Has anyone asked Sen. Palin, reformer maverick that she is, who she supports in the Senate race between Ted Stevens and Mark Begich?  Stevens, being so obviously corrupt and presently under indictment, is in Palin's party. Maybe she can show off some of her anti-corruption, even Republican corruption, credibility by endorsing the moderate Democrat who is presently mayor of Anchorage.

Why has no one in the press asked this question and instead focused on the tabloid silliness of this story?

Why am I asking myself why the press haven't asked a real question?

Absolutely not.

You'll never convince me that it's sexist to ask if the primary caregiver for five children -- including a special needs infant -- is suited to the rigors of the second highest office in the land. If Todd Palin, her husband, had been the nominee and his wife was off prospecting for oil on the north slope, I'd ask the exact same question. Using "sexism" as a defense against a perfectly reasonable question is political correctness run amok.

For what it's worth, I put this question to people in my office and got unanimous agreement that the question is neither sexist nor unreasonable. And one of those people is the mother of triplets.

Of course they are sexist -- nobody told Joe Biden to quit his senate seat in 1972, nobody would ask him to turn down the vice presidency if he had a five month old baby today.  The people making these attacks use things like "opened the door" and "hypocricy" as a justification (though how her daughter did either of those things is a bit hard to understand).  Obama surrogates should shut the hell up and get on with talking about the economy, something other than foreign policy which Palin has nothing to say (because unlike Alaska and maybe Texas, the other 48 states aren't flush with oil reserves).  

Is it sexist to ask if she will take steps to prevent getting pregnant again?  

I think it does raise questions about a person's judgment when they board an airplane having had labor pains (or was it that her water broke?) knowing she was pregnant wih a child with Down Syndrome -- she should have been advised that a doctor must be present in case of potential complications for her child. Or what kind of judgment (or family values, which is after all part of her schtick) it says about somebody who would go back to work three days after the birth of said child. And I don't think that's sexist. There are differences between being a mother of a newborn child and the father of a newborn child, I don't care what any feminist wants to tell me about that. And I'm surprised that these evangelicals who are wildly enthusiastic about her (who believe in homeschooling, moms at home, and who don't call themselves feminist, etc), aren't questioning this apparent lack of maternal feeling or judgment or whatever else one might like to call it.

And I don't care about her daughter being pregnant, although I do have questions about what she was thinking putting her daughter under this kind of scrutiny. It's bad enough being a teenager and finding out you're pregnant and gotta get married and settle down -- what a rollercoaster of emotions she must be going through -- without having all this media scrutiny on top of it.

However, what does deeply concern me is that John McCain picked her without knowing squat about her. That he spent a day vetting her, and met with her only once. It doesn't matter if she turned out to be the most qualified candidate in the universe. The fact is, when he chose her HE DIDN'T KNOW!

I don't want another president making important decisions based on what he feels in his gut. As the Republicans repeatedly remind us -- it's a dangerous world out there.

stanmvp -- yes, she'll practice abstinence, as it's the only form of birth control she advocates.

I;ve decided that there is a case that this some of this - not much, but still - is sexist.  I'm just going to be sexist in this.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Palin's family dynamic.  However she and Todd want to run their family is their business.  Let's face it, any male or female running for high office with more than two children is sacrificing to some extent the well-being of their family, and the reason they do so is because they are POLITICIANS!  It takes a whole lot of ego and self-promotion to run for high office and people who do so successfully are almost always the type to put family second (at least for a few years while in office).  This doesn't bother me because I don't look for my political leaders for virtue.

Which exactly cuts to the heart of the matter as to why Palin's family dynamic is ripe for questioning.  The religious right of which she is a strong advocate DOES expect their leaders to be virtuous completely family oriented people.  For years people like Phyllis Schafly and Sarah Palin have been castigating women for abandoning their families and seeking high office and jobs outside the home.  If the positions were reversed and it was a Democrat with Palin's family dynamic then these same people would be crucifying said Democrat for not having Family Values.  

The Republicans have only themselves to blame for fostering this atmosphere of questioning a candidate's family values for the last 30 odd years and now cannot cry foul when the chickens come home to roost.  As I stated before, I don't care a wit or tittle about a candidate's family values, but then again I'm a liberal who believes that consensual adults can structure their families any way they choose and not a holier than thou social conservative who believes that a person's family dynamic goes to his or her ability to govern.

Hey Lymon,

Maybe you might want to pay more attention before you post crap.  It's not Obama surrogates asking questions of Palin's parenting.  It's the media pundits.  Last time I looked, Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown, et al are not Obama surrogates...PERIOD, despite what you and your type think.

Obama and Biden are doing what they were always gonna do during the RNC, campaign.  Have you heard hide or hair 'bout Obama/Biden?  No, because unlike McCain/Palin, the Obama campaign doesn't deal in Drama

lymon1:

"Obama surrogates should shut the hell up and get on with talking about the economy..."

And these "Obama surrogates" specifically are...whom?

Lymon:

Biden was already an elected senator when his wife and child died. These were circumstances beyond his control. By contrast, Palin is electing to stretch herself thin. Her ability to manage five children, including a special needs infant and a pregnant teen, while taking on the vice presidency is a totally legitimate concern.  She -- and the McCain campaign -- made her family central to her appeal as a candidate. They can't now throw a cloak of protection around them when that attention doesn't pan out the way they wanted.

I;ve decided that there is a case that this some of this - not much, but still - is sexist.  So OK, I'm just going to be sexist in this.

I think the demand that the Democrats leave the inner dynamics of Sarah Palin's family and family problems out of the political race, is a reasonable one.  It's a demand that Obama pre-empted by declaring that area to be off-limits.

However, whatever the Dems do, it's also reasonable for us to ask whether publicly declared positons by Palin or her cohort -- positions on matters of intimacy and family such as pregnancy, sex ed, and abortion -- make any sense to mainstream Americans.  Someone who favors a total ban on sex education is going to attract attention if her teenage daughter becomes pregnant and heads into a speedy marriage with a kid of the same age who, as far as one knows, is somewhat lacking on the maturity side.

It's pure GOP humbug to assert that only upper-middle class college educated people would raise an eyebrow at that.

Finally, this morning in the WaPo, the McCain team has got *its* story together about when and how Palin actually was vetted. What is it now? A week since McCain had made his go-ahead decision to ask Palin to run with him, and now we are asked to believe that the vetting process was thorough and complete. We are further expected to believe that McCain's handlers, among the best in the business by all accounts, hadn't anticipated that information (i.e. facts/data) about Palin's life and family would be high on every reporter's checklist, for biographical background.

Perhaps the McCain team is telling their story accurately (truthfully) now, but it still reflects ill on McCain's generalship if his subordinates hadn't done their job competently, and he didn't ask questions of his own about something any politician of any experience would realize could become a bombshell.

It really isn't an issue of morality or immorality, sincerity or hypocrisy, it's a matter of basic competence, something the record of our current president's command and control should be taken as an object lesson. If McCain suffers the responsibility stops at his desk.

I forgot to include the link to the WaPo article on Palin's selection:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008090203462.html

Two wars, a confrontation with a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, an escalating confrontation with an openly fascist (and nuclear-armed) gangsterized Russian regime, and we're talking about... sex education.

Abstinence, indeed. Never abstain, never refrain... from the Great American Kulturkampf.

Lamh31 -- "you and your type" -- you mean lifelong Democrats who voted for Obama three times and will vote for him again in the Fall?   But while I do think many in the media are far from impartial on Obama, yes, "surrogate" is overbraod as it technically means those with an official tie to the campaign.

BHL -- My understanding is that he had other children and the accident left him a single dad.  

Zeesh, isn't there enough in criticizing Palin as being a neanderthall, Pat Buchanan supporter with no foreign policy experience (or even ruminations) without unintentionally blasting every working mom in America?  

"[Palin] been critical of Clinton, calling the New York senator's charges of "sexist" news coverage -- whining.  She told Newsweek Magazine in March, '"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about the excess criticism or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good.'"

Maybe someone should ask Palin (if she will EVER do a press conference or anything) if the McCain and Republican counter-punch of 'sexism' is just 'whining.'

My only fear now that we have proven she is just another politician (bridge to nowhere, trooper-gate, earmarks, etc.) is that we are setting expectations so low for her that all she will have to do is show up and read the written words and it will be a success.  

Lymon: I agree with your last post.  i really don't care if she leaves her children to be raised by a she-wolf - why, they might off and found an Empire - but I do care if she parades her children for sympathy and in trying to milk her fecundity for political gain.  More to the point, it tells me a great deal about a woman who has her daughter running around getting pregnant, even as she not only opposes sex in school, or birth control, but actually cuts funding for shelters for teenage mothers.  And, of course, she has no business lecturing anyone on family values.  Her family, right of "" Roseanne", is off limits, so long as she keeps them off limits.

Tep: You're right.  There are two wars raging and your preferred muscular candidate is actually afraid of showing up with Larry King, and has the judgement to select Ma Palin as his running mate and potential successor in negotiations with Putin.  Reflect on that for a bit.

if you decide to bear a special needs kid with foreknowledge of those special needs, you covenant by your actions to spend the time and attention necessary to respond to those needs. it is not automatic that, by accepting the nomination, she's short-changed the child but it is fair to inquire about how she contemplates dealing with the responsibility and to draw conclusions about her character based on her answers.

icarus- Sarah Palin supports shooting she-wolves from the air, so leaving your children in the care of one might be risky.  Which means I'll need a new babysitter, I guess.

Carly Fiorina may have a point about experience -- it's not like Ms. Palin nearly mismanaged one of the largest computer companies in the world into bankruptcy or something.

"If Todd Palin, her husband, had been the nominee and his wife was off prospecting for oil on the north slope, I'd ask the exact same question."

The question would be problematic in that case too. What's wrong with asking this is not so much that it's sexist (which, if only asked of women, it is.) What's wrong is that it violates the privacy of the family to make its own arrangements for childcare. We have no idea what their planned arrangements are, but there are many acceptable possibilities that would indeed allow Sarah Palin to be consumed with her job. They might have extended family members who are planning to be the baby's primary care-givers. Or they might be willing and able to hire a nanny for this purpose. As long as the children are being taken care of adequately, it's none of the public's business whether the mother, father, grandmother, cousin, or paid nanny is the primary care-giver. We can have our private judgments about whether nannies or grannies or mommies or daddies are "appropriate" primary care-givers. But if we go down this path of debating her private decisions as a mother, we will be alienating many many women and men who choose, or are forced by circumstance, to leave their kids in the care of others in order to work.

And the hypocrisy of the family values cadre (their willingness to ignore these questions only so long as the target is "one of them") does not give us a good justification for engaging in these judgments of Palin. If we believe in respecting a family's right to make its own childcare decisions, then we believe in that principle, and should uphold it, even when others are behaving hypocritically.

Hemlock,

I think you've made the strongest argument I've yet read for not probing about the Palin's childcare situation.

That said, I do think that there are special situations where candidates are especially vulnerable to questions of balancing their priorities and I'm inclined to err on the side of inquiring.

When John Edwards ran for president I was concerned that having a wife with a potentially fatal condition was a cause for such concern. Dealing with a dying spouse is enough for anyone to deal with, but to do so while also Commander-in-Chief could have been overwhelming. And I would have supported journalists questioning him about this.

Likewise, I think the Palin's family situation is unique and worthy of special prodding. Having five children, an "absent" father, a pregnant teen and a newborn with Downs Syndrome would tax any mere mortal. To also be a heartbeat from the presidency may simply be demanding too much. I want a president and vice president who aren't being spread thin and I think it's not illegitimate to worry that such a family dynamic would do just that.

Is it sexist that our female politicians tend to work on childcare and healthcare? Is it sexist that women tend to vote on these issues more than men? I don't think so.

And most of the talk about Palin isn't sexist attacks, but working moms pondering how they'd deal with Palin's situation. Web forums discussing mothering are filled with back and forth as women mull over Palin and her choices. And it's because we all try to balance work and parenting. We second guess our OWN choices every day. Why would we not subject a public figure to the same scrutiny we place on ourselves? GOP folks says that Palin's ordinariness, her being so clearly one of us, is a plus. But when we talk about her as we would anyone else, we are slapped down. And it's unfair.

The issues that Palin's nomination raises are the same issues millions of parents wrestle with every day. And much politics is about this stuff... childcare, equal pay, prenatal care, sex education... We need to be discussing these choices MORE and ignore the calls from Obama and McCain to leave family out of it. Family is one of the most important things at stake in this and all presidential elections. Let's talk more about it. Palin's family, Obama's, McCains, our own.

The problem is that the people have a limited attention span - mine is to be measures in nanoseconds - and life being short and all, you can't expect everyone to concentrate on everything at the same time: the more you probe the family situation, the less time there is to look at her "Iraq is God's busines" and "God's will is that people and companies come together for a pipeline" speeches; every second spent on Levi "F***ing Redneck" Johnston is one second not talking about Creationism is school, no choice for women, and another Scalia on the Supreme Court; with pictures not only of Birmingham and her beau, but also of Track, Trig, Field and Discus thrown into the bargain, we lose the bigger picture of McCain's judgement in selecting this she-wolf hunter after one interview and a celebratory glass of bubbly grape juice.

So, Hemlock, I agree with you, but must confess to do so out of politics and not principle.  She could be the best mother in the world for all I care; McCain has shown himself to a senile old fool for having selected her and should not be allowed within a stone's throw of the Oval Office.

"Are the Attacks on Palin Sexist? "

"As criticism around the Sarah Palin pick grows, Republicans and their allies have launched a concerted counter-offensive designed to delegitimize attacks against her."

'Are attacks against Obama racist?'

This is the obverse of the other side's complaint that"

"As criticism around the Obama nomination  grows, Democrats and their allies have launched a concerted counter-offensive designed to delegitimize attacks against him."

What's fair?

Everything. You already lost the primary, you want to lose the general election too? Why are you even asking this? Democrats finally got Bob Shrum the f*&k away from their presidential campaigns, although 8 years too late. It's time to scrap this "let's play fair" nonsense too. Do you think the Republicans sit around agonizing, "Well, maybe we shouldn't call Obama a secret Muslim, it's not fair"? Not only should Democrats be making the case that the vice presidency is not a job for a parent (mother or father) of 5 young children, they should be trying to tie Palin to David Koresh. And loving every second of it.