2008) has been creating quite a stir south of ‘49’ during the past few weeks.

The main objective of Ms. Mallick’s article was to ridicule the Vice-Presidential hopes of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Palin was chosen to be the running mate of Senator John McCain with the intention of complimenting his own self-professed “Maverick” persona.

I’ve read Mallick’s article, and I must confess that I found it to be in poor journalistic taste. It trashed Palin primarily on personal grounds, a forum that is beneath meaningful political discussion. Palin’s family, (which Mallick orders to “Turn your guns on Levi…! in reference to the expected parenthood of Palin’s teenaged daughter and her boyfriend, Levi) Palin's appearance (which Mallick describes as a “toned-down version of the porn actress…) Palin's character, (which Mallick defines as “vicious and profoundly dishonest…) and Palin's supporters, (who were referred to as "white trash") have all been attacked in this article.

In my opinion, Ms. Mallick’s article does more to define her own character than it does to reveal Palin’s. It tells the world that Mallick is not a serious political journalist, but rather an opportunist who will jump rudely and loudly onto any bandwagon that will enhance her own profile, at the expense of her target and to the embarrassment of her own countrymen and women. To me, this defines Ms. Mallick clearly as a “Reactionary” of the most cynical kind.

I’ve never met Governor Palin. I know nothing about her family, character or appearance except those things which the media and her own advisors would like me to know.

I do know that I do not agree with Governor Palin's policies.

Mallick’s article is not completely without merit. She does raise several important questions that have been troubling many of the people I’ve spoken with. For example: Why is it that so many voters, especially women, are willing to accept Palin based solely on the fact that she is a woman?

As women, many of us were disappointed when it became clear that Hillary Clinton was out of the presidential race. Ms. Clinton is representative of the very best that we want to see in ourselves. She is intelligent, informed, capable and fearless. She holds all women to a higher standard, and in 2008, we are ready for that challenge.

However, it can be argued, and I will argue it here, that America is ready for a VISIBLE change. With Hillary, that change would have taken the form of the “First Female President of the United States of America” .
With Obama, that change will take the form of the “First President of Colour of the United States of America” – except that, of course, south of the border they will spell it as “Color”.

Aside from America’s need and great desire for change, and its need to show the world at large that it is ready to enter the new millennium, there is also the matter of “Policies”.

Ladies, I know that many of you have been disappointed to lose Hillary in this round. However, PLEASE do not lose sight of the policies, both foreign and domestic, that she so competently presented in her campaign. Those policies have not lost their shine, and they remain as important as they ever were.

In last night’s Presidential Debate, I was deeply impressed by Barack Obama’s presentation of those same policies. We cannot kid ourselves. A McCain/Palin ticket is no substitute for thoughtful, caring leadership, and both America and the world have never been in greater need of that kind of leadership.

Obama has been acused within the US of not being quite “American” enough. He isn’t seen as someone who can “Shoot from the Hip”. It has been said that Obama is too much a “man of the world”.

I fully understand our American cousins’ romantic love for the Maverick, and their desire to defend all that they see as representing what is best in themselves.

However, as undisputed world leaders, Americans need to open their eyes. We still need you at the helm, my friends. And we need you to show us a leader that we can trust, believe in and respect. We need to know that you have not regressed, and that you are up to the challenges of change.

The McCain/Palin ticket is, simply put, one more example of the “Old-School, Mostly White, Reactionary” front that has been offered by the far-right and fostered by the religious fringe for far too long. Palin, in particular, with her female chromo-zone, stands to throw women back in time more than fifty years with her “politics of religion” and her stand of “No-Choice” when it comes to family issues, expressly those regarding abortion.

As a girl growing up in small-town Saskatchewan, I was already aware of women’s struggles. Particularly being raised in a violent, abusive, male-dominated home, women’s issues have always been near and dear to my heart.

To see Palin threaten all that we have fought for, and to see her potentially succeed by virtue of wearing a skirt, is galling on so many levels….

Some American Media have taken Mallick to task for her article. They argue that, as a Canadian, her viewpoint is at best "irrelevant", and at worst “meddlesome”. They wonder how a Canadian can have the nerve to express such volatile opinions about their quest for leadership.

For hundreds of years, Americans have led the world’s fight for freedom: freedom of religion, of expression, of the pursuit of happiness. At the centre of that fight has always been the pivotal “Freedom of the Press”. This freedom is also enjoyed by Canadian journalists, and we must never doubt or question the right of any journalist to express his or her opinion, no matter what our PERSONAL viewpoint might be regarding the content.

As to the question of whether a Canadian can possess a relevant viewpoint when it comes to US policy and leadership, this is really a “No-Brainer”. My friends south of the border need to understand: When you sneeze, we catch a cold. Everything that you do, large or small, affects the rest of the world. And we Canadians, with our close geographic proximity to you, are affected more than anyone by your actions and decisions.

You may not be aware of us to any large degree, but we are very aware of you.

At the moment, we are trembling over your economic woes, which we know will soon have an inevitable and negative impact on our lives.

Nevertheless, we will always remain your friends.

One comment made was to the effect that if we, as Canadians, have such strong opinions, maybe we should become part of the U.S.A.

Please understand – Here in Canada, we are as proud of our heritage as you are of yours. We are as proud of being Canadian, with all that entails -- our love of Multiculturalism, our carefully constructed Mosaic, our freedoms, our natural landscapes and protected wildlife, our relatively low incidence of crime, our gun controls, our universal access to quality medical care -- as you are of being American. Please, put yourselves in our shoes before you throw out such remarks.

Do we, as Canadians, have a right to express these viewpoints?

Not only do we have the right, but as proponents of freedom and allies to the greatest nation on earth, we have the RESPONSIBILITY.

We Canadians are in an ever-awkward position. We are sort of like the plain but sensible girl who is asked to accompany her beautiful but wayward cousin to the prom, only to realise that her role is one of "chaperone".

She must watch with growing trepidation, even alarm, as her lovely cousin flirts and giggles, trying nervously to offer inoffensive and unwelcome advice – trying without success time and again to reign her beloved relative’s behaviour in.

Of course, what our “Plain Jane” really wants to do is to shake the girl to within an inch of her life and shout:
“For Pete's sake, Nellie, straighten your skirt and close your legs!
You’re making a damn fool of both of us!”

Donna Carrick, September 27, 2008