One wonders how much lower this election can sink. The furore over "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" sets a new benchmark. The idea that Barack Obama seriously intended to call Sarah Palin a pig is surely absurd. Yes, it was a stupid thing to say; and yes, many people in his audience enjoyed the implication; but I would be amazed if it was not just an injudicious unscripted remark. The Republican outrage over it is wholly synthetic. The Democratic outrage over the Republican outrage is mostly synthetic too--though not entirely, because there is some genuine anger over the way the race is going mixed in.
The Democrats urgently need to get a grip on this. When they rage at unfair Republican tactics, part of that fury unavoidably spills over into anger at the electorate for being so gullible as to fall for it. Far better to rise above this sort of stuff, and radiate confidence that the electorate will see through it. If Obama gets angry at the electorate, or can even be plausibly accused of it, he is finished.
I don't know whether I find Camille Paglia infuriating or compelling--often, I suppose, both at the same time. I thought this piece for Salon was excellent, despite the obligatory weirdness. I find her views on abortion inexplicable, and I'm not sure what it could ever mean to call nature "fascist" (as she does later on in the article), but I think she makes some very astute observations about the race.
The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick -- there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly -- though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into "Star Wars" -- a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.
After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.
Wow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy -- one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama's triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football -- or one of the great light-saber duels in "Star Wars"... This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.
Palin made sense to me as a VP choice, even though I did not think she would draw support from disappointed Clintonistas, or have more than a moderate appeal for centrist women. The polls suggest I was wrong on both points. It will be interesting to see whether this lasts when she is forced to explain her views on social issues, and how she might act on them as VP or president--as she presumably will be in the debate with Biden, if not before.
Why not be angry at the electorate? 90% of the electorate is comprised of complete and utter idiots. That's the only way this election is so close right now and the only reason McCain wasn't laughed off the stage when he introduced Sarah Palin as his VP choice.
Accuse me of "liberal condescension" if you wish. And I know serious journalists need to maintain the appearance of balance. But this is absolutely absurd. McCain's sex ed advert is worse. Republicans get elected by lying, plain and simple, and they do it because they know it works.
So I'd counter the thesis behind your op-ed the other day. The reason Republicans win elections and Democrats lose them isn't because Democrats don't have enough respect for regular folk or are condescending toward them. Democrats lose elections because they give regular Americans far too much credit. Republicans know how to pull the strings and they do it very well.
Interesting how the MSM is all over this story while no one cared when McCain used the very same joke on Clinton, over and over. Also, if I recall correctly, wasn't it McCain who said "that's a very good question" when a supporter asked him "how do we beat the bitch?" while referring to Clinton? The corporate media double standard is just to much to bear. Thank God for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, the only two shining lights in the corporate media desert.
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
The dem's need to get a grip?
Let's see: Lipstick has helped McCain and Palin avoid how many news cycles now? Serously, who's keeping this alive?
Clive, you need to stop telling Dem's to do what you mean Republicans should do. You're too wise to continue projecting like this.
Everyone has to realize that we each get one vote, one vote only and being angry at people who do not think the way you think they should, is not helpful.
I would hope that people who think would get angry about lies and falsehoods being predicated by the republicans.
I am really disgusted at the McCain campaign but the response to Palin amongst all types of woman has surprised me. I have tried to remain calm and sit back to look at the bicoastal divisions that we have in this country. The election will be decided in a handful of states and people in the northeast or the west/northwest getting all uppity about those people not agreeing with us doesn't work. Hopefully the furor of excitment wih Palin will slow down and realities will set in, if there is enought time.
I read Paglia article earlier today and while it wanders oddly, she does have some interesting thoughts.
Dear TH,
As a Republican I can only hope you have some influence with the Democratic Party and can get them to express your views to a wide audience, so thatthe 90%+ of the population who don't meet your standards of intelligence can learn of their shame. Could you make my day and tell me that not only do you have such influence but that you live in Michigan or Ohio?
For me howerver, watching this train wreck of liberal will to power, elitism and an ostensible anti-sexism that can't survive contact with any woman with whom they disagree all coming together has been deeply reassuring. Seeing (and hearing because some of them are getting very loud) my liberal colleagues in my Department at X University get together for therapy sessions expressing the kinds of contempt for the masses has been heaven itself. I admit it is wicked of me to enjoy the fact that our current news cycle doesn't quite have as much a focus on the issues after all the heroic efforts of Sen. Obama for the past several months to take the hard road by debating Sen. McCain anywhere and everywhere, meet with him to discuss campaign finance (as he promised), take an endless barrage of tough questions from the press and lay out detailed policy descriptions rather than bask in empty generalizations and adulation. But there it is - keep up the good work - denouncing 90% of the American electorate who are unworthy to be ruled by you and yours is a perfect prescription for having lots of free time to hone your already razor sharp political instincts, n'est pas?
David
Studies have proven that attractive people, both men and women, are significantly more successful in their careers -- promoted more often, receive higher compensation, etc. Sarah Palin is more attractive than most women. The "halo effect" created by her beauty has much to do with her political success, though no one seems to want to acknowledge this, as it would be politically incorrect to point it out.
All of us are at the mercy of our subconscious reactions to attractive people. We shouldn't be at all surprised to have Sarah Palin as a VP candidate. As a "plain Jane" woman, I knew and accepted from an early age that my brains alone would not be enough for my career to soar.
All shocked, stunned, and critical folks deserve Sarah Palin, as I'm sure most of the people who are appalled at her meteoric rise have fallen under the spell of an attractive person at some point in their lifetimes -- and, conversely, have ignored (demoted, given no pay raise, discriminated against in some way) less than attractive people (like myself). Enjoy her! I know I am.
Why not be angry at the electorate? 90% of the electorate is comprised of complete and utter idiots. That's the only way this election is so close right now and the only reason McCain wasn't laughed off the stage when he introduced Sarah Palin as his VP choice.
And Democrats wonder why so many people think they're elitists who look down on ordinary people.
"Palin made sense to me as a VP choice" ...because? Please explain why there was not another more experienced candidate with less baggage.
Makes sense for a personality-celebrity but not as someone a heartbeat away. Please. The environment, choice (even for rape and incest victims?) and foreign policy need more thoughtful attention in this discussion.
Signed,
Lipstick wearing Obama voter
Mr. Crook writes:
"Yes, it was a stupid thing to say; and yes, many people in his audience enjoyed the implication; but I would be amazed if it was not just an injudicious unscripted remark."
I'm sorry to say this, sir, but you've joined the madness if you actually believe this to be a "injudicious unscripted remark". You are certainly smart enough to understand Obama was talking about McCain trying to claim "change" as his mantle while he is, in reality, simply an extension of the kind of politics we've had the last 8 years. This is what he meant and I suspect you know it. It wasn't a "stupid thing to say" at all; rather, it's very apt in describing an attempt to dress something up in order to conceal it's actual nature.
This, coupled with your less than introspective piece on the Democrats (though you did make some good points), really makes me wonder about the campaign coverage we're getting from the MSM.
Paglia is conservative enabler, she always has and always will be. Never foget that she is a big big fan and admirer of Rush Limbo. Now how can that be, you say? Isn't Ms Paglia a lesbian? Well yes she is, but she likes being who she is very much, so much so that she wants lesbianism to be outlawed and disrespectable and outre again, like in the 50s. Because then she could be the big fish in the conformist sea. She wouldn't have to compete so much for the limelight and she could enjoy her subculture all the more for it being opressed.
She is probably the most twisted and sick high profile social commentator in America. Her drives are manic. And so Palin crush and the republican love is completely natural to Camille. A nation of Palins makes Camille's personal fantasy for America a little step closer.
Umm ... it really makes zero sense to call Palin a feminist. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the term if she gets that label in any way. As far as I can tell, the only thing she has in common with feminism, understood as a cultural, political, and intellectual movement, is that she believes women are quite capable of having positions of power and projecting strength. Although conservatives seem to think that any woman who isn't a pushover is a feminist, that's just a statement of ignorance. She doesn't believe in women's reproductive autonomy, that's for sure. She's on a ticket that doesn't support equal pay for equal work laws. She's on a ticket that doesn't support universal health care, even for children. We don't know what she thinks about the history, nature and purpose of gender roles.
The weirdest aspect of this whole 'Palin-as-a-feminist' meme is that the only aspect of her that is copacetic with feminism is that she works outside of the home (expect for when gets paid for being at home, but that's another story ...). But that's the aspect of feminism that the wingnuts have been attacking feminists about forever. Paglia is a little nutty, but there's no way the Republicans get to claim a feminist mantle when they have fought against everything feminists have fought for.
Palin is a McCain feminist - hostile to equal pay, willing to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits, and happy to laugh at another woman who has cancer.
McCain has become quite the politician since he got his party's nomination... he has proven time and again that his strategy for winning is based on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues
Apropos to Janet's point: There are 22 Republican governors. All but four have served longer than Gov. Palin, and all but two govern states larger than Alaska (and that includes the other two female Republican governors, Rell and Lingle). Why is she the most qualified of the bunch? Why is she even the most qualified WOMAN of the bunch?
Palin was not selected to attract disaffected Clinton voters; that's what mainstream reporters thought McCain should have done so that's what was reported. They need to hire people who hang out with Republicans, read Republican blogs and letters, etc.
Palin was selected because McCain's awkward attempts to energize a conservative base and its powerful get-out-the-vote potential wasn’t working. Palin is an irreproachable religious conservative. She was better “base” pick then alternatives like Huckabee, Pawlenty for a variety of reasons that are too far from the main stream media’s frame of reference for them to report accurately (e.g., the NYT et al misunderstood the teen pregnancy thing.)
Palin was also selected because she’s a Reagan Republican in that her record is a budget cutter (having vetoed about ½ billion out of Alaska’s budget and reduced the state governments request for earmarks among other actions) and her light touch on abortion and religion appeals to independents. (Light touch means its not front a center; see her convention speech). Because mainstream media highlights abortion, religion and other flash points, your readers might think voters care about that stuff uber alles. But Palin is not talking about those things-- she’s talking about ethics, budgets, energy and her opponents’ weaknesses—and that’s what voters who don’t troll liberal magazine blogs are being swayed by.
These 2 factors have been knocked about in non-Washington Republican circles for months and when Jindal withdrew his name, she became a favorite of many. We’ve all been rooting for this. She didn’t come out of nowhere and it wasn’t calculated with the democrats in mind.
Was it in some way stupid for Obama to say it, that it was not for John McCain to refer to a Hillary Clinton proposal as a pig with lipstick?
When hypocrites want to enjoy the fruits of a political embroglio they know they can't defend on the merits, they just shift to faulting their target for allowing the misfortune to befall them.
Clive Crook's honor is going the way of John McCain's.
How do you think the interview went, fuckface?
The trolls bellow but the only sexism I see is from McCain and his gang. They hover over Palin, steering her from one place to another, telling her to not say anything. It's like 1958. And the "Pit Bull" submits. Arf. Arf. I couldn't imagine anyone putting that leash on Hillary.
Can I ask all of you something? What's wrong with Sarah Palin? I'm willing to bet that the majority of you (myself included) had no idea who she was before McCain announced her. So it's not like you've been suffering under her for the past 8 years...are you all just licking up what the media is spilling out?
The media started out by accusing Palin of lying about Trig. They claim that Palin's daughter (who is 5 months pregnant), gave birth to Trig (who is 5 months old). Please...explain the logic in that!
So, here's your opportunity: please explain the your logical objections to Sarah Palin...not the crap the media is reaching for:
(Fred, you can start out by calling someone a cunt, since that's pretty much all you have to offer to any of these postings).
Dear Clive,
A question - is "fuckface" a legitimate part of conversation here? It would seem to me that this would be worth banning the (likely optimistically) named "Clive Cock", non? It is your site of course but I would be interested in knowing what the rules of conversation are here.
Sincerely,
David
JP, I have a little trouble believing you are serious, or if you are serious that you are open minded to the answer, but i'll try anyway. it is a little hard to know where to begin - there may be little wrong with Sarah Palin as a friend, a hockey mom, or TV sportscaster. But there is an enormity of things wrong about Sarah Palin as VP of the US under the oldest first-term Pres in history.
Now maybe I'm one of those condescending elitists, but I don't think this is a job for just every/anyman or woman. I rather think our best and brightest should be preferred to handle what all but the most rank partisans would admit is one of the most complicated jobs in the world. Nothing in Palin's educational or experiential resume demonstrates that she (a) has the raw intellectual firepower for the task, (b) has the minimal interest in the types of national and international issues or the experience in deeply considering those issues that comes from that interest.
Palin appreas to have some of the same attributes - lack of intellectual curiousity, self-certainty precluding introspection - that have defined GW Bush's worst moments in office.
Palin appears to have trouble with the truth. In her brief campaign, neutral fact checking sites have already pounded her for what are at best stretches and at worst outright lies.
Palin appears to have a dictatorial management style leading to abuse of power - from stabbing her former political benefactor (and predecessor as mayor) in the back, to campaigning against her mother-in-law, to trying to get various state employees improperly fired, to removing the Wasilla librarian for not being open to the idea of banning books.
Palin's experience, such as it is, is not "portable" to the rest of the US. Alaska has free in-state tuition, its citizens get an annual stipend from the state's oil wealth.
Palin appears to have some problems keeping tenets of faith separate from her political views, believing for example that the Iraq War is God's calling.
I could go on and on but this post is long enough already. The short version is that her qualifications to be VP are roughly those of pulling a random citizen with an undergrad degree from a pool of names in a hat - and frankly, if any of them had been interested in politics they would likely give a better answer than Palin did to Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine of anticipatory warfare. The final point is that the difference between her lack of experience and those of other governors on national tickets, or relative newcomers like Obama, is that in every other case there has been a long trial period where the process becomes a substitute for the resume in proving critical thinking and learning skills and creating a comfort level with the public. If I am entirely wrong about Sarah (and I doubt it) we'll never know because we have only 60 days to test her and most of that she is being kept under wraps.
She is simply underqualified on every measure - intellectual, experiential, moral, tempermental - for the task at hand.
It wasn't even stupid for Obama to say lipstick on a pig and people are gullible for falling for it to the extent that they fall for it and don't choose to pretend to believe it. Clive you think it should be obvious that Obama was not referring to Palin as a pig what is gullibility if not being tricked into missing the obvious.
I have my misgivings about Obama but he has performed more honorably than any figure in recent history in a presidential race and maybe irrationally I would like to see that rewarded. I have difficulty thinking of an ad that McCain has aired in the last couple of weeks that wasn't fundamentally dishonest. It isn't as though there aren't things that are actually bad about Obama but McCain would rather traffic in make believe. I've lost much of the respect that I had for McCain and really want him to retire from public life before he ruins his reputation completely.
zeitgeist,
I am being serious, and I'm also going to open-minded about any answers given to my questions. I will not resort to the usual reponses by simply saying, "You can't be serious!" and then call you a bunch of names...(as is common these days).
I completely agree with you about the job of VP not applying to just anyone. However, the responsibilities that Palin has had as governor as equal to that of Bill Clinton before he ran. (Granted, Bill was governor of Arizona much longer that Palin has been governor of Alaska). We as American voters seem to invent new qualifications to apply against candidates we don't like.
Here's something I noticed in your response, "Palin appears". Appears by who? Where are you getting this information? I've seen some other websites that have already found 50 negative lies the media has put out there about Palin's character/record.
You know what's frustrating? The ease of reporting and communicating these days. Any idiot can type or write any sort of accusation against any candidate. Then, that candidates' campaign has to waste valuable time and resources proving these idiots' claims are false to the people who believe them. Both sides are doing it...
zeitgeist,
1. You’re wrong about her credibility. She never said, "the Iraq War is God's calling". Here's the quote from the NYT:
“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
And she really did kill the bridge from nowhere in her state budget. So what else will you erroneously say she lied about?
2. Not intelligence, judgment. And, the presidency doesn’t require that kind of academic, trivial pursuit intelligence that you find missing. Bush and Clinton had Ivy League credentials, but their intellectual firepower didn't lead to good results. Presidents don’t have to master pop quizzes on history, geography or religion (you think FDR knew the religious divisions in the Soviet Union? The president of Czechslovakia?).
People want good judgment and an Ivy League degree is not sufficient proof, but often a hindrance. As is being a lawyer like Biden and Obama. People assume you have good judgment by your actions, not your ability to understand all sides, or by your platitudes of "bringing us together." So when Palin cut Alaska’s budget by 10%, reduced its requests for earmarks, won her high school basketball championship on a bum leg, ran a commercial fishing operation with her husband, etc, people build a kind of trust and admiration.
3. Frame of reference. People also want some who thinks like them on the important things: what is the role of government? Is the US something to be ashamed of and apologize for or the kickingest assed place on earth? What produces more innovation, free markets or governments? Should we raise taxes over 50%? Does the government create jobs or cannibalize them? Etc.
I’m not saying Palin is the greatest thing, I’m just arguing that your bill of complaints is immaterial.
I should add that this is a good conversation to have: what criteria should be met for a president candidate?
A secondary conversation is: What criteria do most people use?
Dear Michael,
I guess one of the problems is that Sen. Obama's honor also is tarnished over the born alive act where he claimed that the National Right to Life Committee was lying about his position (that he opposed the act even when it contained language he claimed he would vote for if it came to the U.S. Senate). According to factcheck.org NRL was not lying and the Obama campaign later backed off this claim.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
The fact is that when caught in his own lie Sen. Obama accused those who pointed it out of lying. This straight-up lie when confronted with his own slim record (on an issue where he is to the left of NARAL) is quite disconcerting.
Also, on campaign finance you might remember how he pledged he would seek to meet with Sen. McCain to discuss how to have an elevated campaign, and how he was committed to accepting public money? Yet he switched that position and embarked on a "paralell public financing" (i.e. private donors - many of them more than your average soccer mom). http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399
These are just two of a number of instances where Sen. Obama has deceived - and given how his campaign is held up as proof of his abilities as a manager and change agent, this is very troubling. Equally if not more troubling is that these issues are almost never brought up in the few news conferences the Senator ever gives (whose more afraid of the media really, Sen. Obama or Gov. Palin? - and Obama is afraid of a media that rarely challenges him). So, while McCain is playing hardball, and might in your eyes seem to be dishonorable, understand why some on the right see a very different candidate in Sen. Obama.
Accuse me of "liberal condescension" if you wish. And I know serious journalists need to maintain the appearance of balance. But this is absolutely absurd. McCain's sex ed advert is worse. Republicans get elected by lying, plain and simple, and they do it because they know it works.
Screw liberal condescension, I'd accuse you of rank stupidity. If you want to win elections, don't insult the voters--for some reason, this simple concept remains elusive for many.
I know Obama is a politician and I disagree with a number of his actions and he was dishonest about public financing and other issues.
I think think that there was a lot going on in the born alive act and that based on my interpretation of language Obama was inconsistent in his position but at the same time right to call the people accusing him of supporting infanticide liars. I understand the ambiguity in definitions could lead others to believe otherwise.
I'm not out to canonize Obama. But seriously when McCain has had different positions on virtually every domestic issue over the last 8 years and has not launched an honest attack against Obama in a month I have to look and see one flawed man of rare principals and another man who perhaps do the long odds of the race is willing to sacrifice virtually every principle he's had if they were more than convenient or impulsive to begin with.
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
9,000,000:
You call Palin an "irreproachable religious conservative." Where have you been?
1. Palin has been called a proponent of "family values" and supports "abstinence only" sex education. That, however, didn't work very well for her knocked-up daughter. And Palin, herself, was pregnant when she eloped with her husband. I have no problems with pre-marital sex. I do have problems with hypocrites who advocate one thing and do another, an issue that seems to plague Palin on a number of levels.
2. Palin has grabbed all the earmarks she could when mayor of Wasilla and as governor. She said she told congress, "Thanks, but no thanks, for that Bridge to Nowhere." But she was a proponent of that bridge and only dropped her support for it when it became clear the more-than $300 million plan to build that bridge would not happen. But she still took the money and used it for other projects. Being "irreproachable", though, she still continues to lie about her position. Since being governor, she has also been paid the per diem allowance while being at home for more than 300 nights. She said it's not illegal but it sure doesn't seem ethical, especially for an "irreproachable" reformer.
3. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired a lobbyist to secure as many earmarks as possible for that town of 6,000. She continues to lie today when she is and always has been for earmarks.
4. The "irreproachable" Palin has shown a pattern of being vindictive and petty, both as a mayor and governor. After asking the librarian about how one would go about banning books, Palin fired the librarian when the poor woman said she did not support the banning of any books. After an outcry by Wasilla citizens, the librarian was re-instated. She fired the police chief, primarily because he wanted the bars to close at 2 a.m. to cut down on drunken-driving and alcohol-related crime. The "irreproachable" Palin sided with local bar owners who wanted to maintain the 5 a.m. closing time. She told the police chief he "intimidated" her.
5. After obtaining the governorship, she used her power to try to settle a score with a former brother-in-law, a state trooper. The head of the state safety division would not fire the trooper, so the petty and vindictive (oh, and irreproachable) Palin fired that state administrator. An ethics investigation into Palin's possible wrongful meddling continues.
This stuff has been reported ad nauseum in the media but it seems to me Palin supporters don't read or watch anything unless it's a right-wing blog or Faux News.
McCain made a reckless choice. So did Palin. She said she didn't spend any time mulling over McCain's request to be VP. It it was me with a newborn with Down's, a pregnant daughter, a state investigation into my ethics and the personal knowledge there were numerous other issues that would be brought up by a dogged press, it would probably have taken me very little time to say, "Thanks, but, no thanks." Poor judgment, poor decision-making.
The "irreproachable" Palin has shown through her governing a continuing lack of concern for others. This is all about ego for her; it's another beauty pageant. The argument "she's one of us" is pathetic. I don't want anyone like me, or like my buddies, or like my mother to be president. I want someone who is among the best and brightest, someone like a Barack Obama or a Bill Clinton. We certainly don't need a continuation of a "dumbing-down" of the presidency.
Jim (and Michael),
Jim, your first point is both wrong and sordid. Palin is not a proponent of "abstinence only ed" - she supports teaching about contraceptives though also wants to encourage discussion of abstinence (the only 100% sure way to prevent STDs given the failure rate of condoms). So it appears you don't have the discipline and basic fairness to find out about Gov. Palin outside of talking point from Daily Kos. And also on this point, how do you know her daughter and fiance didn't use a condom? - this is the problem with the kind of gutter politics the would be Palin muckrakers like yourself are taking us - how much intrusion into the sex life of a 17 year old do you need? (But then given that Sen. Biden sent his staff to look into the kind of videos Judge Bork looked at, why should we be surprised that those supporting Obama-Biden have no sense of privacy - oh and Judge Bork's video choices were entirely innocent - maybe we should look into the Palin's video store records as well/Victoria Secret purchases? To quote Joseph Welch - "Have you no sense of decency?")
So given that you are a virtual voyeur into the sex life of a 17 year oldl girl and lying about Gov. Palin's record, why should anyone believe that the rest of your post is full of anything more than half-truths and distortions? It is quite discouraging to try to have a discussion on the merits when elements on the other side can hardly contain its hatred that it needs to turn private family matters into political points (and even Sen. Obama to his great credit asked his supporters not to go there).
And Michael, thank you for your thoughtful response - we all draw the lines differently and it is good to see that some semblance of rational discussion is possible with people from different perspectives. Frankly, working in academia I've almost begun to doubt that is possible, given the ferocity, fragility and vindictiveness of so many Obama supporters.
Clive Guy, Why are you giving Palin such credit? Ex-Bush speech writer wrote her speech and Rovian acolytes coached her all day. The woman is a Republican Creation. Didn't you ever hear of Creationism? This is it!
David:
It's disheartening to read sputtering comments like yours, telling others they are wrong and have no sense of decency.
As for Palin's stand on sex-education, this is from the Wall Street Journal. (Conservative enough for you?): "And she supports abstinence-until-marriage programs, where teens are taught to refrain from sex until marriage and contraception is discussed only to explain its failings." (WSJ, "Focus Turns to Palin Record," Sept 4. Page A1.) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048513733097089.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
To go back to my previous post. I don't disapprove of pre-marital sex or contraception. But Palin's stand on sex-ed is a grand failure in her own life, for both herself and her daughter. So, I find her views hypocritical and worthy of discussion. As for the rest of my post, it is accurate.
I find a lot of Republicans like you are constantly indignant, accusing Democrats of "hatred", "vindictiveness" and a "lack of decency". I also find a lot of Republicans like you don't care too much about the truth, following the lead of McCain and Palin.
Since you work in academia, I find it especially sad that you attack others without gathering sufficient and correct data. As a former journalist, I fear that most people don't read anything factual anymore, preferring to get their information from sound-bites, distorted ads and right-wing blogs.