19 Comments

1. Mike  •  Sep 1, 2008 @12:42 pm
   

   You can let abstinence-only education go as well. Full of fail.

2. khughes1963  •  Sep 1, 2008 @12:56 pm
   

   I am with you in that I believe we should confine our criticisms of John McCain and Sarah Palin to concrete and specific policy issues, not unsubstantiated rumors. Fastening on to these rumors doesn’t enhance progressive credibility, and adds to the wingnuts’ political arsenal. Fred Clarkson pointed out the Christian Right will use Sarah Palin’s youngest child as their surrogate for Terri Schiavo in the culture war. They will probably do the same with Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Personally, I think the pregnancy should remain a family matter, although I also doubt the wisdom of a shotgun wedding. It won’t last.

3. Dave  •  Sep 1, 2008 @12:56 pm
   

   Fair enough – thank you for posting that!

4. mattt  •  Sep 1, 2008 @12:56 pm
   

   I feel sorry for young Bristol, drawn into the spotlight. I hope her privacy is respected as much as possible. But I hope someone asks Sarah Palin if this experience in her family has affected her views on abstinece-only education. I have to wonder how informed her daughter’s decisions have been, leading up to this.

   I’m trying to sort out myself whether it’s appropriate to ask if Sarah should really be committing to the long hours involved with campaigning and vice-presidenting, when her family is dealing with multiple challenges. Thoughts?

5. mattt  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:11 pm
   

   I just read your previous post, and expect the latest news doesn’t change your view. I’m still not sure I agree. I see a non-sexist line to be drawn between Obama, with two young children, and Palin, with 4 minor children, one of them a newborn with special needs and another a pregnant teenager who, in her own words, faces difficult challenges and needs her support. I wouldn’t condemn her decision to accpet McCain’s nod, but I don’t think it’s sexist to wonder how much time and attention she’ll have left for the country.

6. Dave  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:14 pm
   

   Matt, I’m not sure that’s a good place to go. I know many single working women with children and without the support network Palin appears to have back in Alaska (husband, her parents, his parents, etc.). And we had John Edwards decide to continue his campaign despite Elizabeth’s recurring breast cancer.

7. maha  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:20 pm
   

   I’m trying to sort out myself whether it’s appropriate to ask if Sarah should really be committing to the long hours involved with campaigning and vice-presidenting, when her family is dealing with multiple challenges. Thoughts?

   This reminds me of the criticism of John Edwards when he continued to run for the nomination after Elizabeth announced her cancer had returned. I think we need to let this go. Let it play out on its own, and see what happens.

8. maha  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:23 pm
   

   Believe me, people, sometimes you need to step back and let things be, and this is one of those times. Let the American people come to their own conclusions. We don’t have to beat them over the heads with this; it just makes our side look petty.

9. mattt  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:25 pm
   

   It’s reminded me of Edwards, too, and I agree the progressives shouldn’t push this issue. Fairly or not, it’ll probably matter most to GOP base voters who don’t generally need encouragement to judge folks on issues like these.

   I’m more interested in discussion of what constitutes sexist criticism of Palin, for my own personal enlightenment.

10. khughes1963  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:27 pm
    

    Maha-Amen to that-we have to fight back, but we don’t need to make ourselves look petty in the process. Let’s leave that to the wingnuts!

11. maha  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:28 pm
    

    mattt — re what’s sexist and what isn’t, see the next post.

12. moonbat  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:43 pm
    

    For a bit of perspective on all of this, I was reading some very fundamentalist Christian postings (unfortunately I don’t remember the site), with extensive quotings from the Bible, questioning whether Sarah Palin should be in public office at all – this was before the news broke regarding Bristol’s pregnancy. The whole thrust of it is that women should be in supporting roles – barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen. These are the churches who absolutely refuse to let women be in any leadership positions whatsoever.

    And so Palin will play well – despite the pregnant teenage daughter – to a lot of fundies simply because of her views, but there are the extremists in that group who will balk at the pregnant teenage daughter, and at the audacity of her even being in public office.

    It’s going to be fair game at some point for the public to ask just how is Palin going to balance all these family responsibilities – including the Down’s syndrome child – with the demands of high office. It’s no different than us questioning McCain’s age.

13. abiodun  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:44 pm
    

    Another proof that the republican abstinence-only sex education is a farce.
    However, I never thought Palin is the issue. McCain IS the issue: his impulsiveness, his recklessness, his apparent disdain for the office of the VP with the attendant incompetence(given the last 8 years), and where he intends to take the country.

14. Swami  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:45 pm
    

    “Heaven hath granted thee an open ignominy, that thereby thou mayest work out an open triumph over the evil within thee and the sorrow without.”

    No judgment from me..just something for the Evangelicals to think about.

15. Mary  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:50 pm
    

    There are easier ways for Sarah Palin to prove that she’s Trig’s mother, other than bringing her 17 year old into it. (And the information that Bristol is pregnant now doesn’t mean anything, because if she’s three months pregnant instead of five then she could easily be Trig’s mother). Why didn’t Sarah release hospital records proving that she is the mother of Trig? Why do it this dubious way?

16. maha  •  Sep 1, 2008 @1:58 pm
    

    Mary, everybody, regarding pregnancy fakes — STFU!!!!!!!!! Stop helping McCain get elected in November! Just STOP IT NOW.

    Any more speculation about Sarah Palin’s alleged faked pregnancy WILL BE DELETED.

17. felicity  •  Sep 1, 2008 @2:06 pm
    

    I would imagine, if Palin’s projected image is real and not created for political purposes, that Bristol had drummed into her very being early on and continually by her mother that sex outside of marriage was a sin. Now that same mother is in essence parading her daughter’s ’sin’ in front of the whole world. Apparently the mother’s political career takes precedence over the feelings of her daughter?

    We will stoop to the level of Sara in her disregard for the feelings of Bristol if we make an issue of or even discuss Bristol’s pregnancy.

18. Mark Gisleson  •  Sep 1, 2008 @2:09 pm
    

    Maha, I respect your position on this and understand why most bloggers don’t want to “go there.” But Sarah Palin still has a lot of explaining to do about her conduct and the stories she’s telling us.

    Based on today’s information, Bristol became pregnant while staying home from school because of a complicated case of mononucleosis. That’s problematic if for no other reason than the potential complications.

    Despite pictures of earlier pregnancies where Palin was as big as a house, when she announced this pregancy at 7 mos., she wasn’t even showing and even her staff was surprised. Doctors say that with each subsequent pregnancy, women begin to show earlier and earlier.

    Palin’s own account of Trig’s birth gives us a timeline in which her water broke in Texas, she then gave a keynote speech and then flew for nine hours to get home to give birth.

    None of this makes any sense, and Palin should have to surrender some medical documents explaining, at the very least, why she traveled after her water broke despite strict airline regulations against this kind of thing.

    This isn’t Karl Rove baiting the hook, this is a very odd story that smells more than a little funny, and one I think will grow to be a major scandal with an emphasis on lying, not babies.

    Sorry, I know you don’t think these things are relevant, but as a rural kid who understands small town America, everything about this story sounds very familiar to me.

    You yourself stated that you thought a shotgun wedding was inappropriate for Bristol. Isn’t that weighing in? And aren’t these matters central to the question of whether Sarah Palin is a moral person, or someone whose personal goal posts move whenever it’s convenient.

19. maha  •  Sep 1, 2008 @2:14 pm
    

    Mark, I’m not saying it’s not relevant or insignificant if it turns out to be true. I’m saying that until we get more solid evidence, stop the public speculation. Investigate all you like, but hold the accusations until we’ve got something more solid.