I don’t ordinarily surf the liberal blogosphere, but Friday I was surfing the web to gauge conservative reaction to the Palin pick. Beginning at a conservative blog, I found myself, just two clicks away, transported to the alternate universe of the liberal blogosphere. It’s a truly alien landscape:
FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
Sara Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska, a state that has 13 people and some caribou.
By all means remind the electorate that the Democratic Party is the party of coastal and urban elites.
Obama is a member of the United States Senate from Illinois.
Obama is a first-term Senator whose Congressional experience consists of running for President.
At some point, voters will have to ask themselves who they would want running the country if it ever became necessary: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin.
That was easy: Sarah Palin.
Here’s my question to you: And here’s my question for you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?
And here’s my question to you: Does Barack Obama undercut his own message—that judgment is more important than experience—by naming someone far older and much more experienced than himself to be his running mate?
Are former Obama supporters going to vote for someone else now that Obama undercut his own message by picking Biden? Should they?
If not, then why is Cafferty’s question relevant to McCain voters but not to Obama voters?
Also, investigative reporters might be interested in the recent scandal involving Palin over her firing of the state safety commissioner.
That’s a valid concern. But from what I’ve read, there’s nothing to it:
And what about the Clinton scandals? Did that deter Democrats from voting for Hillary?
You already said it Mr.Cafferty.
A) She’s no Hillary Clinton!
B) She’s no Hillary Clinton!
Well, I should hope not! Why would we expect a Republican candidate to be a Hillary clone? You might as well say that Hillary is no Palin!
What a horrendous insult to Hillary, her experience and policies
Why should a Republican candidate be a compliment to Hillary? You might as well say that Hillary is a horrendous insult to Palin, her experience and policies.
Kelley in North Carolina
Finally, by putting her military son out there as an example of her patriotism, she drew a major difference between her and Joe Biden - he did not use his son’s service to show his character - he didn’t need to - the American people already know Joe Biden.
Many liberals have accused conservative politicians of hypocrisy for supporting the war when they’re not prepared to “sent their own children” (as the phrase goes) to war.
I was never impressed with that argument myself, but Palin is answering the liberal critics on their own grounds.
Terry in Hanover County
He’s pandering to get women’s vote.
Wasn’t Hillary pandering to get the women’s vote?
And what message would it send if the GOP snubbed the women’s vote?
hilary suppoter decides for obama
If he wanted to pick a women why not Condy Rice
i) Condi has expressed no interest in higher elective office.
ii) If she were interested, she could have run for the top job.
iii) Is she a social conservative?
iv) She’s identified with an unpopular administration. She’s also identified with an unpopular war.
v) If she were McCain’s pick, feminists who currently attack Palin would turn their guns on Condi as a traitor to her sex for serving in the Bush administration.
Why not Kay Hutchinson
i) Wouldn’t the same feminists who attack Palin find reasons to attack Hutchinson?
ii) Wouldn’t they demonize her Texan roots the same way they demonize Bush’s?
iii) Wouldn’t they treat her as a traitor to her sex for belonging to the GOP?
I supported Clinton because she was a woman – a qualified woman.
Qualified for what? She spent most of her adult career riding on her husband’s coattails. She then ran, as a carpetbagger, for a NY senate seat, for the exclusive reason of using that position as a stepping-stone to the White House. When she did run from President, she ran, not on her Congressional record, but her experience as First Lady—which amounted to ceremonial functions. She’s complicit in most of her husband’s scandals—including a pardons-for-votes quid-pro-quo.
Suppose McCain had chosen Laura Ingraham instead of Sarah Palin. She has an impressive resume. She’s at least as smart and articulate as Hillary. Would disenchanted Hillary supporters praise his pick? I don’t think so.
I also have question about her character when she has a special needs child (as I do) and goes back to work when the baby is just 3 days old and now the baby is just a few months old and she is taking a job that will almost never allow her to be home.
That’s a valid question, but what of it?
i) It’s a question for whom? For me, the voter? No. I’m only concerned with a candidate’s policies. I don’t have to answer that question for myself.
I do think it’s a question that Palin should ask herself. And question for Palin and her husband. But I’m not responsible for their domestic arrangements. That isn’t relevant to me, the voter.
ii) Does a baby with Down syndrome need more attention than a normal baby? When he reaches a certain age, he’ll require more supervision, but as a baby?
iii) Why would being the Veep almost never allow her to be home? The Veep is not a full-time job. It’s a job without job description. The Veep does as much or little as the President tasks him (or her) to do.
iv) I’ve heard that Palin takes her baby to work with her. That’s one of the perks of high office. And she’s not a single mom.
v) Has Kim ever seen the Vice Presidential mansion? I’m sure it has an office.
vi) Obama has young children. Is it okay for the man to neglect his family? Is it okay for the man to “take a job that will almost never allow him to be home”?
Here we see feminists suddenly endorsing the traditional double standard. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
GOP family values? Gov. Palin has a 4-month old baby boy who needs his mother perhaps more than most. But power brokering is more important than her family. I assume she is not wearing a nursing bra - and her Downs Syndrome son is being fed formula. He deserves a better start on his rough road of life.
i) For liberals who constantly scream “hypocrisy,” it’s pretty rich to see feminists say a woman’s career should take a backseat to her maternal duties.
ii) The campaign will get very interesting if Joe Biden gets into a debate with Palin over Vice Presidential policy on breast-feeding v. bottle-feeding.
iii) While a man can’t breastfeed a baby, he can certainly bottle-feed a baby. It’s funny to see feminists suggest that child-rearing is the exclusive duty of the mother. They’re like a parody of fundamentalism. But fathers have parental responsibilities too, ya know.
Palin can’t speak, her voice is grating…
As if Hillary has such a soothing, dulcet delivery.
I am also appalled at the decision to force her child to lead a life with downs syndrone because of Palin and her husband’s neglect to practice safe sex at her age of 44. The child should always be considered first, not the parents’ self righteousness when confronted with a decision of abortion. This family actions speaks loudly to the need for women’s rights, saying; Take responsibility for your failures in birth control. Don’t make your child the victim.
i) The notion that a married couple has a duty to practice safe sex is unintentionally comical. Only a liberal could be that Victorian.
ii) Then we have the twisted logic in which you victimize a child by not aborting the child, in which abortion is a case of putting the child’s interests first. I somehow doubt that abortion represents the viewpoint of the child.
iii) How is a baby with Down syndrome wronged by allowing him to live? Is this condition especially painful?
The people with Down syndrome I see appear to be quite cheerful. They need a lot of love, but they give a lot of love in return. Indeed, they seem a lot happier than the angry, self-loathing feminists I see and hear.
iv) Donna is simply judging someone with Down syndrome by the standard of someone without Down syndrome. But that represents her viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the person with Down syndrome.
v) It’s true that someone with Down syndrome doesn’t have the IQ of a normal person. For that matter, Donna Sherman doesn’t have the IQ of Isaac Newton or Da Vinci.
Imagine a world in which Isaac Newton or Da Vinci were the norm. Imagine a genius deploy the same argument against Donna Sherman. Eugenics would weed out defective babies like Donna:
“I am also appalled at the decision to force their retarded child to lead a life with a stunted IQ of 100 just because Donna’s mom and dad neglected to practice safe sex. The child should always be considered first, not the parents’ self righteousness when confronted with a decision of abortion. This family’s action speaks loudly to the need for genius’s rights, saying; Take responsibility for your failures in birth control. Don’t make Donna the victim by allowing her to live!”
Indeed, to judge by the intellectual performance of most commenters at Cafferty’s blog, few would make the cut. Most of them would be prime candidates for eugenic abortion.