Juneau

I thought liberals had empathy for pregnant teenagers. What happened to that? Should Palin have stuck her pregnant daughter in a closet?

Is this whole thing such a big "story" because Palin advocates abstinence? I mean, I know that's evil and everything, but it seems to me that her daughter did what teenagers will do, against her mother's wishes. And that's the news, folks.

bill: Palin should not be running for VP. I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who does not have sympathy for the daughter. But she was five months pregnant when her unknown mother thrust her into the international spotlight (and her boyfriend and his family, too). Here's the difference: This wasn't something that had happened in the past; the daughter didn't become pregnant after her parent became a candidate. The girl didn't become pregnant AFTER her parent was a candidate, or in office. Instead, she was five months pregnant WHEN her governor-mom chose to run and make her daughter's pregnancy a public spectacle. An unwed pregnancy in the family wouldn't have been a story outside Alaska if Palin were still just governor of a sparsely populated state, but this is top-level international politics now. If Sarah Palin didn't know this would be major news, it is yet another indication of her inexperience and lack of qualification for the office, next in line for the US presidency. The girl's judgement may be flawed, but she's only a teenager. Her mother's judgement -- and McCain's in choosing her -- are the significant issues. This is tragicomedy on a very prominent public stage.

I wasn't knocking the daughter. And your sympathy for her is certainly on display in this post. Sorry, I'm not really buying that.

It's a "huge" issue because the media is making it a huge issue, not because Palin made a big point of mentioning it.

Just let us suppose that Barack Obama's daughters were a few years older and it was revealed that one of them was pregnant. The right wing media would go completely nuts, saying that this was another example of liberals evil lifestyles corrupting their children and that Barack and Michelle were terrible parents.

Bill: "Is this whole thing such a big "story" because Palin advocates abstinence?"

Yes. That is pretty much it. Palin is in the public eye (the White House is pretty darn public) and has to expect that anyone who understands irony will find this perfectly hilarious. I, like many, love it when the press jumps on this stuff. It is a guilty pleasure seeing real life happen to cloistered conservatives.

Sorry, it just occurred to me that what you're saying is "If Sarah Palin didn't know that the media and the Democrats* were going to drag her pregnant daughter into the spotlight and make jokes about her difficult situation, then she shouldn't be VP."

*Yes, I know this sort of thing is, unfortunately, not beneath certain Republicans. But save the self-righteous act, please.

John - There's nothing like inventing a scenario and an argument that can never be proven right or wrong in order to make your point.

CrimeNerd - On the one hand, her daughter went against her mother's wishes and political point of view. Again, how absolutely shocking! On the other hand, it seems to me that Palin's pro-abstinence policy has now been shown to make a little bit of sense, at least. After all, not only might you get pregnant if you have sex as a teenager, but you might also get mocked on the internet.

But, CrimeNerd, at least your honest about why you enjoy this sort of thing. You take pleasure in seeing people run down in the media. Full marks for honesty.

The media & the Dems made this a story when a total unknown is chosen for VP candidate? Who's being self-righteous (and disingenuously naive) now? Look at it this way: McCain and the media have made Obama's experience (what? Only a senator from Illinois?) the focus of their campaign for months. And who does McCain cynically choose as a running mate (over more prominent, experienced and better-qualified Republican women like, say, Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or my aunt Frida)?

Another example of how ineptly Palin and McCain handled this whole "vetting" and announcement process: They didn't even get the boyfriend to take down his embarrassing Facebook page before they made the whole thing public. It's a joke.

The great, dark, depressing joke (can something be both depressing and a joke?) about all this is that Palin's pregnant teenage daughter is, like, the 23rd reason anyone should object to the thought of her as vice president. And yet, I suspect it'll be more of an undoing (if there is an undoing) than anything else. You go, America!

Also, I just have to point out that I'm currently watching CNN's coverage of the RNC, and apparently they open their session with 1) a protracted moment of silence while the American flag is brought into the hall, 2) singing America the Beautiful, 3) an invocation (seriously, an invocation?), and 4) a protracted moment of silence while the American flag is brought out of the hall. They may have also recited the pledge of allegiance, but I lost track. But that's still patriotism to the fourth power, yo.

Only a two-years-into-his-first-term Illinois senator, yes.

But that's a whole different argument now, isn't it? To pull a phrase that you guys like to throw around so often: you're making a strawman argument. In other words, you're implying that I argued all those points that you're now arguing against. I didn't make one of them.

My point is that this whole pregnancy issue is being handled in the media, and in internet posts like yours, without an ounce of class or respect for the girl, and it's being talked about despite the fact that it's alarmingly irrelevant. That's bad enough. But to then turn around, when called on it, and claim to have "nothing but sympathy" for Palin's daughter. Please. THAT'S a joke.

"...but it seems to me that her daughter did what teenagers will do, against her mother's wishes."

Believe it or not despite hystical news stories *not* all teenage girls are out getting pregnant.

If you can't even control one 17 year old girl I have some serious concerns about your leadership skills.

There couldn't possibly be a more perfect case study as to the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, if you ask me.

bill said--

"On the one hand, her daughter went against her mother's wishes and political point of view. Again, how absolutely shocking!"

We all know that's not shocking at all, and that's the point.

The whole idea of abstinence-only education is the fantasy that, given the right guidance, kids won't have sex. However, as you so insightfully pointed out, kids don't always listen to their parents. And because *any* idiot knows that teenagers don't always listen to their parents, you'd think *any* idiot would know that when you fail to teach kids about how how to prevent pregnancy you will end up with more pregnant kids. This is funny because Palin's own daughter has become evidence against her politics. It's funny in much the same way it's funny when homophobic right-wingers get caught trolling for man-meat in a men's bathroom.

Kris: You nailed it. I think you've articulated my intended "theme" behind these last few posts: The greatest, funniest jokes strike the darkest and the deepest at the truth. But, as is often the case with humor, some people see it and some don't. If you do, it's funny; if you don't, it's not. Leading conservative pundit and Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan had a revealing comment, which she assumed to be "off-mic," when she said that this fiasco was supposed to be the Republicans' attempt to create a "bullshit" political "narrative" -- and that they'd blown it in a spectacular fashion. OK, she didn't think it was so funny. She was furious. But humor and rage often feed each other...

I have nothing but sympathy for Bristol Palin, and I deeply regret that her personal issues are being plastered all over television and the tabloids.

However, place the blame where it is due: on Governor Palin, for bringing her daughter into the spotlight and inviting comment with her outspoken commitment to abstinence-only programs. It's absolutely appropriate for the Democrats and media to express skepticism of her views on sex education, and to point out the obvious failures of the policies she espouses.

Governor Palin has a large family that needs a lot of support, and she is doing them a huge disservice by neglecting their needs in favor of her political ambitions. A true believer in "family values" would have declined a spot on the ticket.

In regards to this argument that neither Obama nor Palin are experienced enough to run the White House...

We all just watched a mentally-challenged monkey run the country for the last eight years...albeit poorly.

If I'm convinced *I* can do the damn job, then who's to say Obama or Palin can't?

Jim, you're taking part in the public mockery of a pregnant teenage girl, and claiming that your intentions are pure. That's what you're doing. If Kris "illustrated your theme", then this post is about how Palin's daughter's situation should be ignored in favor of more substantive issues? Huh?

Quit patting yourself on the back for being as bad as the trash you claim to despise. Okay?

bill: If only I could see the world as plainly as you profess to. If you want to view this as "the public mockery of a pregnant teenage girl" with no other implications, then that's your story and that's what you're gonna do. But you've made me realize I gotta get moving: So many millions of other anonymous pregnant teenage girls who need to be dragged into the international spotlight for mockery and I just realized I've failed to blog about them! First, though I'll need to persuade their moms to run for the second-highest public office in the land when they're five months preggo. Meanwhile, we can all return to discussions of substantive issues about womens' rights to control their bodies without paternalistic interference by government, abstinence-only education, the family unit, the difference between sexism and tokenism (oops -- they're manifestations of the very same thing!), etc., at the party convention...

Oh, I think we both know what's different about "this" one.

How your heart bleeds for Bristol. Posts like yours do not make things any more difficult for her, because you are so noble of intention. Right. Got it. By which I mean, I'm getting used to the hypocrisy.

It seems to me for all the Republican talk about Obama being a celebrity, Sarah Palin is more a celebrity now and her poor daughter who is a teen mother like Jamie Lynn Spears(another celebrity) will now be the butt of jokes.

Lets accept it, Mccain shot himself in both feet and the gun belonged to Palin

Another point that I would like to point out that Obama made a conscious and public decision not tu use his daugthers in the campaign, Palin has thrust her daughter right in the limelite and dragged her poor boyfriend and all his family as well.

I guess she must have Dina Lohan on her speed dial

Erik: You hit it right on the money! If a retarded monkey could be president for the last 8 years without accidentally blowing us all up, Obama or Palin could easily do the job, pregnant teens and all.

As for the Bristol situation, it's at least as ironic as Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter.

Nate - You know who else doesn't always get pregnant? Teenage girls whose parents advocate abstinence. You know who sometimes does get pregnant? Teenage girls whose parents advocate birth control.

And are you implying that all parents of teenagers who are either pregnant or have gotten someone pregnant are bad parents? Really? I thought the reason that abstinence was such a horrible idea was because you can't stop teenagers from having sex.

The most hilarious thing about the Palin situation isn't the daughter (although I appreciate the heavy dose of irony that all of the right-wing fails to acknowledge in their failed policies), but instead it's the conservative pundits themselves. If I have to hear them say that she has more "executive" experience than Obama or that they're ecstatic because she will sway over disaffected Hillary voters one more time, I'm gonna punch someone.

How stupid are these idiots, and how stupid do they think the American people are? Do they really think that liberal, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-sex education, pro-education (in general) feminist women are going to now vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because Sarah Palin was also born with a vagina? If they do, they're just as clueless as I always expected, and they should just give up now.

P.S. - That "Juneau" pic is pretty funny. And I do admit to a mean streak in my humor when it involves someone's utter idiocy, so don't bother attacking me for it, Bill. I know what I am, and I know what you are: a self-righteous right-wing nutjob that thinks the world's all fine and dandy.

Love the hypocrisy of the left-wing media and nutroots. One month ago it was 'you are not allowed to criticize Michelle Obama'. Now it's a feeding frenzy on a 17 year old girl.

Andrew Sullivan actually was mocking the second-youngest last night. Nice to see he found a worthy adversary.

Will let Palin's record and speeches help me decide, not a high-school level circle-jerk.

Bill-

Do not simplify my enjoyment. I enjoy hypocritical conservatives being rundown by the media. You know, the "family values" Christians getting exposed as adulterous or secretly gay despite their public moral stance. Hypocrites being exposed is extremely satisfying. Palin's is not quite as fun as Ted Haggard, but still pretty good. Under normal circumstances, I could care less if Palin's kid had a kid. But Palin is a crazy conservative who believes in abstinence and family values so it is then quite funny and just. Let the media runneth downeth!

There are several issues here.

1: Is it appropriate to attack Bristol Palin? No Bristol is not running for anything, and we have no call to attack her
2: Is it relevant to question Sarah Palin's support for Abstinence Only education - in light of her daughter's situation? Yes. Her daughter was taught abstinence only at school and at home. It didn't work obviously, and it is relevant because Sara Palin supports her policy.
2a given the above is it ok to involve children in politics? Well Gov. Palin wants to get support by mentioning her son in Iraq, and her sun who is afflicted with down's syndrome. Seems to me she made family an issue, and if they can be mentioned to shore up her positions by her, they can be mentioned to question her positions by others.

The important thing is that it be policy related not a personal attack. ie
"Governor Palin, some would say that Bristol's pregnancy is evidence that your preferred abstinence only sex education didn't work. Studies have show that abstinence only sex education leads to more teen pregnancy not less, how would you respond to this?" is valid
"Sara Palin can't control her daughter, how can she run a country" is not
"Sara Palin is a terrible mother" (yes I've heard this ) is certainly not
"Bristol Palin is a sl*t, and her mom is such a Christian isn't that funny" (which I have also heard) is just evil.

It seems that with respect to this issue, Republicans would like to eat their cake and have it too. On one hand the "liberal" MSM is criticised for comments about Palin's family, because candidates' children should be off-limits; then yesterday we see Bristol Palin and her boyfriend put on parade and the RNC playing "pass-the-special-needs-baby" with Trig Palin.

It seems disingenuous at least for a candidate to argue that her family is off-limits when she physically places them at the centre of her campaign, uses them to define who she is ("hockey Mom") and flaunts one of them as evidence that she "lives her beliefs".

Barack Obama has wisely declared the candidates' personal family problems off-limits and said that this isn't what our politics should be about.

I'm against Sarah Palin becoming VP, because she's a right-wing nut job who would harm the country, and because her experience level in areas relevant to the Presidency is the lowest of any Presidential or VP nominee in recent memory, with the possible exception of Dan Quayle who was also a right-wing nut job.

But when one alleges that Palin is a bad mother because she pursues a powerful and influential career, or that she shouldn't be running for office because her teenage daughter is pregnant, one falls into a sexism trap, which the Republicans, despite many of them being hypocrites on the sexism issue, are gleefully exploiting. They correctly point out the double-standard, where women are expected to give up on their career ambitions to raise families, while there are no such expectations placed on men.

Let's respect Palin's right to be an ambitious working mother and, instead, focus the debate on what direction a Palin Vice-Presidency or Presidency would take the country.

harkin - Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, he's just not a supporter of the current incarnation of the Republican Party.

David Frum (also a conservative) and I tend not to agree on much, but its refreshing to see that he and I are on the same page as far as the issue of Sarah Palin's family is concerned:

"How sustainable is it for the GOP to put Sarah Palin's life half in the spotlight and half out of bounds? Republicans have highlighted her baby - while denouncing as sexist all questions about the raising of the baby. Republicans have invited America to admire Sarah Palin's reproductive choices - while fiercely disallowing any discussion of the reproductive choices of Sarah Palin's under-age daughter."

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

Regarding GOP hypocrisy on sexism and family, here's a bit from the Daily Show last night:

What I think is so funny about this is the fact that the conservative Christians out there seem to think Palin is a great a choice and a great female leader simply because she has five kids. I'm sorry, but am I missing something? Just because her and her husband (seemingly) don't practice birth control we are supposed to applaud her? I wonder how much she truly could have been a "hockey mom" from Alaska seeing how she works in politics; a field that requires more time at the office than at home with your family?

And I know it's an obvious point, but I never stop laughing at how McCain was all about experience for the first 6 months (or however long its been, these campaigns seem endless) and now he seems to have dismissed that argument and all the work and campaign videos they made by assigning someone who is just as new at this whole leader thing than Obama is.

I love that poster parody by the way. Brilliant!

Sam: I'm with you on your characterization of Palin as a candidate. But this time it's the Republicans who are setting the sexism trap that they themselves have created. The nomination itself is blatant sexism, tokenism, an insult to all women -- because being a right-wing nut job with a vagina (as Samantha Bee illustrated on The Daily Show) is her sole qualification for the position. The GOP talking point is to cry "sexism" whenever someone questions Palin's record, experience, political views, or qualifications for office -- in other words, when she's treated the way any VP candidate should be treated. What makes her daughter's pregnancy a legitimate story is the way the campaign has placed Palin's credentials as a mother first and foremost in selling her to voters. This choice should tell everybody what they need to know about McCain's priorities and judgment, and Palin's. I haven't seen anybody say she shouldn't be running because she should be a mom first and foremost (though that's certainly the argument we've all heard from so-called "family values" advocates make about women for many years). But since she knew her daughter would be subjected to this when she agreed to run, why did she let the press break the story rather than seizing it and taking control of it herself? Let's just say she has not shown much leadership ability. And now, of course, she's parading her daughter and boyfriend before the TV cameras. So, she's perfectly willing to exploit them, and the all-American ideal of "motherhood" when it suits her political ambitions. But when it doesn't, that's "sexism"!

While we're being highbrow is there a photoshopped poster of Obama on the movie poster for Blow?
Or is that too far?

Jim - this post, not surprisingly, has taken quite a turn. As far as the original intent, the poster parody is flat-out exceptional. As far as the direction of these posts, I agree with Kris way above: yes; you can use the teenage pregnancy to possibly draw conclusions about Palin's parental oversight/focus on abstince-only education. But come on, aren't there bigger fish to fry? Hard line pro-life, favors creationism in school curriculum, strong proponent of the $300M "bridge to nowhere" (until withdrawn) while espousing cutting govt pork...this woman scares me more than Cheney. Stripping everything away, as you said this VP selection is nothing more than questionable pandering to the female population.

AI: If Obama had said he was doing it while in office, or running for office, there sure would be. But Obama is not Marion Barry. And Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton. (Biden to Palin in VP debate: "Governor, I've worked with Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton.")

"While we're being highbrow is there a photoshopped poster of Obama on the movie poster for Blow?
Or is that too far?"

Soderbergh's "Guerrilla" would be more appropriate.

The point is precisely that Palin advocates abstinence, not merely as a personal choice, but as a public policy for how adolescents should be taught to handle sex. In this world of ours she is a fool for doing so.

Whatever brave face faith and politics compel Sarah Palin to put on things, this intelligent and ambitious woman cannot be pleased that her 17 year old daughter's future has narrowed to a shotgun wedding to a self proclaimed "redneck" who wants no children.

But ideas have consequences, and this is the natural and probable consequence of believing that fear of the Lord is a substitute for contraception.

"I haven't seen anybody say she shouldn't be running because she should be a mom first and foremost (though that's certainly the argument we've all heard from so-called "family values" advocates make about women for many years)."

I have seen and heard people using that argument against Palin, and it's so widespread that the mainstream media picked it up and has been debating it. I've also heard it in person from Obama-supporters at my office and have gotten into heated arguments with them over such things as whether biology makes women unfit for powerful careers when they have children.

The hypocrisy in both parties is mind-boggling. Some of the staunchest anti-feminist Republicans, such as James Dobson and Phyllis Schaffley, have suddenly seen the pro-feminist light on the issue of working mothers. Despite Obama's warnings not to go there, many of his supporters are not listening to him and have taken the Republicans' bait. First, the reaction to Clinton's candidacy, and now Palin's, has shown that sexism is alive and well in this country, and, despite the Democrats' record of being more progressive on women's issues, is bi-partisan. And, currently, it's playing into the Republicans' hands.

I think the anti-abortion element is nearly as damning. Sure, her daughter didn't get an abortion, but still, she had that choice. The government didn't make up her mind for her.

Jim,
I love your site. I found it, acidentally, because of Ebert's site and the fact that I love movies (I grew up watching Siskel & Ebert). I just want to participate in the discussion about Palin and her daughter.
Attacking the media for being the media is a nowhere argument. Attacking Palin's daughter is a nowhere argument as well. Is it really that ironic that her teenager is pregnant? Not at all. It happens to millions, even from "the best of families".
What is under fire is the GOP's historic stand against choice in the case of a woman's pregnancy. The fact that Palin has chosen a side means she has to go through the consequences. She, not the media, chose to put her daughter on the front line of attack.
I find the argument against choice to be the most incoherent idea out there, especially considering that Republicans are supposed to be in favor of less government. You can also include the basic biblical argument of the fall from Eden as being one of free choice, which all the pro-life people seem to ignore. The TDS did an exceptional job of showing the contradiction of the Republican argument with Samatha Bee's interviews where she can't remember the word "choice". Ironic, that it would be from shows on Comedy Central that we would get the most in depth political reporting.
But, then again Jim, you were right, all a comedy genius has to do is use what is happening. As far as I'm concerned, the Right wing, including those of the GOP, are correct: we are not animals, limited by our biology but free to choose what we want from life, be it in Eden or out - the Bible tells us so.

Jim, you said "the nomination itself is blatant sexism, tokenism, an insult to all women -- because being a right-wing nut job with a vagina (as Samantha Bee illustrated on The Daily Show) is her sole qualification for the position." How can you defend this position, and where is your evidence that she is so much less qualified that Obama? Going down the tokenism argument puts you in much the same trap that many conservatives like to argue against Obama’s nomination. If McCain chose a man, he is sexist for ignoring women; if he chooses a woman, he is sexist because he just wants to exploit her. Likewise, conservatives like to argue Obama gained the nomination by playing the race card. It becomes a circular argument where no matter what the choice is, it is sexist / racist. Like her or not, Palin has excited people in the Republican Party for many of the same reasons Obama has electrified the Democrats: she is young, she is viewed as a Washington outsider, and she is perceived as something new and different. McCain chose her because he hoped the choice would have that effect. And as far as experience is concerned, neither Palin nor Obama has much of it, and I think it difficult to argue who has less (two years as governor vs two years in the Senate?). There are Republican women and Democratic African-Americans who have more experience than either of these candidates, but they are not as electable. And in the end, electability is the first and foremost qualification a presidential candidate must have.

Mike: Please do compare their experience, from education to public offices held. She's been elected to mayor of Wasilla (pop. approx. 7,000) and governor of Alaska (pop. under 700,000). That's it. He's been elected (from the Chicago area) to the state legislature of the fifth most populous state in the union (between 12 and 13 million), and then to the US Senate for that state. And he's spent the last year or so campaigning nationally opposite Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Look into their respective backgrounds. She was strategically chosen to appeal to the conservative base and win over voters who thought Hillary Clinton's primary qualification was her sex, not for her experience in government. A straight comparison shows she's way out of her league.

Mike--

In addition to what Jim said about their experience (Seriously, anyone who's trying to say Palin is anything like as experienced as Obama is either flatly dishonest or ill-informed), the "tokenism" argument holds no water for a simple reason: Obama was elected, Palin was selected.

According to today's Washington Post, Joe Biden is on record saying that some coverage of Sarah Palin has been out of bounds, particularly questions about her ability to raise five children, including an infant with Down syndrome, while barnstorming the country as a vice presidential candidate. "Whoever these folks are don't know any strong women," said Biden, who will debate Palin on Oct. 2 in St. Louis. "Some of the stuff said has been over the top, totally unfair, and I think it has been sexist."

Forget "Juneau". How about "Palin-dromes" by Todd Solondz?

Sam: I have no doubt some of what was said about Palin was sexist. I have no doubt that her nomination was motivated by sexism, too.

Jim: Let me start out stating that I have no party affiliation I just live the truth.
You are intellectually dishonest to say the
least. First of all anyone that uses the Daily Kos for news of any kind brings their credibility into serious question. But consider this, as cynical as it may be 90% of blacks are going to vote for Obama. Is it possible that they might do that for some reason other than his qualifications? I know women that will vote for McCain/Palin because she is a woman! Most of them were Hillary supporters. Also, I enjoyed your comments about Obama's qualifications. So he's been elected to the state legislature and the US Senate. Wow! And he's been campaigning opposite Hillary Clinton for the last year. Now he's got my vote. Why did Illinos elect him anyway? Did they not want to be represented? So he's good at campaigning, what else? He has not accomplished anything at either post. He's the most partisan (democratic) senator who has shown no ability to work across the aisle (he's just really good at remembering to ask for republican votes). Executive experience is significantly more important for the president than is legislative but experience is far down the check list for most voters anyway. Face it Jim, Obama will get your vote because of his policies and because he represents, to you (your kind), the exact opposite side of the political spectrum of the Worst Person in the History of the World...George W. Bush (The 'W' stands for wicked right?). You don't care about his experience and neither do I. It is significant though that Palin has the most executive experience on either ticket just as it is significant that she has the least foreign policy experience. But the truth is, Obama has every little of that either and Biden who has a lot has still spent the last three decades being wrong about almost everything from a foreign policy standpoint. So let us not overrate experience. I also don't want to hear anything about how Palin is pimping her daughter. If Bristol had not stood on the stage with her she would have been accused of hiding her. If none of the family had been there it would have been because she wanted to hide her. By standing on the stage with her entire family she simply acted as every other candidate has in the last century. And besides Hillary's primary qualification was not her sex it was whom she had sex with. A straight comparison shows you're way out of your league.

P.S.: By 'you' in the last sentence I meant the socialist collective.

James: What I wrote bears very little resemblance to your characterization of it. Citing Daily Kos for transcribing an embedded Daily Show video segment right there on the same page is the same as relying on it for news? I cite the source of any transcript, whether it's Fox News or the Congressional Record. Anyway, we're now rehashing the fundamental clash of perceptions that's riven this country for years, and I've strayed from my original intention, which was to comment on how movies and media-reality reflect each other. Now I've got a film festival to cover -- and it's not a convention.

Jim: Busy as you may be, you still ignored my points. Enjoy Toronto.

James--

It's odd that you claim to have no party affiliation, then spread scurrilous lies about Obama for most of your post. Accomplished nothing? The fact that you're ignorant of his accomplishments doesn't mean they don't exist. Most partisan senator? Tell that to Republican senators Lugar and Coburn.

I'd much rather someone rely on the DailyKos for news than whatever source you're using, as you don't actually seem to know anything about one of the major candidates for president...

James: Thanks. Maybe you were addressing another Jim, but I haven't ignored your points (which I appreciate). It's just that I've already addressed them in previous posts and comments. I can't believe I'm taking the Republican-talking-point bait once again, but independently established facts do matter to me, so maybe I didn't make this clear enough: Obama has survived intense national and international scrutiny over the last year (at least) to get where he is. Palin is an unknown quantity and, as one pundit put it, she's already been secreted in Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" rather than face the many questions about who she is and what she's done in the past. Since most Americans had never even heard of her before last week there are, naturally, plenty of questions. And she's not taking them. Also, remember it was the McCain folks who tried to make "experience" the central issue of the campaign until just last week. Now they can't. That tells you something right there. But when you compare the scale of Obama's and Palin's achievements -- well, there's no comparison. In fact, it's silly to do so -- if for no other reason than because one was elected to run for the top spot on his party's ticket and the other was selected to run as VP on another. But the McCain campaign has insisted on making comparisons in order to promote the notion that Palin should somehow be accorded parity with Obama in some way. That's like comparing Dave Freudenthal to Chuck Schumer. Whatever Palin is, the plain fact is she's not someone with experience beyond Alaskan politics. She can run on her record and he can run on his -- but they're not the same.

If some African-Americans are going to vote for Obama just because he's part Kenyan, without looking at his positions on issues, that saddens me -- just as it would if people were voting against him for the same reason. Likewise with Hillary Clinton or Palin because of their gender. But my point is that Clinton and Palin, as politicians, have nothing in common but their gender, so to equate them is a form of sexism. It's like saying you'd vote for either Pat Buchanan or Al Gore because they're both white men. How to decide/distinguish between them? You say Obama and Biden have been wrong about foreign policy. I say GW Bush and McCain have been wrong and Obama and Biden displayed greater leadership and wisdom in their positions. In a true democracy, that's what I'd hope people's voting decisions would be based upon.

As for Palin "pimping" her daughter: I agree, she is entitled to parade her family before the crowd just like every other politician. My question has always been about her and her campaign's judgement in delaying the announcement of the daughter's pregnancy when they knew long in advance it would be an explosive issue. Why did they come forward only after the rest of the world caught wind of rumors that had been and were being investigated by the Alaska press in the previous weeks? What indications of the McCain-Palin ticket's tact, diplomacy, leadership and political savvy do such decisions display? Whether she intended to or not, Palin introduced herself as somebody trying to hide skeletons in her closet -- only further humiliating her daughter -- by not being open about this from Day One when she knew the revelation was inevitable. Why behave as if you're ashamed when you know you've already made the decision to announce her pregnancy when you decided to run? She has invited -- encouraged -- distrust from the get-go, and many of us are sick and tired of being so blatantly misled by the inept and wrongheaded decisions of our elected officials.

Suggested reading:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

I thought I was finished with this post, we should be talking about Toronto and all, but I just have to clear up a few things before I drop this.

Dear Stephen,

You are a modern day prophet and apparently have some sort of special powers for you were almost able to pretend to have read my post, when it was obvious probably only to me, that you certainly had not. I loved the way you attacked me while dismissing everything I wrote. Very impressive. But let me help you out.

I may be ignorant of Obama's accomplishments, but apparently so are you since you failed to provide one. Do you even know why you're voting for him? Let me know because I'm curious. As for you totally missing my point about him being the most partisan democrat in the senate, not the senate as a whole, well I'm a little confused by that. Your post reads as though my post was explained to you by someone who didn't agree with what I had to say.

I also enjoyed the way you throw the names Lugar and Coburn around as though they were curse words. I wouldn't say that Lugar is even one of the most partisan members of the senate, but I would concede that Coburn is, which makes you 1 for 2. 50% isn't bad for a liberal, so congratulations.

I use every news source at my disposal to feed my massive brain, thank you very much. You just sound as though all of your information is secondhand. Do you have someone that tells you what to think and say? Continue to use the DailyKos if you like but it isn't and it won't do you any favors.

I have no doubt that my knowledge of your candidate is much more substantial than your knowledge of him, and it's that very knowledge that scares me. There is nothing in his voting record (meager as it is) that makes me want to support him. Nothing. He is pure ambition. A man with no friends, only supporters. A man whose policies and stances have failed throughout modern history and will continue to do so, for they go against the state of nature. You run on emotion brother. I however enjoy facts, history, and reason.

P.S. Let me know what "scurrilous lies" I have spread. I love me some truth.

Dear Jim Emerson (I now know I must be specific),

I don't think that Obama has survived intense scrutiny. Name me five nonpartisan commentators/reporters that have asked him, his wife, his campaign, or any of his supporters real serious questions and hit him hard the way McCain and Palin have been. There has been more negative press on MSNBC for Palin over the last two weeks than there has been for Obama over the last two years. Biden voted for the war (wrong, right?) and against the surge (wrong). He's been wrong twice then. Obama was wrong about the surge and then lied about ever having taken a stance on the war from the beginning. Since when do state legislators take stances on wars? He was against it (or at least publicly talked about being against it) only after it was hugely unpopular. Great leadership and wisdom indeed. Next you'll be telling me how brave they were to have opinions.

So the McCain campaign screwed the pooch on dropping the Palin nod. Perhaps, but who cares? Does it have anything to do with the kind of administration they would run? If anything it just shows to me that McCain is not nearly as fatally self conscious as the Messiah, uh I mean Obama is.

Like you Jim, I am also "sick and tired of being so blatantly misled by the inept and wrongheaded decisions of our elected officials". But I see it on both sides of the aisles, do you, or are you too star struck, too emotional to be clearheaded?

Last but not least, Jim Emerson, does it make you feel foolish when you make a reading suggestion that turns out to be utter crap? Once again you look like a Kool-aid drinker (the red kind probably). I assume the reason you chose that material was because it was so obvious an indictment of Palin that it would have made anybody turn their back on her. Well next time choose actual reporting (like on DailyKos for instance) to make your point. Not only is that article completely unsubstantiated, it is the kind of well disguised fantasy that the left in this country thrives upon. If you can't find any facts to make your point then make up some facts, right? Well, you get an 'A' for effort.

Respond or don't respond to this, I don't care, like I said I just had to get it out.

James--

James, James, James...

It's a shame you spend so much time reading all that information from all those varied sources, because it seems to have left no room in your "massive brain" for reading comprehension. Perhaps if your brain were just a smidge more massive, you'd know that my references to Senators Coburn and Lugar were not attempts to name Senators more partisan than Obama, but rather to point out that Obama has worked on major bipartisan legislation with both of those Republican senators.

You must be so familiar with Obama's "thin" resume, that things like the Lugar-Obama bill on cooperative threat-reduction and the Coburn-Obama transparency act just blend in.

That's all right. I suppose I'll have to forgive your egregious lies about Obama being the most partisan Democrat in the senate and having had no major legislative accomplishments, as it seems they weren't malicious, but just an unfortunate side-effect of your obvious thirst for non-partisan, unbiased information. Hope you can get that under control before you forget your name, address, and phone number next.

Steve (I can call you Steve right? I feel we've really gotten to know each other):

I foolishly assumed your senator name dropping was typical liberal tourettes. My bad. You see I totally forgot about those fantastic gifts to democracy that Senator Obama (and Coburn and Lugar) gave us.

The problem is however that those bills don't do anything to make him seem less partisan. If anything it only hurts him by making his shallow, cynical nature more obvious. He picked two completely uncontroversial issues to champion and joined with two men from across the aisle to do so.

Obama/Lugar passed on a voice vote while Obama/Coburn passed with a unanimous roll-call vote. He has yet to take a controversial position on anything since joining the senate nor has he shown any real bipartisanship. He votes with the democrats or he votes with everyone. McCain votes with whoever he feels like that particular day. McCain is a true bipartistan, not that it means anything to me, but it clearly does to you since you have chosen to champion Obama's bipartisanship.

Brother, I am under control, and I'm not worried about forgetting any of my vital information. I am a little confused though, because I have yet to see any evidence that anything I have said about Barry is a lie. Let me know though when you get around to making it up.

Slim

Oh, right, I forgot that working with Republicans only counts when your position is unpopular. Silly me.

What you described is exactly what Obama has promised this country: That he will work to find avenues of agreement among diverse groups of people so he can build majorities to solve problems, instead of fighting the same partisan wars over and over again. It is a GOOD thing that he was willing to work with Republicans to increase transparency in government. It is a GOOD thing that he was willing to work with Republicans to reduce the threat of loose arms falling into terrorist hands. He has worked to make this country better and safer in ways that we can agree on, instead of trying to force an agenda down the throats of the people who disagree with him.

You claimed Obama accomplished nothing and was the most partisan Democrat in the senate. Both are baseless lies, as demonstrated by the fact that he has, in fact, accomplished things in the senate by building bipartisan support for his programs. It's as simple as that, regardless of how you twist and turn to try and dodge your misstatements.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. We obviously have different world views and can do nothing to change each other's mind.

Quite frankly, I don't care what Obama has promises or what anyone else does for that matter. Evidence is more important to me, and the evidence suggests (to me) that he is the most obviously ambitious American politician of significance in the last three decades.

Accomplishments are relative, and Obama's are relatively nonexistent. I guess he has done things that YOU think have and will make this country better, but I just don't see it. Like I said, the only Obama bills you named that showed he is "bipartisan" were bills that everyone in the senate agreed on. He has gone out of his way to be noncontroversial, but maybe you like that.

I have not made any "baseless lies" either. He has not built bipartisan support for anything though, because his bills were obvious pleasers. Obama votes with the Democrats 96% of the time. How is that bipartisan? In fact the 32 most partisan members of the senate (with the exception of Bernard Sanders who usually votes with the Democrats) are Democrats. I base that on their voting record. Technically there are 10 others more partisan than Obama, but the difference between number one, Durbin, and Obama is an insignificant 1.5%.

McCain has been four times more likely to vote against his party. Of course, this only factors in votes Obama actually cast, which isn't a lot since he has only voted 40% of the time he could have since being elected to the Democratic presidential race.

XOXO

Noncontroversial? Maybe. Maybe that has something to do with his promise to find common ground--I'd rather we focus on things we can accomplish, real solutions, not partisan bickering.

And, you keep focusing on bipartisanship, ignoring the fact that you also claimed he had accomplished nothing. If securing loose weapons in nothing to you, I really question your judgment.

As for those bipartisanship figures, What's your source? If that's from the current congress, I wonder if that has something to do with Democrats controlling both houses and being in control of the legislative agenda? Huh...

Whatever happened to reason? You hate partisan bickering, but how do you feel about partisan worship? I disapprove of both.

Obviously I believe (and know) that "securing loose weapons" is important. What you don't understand is that the bill dealt with minor technicalities that will probably fail to change anything in the big scheme of things. That's not partisan bickering, it's just what I've taken away from actually reading the bill as you can here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s198is.txt

Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about Obama, but so far I have seen no reason to think that will happen.

Suggested Reading:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

Huh...What's your source?

1: You're reading the wrong bill, friend. S.198 was introduced by Lugar alone, that isn't Lugar-Obama. You're looking for S. 2566:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2566
This was an important bill. Lugar himself has said that Obama reached out to him and asked to be involved in this effort, clearly displaying that he is not averse to working with members of the opposing party.
There's also that whole most-comprehensive-ethics-reform-since-Watergate thing...
2: Your link shows not only that you were flatly wrong when you claimed he was the most partisan Democrat in the senate, but also that I'm correct in my assessment that party-line-voting in this congress is slanted toward Democrats by the fact that they control the legislative agenda. Look at the 109th congress, and the partisan voting is even among parties--look at the 108th, when Republicans were solidly in control, and the partisan figures skew heavily Republican.

In fact, of the most partisan senators in the 108th congress, with one exception, were all Republicans. That one exception? Kerry. What do Kerry and Obama have in common?

Oh, right--they were running for President at the time. And so they missed a huge number of votes. In fact, one would think they might only show up for those votes that were most important to the Democratic agenda...

Y'know, I think I may have solved this mystery!

And, y'know, it does kinda suck that Obama's missed like 40% of his votes since running for president. Almost as bad as McCain missing 60% of his. In fact, McCain hasn't voted *at all* since *April*! He's been drawing his senate salary to run for president for half a year. Lucky guy.

Obama is not averse to doing anything that helps him politically, you keep dancing around that. You see "Obama reaching out", while I see Obama in desperate need not to look like the kind of guy that would have friends like Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers.

Also, you don't have to tell me anything negative about McCain. He sucks. Everybody gets that. But his suckiness is mostly harmless. I see his presidency as a harmless one. Obama on the other hand scares me. He doesn't scare you, but he definately scares me. The difference is you don't seem to see the ambition in everything he does like I do.

P.S. I read the other bill too. I'm still right about. It's a perfect example of the kind of bill the senate passes to make it appear that they're doing something. Let me know if anything actually comes of it.

So, in essence, you're backing off the claims you made, revealing that either they were lies or you just didn't really know what you were talking about. Gotcha.

As for Obama being "scary", mentioning William Ayers pretty much removes any credibility you might have on talking about Obama's character. The association there is so tenuous and so innocuous that only someone intent on finding negative things to say about Obama would ever think twice about it. Or someone who has already decided what they think, and so doesn't think very critically about what they read in the press that agrees with them. Given your other statements, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

As to who's harmless, I honestly can't imagine what personal ambition Obama would have (And, really? We're gonna criticize *presidential candidates* for being *ambitious* now? Wow.) that's more frightening than John McCain's uncomfortable "jokes" about bombing Iran or killing Iranians, or his militaristic foreign policy in general.

And I'm glad you took the time to read the correct bill, after reading the first one so closely that you failed to realize that the title and sponsors of the bill weren't the same as the one you thought you were reading. I'm now fully confident that you understand the issue and its relevance.