If I were Sarah Palin, I would go on Hardball with Chris Matthews every other week. If anyone can remake a rabid creationist pro-lifer into an icon of feminism, it's Matthews. Who wants to bet on how many times Matthews comments on how "beautiful" Palin is? Remember this?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
What's the difference between a "rabid creationist pro-lifer" and "just a creationist pro-lifer"?
I don't know. I'm a blogger. I do the best I can.
Maybe you could explain what - if any - tension there is between creationism and feminism? Not that I'm a creationist myself, it's ridiculous stuff, but I don't see the contradiction and you seem to be implying there is one. Unless you want to say the whole Adam and Eve story is kind of misogynistic - true, but every politician claims to buy it.
The rabid ones don't bother with the intelligent design smokescreen maybe?
Creationists also tend to be very religious, conservative evangelicals. Evangelicals are not known for their "feminism": in fact, back in the late 90's, it was common to hear a evangelical on Rush complain about "feminazi's." It has little to do with policy or biblical interpretation. Whether that's fair or not, that is the narrative.
I think what TNC is getting at is that many feminists were aggrieved by the reporting and commentary on Hillary, especially early in the election. Matthews was/is absolutely brutal in this regard.
Yeah, evangelicals aren't known for their feminism, just as liberals from Hyde Park aren't known for their professedly devout belief in Christ - the point being, Palin's being a creationist doesn't make her a non-feminist, it just puts her in a class of people who tend not to be feminists. You know, it's not like she's out there saying, "being the evangelical that I am, I'm all about submitting to my commercial fisherman husband, even though I am technically the Governor of the state and would thereby appear to wear the pants in the family."
Forgive me. I was wrong to slander creationism with being pro-life. Or vice versa.
I find it incredibly appalling and totally counter to Republican notions of traditional family values that a parent with a FOUR MONTH OLD baby suffering from Down Syndrome leaves the child to criss-cross the nation full-time for the next few months and then potentially submit herself to the rigors of the Vice Presidency, and possibly the Presidency. She is essentially abandoning an infant with special needs and leaving him in the care of others. She won't be winning Mother of the Year. Mind you, this would be equally troubling if she were a man. If the child were older, then maybe it would be a little more tolerable, but a four month old? What parent would do such a thing?
Deleted. Don't even need to explain why.
Good grief. One way she could help McCain is to not tell an easily refuted lie in her first speech.
Deleted. Contribute something more than name-calling please.
I find it incredibly appalling and totally counter to Republican notions of traditional family values that a parent with a FOUR MONTH OLD baby suffering from Down Syndrome leaves the child to criss-cross the nation full-time for the next few months and then potentially submit herself to the rigors of the Vice Presidency, and possibly the Presidency.
Yeah, this line of attack is going to do nothing but alienate. It sounds like a sophisticated version of 'get back in the home, please.'
I don't know what her family situation is, but being a governor should come with a pretty big boatload of responsibilities that she is already shouldering.
So, I don't really see this. But I do see that making this argument is likely to piss off a *lot* of voters.
Brad,
I'm in no way advocating that Democrats use this as a line of attack. I just find this personally offensive to my notions of parental responsibility. It would certainly be less offensive if the child was a healthy one. But the special needs child requires so much more attention from its parents, that for a father or mother to take on this kind of job when the child is not even half-a-year old strikes me as heartless.
You be nice to Chris Matthews, he don't mean no harm. He's the Lennie to Keith Olbermann's George.
But the special needs child requires so much more attention from its parents, that for a father or mother to take on this kind of job when the child is not even half-a-year old strikes me as heartless.
Then I'll just say that, without knowing the specifics of their situation, this seems way out of line to me, even on a personal level. Does her husband stay at home? Do they have professional support care?
Plenty of parents continue their careers - even careers that involve heavy travel - after the birth of a special needs child. It's not like people call Jim Kelly or Doug Flutie heartless bastards for pursuing a career that involves intense travel and time away from home -- and that is in an entertainment field. In politics, at least you can make a case about serving for the greater good.
Unless you know something about how that child is not being cared for, this just seems like a wrongheaded and potentially hypocritical judgment to be making.
I bet you would have agreed if it had been Condi. If it ain't brown sugar, you ain't interested...
MILF VP!
Forgive me. I was wrong to slander creationism with being pro-life. Or vice versa.
I mean, it's possible to be a pro-life feminist. You seem to think that feminism = reproductive autonomy. They're related, of course, but it's entirely possible to take very strong views on women's rights, equal pay, and whatever else while still believing that abortion's immoral.
Yeah, evangelicals aren't known for their feminism, just as liberals from Hyde Park aren't known for their professedly devout belief in Christ - the point being, Palin's being a creationist doesn't make her a non-feminist, it just puts her in a class of people who tend not to be feminists.
That's true. And she's part of "Feminists for Life." That said, some on the Left will say F for L are not feminist, the right will say they are, but the point is that the overriding narrative (not the reality) is that creationists are not feminists. That she is going to have to rebut this presumption shows my point.
Thank you Brad L. for your last two responses.
There's plenty not to like about Palin, and lots of reasons why she'd be terrible as VP, but I have already read way too much criticizing her for her looks and for having a young child, neither of which have any impact on her ability to do the job.
We're writing about this over at the CA NOW blog too: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/mccains-vp-choi.html
Logan, i have a related take: i'm not sure this nomination is really going to fly (call it a 10% chance).
and if so, that would be the offical reason for her to withdraw.
that said, brad l, regardless of logan's personal feelings about it, it is counter to republican boiler-plate to put career ahead of family....
If "creationist pro-lifer" doesn't make sense to you, perhaps "Darwinist pro-lifer" does: You can make a pretty good scientific case for "Life begins at conception."
And forget Chris Matthews -- Sarah Palin is TAILOR-MADE for a recurring guest slot on The Colbert Report. Just like John "I'm A War Hero Not A Celebrity" McCain on Leno.
It's not an "attack" to make observations about Palin's family situation. Polling has traditionally shown that voters are uncomfortable with female candidates who have young children. And do you have any doubt that if Obama had picked a female VP with a child less than six months old that the GOP talking heads would have tarred her as a selfish b*tch within 30 seconds?
I think old man river may be pulling a fast one on all of us. Getting everyone hyped up over Palin's lack of experience, and at the last minute going, "See, inexperience is an issue! By the way, here's my real VP choice."
MSNBC should package a Chris Matthews interview with Sarah Palin as a pay-per-view event. I would pay $50-$75 to see an hour long interview between Matthews and Palin.
Hopefully somebody from the Obama campaign warns him not to be a jackass when Palin is on.
"What's the difference between a "rabid creationist pro-lifer" and "just a creationist pro-lifer"?"
The latter have had their shots. Just make sure Rick Santorum doesn't bite you.
Should Palin's judgement be questioned for she chose to flew back to Alaska from Texas after her 'water broke' during her last weeks of pregnacy?
From the FAA website:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section%20II.7.1%20Transportation%20of%20Patients%20by%20Airline.doc
"Obstetrical patients in later stages provide a significant risk of precipitating delivery
during flight; pregnancy past 32 weeks should be carefully considered for restriction from
flight and those past 36 weeks should be prohibited from flying. An aircraft is not a
delivery room. Additional concern about deep venous thrombosis in the pregnant patient
may be another issue."