At Ease Wrote:However, apparently John McCain hopes you do, since he was scheduled to go on Larry King tonight on CNN. Unfortunately he's cancelled the interview, claiming his staffer was treated unfairly in the segment about Palin that 69/70/75 referenced above.

Here's that interview, if you want to decide for yourself.

I'm favorably inclined toward Palin, but I can't really complain about this interview.

I thought the staffer was a doofus. Yes he got hammered, but the questions weren't that hard. I certainly didn't think the initial questions were off base. Some of the follow-ups may have been over the top, but when you're as clueless as the guy was, what's the interviewer supposed to do?

I can't possibly imagine Palin screwing it up worse than this guy did. He made Paris Hilton sound like a Rhodes scholar. If I were McCain, I'd never allow him in front of a microphone again.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I'm not saying this poor baby is going to be left alone, but she needs to be a part of this baby's life, just like the father. I, personally, feel that being vice president will seriously detriment the time she can spend having an active role in Trig's life. She doesn't need to be "constantly around" because that's ridiculous, but she needs to be around.

Why? Back this up with some examples. Tell us what is the acceptable amount of time for a mother to be around a special needs child? 18 hours a day? Quantify how much time should be spent with him before "detriment" sets in. While you're at it quantify for us how pronounced his DS is. There are various degrees DS affects a child. Many are very high functioning. Do you know where Trig sits in that regard?

Do YOU know what the vice president does? If you can't gather from the amount of travel, meetings, conferences, amongst other things that the vice president does how Sarah's time with Trig will severely shortened, then I don't know what to say. Also, there is no magic quantifiable value that is the optimal amount of time to spend with your kid. It's completely dependent upon the situation.

They can't test for how severe Trig's Down syndrome is until they can start comparing his abilities with the norm for children (when he starts walking, talking, potty-trained, etc.) I'm quite aware that there are varying degrees of Down's syndrome, but while many are high-functioning, some are not.

Quote:No, you're sexist because you believe she can't be VP and a good mother. You've never once raised the concern about Obama's kids. The fact that they're not special needs doesn't mean they don't need just as much attention from their parents.

That's not sexism. I can think someone can't be a VP and a good father. Does that make me sexist? No. I don't raise a concern about Obama for two reasons: neither of Obama's children are 4-month old infants and neither of them have Down's syndrome. Special needs kids need more attention than normal kids; that's why they are called "special needs". I'm not trying to force gender roles. I feel that a mother or father taking a job with the hours and amount of travel would have, like being VP, is selfish and rather irresponsible.

Quote:No. You're just saying this woman can't do the job because of what you've mapped out in your mind as her "acceptable" role as the mother of a special needs child.

I'm saying she can't do both because no one can both well at the same time. I have mapped out what I think an acceptable role is for a mother with an infant with Down's syndrome, but I've made this position using medical opinions and a little bit of research.

http://www.downsyndrome.com/how-to-raise...drome.html
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/...h/870.html

The fact is your double standard is mind boggling. You are not qualified to make the assertions about Palin that you have any more than anyone would be to attack you because of your choices with your kids (if you have any). You have no idea what she will and won't be able to do. You simply don't like her, you'd never vote for McCain anyway, this is just your way to attack her personally instead of discussing legitimate issues.

If she were a democrat, you'd never make these assertions.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...27574.aspx

Here's another new story on her. I'm sorry - I just don't see how she's going to appeal to anyone but the very conservative. She isn't going to win over the Hilary voters.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The fact is your double standard is mind boggling. You are not qualified to make the assertions about Palin that you have any more than anyone would be to attack you because of your choices with your kids (if you have any). You have no idea what she will and won't be able to do. You simply don't like her, you'd never vote for McCain anyway, this is just your way to attack her personally instead of discussing legitimate issues.

If she were a democrat, you'd never make these assertions.

There is no double standard. They are completely different scenarios.

You're wrong, I do like her. I don't agree with many of her positions, but I like her. I think she's a good politician and has a history of weeding out corruption. I was kinda excited about McCain when he first announced he was running for President, but he kept pandering to the conservatives and I slowly lost support for his campaign. I can discuss legitimate issues, and have on this board many times. If by attacking her personally, you mean questioning her judgment and her priorities, then yes, I am "attacking her".

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...27574.aspx

Here's another new story on her. I'm sorry - I just don't see how she's going to appeal to anyone but the very conservative. She isn't going to win over the Hilary voters.

Wow, now a hatchet job on what she says in church?

Any delusions people were harboring that the media isn't in the tank for Obama have been destroyed completely, or at least should have.

This type of thing will backfire on the dems and the media. Mark my words.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...27574.aspx

Here's another new story on her. I'm sorry - I just don't see how she's going to appeal to anyone but the very conservative. She isn't going to win over the Hilary voters.

Wow, now a hatchet job on what she says in church?

Any delusions people were harboring that the media isn't in the tank for Obama have been destroyed completely, or at least should have.

This type of thing will backfire on the dems and the media. Mark my words.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

This whole thing is hilarious.

Radley Balko says it best.

Quote:By far the best thing Palin’s done thus far is get the usual suspects to don the others’ clothes. That is, the left’s screaming “affirmative action!” while the right’s screaming “sexism!” And both are doing it with a straight face. Makes it fun to be a libertarian.

The lefties are probably right in saying Palin’s gender gave her the edge over many other, more qualified candidates. But. Um. Isn’t that what affirmative action is all about? Breaking down barriers and whatnot? Correcting for historical injustices and such? Is the lesson here that only leftist minorities are allowed to benefit from preference-based political promotions? As my colleague Dave Weigel put it, does anyone really think the Democratic nominee would be where he is today if he were Barack O’Bama, the white Irish-American? For that matter, would Hillary Clinton have gotten 18 million votes for president if she had married the law student two doors down from Bill at Yale?

Yes, Palin’s political resume is thin. That’s a plus in my book. “Experience” tends to mean “knows the ways of Washington,” which generally means more of the same old crap. If David Broder has praised you in one of his columns, you’re probably part of the problem. Frankly, I wish Obama had picked someone less “experienced” than Joe Biden, a guy that embodies everything loathesome about Washington. I also like that Palin’s not a career politician, and doesn’t genuflect before powerful interests. On the other hand, it doesn’t bode well that she has a history of also applying that same kick-ass-and-take-names style of governance to, for example, trying to ban books from the public library that she finds offensive.

But the right’s cry that Palin’s critics are guilty of sexism is just as hypocritical. Palin’s family is Palin’s business, and I have no interest in passing judgment on the decisions she has made in her private life. But let’s pretend for a moment a liberal Democratic governor had delivered a baby with Down’s Syndrome last April, then ran for vice president months later–all while still mothering four other kids, and with her high school daughter pregnant with a grandchild. Can’t you hear the howling from the right about how feminist women care more about their careers than they do about their children and families? Can you hear the stern lectures about how, maybe if Palin had spent less time running for office and more time mothering, her daughter might not be pregnant? Hell, it’s only a hypothetical, and I’m pretty sure I can hear them as I type.

And while we’re turning tables, a poster at Reddit today had a doozy: Imagine the giddy glee we’d see from the right if it was Barack Obama who announced this weekend that his unwed teenage daughter was pregnant. Somehow, I doubt we’d be seeing the handwritten “I support unwed mothers” buttons we (weirdly) saw at the RNC tonight.

All of which is my rambling way of stating I don’t really have a pithy take on Palin. It’s all just a little too wacky right now. But it’s sure as hell fun to watch.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:This whole thing is hilarious.

Radley Balko says it best.

Quote:On the other hand, it doesn’t bode well that she has a history of also applying that same kick-ass-and-take-names style of governance to, for example, trying to ban books from the public library that she finds offensive.

This is the first I've seen about this - does anyone know if there is any substance to the charge?

No bias here!

jh Wrote:This is the first I've seen about this - does anyone know if there is any substance to the charge?

Not sure how much there is to this, but... Link

I've heard it was nothing more than her asking what the librarian would think about books being banned all the way to she fired the librarian. Not sure where the truth lies on this one.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

jh Wrote:This is the first I've seen about this - does anyone know if there is any substance to the charge?

Not sure how much there is to this, but... Link

I've heard it was nothing more than her asking what the librarian would think about books being banned all the way to she fired the librarian. Not sure where the truth lies on this one.

I can't get to worked up about asking how to ban a book. Actually banning a book is an entirely different story.

As I understand it, she was going to fire the librarian, along with several other department heads, because she didn't consider them loyal enough to her. She relented on the libriarian but let the others go. These are some more of the people I was talking about. But please note, (especially Rebel & GrayBeard) I'm not saying that she did anything wrong in firing them as it was well within her scope of duties (I have no idea if they were all actually good decisions because I really don't care enough about the internal politics of Wasilla to find out).