Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Bobby Kennedy Defense

A conservative columnist at the Hartford Courant uses strident language to make what is nevertheless an interesting argument about Sarah Palin, liberals, motherhood and sexual double standards. I'm surprised no one else thought of it before: "When did [liberals] start telling their daughters they could grow up to be president of the United States, but only after their children reached an undisclosed age?" writes Kevin Rennie. "Palin's judges attached no corollary for men in public life. Forty years ago, Robert Kennedy exulted in announcing during his presidential campaign that his wife was expecting their 11th child." Clever point.

Here is the link to the whole column.

By Charles Lane  | September 8, 2008; 2:49 PM ET
Categories:  Lane  | Tags:  Charles Lane  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Snoozer
Next: McCain's Poll Vault

Comments

One wonders where this columnist has been hiding the last 30 years. Republicans and their evangelical allies have relentlessly pushed the idean that women belong at home, not in the workplace. The only time they mouthed the words, "unwed mother" have been as a perjorative, procaliming it the result of moral relativism, cultural rot, sexual licentiousness and the failure of liberalism. They have prattled on about the effectiveness of abstinence only sex ed programs (was Bristol absent that day?)despite a slew of studies showing they are largely useless. The Kennedy question is an apples and oranges comparison. The sheer size of the Kennedy extended family, combined with their wealth, ensured proper care for their children. Don't Republicans ever tire of talking out of both sides of their mouth, and being piously hypocritical?

Posted by: bklyndan | September 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I love how the Right seems perfectly cheerful to "assign" opinions to the left, regardless of whether the left actually shares those opinions.

My problems with Palin have nothing to do with her family situation and her choices as a working mother.

Rather, she's a divisive, extremist with little experience, no substance and no ideas, just more damaging Karl Rove-esque empty boogeyman rhetoric.

Her family choices are now and always will be her own business. Feminism gave her that right, and I support it.

Posted by: T. Roth | September 8, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow it's a propaganda piece furthering the myth that Palin is a victim of the liberal press. I didn't know who this person was prior to 8/29, so yes please, I'd like the press to ask all the questions it can.

It's already been discussed in these pages: McCain-Palin is running against The Press, just like Nixon did. I want to know what these people's plan to fix the USA is. If that involves asking why this proponent of abstinence-only sex education has an unwed pregnant teenage daughter, then I think that is an important thing to ask about.

Posted by: Stuart | September 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The anger of "liberals" over Palin has nothing to with her being a mother; it has to do with her conservative positions which seem to directly undermine and go against her as a mother and reveal her as a hypocrite; i.e. removing sex ed from schools, a hardcore anti-choice agenda that would require a young mother to seek parental notification or permission of a court, and slashing aid for teenage mothers who are not lucky enough to be the governor's daughter.

I've not a single "liberal" attack her based on her children being young or for raising children.

Posted by: mike_nimzo | September 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Please. "Liberals" are saying no such thing -- although that is how McCain's followers are trying to spin the issue. As we've seen so many times over the last several years, the real issue is conservative hypocracy. The right has been voraciously critical of women who show ambition outside of the home, going so far as to coin the name "femi-nazi." So the question is -- where is the uproar from the conservatives now that Gov. Palin has entered the fray?

Posted by: straw man strikes again | September 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Charles Lane, happily lapping up what is spoon-fed. Do your job, please.

Posted by: mike_nimzo | September 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with any woman becoming VP, or President, for that matter.

I think you're meaning Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who is the opposite of anything liberalism stands for.

We're not 'sexist' for asking questions about her politics, either. We're just doing our jobs as citizens. Would that the media follow suit...

Posted by: amouat | September 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Also -- the insinuation that Sarah Palin is getting different treatment than a male candidate would receive is another fallacy. If a man was running for high office, and his family includes a pregnant teenager and a downs-syndrome child, I think anybody would be justified to question his ability to handle the job. This important question should not go unasked just because Gov. Palin is a woman.

Posted by: straw man strikes again | September 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

***I've not a single "liberal" attack her based on her children being young or for raising children.***

If you haven't, then you, sir/madam, are quite ignorant. Try watching CNN or MSNBC or ABC instead of passing along the dailykos talking points (as it appears the other folks here are doing). You guys REALLY have no idea how to react to her, do you?

Posted by: RW | September 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, nice strawman there. I haven't seen *anyone* make that argument. I have seen the McCain campaign pushing the line that the big mean liburls are being mean and questioning her family life waaaaah in order to inoculate her. In fact, the liberal bloggers I read are much more interested in her passion for earmarks and her crazy extremist stances on reproductive freedom than they are in her baby or her daughter's forthcoming baby.

Posted by: septic tank | September 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Would the media please start doing their jobs. You had no problem going after Clinton. Now that it's a member of the Republican Party, members who happen to fork out your paycheck, you now have stopped reporting anything. McCain/Palin is wrong for this country. Could you take off the b.s. POW and mother crap and actually report the facts. This is getting old. Report on Obama as well. Actually do some reporting other then just posting links to blogs. This is getting pathetic.

Posted by: Jason | September 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

***If you haven't, then you, sir/madam, are quite ignorant. Try watching CNN or MSNBC or ABC instead of passing along the dailykos talking points (as it appears the other folks here are doing)***

Interesting, so I'm being attacked for passing along one set of liberal talking points and ignoring other liberal talking points? Nice angle. Also funny since I watch MSBC almost daily and have never read dailykos.


***You guys REALLY have no idea how to react to her, do you?***

By looking at her record, TRYING to ask questions and criticizing where valid. And also seeing the cynical identity politics for what they are.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

that^^was mike_nimzo

Posted by: mike_nimzo | September 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCain got a bounce from Sarah Palin., McCain needs to let the Media Get access to his VP candidate. Im sure once America gets to know her. We will see an even bigger bounce. McCain needs to stop, Thats lame to hide your VP candidate away from the Media. The Only Place you can find Info about Palin is on the Web, Here is some sites Ive been able to find.

Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret, http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Despite all of this, and her lack of experiance she would probably make a much better president then McCain., Because like Obama she hasnt been corrupted by washington yet. We should probably reverse the ticket Palin/McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, nice strawman there. I haven't seen *anyone* make that argument."


Do you people have your heads in the sand? Here are just a couple.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-lundberg/sarah-palin-in-verse_b_124231.html

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2008/09/04/palins-children-should-take-priority-over-being-vice-president/

Posted by: Longbow | September 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

You get paid for this?

Posted by: Sean | September 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh, HuffPo? They seem to promote the same crap as KOS, unfounded rumors and invented slander. Go visit DailyKOS and read some posts specifically stating that they do this. I hope the FCC shuts them down.

DUIHELPGUIDE is nothing more than promoting the crap that her husband is an alcoholic based on ONE DUI 22 years ago. Get Real!

"Affair"? Yeah, right.

Everyone better get their "facts" straight, move on past the smut/rumor mill, and get to the issues. The real facts are out there. Dig deaper, if you can pull your head out of your butts long enough.

This has turned into a bad taping of "Gossip Girl"!

Posted by: submix8c | September 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The only people I hear opining about whether Palin should stay-at-home or not are conservatives insisting that people like me think she should.

Well, I do think she should stay at home, but not because of her family who seem to be doing fine. She should stay home because we do not need a vice-president - potentially president - who believes that Alaska should secede from the union, who is warm and complimentary to an organization based on hatred of the US, who is vindictive and petty to insist everyone tender resignations to "prove their loyalty" who sought her ex-brother in laws firing, who tried to ban library books and tried to fire the librarian who stopped her and who took her city from no debt to 22 million in debt in one term.

She ran her mayor terms as a petty tyrant, let's keep her tyranny on the small stage or better yet, just at home where the harm she does is limited to family.

Posted by: Kija | September 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Listen, the Washington Post will always shill for Republicans so long as they own Kaplan. Kaplan teaches to the test for the No Child Left Behind group and is making a fortune for WP. Republicans will keep handing money to Kaplan right and left - and the WP will let the country go down the drain to keep the money to Kaplan flowing.

Posted by: RinOregon | September 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans and their evangelical allies have relentlessly pushed the idean that women belong at home, not in the workplace"

*cough*-strawmanargument-*cough*

Seriously man, I've not heard anyone make that argument within your lifetime. Just man up and say "yeah, dumb argument, that's not what we want to say".

If you can't admit when you make a mistake, people will beat you like a drum.

Posted by: TheManKeepingYouDown | September 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Homo!!!

Posted by: The Angry Gay Left | September 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Liberals hate truths which do not totally support their position. They must be suppressed, at any cost. That cost is freedom. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, all "left wing" politics. It never ends.

Posted by: The Truth Hurts | September 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

YOu know what else hurts???

I'm a HOMO!!!!!!

Posted by: The Angry Gay Left | September 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

RinOregon,
Whether Washington Post owns Kaplan or not is completely irrelevant to the question being asked about Sarah Palin. Indeed the op-ed piece doesn't even take a stand on the issue being put forward. And if you take fault with the Washington Post's coverage of the election and its candidates than you should stop reading it.

Posted by: Ashley Howard | September 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Liberal Acid In Camouflage:

It's a simple formula: Truth Is to be destroyed because it is moral.
Good is to be promoted if it is immoral.
People were evolved to be led by Liberals,
Neo-conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives.

Posted by: 3rd-Party Advocate | September 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

First off I don't see how you can compare Palin to Kennedy as the voting demographics and the problems of the country were so entirely different 40 years ago. That is like apples to oranges.

As for the end of the article talking about the issue of Palin's experence vs. Obama's those two cannot be equated. Palin has been a governor for 18 months, while Obama has been a Senator serving in Washington DC for 4 and holds a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as 3 others. Personally I think it will just make McCain look like a hipocrite if he talks about Obama's inexperience.

Finally I take offense at those who claim the liberal left take offense at working mothers. Most working mothers and their husbands I know find themselves sitting on the left anyways - as the article points out! But that is not to say that all women are liberal, there are plenty that aren't. And it is these women on the right that are crying fowl over what a select few may or may not think.

And isn't the point of the election for us to choose our own permeters for how we as citizens vote - isn't that the ingenius nature of our poilitical system? If I don't want to vote for a working mother that is my cause, but it is also my cause not to give a dam*.

Posted by: Ashley Howard | September 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Communism, Socialism, Fascism, all "left wing" politics."

And the stupidity continues.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

David Ignatius, respected conservative foreign affairs columnist for the Washington Post, says "Sarah Palin is breathtakingly unqualified to be Vice President of the United States."

I assume this applies no matter how many children she has. Really, guys, no one cares that much about her children. Give it a rest.

Posted by: Mary | September 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I care about about what the pick says about McCain. He is a neocon whose foreign policy is Dick Cheney's dream. He had hard time getting the entire republican base to rally around him so he had to pick a known theoconservative to excite the base that actually knocks on doors and works to get out the vote.

This ticket represents the worst of the republican party. Where are the Ron Paul libertarians when you need them.

Posted by: birdman | September 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Kija

Well said...

But what happens if McCain/Palin get in and act like they have a mandate (like Dub and the previous pitbull)...?

All our well-reasoned statements and attempts to glean the truth and ask pertinent questions get shot down in the latest battle of the culture war...

"They" want nothing to do with "us" because we have the audacity to be concerned citizens...

The MAIN problem with the last 8 years is that W didn't even win a popular majority in 2000 (or the election,) but he governed as a petty tyrant...

He had no RIGHT to ignore over HALF the population, but he did...

And Palin promises to be SO much more of the same, given what her scanty record says about her...

And McCain has sold out to extremism...

Seriously, thank you for your post, but tell me... What do we do if they get in and it truly is "more of the same...?"

"They" would be happy for me to leave MY country... It's yours and mine just as much as it's theirs, but just as the Taliban rules through bullying the populace, we're quickly getting to that point in the U.S. with this extremist "pitbull" mentality...

Say some more nice words that will give me HOPE... Please...?


Posted by: c earl jr | September 8, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson: "Let us in education dream of an aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity."

Posted by: How 'bout... | September 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"divisive, extremist with little experience, no substance and no ideas" - I thought you were talking about Obama. Votes with Harry Reid 97% of the time - I guess that's because he doesn't have time to think of his own ideas (and can't just vote Present). Most liberal member of the Senate and that's not easy when you have a member of the Socialist party from Vermont. Okay - I guess that does give him one achievement.

Posted by: Parker | September 8, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm a liberal, and I couldn't care less how many kids she has. Nancy Pelosi also has five children, and when I lived in San Francisco I voted for her several times.

What I care about is Sarah Palin's mean-spirited "pitbull with lipstick" attitude ("like Texas, only bigger") continuing to hold sway over the executive branch. Sure, Sarah Palin has executive experience. While she was serving as the Mayor of Wasilla, the city charged victims of sexual assault between $300 and $1200 for their own rape kits. Then, she wants to make women and girls deliver their rapist's children.

I know plenty of mothers who would bring more intelligence and compassion to the White House, regardless of "experience."

Posted by: TerryOakland | September 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

the question is what is McPalin's plan in dealing with China, the new landlord of America?


anti-religion
anti-family(1 child policy, forced sterilizations)
political executions
poisonous products(baby binkies for christsake!!!


how will Mcpalin free trade with the biggest abortion mill in the world?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I used to think I was a liberal pro-choice anti-war Democrat who had the wholehearted support of my party.

However, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have taught me that the Democrats do not support equal opportunity for women and are highly prejudiced against working women. Meanwhile the Republicans are supporting working mothers in overcoming terrible discrimination by proving they can be competent and committed outside of motherhood.

Clearly I have been backing the wrong horse - time for ALL women to say ENOUGH of prejudice and discrimination and vote for real CHANGE - Vote Sarah Palin 08!

Posted by: Working Mother | September 8, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm an unrepetant liberal, so it pains me to say this but the truth is, actually -- there ARE liberals making this offensive argument. Sally Quinn made it in her Washington Post column last week. She basically said that since Sarah Palin has two children who particularly need her right now, it shows poor judgment on her part to be trying to take on such a job that will require so much of her time and attention. I was shocked and appalled, but there it was.

Posted by: NH63 | September 8, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

If I'm not mistaken it was souther republican gentlement that coined the notion that the woman's place is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

It was the southern gentleman that fought so vigerously against women's sufferage.

Now, they use woman to steer the country in the same direction that George W. Bush has for the last 8 years.

No thank you.

Posted by: Enough | September 8, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm with most of the commentators above: where are the liberals are opposed to Palin's being both a mother and a VP? NH63's example aside, there aren't many. And if we can pin down a few that do make this argument, they're wrong. But on this point most liberals are fairly consistent (not that they aren't inconsistent in other ways, as are conservatives and everyone else).

So this discussion is premised on a false assumption.

Posted by: Chicago | September 8, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Just chiming in to agree with everyone else: most liberals are just fine with Palin's decision to balance a career and motherhood. What's the big deal?

Posted by: JasonK | September 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. This is a non-issue and doesn't really describe the point of view of most liberals.

Posted by: Ragnar | September 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

the fact is that Palin is a hypocrite and swaddling fascist in clubbed-babysealskin executive diapers.

it will be interesting to hear how she will change Bush's policy toward trade imbalances with China, the largest abortion-mill on the planet.

one child per atheist, maybe Mcpalin can live with that....and 5 per Pentacostal ready to deny women that same choice.


my mother was president of her NOW chapter, and Palin is of the Phyllis Schaffly brand.

she is a prop for big oil, nothing more, so vote for Cynthia Mckinney, green party nominee for President, 2008.

Posted by: bloggod | September 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

while i appreciate the "can't we get along liberals" i'd like to remind you of the inestimable threat to the future of the actual planet, should Mcpalin assume office.

playing nice is what has cost Obama a 15-20 point lead in the polls he enjoyed a couple months ago.

is it true ineptness, collusion, or is there truth in social darwinism?

sharks like Palin win because "liberals" are afraid of battle.

and democrats are complicit with the genocide of Iraq, the coverup of 9-11, enron, fisa, rendition.........fannie&freedo.


this system is corrupt, and bleating sheep will only make the wolves hungrier, so wake up and tell the truth!


the US again killed 60 women and children by aerial drones in afghanistan?


Liberal silence is just as sickening as the neocon's "justified target" lies.

Posted by: bloggod | September 8, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse


Liberals- We gotta work harder to make sure we get a chance to heal this nation. Let's chill out on the slamming of opponents, and start talking to people quietly about how we believe Obama is wisest choice at this time.
We have the numbers, but we have to get people registered to vote in next month....

Posted by: upwards | September 8, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

And, since then, conservative lipsticked pitbull moms tell their daughters to stop nursing a special baby and start running? Where are "family values" "home-schooling" etc values??????

Posted by: baci | September 8, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea what you're trying to say. It seems to me that we have Sarah Palin running as a traditional stay at home Mom who also wants to be the vice president. Liberal or conservative, how does this nonsensical definition of womanhood work? I don't know many mothers who feel they could pull off mother of a Downs syndrome infant, mother of a pregnant teen in crisis, mother of a son being shipped off to Iraq (that alone makes basket cases of a lot of mothers I know), not only work outside the home but campaign full time for vice president and run the country if she had to -- and do justice to any of those roles.

Posted by: sugarjets | September 9, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Bush didn't get a majority, but he got a higher percentage than Bill Clinton. Reagan was the one who won by landslides.

Posted by: Marx Bro | September 9, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

***By looking at her record, TRYING to ask questions and criticizing where valid.

The only people I hear opining about whether Palin should stay-at-home or not are conservatives insisting that people like me think she should. ****

Thanks for the slooooooow fastball across the plate:
-
"There's also this issue that on April 18th, she [Palin] gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome....Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

–CNN's John Roberts on the August 29th, "Newsroom"

"Adding to the brutality of a national campaign, the Palin family also has an infant with special needs. What leads you, the Senator, and the Governor to believe that one won't affect the other in the next couple of months?...She has an infant -- she has an infant with special needs. Will that affect her campaigning?"

-ABC's Bill Weir on "Good Morning America," August 30.

"Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job?...Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?"

-Washington Post's Sally Quinn, in an August 29, online column.

Posted by: RW | September 9, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are not the ones pushing abstinence "only" as birth control. That is a Republican mantra. Sorry, but holding Republicans up to their own standards is what they deserve. After all they "earned" it to have their hypocrisy rubbed in their faces.

Personally I don't give a damn about Palin's kids as an issue but her hypocrisy is.

Let's address the Palin LIES she used to introduce her self with. The truth is she supported and lobbied for the bridge to no-where until congress killed it. She never said "no thanks" to Congress. And this lie is her chief claim to be VP? Why is it that Republican lies get the biggest cheers from them?

And spare me the crap about her oil expertise. As a creationist she doesn’t even believe in fossils let alone fossil fuels.

Posted by: Tim Toomey | September 9, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I believe Republicans and Democrats alike questioned John Edwards' choice to run after discovering his wife's cancer had returned. It's an issue of committment and priorities.

If Sarah Palin were such a great mom, she wouldn't have accepted the offer to run with McCain in order to keep her pregnant daughter and future son-in-law out of the nation's critical eye. Ms. Palin's eagerness to succeed well surpasses her family values

Posted by: Susan | September 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The press has really failed America in this election cycle. Obama wasn't vetted at all until after he had the election sewn up and after that vetting he won 5 out of 14 primaries, meaning that clearly different choices would have been made had the electorate had the whole story.

Now in order to seem impartial the press is not going after Palin the way they should. They might as well just print McCain campaign fliers and publish those.

Posted by: DCDave | September 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

***Ms. Palin's eagerness to succeed well surpasses her family values****

Oh, please, continue bashing her personally and her family. Continue pissing on every utterance of what feminism was presented to us as for 30+ years. Continue frothing at the mouth over this woman & we'll move from 'close election' to 'landslide'.


***As a creationist she doesn’t even believe in fossils let alone fossil fuels. ***

More, please. Get a megaphone and scream louder. Beg for Matthews & Olbermann back in the anchor's chairs. Take out ads.

Is there any way we can get your voices heard in a fashion so that more people will hear what the average Obama supporter is saying?

Posted by: RW | September 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Any chance we can keep stuff like this from reaching the public:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

We don't want people hearing the facts until mid-October, so we can have all the crazies on the record.

Posted by: RW | September 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

***As a creationist she doesn’t even believe in fossils let alone fossil fuels. ***

"More, please. Get a megaphone and scream louder. Beg for Matthews & Olbermann back in the anchor's chairs. Take out ads.

Is there any way we can get your voices heard in a fashion so that more people will hear what the average Obama supporter is saying?"

Huh? What do Matthews & Olbermann have to do with Palin believing the world is 5 or 5 thousand years old? Did god just put the oil there for the crown of creation(Alaska) of the crown of creation (USA) of the crown of creation (man)?

Posted by: tim | September 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the best thing to do, tim, is to write your local paper or call your favorite news channel & demand that they investigate Palin's faith. We can't allow this belief in a "creator", especially the concept that we were endowed by a creator.

Louder. Please. If you could get your letter published in the NYT, all the better.

Our fate depends on people like you.

Posted by: RW | September 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RW | September 8, 2008 5:09 PM
"You guys REALLY have no idea how to react to her, do you?"

As many 72 year old's will tell you it's extremely hard to buy affordable life insurance with a clean medical history, Senator McCain could not qualify for life insurance with his medical history.

We guys are reacting by asking questions about Palin's ability to be a heart beat away from a 72 year old man with very serious medical issues.


Posted by: JAC | September 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

For anonymous, who can't sign a name, let alone knwo anything political: facism is rightwing philosophy. Or do you consider hitler to be a liberal tree-hugger. saddam hussein was fascist,bin laden is fascist, putin, for being old soviet, is fascist. rove and bush-cheney, with their plans for a permanent republican majority and signing statements that US laws don't mean abything to the president, lean that way, but wrap themselves in the patriotic flag.
As for "liberal" commentators asking about palin's abilities, she opened the door by bringing her daughter into the spotlight. she asked for poirvacy, then paraded her daughter's boyfriend in front of the repub convention. Haven't seen one word about her daughter's pregnancy, you see, liberals believe in choice, but palin does not. It is safe to say that the anti-birth control, all abstinence all the time candidate failed with her daughter, as far as the right wing values go. But they won't asy anything about that now. Howver, had one of Obama's daughters been a pregnant, unwed teenager, the right would have had a field day. And why isn't palin considered one of limbaugh's "feminazis"?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Did Robert Kennedy have a vagina?

Posted by: progress | September 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"Howver, had one of Obama's daughters been a pregnant, unwed teenager,"

Demographically, there is no doubt this will happen if she doesn't have a Secret Service detail.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company