At least try keep your metaphors straight.

To #1. It wouldn't matter. Haven't you noticed “The Anointed One” is untouchable because of his skin color? His blatant inexperience never seemed to be an issue…or at least it wasn't allowed to be lest inquirers be labelled “racist”.

Funny, it's only the Right Wing Smear machine that labels him so. We see him as a regular guy with some good ideas.

and to your second point- Was Gerald Ford an insipid nobody? Teddy Roosevelt? They were able to step up. Palin won't be- she'll just surround herself with toadies who will foist her Radical Christianist agenda and become another puppet of the Rovian dynasty. People forge that he's the real boogeyman here. Is that any different from other radical religious groups?
Oh, but I forgot, she's a woman, so that's sexist.

That whole racist/sexist thing is kindergarten politics.

Being cynical here, it appears that McCain did not put the “country first” with this pick, instead chosing to pander to the religious right and female vote with one fell swoop.

I felt the same way about John Edwards' decision to enter the race despite his wife's cancer diagnosis (I think I even commented about that here, but I'm not sure.) Personally I couldn't see making a similar decision in my family- no way. And same with the Palin family- I couldn't handle a VP run without any kids, let alone 5 and some extra issues. But that's there business, and their decisions to make, not mine.

But here:

One would assume that this is a practice that she's espoused in her private life, as well (otherwise, she's being hypocritical, which is not the point of my argument).That's absolutely not the case. A lot of parents don't want to withhold information from their kids about contraception, they just dont trust the schools to do it because of the implicit condoning of 'safe sex' that often goes along with such sex ed classes. Frankly I'm not at all clear on what Sarah Palin's views are on the school programs anyway; the only thing I've seen for certain is one of those questionnaires where she responded that she wouldn't support the kind of school program where condoms and birth control pills were distributed to kids. A lot of people are claiming that she's an extremist and has pushed for abstinence only programs in the schools, and I'm not at all convinced that that's the case. But in the event that it is so, it still doesn't mean that she'd be a hypocrite if she taught her own daughter, within the context of parental discussions involving values and morality of sexuality, that condoms and contraception were available if her daughter chose to follow a path that didn't agree with her parent's value system.

In my personal case, for example, I don't believe in using artificial contraception (we used natural family planning for spacing our children) and I do discuss my beliefs on that with my teenaged daughter- but I also make it clear to her that I want her to know the information about contraception and to make her own choices. We tell her that we hope that she'll develop the same values that we have, and we try to help her understand why we hold those values, but we still make it clear that we'll continue to love her if she makes other choices and we'll want her to protect herself. In addition, we make it clear that if she does agree with our values but slips up, we'd also want her to use protection.

In her case, she's also getting comprehensive sex ed in school and I happen to know the guy who's in charge of the curriculum and I trust that it doesn't have a bias toward a condoning attitude regarding teen sex. As long as it's value neutral and doesn't undermine the values that we teach at home, I have no problem with that, and I agree that a comprehensive program (which does explain that abstinence is still a very valid option and the only true way to stay 100% 'safe') is best for kids since some parents will neglect the teaching altogether.

Should we judge Palin on “applying for the job” of VP with a special needs infant and a grandchild on the way? It might be an easy path to go down, but by the same token, there are many, many mothers and far too young grandmothers with no other option in this country who go out to work to support their families as there is simply no other choice. Shall we judge them as well for not going on welfare?

No, I don't think her choice to accept the nomination at this time of family expansion is a reason to chastise her. I *do* think the numerous other shortcomings in experience, credentials, and political baggage she brings to the ticket are more than enough reason to find her wanting.

Virtually all politicians would answer 'yes' to keeping the current prohibitions on hard drugs, for example, but I wouldn't call into question their sincerity on that belief if their children were in rehab.

There is a difference between being arrested for possession or usage of hard drugs and being in rehab for usage of said drugs. Not to equate the two morally, but pregnancy is not rehab for sexual activity – it's getting caught by life's consequences. A politician that literally brings their child to the stage when they run is implying that they raised that child upon the beliefs that they are publicizing. If a child is caught directly opposing that belief system, then the fact that they have done so should also be made public as a refutation of the implication that the politician offered.

Peter, of course the analogy you use is frivolous though, because kids dying their hair doesn't involve moral questions that potentially involve killing a human being, if one believes that a fetus is a human being. That's why there's no comparison; people who are prolife can't condone the 'choice' of abortion because we believe that killing is involved.

I wasn't talking about abortion in any sense during that example, but rather the support of abstinence-only sexual education. Sarah Palin has supported abstinence-only programs in schools. One would assume that this is a practice that she's espoused in her private life, as well (otherwise, she's being hypocritical, which is not the point of my argument).

The conscious decision by Palin to place her children on stage with her, in front of the media, actively invites scrutiny over whether or not those children have followed the belief system that Palin has implied she has taught them. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the primary one being that Palin introduced them as “supporting cast” to her character and perceived parenting abilities. Secondary to this is the implied argument that she has taught them her belief system, ie abstinence-only.

When one of those children – and a minor, at that – is found to have not followed that belief system as taught by their parent, then it is worth noting for two reasons. First, for some reason the belief system did not work for that child. Second, it weakens the argument brought forth by Palin that her children are supporting her belief systems. Note: I'm only talking about sexual conduct here, not pregnancy. The pregnancy itself is only proof to the fact that Bristol was sexually active.

We can save the discussion about abortion for a later time .

~RN the grammar police.

Most of the old moderate right posters gave up long ago, and vamoosed. CStanley is one of the few that stayed, but has managed to keep from lashing out in frustration (I certainly haven't been able to show such restraint at times)

Also, MS Palin has a 5 month old Down syndrome child that requires much more attention than a normal child. And what if the governor becomes pregnant again? She's only 44.

Its a tough choice because obviously this is the opportunity of a lifetime, but you have to wonder how she answered questions like that from McCain and his team.

I will take the opportunity to mention that there is no way in Hell I would subject my 16 year old daughter to that kind of fire storm, yet I do not have a political career so it is easier for me to turn down something that was never mine to begin with.

Would you or wouldn't you, why or why not.

But this is what I wonder: What would have happened if McCain had selected Huckabee?

I think he would have gotten all the same benefits of base-pandering.

And I think he would still have been kind of a maverick.

Though he would have lost all the supposed Hillary-related benefits.

Special added bonus: He would have gotten a known quantity.

What did McCain think he was doing?

And I still don't even agree with you that if a person opposes the legality of a certain behavior and then has a child that commits that act, that he/she should be attacked for that. Virtually all politicians would answer 'yes' to keeping the current prohibitions on hard drugs, for example, but I wouldn't call into question their sincerity on that belief if their children were in rehab.

To the second question, she (or rather he) would not have been selected to be on the list in the first place. It seems that McCain chose her at the last hour because he wanted someone “fresh” and who could energize the GOP. If the Gov. of Alaska was a man, he would have been more thoroughly vetted and his minuses would have outweighed his pluses.

To one of the ancillary questions, if Obama had been white would he have been the Dem candidate? I think Obama would defintely have been nominated. He was raised in Hawaii to a single mom, after law school he choose to work in Chicago's Southside, including working with people who had been laid off form their jobs at steel mills, so he would have appealed to the blue collar men. His time in Chicago also gave him experience with African Americans. As a (white candidate) Obama would not have received the same amount of support he received from African Americans, but he would have received more support from blue collar men. Hillary would have won the women's vote. The Muslim smears would not have been as effective against a white Obama as a black Obama (since “Muslim” is code, in many circles, “Not one of us”- which is easier to pin on a black guy than on a white guy who worked hard and succeeded on his own merits).

I like keeping things somewhat light in conversations, but also want to relay my point. For example, let's say that I am a proponent of the belief that dying one's hair unnatural colors results in unhappy teenagers. If I'm a private citizen, and my son or daughter comes home one day with lime green hair… I'm going to have to deal with it as such. Sure, some friends might tease or sympathize with me privately, but that's about it.

The difference possibly emerges the moment that I assume the role of political (and sometimes public) figure, but especially when I include that belief into my political platform of intended public policies. If I espouse the notion that all children should be banned from having dyed their hair, and my child is found to have done so… that fact is fair game to be used against my set of beliefs.

Bringing this back to Sarah and Bristol Palin: I don't want to see this one instance of teenaged pregnancy used to bludgeon sexual education discussion. I would prefer, instead, that statistics do that. Sarah Palin has become a political figure, desiring to push her belief system onto all Americans (given her intended office); as such, the fact that her own daughter did not follow that belief system is indeed a fair subject to include. (Note: I mean Bristol's situation as a refutation of that belief system's practice, not any detailed information on her as a person).