Sarah Palin: Why A Fifth Child at 44?

[u-dog]

Matthew,

Of course she has the right to choose and no one who supports a true pro-choice position would say otherwise or attempt to undermine her decision to keep Trig and raise him in a loving home. There is much to admire in the choices that the Palin's have made.

But freedom of choice doesn't mean that every choice is equally wise. and often making one choice means that one has fewer choices about other matters.

Bristol made a choice about being sexually active in High School and now she has fewer choices about the future. She is choosing not to abort her pregnancy and that will further restrict her choices. And there is nothing wrong with that... its how life works.

Sarah Palin has a pregnant teen in her house and a special needs infant and she is choosing to be the Vice-presidential candidate for the Republican party. Is that a wise choice for the Party? Is it a wise choice for the country? Is it a wise choice for Bristol and Trig?

I believe that if I had a down's syndrome baby and pregnant daughter I would NOT choose to be away from home 24/7 for the next two months. Nor would I commit myself to more than a full time job in washington for the next four years if that is how it turns out. I'm pretty sure that my pro-choice feminist wife would choose to stay closer to hearth and home and be a Mom above all else.

And THAT choice that she is making ... makes me question her judgement and her credentials as a pro-family candidate.

[ctozrn]

U-dog,

That is exactly the point I was making. As the mother of two teenagers I can't imagine the stress that she is facing with a special needs child and pregnant teenager. I am with you in saying that her focus can not be on the needs of the country or running a campaign 24/7 for the next two months. I also can't help but wonder what the response of the Republican party and the evangelicals would be if Barak Obama had a pregnant teenager. I am sure that comments about family values and judgements would be made. It will be interesting to see how this will affect their campaign and standing in the polls.

Christine

[matthewspeed]

I wonder if these statements about Palin not making the right choice to be in the vice presidency is just because she is a Republican. Would you be saying the same things if Biden or Obama was in the same situation?

I am not trying to make a case for Palin. I am being objective here. Honestly, I am an Obama/Biden supporter.

I don't think we have the right to judge Palin. She is the one who is raising her children. There are thousands, perhaps millions of parents with special needs children that have demanding careers and are able to raise their children properly. If we were to evaluate every presidential nominee's family life, I am sure we would find all sorts of reasons why he/she shouldn't run for office. As a matter of fact, having a parent running for office as V.P. is an honorable decision. What an awsome role model for ones children.

[nmwolfboy]

It seems to me that we have seen about 18 months of questioning Senator Obama's choices, in many instances over issues that have little or no relevancy to his run for the office of the Presidency. In fact, the questioning of his judgement (experience, electability, blackness, etc.) continue mostly unabated even when he has (imo) openly answered them.

I wonder how McCain's campaign would be faring if he were subjected to the same degree of questioning? Perhaps that is exactly what we're beginning to witness.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by matthewspeed

I don't think we have the right to judge Palin. She is the one who is raising her children. There are thousands, perhaps millions of parents with special needs children that have demanding careers and are able to raise their children properly. If we were to evaluate every presidential nominee's family life, I am sure we would find all sorts of reasons why he/she shouldn't run for office. As a matter of fact, having a parent running for office as V.P. is an honorable decision. What an awsome role model for ones children.

And why should anyone, much less Obama? The leader- and VP- of the most powerful nation in the world should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb no matter if they are black, white, female, male, transgendered or a Martian!

Palin's not running for head of the PTA for Christ's Sake! And if she can't take the heat, to quote Truman, she should get out of the kitchen.

And it should be noted that Hillary took a hell of a lot more heat while was First Lady. Remember Kenneth Starr and the millions that were spent on that bit of madness?

It's not about judgement. It's about discernment. And that's a very different thing.

[ctozrn]

First of all, I am trying not to sound judgemental of Mrs. Palin. I think as the mother of a teenage daughter, I know in the blink of an eye the same could happen to me. (There but for the grace of God go I....) I am offering only my opinions in running for office, no judgements. Yes, I do believe that I would feel the same way if she were a Democrat. As a hospice nurse, I felt that John Edwards should focus his attention on his wife's cancer spreading when he was thinking about running for President. I know firsthand how stressful cancer can be in a family especially when there are children are involved. It was their decision to make, no judgements by me, just my thoughts and opinions. Also, these are the things that I think about when I am going to elect someone to assist in running the country. I want someone that can focus on the needs of the country and not have so many pressing issues at home. I think that we the people have the right to elect someone that can focus on their duties rather than worry about problems at home. Not to say that their family has to be perfect. It just seems that there are more pressing issues for her right now. Issues that as a mother would be more important to me than running for public office. She is young, she could easily run later.

This is not about judging someone but trying to find the best people to serve as President and Vice President of our country.

I am sure that the press will not be as kind......

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

The Anchorage Daily News is suggesting that the McCain campaign is refusing to really say whether they knew about Bristol's pregnancy before naming Palin VP candidate.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/512560.html

It's not all about a family's private choices. It's about McCain's poor judgment in failing to fully vet a VP candidate.

All too often candidates put their families forward as a qualification for office. Frankly, Obama put his wife and daughters forward at the convention so that we could all give them a good look over before we let them move in to our White House.

And how about FOX News referring to Michelle as "Obama's baby mama" a term that deliberately uses language that brings up images of illegitimate births in the African American community.

Families are not off-limits in American politics (despite what Barak has just said), and probably never have been.

I can't believe McCain would have put Palin in this position if he really knew the whole story. That Palin has put herself and her daughter in this position is hard to fathom. There is something seriously not right with Sarah Palin.

Steven Webster

[tymejumper]

Here's my opinion, hope it does not offend....

I don't give a rip about who gave birth to this child, or if her child is pregnant or if she is mothering the baby and it's her grandchild. I care as much as I did about Clinton getting oral in the Oval office. It really is no ones business.

I know it was a lie, but come on....all politicians are liars(cynical I know) They learn to lie, blend the truth or only tell certain parts of it. It's called damage control, it's part of politics and will always be. That's how they get that far, the better they are at white lies, the further up they get. We all know it, and when they get caught doing what we know they are doing, we get upset. The government certainly keeps secrets and lies to us, the people. I know we all wish and hope the next one is better than the previous one but odds are it's only going to be more of the same. I take all of it with a grain of salt.

What I AM worried about is her general policies and the stuff I read about how she is against womens rights to choose. That is what I am concerned and interested in. Her lack of support for the gay community, her belief that her conservative morals are the ONLY way. What kind of VP will she make? I don't see anyting to recommend her for the job, she will only make women go back 100 years. If she gets in, we will go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we will be forced to live a lie again, back into the closet and hiding those we love.

That is what I see about this Palin

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

I am wondering how this will affect their campaign? It would seem to me as a mother, that Mrs. Palin needs to focus her attention to the matters at her home, rather than on the presidential election. I am just saying that if I had a baby with Downs Syndrome and a teenager that was pregnant, my attention would not be in running the country or campaigning. I say this because my partner has a sister with Downs and I know how much attention these children require.

I find this quite ironic that this is happening to the ultra conservative candidate, one that is so evangelical Christian. Not to say that teenagers from Christian families don't get pregnant, I have two teenagers and know how hormones can be! I just find the whole matter rather interesting!

The plot thickens.....

She makes (IIRC about double her husband's salary. No reason he can't take care of the baby. How they parent is kind of beside the point, the same as it is with Obama's two young children. The youngest was barely out of diapers when he started campaigning.

Speaking of Obama, he had this to say today.

"I have said before, and I will repeat again: People's families are off-limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

She makes (IIRC about double her husband's salary. No reason he can't take care of the baby. How they parent is kind of beside the point, the same as it is with Obama's two young children. The youngest was barely out of diapers when he started campaigning.

Speaking of Obama, he had this to say today.

I like Obama and will vote for him. However, I recognize the irony in this situation.

It's very noble of him to say that families are off-limits, but at the same time, this is a man who as recently as last week had his children onstage- fairly flogging the idea of 'family'.

Oh....it's been done before. Jackie Onassis had a great sense of theatre (and I mean that as a compliment!) when she dressed up her son and had him salute his Dad at his tomb. That image is burned into the consciousness of those who remember it.

Is this a bad thing? Perhaps. And perhaps not: I guess it depends on one's perspective. However, when you put your children out there in such a way, you draw attention to them in a way that is very hard to control.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I like Obama and will vote for him. However, I recognize the irony in this situation.

It's very noble of him to say that families are off-limits, but at the same time, this is a man who as recently as last week had his children onstage- fairly flogging the idea of 'family'.

Oh....it's been done before. Jackie Onassis had a great sense of theatre (and I mean that as a compliment!) when she dressed up her son and had him salute his Dad at his tomb. That image is burned into the consciousness of those who remember it.

Is this a bad thing? Perhaps. And perhaps not: I guess it depends on one's perspective. However, when you put your children out there in such a way, you draw attention to them in a way that is very hard to control.

I really didn't have a problem with his kids waving at people from the stage. I thought it was sweet, which was probably the point, but they're right there in the front row. What's he gonna do, make them sit with Grandma?

I see a difference between that and people doing their best to dig up dirt on someone's 16 year old kid. To bring it back home, what if the rumor had been that one of the kids were gay? They're playing to a conservative anti-gay audience, so it would've been right at home. Would that have been okay?

If the kids were out on the campaign trail every day, I could see your point, but they haven't been.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a difference between a candidate (sparingly) using their kids to engender warm fuzzy family feelings and an opponent using the kids to engender cold negative feelings.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

I really didn't have a problem with his kids waving at people from the stage. I thought it was sweet, which was probably the point, but they're right there in the front row. What's he gonna do, make them sit with Grandma?

I see a difference between that and people doing their best to dig up dirt on someone's 16 year old kid. To bring it back home, what if the rumor had been that one of the kids were gay? They're playing to a conservative anti-gay audience, so it would've been right at home. Would that have been okay?

If the kids were out on the campaign trail every day, I could see your point, but they haven't been.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a difference between a candidate (sparingly) using their kids to engender warm fuzzy family feelings and an opponent using the kids to engender cold negative feelings.

I believe that Chelsea Clinton was never on the campaign trail when she was a kid (thought I am ready to be corrected in this regard). What does that say about her parents? That they did everything to keep her out of the glare of the spotlight.

My point is that you can't exploit your kids and then cry when the public wants to know more about them.

Is Sarah Palin exploiting her family? That's a fair question. No matter how one answers that question, I think one thing is quite clear: she is exploiting her religion. As is the McCain machine.

As I see it, a politican who features his or her family in the media is selling something. I don't think this is bad per se. However, it does point the values involved. As such, my take is that we have become a nation of appearances.

As for someone's child being gay: I don't see anything bad about that. Better to have it known than hidden in the shadows. I don't see how being gay is 'dirt'.

And lastly- yes....Obama's kids could have sat with Grandma. Are they of age when they can consent to appear on the national stage? I don't think so. Of course, this argument can be referenced with regard to Palin's children. That said, my take is that if there are questions about the information being presented, it is only right that those questions be answered in a forthright manner.

If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't any probem. The problem arises when appearances don't mesh with reality. And if the appearance that one is 'selling' is not the actual reality, well....that's a problem.

Sadly, we live in an age when everything under the sun is being marketed. And as such, Obama has marketed his family as being the standard bearer of every cliche regarding 'family', when in fact, statistics reveal that actual families look very different. Is it Ok to market one's family in an effort to be warm and fuzzy? Perhaps. But that's not what I'll be thinking of when I pull the lever.

[ctozrn]

I still think that if this had happened to a democrat the conservatives would have a field day.

Regardless, how do you think this will affect the McCain campaign? Do you think this will help him, hurt him, or just blow over?

Christine

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

Regardless, how do you think this will affect the McCain campaign? Do you think this will help him, hurt him, or just blow over?

It's hard to tell. This incident with her daughter's pregnancy, along with her husband getting arrested for drunk driving, and Palin trying to get her brother-in-law fired....is beginning to look more and more like a dysfunctional family.

On the other hand, there's a lot of dysfunctional families in America that claim to support traditional family values. So, who knows?

Rick

[ctozrn]

Very true...misery loves company! I had not heard about the husband's DUI....the plot thickens!

Christine

[Matt Algren]

I really think we aren't that far apart, but here are some specific responses.

Originally Posted by Daniel

I believe that Chelsea Clinton was never on the campaign trail when she was a kid (thought I am ready to be corrected in this regard). What does that say about her parents? That they did everything to keep her out of the glare of the spotlight.

She was also past the cute kid stage and well into the awkward teen stage.

My point is that you can't exploit your kids and then cry when the public wants to know more about them.

Well, define 'wants to know more'. It's a long-standing tradition for a politician to pose with his/her kids. There's a qualitative difference between that and digging for the slightest appearance of dirt on someone's kids.

Is Sarah Palin exploiting her family?

Her oldest son ships of to Iraq on 9/11. What a coincidence.

Not that Obama/Biden should bring that up. They absolutely shouldn't. McCain/Palin will almost certainly make a big show of it at the convention, and they'll try to use that to force Obama/Biden to lay off the war material. They need to ignore the son altogether and pull the attention back to the real issue, not the photogenic mother crying with her jaw set as her son gets on a plane.

Again, fair for them to bring it up? Yes. Reasonable for the opposition to attack based on it? Almost certainly dirty politics. Best plan is to ignore it and return to the issues.

That's a fair question. No matter how one answers that question, I think one thing is quite clear: she is exploiting her religion. As is the McCain machine.

Agreed. To be fair, one of my Catholic friends was upset last week because she sees Biden as a Catholic by name only. I don't know if I agree with her, but I told her that now she knows how the Methodists feel. Anytime a politician needs to find religion, they pick ours. It's a relief to have some time off from defending the faith this year.

As I see it, a politican who features his or her family in the media is selling something. I don't think this is bad per se. However, it does point the values involved. As such, my take is that we have become a nation of appearances.

God bless America.

As for someone's child being gay: I don't see anything bad about that. Better to have it known than hidden in the shadows. I don't see how being gay is 'dirt'.

We agree, but for someone playing to the conservative base? Revealing a gay/transgender child would be scandalous. Almost certainly election losing. (I'd also have a huge problem with someone outing the relative of a candidate.)

And lastly- yes....Obama's kids could have sat with Grandma.

Oh, come on. No way that would play in the sticks. By morning the fundie blogs would have started talking about how he hates his kids.

Are they of age when they can consent to appear on the national stage? I don't think so. Of course, this argument can be referenced with regard to Palin's children. That said, my take is that if there are questions about the information being presented, it is only right that those questions be answered in a forthright manner.

Forthright I don't have a problem with. Frothing at the mouth and conspiracy theories I absolutely do. And that's what I've seen in some of the commentary on the blogs and message boards about this pregnancy stuff.

If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't any probem. The problem arises when appearances don't mesh with reality.

No, the problem arises when it's a slow news day and the internet blog machine gets behind an almost-certainly false rumor and runs with it like it's proven fact while the people whose lives the rumor affects try to figure out how someone would believe something that.

Sadly, we live in an age when everything under the sun is being marketed. And as such, Obama has marketed his family as being the standard bearer of every cliche regarding 'family', when in fact, statistics reveal that actual families look very different. Is it Ok to market one's family in an effort to be warm and fuzzy? Perhaps. But that's not what I'll be thinking of when I pull the lever.

Well, not every family. In fact, the Obamas don't look like most families. He's from a 'broken home', both parents are dead, he was raised by his grandmother, he's of mixed race, and his daughters' skin is markedly darker than most Americans', making them a potential target for racism and sexism. What he's presenting, on the rare occasion when they do make an appearance, is stability.

One more thing on Palin. I hadn't heard of her until Friday morning, and I'm pretty sure that was the purpose of her elevation. She's a big question mark everywhere but in Alaska, so people will have to go on first impressions for the election. Or so the McCain team thought.

What they didn't count on was the squeezing of years' worth of character related questions packed into two months. I said before that I think Palin's nomination was a huge tactical error for the Republicans, and I think we're seeing fall-out to that error.

For all the other candidates, the press, and to a lesser extent the public, has a cheat sheet on what they say and how they vote and what skeletons are in the closet. All (or most) of that stuff's kind of out in the open, even if it isn't all resolved.

With Palin, they (and we) are having to work faster to get up to speed, and it's going to be harder to sort out the harmless fiction from the cold hard facts. The Democrats need to lay low with that and let the reporters ask the uncomfortable questions. Stay on the offensive with respect to the issues and let Governor Palin's record speak for itself.

Because just as there isn't time to figure it all out, there won't be time for McCain/Palin to dig out before November 4th.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

I had not heard about the husband's DUI....the plot thickens!

The news report this afternoon didn't mention how old he was when he got it, but I just read on line that he was only 22 years old at the time, so I guess it's a no big deal now.

Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli..._open_sec.html

No comment.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

I really think we aren't that far apart, but here are some specific responses.She was also past the cute kid stage and well into the awkward teen stage.

Matt- what does 'cute' have to do with anything? It's not Ok if a kid is past the 'cute' stage? You see, this is what I don't understand. I don't see what this has to do with being 'cute' or 'awkward'. I think it's much more relevant to note that young kids don't understand what it means to stand up in front of a TV camera in the same way that a teenage does. And in that sense, young children are taken advantage of. Just my opinion.

Well, define 'wants to know more'. It's a long-standing tradition for a politician to pose with his/her kids. There's a qualitative difference between that and digging for the slightest appearance of dirt on someone's kids.

Again- I don't buy the whole notion of long-standing tradition of using one's children to get ahead. I would rather the focus be on policy, not appearance. But I am very aware that this- like true campaign finance reform- isn't going to happen any time soon, In that sense, I am much more European in my outlook. However, even Europeans are becoming more 'Amercian' these days ie the selling of image rather than ideas.

Her oldest son ships of to Iraq on 9/11. What a coincidence.

Not that Obama/Biden should bring that up. They absolutely shouldn't. McCain/Palin will almost certainly make a big show of it at the convention, and they'll try to use that to force Obama/Biden to lay off the war material. They need to ignore the son altogether and pull the attention back to the real issue, not the photogenic mother crying with her jaw set as her son gets on a plane.

Again, fair for them to bring it up? Yes. Reasonable for the opposition to attack based on it? Almost certainly dirty politics. Best plan is to ignore it and return to the issues.



Agreed. To be fair, one of my Catholic friends was upset last week because she sees Biden as a Catholic by name only. I don't know if I agree with her, but I told her that now she knows how the Methodists feel. Anytime a politician needs to find religion, they pick ours. It's a relief to have some time off from defending the faith this year.

God bless America.

We agree, but for someone playing to the conservative base? Revealing a gay/transgender child would be scandalous. Almost certainly election losing. (I'd also have a huge problem with someone outing the relative of a candidate.)

Oh, come on. No way that would play in the sticks. By morning the fundie blogs would have started talking about how he hates his kids.
Forthright I don't have a problem with. Frothing at the mouth and conspiracy theories I absolutely do. And that's what I've seen in some of the commentary on the blogs and message boards about this pregnancy stuff.

And this is my point: why is it a matter of playing? This I don't understand. Shoving one's kids out in front on the world stage because the fundies may say something if one doesn't? You know- I really don't get that. At some point, one has to stop caring about what the neighbors think. After all, that is the problem, isn't it?

No, the problem arises when it's a slow news day and the internet blog machine gets behind an almost-certainly false rumor and runs with it like it's proven fact while the people whose lives the rumor affects try to figure out how someone would believe something that.

Well, not every family. In fact, the Obamas don't look like most families. He's from a 'broken home', both parents are dead, he was raised by his grandmother, he's of mixed race, and his daughters' skin is markedly darker than most Americans', making them a potential target for racism and sexism. What he's presenting, on the rare occasion when they do make an appearance, is stability.

That's a interesting point. However, one might say that the stability being presented simply plays into conservative stereotypes. Married with two kids. Is that real stability? I wonder about that. That it is a reality of gay and straight lives is not in question. My overall point is that selling a particular image of one's family may ultimately say more about the public wants to see than what is needs to hear.

Addendum:

Read this after posting earlier today...

Plouffe: Palin Choice a ‘Transparent Moment’
By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO – Senator Barack Obama has declared the personal life and family of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be off-limits for criticism, but his campaign manager said Tuesday that voters should be allowed to weigh Senator John McCain’s judgment in choosing Ms. Palin as his running-mate.

“The way the process was done should be of interest to voters because I do think it speaks to how things will be managed and executed as president,” said David Plouffe, who manages the Obama campaign. “At the end of the day, it may work out for them, but the process is a transparent moment for voters to decide how these two people will go about major decisions.”

Since Mr. McCain announced his surprise vice presidential selection last week, the Obama campaign has grappled with how to respond to Ms. Palin.

First, aides belittled her experience as a former small-town mayor. Then, Mr. Obama praised Ms. Palin’s life story and admonished Democrats to “back off” criticizing her family over the revelation that her teen-age daughter is pregnant. In doing so, Mr. Obama said, “My mother had me when she was 18. How family deals with issues and teen-age children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics.”

In an interview here on Tuesday, Mr. Plouffe said voters should instead judge Mr. McCain for what he called an “impulsive” decision to choose Ms. Palin, who has served as governor of Alaska for 20 months. He said Ms. Palin’s governmental record in Alaska is fair game for examination in the final two months of the campaign, but not her family.

“You have to assume that when you’re making this pick – if something happened to you – you are choosing the 45th president of the United States,” Mr. Plouffe said. “And it’s a big decision.”

The McCain campaign says that the pick of Ms. Palin was carefully made and that she was thoroughly vetted.

When Mr. Obama named Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running-mate on Aug. 23, aides declined to offer a window into how Mr. Obama made what he called one of the biggest decisions of his candidacy. But as questions persist over the extent of vetting Ms. Palin was subjected to, aides to Mr. Obama reversed course Tuesday and sought to draw distinctions between the two vice presidential searches.

Mr. Plouffe said the selection of Mr. Biden came after more than two months of extensive examination that included separate meetings with a team of lawyers, the leaders of the search committee, top campaign aides and finally an interview with Mr. Obama. Mr. Plouffe said every immediate member of the Biden family, including his three children, his brother, his sister and his wife also met with members of the vetting team.

“If you’re fortunate enough to win, this person could become president and you better feel comfortable you got that right,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We have a history of vice presidents becoming president in this country. Hopefully, no matter who wins, that won’t be the case, but I think the process and the thought that goes into this is pretty important to voters.

In light of this thread, and my previous comments regarding Palin's on this thread, could one say that Obama is taking the high road? Perhaps. One could also say that in doing so he wants to deflect any criticism of his own family and upbringing. Whatever the motivation, debating one's record is a lot simplier and nobler than a mudfest. That I can see.

So- following Obama's lead (I can't believe that I am writing this!), I wish to retract my statements about Palin and will stick to debating Palin's record. That makes sense to me. And maybe I'll just ignore the Obama's kids from here on out too. They'll have their psychotherapy in 20 years, right? And they can yell at their parents about how they were dragged around on the campaign trail- or not.

Let the chips fall where they may!

[u-dog]

LEVI JOHNSTON TO JOIN PALIN FAMILY AT THE CONVENTION


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/...palin_daughter

This is becoming downright SURREAL. Now they are bringing the boyfriend/father/fiance/future soninlaw to St. Paul. Its like these social conservatives are making the RNC into some kind of celebration of teen pregnancy. It boggles the mind !!