I first heard rumors of some woman from Alaska being considered for VP as I was boarding the shuttle at o-dark-thirty (around 6am) Friday morning. Honestly, I didn’t pay much attention, figuring that the talking heads on TV were just doing their normal filling airtime. As I was sitting in the smoking lounge at the Denver airport, I started seeing pictures of this woman flashing on the screen. Moments later, the caption was changed to indicate that she was Sarah Palin – and Republican John McCain’s pick for VP. NBC’s Matt Lauer broke the news on MSNBC.
My initial reaction was WOW. On the surface, this appeared to be a bold pick for McCain: a female, who could possibly appeal to the disaffected Clinton supporters, a youngster (she’s 44) which could help with McCain’s health and age issues, and a conservative who could shore up the base. An added bonus was that this choice would force the Democratic Convention and Obama’s speech from the front page and limit the so-called “convention bounce” in the polls. (According to Gallup, McCain and Obama were virtually tied prior to the start of the convention but by Friday (which doesn’t include the announcement), Obama’s lead had stretched to eight points.) Even though the announcement included some information that she was under investigation, I figured there must be nothing to it. After all, she’s been vetted, right? Surely the McCain folks wouldn’t choose a running mate who had real issues.
Two days of non-stop coverage (McCain at least got that one right) have led me to a different response.
The party of “family values” has taken on a woman who has five children to care for, including a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Isn’t that a bit disengenuous? Somebody explain to me how she can trapaise around the country for the next two months?
As for capturing the disgruntled Clinton supporters – um, no. Despite giving Hillary her props in her announcement, Palin earlier said Hillary was whining when she complained about the sexist treatment by the media. And, of course, her laughing at a cancer survivor being called names. Somehow, I can’t imagine these things will endear her to the Hillary contingent.
And then there is her stance on abortion. Palin is even more anti-choice than most:
The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.
Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother’s life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, “I would choose life.”
Given this stance, the rumor that her youngest child is not hers, but that of her 17-year old daughter, it not too far fetched. (Of course, I don’t expect the MSM to do anything to try to get to the bottom of this. Calling the National Enquirer!)
If McCain were serious about capturing the Hillary vote, he would have picked a different woman. As others have said, she’s no Hillary Clinton. Not even close.
McCain achieved his goal of getting Obama off the front page. And he likely achieved his goal of firing up the conservative base, which might very well make this election competitive. But at the end of the day, I think America needs to follow the lead of another conservative woman, Nancy Reagan, and just say no to Sarah Palin.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Just ran across this report. Included is a statement from the cancer survivor Palin laughed at, State Senate President Lydia Green:
My first reaction when I heard this (over in another part of the airport) was “he’d be better off picking Michael Palin” (from Monty Python).
I was halfway expecting McCain to pick a woman; his campaign seems really focused on the idea that they can draw disaffected Hillary supporters. I can’t see Palin as the right choice, though. Anti-choice, pro-creationism, even anti-polar bear, and of course an ex-beauty queen — she certainly fits the GOP mold for female candidates, but I can’t help seeing her as a slap in the face to Hillary supporters.
“Somebody explain to me how she can trapaise around the country for the next two months?”
Funny how I don’t think I’d hear that question of a male candidate.
I don’t really get the “slap in the face to Hillary supporters” thing. It’s not as if it’s even a little reasonable for a Clinton supporter to expect concern about them from John McCain. I mean, isn’t the entire point of the GOP slapping Hillary and those that support her? Look at the village idiot above me, pretending to care about the sexist implication of a question. There’s not an ounce of sincere concern – it’s just another fraudulent act in service of an agenda that stands in complete opposition to Hillary Clinton.
Oh, I get the slap part. Surely you’ve seen the McCain ads trying to get support from Hillary’s folks. No doubt they thought that any woman would do, as evidenced by this choice. I guess they think Hillary’s supporters are stupid – thus, it’s a slap. And if they were serious about attracting any of them, they certainly wouldn’t have picked Palin.
And no, faux concern for sexism doesn’t play, either.
“Funny how I don’t think I’d hear that question of a male candidate.”
See, this cynical use of any random argument, even though you stand for the complete opposite, is what has the Republicans in such a panic that they have to find an excuse to cancel their convention. Try the truth for a change, Brian. You might find it refreshing.
Any mom, and anyone with any experience with special needs kids, understands how important the first few months of that child’s life are, and how much he needs his mother. Any mom with any sense would have put her ambition aside for her baby.
There is an expression (altered a bit to make sure we don’t offend Brian’s sensibilities to sexism, “Behind every successful person is a surprised mother-in-law.” Apparently Palin is no exception, her mother-in-law isn’t sure she’ll vote for Palin.
Vivian, that comment about having kids to raise, and spreading a rumor about the parentage of a child, are truly beneath whatever veneer of class you once professed.
Go ahead — run the last few moderates and centrists out of the party and piss off the independents while you are at it.
I can understand you being skeptical of Sarah Palin. In fact, I would not expect you to be swayed at all by her, so this post is not too surprising. But to suggest that you are buying into the slanderous rumor that she is taking care of her daughter’s child, for the first time brings me a lot of doubt concerning you, Vivian. Never mind that there are pictures and accounts that clearly state otherwise.
I hope you come to realize that that rumor is nothing more than rumor before it gets confirmed either by the mainstream media or the National Enquirer, because it is rumors like that that bring about issues over credibility.
There are three things I have noticed about Sarah Palin that stand out to me right now. First, she has quite quickly excited the Republican party behind their current presidential ticket. Even now, a couple months after Obama locked up the nomination, many Hillary supporters still seem pretty hesitant to vote for Obama. Secondly, for Democrats to criticize Palin for her lack of experience is madness. She has been a governor as long as Obama has been a Senator, and her experience at the state or lower level is comparable. If we really want to get down to it, she has one key thing Obama lacks: executive experience. Best yet, she has cut in front of Hillary in line, now holding a better chance of being at the top in 2009, and leaving Democrats without the possibility of being the only ticket to “make history” (since that seems to be the strongest selling point for the Obama-Biden ticket right now).
Funny how these feminists are so keen on keeping the glass ceiling clamped down tight.
Heaven forbid a woman should be a mother and a success too.
spotter – I fixed your link.
Now I have – the party of “family values” would be the first ones saying that if the candidate was a Democrat. That was my point, which you obviously missed.
As for spreading the rumor – funny how I got comments and emails lauding me for posting about Edwards before it was confirmed but when I take on one of yours, I’m losing my “veneer of class.”
I’m calling BS on that.
And CR – I couldn’t find any pictures on that link that showed otherwise.
Women of America, Vivian wants you to get back to raising your kids and leave the big electoral jobs to the men….oh, and Hillary.
“As for spreading the rumor – funny how I got comments and emails lauding me for posting about Edwards before it was confirmed but when I take on one of yours, I’m losing my ‘veneer of class.'”
Probably because there was actually some evidence towards the claims over Edwards, whereas there are none, only accusations, against Palin.
And you can’t find any pictures? Well, I know selective vision can be a problem.
Wrong again, Brian. It’s the Republicans saying it:
CR, I’m not going to scroll through page after page of drivel to locate a single photo. And at the time I posted on Edwards, there was no evidence. A lot of smoke, just like here, but no fire.
Oh, but it was okay for John Edwards to continue to run for President after hearing his wife’s cancer has reoccurred. As a woman that made me mad, his kids are small kids. So, a woman can’t juggle being a mom, a politician and a wife. HONEY, I GOT NEWS FOR YOU, We’ve been keeping this country running for years as Mothers, Wives, and Professionals.