Ms. Pallin is an outspoken devotee of "abstinence only" eduaction: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/palin-backed-abstinence-education/ Are we allowed to ask, "How's that workin' out for ya'"?

While I agree that the pregnancy is not the sort of thing we should debate in this election, I do think it's relevant that Palin and the campaign made the decision to out her daughter as "proof" that the governor's baby is her own. She could have released her own medical records if rebuttal was the desired goal.

So now they are stuck with this seeming cruelty hanging over them. It is entirely possible that the family (and therefore the campaign) didn't know the girl was pregnant. Even a mother can fail to recognize an obvious pregnancy in her daughter. It happened in my family, and yes the girl got this far along, wasn't fat, etc., etc.

What I mean to say (in comment above) is that I think the announcement was cover. They knew the girl's pregnancy was going to come out and used the governor's pregnancy rumor to get it out.

For me, there is no judgment on them to think they should be ostracized in some way, but her child having a child and another child having special needs suggests she's needed in a lot of places right now and I want someone without divided loyalties a heart beat from the Presidency.

Or is her patriotism so grand she would sacrifice her entire family for her country because no one else is available that could possibly do as good a job as she? If that is the thought, that alone would suggest she is not the candidate I could ever support for the office.

At this moment in time, Palin is a horrendous choice. I can question her abilities to manage all of these issues and I will. Maybe in 2012 she would be more viable for the Republicans to offer as a contender, but today, not so much.

Wow. Obama is one seriously classy dude. This is truly rising above the politics of hate, to show such compassion, even to the point that he deflects the focus off of this poor girl and puts it on HIMSELF and his own mom. He's always had my respect and support, but this takes him even a notch higher in my book. I hope the rest of America can see and respect this as genuine, because it appears to me that it is.

I agree, as far as Obama himself and his campaign staff are concerned. To maintain his credibility as a herald of "new politics," he cannot allow participate in Rovian nasty tricks. It's the curse of Democrats: the politics of projection allow the GOP to drape itself in the mantle of moral superiority and refining the art of dirty tricks ever more with each successive election cycle.

On the other hand, the plight of Bristol Palin does raise a question of hypocrisy on her gubernatorial mom's part (see Jimbo, above) and one of judgment on McCain's. I feel terribly sorry for Bristol Palin that she has to endure pregnancy at the focus of a political-media maelstrom. But somebody, if not Obama or his campaign staff, has got to make these points. If not BlueOregon, who?

What is the age of the father? Will he need a pardon from the governor for statutory rape to get married?

Obama got this one 100% right.

Leave people's families out of this crap. I first heard about this story and the first thing I thought was, 'I really feel for the kid.' It will also be the first thought of every swing voter in America.

So if you want Obama to win please follow his lead.

Let's not confuse leaving kids out of this with not questioning Sarah Palin's ability to run her own family. If Palin wanted a private life she should have said no to public life. And it's not attacking Bristol to question Palin's positions on sex-education, abortion, family planning, and more. Does anyone not recall John McCain's joke about Chelsea Clinton, and Janet Reno being the father? That was when Chelsea was just a kid and didn't do anything wrong except being less than a beauty queen.

The story on Palin is her extremist ideas and positions and not her daughter, and the fact that McCain aligned himself with those ideas and positions. Her affiliation with the secessionist and anti-American Alaskan Independence Party is appalling. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/16210/07141/376/582375

McCain didn't get this choice. Except today, after the fact he is sending a team of lawyers to Alaska to vet, after the choice was made. Whoops!

I agree with Obama. Let's leave the family and the daughter out of this race.

If you look at the timing of the pregnancy with her mother's impending birth, that suggests the family was under a lot of stress at that time. Usually that's a dangerous moment for any family.

Myself, I feel sorry for the daughter--many times over.

I am very uncomfortable with criticism of Ms. Palin and her family except to the extent it is specifically directed toward her policies or her personal experience/qualifications. I know we are a zealot Dem site, but some of these comments could explode in a very negative way in the general press. Obama can win on his own merit and on the general population's justifiable disgust for George II. We don't need to use gutter tactics.

PS, how many of us have sisters, daughters, etc. who have had children without being married? I do. Does Blue Oregon wish to make that a campaign issue? Do I need to become a pig headed Repub to feel comfortable?

I'm afraid Obama has tipped his hand he's either not quite as bright as everybody desperately needs to believe, and maybeis just a little bit desperate to keep up appearances to his base:

"This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Sorry, a new baby with Down's Syndrome, a young and dumb son going off to wrong-headed war, and a unwed pregnant teenage daughter (obviously being forced into an marriage because she isn't 18 yet) had better take enough of Palin's attention that it most certainly should negatively impact her performance as a governor or VP. Or she is morally unfit for leadership.

Either way, Obama may be in over his head in this game and he owes it to the base who he has now asked to commit to him politically to do what it takes to win. Right now that means not spouting empty pap like this to mislead his base with some kind of juvenile sense of false propriety.

This only proves she can't go out there and talk about abstinence only education. Obviously it doesn't work and her daughter is a representation of a failed moral policy.

ObamaBiden's reaction to the VP pick:

From the Campaign Office: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign on Friday blasted his Republican rival's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running-mate, highlighting her "zero" foreign policy experience. "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement."

From Biden: “There’s a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent,” Biden said at an outdoor rally Sunday, getting ready to hit the GOP ticket for their economic policies.

<h1>“She’s good-looking,” he quipped."</h1>

So Obama blasts Palin for "ZERO" experience!!! LOL Once the MSM gets ahold of Obama's 35% "Present" votes as a State Senator, versus Gov Palin ripping apart the Established Alaskan Republithug Party, the two light weights with ZERO experience will both be exposed.

Gov Palin's limited EXECUTIVE experience (of taking on entrenched Good-Old-Boy politics-as-usual) is hands down far SUPERIOR to an empty suit State Senator Obama, who hid behind his Vote-Present style to pander to the politics-as-usual crowd.

When both have very limited experience, the OBVIOUS question will be: "What did you both do in the first 20 months since taking office as Gov and Senator?"

Obama: "I spoke really well and looked really clean (quoteth Biden), and I ran for President; but didn't have anytime left over to Chair my insignificant Sub-Committee."

Palin: " I ripped the corrupt Republican Party Good-Old-Boys a new one, I shut-down the Bridge-to-Nowhere, and I cleaned house so hard, the GOP GoodOlBoys hate my guts, even though I have 70-90% approval rating."

And what does Sen Biden say? He says shes good looking, while trying to hide his erection in his pants!

Bring on the debates!!! Sen Biden can then really rip into the helpless little filly!!

Yet again Palin is ahead of Obama. She asked for their privacy and then Obama called off the attack dogs on the Left. Good job Palin and good job Obama. Funny that doing the right thing now makes one an 'amazing leader'. Perhaps he understands that life and people aren't perfect. After all he is a product of unwed 18 year old. Unfortunate? No. Punishment? No. Unmoral? Rather doubtful since no lives were ended.

People are really trying to attack Palin's judgment? She took on a corrupt Republican Party that will lead Ted Stevens to jail, cleaned the statehouse of corrupt politicians, took on Big Oil, without the help of political insiders (unlike Obama and the Chicago political machine). You mention gay rights - don't you know she vetoed a bill that would have limited benefits for domestic partnership? Please educate yourself of her record before attacking her.

She has accomplished things Obama, Biden, Reid, and Peolsi only say in political speeches and in less time that Obama has been running for President.

I'd add Pelosi, Biden and Reid only pay it lip service as well given they have children who are lobbyist and are paid handsomely for favors. Anyone notice K-Street is at a level Delay could only dream of? It's Delay's version on steroids. Corruption knows no bounds.

I will not vote for McCain/Palin because I know they will take our country in the wrong direction. I disagree with Sarah Palin on energy policy, climate change, choice, equal pay, civil liberties, endangered species, sex education and access to health care (just to name a few).

That said, it is discouraging that anyone would suggest that Sarah Palin as a mother of young children is incapable of taking on the same challenges that fathers of young children do. Fathers with young children have been running for high office without question for quite some time (Obama and John Edwards just to name two recent examples; not to mention Senator Ron Wyden who recently welcomed newborn twins). Women and men are perfectly able to parent their children (with and without disabilities) and be strong, engaged, and effective leaders at the same time.

Please join me in working to elect Barack Obama on his merits, and to oppose the McCain/Palin ticket based on their broken policies and misguided vision for our future. Let's not make this a referendum on motherhood-- nor an opportunity to heap ridicule and shame on a 17 year old child for political gain. If we do, we risk turning ourselves into a caricature of the intolerance we decry in the opposing party.

I'm not a member of the Palin family, and I don't know how Palin mothers her children. As a mother of teenagers (whose first baby was an accidental pre-marriage pregnancy at 20), I know that this sort of thing happens all the time. We can talk all we want to our children, and some of them, even the responsible, level-headed ones, turn up pregnant.

We can talk about her mothering all we want, but it has nothing to do with her ability to be president. Since we have so much to talk about in regards to her inability to effectively lead our country, why get sidetracked on her personal crisis?

Every time I get my jaw set stoically against becoming a True Believer, this Obama makes another beautiful utterance. GOD I hope he's telling the truth in these words above! I really want to believe in this person!

I am too willfully naive for politics. I very much want to believe in Barack Obama. I want very much for him to be what he says he is, and step back if he's not (cf our collective irritation with Edwards and Co - it is not necessarily the morality, it's just that you really should have walked away since you were no longer in the condition required to get it done!). And I suppose I equally wish the backlash will be stupendous if he is proven to be yet another craven political.

A certain kind of personality type enters politics, which is, in its essence, COMMERCE. The commodification of Woman in this campaign has me very angry. We are being used in a templated manner! The Strategic Woman in me knows that this is how it has to be done - if we are to be eventually allowed in POSSIBLY on more merit than merely being useful to the ones who own it.

I realized a misdirect in my focus recently as a result of watching these posts - thanks: in the end it might not matter if Obama simply has smart speech writers and eventually is shown to be the same kind of asshole most are who are elected. A well-intentioned person bent on manifesting his belief system, but nevertheless, a political.... However, if his great speaking and uncompromising moments such as this post addresses will spark the People into action, Movement and action on the parts of the people, then this IS what democracy is. The spirit of democracy as Walt Whitman wrote of it. In which case, Barack Obama has done what he should: catalyzed that which he, as a mere politician, ultimately can only imperfectly embody.

Thank you Obama for speaking on behalf of hands off. Let's hope you really do mean it - a breath of fresh air, your utterances. And I hope you pay for it if it does come to light that somehow a whisper strategy was employed.

Wow -- according to Oilau, the following people are not eligible for public service:

Parents of those serving in the War (sorry, Joe Biden) Parents of special needs kids (sorry Ted Kennedy) Parents of unwed mothers (wow, that list is probably pretty long).

Dang.

Kristen, don't continue be the childish, simplistic ass you have already been in this thread, or a typical BO idiot who misrepresents what was said. It reflects badly on your defense of Kafoury and Gelser too.

What I said was that someone whose family faces the COMBINED challenges Palin faces had better be just a bit distracted from her professional life. That means, contrary to what Obama ignorantly said, that it's our right as voters to know the facts of her family life and decide if she is too distracted to be VP (and possibly P given McCain's age and health problems) Of if has other problems if she is not appropriately distracted. It's too early to know whether she is capable of carrying on the duties she is asking us to elect her to under these circumstances, and Obama is irresponsible for not talking about this responsibly.

You're a real jerk Kristin.

Kevin: " That would include trying to get public servants fired for non-public service reasons. Ditto for firing managers who refuse to acquiesce to such abuse of power."

This first sentence is the real investigation. We will see if those 20+ phone calls constitute abuse of power. I hear she got a lawyer, so there may be more than smoke.

The 2nd sentence has been well documented that she could fire him for any reason she wanted to, including "differences" such as policy, strategy, personality, etc.

I certainly can agree with Obama on this one. He has the class to clearly and succinctly tell everyone not to bring families of the nominees into the political debate. Perhaps we should all try to follow that not-too-subtle suggestion.

And thanks for the link to BoJack's quest for the REAL mother. He is NOW saying that there may be another woman (other than the Gov or the Gov's 5 month preggers daughter) who is Trig's Mom. Jack Bogdansky is looking more and more foolish with his obsession!!

Maybe Trig is the Love Child of an illegal alian (from Venus, not Mars) who got preggers by the Gov's hubby while the Gov was outta town, and rather than have the alian abort the LoveChild, the Gov stepped in to save everybody's face. Is that what Jack is saying?

If I come to believe that Oilau and his/her ilk represent the heart of the Dem party, I will repress my internal disgust of Repub policies, administrative stooges, etc. and vote Repub for the first time in my 55 year life.

Hopefully, we Dems will continue to believe that progressive policies are the solution, not meaningless and offensive personal attacks.

It is curious that only the Left is constrained from expressing an opinion on Bristol Palin's pregnancy. The right-wing are hot-damn all over themselves excited about how wonderful it is that this child is about to have a child herself. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

"Again, there's enough to dislike about Palin without having to stoop so low...."

But "stooping so low" is lots of fun when its your opponent.

Doncha remember Hook vs Merk? Or the HillB!#ch vs Obama?

Now it is the big ticket... politics of personal destruction.

The side show is listening to the Palin Policy Haters try and SHUSH the Palin Personal Haters. Hate is hate.... wallow in it some more. Rep Gelser's tone is so sanctimonious it is rather funny, you know, from one loving mother, to another.

Since the start of this entire election process, misogyny has been the order of the day. From media selection of sound bytes and images/pictorial clips et. al., it has been misogyny on parade. The sociology of Gender trumps all sociological aspects that drive collective life. The Useage of Woman continues to transact.

Surprised? No. Sickened? Yep.

I so agree that this electoral cycle has been rife with misogyny. I also agree that Obama took the only reasonable position on this situation under the circumstances. But I have a 20 year old daughter. If she had become pregnant at 16 (or at 20), I think it would have been reasonable for both her parents to seriously examine their parenting skills. If one, or both, of my daughter's parents had taken very public positions on how to raise children, and the governments role in children's education, and that very public position was very wrong, and frankly harmful, to children, then I think the parents should be publically called on their failure. I don't know Bristol's father's position on "abstinence only", but I do know her mom's position. That policy position is harming our children every day. Just because Ms. Palin has presented us with the poster child of this failed policy doesn't mean we shouldn't print the poster.

There is such a target-rich environment around Palin, it wouldn't hurt anyone to let her daughter have this baby in peace and move on to the real issues Palin herself has supported:

Anti-Gay Rights- first veto was to deny same-sex couples benefits in AK

Anti-Environment- sued the EPA to prevent Polar Bears from being placed on the endangered species list, as doing so would interfere with her oil drilling and mining interests.

Pro-Animal Cruelty- Bucked a federal ban to allow aerial hunting of wolves in order to have larger herds of moose and caribou for "big game hunters" who support the tourism industry.

Anti-American- The MSM has confirmed she was a card-carrying member of the pro-secessionist group, AIP, as torridjoe has already mentioned. She's pro-Alaska, not pro-America.

Anti-science- supports Creationism being taught in public schools, refuses to support stem-cell research. Supports abstinence-only sex education, seeing how it's so effective.

Anti-Choice- Has stated no abortion under any circumstances, even in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother.

I'm sure I've missed a whole host of other reasons why Palin is a terrible choice- for example her lack of experience, no understanding of foreign policy issues, her tendency to use her political office for personal gain, her ties to corrupt industries, politicians, and lobbyists. Just fill in the blanks where there's something that should be on the list.

I can't imagine how insulting this choice was for GOP women who have been in the political game for a long time, and who would have made for a respectable choice and a stronger ticket. It's insulting to me, and I'm not a McCain supporter. Now all we'll hear is "You can't attack McCain because he's a POW, and you can't attack Palin because she's a mother of five."

Anderson Cooper from CNN is discussing whether or not the Palin family situation should be a topic covered by the press. In doing so, he details the Palin family situation. He also covers Obama's press conference enouraging the press not to talk about the Palin family situation.

So I guess it's ok to discuss the Palin family situation. I guess families are now not off limits as long as it goes through the press.

If Governor Palin was an unwedded woman who became pregnant while espousing abstinence, then the hypocrisy charge would be valid. Because this is her daughter, the hypocrisy charge is just more low-rent, gutter sniping carried out by low-rent gutter snipers.

Rip the GOP VP candidate to shreds! Make them pay!

Louder with the hate!! LOUDER!! Tell everyone you know how disgusted you are with 17 year old being burdened with a child.

DEMS ALL THE WAY!!! ;-)

I am reminded of the uproar after Hillary Clinton made her witless "you never know what can happen" allusion to Robert Kennedy's assassination: Obama rather promptly made a public statement that of course he did not think Sen. Clinton was hoping he'd be killed. But of course in the collective "memory" of the Obama-haters, he never said any such thing and instead attacked Sen. Clinton. This weekend, Obama promptly said hands off Palin's family, but that statement has already vanished down the collective memory hole of the Obama haters, who will instead "remember" how Obama milked the Palin-family-pregnancy story for political gain.

I have difficulty understanding why a mother of five children- including a newborn baby with a disability and a 17 year old unwed pregnant teen- would say yes to an invitation to run for vice president of the US.
She must know that the demands of the campaign will require that her family cannot be her top priority. And she must know that she will be under scrutiny for everything she has ever done. Being a mom is only one of my hats; I have also been a RN, a CPA, and an elected official. But when my kids were little being a mom was top priority. Why would a so-called 'family values' person put her young family through this? Can someone please explain this to me?

Obama couldn't have handled it better, which speaks volumes about his intellect & judgment.

Jane--the same exact argument would apply to a man as well, right? Why has, say, Barack Obama been campaigning for the last 18 months? When his spouse is on the campaign trail as well, their two young daughters are staying with grandma. I'm all for extended families (I was in part raised by my grandmother) being involved in child-rearing, but let's be serious, surely Obama's daughters would like Daddy to be home a bit more.

Let's quit worrying about Palin's family and her parental choices and instead pay attention to her hard-right politics.

Mamabigdog - get a grip. Palin vetoed the bill that would have denied domestic partnerships benefits. That means she domestic partners continued to receive benefits - the opposite of what you wrote.

Get the record straight. If that's what people in SadOregon want. Then again the obsession with Trig shows otherwise.

Funny that Time.com has a story saying that the teen pregnancy was so secret the entire town knew!

Jane- there are lots of people asking your questions, including conservatives who don't agree with Palin's choice to put politics ahead of her family.

This situation seems to cause dissonance for Dems- we want to support a woman's right to serve in any business, political or public capacity she's qualified for, regardless of her family status. At the same time, many women feel strongly, as you seem to, that women have certain responsibilities to their families that men simply don't get questioned about. Those expectations don't exist for men the way they do for women. Even Democrats can have "family values" that prefer a woman be home in a case like Palin's.

Palin has lots of other problems on the policy, experience and corruption front as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with her choice to accept the VP nod with her family situation, as she won't possibly be able to be there for those kids when she should be. Is this a double standard? Yes. If Palin were a man, would we be having this conversation? Not likely, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

It's so funny to read through these posts from 'progessives' - you people are in serious need of therapy. I have never seen so much hate. I guess that's the change we can believe in?

@ jonnie- Get a grip yourself: http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html

From the Anchorage Daily News, 12/29/06: "Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.

In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.

For supporters, the Supreme Court ruling was considered a victory for gay rights and civil liberties. To opponents, it equated same-sex partners with married couples, despite the state's ban on gay marriage.

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the bill barring regulations implementing same-sex benefits during a November special session. The measure would have prevented the commissioner of administration from taking action on the new benefits plan."

Sounds like a same-sex couples denial of benefits to me... anyone else agree?

Joel: "Let's quit worrying about Palin's family and her parental choices and instead pay attention to her hard-right politics."

<hr/>

Well said. Obama's comments were directed to the press. Frankly this pregnancy issue will be primarily a focus of judgment for the fundamentalist right wing, her core constituency, who concern themselves much more with the morality of teen pregnancy and whether women should work outside the home and family.

The focus of Democrats and voters should and will be the policy positions held by McCain and Palin, and their destructive impact on our country should they be given power.

It has become clear today in the reporting, (headline on the NY Times) that this choice was not vetted in any fashion, and upper level Rs are beginning to worry about that.

Look how incredibly "lit up" this thread is. Everything else has been abandoned. Let's examine ourselves closely: why is this bit of fluff so damned hot?

• Once again, Obama rises above the s***storm. Very classy.

• I feel sorry for Bristol (for many reasons).

• I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning Gov. Palin's judgment.

• But I think this all really goes back to McCain's judgment. This choice was a huge gamble - a reckless decision that demonstrates his own poor judment.

"It has become clear today in the reporting, (headline on the NY Times) that this choice was not vetted in any fashion" That's not what the article says.

" this pregnancy issue will be primarily a focus of judgment for the fundamentalist right wing, her core constituency" That's your speculation. It seems to be a lot more imprtant to "progressives" at the moment.

Don't blame the daughter. It wasn't her fault. She was just raised in a dysfunctional political party.

Her daughter may have been using birth control, for all you know. And there are plenty of kids who don't get pregnant because they don't have sex. They don't report in to me. You can use this as a case to support your opinions about abstinence, but you're doing it without all the information.

McCain's judgment has shown to be superior to Obama's. Surge created space for the politics to take hold.

Obama picked a loose cannon old racist, corrupt Senator of a state with less population than AK as a running mate.

Both made political decisions for Veep. McCain's judgement is better for $, firing up the base, etc. Not even the "journalist" who give Obama standing ovations will be able to quell Biden mouth.

Whoops, look what happened today. Obama may be one heartbeat away from the Presidency:

""I will be back, I'll be back to campaign in earnest," Biden said, "but today is not the moment for me to campaign. Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there" in the Gulf Coast"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/oh-that-joe-no.html

If Obama would have picked Hillary the election would have been over. Instead he blinked.

Go AK. Why wouldn't a state want to secede when environmentalist always are saying No! to any progress and when the Dem's Presidential candidate thinks there are 57 states.

Regarding the fake baby: NPR made one phone call to confirm it was a fake. One wonder's why the Atlantic Daily, DailyKos, and other "progressives" couldn't make a phone call?

Oh, almost forgot, BigMama - do get a grip Conservative don't hate gays. Read this: http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/12/29/6

Kari's right. Let this go. If the now thoroughly-debunked rumor about Sarah Palin raising her daughter's child as her own had been true, there would have been a story there purely because it would show up Palin as dishonest, particularly if she'd been involved in falsifying public records.

But this? It's not a story. It's not a scandal. It doesn't reflect particularly poorly on Palin, who is standing by her daughter as a parent should. It doesn't reflect on Palin's honesty or her ability to govern or anything else relevant to this race. And that means it's none of anyone's freakin' business except the family's.

We can probably come up with several dozen legitimate reasons why Palin shouldn't be a heartbeat away from the oval office. "Pregnant daughter" is not one of them. (Neither, for that matter, is "new-born special-needs baby.")

As noted by other blogs.

Palin is intelligent, reasonable and very skilled.

Here is the CNBC interview

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836304396&play=1

@ johnnie- At least make an effort to get my name right...

While you're at it, get your facts straight: I never said conservatives hate gays. I simply said Palin saw to it that same-sex couples wouldn't have benefits. You'd be surprised to know that I don't paint everyone of a particular party with the same brush, as you seem to.

We'll mark you down for the McCain/Palin vote in November, with a special star for becoming a future Alaskan in light of your undying love of Palin and her brand of "progress" there.

thanks mamabigdog. Sorry for mixing up your name. I was listening to MSNBC thinking McCain didn't know all of Palin's background and that she wasn't vetted because the McCain campaign "doesn't comment on vetting processes". Hence, if they don't tell MSNBC they'll just assume she wasn't vetted. There is no such thing as journalism, eh?

Here's a spot on story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13062.html

Do write me down for McCain/Palin. I was going to sit it out this year, until this pick. Palin's pick drove me to contribute to a Presidential campaign (McSame of course) for the first time in my life! I was 0 for 5 elections until this cycle.

For all you libertarians out there: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_libertarian_case_for_palin.html

The GOP trolls continue to be out in force Can you define "troll?" Is it an offensive name used to describe anyone who disagrees with you? Or do you have to have a certain attitude and an offensive politic? Can someone think they're ok, but suddenly be called "troll" and be crushed to find out they're really on the wrong team?

Did Oilau post here during the primary? If not, how do we know this person is a Democrat and not a Republican?

And Kevin, as much as I have agreed with you in the past, why does it matter? Conservatives love to attack "liberal bloggers" as if they think we have forgotten that it was conservative bloggers who cast a shadow over the documents on W's National Guard service.

The parenting skills of the Palin family, who a certain child's mother is, and all related questions do not answer policy questions:

Does Gov. Palin believe in fully funding special ed at the federal level, or are tax cuts more important?

Does Gov. Palin agree with the way Alaska's 2 Senators voted (both voted yes) on the recent GI Bill, or does she think Sen. McCain was wise to be out campaigning or whatever rather than being in the Senate to vote on the GI Bill?

What does Gov. Palin know about the handover of authority from US to Iraq (incl. that great speech given by the US Anbar commander, who I believe is a Marine) of Anbar Province, Iraq today?

And so on.

Obama is greatly to be praised for his strong stand. St. Rep. Gelser is right.

"Posted by: Rep. Sara Gelser | Sep 1, 2008 5:00:12 PM

I will not vote for McCain/Palin because I know they will take our country in the wrong direction. I disagree with Sarah Palin on energy policy, climate change, choice, equal pay, civil liberties, endangered species, sex education and access to health care (just to name a few).

That said, it is discouraging that anyone would suggest that Sarah Palin as a mother of young children is incapable of taking on the same challenges that fathers of young children do. Fathers with young children have been running for high office without question for quite some time "

For all those of you getting your jollies with this story, a reminder of a scene in The West Wing when the Republicans were holding hearings basically to make Leo (the President's chief of staff) look bad. Leo had problems in his background (incl. during the campaign) incl. a substance abuse problem not unlike what Betty Ford had.

In the scene, the Majority Counsel, the committee chair, and a very partisan member of the committee who was one of the ranking majority members were in a small office arguing. The partisan wanted to rake up every possible inuendo and require Leo to discuss them in televised hearings. The Majority Counsel would have none of it. Called it "penny ante". Told the committee chair to declare a recess until after Christmas to contemplate whether this committee should be asking such personal questions. When the partisan said "the purpose of these hearings is to win", the Maj. Counsel exploded. Since I'v seen the episode multiple times, I can recall some of the speech.

Something like the chair should call the recess and then to the partisan he said, "This is not the purpose of these hearings as long as I am the Majority Counsel. And if you persist, I will resign my position and wait in the tall grass for you, because you are killing the party. This sort of thing is why people hate us. "

Hooray for Obama! Hillary Clinton made mistakes not being so forceful (refused to act on a Mark Penn memo, but why didn't she fire him?). Ron Wyden is a US Senator because he ignored the advice to "go after" Gordon Smith and instead decided he wanted to be known as Mr. 100% positive (to the point that a staffer at one debate watching party played a recording of Bing Crosby's "Accentuate the Positive" to drive home the point).

We have a lot to be proud of in Obama-Biden. The GOP convention heard today that they should "take off their Republican hats and put on their American hats". Were they going to be Republicans first and Americans second until Gustav came along?

My sense is that most people are tired of the attacks and want to hear proposals for problem solving, where candidates stand on issues, policy debates. This garbage drowns that out.

The choice is clear: get your jollies on a story worthy of National Enquirer, or get Obama elected.

Anyone who was upset when Rush Limbaugh made fun of a young Chelsea Clinton on his TV show should extend the same courtesy to the Palin family.

I'm the grandchild of a politician. I know what it is like to have a famous relative (esp. for shy kids). I want nothing to do with anyone who wants to make a family's life miserable. That is NOT what politics should be about!

Who cares about what her children did? The media is always full of bull craps that doesn't mean anything.How does Media feel about destroying young women's life?She will be scrutinized for the rest of the life and lead a shameful life. What Palin's children did or did not do says nothing about her character. But What I question is the character of the media that spreads the private information that will destroy this 's life. Teen pregnancy is not the end of the world. It is simply a mistake and that is all there is to it. What I do not understand is, how media treats this as some kind of sin.
I want those talking heads in media to reflect on how they would feel it the same thing happened to them. How they would feel as they watch their son or daughter destroys her life. How dare they question the integrity of Palin or her daughter, when same thing can happen to anyone. Obama handled the situation very well by attempting to separate himself from this petty bullsht. It is not the outside that matters, it is the inside that matters. You can look as morally sound as you want, but that doesn't mean you are morally sound. What I'm saying is you can not make decision upon somebody just by looking at their outside. Politic and private life should be completely separate. There should not be any impeachment because of family value or whatever, because it is the two different thing. By bringing private life into politic, our society is creating our nation into a big f**ing joke.

The GOP trolls continue to be out in force

Can you define "troll?" Is it an insult meant for anyone who disagrees with you? Or the majority? Does it require you have the wrong politics and have an attitude? Or maybe there's a wink-wink handshake to not be one. Can you think you're ok, only to be crushed when unexpectedly labeled? If that's true then anyone may be vulnerable and you only think you're safe.

Sorry for the double post. Trollish behavior?

Kari has limited brainpower, so he screams "Troll!" if he can't articulate a better argument. He did that big time with the Novick crowd. Any Merkley critiques, and out comes the cry Troll, Troll, TROOLLLLLL until everybody agrees with him. But that is okay, since it is Kari's bat and ball. If you don't like the rules, then Kari will take his bat and ball away from you.

doretta just killed this thread with her amazing analysis of a double negative. Thanks doretta, you explained (in 2nd grader language) a fairly uncomplicated issue.

kinda like how the 5 month pregnancy of the 17 year old daughter (who supposedly delivered Trig 4 months ago) killed the DailyKOS / Bojack stupidity.

remove the stupidity, kill the thread.

"Hence, if they don't tell MSNBC they'll just assume she wasn't vetted. There is no such thing as journalism, eh?"

Since we don't have cable (and from what I've heard, over the air news people did a better job than cable covering the conventions so far). I didn't see cable coverage.

I do know this is what David Brooks (likely to have good Republican sources) said. There are 2 types of Republican delegates. One group are the folks thrilled with Palin--Reaganites, conservatives, evangelicals. The other group are the old timers--maybe even people going back to the days of Gerald Ford or at least GHW Bush. The second group includes a lot of people worried about Palin and the vetting process. Not a majority, but maybe 30% or so of the delegates.

Those people probably know history. Both Dan Quayle and Geraldine Ferraro were not well known and sprung on the country shortly before their conventions. In each case (Geraldine's family finances, Quayle's voting record) there turned out to be items which worried some people enough to not vote for the ticket--and in Quayle's case to make him the butt of jokes and play a part in Bush/Quayle losing to Clinton/Gore in 1992.

As multiple people have said, this will not be a "base" election. Independents and folks who don't pay much attention to primary campaigns and party conventions will decide these elections. I know some of these folks, and "that candidate didn't answer the question!" or "I understand what they are against, but what are they for and what concrete solutions do they propose?" can be deciding factors in their vote.

For all the back and forth between activists, the end result may be a surprise from ignored voters. Like, "if that is all you can think of to argue about, why should I pay any attention to the presidential race when I have lots of things going on in my life?".

A man I know who read both Obama books and reregistered to vote for Obama in the primary said he saw the speech in Bronco Stadium "but what we need now is action!". Does endless discussion of this story (esp. since Obama says families are off limits and kids are esp. off limits) really encourage people like the man I know to get involved in the fall election?

Or is this all inside baseball and ordinary voters don't really matter because they are just spectators in the battle between the D team and the R team with no rules about what is out of bounds?

I'm sorry, but I find Sarah Palin's behavior to be weird beyond belief.

There are questions about whether she's the mother of her four-month-old son, so instead of releasing her own medical records, which would, you know, actually prove the rumors false, she decides to announce to the world that her teenage daughter is pregnant.

Sorry to bring this up, but you have to ask what happens if in a week, or a month, or two days after the election, we hear the news, God forbid, that Bristol Palin has had a miscarriage. If you think the rumors this weekend have been Hurricane Gustav, those rumors will be beyond Katrina.

And what does it say about the decision-making ability of John McCain that, three days after he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, he finally has people on the ground vetting her. Isn't that supposed to happen BEFORE the selection.

I agree with Oilau, Kristin is a jerk. As a woman, I am highly insulted with the inference that we cannot make comments about Sarah Palin as a mother. I think her family situation has everything to do with her mothering skills, especially since she is running on them. Isn't she a "hockey mom?" Didn't they trot out her entire family when they announced her candidacy? Sorry, but for a person who claims to have "family values" as an important part of who she is, perhaps she should value her family and put them first, like not putting her daughter under the media microscope. Like not accepting the VP candidacy in the first place. And by the way, aren't there more qualified and knowledgable Republican women than SP? What about Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snow, even Susan Molinari? It is an insult to them and their years of service to be passed over for a woman who clearly doesn't really know her own kids. That is not being a mother. That is using your kids to help further yourself. I am embarrassed for the Republican party and for John McCain. He shows such an utter lack of judgment and an impulsivity that this country cannot afford.

There are questions about whether she's the mother of her four-month-old son, so instead of releasing her own medical records, which would, you know, actually prove the rumors false, she decides to announce to the world that her teenage daughter is pregnant.

I've been wondering about that too. Why use her daughter as a distraction tool when she could just product documents, witnesses, etc?

Sorry to bring this up, but you have to ask what happens if in a week, or a month, or two days after the election, we hear the news, God forbid, that Bristol Palin has had a miscarriage. If you think the rumors this weekend have been Hurricane Gustav, those rumors will be beyond Katrina.

Careful now. People are going to start accusing you of wearing pointy tinfoil hat.

If/when Bristol gives birth to a full term baby in December, that should answer any lingering questions.

I wanted to leave a comment but I don't have time to read all the comments above. I might just be repeating this, but oh well.

I totally respect what Obama said. He absolutely has to say that to show what a classy dude he is. But we don't have to listen to him. Have republicans stopped calling obama a muslim? Did mccain speak out about corsi's book? Have they left Michelle alone?

They have no problem with lying their asses off to win elections, and it seems to work for them. I have no problem attacking mccain/palin and their families.

I still say Trig is Bristol's baby. I also think that mccain wants to ditch cindy for sarah. He likes the beauty queens, remember?

Let's not take a knife to a gun fight.

Obama's not a Muslim?

How can you prove that he's not? Clearly there is less certainty on that question than whether or not Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig?

There's a birth certificate, an attending obstestrician who could be deposed, and (if necessary) DNA tests.

But you can't prove that Obama isn't a Manchurian Muslim, just waiting to get his hands on the nuclear football and retarget all the missiles on Red States and the U.K.

HOW CAN WE REALLY KNOW? His middle name is Hussein and I have photographs of him in Muslim attire.

Jack Roberts- I stand corrected. I still do not believe Palin to be a friend to the GLBT community, as she retained her Princess of the Social Conservatives cred with her veto statement:

From Media Matters.org:

"The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court."

"Further, the AP did not note that as a candidate for governor, Palin also reportedly supported a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples."

Also, "A January 1, 2007, Juneau Empire article reported that Palin vetoed the bill despite "her opposition to equal benefits for gay and lesbian government employees."

And, "the Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. 'I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,' Palin said."

I must respectfully disagree that it shows "a lot of guts and a lot of character" to follow the law as handed down from the Supreme Court. Of course, we've seen how the Bush Administration has completed flouted the law, so I guess anyone who goes along with the law these days is "mavericky".

Mamabigdog, you've given a comprehensive list of issues that are being run on in this election but I don't think that negates the necessity to investigate a candidate's questionable behavior.

I have to agree with fbear and Jenni S, the delivery of Trig raises serious, politically relevant questions, about Palin's judgement.

I come down to two possibilities as to why she got on that plane that day in TX: 1) She was either seriously freaking out and could not be dissuaded from endangering her unborn child and herself by flying, or 2) There was a compelling and publicly shrouded reason she had to give birth in that clinic, in AK.

The first is hard to believe since she gave a speech and is reported by the stewardesses to have been calm during the flight. Also, it was her fifth delivery--she knew the drill. A woman delivering her fifth child getting so worked up she just has to be back in her hospital of choice, has to be in her comfort zone, all risks be damned? Is that the hand we want steadying McCain's as it hovers over the red button?

That leaves the second option--we just don't know her motivation. It is relevant, it does reflect on her judgement under stress. We should know what those stresses were, what her motivations were.

As to Bristol's current pregnancy, what proof is there that she is five months pregnant? Why not four, or three? It's entirely possible for a woman to have two children within one calendar year. If she doesn't deliver on time in December what recourse is there to the voters who have been duped as they were with the allegations of WMD? Lying and being revealed after a key moment (an election, the start of a war) isn't unprecedented.

@ Contentious- I couldn't agree more. Investigate away!

LT...start a blog and start writing your manifestos there. I'm tired of scrolling down for 30 seconds to get past your comments.

Bristol Palin is off limits. Speaking as a person that had a pregnancy scare because I was young, stupid and didn't use a condom I feel for her...a lot.

John McCain didn't vet Sarah Palin. This is an issue because you have a woman that talks a lot of trash about people who do exactly what her daughter did. Sarah Palin is going to roast in her own trash talk about abstinence only etc...

Sarah Palin shows a giant lack of judgement for knowing this about her daughter and knowing she would be thrust in the national spotlight. That is the problem here...Sarah Palin knew her daughter was prego and was still willing to put her in front of the national press to further her own career. Poor Bristol is going to have giant issues for the rest of her life.

Doretta - point taken. And I agree I was primarily pointing out that now this thread is the ONLY discussion going on here on BO! And on the tube and on the radio, etc. I'd have expected a few other very active threads alongside this, as is usual here. However, nuthin'.

NOW is a really good point at which each of us can spend a few private moments reviewing the content of our motivations for focusing on this. The Edwards topic themes will surface some, and valuable discussion has ensured. But it's a great chance for us all to just for a moment check in on ourselves. Now this is flooding every channel and even Cokie Roberts is busy speculating how the VP hopeful will answer. I hate the moronic speculations being treated as coverage for some hours now... great chance to surface misogyny, hypocrisy, basic rights and issues of coherence in how you live and what you legislate, you who seek to be in control of our lives via your lawmaking... The political class seem to feel special - as if they need not concern themselves with an authentic coherence between the tales they tell us about themlseves and then how they really live. We are all human, we all fail. But it's breathtaking to observe just now little these folks political utterances actually conform to that which is revealed of how they live.

I am still having trouble believing this woman would subject her daughter to what is coming. Our tax dollars at work will soon include counseling for a young woman who is held up under her mother's insupportable Belief systems. That's politics.

doretta, you seem to prefer to behave in that pre-adolescent manner of throwing around emotive words to build "us versus them" solidarity rather than actually deal with arguments that were made, so let's try this:

1) Do you disagree that Palin has a number of significant challenges in her personal life?

2) Do you disagree that the amount of distraction from one's professional life that combined challenges on this order pose varies from person to person, and ranges from very little to total?

3) Do you disagree that for those for which this level of family stress is apparently not very distracting the reasons also vary, but one is a selfish lack of concern for others (including one's children)?

4) Do you know Palin personally that you have any factual knowledge as to how these types of personal challenges affect her? (We know for sure she tried to retaliate her ex-brother-in-law in response to other matters. This has nothing do with her politics, but is relevant to whether she has other character problems.)

5) Do you disagree that voters have a right to know whether a specific candidate, given the specific personal issues that candidate faces, can fulfill the demands of the particular office that candidate seeks?

6) Do you disagree that Obama is trading a little more on his "inspirational" skills in this campaign than his actual leadership on issues? (Or that there is a big difference between running for office and performing in that office?)

7) Finally, do you disagree that it is irresponsible for Obama to assert that voters don't have a right to know facts that are relevant to a candidate's actual ability to perform, but by unavoidable implication should base their decision solely on whatever they are fed in propagandistic stump speeches politicians target to their base and by a media only interested in the horse-race?

Just exactly which of these points to you disagree with so we can decide whether your judgement is such that you should be given any credence?

The rest of your comment doesn't make any sense to me. But for the record, I responded to Kristen only AFTER she made juvenile, snarky comments that were based on totally misrepresenting what was said. On the surface that would seem to be the kind of behavior that you hypocritically claim to find so objectionable. What do you think the average (silent) reader concludes about you from this?

I stand correct on Palin's veto...

Why is everyone assuming the daughter's boyfriend didn't use a condom? My parents and my friend parents all taught abstinence and we all used condoms (because I understand when life begins).

I find it amusing that because lefty bloggers are apparently the only ones who didn't know Palin's daughter was pregnant (i.e. not a secret in Alaska or to McCain), etc. that it reflects on McCain's "judgment." Anybody ever consider it really reflects the progressive's judgment to think that a DUI in 1986, a pregnant 17 year old, etc. actually matters? Nah! Who'd ever think we are the one who should be questioned for our judgment.

To think that this is all a surprise to McCain and the Right is very telling about the Left.

This was no secret, it was vetted, and none of these are surprises, nor are they problems or concerns. This think otherwise is pompous and arrogant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090100710.html

Now onto more serious matters. Looks like it's more of Same with Obama/Biden. So much for "change." More nepotism and using your political stature for enriching your life. The washington political class is all the same:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894_pf.html

Overheard: If only John Edwards were the father the media (and Progressives) wouldn't care - it would be so "tabloid."

"- But I think this all really goes back to McCain's judgment. This choice was a huge gamble - a reckless decision that demonstrates his own poor judment."

Worth repeating.

As much as I would really like to believe voters will see this pick demonstrates poor judgement, I wonder how many of you actually can put yourselves in the shoes of the disaffected base of largely white, working class voters who have voted Republican against their own interests since 1980?

I can imagine how those disaffected voters outside the Party, the disaffected voters to whom Clinton telegraphed a message when she courted their remaining brethren in the Party late in the campaign with her unacceptable arguments why Obama couldn't win, might be empathetic towards her:

New Palin details may help, not hurt http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13062.html

I love the repub trolls attitude of, "It's no big deal." It would be a huge deal if it were a Biden daughter instead of a Palin daughter. There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "moral failure," "permissive attitudes toward sex" and "Sets a horrible example for young girls."

But as usual there is a double standard in judging the two parties. "What applies to you doesn't apply to me."

"Lots of hate on this site." Really? Almost every post I have read simply wishes the young woman well. Repubs have a funny definition of hate. I just think her mother needs to spend more time with her and her other young child instead of galavanting around the country running for VP. These are the formative years and I think she needs two parents at home; not just a dad but a mom and a dad at home.

I sincerely do wish the young woman well. Many Conservative families have been started under just such circumstances. She isn't alone.

I hope Mr Chisholm will close comments on this thread and exercise some IP address screening on the trolls....

Ok, so let me get this straight. Sarah Palin gave birth to a child with Down Syndrome on April 8th of this year. That would be just under 5 months ago, right? And now she's putting in who knows how many hours a day campaigning. That means 1 of 2 things in my mind.

Either she's lugging this infant around with her on the campaign trail, or someone else is caring for him at home. Either way it seems a bit neglectful to me. She's spoken of how Trig (the baby's name) is a gift from God for her and her family. I'm cool with this idea, but is this how a good mother CARES for her gift from God? I don't think so.

I'm quite sure McCain is using her in part to get votes from the disability community. I'm equally certain that when this community becomes aware that she views disability in her own family so carelessly, they will run from her like the plague. She can't have it both ways. She should either choose to be a good mom and take care of her newborn, or run for VP and let a nanny do the hard work.

Unrepentant Liberal, you're quite wrong about how Righties would respond if it were Biden's daughter. If his 17 year old daughter were pregnant, we would probably never learn of it.

She would CHOOSE to not burden her father with the issue, CHOOSE to not burden herself or the child's father, and CHOOSE to not bring the poor child into such a stressful situation.

I thought the left would only be suckered into attacking a woman, to see them attacking her teenage daughter is more than I could have hoped for.

Obama seems classy, more than the left deserves, or can handle.

Did someone say that flying while pregnant was a health risk? Was that a risk for the child or the mother. If the mother, then why would the Right care? If the fetus, then why was Bristol flying to this VP announcement?

It is amazing how the Right is calling the pregnancy a blessed event rather then a poor example. Me? I think Palin has to re-think her abstinence only stance unless, as I suspect to be the case, she intends to beat her daughter over the head with the issue for the rest of her life as well as the child's, all in the name of political expediency. I'm not suggesting she is careless about her children, I'm suggesting she is clueless about them.

With all those girls in the family, how IS it that she is a "hockey mom"? Are her daughters hockey players, or simly ignored in favor of the males offspring?

It's ridiculous to believe we can ignore each and every reference to her family, but as I recall, the Chelsea attacks were regarding her physical appearance. The only appearance-related issue concerning Bristol was that she seemed pregnant. That's an attack solely from a mean-spirited individual that has nothing to do with anything worht discussing. The rest of this is worth discussing because it speaks to management and judgment.

A friend of mine once said, "When you have a boy you have to watch your own and when you have a girl you have to watch everyone elses." Bottom line, Sarah Palin was not watching, nor was her husband.

DailyKos or New York Times. The same thing...

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=5f9faddd-4d87-4b78-a1e9-ef2826498d31

How good is Obama's leadership if nobody on the Left follows it?

Either she's lugging this infant around with her on the campaign trail, or someone else is caring for him at home. Either way it seems a bit neglectful to me. She's spoken of how Trig (the baby's name) is a gift from God for her and her family. I'm cool with this idea, but is this how a good mother CARES for her gift from God? I don't think so.

She's a working mother, and she's in a position to bring Trig along with her a lot of the time. Beyond that, she has three daughters and a husband at home to provide care when she has to be away from him.

There are plenty of solid reasons to question Palin's judgment, integrity, and competence in public office. Leave her family life alone. It's irrelevant.

I completely agree with Obama that we should leave candidate's children out of the political mud puddle. Bristol deserves privacy during what must be a very difficult and stressful time.

Unfortunately, even with the opposing party calling the topic off limits, news stations will still report, and tongues will wag on the issue.

I find it disappointing that, knowing her daughter is underage, unmarried, and expecting, Gov. Palin would open her family (and Bristol) up to such public scrutiny and condemnation.

New baby at home, other children needing Mom's attention and support. Why did Palin accept the nomination? Why now?

johnnie asked, "How good is Obama's leadership if nobody on the Left follows it?"

You continue to claim that Obama is the choice of "the left", but it just shows how ignorant you are about what "the left" is. No one to the left of the US center is happy about Obama, although many who should know better believe that Obama needs to be elected in order to keep the "much worse" candidate out of the presidency.

The two sets of candidates are right-of-center corporatists who are running on militarist platforms. This is not the perspective of "the left", nor has it ever been. It is not even the perspective of "the center", especially if you care about the views of those who live outside of our country.

Obama is the choice of the right wing of the DP, just as were Kerry, Gore, Lieberman, Biden and the Clintons. While one might argue that Kucinich is a "leftist", even he can be counted on to always acquiesce to the right when general election season comes around. There is no "left" in the DP.

doretta - Frankly, by your outrageous effort to "poison the well" with your talk about "fighting words", while excusing Kristin's snarky remark clearly intended as a direct insult, following your arrogant claim that Obama and you get to define what voters have a right to know about a candidate regardless of whether a candidate would in fact be impaired by things you arbitrarily declare to be off the table, you have rendered yourself not worthy of any further response.

For those who care, though, here is something from the ACLU about fighting words that I think highlights just how dishonorable doretta's high-handed remarks are (scroll down or search for "fighting words")

The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

The court has considerably narrowed even this constitutionally dubious argument the last 60+ years since even the Court perpetually finds it embarrassingly difficult to justify exactly where their assertion of their authority to decide what is relevant to the search for truth and freedom is found in the unequivocal words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Makes one wonder where the actual moral and intellectual dividing line is between doretta's brand of authoritarianism we see on breathtaking display here, and that of others we see on display in St. Paul with the arrest of Democracy Now's Amy Goodman

Harry - Ahh, but there is a Left in the US of A and therefore, the DP chose Obama. This site along with the DailyKos, NYT and others are showing that for the entire nation to see.

Joebama has been respectable and consistent with this issue. This is similar to how Obama came into being and how Joe cared for his kids while being a US Senator after his wife's tradgic death.

Torridjoe - Edwards is (was?) the Darling of this site and the DailyKos. The news of his affair was known but suppressed because they either believed his lies and/or didn't care/didn't think it was relevant to the campaign. It would be nice if the same people who loved Edwards would afford a 17 year old girl a bit of privacy.

Andrew Sullivan wanting medical records? Slate.com having a name the baby contest? NYT writing false articles about the vetting process and sourcing corrupt republicans who lost ethics battles against Palin? Disgusting.

Journalism is dead. The standing ovations for Obama was the final stroke, the attacks on Palin are the new era of politics. This is the most disgusting election I have ever witnessed.

Kevin, the only problem is in your checklist you don't indicate that you actually are in the "heartland" demographic McCain is actually after (and Clinton went after). One just has to compare the politics and speeches of Smith, Collins, Snowe to their own voters to the politics of rest of the Red Party, and the stump speeches McCain, Clinton, and Obama gave here to the speeches they gave in away from the coasts.

From the info you gave, you are in a disgruntled (fairly so in some cases) political minority in a purple-becoming-blue state, with a stable-to-growing population and economy, and a very different Republican tradition. I fully believe you when you say Palin has no appeal to you.

We'll just have to see if McCain asks her to step aside (ie. she resigns the candidacy sometime after being officially nominated) or they hang in there right to election day. Either seems possible, depending on what they hear from their target demographic in the next week.

I'm a bit conflicted by this. While I generally agree with Obama's position on this, isn't it Palin and McCain who have made her biography a substantive matter in this election?

Are we supposed to remember the hockey mom of 5 with a special needs kid, gun toting, union hubby fisherman, local mayor, kinda woman. But forget about the less than positive part of her narrative?

When you make politics personal to build support do you get to edit your story and not have to explain or defend the edits? In fact, do you get to be offended when an opponent points out the entire narrative?

Part of Gov. Palin's narrative is that she decided to accept the VP nomination knowing she faced with some rather challenging situations, and knowing that her young daughter would be mistreated, ridiculed, and embarrassed by the gossip and innuendo. Now no one has offerred me the VP slot, but I have to tell you, if they did, and I had a daughter in this position, there's no way I'd accept it.

I don't think its attacking, or judging the daughter, by questioning her mothers decision.

Let's be clear that the arguments doretta makes, just like Kristin, depending on misrepresenting the rebuttals. It was not asserted she advocated new laws, but that she attempted to "poison the well" by throwing in terms like "fighting words" (in quotes no less which in standard English usage is a reference to an understood concept) to make an intellectually dishonest appeal to emotion.

Also, no one put Palin's children on the side of what voter's have a right to know because they aren't running and Palin isn't responsible for their actions. What was unambiguously said is that voters have a moral right to know what distractions of any type Palin faces, which in this case Palin defined herself, and how she responds to them that can determine whether she is capable of carrying out the requirements of the office. Just like voters have a moral right to know about any politician.

The question was and remains just what the moral and intellectual distinction is between the claims of dorettas of their authority to assert how we as voters should form our decisions (which is a textbook example of a feeling of "privilege" and declaring what should be off the table is really about) and other authoritarians who by definition believe in their right to control others?

What it comes down to, IMO, is that in order to know the reality of those particular details of Palin's personal life well enough to use them to accurately judge her fitness as a candidate, we would have to grossly violate her family's right to privacy.

This of course is simply an idiotic and utterly baseless assertion by doretta.

I wonder if doretta feels we have a right to know if Bush has been sauced for a couple of years now as we hear?

Interesting just how people like Kristin (and doretta?) start shrieking "troll" just because someone disagrees with them and doesn't back down to their snarkiness and intellectual dishonesty in how they misrepresent what people say.

This comment from Barney Frank is interesting, isn't it?

Let the accusations of "troll" begin. Come on Kirsten, doretta, Kari, Rep. Gelser, speak up and let us all know here how he can't possibly be a good Obama-supporting Democrat.

Obama got my official vote with his comments about leaving the kids out of it and families being off limits. I think he truly means it and is not just trying to look like a good guy.

As far as Palin stepping down and taking care of her family issues.....People: So she has some family issues. And? So? Many people in the political limelight have greater issues, and we gloss over them because they sit on the correct side of the aisle. In fact, her issues are closer to the issues that us regular folk have. So her daughter chose to keep her baby...hell, right to CHOOSE? Remember?

We can say we don't like her because of her politics and that is fair. But, personal family issues, no. If she was a Democrat, we would not be harping on the challenges she has. We'd be so damb happy that we had a woman on the ticket that we would not be able to see straight.

Althought I do NOT agree with where she stands on so many things, I am happy that there is a woman out there in this election. Like her or not, she is there, and I am happy she is...a woman, a Mom, and what we have fought so hard for to attain.

Let's remember why we fought for equality, and embrace that there is a woman for VP. Don't vote for her if you don't like her views.

I find it disappointing that, knowing her daughter is underage, unmarried, and expecting, Gov. Palin would open her family (and Bristol) up to such public scrutiny and condemnation. (From Kate, 11:21 a.m., 9/2/08)

Actually, it was some ninny posting on DailyKos who opened Bristol up to such public scrutiny and condemnation.

Does anybody else notice that doretta seems to think she can make claims about what Barney Frank may have or may not have said on the issue from an article that only relates a couple of quotes (that happen to contradict her arrogant assertions about what voters have a moral right to know and consider) selected by the author of the article?

By this point though, isn't surprising given her pattern of arguments that rest solely on misrepresentations of what was actually written, bizarre assertions about motives, over-the-top false analogies, and whacked out accusations. All that because she is just beside herself that someone dares to make a carefully constructed point she disagrees with and doesn't back down from defending that point, or from calling out ignorant, arrogant, intellectually dishonest behavior. The throwing around of "troll" to build "us against them" alliances is about what one would expect in the school yard, and that seems to be about the level of character development the dorettas here never grew out of.

The bottom line remains that voters have a moral right to know about whatever distractions or other issues may prevent a candidate from performing well in the office, and to judge them for that, not what self-important nothings like the dorettas of the world say they have a right to know.

One last thing, does everyone notice doretta also hasn't responded to the question of whether we voters have a right to know if Bush has been sauced for a couple of years now?

Paul G., I agree with you & Sara Gelser & others, athough I'm not sure we can assume that people who are criticizing Sarah Palin necessarily hold the "presumed" or stereotypical or more or less conventional Democratic positions.

Chris, how would you characterize Barney Frank. Does he hold "more or less conventional Democratic positions?" And how do you respond to what he said? Is it your position, and you don't say that it is, so that's why I am asking rather than making false claims, are just pro or con Palin? Or are there other positions outside that dichotomy being expressed here?

This:

Is it your position, and you don't say that it is, so that's why I am asking rather than making false claims, are just pro or con Palin?

should have been:

Is it your position, and you don't say that it is, so that's why I am asking rather than making false claims, that the views expressed here are fairly and adequately characterized as just pro or con Palin?

Go Check out Palinboy.com - Lots of great stuff on Sarah Palin!