What's Worse Than Having Everybody In Your High School Talking About You?
Having a good part of the western world doing it, like some on the left are to Palin's poor teenage daughter.
Amanda Carpenter writes about it on TownHall, starting with a blogger's sick shout-out to Governor Palin:
"Sarah, I'm calling you a liar" wrote blogger ArcXIX. "And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better. " Photos of Bristol with detailed commentary about her abdomen are contained in the post.Not only is the DailyKos disgustingly inspecting Bristol's midriff with all the fervor of LA paparazzi examining J-Lo's or Jennifer Aniston's washboard stomachs for evidence of a "bump," the DailyKos is wrong on when the photo was taken. It was taken, and published, by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. Baby Trig, a child with Down's Syndrome, was born on April 18, 2008. That's a long time for a teen girl to be carrying a "bump" which looks nothing more than the curve of a tight sweater.
Just a thought: Do girls who are pregnant and hoping to keep it a secret wear form-fitting clothes in photos for their Momma's website? And wouldn't a woman who wasn't pregnant but wanted to appear so run around with a little stuffing in her pantyhose?
Leave the kid alone. Let's just hope she's made of stronger stuff than that girl who killed herself after just one adult harassed her on the web.
Obama better squelch this nonsense now. It reflects badly on him and his campaign.
Don't say he can't control what his brownshirts are doing. His silence implies assent.
MarkD at September 1, 2008 5:00 AM
No, Mark, he CAN'T control his brownshirts. They control HIM.
He does whatever his handlers tell him to. Until the public learns who the handler is, then the Obamessiah throws the handler under the bus (and pretends to not know them) and finds another partisan hack to fill the vacancy.
Funny how the "evil republican smear machine" got blamed by the mainstream media for the National Enquirer publishing a detailed story about John Edwards being a cheating dirtbag, but there are no MSM recriminations for the people who concoct this trash.
Where is Olbermann's spittle-flecked condemnation? Where is tingle-legged Chris Matthews plea to raise the bar of discourse back up?
PinkoPerforator at September 1, 2008 5:11 AM
Contrast this to what McCain did when a congressman at a rally kept emphasizing Obama's middle name trying to play on anti-Muslim bigotry. McCain shut him down and told him that wasn't acceptable. Not that that is a reason to vote for someone for president but I do find it interesting.
Dale at September 1, 2008 6:01 AM
*nod* Good point Dale. I hadn't read about that.
Do we want a president who can control his people, or one who is controlled by his people?
I have this sneaky suspicion that Obama would turn out to be a donothing president, or at least an "accomplish nothing" president.
He's ambitious sure. But he's based his career on NOT taking sides and avoiding controversy, I mean come on how can you NOT have a reasonable opinion on something 192 times, just voting "present"?
Is that the mark of a leader, to simply keep showing up at the party? Add to that his ideas haven't received any hard coverage, and frankly it looks to me like the people who voted for him didn't really know who they were voting for. As his ideas come out, as they must during the election, he'll get a great deal of scrutiny.
Then people will realize he's an idealistic and unrealistic candidate, or just not favor anything remotely socialist...and vote for McCain.
Then when he loses the election, liberal democrats can feel good about themselves because they gave America the opportunity to vote for a black candidate (ignoring that they didn't pick a good one) and publish all sorts of misguided papers and articles about how racist America still is and how far we have to go, as if that is the only reason not to vote for him. They'll lay the blame on republicans and conservatives, and then ignore the fact that a great many democrats crossed over to McCain just out of spite that their favored candidate didn't win the democratic nomination, or just didn't like Obama any more than others, and then the jackson/sharpton ilk will come out of the woodwork and demand more money be thrown at "issues" to level the playing field over past inequalities and so on and so forth.
Just call me Roberdamus if you like. *L*
Robert at September 1, 2008 6:38 AM
Too late, Robert. I already made those predictions. (See previous entries on this blog.) As I said before (perhaps not here), invest in some good quality earplugs, because come this November, the Democrats will be shrieking to shatter glass: It's just because this country is RACIST!
Patrick at September 1, 2008 7:20 AM
Amy, knowing you are no fan of Palin, thanks for showing that you are still fair and balanced by pointing out these disgusting attacks. I'm sure the smears will get much worse, and all of them will revolve around her kids/marriage/looks. I'm no feminist, but I'm starting to think this country is a thousand times more sexist than it is racist.
Karen at September 1, 2008 7:32 AM
From reading some comments on other Internet boards, I'm inclined to believe that the same type of "progressives" that were spamming your site a few days ago are exactly the type of "tiny little thugs" who are throwing around this rumor that even *they* know is unfounded. Basically, they're salivating over the idea that Palin's baby, (the ELDER Palin's baby,) may actually be her grandson, and are desperately trying to shout down anyone who rolls their eyes and says "Um, other than lefty conspiracy theorists, there really isn't any information, let alone credible evidence that Sarah Palin orchestrated a massive coverup of her "grandson's" birth.
Yeah, I detest Palin's views on abortion myself, but I detest tiny little thugs like these even more.
Kim at September 1, 2008 8:05 AM
What I want to know is why the hell Palin, at the end of a high risk pregnancy, with a extra fragile baby, hopped on a plane for 8 hours after her water broke.
That is just so freaking dangerous, not only to her, but the baby and even the rest of the passengers if they'd have had to make an emergency landing.
Says a lot about her judgement.
JoJo at September 1, 2008 8:32 AM
I have to say, if you know anything about genetics and the most common chromosomal abnormalities, the idea that a 16-year-old is more likely than an anti-abortion 44-year-old to have given birth to a Down's Syndrome baby is freakin' hilarious. (I throw in the "anti-abortion" bit because most fetuses with Down's are aborted.) At Palin's age, she'd have had something like a 1-in-11 chance of conceiving a Down's baby; at her daughter's age, the chances would be so minute that most geneticists wouldn't be able to stop laughing. I'm sure when Palin got that call from the doctor about her prenatal test results she never guessed that the baby's condition would end up coming in handy in quite this way.
Also, a tip: If you think someone may be secretly pregnant, check out their boobs rather than their stomach. Anyone can have a potbelly - what typically sets pregnant women apart is a dramatic change in their breasts. Obsessing over women with round bellies is ridiculous and likely to lead to the dreaded, "How far are you along? Oh wait - you're not pregnant?" comments.
What I want to know is why the hell Palin, at the end of a high risk pregnancy, with a extra fragile baby, hopped on a plane for 8 hours after her water broke.
You know, JoJo, when we're talking about a woman who's at the end of her fifth pregnancy, I'd inclined to assume that she can predict how her body will behave in labor fairly well. And, while the flight was 8 hours long, she didn't wait 8 hours after the water breaking to get on board, and she got on only after consulting with her doctor, who advised her to come on home presumably knowing that if she gave birth on the plane and the baby died he could be subject to a massive lawsuit. I'm inclined to give her a pass. YMMV.
marion at September 1, 2008 9:18 AM
Yes, this accusation about Palin's family is ridiculous and pathetic. So are the accusations that Obama is somehow responsible for the actions of the guy who blogged it out. Got any proof? If not, then your opinions are just as ridiculous and pathetic. Anyone can say anything, and since there is no accountability, every moron is invited to the party.
This discussion level of this blog has really deteriorated.
Eric at September 1, 2008 9:23 AM
Well, Trig is probably Sarah Palin's baby... but news just broke that Bristol Palin is pregnant. Really.
This will be interesting. I know it's wrong, but I do get a little thrill when the anti-birth control, anti-abortion, abstinence-only people end up with pregnant daughters.
andrew'shotwife at September 1, 2008 9:43 AM
"Obama is somehow responsible for the actions of the guy who blogged it out." Eric
No he isn't responsible for them, he HAS TO BE responsible against them. We all have opinions, but a person running for public office has to make sure that their own opinion over such things is heard above the din. Only then will his followers decide if they will toe the line, or break away. As MarkD said above, silence is assent.
Also important! Later on when the hounds are baying for your own blood, a candidate must be able to point to his own fortitude to discredit them. That will surely happen...
SwissArmyD at September 1, 2008 9:46 AM
and Andrew'shotwife? Check your facts... she is pro coctraceptive/anti abortion...
From 10 things about Palin in Time Mag.
I found that by searching on Palin stance on contraception...
SwissArmyD at September 1, 2008 9:52 AM
Amy, knowing you are no fan of Palin, thanks for showing that you are still fair and balanced by pointing out these disgusting attacks.
Thanks for noticing that. I think it's just horrible.
Amy Alkon at September 1, 2008 10:02 AM
I think these people know that a really easy way to distract a parent is to attack the kids. I hope she and her daughter can rise above it. It's beyond pathetic.
And a nice reminder that Amy is as fair as she is opinionated.
Why do you laugh when a prolifer's kid gets pregnant? Do you think she would secretly want her daughter to get an abortion but be unable to due to her publicly stated views? I doubt it. In fact, valuing the life, it's probably easier on her than most moms who's kids get pregnant young who just see it as an unwanted problem. And yeah, she is not anti-contraceptive. Verify your facts before posting please.
momof3 at September 1, 2008 10:31 AM
Eh, while I'm not crazy about Obama, and while his reps had an idiotic initial response to Palin, I don't think he's responsible for what various crazy lefty bloggers are saying, and I think that any attempt on his part to address the rumors would seem to lend credence to them. Much better for him to be quiet, albeit with a statement that he wants to focus on Palin's stances rather than allowing the official debate to denigrate the way it has in some quarters online.
That having been said, the attacks on Palin do highlight a problem that Obama has - live by the netroots, die by the netroots. Obama was the beloved of the netroots; Hillary was the goat. That's one of the factors that pushed him over the top. Trying to come out too strongly against them now could backfire on him big time, because they'd feel betrayed.
As I said, the idea of teenage Bristol, rather than 40something Palin, giving birth to a Down's baby is so hilarious to me that I can't work up the energy to get powerfully outraged about this. It's like hearing the 9-11 Truthers rant on about "evidence" supposedly supporting their incredibly unlikely claims. But I do think the allegations could end up being a problem...for Obama. Because just about every likely female voter who's given birth has either been offered prenatal testing or knows someone who has, and they've all heard the age = significantly higher risk of birth defects facts, especially in relation to Down's. Most of them are likely to jump straight past the "could this be true?" stage to the "good Lord, how vile" stage, and the more they do that, the more sympathy they're going to have for Palin.
marion at September 1, 2008 10:51 AM
Per Reynolds
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 11:29 AM
The thing that gets me is that Palin had to know that this current pregnancy was going to come out (her kid would have the baby just before she's sworn in). Yet she chose to accept the VP nomination and expose her child to the scrutiny of the nation. Nice model of motherhood.
And now, she will have two babies to take care of >1 year old, because you know the 17 year old isn't ready to do it on her own.
Jennifer at September 1, 2008 11:48 AM
I meant less than 1 years old . . .
Jennifer at September 1, 2008 11:51 AM
> she chose to accept the VP
> nomination and expose her
> child to the scrutiny
1. As a dear liberal pointed out to me this morning, many many many American families will relate.
2. She gives evidence that her pride, faith and admiration towards her children is such that this is a weather-able storm. (Kinda like Gustav, at this hour at least....) (Metaphor! Metaphor!)
3. Intrusive coverage may well backfire on the liberal press. Until an hour ago, the Trigg-wasn't-Sarah's story was doing just that.
4. The purveyors of that other story are convincingly, if backhandedly, humiliated.
5. It's another indisputable certification of her dislike of abortion.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 11:55 AM
Marion, I think your insight into this being her fifth pregnancy is good. My wife also experienced a long period between water break and labor.
I don't think Obama is responsible per se for "his bloggers", but I don't think he's set a tone to discourage such attacks. Similarly with Sadly No. Did Sadly No write this attack? No. Is there a good chance the person who wrote this attack is a fan of Sadly, No? Most likely. Bad money drives out good, and an atmosphere was this sort of attack in encouraged IS what Obama, et. al., are responsible for.
Now, the right does almost entirely identical stupid things as well. The political discourse on the blogosphere is utter crap, and it feeds the media's desire for gossip and their need to say, it's not them bringing this up, but other people are talking....
(And it's not just anti-abortion, anti-contraception republicans having pregnant teens. It's a national fucking tragedy. (bad pun alert))
jerry at September 1, 2008 11:57 AM
The best part of that Kos article is the best sentence, wrapping up hypocrisy and fealty to the modern feminist claim that teenagers face no difficulties with sex and pregnancy that are not caused by patriarchy society into a nice tidy little package:
Bristol Palin rightfully should be able to embrace her child in public as her own, with no shame, and no quarter. And a mother should be just as accepting.
jerry at September 1, 2008 12:05 PM
"And now, she will have two babies to take care of >1 year old, because you know the 17 year old isn't ready to do it on her own." Jennifer
She has 4 siblings, why do you think that? Most people forget that in their grandparent/ great-grandparents day it was common to be married at 18 and have a family. Naturally some didn't wait that long. Society was set up to accept that at the time and it elliceted little debate. It is only since WWII or so that the ages have been rising, and yet we act like nobody can figure it out.
Is it stupid to get preggers as a teen? Yup. It isn't impossible to make it work.
Seems like people forget how it is that what doesn't work on a large scale, can work on the small, depending on circumstance. I learned to drive hay trucks when I was 10 because I wasn't strong enough to lift the bales. Most 10yr olds don't know how to drive and shouldn't learn, unless they are farmer kids.
Likewise you don't want to start a family when you are a teen, but life happens when you are planning something else. How you react is what is important.
SwissArmyD at September 1, 2008 12:11 PM
> She has 4 siblings
I don't see what that has to do with it. I admire the modern dislike of teen parenthood. Teenagers ought not be permitted to interrupt the childhoods of their younger brothers and sisters by saying "Listen, before you start making plans, I got laid at a party last Saturday and I'm going to need some help raising the baby."
I hate Huffpo, but Kaus found a good one from the guy who gave us the Edwards story.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 12:33 PM
I think it's funny that the abstinence-only queen's daughter is pregnant.
Who says these things start in the home?
O'Riordan at September 1, 2008 12:38 PM
Who said she's abstinence-only? You made that up, right?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 12:39 PM
Hi Amy!
O'Riordan at September 1, 2008 12:40 PM
It's really starting to seem, as per the link posted a couple minutes ago, that the energetic base of liberalism is being ceded to people want to fight the imaginary demons in their head more than they want to deal with real problems. (Olbermann, etc.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 12:41 PM
Palin has more executive experience than any one on either ticket. Further, she has more executive experience and just as much foreign policy experience than John Edwards had when he ran with Kerry in 2004.
I'm sure all the Democrats who post on this board didn't vote for Kerry/Edwards because of the latter's complete lack of experience.
Riiiiiggghhtttttt......
Tom at September 1, 2008 1:11 PM
17-year-olds have been taking care of babies, albeit primarily with the help of their extended families, for millennia. While I would prefer that 17-year-old girls be focusing on other things in 2008, a reasonably well-balanced 17-year-old with a supportive, financially comfortable family is perfectly capable of marrying and raising a child if she sets her mind to it. Are the combined demands of (say) school and parenthood exhausting? Sure, but she's young and can get by on little sleep for a time. I doubt Sarah Palin was thrilled to find out that her daughter is pregnant, but this doesn't have to ruin the kid's life, and I doubt it will.
What has appalled me is how many of my otherwise intelligent friends have treated the "maternity of Trig" smear as a substantive question that needs investigation, proof, etc. Yes, if you're a liberal, you're probably not going to like Sarah Palin's stances on various issues. Even if you're not, you may feel that she doesn't have enough experience to be VP. Fine. But when you're in the category of, "Ooooh, look, her daughter has a round belly in this picture, so clearly they're COVERING UP HER PREGNANCY!" you have LOST YOUR EFFING MIND and are behaving in a repulsive, misogynistic manner. If you otherwise claim to be a tolerant feminist, your behavior is even more reprehensible. Not to mention that WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HER ABILITY TO FACE DOWN THE RUSSIANS? Because, if the initial lefty blogosphere's reaction was to be taken seriously, it was all about that, right? Right? And what one does in one's bedroom is supposed to be private, right? Didn't I hear that nonstop during the Clinton years?
BTW, Obama just came out swinging against the various Bristol/Trig allegations and made it clear that they're off-limits. I doubt his various followers will listen, but good for him for saying something.
I am laughing at one thing, though - one of the criticisms being leveled against Sarah Palin is that she won't be able to help plan her daughter's wedding. Seriously. Given that Palin herself eloped to save money, I doubt that's going to bother her, but since when did a failure to provide a knocked-up teenager with a splashy wedding constitute child neglect?
marion at September 1, 2008 1:27 PM
Before we all leap--there's no proof or evidence that Palin is abstinence only. Her kids go to public school. And here's some stats:
Guttmacher Institute:
Alaska in terms of contraception: Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Alaska ranked * 1st in service availability; * 14th in laws and policies; * 1st in public funding; and * 2nd overall. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_data/states/alaska.html
Kate at September 1, 2008 1:29 PM
And Marion--good for Obama. He's so much classier than his followers. Seriously, does anyone think Michelle wants to eat dinner with them?
Rachel Cohen at September 1, 2008 1:33 PM
Here's a fine fine conservative voice on Bristol's new pregnancy. (Apparently he thinks she got pregnant over the weekend and just to annoy mom and McCain.)
Robert Stacy McCain
Since the McCain campaign has released a statement declaring that 17-year-old Bristol Palin now faces "the responsibilities of adulthood," might I be so bold as to suggest that they arrange a press conference where Bristol can attempt to address the horrible embarrassment she's caused her parents?
Excuse my paternal (and political) indignation but I am in no mood for pleas that the media respect anyone's privacy at this point. I don't think it an exaggeration to say that this girl (and her boyfriend) have caused a crisis of global significance, and if her parents are serious about "the responsibilities of adulthood," Bristol ought to face the consequences, including about 45 minutes in front of the klieg lights while reporters shout stupid questions.
It's not Bristol's fault her mother was picked as the GOP running mate, but she certainly should have understood how her personal behavior would reflect on her family.
jerry at September 1, 2008 1:33 PM
This sort of thing is more likely to happen when a mother plays politics 24/7, has an offshore husband and allows her five kids to raise themselves, non? At least Ms. Palin will be one hot great-grandmother 15-20 years from now. Much luck with the upcoming deposition for the retaliation firing and with your child and future granchild, Sarah.
O'Riordan at September 1, 2008 1:36 PM
Yes, O'Riordan, that's right, working mothers are ruining society. RUINING! Just like that Michelle Obama and that Hillary Clinton.
Seriously, does anyone think Michelle wants to eat dinner with them?
I'm not the world's biggest Michelle Obama fan, but I think that she'd forget her anti-gun stance if someone started attacking her daughters.
marion at September 1, 2008 2:00 PM
> not Bristol's fault her mother
> was picked as the GOP running
> mate, but
I kinda agree with that commentator you've linked... Maybe this is just indulgence of cranky middle age, but I'm pissed at that teenager. I hate youth. They're stupid, y'know?
BTW, one of these years, someone's going to have to say out loud that Hillary Clinton is not going to go down in history as a notable figure in the movement of feminism into politics. And that's because she doesn't deserve to. Palin, yes; Pelosi, certainly; Ferraro, obviously.
But even if Hillary becomes the new Ted Kennedy --and we've seen signs that that's what she wants to do now, as the position's becoming available-- people will always understand that she accumulated power and position by being married to a politician.
(A man, at that. A boyish one, but still....)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 2:13 PM
On this point, see also: Michelle Obama
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 2:14 PM
> Obama just came out swinging
> against the various Bristol/Trig
> allegations and made it clear
> that they're off-limits.
Three hours to late to be an honorable response, Marion.
The allegations have already been overwhelmed, to Obama's benefit, by an equally-cluckable headline.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 2:20 PM
This morning I was curious so did a quick blog search of "Palin" and "hypocrisy". The HATE (there's no other word for it) I found left me absolutely incredulous. What these people seem to fail to realize is that their postings and obvious support for Obama does have an effect on undecided voters. One of the most brilliant comments I've ever seen in regard to this was the 2nd one from the top: "[Obama] CAN'T control his brownshirts. They control HIM." My bet is that they're just digging a deeper & deeper hole underneath the Obama Campaign.
To some of the liberal bloggers I found in that search, I posted some variation of the following:
Yes, there's definitely some hypocrisy here but you need to get a mirror to see it.
Put yourself in Sarah Palin's shoes. You strongly advocate abstinence to your children. One of your daughters chooses to not listen to you and gets pregnant. What do you then? If you're true to your (Palin's) convictions then you would encourage her to have the baby. And that's what she's doing and getting married to the father as well.
As for the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier, I trust you're aware that Barack Obama was born to an 18 year-old mother who was not married to the father at the time.
Final question: You seem to have no hesitation to delve into the sex life of Sarah Palin's daughter. Should we thus assume that you're advocating open attacks into Barack & Michele's two adorable daughters? Sure sounds like. That's pretty sick.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at September 1, 2008 2:28 PM
Karen, you're absolutely correct. The country is and always has been more sexist than racist. Who do you think is more discriminated against in the workplace? A white woman or a black man? The white woman.
Patrick at September 1, 2008 2:44 PM
Gotta love this gem from O'Riordan: "This sort of thing is more likely to happen when a mother plays politics 24/7, has an offshore husband and allows her five kids to raise themselves, non?"
Can you EVER imagine someone saying this about a male candidate?!? Kinda takes the "Pro" out of "Progressive", doesn't it?!
The interesting thing about a heated election campaign is that some people's true feelings come out. And they're not always very positive.
Robert W. at September 1, 2008 2:44 PM
So Crid, what should Bristol have done: not had sex because it might hurt Mom's political future, or had an abortion?
I think as a teenager she was incredibly dumb to have unprotected sex, and then to not get an abortion, but to expect teens to not have sex because mom the governor may one day be surprised with a call to become the vice presidential candidate, I think that's a bit much.
Pissed at her? The information she had to make the various reproductive choices she did came largely from Mom and Dad. It's not a spectacularly great statement about their parenting skills or belief system.
(Like you, I'd be pissed at her for wasting her youth on something as dumb as having unprotected sex and being unable to get an abortion.)
And her punishment is to be badgered by reporters for an hour? And that helps McCain and/or Palin and/or Palin how?
And a crisis of global significance? How? By allowing America to be taken over by the secret muslim?
If anyone is responsible for this teen pregnancy becoming a crisis of global significance, that would have to be McCain in his choice of Palin and his apparent inability to vet her sufficiently.
jerry at September 1, 2008 2:54 PM
I'm not sure that McCain seems to think this is such a tragedy--everyone in Wasilla knew, and so did McCain.
I think it's dumb, and just had the obligatory chat with child, who'll be discussing this in ethics/morals/religion class, according to her IM'ing teacher.
But name a president/politico whose kids have turned out well? Chelsea's alone in not having majorly screwed up--yet.
Kate at September 1, 2008 3:12 PM
Kate:
The evidence that she's abstinence-only is pretty clear here. See question 3.
franko at September 1, 2008 3:26 PM
Here's a thought-provoking article from Ann Friedman.
I agree that the children of candidates should be off-limits (despite the fact that McCain famously told one of the most vile Chelsea Clinton jokes I've ever heard). However, if the McCain/Palin campaign is going to make a point that Palin's daughter made the choice to keep the baby, they need to be held to account for professing the belief that women like Bristol should not even be allowed to make such a choice.
franko at September 1, 2008 3:36 PM
OK, first of all, Palin IS pro-abstinence, Crid. Before shooting your mouth off with accusations of "making it up," maybe you should spend an iota of time researching it. Palin might belong to an organization that supports birth control use, but, as with many people, she does not support 100% of the stances of groups she belongs to. As a politician, she supports abstinence only. See: firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.asp
Second, Marion, the chances of having a baby with Down syndrome at age 17 are unfortunately not "laughable". You've made the mistake of overgenearlizing. Just because it's much more likely at age 44 than age 17 doesn't make it an insignificant chance. Here's the stats: At age 20, the odds of a Downs syndrome baby are 1 in 1,500. At age 35, they go up to 1 in 350. By age 43, the odds are 1 in 50.
Third, these attacks on Obama for not quashing these attacks on Bristol are ridiculous. The guy acted with alacrity! The fact that his response was only a few hours delayed from the announcement, is just ridiculous. Given all the rumors flying around, he had to fact-check to make sure this wasn't another rumor. You contrast it with McCain quashing the "Hussein" middle name. He did that at a rally after weeks or months of people saying it. Hardly quick. Hardly an apt comparison.
quizzical at September 1, 2008 3:37 PM
> You seem to have no hesitation
> to delve into the sex life of
> Sarah Palin's daughter.
I had cheap food for dinner, and the restaurant had a TV with CNN on it that was running a looped crawl about the contents of this child's uterus, with bobbing heads spouting off about it for twenty minutes. Turns out the CNN presenters seemed to have a liberal outlook.
> what should Bristol have done:
> not had sex because it might
> hurt Mom's political future,
> or had an abortion?
Oh Golly, Berryberry, do you think those were the only two options she ever had? Before you start blowing snot, consider that this may well enhance Mom's vote-drawing power. The religious wackjobs who Amy worries about are shitting themselves with glee tonight.
> The political discourse on
> the blogosphere is utter
> crap
I think it's more likely that you're an asshole. An additional possibility is that you read the wrong stuff, though I recognize that these phenomena are often concurrent.
> OK, first of all, Palin IS
> pro-abstinence,
Gosh, kitten, all of the sudden you're changing your words: Now she supports abstinence education, but she's not "abstinence-only". You should tidy up your rhetorical habits before you accuse others of 'shooting their mouths off.'
That's like saying people who support abortion rights think everyone should have one.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 6:29 PM
> Given all the rumors flying
> around, he had to
> fact-check
You have absolutely no reason to believe this is true, or have any information about how he's approached this matter in the past 48 hours, right? The fantasy machine rolls on....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 6:31 PM
I think it's more likely that you're an asshole.
Dad? Is that you?
jerry at September 1, 2008 9:39 PM
> Is that you?
Apologies for the rush to sarcasm; I meant to type "Jerryberry", son.
SHWINT, like, what are your beliefs? Your website says:
> Democrats need to find their mojo,
> brutally enforce some unity and
> take some political risks.
That's kind of every thing I hate about the Democratic party to which I've been registered for a lifetime. So, maybe, that's all just sarcasm?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 10:16 PM
Nope, I guess it was sincere. Because...
The vandal's back! The vandal's back!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 10:49 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/01/whats_worse_tha_3.html#comment-1586537">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]There are a few of them. Deleted! Hilariously, one of them, who left a little turd with the word "transgendered" in the name left his blog address in the comments. He's a grown man -- looks to be about 60!
Amy Alkon at September 1, 2008 11:25 PM
Hey Crid, were you talking to me with that "SHWINT" stuff? I couldn't figure out what that meant, and near as I can tell, I don't have a website....?
jerry at September 2, 2008 12:39 AM
Sorry Jerry, there were intervening vandal posts that Amy mopped up later. I shoulda known better than to respond to them.
I really wanted to pick a fight with Quizzy, anyway....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 2, 2008 12:42 AM
tsk, tsk, "amy". I see you have changed your stance all of a sudden on women that have children out of wedlock or at a young age.
Fred Jones at September 2, 2008 5:21 AM
Loved this article about presidential/ V.P. kids breaking the law and the scrutiny they're subjected to....
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2001/col20010605.asp
Then it goes to say that poor Bristol hasn't even broken any laws and is being eviscerated by the media; the vultures have become even more aggressive over a lesser "infraction" Disgusting.
juliana at September 2, 2008 9:11 AM
So let me see if I have this straight.
If Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, pile up on her for being irresponsible and a slut.
Bristol Palin gets pregnant, it's OK because her mom is a Vice Presidential candidate and a God-fearing, gun-toting, gay-hating conservative.
And Americans wonder why people think they're stupid and gullible. How could they possibly think that?...
HypocrisyIs Funny at September 3, 2008 9:11 AM
By the way, Amy...
You offering anyone advice is nothing short of laughable, if it weren't so pathetic. You need to take advice rather than give it, and my advice to you is find a vocation that suits your skills, something like watching paint dry sounds about close to your intellectual speed...
HypocrisyIs Funny at September 3, 2008 9:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/01/whats_worse_tha_3.html#comment-1586925">comment from HypocrisyIs FunnySo let me see if I have this straight. If Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, pile up on her for being irresponsible and a slut. Bristol Palin gets pregnant, it's OK because her mom is a Vice Presidential candidate and a God-fearing, gun-toting, gay-hating conservative.
You don't have this straight, and from the tone of it, I'm guessing you came here via Sadly Pathetic.
Neither is right. See my comment about how pregnancy before 18 seems to result in diminished cognitive capacity for both mother and child per Gaulin and Lassek's study published in Evolution & Human Behavior.
Furthermore, I think teen pregnancy is tragic, vis a vis what it does to the woman's chances for self-development and career development and her likelihood of financial independence. I believe it seriously stunts a woman's growth.
The question here is whether it's right for these vile bloggers to go all mean girl on a teenager. And no, it's not.
Oh, and what, in substance, would you say is wrong with my advice? What, exactly, do you take issue with, tiny thug? (I realize you tiny thugs are all about hit-and-run remarks with no there-there, but I'm real tired of it.) Future comments that are attacks without substance will be deleted. Asshole.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2008 9:22 AM
Amy, I still think you should call them tiny MINDED thugs. Just a thought. ;)
Sandy at September 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Note to the deleted: Mr. Sodoma, we don't suffer trolls here.
And thanks, Sandy -- I guess I don't think of them as having minds they actually use, so I omitted it!
Amy Alkon at September 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Leave a comment