About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Friendly advice to Hillarites

Now that one of the two major non-events of the year, the Democratic convention (the other one will take place next week, the Republican convention), is underway, it is time to return to political discussion. In particular, it is time to talk to the so-called “Hillarites,” the die-hard supporters of Hillary Clinton.

There is much talk in the media of whether Hillarites will rally around Obama or will sit out the election, or even do the unthinkable (and unconscionable) and vote for McCain. They are apparently angry at the way their candidate was treated by the Obama camp in particular, and by the media in general, during the primaries. I watched the primaries more carefully than usual, precisely because of the historical moment of seeing both a black man and a woman having a clear shot at winning the Presidential nomination of a major party. I was delighted that it was, predictably, the progressive party in the United States that had the guts to foster such an historical turn of events, regardless of the fact that Democrats know very well that the still lingering racism and sexism in this country translates into a built-in disadvantage for them in the general elections. Indeed, one can reasonably argue that, given the degree of dissatisfaction with the “Republican brand” (Republican’s own jargon) and Bush in particular, the Fall elections will be a good measure of how much racism is still affecting the USA.

Still, I’m puzzled by what exactly Clinton’s supporters are complaining about. If it is Obama’s allegedly “harsh” campaign against their candidate, they must have watched a different primary. Not only was Clinton herself “harsh” on Obama (and as “racist” as he may have been “sexist”), but, frankly, the two Democrats’ sniping pales in comparison with what the Republicans did to each other, and certainly to what the Republicans will try to do to Obama (and would have done to Clinton) in the Fall. It was a race, ladies and gentlemen, and somebody had to win. Seems to me that both candidates played pretty fairly, with a few exceptions on both sides, and Clinton lost for a variety of factors, including the simple fact that Obama ran a better campaign, despite his inexperience (the winning move was to take advantage of the proportional, as opposed to “winner take all,” system, running a 50-state campaign against Hillary’s focus on major states).

Or maybe the Hillarites are complaining about the media’s treatment of Clinton. If so, they should address their grievances to those responsible, for example organizing marches and boycotts against CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC (don’t bother about Fox, they are beyond redemption). What sense does it make to threaten to withdraw support for Obama, who has himself been the center of quite a bit of unfair media scrutiny? (Remember that never ending clip of pastor Wright damning America? Watch for more prime time reruns in the Fall.)

Hillary Clinton herself has come out yesterday, at the beginning of the Democratic convention, with strong words in favor of Obama, as she has done before. Most importantly, she told her supporters to vote for Obama because she doesn’t want to live during another four years of Republicans in the White House. Exactly. Let’s keep the cult of personality out of the game for once, and focus on the real deal. How can a self-respecting Democrat even think of willfully undermining the chances of the first African American who could become President of the United States? Even more astonishing, how can one be so bitter at alleged mistreatment of one’s candidate to actually consider giving McCain and the Republicans an extended lease on their disastrous “leadership,” which has cost American lives, money and prestige over eight long years?

Wake up, smell the stench coming from the Republican side, and rally around Obama. Hillary wants it too.


  1. MP "Indeed, one can reasonably argue that, given the degree of dissatisfaction with the “Republican brand” (Republican’s own jargon) and Bush in particular, the Fall elections will be a good measure of how much racism is still affecting the USA."

    OR MAYBE some people do not vote for BHO strictly based the fact that they understand the issues that he stands for. DO YOU?

    sent this note to a friend recently on two current stories:

    My comment was:"Whereas animals (first story) have actually been known to try to save human infants, Barak is not willing to ban infanticide AFTER birth. He is not even moderate on this issue. (second story) It appears that we live in an age where animals may actually, on rare occasion, have more sense than educated politicians."

    "Abandoned Baby Kept Alive, Safe by Mother Dog and Her Brood" A newborn baby that was abandoned outdoors by her 14-year-old mother during the Argentina winter was found safe Thursday after being kept alive and warm by a mother dog and her brood of puppies, Reuters reported.
    Farmer Fabio Anze found the naked baby near the city of La Plata, Argentina, lying amongst his dog China’s puppies. The baby was taken to the hospital after Anze called the authorities. cont. at

    Apr 3, 2008 9:45 | Updated Apr 3, 2008 14:56
    “Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth”

    Recently, Hillary Clinton presciently warned that she would be the best Democrat presidential candidate because she's already been "vetted." Now, that's not necessarily a good thing for Mrs. Clinton considering her (and her husband's) checkered past. But she does have a point when it comes to Barack Obama, the new, fresh, moderate-sounding, wildly popular-and largely uninvestigated-frontrunner candidate. And, as it turns out, pro-abortion radical.
    We all know Obama's style, his regal, visionary bearing, his above-the-fray persona, his inspired - and, give him his due, inspiring - performances, his "Audacity of Hope," and his hypnotic, upbeat, unifying message. He is skilled. If we were voting for a chief motivational speaker or a political "American Idol," even I'd be on the bandwagon.

    But for a candidate for Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and leader of the free world, we need more. We need some record or some history. His soaring rhetoric aside, it's long-past the time to ask: just who is this guy? What's at his core? Where is his moral compass? Do we share the same basic values? Is he as moderate in deed as in word? Apparently not, at least judging by his record on a key sanctity-of-life issue. It is beyond extreme; it is jarring.

    Reasonable people may differ in their opinions regarding abortion and thorny questions of precisely when life begins. Jewish doctrine, with its focus on the health of the mother, may differ from Christian or other religious positions over the circumstances under which abortion may be permitted. But once a baby is born, even prematurely, there is across-the-board agreement that a new human life exists. Certainly, there is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate.
    So, what are we to make of Obama's votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

    US presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
    Photo: AP
    Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were "shelved" - left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were "aborted" - killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats - including every defender of partial-birth abortion - recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life.
    Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, testified in the US Congress in 2000 and 2001 - and before Obama's Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - about how induced labor abortions were handled at her hospital, relating this story: "One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." Powerful stuff. Obama, however, was reportedly "unfazed" by her testimony.
    Various state and federal attempts ensued to curb the gruesome practice, including the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 (It did not immediately become law.)
    In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate's most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
    But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama's Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," tantamount to a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama's Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions - Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."
    In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.
    Obama's position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
    What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman's "right to choose;" it attacks a living baby's right to life. His position is not simply "pro-choice;" it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a "uniter" would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies?"

    Cont. at JPOST

  2. Cal has made a wonderful post full of untruths and nonsense, but plus ça change...
    Obama isn't perfect (he's too willing to kowtow to Rick Warren for example), but at least he understands certain liberal issues.
    Of course, whether he actually does as promised once in power is another issue...

  3. "Cal has made a wonderful post full of untruths and nonsense, but plus ça change..."

    one example of an untruth?

    What is true is that how we view and protect (or not protect) children, born or unborn, does change the whole future of safety and prosperity for an entire nation. And the instances of little girls or boys being beaten and discarded even at 2, 3 and 4 years old (see Caylee's case in FLA) will become increasingly common.

    BHO WILL usher in change. No doubt about it. But it is certainly not one of better ethics or ideas. Yeah, he might bring our soldiers home. But he will also simultaneously divest them of the power and authority to do the jobs that they entered the Armed forces to do.

    But that’s the whole point, isn’t it.

  4. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

  5. Well said, though I haven't found too many people actually willing to vote for McCain instead of Obama. Most "Hillarites" seem to either support Nader or just not voting at all.

  6. S: "The phrase "for the children", or "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action."

    Well obviously some instances and uses of this "rule" are valid and some are false. How do you determine the difference? Just based on what you "feel" about the whole issue? That ain't gonna fly.

    Apparently then I am like the only one who notices the increased instances of mothers-to-be being murdered with their unborn child still inside of them.

    Still a just a "logical fallacy"? I DON'T THINK SO.

    You ought to know by this time that it was never about the mother-to-be or the baby in the first place. There's usually some guy out there some where who doesn't want to think about where he has been and what he has done.

    Got to get to the hospital.

  7. McCain will continue with torture, send a fleet into the Black Sea to confront the Russians, endanger relations with China, break up NATO, crank up the tension with Iran, let the Taliban take over Pakistan as well as Afghanistan, hand the economy over to the large corporations, continue dependence on oil, use the military as the prime means of keeping gas flowing out of the Middle East, abandon any thought of counteracting Global Warming (i.e. Big Oil must be kept happy), appoint conservative Justices to the Supreme Court who will be activist in everything that strips people of individual rights and empowers large corporations or the Government, continue to use Congress as a rubber stamp and centralize power around an Imperial President.

    I say: don't let this boy near the dangerous toys!

    How can anyone "support" Hilary Clinton by voting for someone who negates everything she ever stood for.

  8. Toby,

    "How can anyone "support" Hilary Clinton by voting for someone who negates everything she ever stood for."

    My point exactly, thank you.

  9. That Obama is for infanticide b.s. is typical Liars for Jesus propaganda.

    Summary: Media outlets have quoted or cited criticism of Sen. Barack Obama by anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility, including her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions, her support of billboards in Tanzania with the words "Faithful Condom User" next to a picture of a large skeleton, and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

    And here's the actual story on the legislation.

  10. Massimo, while I wholeheartedly agree with you, I think there's a deeper point that you do not really touch on. The Bush administration has been the worst that the US has ever suffered through. It has severely damaged the US economy, shredded its international reputation, wasted its military resources, further undermined civil rights, moral standards and democratic institutions, ignored major national disasters, used every opportunity to enrich themselves and their friends, and generally turned the nation into the world's laughing stock. In a functioning democracy the result would be impeachment for every senior member of the administration, criminal investigations a-go-go, and a special convention of the Republican Party at which it dissolves itself. At this point the number of US citizens willing to vote for the Republicans should be smaller than the membership of an exclusive gentleman's club. Even in Zimbabwe the only way that Mugabe won the elections was through massive intimidation and fraud. Yet, here we are, ten weeks from the next elections and McCain is close to even with Obama in the polls. Clearly, the US is a profoundly sick society and even if Obama should win it will take a very long time before things become much saner as the rot goes a hell of a lot deeper than one disastrous administration. In fact, I fear that things in the States will get a whole lot worse before people do finally wake up. The kinds of things that caliana writes are a prime example of just how divorced from reality most of the US population has become. Eight years ago I decided against looking for a job in the US and, instead, went to the EU. We have our own problems and lunatics but everything I have heard or seen since then has shown me that this was the right decision. Massimo, I can only wish you good luck. You, and the rest of us, as the one thing the States have always willingly 'internationalised' are its problems.

  11. Massimo,

    boy, where do I start!

    First, I disagree that this is an issue that affects only Hillary supporters. I am not one, but I too (as a feminist) was offended by the treatment meted out to Hillary. See my blog post (http://platosbeard.org/archives/317) for details on various forms of sexism and misogyny that went on. Also, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U for a montage of her treatment.

    But, you might say, you already address that with the suggestion that feminists like me head to CBS, and other media outlets, with our complaint. But we, feminists, thought that that was what the left (or liberalism or whatever is the label of choice!) is all about? That we are the party that stands up against injustice, especially to minorities and historically underprivileged groups? So, where is the outrage? It's not there because Obama's campaign itself, while not indulging in xenophobia ("Hillary Clinton, Democrat from Punjab") was indulging in soft-sexism (e.g: t-shirts that proclaimed "End the Drama, Vote Obama" i.e., Hillary is a "drama queen"). It wasn't McCain supporters (at least not all) who started or joined a Facebook group titled "Life's a Bitch, why vote for one?".

    The Democratic Party, and its current leader, have not done much, in the face of this flood of misogyny, to gain the trust of feminists. They need to earn our support, not perform the calculus of "lesser evil" (and expect us to do the same). Howard Zinn wrote elegantly on AlterNet on why it is that we must be citizens, first and foremost, and that implies that we have to vote our beliefs and principles. So it is not an issue of threatening the party or resentment over a loss (I support Hillary much less than I do Obama -- which is also why it doesn't matter to me that the Clintons can arguably be accused of semi-racist statements and implications).

  12. Cal, al lthat rubbish about infanticide is untrue. There you have it: an example of an untruth.

  13. I tend to agree with Konrad that our core is a bit more rotten than most realize.

    The Democrats have really been a lame opposition party. There are abundant grounds for impeachment of Bush, Cheney and more. It is far too generous to call them a progressive party, with the exception of a minority within.

    And since Cal has diverted our attention to the issue of children dyeing, although she could give a rats ass about the already born in the third world...

    It is worth raising the question of how the next president is going to deal with the issue of U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan. See link and lead below.

    Both McCain and Obama promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan. But how can this be liberating them when we have such callous disregard for these peoples's lives?

    Massimo, I would like to hear your and your spouse's perspective on this.


    "A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in airstrikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Friday, according to the United Nations mission in Kabul."

  14. Massimo,

    I must say that I was a reluctant admirer of Hillary Clinton's speech tonight. She emphasised points that would make you glad ;-).

  15. Sheldon,

    the children and other civilians killed in Afghanistan represent an all too common tragedy, investigations need to be carried out, and punishment handed where appropriate. But I still argue that Obama is by far a better choice than McCain, all things considered, and those are the only two choices we have at this point. People better not make the 2000 "Nader mistake" again of thinking that it doesn't matter who is at helm because both parties are corrupt.


    yes, I heard parts of Hillary's speech, and it was excellent. Again, I do not deny sexism, even on the part of some Obama supporters (though there is a distinction between supporters and the official campaign), but again, let's keep the immediate big picture in mind. Thanks to Hillary, our society is now much closer to have a woman president in the near future. That's a spectacular achievement (so is to have a black president, obviously). But for November we need to think about the immediate dangers of more conservative judges who might reverse Roe vs. Wade, to mention just one pressing issue.

  16. It seems to me lunacy that any feminist, or indeed any admirer of Hilary Clinton could be so bitter and trwisted that she would vote for a man who:

    - Made the joke "Chelsea Clinton is so ugly because Janet Reno is her father".
    - Publiicy called his wife a c***.
    - Actively worked in Congress to allow corprorations illegally deny equal pay to women workers.
    - Had a fun moment with the boys over the question "How do we beat the bitch?", meaning "you know who".
    - Is making a fetish to conservative groups of his opposition to Roe vs Wade, and his intent to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court to overthrow it.

    Anyone who lets a t-shirt that says "End the Drama, vote Obama" get under their skin, is pretty well desperately looking for ways to feel insulted, IMHO. And, don't forget, Michelle Obama has been attacked as both a woman and a black person. I did not hear many feminists speak up for her!

  17. Toby,

    the attacks on Michelle Obama, while wrong, are based on her comments about America. They are not based on her being a woman. However, insofar as we (the left) protest attacks on her for her gender or for her ideas, it is because (in many cases) feminism has informed us of the nature of these attacks. Which is exactly why its not an issue of something getting "under my skin" and it is poor form (and a repetition of right-wing terminology and mindset) to suggest that women or feminists are looking for ways to get insulted. And that this is not immediately clear (as opposed to how immediate the perception was of the idiocy of Biden's remarks about articulate African-Americans) is part of what makes feminists angry. Today, Bill Clinton is sulking about the harsh response to his (possibly unconscious) race references. We do not turn the blame around (as right-wingers do) and claim that Obama or Clyburn are thin-skinned. Rather, we should and do demand that Clinton face up to the implications of his statements.

  18. Massimo,

    I agree with you that it is important to defeat McCain. But with that said we should have our eyes wide open about expecting Obama to be more progessive than he is.

    I will probably vote for Obama...but on the other hand I am now a resident of Arizona where it is likely that McCain will carry his home state by a comfortable margin. So I might consider voting for Nader to register my protest against our sham of a democracy; that is depending on what the polls say.

    However, I vigorously urge people in "battleground" states to do everything they can do to defeat McCain.

    Ravi and Toby,
    I think it fair to say that there was both sexism launched toward Hillary and dog whistle racism-xenophobia toward the Obama's.

    As far as the official Obama campaign, it seems to me that he played it fairly clean, but maybe something is flying under my radar?

    What is quite disgusting is to hear replayed footage of Hillary Clinton endorsing McCain over Obama in the primary season. This is just stooping too low if you actually care about the issues that differentiate your party from the other.

  19. "Cal, al lthat rubbish about infanticide is untrue. There you have it: an example of an untruth."

    Ya know, K, if men WILL NOT STEP UP and be honest about life and the issues contained therein, God will most certainly raise up a woman to take on the things that matter in this life. Hiding behind skirts all the time really gets to be a bad habit tho, doesn't it.

    Never particularly enthused over voting for Mccain. But for once, I actually feel that I can vote for someone in good conscience.

    Ms. Alaska ROCKS!

    A REAL mom. YEA!!!!!!!!

  20. Cal,
    Governor Palin apparently just had a baby with Down Syndrome four months ago!

    Seems to me that now is a very bad time for a new mother with an infant with Down Syndrome, with all of the trouble that entails, starting a very stressful new job as vice president of the United States.

    Seems to me this is a time when a good Republican Christain mother would put motherhood first ahead of her career!

    Don't you think?

  21. s,

    Dems and libs would be completely hypocritical to knock the gov of Alaska because she is a woman and a mom. She is not only a great mom, but has like the best approval rating of the whole US. 80%

    She has taken to task a lot of corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle including two Republicans in her own state.

    When someone is really good on the inside like she is, it is going to be hard to lay a finger on her. Not that people won't try. They always do. But because she is a truly good and decent person, they had better watch it.

    She is the real thing. And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would make me prouder to be an American than a vice president (mommy) who totally loves and is proud of her Down syndrome baby boy!

    Time change parties, isn't it.


  22. Cal,
    Isn't it kind of obvious that if Gov. Palin is going to be campaingning for vice president, starting now, and could become Vice President very soon, that she will probably be passing off her baby to the nanny about 90% of the time?

    In fact, I wouldnt be at all surprised if in the four months since the birth of that baby, she has been in the care of a nanny most of the time.

    I know when my spouse and me had our healthy problem free boy, he was still a bundle to care for his first two years. My spouse would not even consider putting him in the care of day care strangers until he was at least two years old.

    If Palin was Mrs. Super Mom she would NOT be running off to be vice president in the early years of "her Down syndrome baby boy!"

    Your words I might stress. You are really proud of the fact that she carried a child with Down Syndrome to term aren't you?

    Of course you are. And the students of Karl Rove running McCain's campaign knew that there would be a population of people just like you.

    You silly fundamentalist zombie. Can't you see that you are being manipulated?

    This was a cynical ploy to capture the vote of right-wing Christian mothers like yourself, and disaffected women Hillary supporters at the same time.

    Fortunately, most feminist women Hillary supporters are much smarter than the likes of you Cal.


  23. "This was a cynical ploy to capture the vote of right-wing Christian mothers like yourself, and disaffected women Hillary supporters at the same time. Fortunately, most feminist women Hillary supporters are much smarter than the likes of you Cal.


    That is SO fourth grade, Sheldon.

    Is "choice" only for women on the left? Or just for those you say that it is for? Same standard for everyone all the time, or don't bother to talk to me about it. A lot of people say that she is a good mother, many people who live in her state are crazy about her - they think she is great Governor. (of the largest landmass state in the US, btw)

    If you want to pick her a part for just flat out being successful, you have a much bigger problem than the fact that she has been raising her her last three children through 13 years of public service.

    On her gov web site, she has a section devoted just to Trig, ( http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trig.html ) their new baby. And if you think I'm gonna fall for it...you better believe it.

    He's a beautiful boy.

  24. Governor Palin is Pro-Choice. Don't let the media confuse you.

    She's for students having an opportunity in biology class to make their own choices between Evolution and Creationism.

    There's more to being a leader of our country than being a good mother.

    Governor Palin and Intelligent Design?

    Why no, let's have a discussion about Evolution and CREATIONISM in our schools.

    ...earlier that year (2006), the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

    "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

    Let kids debate both sides. Kids.

    Sounds like the experience she would bring to the (vice) presidency is well rooted in the bible, literally interpreted of course.

  25. "you have a much bigger problem than the fact that she has been raising her her last three children through 13 years of public service."

    No Cal, Choice if for everyone, but that is not the point. Being a mayor of a tiny town in Alaska and raisning children is one thing. Having a baby with Down Syndrome and being Vice President of the United States is another.

    As I would think you would know taking care of children takes time. Now I am sure most social conservatives are highly critical of the rich and famous when they leave the raising of their children to nannys.

    I suppose its easy to take care of a child with Down Syndrome, and go run off to be governor and vice president when you have the resources to leave the baby with a nanny most of the time.

    But is that the essence of "good motherhood"? I don't think you really think it is.

    Fortunately she probably won't be vice president. There is damning video of her asking what exactly does the VP do all day.

    Palin is McCain's Harriet Myers. Big blooper.

  26. Sheldon,

    You’ve assumed a lot of things about the care of the Governor's children that you know absolutely nothing about. You may have zero appreciation for what kind of person that she really is, but time will tell. I am not, for one, worried about it.

    All in all, I've just had to come to the conclusion that some people just like to complain. Even when there is really nothing to complain about. And in this case, it's all about a bunch on the left convinced that O-biden had it sewed up.

    Beginning, middle and end of election coverage, I fully EXPECT some media source (s) to drag out any kind evidence whatsoever just to show that Sarah Palin is not quite perfect. But that's exactly what slandering media sources do best after all. And if I haven't listened garbage like that for like 15-20 years of my adult life, why ever would I start now?

    And Sheldon, WHY do YOU listen to it?

    Ever heard of this thing called "resistance thinking"?

  27. Hey, my Mother (and the rest of the big family) is extremely proud of her Down Syndrome daughter too! And of my uncle's couple Down Syndrome kids too. Can she be VP, please? I mean, she does not have the experience of governing a huge town of 9,000 people in the boonies, but she's not far off... And she's proud of THREE DS kids, so she must be three times better than Mrs. Palin (who?).

    Well, Cal, you're upset at Sheldon but, let me tell you, you do behave here like a zombie most of the time, a little robot who joyfully swallows, hook, line and sinker, everything that the right-wind propaganda machine produces. And then spews it to whomever will (or not) listen, unchanged.

    a key sanctity-of-life issue

    That expression is the hallmark of the idiot, I'm afraid. Not for believing in said sanctity. That would be fine. The idiocy enters the stage when you consider that there must be a stupidly high correlation between believing in the sanctity of life and also supporting war (I don't have any data, but from what I've seen over the years...). You know, people kill and die in wars. So if there is any absolute sanctity of life (which is what these people say they believe in), you cannot send people to kill and die, because that is taking a human life. You cannot support death penalty either. Now, talk about cognitive dissonance.

  28. And by the way, Cal, I know there are people on the left who also behave like zombies. Seen many. That does not excuse you in any way, obviously.

    Now, back on topic...

    I'm so afraid the Democrats will auto destruct. Why is it that the left (everywhere!) cannot unite and go against the common enemy without cracking into lots of little factions? Reminds me of those guys in "Life of Brian", you know, paraphrasing: the Judean People's Front against the Front for Judean People against... Whatever, you get my point I think.

    Well, my (admittedly biased) hypothesis for all this in-fighting is that the left leaning people are more honest, intelligent and hold to their principles more tenaciously than those on the right. In that way, if the lefties cannot agree on everything, they will fight to the death among each other because they cannot agree with something they see as wrong just for the sake of beating the much more malign opponent. So, they forget the forest and stare at the trees, to only wake up and whine when the right wing has already gone by cutting it all down to build a shopping mall.

    The choice of Palin for VP candidate must be cause for celebration for the democrats, I believe? I mean, the woman is practically a caricature. I don't know how much the VP choice affects ticket choice, but she's sure to scare many moderates, and rile up the lefties.

  29. "You’ve assumed a lot of things about the care of the Governor's children that you know absolutely nothing about."


    I simply draw an inference from what I do know. Young babies need lots of care. Babies with Down Syndrome, who often have many other more complicated health and developmental issues, need even more care. Campaigning for VP is a big busy job, as is being VP.

    I also know what kind of values you and others like you profess. You believe that the most important thing a woman can do is care for her child. Am I right? Religious-social conservatives often berate the career woman who doesn't put her children first.

    Now this thing with Palin just doesn't pass the smell test. I just can't believe that religious conservatives aren't just a little bit puzzled about how one of their own, who is a new mother, is going to run off and be VP.

    One must also wonder if McCain and Palin will also start supporting family friendly policies for people who aren't rich, can't afford nannies/child care, are just barely lucky enough to own/afford ONE modest home, or make rent every month. Policies that address the problems of those who don't currently have adequate health insurance for their child or entire family.

    One must wonder why the likes of Cal and the party and people she supports don't support more social welfare policies? They couldn't even support the expansion of SCHIP (health insurance for children)!

    They say "You must have that baby.. but don't expect any social infrastructure to assist you in the care of that baby."

    What about the everyday working class folks who may have a child with Downs syndrome and can't meet the challenges of caring for that child? Are we going to be seeing changes from McCain/Palin to address these problems?

    Doubt it! Because we got 90 more years in Iraq and a new military adventure in Iran to do. Plenty of money for the military industrial complex, nothing left over for policies that support people.

    Cal, if you can't see that you're a patsy for these moral monsters, well...then I guess I am not surprised, knowing you.

  30. "..I mean, she does not have the experience of governing a huge town of 9,000 people in the boonies, but she's not far off... And she's proud of THREE DS kids, so she must be three times better than Mrs. Palin (who?)."

    Every word that you came up with here, J, comes straight from the LEFTIST media. Not a word that is new, fresh or objective. What do you know about Gov Palin apart from CNN, MSNBC, ect? Do you have any idea of what she has in fact done for Alaska?

    AND BTW, if your mother is a decent person and cares about people, I'd far rather have her running for an office than a whole herd of supposedly experienced politicians. Experienced, as far as I am concerned, just means that they have an incredible amount of practical experience lying.

    Yeah, I'd rather have your mom.

    In case you didn'y know, MOMS know "stuff" about "things". :)

  31. "Doubt it! Because we got 90 more years in Iraq and a new military adventure in Iran to do. Plenty of money for the military industrial complex, nothing left over for policies that support people."

    MSNBC...CNN? Who told you this ...what's their source... what is the actual context (or basis) for these comments?

    Not that Mccain isn't leftist leaning in the first place, but it is unlikely that he really wants the US to spend "100 years more" in Iraq.

    Think. Don't just repeat what you hear.

  32. "I also know what kind of values you and others like you profess. You believe that the most important thing a woman can do is care for her child. Am I right? Religious-social conservatives often berate the career woman who doesn't put her children first."

    AS I said before, if a man of integrity would STEP UP it would not be necessary for Mrs. Palin to take the Govs job (ak was apparently full of corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle). If men of either party were not so doggone concerned about being thought of as relevant (or moderate) instead of functioning like a responsible (albeit sometimes unpopular) parent, Gov PALIN COULD HAVE REMAINED MERELY MRS. PALIN.

    By taking on this incredible task, she knows what I know. She is not only protecting your children, she is protecting hers as well.


    GOT IT?

  33. I fail to see why Sheldon or others should seriously engage Caliana. She/He has not offered any details but rather personal opinion and generic adjectives to describe Palin.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.