Does Gender Matter in Evaluating Palin?

by: tremayne

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 00:26


Here's a theme that is evident in the comments on all the Palin posts today: We should keep our criticism of Palin on issues not on personal characteristics and certainly not on gender.  

This seems clearly right at first but then there's this from conservative pundit Ramesh Ponnuru:  

Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?

No, I can't say that with a straight face. Even Dan Quayle had 12 years in Congress and nearly 2 as a Senator before his selection. And the first woman selected (24 years ago!), Geraldine Ferraro, had 6 years in Congress. Both Quayle and Ferraro held law degrees.

Imagine if McCain had selected a man in his 40s, Governor of a state with a smallish population who.....oh wait we don't have to imagine this, McCain had someone just like this on his short list and he was rejected as being too much of a lightweight: Tim Pawlenty. Let's compare Pawlenty to Palin and see if gender played a role in this selection.
tremayne :: Does Gender Matter in Evaluating Palin?

Sarah Palin             Tim Pawlenty

Alaska                     Minnesota

Pop: <1 million       More than 5 million

Gov. for 1.6 yrs       Gov. for 5.6 years

Prior: mayor           10 yrs State leg. including Majority Leader

Pro-Life                  Pro-Life

In addition to this, while Palin has no foreign policy experience and has admitted (recently) to not having thought much about the Iraq war, Pawlenty has travelled extensively throughout the world and met with foreign leaders as part of trade missions for Minnesota.

But the main knock on Pawlenty was that he would eliminate the criticism of Obama being too young and inexperienced. There was also some concern that Joe Biden would make him look bad in debates.

So, you think gender was a factor? Gender was the main factor. If it was just one factor then it would be defensible. Heck, as Adam Bink points out in the post below there are many Democrats who favored Hillary Clinton in part because of the importance, both symbolicly and substantively, of having a woman in that role. And there are many Democrats who factor in Barack Obama's race as another reason for supporting him. And earlier today Will pointed out that progressives have helped move the goalposts to make such a pick even possible for the GOP. But if gender is your primary reason for selecting someone, shouldn't you be asked to defend that? Especially if the person seems an otherwise dubious choice for the job and there are many other women who would be reasonable choices?

Now I agree that attacking Palin directly on this is tricky business. But it seems a fair question to ask McCain, especially in light of his earlier comments about Obama's inexperience and the need for a VP who is ready on day one. This is another McCain flip-flop and he should be called on it.

 

 

 

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Does Gender Matter in Evaluating Palin? | 95 comments
I assume (4.00 / 5)
republicans will be supporting all affirmative action programs now since those programs actually require the person to be at least as qualified as the other candidate.  
Republicans (4.00 / 4)
only agree with affirmative action for the highest offices.  Which is why Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.  
[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
They support it only when it has political advantage. never when it is used to legitimately address grievances of inequality.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
And BooMan .. (4.00 / 2)
wrote a post earlier today .. listing eight women with more qualifications then Palin
yes (0.00 / 0)
it's linked in the above
[ Parent ]
Just Being Objective Here (0.00 / 0)
Being a woman was only one factor and it people bother to do some extensive reading it was probably not the main factor at all.

As for the 'unqualified' remarks you made let me address two things that blow that out of the water. One is it does not matter how populated Alaska is. Regardless of the size of the State a governor has pretty much the same duties as a state like New York. Smaller in scale of course but still the same issues to deal with. So to say that a governor of N. Carolina has a tougher job that the governor of Alaska is probably a silly statement to make. Plus each state has issues unique to them that others don't. Alaska certainly has some unique issues and things that need governance.

As for your federal qualifications and examples you provided (time in congress, law degrees, Tim Pawlenty's time in grade)...

If those are your benchmarks then Obama doesn't pass the test does he? So you see how unobjective your argument is?

You are all willing to accept something far below your benchmark standards for the top spot - but are unwilling to accept someone who arguably has similar credentials, and even executive credentials that Obama does not have, for the second spot. It makes no frigging sense! How can yuo say she is not qualified that she does not have 12 years in the federal government when Obama does not have 1w years in the federal government?!!!

Argue the issues of hers that you disagree with. But to rail on her just because she is a woman from a smallish state is dumb. It makes you all look like you are female bashing - the exact thing that the Lefty blogoshphere did to Clinton but wont admit it no matter how many 'B' words and other gender based comments they made.

Even Obam/Biden campaign jumped off the small state argument real fast yesterday (see link below) - I would suggest that you all catch up to them and not be left behind.

Just for the record I don't support McCain or Obama. What I do support is objectivity and knowing and telling the truth about what both campaigns are doing. To ignore or try to spin what the republicans are doing and why accomplishes nothing at all. In fact by definition to ignore facts, to avoid reading facts is the definition of ignorance. And we all know none of us wants to be ignorant. So stick with the facts and try to keep up with your own guys campaign that already moved on from the small state argument because it is an ignorant argument and a losing argument to boot.

Here is the news that Obama/Biden have moved on:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/0...

[ Parent ]
Your comparison of Palin and Obama are moot. (0.00 / 0)
Obama was voted on by people (18+ million of them, unlike your normal primaries).

McCain chose Palin, with his infinite wisdom and experience.

Palin's qualifications matter for only one reason: what it says about the character of a person who touts "country first" and "terrorism is the transcendental struggle of our times" and then goes ahead and chooses someone who has zero experience with, or interest in, the "transcendental struggle of our times".  

I guess we can safely retire the "dangerously unqualified" and the infernal "3 am" memes now.  Just how insincere and political is John McCain?

[ Parent ]
I was comparing (0.00 / 0)
tremayne's comparisons of Palin to others and applying the same to Obama. Pay attention! By his comparison Obama is no more qualified than she is.

As for votes - now that Palin is the VP nominees I will bet you $1000 that she will receive more than 18 million votes. Want to take that bet?

[ Parent ]
I'll take it. (0.00 / 0)
If you lose you have to clean my house.

I've only got one.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
On Alaska (0.00 / 0)
The city I live in is more populous and diverse than the state Palin governs. She has no experience, as another astute commenter pointed out, with urban issues or agricultural issues. Those are two areas of great significance in which she has little or no experience.

And yes, it is a state and she is the executive (for 21 months so far) but the job she does, and the issues she faces as being Governor of Alaska, are far different from that of California or Minnesota or Pennsylvania. The experience is comparable, but by no means identical.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Of course, Palin will receive more votes in the general election, (0.00 / 0)
than Obama received in a highly contested primary, that is obvious (given that there are enough stupid people in this country who will still vote for the ReThug ticket, even after the disaster that is the last 8 years under their rule)!

BUT, it is a stretch to think that the votes their ticket receives will be due to her.  If it is, then we should probably consider some kind of political IQ test before allowing people to vote, since they are screwing up the country dangerously close to irreparably.

By his comparison Obama is no more qualified than she is.

Huh?  Obama's bachelors degree is in international relations; he opposed the war in 2002 with an incisive analysis of why it was wrong-headed and presciently predicted what we may expect in its aftermath (for comparison, Palin last year said she does not know anything about the Iraq war, because she had a state to govern); even the Bush admin is showing remarkable good sense by following the lead of Obama in: 1) agreeing to a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, 2) agreeing to send additional troops to Afghanistan, and 3) monitoring and acting a bit more in the border region with Pakistan where the man who perpetrated the crime of the century is still roaming free, 4) starting to engage Iran instead of just rattling their sabers like the impotent little bullies that they are.

Do you know what Palin's prescriptions for these problems were/are?  On loose nukes for instance (another area Obama has tackled in his short, insubstantive Senate career)?

The singular disservice the Democratic primary contenders in general and Hillary in particular performed for the country, was the deployment of this idiotic meme that about Obama's experience and accomplishments, either in domestic issues or in foreign affairs.  Just the four points I have listed above are sufficient to show how cynical they were...

[ Parent ]
Whoawhoawhoa... hold your horses with the unsubstantiated statements! (4.00 / 7)
I'd like to call a pause here!!  

Tremayne, Adam Bink, and an awful lot of others are tossing out some serious presumptions that deserve questioning, concerning female voters and the Sarah Palin pick.  

Adam devotes an entire post to the "Democratic women" that aren't voting for Obama because of the fierce primary fight and because of their loyalty to Clinton.  

Above, Tremayne simply declares that "there are many Democrats who favored Hillary Clinton in part because of the importance, both symbolicly and substantively, of having a woman in that role."  

I don't think it's fair or right that we treat a narrative like this one as self-evidently true, without backing it up with real data.  I think it shows that we in the Netroots are not immune to subtly gender-biased behavior ourselves.  

You're both committing the same error as 2/3 of the media (and the same error McCain has made in selecting Palin at all) -
You're referring to Obama's underperformance among "white Democratic women" as though these women's choices are being driven by their gender identity... as might be suggested if they were the only group acting this way.  

BUT THEY'RE NOT.  Chris Bowers has already eloquently debunked this false narrative, but no one seems to be paying attention:

"This mirrors the findings of the Gallup poll, where Obama is overperforming Kerry in virtually every demographic, but underperforming among Democrats."

In other words - Obama isn't underperforming among Democratic women - he's underperforming among Democrats, period.  This suggests that its not anti-Obama women's gender identity primarily driving their voting behavior after all, but something else - something that other Democrats (men) are exhibiting as well.  

I propose that a significant subset of Democrats simply liked Clinton because she's Clinton, NOT because "she's a woman" - and these are the folks Obama's trying to win over right now.  

But what this means for McCain, is that his Palin scheme (which I agree, Tremayne/Adam, can be for no reason other than because McCain really thinks it will get womens' votes) is bound to fail completely.  If women aren't holding out for Clinton particularly because she's a woman, then there's nothing for Palin, as a woman, to offer them.  McCain would have to pick a Veep that reminded these voters of Clinton in more substantive ways to win them over - something he couldn't do, for one, without picking a Democrat in the first place!

Do you see what I'm saying?

No data showing white women specifically holding out on Obama = no magical white women problem that McCain's Palin pick can maaaagically exploit.

All of this is easy to puzzle out if we just look at the DATA.  But I fear that the reason so many don't is because it's easier to reinforce narratives about identity politics and treat women like narrowly predictable idiots who vote not only in lockstep, but for all the wrong reasons (while presumably, men lead quiet, rational political lives and make decisions on real-life, non-identity-based "issues").  

I wrote a great deal more about this in a diary earlier today, "Who's Afraid of Sarah Palin?"  I would welcome your responses and comments, and please read my diary if you have a chance.  I really want us to take a breath here and show our Netroots values of thinking critically and deconstructing prejudice.  

i've said nothing in this post about Obama underperforming with women voters (4.00 / 2)
In fact, I've said virtually nothing about the effects of this pick on voters. This post is just about the rationale behind McCain's choice and how gender play a big role.

Re: Hillary. It is uncontroversial to say that some supporters (both men and women), in addition to whatever policy reasons they may have had for supporting her (health care?), also thought having a woman president would represent progress for America. Dozens of comments on this site and others during the primaries attest to that fact. Doesn't mean it was the only reason she had support and I didn't say that.

[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 2)
That's fine tremayne... and I don't mean to pick on you about this specifically, when it's more something I'm seeing all over the place (and Adam's post which tries to categorize these mythical, critical "woman voters" while completely disregarding other demographics got me fired up about it before I got here) - so I apologize if I jumped to conclusions.  

The way I saw it, you weren't just making the point that of course, some folks (men and women) voted for Clinton on the symbolic grounds of breaking the glass ceiling.  We know this to be true anecdotally for some cases at least.  I just object to it being used as a way to ground arguments for or against Palin, because without knowing how many of these voters there are, and without knowing some of the other reasons they voted for Clinton besides breaking the glass ceiling, it becomes a kind of cynical identity-politics reification that I think is harmful and disrespectful to the group being typecast.  

I can see how, since most of your post is simply about Palin and the fact that she WAS picked on gender grounds (I agree with you), you weren't necessarily defending this "white Dem women are mad at Obama cuz of Hilary, so Palin's a way to peel them off" nonsense.  

[ Parent ]
agreed that this won't gain them much from women (4.00 / 2)
at least women who have been paying attention. It will probably gain them something from......hmm...religous people who enter their daughters in beauty pageants and hunt moose with big guns...I don't know. Only the polls know...
[ Parent ]
In fact its an insult. Cynical, badly executed and shows no judgment. (4.00 / 1)
'An insane choice' links to the UK's The Guardian for an outside view.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
It will unquestionably gain them with fundies. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Which is completely meaningnless since McCain didn't have a base probrlem (4.00 / 1)
in the polling data. He has a problem with everyone else.
[ Parent ]
But polls don't capture enthusiasm and, thus, turnout (0.00 / 0)
Not yet, at least. That was, until yesterday, one of Obama's hidden, time-released advantages (the others being registration and GOTV).
[ Parent ]
tryuing to build enthusiasm with his shrinking base (0.00 / 0)
as the expense of swing voters seems odd.

He is losing undecideds as per the latest polling with this decision.  

[ Parent ]
tryuing to build enthusiasm with his shrinking base (0.00 / 0)
as the expense of swing voters seems odd.

He is losing undecideds as per the latest polling with this decision.  

[ Parent ]
He does have a problem (0.00 / 0)
with Fundies because of his 'percieved' pro-choice position. Where have you been?
[ Parent ]
But it's not that bad of a problem (4.00 / 1)
because They've made Obama out to be the devil or the twelfth Imam or something.
[ Parent ]
Which is completely meaningnless since McCain didn't have a base probrlem (0.00 / 0)
in the polling data. He has a problem with everyone else.
[ Parent ]
Your diary was very interesting (4.00 / 1)
and I am going to go back and look at some of the polling.

You make a great point here.  

In some ways we are accepting something as true that simply may be wrong.  

[ Parent ]
Call it what it is (4.00 / 5)
Obama isn't underperforming among Democratic women - he's underperforming among Democrats, period

NO -- Obama is underperforming among WHITE Democrats. We can nibble around the edges with all kinds of fancy explanations about the support for Hillary being from her role as a leader or her political positions or status as a woman, but the truth is, a certain unknown portion of this resistance among WHITE Democrats is just old fashioned racism. No amount of rational discussion is going to change the fact that Obama is still black, and many of these people (let's call them, oh, say, "Reagan Democrats") will never get past that. We CANNOT parse this situation by referring to gender factors alone.

But we always knew that if Obama were the nominee there would be problems in gaining the votes of Reagan Democrats. They have been voting against their interests for more than a quarter century, and were originally attracted to voting Republican at least in part because of that party's blatant appeals to racism. In a way it's an interesting experiment: How badly do you have to be screwed by Republicans before you're willing to vote for a black Democrat?  

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Just because people aren't talking about it doesn't make it true. It makes it murkily hidden.

I've got two co-workers (excuse the anecdotalism)-- one man, one woman, both lifelong Dems -- and they have both been against Obama from the beginning. Their substantive positions, which they have both expressed clearly, line up nicely with Obama's. The woman has stated she is a single-issue pro-choice voter. The woman was a Hillary supporter and the man was an Edwards supporter and then a Hillary supporter. Their reasons have never been identical or static. They have changed whenever they have needed to change.

Neither one wants to vote for Obama (although they haven't come right out and said they absolutely won't) including after the Palin news yesterday. In fact, they both seem excited about Palin, including the 'single-issue pro-choice' woman.

Is it because of racism? Who's to say for sure and who's to tell them and how, which is the exact analytical and practical conundrum we find ourselves facing.

[ Parent ]
Clarification (0.00 / 0)
To be fair to everybody involved and to further clarify my point, my two co-workers are good people and clearly not racist, as the term is usually defined. In fact, given what I know about them and their careers, they appear to be pretty much the opposite.

I suspect, though, that their positions against Obama are significantly a function of the more subtle, unconscious aspects of racism that only occasionally pop up in telling but plausibly deniable usage of terms like 'arrogant' and 'presumptuous'.  

[ Parent ]
I really think that we need a word that's not 'racist' to describe (4.00 / 2)
some of these things.  A word that communicates "you're looking at this from a point of privilege, and I don't think you're looking at the entire situation."  Right now, the words we have for that are 'racist' and 'sexist,' but those words also, clearly also imply much, much worse behavior and their use destroys conversation, rather than inspiring insight.  
[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This is exactly what I've been saying -- (4.00 / 3)
Palin does not win McCain any votes he did not have already. The anti-Obama voters who used Hillary as an excuse will now use Palin as an excuse, but they were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

Plus now we get to ridicule them for hiding behind a polar bear killing, global warming denying, Big Oil loving creationist.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Palin wins him (0.00 / 0)
some fundies who would have otherwise sat it out (i.e., higher turnout) but otherwise I agree.

Meanwhile, she loses him some significant number of security-minded voters, especially men.

[ Parent ]
"unsubstantiated statements!" (0.00 / 0)
You had a good post going until I read this:

I think it shows that we in the Netroots are not immune to subtly gender-biased behavior ourselves.  

You're both committing the same error as 2/3 of the media (and the same error McCain has made in selecting Palin at all)

 

Aren't you making an "unsubstantiated statement" in saying McCain picked her because she is a woman? there are many reasons that he picked her and if one bothers to read some of the conservative commentary they will see that there are far more things the conservatives are happy about other than she is a woman.

And just to insert something else in here it appears that she is playing well with America at first blush:

From todays Rassmussen poll:

Sarah Palin made a good first impression. She was unknown nationally before being introduced as the GOP Vice-Presidential pick but is now viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide. Her counterpart, Joe Biden, is viewed favorably by 48%. While Palin has made a good first impression, the more significant numbers will come a week from now after the nation has a chance to learn more about her.

Favorability 5 points higher than Biden's!

[ Parent ]
You're right. (0.00 / 0)
McCain didn't choose her because she's a woman, he chose her for her demonstrated ability at screwing things up. Like leaving the small town where she was mayor in a financial shambles, and putting a man with a record of sexual harassment in charge of public safety.

She's Heckuva job Brownie all over again, the perfect Republican Veep.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yeah I know (0.00 / 0)
And Obama kept funding Iraq for two years and voted for FISA and telecom immunity, and voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill.

Which had more negative impact on the country and you personally? Palin or Obama?

BTW just for the record during this multi-year wind down of the economy there have been a lot of cities and states in economic crisis. Was her town just hit like a thousand others? I don't know the answer to that nor do I care. But if you are going to make an argument that she screwed up and was just not victim of a bad economy like thousands of other small governments the you should post those facts. And if you don't have facts to back up your smear then you are just spreading trash and are no better than other people who spread trash. Just saying, you know.

[ Parent ]
Read some more about her. (0.00 / 0)
Some kind of crooked development scam, as best I can tell. Typical Alaskan Republican stuff, the type that gets you promoted in those circles.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It's just the comparison (4.00 / 2)
The comparison of Palin to other potential Veeps is what raises the alarm bells. Are you arguing there aren't other potential Republican VPs that the Right would praise in the exact same way? I think there are many that would get identical praise and praise for their record and experience. Palin has the right-wing street cred, but none of the other qualifications many other choices would bring to the table. She is a massive liability in many ways. So what factor was powerful enough to compel McCain to choose her despite these liabilities? Two come to mind - she is attractive and she is a woman. If there are other factors that distinguish her from the field, state them.

Add in to the this idea that McCain chose Palin shortly after Obama decided against choosing Hillary, having only met Palin once, and the indictment starts to get pretty firm. This is a political ploy by McCain - which is certainly not out of character - and I take no shame in being offended by what I have called and will continue to call brazen, politically-motivated, disingenuous tokenism.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
This isn't entirely unsubstantiated (0.00 / 0)
You're right that there aren't facts to prove that McCain selected Palin primarily or in large part on the grounds that she is female.  

But unlike my criticism above of the "concern trolling/biases about women voters" theme I'm seeing lately, there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that Palin's status as a woman was the critical factor behind McCain's decision.  

That's what tremayne's entire post above is all about!  tremayne takes an equation of many variables (a set of plausible attributes Palin has, for which she could be picked - gender, experience, policies, skills, youth, geography - you know the drill) - and then "cancels out" many of those variables by comparing Palin to another plausible candidate (Pawlenty).  Youth - out, outsider - out, political views - out, and on and on.  tremayne concludes that the only terribly plausible factor remaining is Palin's gender, and I don't take issue with his argument there.  

If you do, poke a hole in it and convince us!  Otherwise, I don't think your criticism of my statement adds up.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Somehow Obama needs to bring up all the attacks Mc had about Obama's experience, but at this point that is about all I would say about her.  Keep attacking Mc.  Watch the media narrative and polls carefully.  If he keeps his bounce from the convention, then he says nothing but polite things about Palin.  Let the media get the word out on how absurd this is.  If polling heads in the wrong direction then start hacking.

This pick is completely absured.  Can you really get to the white house with a bachelors in journalism, being the mayor of a town (population 5500), and being elected governer because the other repub was a complete loser?  HRC has to be fuming and if she is really in Obama's camp she should lob the first "Are you fucking kidding me".  Or let Susan Eisenhower drop this lightweight.  Ideally none of this would happen until after the VP debate.  Let expectations rise somewhat so we don't have the George Bush 'he really can talk and stand at the same time' bullshit.  

yes (0.00 / 0)
watchful waiting may work. The "old" media may wake from their Bush-induced slumber and start picking Palin apart themselves. Better for the Obama campaign if it happens that way. Then again they may just sit back and enjoy the ride....a close race sells more peanuts.
[ Parent ]
targets (4.00 / 9)
Now I agree that attacking Palin directly on this is tricky business.

I agree.  In fact, I don't see much point in attacking Palin on this at all.  After all, how many politicians looking to establish themselves wouldn't accept the VP spot if offered, notwithstanding their lack of qualifications?  The fault lies not with Palin for being woefully unqualified for the position, it lies with the person who put her in the position.  The more I think about it, the more I think McCain undercut not just his experience argument, but also his judgment argument and his integrity argument.  And that's not something you can get around just by talking about how you were in a cell while your running mate was in kindergarten, my friends.

whoops (0.00 / 0)
Not sure how that double happened, I guess all this Alaska excitement has got the tubes jittery.
[ Parent ]
targets (0.00 / 0)
Now I agree that attacking Palin directly on this is tricky business.

I agree.  In fact, I don't see much point in attacking Palin on this at all.  After all, how many politicians looking to establish themselves wouldn't accept the VP spot if offered, notwithstanding their lack of qualifications?  The fault lies not with Palin for being woefully unqualified for the position, it lies with the person who put her in the position.  The more I think about it, the more I think McCain undercut not just his experience argument, but also his judgment argument and his integrity argument.  And that's not something you can get around just by talking about how you were in a cell while your running mate was in kindergarten, my friends.

Sarah Pain (0.00 / 0)
For a moment that's what I keep seeing when I read the name "Sarah Palin."

McCain/Palin

renders this effect even more.

Me too! (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
McPain n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
These experience arguments are (4.00 / 3)
really starting to irritate me.  Look, experience can be highly overrated.  For two years, we've been saying that Obama has judgement and a different kind of experience than that of people who have been in politics forever.  People have even said: "Look at Lincoln, he didn't have much experience in government." Admittedly, Lincoln had a lot of experience as a corporate lawyer and a debater, but nonetheless that has been an argument.  I think Palin is probably a lot brighter and a better politician than Danny Boy even if she doesn't have as many years in government.  Of course one of the reasons McCain picked her (or rather McCain's handlers picked her) was because she's a woman and that will bring more viewers to the Republican convention and maybe shake things up a little.  But Jesus, one of the things I've loved about reading blogs is that bloggers have a different perspective about who serious people are. Atrios and Kos mock men who have been around forever and consistently get it wrong but are "serious" people because they have experience and I've laughed along with them.  Now, suddenly, experience counts like it has never counted before.  Let's take Palin on for her wingnut positions and leave experience on the side of the road.  To do otherwise only reminds people that, if you look at time in government, Obama is far behind McCain in experience.  Let's question Palin's judgement (ethics probe), ties to big oil, anti-science stands, etc. and if the traditional media want to point out, which they will, that she is not ready for prime time because she has no experience so much the better.

Associated Press ---  I'm John McCain and I approve their articles because, well, because my staff writes them.

People say 'experienced,' but they mean (4.00 / 2)
'qualified.'

There is absolutely nothing in Palin's resume to show she's qualified to be VP.  

[ Parent ]
I love mind readers! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I really dislike this argument (4.00 / 3)
It may resonate with conservatives, but there are several problems with it

1 Diversity is a good thing

2 All the white men who could have been chosen also would have been chosen in part because of their gender.  

White men generally don't understand this because they see themselves as the default gender and race and just assume that 100% of everything they get is based on merit.  Thus when anyone other than a white male is chosen it has to be because of their race/gender.

I know such attitudes tend to personally hold me back in subtle ways at work, but I can ignore them as I work in a skilled field and it only takes a little while to prove competence to another engineer.

I knew the conservatives were right when they said that certain liberals wouldn't be able to help themselves in making sexist attacks, but keep in mind that your attack is based purely on sexism and white male privilege.

I am not too bothered as it is pretty obvious that such opinions are prevalent in some parts of the netroots, so I don't want you to think I am singling you out.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

I don't think that is fair (4.00 / 1)
Arguments like that basically immunize woman like Palin from criticism. We can't say she is underqualified? Why? Is there any other reason aside from her gender? We can't say McCain chose her as a obvious political ploy? Why? Because Palin is a woman?

Agreed - and man who may have been chosen would also be chosen for their gender. So why can't we point out that any woman is also chosen, in part, for her gender? If we agree that picking a VP is a political decision with political ramifications, it behooves us to discuss and analyze the motives of that decision.

I never have understood how throwing around accusations of sexism helps a discussion. It simply stops a discussion. That is a big problem when the discussion is important - as this one is. If McCain chose Palin not because of her qualifications but because of a political ploy, we need to call that out. I'm not saying it should be the media narrative, and I am not saying Obama should run ads about it. But here, on this blog, and out there, in discussion with people we know, we should never be afraid to discuss a delicate issue just because sexism exists. We all know sexism exists, and we do a great disservice to ourselves and the public discourse by pushing it under the rug out of the fear others will decry us a sexist.

I encourage all readers here to continue discussing this issue openly, to face and accept criticism for your opinions, and to be open to other points of view about the delicate issue of gender politics. To do otherwise is to hold back your own understanding and the understanding of people around you. Never let an accusation of "sexism" shut you up, but rather use it as an opportunity to more deeply explore the issue. Every man and woman has a right to discuss these issues, and we are better off when we all do.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
it may give some of the anti-Obamaite Hillary supporters an excuse but... (0.00 / 0)
the fact that she is female shouldn't change any rational person's vote preference.

Obama has a much better record on women's issues than does this governor lady.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Key word: rational (4.00 / 3)

 That's why we're worried.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Rec'ed for pithiness (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This article concerning Palin does not mention gender (4.00 / 2)
"I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq" -- Palin (0.00 / 0)
http://www.salon.com/politics/...

This really is an amazingly bad choice.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

It's a horrible choice in real-world terms (0.00 / 0)

 But it's not a bad choice politically.

 I can't think of a more revealing example of just how sick and twisted John McCain is.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I suppose the MSM could just go giggly on Palin (0.00 / 0)
What with McCain already losing capacity and having cancer theres no chance a completely unprepared person will be President.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
The legacy media is doing just that. (4.00 / 1)
.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
I like the term "legacy media" (0.00 / 0)


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I think McCain has already given us the frame we need (4.00 / 3)
to make this attack -- "passed over."

Why did McCain pass over so many more qualified candidates? Why did he pass over Romney and Huckabee?

This is the question he needs to be hounded on.

Montani semper liberi

Obama (0.00 / 0)
Needs to be reaching out more to women specifically.  The attitude of the campaign has been that women will come around because they have to and if the "just stop and think" they would see how much better Obama is.  Most will not be swayed by Palin on the ticket, but they aren't likely to give of their time, money and support to Obama without some assurances that he cares about women as a constituency.  
Agree (0.00 / 0)
I think the Convention helped with this. Obama should continue to address it more frequently. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain - both in terms of political advantage and legitimate social advancement - by raising women's issues more loudly and more often.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Laughable (0.00 / 0)
This is laughable.

Let me paraphrase your quote and Geraldine Ferraro.

Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Obama would have gotten the nomination if he were white?

Come on.  You're stretching, and you'll have to do better than this.

And on Pawlenty (0.00 / 0)
He also would have put a serious state in play for the GOP. Not clear that he would have been enough to take MN, but it certainly would have helped McCain eke out 270. This does nothing on that score.
Not exactly nothing (0.00 / 0)
The Alaskan polling average was about 5 IIRC and this will obviously nail it down.

But I grant your general point -- Minnesota is much more important and much more likely to be a tipping point state.

[ Parent ]
I've thought this through a bit (4.00 / 3)

 I think that an effective campaign against Palin is to completely, exclusively focus on her wingnuttery.

 She's a radical dominionist. THAT's the point we need to push about her, over and over.

 Forget the "inexperience" theme -- it's obvious enough already to the average voter. The meme doesn't really need any help -- and pushing it eventually devolves into a comparison between Palin and Obama, which doesn't productively advance the case against her. Leave that one alone.

 And forget that she's a blatantly cynical, political pick by McCain. Those are process arguments that tend not to resonate with non-political-junkies.

 Don't call her dumb. She isn't. And that just sets things up for her exceeding expectations in that regard.

 There are IMHO two potential effective prongs of attack here -- go after Palin for being an out-of-the-mainstream fundie nutcase, and go after McCain for his extremely poor judgment in extending the keys to the White House to such a dangerous radical.

  THAT's the vector. Palin is an extremist. Palin does noyt share our values. That's the way to frame her.

  The gender issue can be neutralized by having Hillary Clinton deliver a good barrage of these attacks.

  She's a wingnut. She's a wingnut. Repeat. Repeat.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

and she's an irresponsible wingnut (4.00 / 2)
Bush had almost no national policy record in 2000 and that was good for him, he was a blank slate that a lot of voters filled in their imaginations with "moderate."

Palin's the same ... the biggest clue on how she will govern the U.S. is how she ran Wasilla as mayor. She was an irresponsible mayor, she broke the budget to juice up development and left the city with $20 million in debt.

[ Parent ]
Also, she is a dumb wingnut -- (0.00 / 0)
she tried to scrub her own wikipedia entry!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Nothing says "not ready for prime time" like making a rookie error like that.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
this is a losing angle (4.00 / 1)
this is not going to help. you think americans 'think' as much as you, or give a crap if a politician is calculating in their choice. they already know it and dont care. the GOP base will love her, and women will be intrigued by her, and picking her gives McCain a boost in energy and restoration of his independent image. not only will people automatically know gender was a factor (they dont need you to point out the obvious), they will applaud McCain for it!

Ok, this is getting boring, I've said enough over several of these threads.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Still trying… (0.00 / 0)
...to wrap my mind around this selection. Any way you come at it, it just seems odd. Does McCain know something we don't? He's a flip-flopper, yes, but in recent politics that can also mean you're a savvy political animal. (How else did he get this far?) Is he actually ill--as his reticence about releasing his medical records might suggest--and finessing it by offering up a running mate who could never pass the electorate's muster? What does the GOP have up there sleeve?

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
The problem with Palin (4.00 / 1)
is that she's 1/4 Rocky Balboa -- remember how Creed chose Rocky in the first place?; 1/4 Marge Gunderson from Fargo; 1/4 Phyllis Schaffley; and 1/4 Dan Quayle. And John McCain's 9/10 old.

These add up to bad news -- everyone loves the underdog; Marge Gunderson was one of the most likeable movie characters of all time because of her accent, her tenacity, her steadiness under pressure, and her gender; fundies love Schaffley, who is/was legitimately powerful and dangerous; and Dan Quayle would have been a disaster as a president; age and medical history makes the one heartbeat away scenario a real possibility.

Marge Gunderson (0.00 / 0)
knew the difference between right and wrong.

That was kind of the whole point of the movie -- the conflict between the cleverness of evil and the wisdom of good.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Playing the victim (0.00 / 0)
It's about the cynical McCain's camp notion that gender can be used like Hillary did in New Hampshire and after her first debate with Rick Lazio.

If the Obama camp questions Palin, McCain will respond in a fury of self-righteous indignation, attempting to play the gender card.  This won't work, as Palin is no Hillary Clinton, and the Pantsuit's supporters recognize this.  The intensity of Clinton's support owes in no small part to the perception that she is uniquely qualified for the presidency in a way that makes her candidacy a once in a lifetime proposition for many older female voters.  These people will find Palin's selection insulting and see it as the transparent gimmick it is.

Unless a major scandal breaks around team Obama, McCain handed Barack the presidency yesterday.  While it's not advisable for Obama to attack Palin directly, he can use her to question McCain's judgment and the level of experience represented by the ticket as a whole.  

Moreover, she's got a cronyism scandal of her own in which she's already been shown to have given misleading statements, leaving aside her numerous appearances on wingnut radio.  I still have trouble believing this myself, but it seems as if McCain didn't really vet her but panicked after the wildly successful Democratic convention.  

People, when Larry King, doyen of the featherweight chattering class, is scratching his head on the day of Palin's roll out, you know McCain has made a serious mistake.  Even the Republican pundits and McCain campaign officials couldn't defend her on the basis of practical experience and readiness for the presidency.  When Alex Castellanos tried to use Palin's inexperience to slam Obama, Begala replied that 18 mil+ voted for Obama who has the support of former presidents, generals, congressmen, senators, etc., while one man selected Palin, and he'd only met her once.  This is a devastating argument in an age where a ticket is expected to have the right chemistry, something conspicuously lacking in McCain's awkward, tortured appearance yesterday in Ohio.

Equally important, Palin's selection legitimizes questions about McCain's health.  I have never heard the word "cancer" stated by so many talking heads as was the case yesterday.  As a "gift that keeps giving" moment, Palin's selection makes Kerry's "for it before I was against it" moment look like a stocking stuffer.

Baby Trig was birthed by Palin's 16 y/o daughter? (4.00 / 1)
This is somewhat interesting...

The rumor on the internets is that the new addition to Palin's family may have actually been birthed by Palin's 16 year old daughter.  This rumor is based on the following reported facts:

- Palin never appeared to be pregnant.
- She traveled to the Texas Republican Governors Association energy conference when she would have been 8 months pregnant.  Most airlines have special policies for pregnant travelers, if they will even let them fly at all.
- Her water reportedly broke just before she was scheduled to give a speech at the conference, and she gave the speech anyway.
- Instead of giving birth in Texas, she immediately flew back to Alaska, eight months pregnant, with water broken.  She still did not appear to anyone to be pregnant.
- She was back to work just just days (2 days?) after reportedly giving birth.
- In contrast, her 16 y/o daughter was out of school of many months and was not seen by any of her friends during that same period of time.  It is claimed her daughter had mono.

I would put this in the rumor category right now, but it is an interested twist about someone we know very little about.

Wow. (0.00 / 0)
Well if true at least she'd be following in Cheney's footprints with the whole bastard grandbaby thing. Looks like that may become a Republican Vice-Presidential tradition.

On the other hand, it makes her statement that she would force her own daughter to birth a rapist's child even more chilling.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Interesting rumor (0.00 / 0)
The fact that the baby has Down's syndrome, however, suggests that the guv is the mother, since teenagers don't often have babies with Down's whereas 40-something mothers do. Unless, of course, the father is older...advanced age of the father has recently been shown to account for a much larger chunk of Down's than was previously thought. If there is any substance to this, we have, added to the troopergate story, the makings of a Jerry Springer campaign (and I don't mean that in the sense of being mayor of Cincinnati).

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead
[ Parent ]
I find it much more likely (0.00 / 0)
that a sixteen year old gave birth to a Down's Syndrome child than that a woman in active labor chose to get on an airplane and fly six hours instead of going to a hospital.

She's either lying, or crazy.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
7 hour flight (0.00 / 0)
Its a ~7 hour flight non-stop, not including ground time.  We're talking a full day trip, 10-11 hours total.  Supposedly 8 months pregnant, with broken water.
[ Parent ]
When I had my children (0.00 / 0)
I was told you cannot leave the hospital once the membranes have broken. The risk of infection is just too great.

Yet Palin took a ten hour journey, through public airports, etc. etc. And I guess no one noticed the water pooling at her feet? Because it doesn't just come out all at one time, the baby's head acts like a cork, so the water stops and starts as you move around and change position.

I don't know, I'm gonna have to go with lying on this one.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Not to mention that the radiation you get in the upper atmosphere (0.00 / 0)
is basically equivalent to an X-Ray or two on a long flight like that.  If that baby had ended up being born on the plane, it would have been extremely dangerous.
[ Parent ]
I am curious about this too (0.00 / 0)
There were some curious circumstances. But let's not jump the gun on this. It's a big accusation and the evidence so far is limited.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
chronicles of Palin's pregnancy (4.00 / 1)
This is everything I could find at Anchorage Daily News.  It all make sense if Palin was never pregnant.  Except for the part that implies (but does not actually state) that the baby was born at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center.  It would seem to be difficult to fake the mother of a baby born at a hospital, if that is in fact where the baby was born.

-----------------------

March 6th, 2008
Secret's out: Palin pregnant
http://www.adn.com/front/story...

Gov. Sarah Palin shocked and awed just about everybody around the Capitol on Wednesday when she announced she's expecting her fifth child.

Palin said she's already about seven months along, with the baby due to arrive in mid-May.

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

But people just couldn't believe the news.

"Really? No!" said Bethel state Rep. Mary Nelson, who is close to giving birth herself.

"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child."

She's known as a fashion plate, but [Palin] said she hasn't been dressing differently to cover her barely perceptible bulge.

-----------------------

March 9th, 2008
All abuzz about Palin
Mention as VP candidate and pregnancy create a stir
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska...

As for her recent news that she is pregnant with her fifth child, Palin said it never played a part in any thoughts she has entertained about a hypothetical vice presidential bid.

-----------------------

March 9th, 2008
http://www.adn.com/ear/story/3...

Well, darlings, is there anything left to say about Sarah's pregnancy? After the acres of ink spilled since the announcement, Ear sees only three unanswered questions: What's the gender? What's the name? And how the hell could she get to be seven months pregnant without anyone leaking it to Ear? So much for the Omniscient Orifice.

And by the way, not a single reporter noticed? Are these the people we count on to watch the government for us? It's mind-boggling.

Sharon Leighow, the governor's press aide, was there when Sarah told a small group of reporters, including Bill McAllister, Wes Loy and Steve Quinn, as she was leaving the building Wednesday.

"You should have seen it," Sharon said, clearly amused. "Their eyes went straight to her stomach. There was about seven seconds of silence. Then someone said, "You're kidding."

The Luscious Lobe is inclined to blame the general cluelessness on the fact that the Juneau press corps is overwhelmingly male, but Sharon insists she too didn't know until last week. Sarah effectively hid her baby bump with long scarves, jackets and coats, she said.

Reporter Julia O'Malley, whose story about the pregnancy appears on A-1 today, asked Sarah if she'd picked out any names. "We've always liked the middle name Van because, you know, growing up in the '80s, Van Palin would be a really cool name," joked the governor.

-----------------------

March 11th, 2008
Governor's pregnancy attitude shows we've come far
http://www.adn.com/opinion/sto...

Excuse me, but I just have to say this: Darn that Sarah Palin! And believe me, when that phrase first popped into my head, "darn" was not necessarily the euphemism that came with it. I know life is not necessarily fair, but this is ridiculous. I look more pregnant when I'm constipated than Palin looks two months before delivery. Where is the fairness in that? I have friends who swear they looked more pregnant seven minutes after conception than she does now.

This woman was doing shoots for Vogue magazine when she was at least four or five months pregnant, and they weren't pictures of women who happen to look good pregnant. They were pictures of powerful women who just look good period. If she is trying to lose the vote of every woman who has ever run through the grocery store with a hoodie pulled up over her head because she was having a bad hair week, she's done it.

Then, just when I thought she had finally pushed me to the limit, what with being beautiful and having a seemingly great husband and nice kids and a good job and all that stuff, I read this quote from her in the newspaper story that broke her pregnancy secret: "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." And I fell for her all over again.

I will eventually get over the desire to stand up and scream at Sarah Palin, "Are you kidding me here? You're seven months pregnant? Where are you carrying this baby? In your pocket?" Once that impulse has passed, I'll be left with a quiet feeling of satisfaction that I was of the generation that led to all the Sarah Palins who dot the American landscape today. Happy baby, Governor! Way to show 'em how it's done!

-----------------------

April 19th, 2008
Governor cuts Texas trip short, gives birth
http://www.adn.com/politics/st...

Gov. Sarah Palin gave birth to her fifth child at 6:30 a.m. Friday, flying home from a conference in Texas to have the baby boy at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center.

Meet Trig Paxson Van Palin. He's 6 pounds, 2 ounces, and about a month early.

"It was quite a surprise," said Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow.

Palin and her husband, Todd, had been in Texas since Tuesday for a Republican Governors Association convention, Leighow said.

The Palin family issued a statement that read: "Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives."

Asked what special challenges the family was referring to, Leighow said, "It's a family matter, and that information should come from the governor herself."

Leighow said Palin and her son were healthy and resting comfortably Friday.

The sequence of events surrounding the labor was unclear.

An announcement from the state said that Palin's "labor began (Thursday) while she was in Texas at the governor's energy conference, where she gave the keynote luncheon address, but let up enough for her to travel on Alaska Airlines back to Alaska in time to deliver her second son."

Leighow said she doesn't know when Palin's contractions began.

"The governor would have never left Texas if she thought that it put her child at risk," she said.

Palin's parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, declined to be interviewed.

Palin was scheduled to sign a bill into law today at a Lions Club convention. That appearance has been canceled.

-----------------------

April 21st, 2008
Palin confirms baby has Down syndrome
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska...

Gov. Sarah Palin was back at work today, holding a meeting on the natural gas pipeline three days after giving birth to her fifth child.

Palin and her husband, Todd, showed the baby, Trig Paxson Van Palin, to a few reporters and talked about the sooner-than-expected delivery.

Trig arrived about a month early and has Down syndrome, the governor confirmed. Testing during early pregnancy revealed the condition. Palin said she was sad at first but they now feel blessed that God chose them. The couple has lots of family support, she said.

Palin was in Texas at a Republican Governors Association energy conference last week when early signs of labor began. She said she called her doctor early Thursday morning after some amniotic fluid began to leak. She talked over what was happening with her doctor, and they consulted about what to do.

She gave the keynote luncheon address, then she and Todd caught an Alaska Airlines flight back to Alaska. She said was never in full-blown labor on the plane but was having a contraction or two every hour.

"By my fifth child, I know what labor feels like," Palin said. That wasn't labor, she said.

The governor said she won't take a maternity leave but will bring Trig with her to work. Her spokesperson later clarified, at Palin's request, that the governor will take time off for medical appointments, physical therapy and whatever Trig needs.

[ Parent ]
family photo (0.00 / 0)
2007 Palin Family Christmas photo.  Nov 18 would be five months before the baby's birth.

http://media.adn.com/smedia/20...

[ Parent ]
I take back the date (0.00 / 0)
I take back the date on that photo.  Its not well sourced.  The photo was included on the ADN website in a March 2008 story, was not dated, and look like a file photo.
[ Parent ]
one I missed (0.00 / 0)
For completeness, here's one I missed:

-----------------------

April 22nd, 2008
Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome
FAMILY FEELS BLESSED: Back at work already, governor says she wasn't in labor in Texas.
http://www.adn.com/626/story/3...

Gov. Sarah Palin was back at work Monday in Anchorage, holding a meeting on the proposed natural gas pipeline three days after giving birth to her fifth child.

She and her husband, Todd, showed their new baby, Trig Paxson Van Palin, to a few reporters and photographers and answered questions about his condition and the sooner-than-expected delivery.

Trig has Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that affects a child's intellectual and physical development, the governor confirmed.

"When we first heard, it was kind of confusing," Palin, 44, said. She called the revelation "very, very challenging" and said she initially felt sad.

But the family has worked through that. Palin said she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God. With a big family including four older kids, grandparents, aunts and uncles, Palin said, they will have lots of support for what's ahead. In their eyes, she said, "he's absolutely perfect."

The oldest Palin kid, Track, is in the Army and texted his mother after learning the news with something to the effect of "This is just so cool -- I finally got my brother."

EARLY ARRIVAL

Palin was in Texas last week for an energy conference of the National Governors Association when she experienced signs of early labor. She wasn't due for another month.

Early Thursday -- she thinks it was around 4 a.m. Texas time -- she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is based in the Valley and has delivered lots of babies, including Piper, Palin's 7-year-old.

Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.

"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.

Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.

"I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor," Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn't in labor.

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

"To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said.

Some airlines have policies against pregnant women onboard during the last four weeks of pregnancy, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against flying after 36 weeks.

This was going to be Palin's last flight anyway, her doctor said.

Alaska Airlines has no such rule and leaves the decision to the woman and her doctor, said spokeswoman Caroline Boren. Palin was very pleasant to the gate agents and flight attendants, as always, Boren said.

"The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress," Boren said.

Palin never got big with this pregnancy. She said she didn't try to hide it but didn't feel a need to alert the airline, either.

They landed in Anchorage around 10:30 p.m. Thursday and an hour later were at the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla.

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.

"It was smooth. It was relatively easy," Palin said. "In fact it was the easiest of all," probably because Trig was small, at 6 pounds, 2 ounces.

Palin said she wanted him born in Alaska but wouldn't have risked anyone's health to make that happen.

"You can't have a fish picker from Texas," said Todd.

Palin said she won't take maternity leave but will go with Trig to doctor's visits, physical therapy, whatever he needs. She's breast feeding and plans to bring Trig to work with her, just as she did with Piper.

"It just feels like he fits perfectly," Palin said. "He is supposed to be here with us."

[ Parent ]
This is great, thanks (0.00 / 0)
First she says it wasn't false labor, because she's been through labor and knows what that feels like. Then she says it wasn't active labor, either.

Not to mention she has four children and apparently had never heard about the risks of running around out in public with ruptured membranes.

This does not look good.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Doctor who delivered baby (0.00 / 0)
Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, reported to have delivered the baby, is the founder of Providence Matanuska Healthcare.  The clinic has 11 physicians on staff.  See http://www.providence.org/alas...

According to their website:

http://www.providence.org/alas...

It's time to come to the hospital when:
- Your bag of water breaks or you are leaking fluid

[ Parent ]
birth certificate is confidential (0.00 / 0)
It would seem to be difficult to fake the mother of a baby born at a hospital

It might not be as hard as I thought.  Medical records are strictly confidential under Federal Law.  And it turns out, in Alaska, birth records are also strictly confidential:

http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph...
"Under Alaska law, all Vital Statistics records are strictly confidential until they become public records. Births become public records 100 years after the event; deaths, marriages, and divorces become public records 50 years after the event."

[ Parent ]
It seems to me (0.00 / 0)
faking a birth certificate is something a governor would find easy enough to do.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
genetic testing (0.00 / 0)
Well then, the only thing that could tell for sure is genetic testing.  Without getting into a description of how someone would do it, I figure it could be done for about $5K to $10K.
[ Parent ]
Naw (0.00 / 0)
if true, this cannot be hidden much longer. There were other people on the plane. Did she act like a woman in labor? Was any arrangement made to have her met at the airport by an ambulance?

As this story come to the surface, people who were there will start to talk.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
maybe (0.00 / 0)
but I doubt it.  The only people who would know are a very select group of hospital staff who would lose their jobs if they talked.  And there's no where else to get a medical job up there.  It would be career suicide.
[ Parent ]
Whoa... (4.00 / 1)
... I think it best not to go there...

Hilary Clinton supporters seem very insulted by the pick already, but if reopen the wounds from the primary, they may start to have more sympathy for Palin...

The attack should be focused on McCain trying to rig the system by picking someone totally unqualified as his VP, overlooking many others who were more qualified, in order to scare up base votes, rig the process, and fool other voters...

I think it is pretty clear to the American public that Palin is unqualified... The media is actually doing its job for once...  let's let them handle it, and work on attacks that will actually help us win the election...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Quayle (0.00 / 0)
     Quayle was in the Senate for 8 years when he ran for VP. He defeated Birch Bayh in 1980 and won a second term in 1986.
Does Gender Matter in Evaluating Palin? | 95 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox