In a similar vein, I heard this morning on NPR that "liberals" have been criticizing Palin for running for VP while she has a baby with Downs Syndrome. I know a lot of liberals and read a lot of liberal, often feminist, blogs, and I have not seen or heard a single comment to that effect. Not one. Apparently the AP is reporting the same thing. Any idea where this delightful rumor started?

Sarah Palin isn't Hillary Clinton.

The McCain Campaign has been trying to push this narrative almost since their announcement.

They're trying to inflate the small mindedness of some to distract away from the issues that matter most.

Beyond having an extremely shallow pool of public positions on issues, on those issues where she has taken a stance she's on the wrong side.

Learn the difference, vote smart.

www.SarahPalinISNTHillaryClinton.com/

Thank you for posting that - that's exactly what I've been thinking - to a certain extent, of course, Palin's family life is telling of her political stances, but only if she's dedicated to policy making the options she has available to everyone. Its the same issue as what was posted a few days ago regarding Bristol's pregnancy - they keep saying Bristol made the choice to keep the child, which is of course a pro-choice statement to make, but is that choice something Palin wants other women and their daughters to have? Apparently not.

Well duh... I mean no offense, but we have to remember who McCain is. Everyone has the right to vote for McPalin but I think it would be irrational for anyone to vote for them who once supported Hillary. The person I root for is the person who has education, science research, and my rights in mind. Added bonus if health benefits are involved. But hey, I don't know what other people are voting for! Maybe they aren't voting for the policies at all.

I actually just ran across this yesterday. Gov. Palin used her line-item veto to cut funding for "a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths", including a transitional home for teenage mothers.

Anyone else come across anything of interest?

There is a certain hypocrisy of privilege. The
Republicans have pushed the proven failed Abstinence Only program of virginity and sex only after marriage. Yet their nominee for VP has an un-wed pregnant daughter.

Add to that a host of other issues that make her candidacy problematic such as being under investigation for her relationship to Republican Ted Stevens and his scams and I find it difficult to not experience schadenfreude.

On the other hand I have noticed progressive left wing people and feminists try to out nice the right wing. It doesn't work. They have no morals or compassion as they are right wing ideologues.

I feel no more sympathy for Palin than I do when the right wing homophobes have gay sons.

I'm hooting, hollering and cheering at this analysis.

Thank you.

THANK YOU for saying this. While the MSM is in a tizzy over Palin's pregnant teenage daughter, I haven't been able to drum up much concern for either Bristol or her mother. They're well-heeled enough that they won't have to worry about the things you mentioned - affordable childcare and healthcare for instance.

I want to see more people confronting Ms. Palin on her lack of support for women's issues in general.

Sarah Palin does not support legislation helping mothers of un-wanted pregnancies.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot

I don't feel any sympathy for Palin either, but I do think it is sad that her teenage daughter is exposed to all of this. She is probably having a rough enough time as it is -- I mean, her mother cannot be giving her the support she needs and she is being humiliated in the media. I think its terribly sad.

thank you kinderplatz.

*clap clap clap*

nice link, kinderplatz, great post, ann, and everyone else who is building attention to the platform of these mercenary parlortrickshans.

"But they aren't saying a peep about whether she wants to enact policies that will make it easier for women"

that's because we all know the answer is something to the effect of
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps."
Republicans aren't interested in making it easier for poor people. Did you not watch the flood in NOLA?

maya - this is why i think sarah palin, super mom, and bristol palin super teen mom will fail (or at least i really really really hope.)

this morning on npr they were quiping some evangelical average woman voter about palin's whole situation and she said "sarah palin. show us how it's done."

well it's done by creating supportive environments in the work and in the public for mothers, families and children. offering supportive work/school environments with flexible schedules, quality accessible health care for all. hell, the only reason she can be "proud to be a grandparent" is because of the work feminists did to destigmatise teenage/unwed pregnancy. not what republicans really want to hear.

or in sarah palin's case, how it's done is standing on the shoulders of her feminist fore-sisters and then working to tear it all down.

maya - this is why i think sarah palin, super mom, and bristol palin super teen mom will fail (or at least i really really really hope.)

this morning on npr they were quiping some evangelical average woman voter about palin's whole situation and she said "sarah palin. show us how it's done."

well it's done by creating supportive environments in the work and in the public for mothers, families and children. offering supportive work/school environments with flexible schedules, quality accessible health care for all. hell, the only reason she can be "proud to be a grandparent" is because of the work feminists did to destigmatise teenage/unwed pregnancy. not what republicans really want to hear.

or in sarah palin's case, how it's done is standing on the shoulders of her feminist fore-sisters and then working to tear it all down.

I find it so ironic that a Republican woman, a hardcore anti-feminist, thinks it's fine for her husband, a MAN, is a full-time caregiver to their kids while she goes otu and work. Isn't that agaisnt right-wing ideals?!?!?!

The media are clamoring to ask whether she can juggle her children and her career. But they aren't saying a peep about whether she wants to enact policies that will make it easier for women -- especially women who do not enjoy the privilege that Palin and McMorris Rodgers do -- to perform this balancing act.

Thanks, Ann, for putting this so well. You took the words right out of my brain and laid them out better than I could have (trust me, I already tried).

Thank you thank you thank you a thousand times for this post. Yes, it's time the media pays attention to the actual issues, it's time the voters pay attention to the actual NATIONAL issues. Some families want a stay-at-home dad and a career mom? I say fine for them, that's a personal matter. Some politicians think it's inappropriate for the government to aid families with two, three, or more jobs between them so that they have sufficient healthcare, childcare, and nutrition? That's a PUBLIC matter.

This is such an important point that needs to be heard. Ann, your political analyses are consistently incisive and so clear!

I was so happy to see this also addressed in the LA Times today (check out the article here: "Palin's privacy versus her public stance"). I hope Palin really gets grilled on this and I hope lots of people are paying attention.

What's the matter with Kansas? May I introduce you to the "crunchy conservatives."

Many comments on this site have been quick to pooh-pooh Sarah Palin's connections to Feminists for Life--in fact, many have been quick to call label her an "anti-feminist". This really irks me for a variety of reasons; it makes one's stance on abortion a litmus test, and it pits women against one another. I understand the concern about a potential VP who appears to be so anti-choice, but Feminists for Life aren't anti-contraception. They most nearly represent an academically-recognized category of feminism--so-called "maternal feminism" of which Carol Gilligan and Jean Bethke Elshtain are representatives. They are linked to Communitarianism, and have provoked a new political category--"crunchy conservatives" whose faith inspires them to care for their communities and environments; they share much in common with traditional progressives in many ways, but are differently motivated. They believe that local communities are better able to meet the needs of those in their midst than anonymous government programs. This differs, to be sure, from the cosmopolitan, "citizen of the world" image that Barack Obama and his campaign (and "blue states" typically) try to capitalize on, and you can bet that political strategists from both sides are trying to milk these differences for all that they're worth. They are Tocquevillian in outlook, rather than Marxist.

I am skeptical of the Palin nomination, but it's undeniable to me that this woman is living her feminism. What feminism means to me is the opportunity to make a contribution to the public world AND help raise the next generation. Women are doing this from the ground-up, crafting egalitarian relationships in their marriages and combining their life's work with cribs next to their desks, handing the kids off to dad when they need to get stuff done. We need more of this, but let's not wait for government's blessing. How can we as women make this a reality for one another, a reality in our families? Whose permission are we waiting for?

Fair points all, but to be fair to "the media" (of which I am an extremely low-ranking member), Palin has next to no record on most major national issues, and very few interviews where she discusses those issues. And, of course, the McCain campaign STILL has not let her do a single interview since the announcement, which is very telling to me.

I agree that the rumors about the last baby AND the current pregnancy of her daughter are both off limits. I agree that since Bristol has already been forced into the spotlight, we should be discussing these issues as they relate to millions of American teens and their families, but giving that girl all the space and privacy she needs.

BUT it seems very clear to me that the McCain campaign WANTS us all to spend time talking about the pregnancy (Bristol's specificially, not the larger national issue). THEY are the ones claiming that the rumors about Trig are being made the main issue by the media - which is clearly a lie. This is as cynical a strategy as I've ever seen, but damned if it isn't working. The narrative about Palin, which was all about her lack of experience and simmering corruption/cronyism scandals on the first day after her announcement, is shifting toward being all about her daughter. On that count, the Dems can't win, ever. And the GOP can't lose.

What we on the left need to stay focused on is that this woman is the poster child for the right-wing fringe - anti-choice, anti-sex, pro-intelligent design in public schools, pro-gun, etc. etc. On top of that, her experience is laughable. Obama's State Senate district was one-third the size of the whole state of Alaska. On top of THAT, rather than being the reformer she and McCain portray her to be, evidence is mounting that she was just the latest generation to join the Alaska corruption brigade.

I'm a straight male feminist who hopes that we can have our first, second, etc. female president soon. I celebrate Hillary Clinton's courage and tenacity, even though I passively supported Obama in the primaries. But this selection by McCain is far worse than if he had just picked Romney, Pawlenty, et al. He has picked someone who is obviously unqualified, steeped in scandal, and most importantly, has neither the experience nor the policy positions that allow her name to be mentioned in the same sentence as Hillary's. It's a disgusting, pandering pick, and it deserves to be roundly rejected by the American people, not because Palin is a woman, not because she has a pregnant daughter, but because SHE is the wrong choice, and that wrong choice demonstrates that MCCAIN does not have the judgment to be a competent, let alone GOOD, president.

I pray that the Obama campaign is only waiting for the RNC to be over before it starts widely running an ad suggested by Josh Marshall of TPM:

A one-minute spot featuring Hillary Clinton herself, talking to the camera and laying into Palin on the issues, her complete lack of qualifications, and the temerity of the McCain campaign to think they could get away with this. Then she urges anyone watching who might have supported her to get out there and support Barack Obama.

Then it closes simply with Obama walking on to the set to shake Hillary's hand: "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message."

annaplum,

i think you have a valid point there, that being anti-choice is not mutually exclusive with being feminist. however, Palin has also cut funding for programs set up to support mothers. Palin does oppose teaching young people about safer sex and, as has been thoroughly documented, abstinence-only ed is harmful from a public health perspective. she opposes hate crimes legislation. i mean, this piece isn't even about abortion, this article is about how Palin has removed the social safety net from beneath mothers who are not as fortunate as she. if you are a "crunchy conservative" and a feminist, i think you can see the conflicts of interest even if we remove the choice issue entirely.

on the other hand, of course, she is a professional... and, to a degree, a woman cannot be a professional without being feminist to some degree... and Palin considers herself a feminist, which is worth something... and the far right criticizes her for seeking employment. however, as a feminist for life, you think she'd be concerned with supporting young mothers in not having to "choose between pursuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child." by removing social supports for mothers, she is making that choice even more harsh.

this is from the feminists for life website:

Lack of support often coerces women into abortion. As pro-life feminists, we choose to support and empower women rather than abandon women.

A woman who is pregnant needs to know that there are perfect strangers who will care for her even if the people she counts on the most have let her down.

this is a pretty solid article about FfL:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/96991/sarah_palin_and_feminists_for_life/

puckalish,

I agree that the cut funding for Covenant House doesn't look good, given her stated convictions. I would note that one's duties to one's constituents can potentially conflict with what one would fund with her own money. She may well have been encouraging her church, or seeking private funding for Covenant House--or perhaps just decided that they weren't running a very good program.

As to hate crimes, like it or not, they are a means for progressive social engineering, penalizing certain individuals more harshly for acting on certain prejudices or "thought crimes"--they typically aren't invoked when a crime is committed by a minority on a member of the majority, even when the same intensity of hate and prejudice may be present in reverse. It's not surprising that many conservatives and libertarians consider hate crime legislation an abuse of the justice system.

anna,

well, we have no idea what she's done in her private time, but she's being elected to make policy decisions. her documented policy decisions have been contrary to providing social supports for mothers. and covenant house is one of the largest organizations of its sort and has been pretty successful (and, in order to maintain their sites, they've had to thoroughly document those successes). my mayor (bloomberg) seems really like them, as do leaders across this and several other countries in the americas.

as to hate crimes, they're not social engineering. perhaps no one's broken down why hate crimes legislation is appropriate... others sorts of crimes are prioritized according to premeditation as well as negative social impact. hate crimes are both a product of a willful intention to cause harm to a specific target, though it may not be a specifically premeditated act (in other words, the assailant may not think about attacking this particular individual ahead of time, but there is a nuanced premeditation in terms of wanting to beat down/kill/humiliate some queers, jews, blacks, etc.) further, due to the capacity to both embolden other adherents to hateful ideology as well as to provoke retaliation, the social costs outweigh other forms of violence significantly.

by just these two standards, there's a really solid argument for hate crimes. it's not about "thought crimes" for two reasons - #1 because it speaks specifically to actions, not thoughts and #2 because it has less to do with the thoughts than with the social costs.

finally, according to the fbi:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm
"19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias"

so your argument that hate crimes "aren't invoked when a crime is committed by a minority on a member of the majority" is completely baseless.

so, please reconsider your position on hate crimes. i understand that the points you evoked are frequently cited talking points, but they're just not correct.

cheers,
p

ps. i really appreciate that you're taking the time come on here and have your voice heard. i think the most revolutionary thing one can do is honestly engage in discourse around one's values, regardless of how they'll be received.

P,

Thanks for your comments, and the data points. I suspect our legal theories differ, and I remain suspicious of outcome-based justice. I find myself more concerned with who has access to the law, whether it's consistently applied, and for whom the law is structured (a la Catherine MacKinnon).

Cheers and thanks,
ap

Bush didn't veto S-Chip. He vetoed legislation that would have expanded a program designed to help moderate income families (too high to have medicare) to include upper-middle class families at a significant added expense -- to be paid for by increased cigarette taxes at a time when cigarette sales fall yearly.

If you are making $70,000+ a year, buy insurance for your own kids. Don't buckle the federal government down with more bloat.

Did anyone see this article yesterday about the challenge of balancing a career as a government leader with having kids- it's called "A new twist in the debate on mothers"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02mother.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

In it there are quotes from lots of moms (from both sides) questioning whether she is being fair to her kids and family and to herself and her job by taking on such a big job while her kids are so young.

But the quote that got me was from the former republican governor from Massachusetts, who had twins while in office and then dropped out of her re-election. She said:

“I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official,” she wrote in an essay in Boston magazine.

Was that a way to hide from the fact that she screwed up politically- blame it on the hormones- or do you think this is what she really felt? Trust me, I understand the hormones, but I wish she hadn't said it that way. Very undermining to other women.

nestra,

i KNOW i've debunked this elsewhere on here... but the 70,000+ number is just stupid.

i mean, really, the SCHIP expansion would make care available to children who had not been insured for 2 consecutive years and whose family has an income up to 3x the federal poverty level.

let's take 70,000/3 = 23,333... in order to qualify for the (now vetoed) expanded SCHIP, a family would have to have to be at least 5 strong. 70,000 is not a lot of money on which to support 5 people, so i would say that's pretty appropriate. and we're talking about household income, so, if there are two working adults, they'd have to be making 70k combined.

nice talking point. too bad it doesn't really pass muster.

yeah, it would expand healthcare for children... but, considering that my partner and i can barely afford health insurance (for only two people) and we made 60,000 last year and only had to support ourselves... well, you get the picture.

well i agree that being a working mother doesn't hinder Sara's ability to be a good vice president but honestly her policies on other things such as abortion, the enviroment, and health care piss me off

annaplum, I left a prior comment about FFL, so I'm confused by your reference. FFL supports "non-abortifacient" contraception. The problem with that is the increasing attempts to define as abortifacient forms of birth control that many women rely upon. As I said in the other thread, it's a slippery slope. Go here to read more from people who think birth control pills and IUDs ARE abortions. This is a political issue, make no mistake about it.

Honestly I understand the media attention surrounding how she can balance her own personal life and caring for a child with a disability. It is hard. Being a mother to an infant is different from being the mother or father of an older child. The first 12 months of being a mom are crazy demanding. The same for being a dad. How many men have ran for president while having infants? Not many. So that is part of the reason why the question has never been asked before, so maybe it is not entirely sexist. Think back, the last president who had children while in office was JFK. Honestly being a parent I would like to know what kind of parent the future president or VP is because that says so much about their character. That's why Biden made such a big deal about being the great dad, coming home every night on the train, being there for his kids.

"But as long as all sorts of bloggers and news outlets are asking... YES, of course Sarah Palin is capable of having a very important job and still being a good mother. Absolutely."

While I applaud the sentiment behind this assertion, I can't help but question it. The idea of "having it all" is admirable, but for the vast majority of women it is an urban legend. Unless you are among the very small percentage of women (like Sarah Palin) with the financial means and the job credentials to structure your work day around your kids, "having it all" is impossible. Without addressing the lack of underlying prerequisites necessary to effectively balance work/life, I think asserting that women can do everything does a great disservice to women in the workforce.

Don't tell me that I can have it all - tell me that it's hard as hell, that there will be enormous obstacles in my way, that I will have to make huge sacrifices because our society is not yet willing to compromise to make it possible, that I will in all likelihood fail in the ideal. Whatever you do, don't perpetuate a myth that ends up hurting women in the end. By running as a have-it-all candidate, Sarah Palin is cultivating a idealized vision of women in the workforce that can rarely if ever be achieved.