Completely Unnecessary

I won’t lie and say there isn’t a certain deliciousness in the knocking up of an anti-choice, anti-sexed candidate’s teenage daughter.

It does, however, present a delicate situation (so to speak) for the Democrats. They can’t look like they’re slamming Palin as a woman, whilst also trying to make hay from the obvious conservative fallout.

Let’s hope the media doesn’t screw them up in their response. For instance, by asking questions like this - which conservatives will equate with ‘liberals’:

Asked if Ms. Palin would be able to juggle the demands of the vice presidency with her complicated family life, [McCain's chief strategist] Mr. Schmidt said, “She’s been a very effective governor and again I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”

That’s the right answer to that question - and it’s not the right question.

The NYT went right out and interviewed a cavalcade of Republican women (only) to gauge their reaction to the story:

When Pam Younggren, 61, of Fargo, N.D., was told the news of the 17-year-old’s pregnancy, she shrugged. “Well, she wouldn’t be the first one,” she said.

“We can’t control what our daughters do,” she said. “I don’t see it as a problem. She will have appropriate care for her baby.”

And herein lies the question that we should be asking the McCain/Palin ticket.

Bristol Palin and her soon-to-be-husband are a perfect example of why abstinence-only, ‘wait until marriage’ programs don’t work.

While I don’t think we should be asking Sarah Palin if she can handle the rigors of the campaign trail, we should be asking if she thinks the policies she supports are effective.

It’s a fine line, granted. But it’s one the Democrats need to walk. This is a policy issue illustrated in a candidate’s life - we should discuss it the same way we would discuss John McCain’s POW experience in terms of his position on torture.

I’d also like to point out, as Republicans call for respect for privacy, that Democrats’ touch on the issue is likely to be much lighter than their own. Imagine the firestorm if the daughter had been named, say, Chelsea.

The depth of conservative understanding (and a fair amount of hand-washing) would not be the case if this was a Democratic daughter. It would be yet another case of liberal values as a detriment to American society.

And we have here a case of conservative values and Republican policies as a detriment to American society. It is an important discussion to have.

But it is a little delicious. Mary Helen would like to weigh in with a helpful slogan for Republicans: ‘Conservatives are liberal, too!’

Vaguely Related

• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention
• Reflections on Palin’s Convention Acceptance Speech

I’m still mystified by the Palin choice.

But at least it’s clear what the Republican line is going to be.

Both Kristol and Dean Barnett out of the Standard have columns about how the left is going to try to ‘diminish’ Palin. They’re trying to get out in front of what are the obvious criticisms of Palin so they can say, “See? We knew the Left would do this!”

They’re also setting expectations low - both have comments about how she’s bound to screw up on the campaign trail - in the hopes that all she’ll have to do is turn up and bring in the Clintonistas.

Kind of reaffirms my point about her just being ‘another vagina’ when die-hard Republicans are promising stuff ups on day one.

It’d be nice to think that the Clinton holdouts are too smart for that. But given the fact that some pro-Clinton women appear set to cut off their abortion rights to spite Obama (otherwise known as cutting off your fallopian tubes to spite your face), I’m not so sure about that.

John McCain will screw you nearly as fast as you’re screwing yourselves, ladies…

Anyway, this post is supposed to be about some vice-presidential history.

Dan Savage pointed out last week that the choice of Biden vaguely resembles the selection of Lloyd Bentson for Michael Dukakis’s 1988 run against G.H.W. Bush. Bentson was a witty, Washtgton insider - a choice designed to prop up the young, dashing man at the top of the ticket.

And, wow, what a depressing electoral map that produced. (Eclipsed only by 1984’s abysmal results…)

Here’s hoping Obama doesn’t get into any tanks in the next two months.

I think Biden’s a bit better than that - again, I can’t wait to see that debate. (Bentson’s opponent in the veep debate was, of course, Dan Quayle, to whom Palin is already being compared.)

Biden is ridiculously charismatic in a way that I think Bentson was not. (Truth be told, I’m not based that on much aside from my complete lack of knowledge about Lloyd Bentson. I looked up that election because I couldn’t remember who was on the ticket with Dukakis.)

Biden also lives in the YouTube era, where videos like these exist:

And I have to back up Ezra Klein’s support for Biden for this gem alone (this is Klein’s quote followed by the clip video he posted):

Giuliani, of course, took umbrage, and said Biden lacked foreign policy experience. This led to my favorite YouTube of the campaign, in which Biden dismantles Giuliani, live on television, while walking to his car. [emphasis original]

I laugh out loud every time I see Biden’s face at the end of that.

I’m coming around on the Biden choice, especially versus Palin.

Anyway, this is mostly a post to get rid of some of the links I’ve had hanging around in my browser. [Going to finish the clean up job with some hysteria/sexing up over at The Age tomorrow morning - and then I can close Firefox!]

Vaguely Related

• Palin as VP on Republican Ticket
• Republican Pundits Accidentally Weigh in on Palin

Okay, I’m just as shocked as you are.

More actually - because my internet’s been down all day, so I texted a friend this morning to see who it was. Her response of ‘He chose that woman. It came out of left field’ left me thinking it was obviously Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

I had predicted last night that it’d be Hutchinson if McCain couldn’t stomach Mittens. Hutchinson makes sense - she’s a strong conservative, rallies the south, etc. So I didn’t rush into uni to get up on the papers. I watched some West Wing; I cleaned the bathroom. I had more or less prepared my blog post on the topic.

So, sorry if this is stream of consciousness but… SARAH PALIN? The scandal-ridden, first-term governor from a state with three electoral votes?

That state is ALASKA, which is currently in the middle of the craziest election season ever seen. Stevens just got indicted, almost assuring a Democratic win of his Senate seat. Don Young is currently in the fight of his life in a primary against Palin’s Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell. (It’s unclear to me who will actually be running the state at this point.)

As for Palin, she’s embroiled in a scandal (currently being investigated by a legislative panel) regarding the her state trooper ex-brother-in-law. Namely, that she wanted him fired, but settled for the public safety commissioner when he refused the task.

My blog post about Hutchinson was going to question whether Clinton supporters would view the selection of a middle-aged, experienced woman as a craven bid for their votes. But, man, I don’t know what they’re going to think now.

Seriously, the thing that sticks out most in my mind about Palin is Wonkette’s continual reference to her as a GILF. (That’s been updated to VPILF by a website that, as Chris points out, created ‘an abbreviation we definitely weren’t missing’.)

Palin’s an anti-choice, social conservative. That’s going to play well with the Republican base, but the people they’re trying to lure over aren’t going to be impressed with that. She’s got a record of being anti-corruption, but is now tainted by her own alleged impropriety.

Selecting a woman (this woman at least) is actually bad for the McCain campaign. With so little to recommend her except for being a woman, it just looks like the pander it is. Worse, it makes the McCain campaign look as though they think ‘any old vagina’ can act as a stand-in for Clinton.

It also allows the Democratic Party to directly contrast the two. The ’she’s no Hillary’ ads should be in production, if they’re not already on the airwaves.

Unless Palin has some political kryptonite I’m not aware of, this is the most bewildering (if not insane) choice I’ve ever seen.

My god, Biden’s going to eat her alive in the veep debate.

Unless McCain is counting on Biden to go easy on her because she’s a girl. If the Democrats are smart, he’ll go after her on all cylinders. She’s not Clinton, which means the press is more likely to view any weakness under attack as a sign that she’s unfit to lead.

I really wish I’d come in sooner or felt like drinking earlier in the day (most of the internet cafes near my house are actually internet bars).

Wow. Sarah Palin. To give McCain his due - I definitely did not see that coming.

Vaguely Related

• This Week’s Historical and Vice Presidental Detritus
• Navigating the Sarah Palin Daughter Pregnancy Scandal

See, here’s what I like about Australia.

Despite the fact that the Labor and Liberal parties usually sit on opposite sides of the fence, both know that it’s time for abortion actually become legal in Victoria.

Abortion procedures have been de facto legal for years - your doctor is likely to accept any reason for a procedure - but having an actual law that guarantees the right of Victorian women is an important step.

No woman should have to justify her decisions to a doctor, the State or anyone.

That’s what’s missing from the that cavalcade of legislation that is currently making it more and more difficult for American women to exercise their right to medical procedures deemed legal by their government.

It’s comforting to see both Premier John Brumby and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu behind this legislation. It demonstrates the depth of support behind Victorian women and the confidence in their ability to make rational choices.

More importantly, it exemplifies the ability of Victorian officials to get behind commonsense legislation, despite partisan politics.

This legislation has been brewing for years, and full support behind those who will vote for it next week.

Link:
New Law to Give Abortion Right [The Age]

Vaguely Related

• Bush Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion
• Quentin Bryce: Gender-Tagging the New Governor-General

Either leave office or leave us alone, Mr President.

A Bush Administration memo would expand the definition of abortion to include birth control pills and interuterine devices - which would bring them under the auspices of ‘conscience clauses’, allowing medical professionals to deny such items to women requesting them. Via Reuters:

“The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures — including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation,’” it said.

Since some pills and the IUDs prevent fertalized eggs from implanting, they would fall under this category.

I mean, I know I’m never going to get over the Bush Admin’s great idea of appointing a veterinarian as the head of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health. But seriously - can you just leave us alone? Less than 200 days. Just go to Crawford. No one cares anymore; we’re not going to complain that you’re not doing your job.

Just go.

Via Jezebel and Reuters

Vaguely Related

• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos
• Bush Admin Going Ahead with HHS Rule Changes

Okay, look - I’m not one of those people screaming at the media at the moment. I don’t think Clinton lost because of sexist treatment - though it certainly didn’t help.

This blog, however, has been like a treasure trove of unflattering pictures of HRC. See yesterday’s post, por ejemplo.

So, why - why, is this run now?! (And you can click on the pic for a larger version)

“Now, in her diminishment…” she finally gets a good picture?

I don’t want to sound like a feminist conspiracy theorist, but there’s something odd about the lovely words and images poured forth upon a woman who’s finally stopped being too brassy.

I mean, I’ve seen The Philadelphia Story. Katherine Hepburn learns to be ‘yaw’ and then everyone loves her. It’s a great movie.

But there’s also a reason for that.

NY Magazine Table of Contents

Vaguely Related

• Life Without Hillary Clinton
• Sarah Palin’s Relationship to Me, as a Woman

Here’s the lede to a NYT article run the other day about the media’s potentially sexist treatment of Senator Clinton during her presidental campaign:

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

And here is the picture they ran (and, considering that I saw it on HuffPost today, continue to run):

That is a sloppy screen capture, I apologise. I feel I should also say…

For realz?!?!

Though, I guess what better way to give that extra bit of meta f-you to Clinton than to show a picture of her boobs in the story in which you pretty much of blow off those charges of sexism.

Nice work.

Then again, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann called Katie Couric the “Worst Person in the World” for backing up the Clinton campaign, so I guess there are worse things.

Vaguely Related

• Candidates, the Media and the Sexist Politics of Hugging
• Life Without Hillary Clinton

What is this photo?

The burned out skin, the lack of top teeth, the creepy, creepy thing that’s going on with the eye?

What is that? It looks like she’s got a coin jammed in it.

Actually, turn your head to the side for a second and then look at it.

The forehead and eyebrow region seem sunken in. Is this some computer animation of what the ideal orgasmic woman would look like?

She/it looks more like a corpse than a woman achieving ecstasy.

Assuming that some guy made this image, I think I know why 65% of Australian women are ’sexually disfunctional.’

Which cracks me up, by the way.

Moving to the article, the caption underneath the leading photo - of a naked man and woman in a hot tub - reads:

Professor Marita McCabe says many sexual problems are ‘very likely to be about the relationship rather than the woman’

So we’re broken, but it’s only half our fault? Awesome.

Hilariously the captioning makes it seem like Professor Marita McCabe is the woman in the hot tub. She might be - it’s actually completely unclear.

The article ends as charmingly as it began:

Attempts to develop a so-called female Viagra have so far failed.

Creepy sunken forehead demon is only half of the joy of theage.comau right now. (Sorry, thumbnail’s all stretchy unless they’re centered; WP’s new photo thingie not so awesome actually.)

Including the Joy of Sex article, there are a total of five sex-related stories gracing the top of the site. Five out of thirteen stories in the main section; four out of the top six featured stories.

All I can say is if theage.com.au can’t get you in the mood, not even female Viagra could help your frigid, huge vagine.

(I should thank the Age - I’ve been wanting a reason to link that video forever.)

Vaguely Related

• Cannibals, Whores, Child Molesters: The Age Has It All!
• Well, gosh, mister!

People assume that I’m a Clinton supporter because I’m writing my thesis on her. It took me a long time to make a decision, but I eventually came down on the side of Obama.

With Obama making plans in Iowa for Tuesday night - presumably to claim the nomination - it seems a good time to reflect on the campaign and prospects for the future.

The problem is that I love Hillary Clinton. I think she’d make a great president, which is why it’s been so painful to see her campaign struggle and wildly misjudge the electorate. She undoubtedly faced a hostile press, but seemed unable to stop herself and her surrogates from continually harming her campaign.

Yet, Kate Zernike’s short opening question in her Week in Review piece laid bare the deep sorrow I’ll feel when Clinton seemingly inevitably gives in:

If not her, who?

And how long will we have to wait?

It’s not that I think a woman will necessarily represent me better than a man - just as I resent the media for assuming I am a woman candidate’s natural constituency - but I do sometimes wonder how much of a difference it would make in the lives of American women if we had a woman president.

Might some glass ceilings be shattered? Might some laws about women’s bodies be prevented? Might this never-ending cycle of women as ‘firsts’ be broken so that it stops holding back other women who run for office?

Anyway, looks like we won’t know this year.

But for many women, whether or not they support Mrs. Clinton, the long primary campaign has left them with a question: why would any woman run?

Many feel dispirited by what they see as bias against Mrs. Clinton in the media — the “Fatal Attraction” comparisons and locker-room chortling on television panels.
…
For this reason, [Karen O'Connor] said, she doesn’t expect a serious contender anytime soon. “I think it’s going to be generations.”

Others say Mrs. Clinton had such an unusual combination of experience and name recognition that she might actually raise the bar for women.

In fact, the biggest point of agreement seemed to be that there is no Hillary waiting in the wings.

Except, of course, Hillary.

I find this article almost absurdly depressing. I feel like Clinton and I have both let each other down.

Confidential to Hillary Clinton: If we’re wrong about Obama, you come kick his ass in 2012, okay?

Links:
She Just Might Be President Someday [NYT - Week in Review]
Obama to Return to Iowa, Possibly to Claim Victory [NYT]

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

There’s no better way to say this than has already been said:

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define “any human being from the moment of fertilization” as a “person” for purposes of the state’s constitutional provisions “relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law.”

Mother Jones notes that such an amendment might ‘trigger governmental investigations into miscarriages, restrict in-vitro fertilization by couples trying to conceive, and could limit birth-control methods.’

Aside from its glaring, rage-inducing absurdity and almost certain unconstitutionality, this initiative raises some amazing questions.

One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers, for instance, asks if she can move to CO and receive Social Security benefits sooner.

Could a woman be charged with manslaughter or reckless homicide for a miscarriage? Or, better yet, what if the family carries Accidental Death insurance? Given how many zygotes self-terminate, you could make a pretty penny just claiming based on statistics.

And what do we do if the fetus kills the mother, in childbirth or otherwise? Is it incumbent upon the state to try the infant for manslaughter? Can the father sue his newborn or fetus for loss of consortium, wages, etc?

And perhaps the most obvious question - how on Earth can anyone know when the moment of fertilization is? Outside of a science lab, it’s pretty darn unprovable. And even if a test was developed, I’m pretty sure it would involve the government asking a woman to put her feet in the stirrups. So let’s hope Colorado for Equal Rights has something to nix the Fourteenth, as well.

As recent years have shown, however, this initiative is perhaps just crazy enough to pass.

I mean, a veterinarian was selected by the Bush Administration to head up the Office of Women’s Health in 2005. (Alderson was quickly removed after a number of groups justifiably lost their minds.) Minnesota’s Right to Know laws required doctors to provide state-scripted information on abortion that defied medical science. Missouri lawmakers are trying to get Plan B regulated as an abortifacient.

Anyway ladies, I suggest looking into Accidental Death insurance, just in case. If we move to Colorado, natural self-termination might be the new sugardaddie.

H/T: Andrew Sullivan via Mother Jones

Vaguely Related

• It’s Purity Ball Season!
• Bush Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion