The rabid ones don't bother with the intelligent design smokescreen maybe?

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, 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.

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.

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.

MILF VP!

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.

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.

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

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....

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.

"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.

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."