A few thoughts on Sarah Palin and her unmarried, pregnant, 17-year-old daughter.

1. Obama's comment is a masterstroke.

2. Dems need not focus (or comment) on Palin's daughter at all; the MSM (and the general public) will obsess on this out-of-wedlock pregnancy without any partisan instigation whatsoever.  

3. The American public loves a scandal, and the interest in Bristol's pregnancy, fed by the MSN, will be widespread, which will, in turn, encourage the MSN to obsess on this subject endlessly.

4. Evangelicals and social conservatives within the GOP base may look forgivingly upon Sarah Palin and her daugher, as it is expected within such circles that we (as humans) will sin. What is not acceptable is acceptance (or normalization) of sin. If Palin plays this right, the base won't retreat.

5. The immediate problem for the GOP--and the immediate effect of Bristol Palin's pregnancy--is that it changes the (MSM) narrative at the GOP Convention to: what did John McCain know and when did he know it (with regard to knowledge of Palin's daughter's pregnancy and his selection of Palin as VP)?

6. This change in narrative will essentially obscure any message the Republicans try to get through to the voting public during their (hours of free prime-time air time) Convention.

7. The end result  may be the elimination of any anticipated bounce that McCain would have normally recieved in the wake of the RNC, especially with swing voters, as his message will be trumped by the perceived scandal.

Scheiber said:

"I'm not saying Bristol Palin's pregnancy is in the same league as these other examples. Or even that it'll prove damaging. "

But you can always hope, can't you Noam?

Just imagine how different the presidential race would have been had McCain had picked Bobby Jindal. Instead of Bristol's baby, the "bridge to nowhere" myth, the Alaska Independence Party, troopergate, the upcoming deposition, Palin's hiring of a lawyer, the earmark seeking, and whatever else has come out today; America would have spent Labor Day watching the Republican vice-presidential candidate calmly, effectively, and competently direct a hurricane emergency effort.

Thank you, PUMA?    

The law of unintended consequencies, adam.

Of course we're forgiving of teen pregnancy.  It's not a crime.  Assuming there was no involuntary sex involved, Bristol Palin did what kids her age often do, and either because she took stupid chances (another thing kid's her age do), or because she was poorly educated and equipped to deal with it, she got pregnant.  Shit happens.  She deserves help and support to keep her life on track, and her child's life stable and sustaining.

Obama's take on this was exactly right - Bristol's situation is no one's business but that of the families involved, and should not be a matter of national politics.

But Sarah Palin is another story.  She has voluntarily put herself in the public eye, and chosen to bask in the glow of her "great mother" status.  Yet her daughter's situation lays bare the foolishness and hypocrisy of the positions she advocates from that public position.  Abstinence only sex education leads - demonstrably - to at least many if not more teen pregnancies than no education at all.  And the Palin's statement that their daughter chose to have the baby and be married is ludicrous - Sarah Palin wants us to live in a world where there is no such choice available.   Candidate Palin should be expected to justify those positions, or repudiate them.  Let her argue from her family's experience if she wishes.

This constant mean-spirited chatter may be the least attractive side of the internet phenomenon.  Backyard gossips with megaphones.

The Washington Post printed an op-ed column by Michael Gerson

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008090102713.html

sympathetic to Palin and evangelicals.  The storm of vitriolic comments that tailed off from it is disgusting.  Same thing seems to be happening here, on a slightly more literate level.

Joseph Cuomo's analysis is sound as far as it goes. However, I seriously doubt if the netroots left has the discipline to follow Obama's example and shut up. As a result, I predict that the public will feel both slimed and patronized at the same time and ready to wish a pox on both political houses.

The problem for Palin is that she got on the ticket knowing that (1) she has a 5-month-old baby and (2) that her oldest daughter is five months pregnant. The question arises, just what kind of mother is she to leave these two back in Alaska? This may or may not be unfair, but there will be lots of people thinking it.

Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?  If the teenage daughter of a Dem was pregnant and unwed?  Oh, the righteous indignation we would hear from Kristol, Hannity, Limbaugh et al.  They would blame the entire party for loose morals and lack of parental supervision.

I agree that Bristol Palin should be off-limits, but what about Sarah?  Sarah Palin opposes sex education and contraception as a matter of policy.  What role did her political views have in causing this situation?  Would Bristol be pregnant today if her mother was not a right-wing evangelical fanatic?  

I agree pretty much with what has been said above (particularly Joe Cuomo's good analysis),- except for the predictable and gratuitous political posturings of Eos (does the Republican party pay for your subscription, Eos, so you can play the partisan troll?  I'm waiting for something actually insightful, thoughtful or original out of you, but I'm not holding my breath....) and the second half of the last paragraph of sdemuth's entry. (Isn't that exactly where Barack asked us not go, sdemuth?  To that judgemental place?)

The question I keep asking myself is....What Were They Thinking?   And not just John McCain and his campaign, but Sarah Palin and her husband?  Why would they drag their daughter through this media shit storm that they, surely, must have known would happen?  And if they didn't know it would happen, then they were not remotely prepared for a national political campaign.  In my world, an unmarried teenage daughter becoming pregnant qualifies as a pretty serious family crisis that needs to be dealt with with as much privacy and sensitvity as possible.  Not the time to say, "Sure", when John McCain calls and asks you if you want to be his vice president and drag yourself and your family into the glare of the national media spotlight.  Barack is right...this is private. But in order for it remain private (because all the high minded pronouncements in the world does not make the naitonal political environment anything less than the shark pit that it always has been and alway will be....) Governor Palin, and her husband, should have told John McCain... thanks, but no thanks, we're kind of pre-occupied right now with our own private family buisiness.  That should have come first.  Nobody over there, from McCain on down, acted like serious adults here.

Barack has himself a new slogan to use....."Vote for Obama and Biden.  The grownups".

I was watching the Charlie Rose show and one of the pundits commented that he found a huge disconnect, at the moment at least, between the attitudes inside the GOP convention hall and outside in the rest of the country.  Inside, delegates were cheerful and excited, talking about how the base had been roused by Palin's selection and now things were looking up for McCain, while almost anyone he spoke to across the country was either bemused, skeptical, or downright horrified that McCain would consider putting an unknown factor a heartbeat away from the presidency.

That can change, of course, as she makes herself known to voters.  But there's something going on that I'm not sure I quite get.  Or, at least, not yet.  Just speculating here, it's like a chasm opening up between average voters, including, especially, independents and moderate Republicans, on the one side and the evangelical-activist wing of the party -- they are seeing the world from different sides.  This used to be a classic Democrat problem, of course, with the charged-up activists coming out into the sunlight, blinking, and wondering why the working and middle class Americans were veering off toward Reagan, Bush, or Bush.  Now, it may be returning to haunt the Republicans.

The big danger is that, as more and more comes out about Palin and her beliefs, she'll begin to drift out of the framework of the relatively normal that Americans like their presidents to reside within (even Bush).  There's some room for personal idiosyncrasy and -- as a result of Obama -- much less fear nowadays of racial difference.  But basic ideas and style count:  if the term "wacky" ever gets attached to Palin, McCain may come to regret his decision.  A ban on abortion without any exceptions whatsoever, even for rape, may thrill the evangelicals.  But that's not how mainstream Americans look at it.

Good point, irony, that's what ultimately killed the Bork nomination.  He was finally percieved, by a critical mass of Americans, as outside that broad range of thought that they want their judges to rule in.  (No right to privacy?  Are you kidding?  If it isn't explicit, then you better find it somewhere  in there!  The Bill of Rights are rights that the Government gives us?  Excuse me?  Last I checked, the people were sovereign and the entire constitution was a list of powers we gave it, and the Bill of Rights were just us saying, by the way, these rights we explicitly reserve for ourselves, plus, to make the point aboslutely clear, we reserve the right to think up new rights at any time in the future!)

Governor Palin is skating very close to that place where most Americans think is politically kinky.  And you're right.....that's the place Democrats are just beginning to bring ourselves back from.  That's that "transformative" thing that Barack wants to do.  Move the center of gravity to the left a little.  Sarah Palin may please the "old ladies in tennis shoes" as they were called in the Goldwater days, but much of the rest of the country may find her a little too colorful for their taste.  

At any rate, she is on the verge of becoming the gift to the Obama campaign that keeps on giving.  And after the hurricanes are over and the media can turn the full force of it's attention on her......watch out.    John McCain may have just "crapped out" to use the verncular of his favorite pastime.

Sarah Palin allowed her family's life to be scrutinized when she used her Down syndrome baby as a symbol for the pro-life Republican base.  She chose this game and now wants to put in new rules.  Indeed, this is the new politics that both parties have allowed to develop.  We have gotten so accustomed to the storyline that we forget about real ideas and policy.  Palin's storyline looks like it's going to read like the Sordid Lives of Wasilla, Alaska.

This can only help Palin, as teen pregnancy is another thing that makes them "real" Americans, unlike those elitist Obamas. And yes, Obama was absolutely right to instantly remind everyone that his mom was a pregnant teen too. Instant cred, that.

I don't understand. The kid's going to marry the father. What's the scandal?

Yes, Obama's statement was superb, and raised my estimation of him. This non-scandal hasn't changed in the slightest my estimation of Palin. As for the Excitable Andrew Sullivan, I thought it wasn't possible to have a lower opinion of that sh*thead, but, hey, tomorrow is another day.

Also note the continuing class divide in this country. Any upper middle-class parent -- Dem or Repub-- would have discreetly secured an expensive abortion from a discreet doctor friend and kept the kid out of the news. After all, having a kid at age 17 dimishes one's earning power considerably, and there's no higher value for upper middle-class parents than ensuring their children have every possible advantage in the chase for prestige and wealth.

It's only blue-collar parents who'd even consider urging the girl to bear the child. This will only enhance Palin's appeal to blue-collar voters.

No more about this. No more. Shame on anyone who continues to wallow in this crap with the high-minded excuse that it's "news". NPR yesterday brought it up at least three times in their opening minutes. Disgusting. Leave it the *&#$ alone and get back to reality. Every person in the country should read and follow Obama's and McCain's statements on the subject.

In that spirit, I'm not responding to Tep's argument, though I quite disagree.

Ms. Palin's relationship and interactions with her daughter are none of anyone's business. That's the Democratic principal and I frankly hope the Republican's basically agree. What she's said about unconditional love and support is great. This is a good Christian attitude. What it DOES show, is the apparent lack of vetting, the shoot from the hip fighter jock mentality of the man who would be president.

I think this pregnancy - and her 17 year-old daughter's wedding plans - put Sarah Palin in a bad light, from the perspective of family-values Republicans.  Not because Bristol got knocked-up, but because her Mom is choosing to abandon her and Sarah's own 5 month-old child so that she can run for VP.  Sarah could have continued as Alaska's governor and have had some time available for her family - at a time when one could argue that the need is pretty intense.  

Instead, she will continue as governor and also join the McCain presidential campaign.  Talk about irresponsible choices - stepping up the career focus just when family needs you most - I think the good women of the GOP are going to find fault with Sarah's concept of motherhood.

As for me, I think her biggest crime is pushing this 17 year-old to get married - obviously the right political choice, but getting married before you are even eligible to vote is not exactly the formula for a successful marriage.  Poor Bristol messed up - now she has to do whatever it takes to save face for Mom.  

Family values, eh?

purcellneil. You and folks like you are going to lose this fight. Big. I say good. Believe it or not dads are as relevant to what's on the table as the box you have put Palin in. The box you ostensibly decry. There is something very attractive when She says yes unequivocally. Not only has she said yes, she is living it. You'll deservedly get your ass kicked on this one.

Literate: I agree with you with the one caveat that someone up here mentioned: if this had been a Democrat's lovechild, the Right Wing gang would be out there crucifying the child, the mother and the grandparents.  Just recall what McCain said about Chelsea and you see what I mean.  We can be high-minded, but let us not kid ourselves about the hypocrisy of the Republicans.  Dobson is out there extolling Palin's family values.  Family values?  "Values"?

When she was named, there were a lot of right-wingers saying that this was going to be a real life "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".  Me, I thought of "A Face in the Crowd".  With the benefit of a few days of revelations, I'm afraid that we're watching a TV movie based on one of America's best loved series: "Roseanne moves in to the Naval Observatory".

"There is something very attractive when She says yes unequivocally. Not only has she said yes, she is living it."

Boxo: I'm sure a woman is "very attractive" when "She says yes unequivocally" - or, a man, for that matter - but what exactly do you mean?  Who is the she - the orphaned pronoun - and say yes to what?  To getting married?  I thought it was the self-described "redneck" boyfriend who does not want to have kids and wants to have fun.  I read that and it reminded me immediately of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", with the cover page of the NYTimes as the modern equivalent of the shotgun.

"dads are as relevant to what's on the table as the box you have put Palin in" ... what is on the table, and which box is Palin in?  I disagree with you on your politics but you usually make more sense than this.  Don't get anger and frustration get in way of a good argument.  I mean this sincerely and not being sarcastic.  I don't think Palin's going on the campaign trail will mean anything whatever - everyone thinks politicians are selfish, so what's the news? - so I might well agree with your point, if I understood it.

Neil,

Box is right. You're off the reservation on this one. If this were a man running, would anyone fault him for taking VP and leaving his wife to take care of five kids? Didn't think so. BTW, last I checked, Todd Palin was taking a leave from BP to help take care of the kids.

Modern American family values mean that either parent can equally choose to follow their career as long as they feel comfortable with how the children are being raised. I'll tell you this, my seriously liberal wife is rapidly becoming very sympathetic to Palin because of all the "you should forget your career and stay home with the kids" crap. As far as I can tell, the Palins are a pretty decent demonstration of a family finding a way to fairly balance career and family and could be an inspiration to lots of families across the spectrum.

There are plenty of possible complaints against Palin. Her family values as reflected in her willingness to juggle career and family as an equal to the men's club is not one of them. And LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT. Drop it. Now.

vanwurs & nbarry-

Thanks for the kind words.

nbarry, I'm not sure that what the netroots do will have all that much effect on the MSM; this story already has a life of its own. As I said above, Americans love a scandal, particularly a sex scandal.

Last night I watched quite a bit of CNN, NBC, ABC, & CBS, and the only story to really break through the coverage of Gustav was (repeatedly) the Bristol Palin pregnancy story.

And this huge, prominently placed, front-page headline from today's NY Times--"Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process"--suggests that (as I said above) the story has already begun to change the frame narrative of the GOP campaign: the media focus now is on the extent of McCain's knowledge of Palin's background before he selected her (What did McC know and when did he know it?).

The pregnant daughter here serves as the first serious breach in the levee, and now other doubts and concerns about Palin have come flooding through, attaching themselves to the new narrative, the narrative of McCain's questionable judgement in selecting SP: ". . .it was learned that Ms. Palin," says the NYT, "now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge."

There's also this: "Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background." Which makes the campaign seem assbackwards, trying to vet Palin only now AFTER the decision to nominate her was already made.

One would expect the new narrative about McCain's judgement to spin off several other related narratives as well, such as the one I heard last night on more than one network: will Palin survive the Convention as VP, or will McCain have to pull back and nominate someone else to replace her?

Even if McC rides out the storm and stands behind his selection of SP, the force of the narrative swirling around him (and his judgement)--plus the obsessive interest in Palin's pregnant daughter (last night, Larry King was already hoping that CNN's correspondent in Alaska might unearth the name of the baby's father)--the force of this narrative (as I suggested above) looks as though it is going to blunt and obscure any message the Repugs try to get out during their own convention.

And this, in turn, will negate any anticipated bounce McCain might have received from a week's worth of free, prime-time, coast-to-coast air time.

teplukhin2you  wrote, "I don't understand. The kid's going to marry the father. What's the scandal?"

Yeah, she's only five months along...what's the hurry?

After all, depending on when one believes life begins, he's not the father yet. But if he is, the pressure is on...

Like it or not, if that guy was planning on not planning to marry her, he's stuck if McCain wins. If McCain loses, the kid can skip after the first of the year and he'll not be judged.

Clearly your assertion infers that two persons don't have a choice to not marry if they wish to avoid a scandal. At least as phrased, they marry-----no scandal, they don't...well, is that OK? They aren't married now, is that less good or not than if he would have sealed the deal when he realized he was the father?

Are you suggesting her Palin's candidacy means they should be held to a different standard regarding marriage? Does the Right weigh in on unwed mothers versus two parent households? If she were gay, how would that change how the Right's view her single-married status? How is a pregnant lesbian different-the same when judged by the Right?

Tep, I'll be willing to wager you'll find a much stricter definition of scandal in the GOP playbook. The Right may approve of not terminating a pregnancy but after that I think their rules are far from uncomplicated.

I'd consider the positions of the Right to fall on the wrong side of a person's privacy and their current talking points don't begin to address their policies on sexual-gender rights. Do be want a VP who consults scripture or our laws? Should she seek the advice of doctors and attorneys and respect the choices of the soon to be parents or bow to the Religious Right?

The couple is not married now but is is part of the public discussion. Barack can hope for serious discussions but a lot of what everything believes is tied to a person's private life. Will Barack have to remove references to paternal responsibility because it will be seen as judging the Palin matter? Both party's can ignore Palin's daughter but there is plenty of room for discussion of issues that are more complicated than "Babies are good".

The Kos crowd, always somewhat detached from reality with their conspriracy theories and reflexive anti-Americanism, has gone off the deep end with this pregnancy business. The kids are off limits and irrelevant to the race.

But I'll remind the Republican trolls hanging around the board - Eos - that McCain once made a habit of talking about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was. Stones, glass houses, etc.

The people that the Palin pick was designed to appeal to (evangelicals, mothers, and libertarian-leaning folk) either will not care about her daughter's pregnancy, or will support her more, given her decision not to abort the baby and to marry the father (assuming she does that).  

That liberals like Scheiber don't understand why this is the case says a lot about them.  

I agree with Adam Vaught, however -- Jindal would have been an even better pick.  

icarusr: She = Fem. Men have alternately worshipped and feared. Feared to extents of physical and psychological subjugation. Mother..... the source of life and nourishment...... and the jealous keeper of her own flame. We are all here by her forbearance and generosity. Or are you too enlightened to get that? And you thought that Mother Mary was just a bunch of bullshit. All fairy tales, right. Even flying things have roots. Whether they know it or not. Isn't that what evolution implies? I'll bet it likely even you have a mother.

tep-

You write: "I don't understand. The kid's going to marry the father. What's the scandal?"

I think maybe you're confusing the world as it is with the world as it should be, my friend.

Yes, the fact that Palin's daughter is pregnant SHOULDN'T be a scandal (as Obama has already acknowledged), but this is America, tep, and Americans eat this stuff up. Indeed, every major newspaper and tv and radio station is already focusing on this pregnancy AS a scandal.

Just for one instance, here's the NY Daily News on the subject today:

_____________________________________________________________________________

He's a superhunky bad-boy ice hockey player from cold country; she's a chestnut-haired beauty and popular high school senior.

The all-American teen twosome will make GOP vice presidential pick and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a grandma at age 44--just in time for Christmas.

Doe-eyed Bristol Palin, 17, and ruggedly handsome Levi Johnston, an 18-year-old self-described "f---in' redneck," have been dating a year, locals in Wasilla, Alaska, told the Daily News. . . .

On his MySpace page, Johnston proudly declares: "I'm a f---in' redneck."

"I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing," he says on the site.

He also warns that if anyone messes with him, "I'll kick ass."

The Web site, before it was removed, appeared not to have been accessed for a year.

On it, he admits to having a girlfriend.

On the part where it asks about children, he wrote, "I don't want kids."

Mark Okeson, the assistant principal at Wasilla High School, told the Chicago Tribune that Bristol started her junior year last fall, in the town where Sarah Palin grew up.

He said Bristol inexplicably transferred to an Anchorage high school midyear, leaving Levi behind.

"I never heard the story why," he said.

______________________________________________________________________________

I would bet that this kind of breathy, lurid, obsessive coverage of the Bristol Palin pregnancy is everywhere today, tep--in thousands of newspapers, magazines, radio and tv stations across the country. (As I said above, the Bristol story was virtually the only story to repeatedly break through the coverage of Gustav last night on CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS.)

It doesn't matter if it's right, it doesn't matter if it's sleazy; McCain and Palin (and her unfortunate daugher) are now in the eye of the storm.

And, yes, it may be unfair, tep, but the storm still exists, the storm is a shit storm.

Some good points Joseph and I think McCain's reason for choosing Palin for the positives he hoped it would provide are exhausted. Experienced or not, her potential for good may lag behind all the questions that arise with every news cycle.

I've spoken to people who are McCain supporters but not on the far right and they almost express an attitude that "He'll live for four more years, this isn't an issue." A tiny question about his health between now an the 4th might force them to shift their focus to her...

But I think after the convention McCain has two weeks at best to conclude if this is the game-changer he planned. I claimed yesterday they have a contingency to take a second bite at a VP should his numbers crap out, more nasty details about Palin emerge or the known facts conflict with reality. If they need to re-start they can't wait till the end of September.

It's tough for me to see how a a choice is a risk (Hey, he's a Maverick!) while claiming the only rule for a VP is 'do no harm'. Joe Biden wasn't chosen to be a game changer but his palliative effect was greater than others on Barack's short list. Biden's impressive resume was only tarnished by his rep as the guy who talked a lot. If that's the worst, Barack was smart for being safe.

I'm no gambler but the profile of McCain as a guy who prefers craps versus Obama the poker player is proving to more interesting as each week passes.

If McCain has to take a second bite at his VP pick then he is doomed.

And Democrats should stop talking about her daughter. If they want to talk about how her position on sex-ed is a bad idea, do it but don't mention the daughter, just the policy. That's as close as anyone should come to mentioning the daughter.

Many interesting perspectives here. I especially enjoyed reading JosephCuomo and boxofrox.

michael-

Thanks for the kind words.

As for Palin's nomination being withdrawn, though, I don't know. McCain can be stubborn, so he may stick by his pick, and ride out the storm. He (and those around him) may also figure that it would be more damaging to their chances if she withdraws. And McC and his handlers may also be anticipating a backlash (which may indeed come) against the MSM for its lurid fascination with this poor young girl's private life.

But if anything else blows up on the SP front (there appears to be an as yet undisclosed email from Palin re: Troopergate, for instance), then it's possible she may have to bow out for the good of the Party.

But if McCain does switch VPs, then, yes, I agree: it would have to be very, very soon.

As for the GOP base, yes, I agree here as well: the only way SP could lose them (or lose at least the fundamentalists/social conservatives within the base) is if her daughter has an abortion. As I think I said above, evangelicals expect us all to sin, and so as long as the Palin family's response to the sin is the acceptable one (keep the baby, marry the father), the timing of the marriage, or the pregnancy itself, won't matter to the overwhelming majority within the base.

As for the rest of the country, though, it appears that the coverage (as the Daily News piece above indicates) is already over-the-top and obsessive. To put it bluntly, Americans eat this shit up. And they shall have their fill, at least for this particular news cycle. Which (unfortunately for McCain) coincides with his one week to shine, the week of the Republican National Convention.

JEFF FREY-

Thanks for the kind words.

And, yes, you may be right: barring any unforseen major Dem gaffe, if McCain has to switch VPs, then he may indeed be doomed.

I also agree that Dems (especially official Dems, Dems in Congress, Dems speaking as surrogates for the campaign) should follow Obama's lead on this, and simply refuse to speak about Bristol Palin.

The MSM is going to acknowledge the Obama position, then (as network after network did last night) fixate on all the lurid details they can find.

When the backlash to this obsessive coverage comes (and unless another Palin scandal, like Troopergate, surfaces in a big way, the backlash will come), then the heat of the public outcry won't be directed at Obama (or Dems in general), but at the press.

The Legislature's Trooper investigation is going to release its report in late October, only a week or two before the election. While I doubt there will be anything in it that would lead to legal or removal from office problems for Palin, I also doubt that the report is going to be anything but a big negative for her. McCain knew or should have known about the timing (it was set well before the VP pick), it makes the choice even more curious.

One positive side effect of this episode is that the far-right will have to think twice before trying to evangelize their puritanism down our throats. As long as the left listens to Obama's stricture that silence is golden, any pronouncements about sexual conduct between consenting parties will conjure up the image of the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate being very human and make the backwoods preachers and their political panderers look like fools.

Palin is not an issues candidate, she's a values candidate.

Obama made an issues choice: Biden.

McCain, following the Atwater/Rove playbook, made a values choice: Palin.

So a close, hard look at Palin's character and values is in order. The Rove tactic is to divide and conquer over identiy/values, and it may work, again, this time.

But Palin is an extraordinary, in-your-face choice, completely discarding the impact of issues (i.e., Iraq, the economy, immigration, China, Russia, etc.) and putting all of the chips on identity politics (i.e., gays, abortion, religion, etc.).

This is exactly what Rove did for Bush, this is a re-play of the Bush campaigns. How can anyone with a straight face say this is not a bid for Bush's third term?

Boxo: I'm not that enlightened and yes, if the weekly calls (and calls on my conscience) are any indication, I do have a mother.  I still don't get the relevance of that to the political dynamics of the country.  I'm not a psychologist and pop psychology leaves me cold; twenty-five years of reading about politics and I have yet to find a single book or article that convincingly ties in the person to the political, even as all politics is personal.  There's irony for you.

McCain's muscular machismo leaves me cold; and Palin's fecundity - or that of her daughter - is not a selling point.  She supported Buchanan and joined a secessionist party in her thirties; she raised money for Stevens and was in favour of corrupt earmarks before she was against them; she is a rigid anti-choicer and has no worldview that I know of - other than "Bush is right" on foreign affairs.  A man, black or white or purple, with these strikes against him would be persona non grata; a woman, the same.  Bring in the dysfunctional family, and we are in Roseanne Barr territory, regardless of her Mother persona.

Obama held the high ground for ignoring the personal side of politics before Palin became grist. Barack has been the the target of a healthy and ongoing personal attack. No subject was too far removed from his policies to be included in formal and informal definitions of his qualifications for office.  This can be his "I told you so." to his staff, "See, at some point even most negative campaigns will find a reason to plead for civility and that's been our MO all along."

Regarding how much slack the right continue to cut McCain? It isn't a question whether they can tolerate hypocrisy. At the leadership level they will weigh how much drag from Palin is sticky versus who is a better Plan B even if they don't win. That is, they want to win but they don't want be stuck having to explain why they lost because of her.

It won't be what they learn about her that causes the backlash and they can't appear ignorant or caught off guard as that isn't a sound reason to defend. Just look back at those the right tosses overboard and it's the people that duped the command. Plenty of creeps survive because the defense is aware and ahead of the boo-boos. The window for redemption is narrow and may require more contrition than all concerned persons wish to provide. EX: Hockey boy can say "Screw you, leave me alone, I'm outta here." (The tabloid flashes some cash and he starts yapping)

Forgiving or not, there is no mileage for the religious right in naughty news & having the sinners fall on their sword enforces their power. Remember, it was the Cleaver Family who took the stage so it isn't as though they can brag that they converted a street gang. The claim, "We all have flaws." wears thin when there isn't forward progress.

Remember, W was a wild boy drunk before he hopped on the express. It remains to be seen if all the Palin's garbage is at the dump.

Another good post by Steve Sailer, this one on the Palin controversy.  Points out another reason for the animus against Palin by the secular left: she reminds them that they are getting OUTBRED by all those backwoods evangelicals: isteve.blogspot.com/.../sarah-palin-fertility-goddess.html

Per the Daily News' ostensible profile of the soon to be father and others' comments, this begs the question, exactly when was the engagement set? Whose idea was it? Does the boy need any inducements to marry apart from his own heart, and are any being offered? Did he ever offer money to "take care of" the baby (before it was born, of course).  If not, will he go through the marriage with Bristol? He can't be compelled to marry her, shotgun, NYTimes or otherwise.

We've already seen Sarah Palin's meddling on behalf of her family (the Trooper), who says she's not meddling on behalf of her daughter, or, herself? Is Bristol expected to save Sarah's face?

Maybe an outfit who injected all the personal of Obama's life into the discussion realized they couldn't expect to get away with "No comment" regarding their daughter. But they did set foot on a slippery slope after not disclosing, then disclosing to the point of predicting the nuptial.

No, the guy doesn't have to come forward nor would I want to be in his shoes and have them issuing my intentions. That is, I see a line between choosing to address their daughter's situation and adding the hypothetical third-party who has his own right to privacy.

I agree that everyone should respect and understand the meaning of "None of your business.". But I view that as iron clad and not just shielding when it serves one's interest. It's easy to protect one's privacy when doing so is a benefit. It's actually difficult to be discreet because people see an advantage in parsing out private information. That's when others jump to challenge the truth and seek the whole truth. I don't approve of prying so I don't provide a wedge. Many times I could defend myself but when another party is involved I refuse. Most of the time there isn't a witness in a relationship so I discount a person's statement till it's proved.

He may be OK with their characterization but absent him coming forward they are not respecting his anonymity. What would we know if it were their son?

I'm hearing, "Don't talk about our daughter and we'll decide everything you need to know about the father of her child."  

In my book, that's sorta private but Kant could better explain why they don't get it.

G66 writes:  ". . . she reminds them that they are getting OUTBRED by all those backwoods evangelicals"

Hm.  Doesn't Nancy Pelosi have a large number of children and a whole army of grandchildren?

The McCain campaign faced an interesting choice last night: They could go for gravitas, weaving in wonky