The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Six Dead in Washington Shooting | Main | The Daily Show: Hapless GOP Delegates Abandoned During Hurricane Gustav »

September 03, 2008


Pregnancy sure is always an issue especially for celebrities and public figures.


You haven't missed much if you weren't following pregnancy-coverup-gate. Times like this serve as a reminder that there are idiots and rumor-mongerers on both sides of the political spectrum.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy is obviously off-limits from a political perspective. There's no hipocricy here, just another example, among millions, of where Sarah Palin's proposed "abstinence only" sex-ed gets you.


If McCain had nominated someone like Olympia Snowe, that would have been a real, legitimate play at Hillary supporters. Any other pro-choice female Republican with significant experience would have fit the bill. But not Palin. I can't imagine this selection will convert a significant number of Hillary supporters who were actually on the fence.

There's plenty of POSSIBLE benefits for McCain from the Palin pick, but I think the simplest and most likely explanation for a pick with so many drawbacks is that she was an impulsive, ill-considered pick.

Deb Cupples


How are you? Can't wait for another of your well-written posts (NO pressure, though).

We agree that Palin is the anti-Hillary and that "abstinence only" is bad strategy.

I wouldn't say, however, that Bristol's pregnancy has practically speaking) been "off limits," because a lot of people have been screaming about it. That's to be expected, given our medias' thirst for such nonsense.

Interesting that you bring up Snowe: she's whom I thought McCain would beg to join his ticket.

Again, you're right: the "simplest" explanation is a total ball dropping by McCain's strategists and staff on one of his most important decisions.

I can't prove anything, but I just don't buy it.

If journalists do their job (or come across a leak), we might find out the truth eventually.


Certainly the media IS talking about Briston Palin, just as they talk about whatever other tabloid nonsense they want to talk about. But I don't consider the subject either politically advantageous to Democrats, or appropriate for intense scrutiny. She's 17 and made a mistake. Dog bites man.

If McCain had picked Snowe that would have scared me a lot. That would be a real game changer. He would have basically been calling the religious right's bluff - the worst thing they could do is stay home, and most of them probably wouldn't do that. Meanwhile, Snowe is the true moderate/maverick that McCain claims he is, and she reinforces the experience argument. That's two things Palin doesn't do.

One "scoop" I read today - and who knows if it is true - is that McCain wanted to pick Ridge or Lieberman. Rove nixed a pro-choice pick and was pushing Romney, so McCain went with Palin essentially to assert his independence from the Rovians.

Deb Cupples


I've heard Obama's public talking points about Bristol's being "off limits."

It's nonsense on several fronts. First, as you mentioned, it's just the kind of thing that our media love -- and Obama has no control over that.

Second, Bristol's pregnancy is somewhat relevant to some stuff (as I noted in "Compassionately Conservative Palin Slashed Funding for Teenage Moms").

Third, Obama's "off limits" talking points were BS. All Obama can do is fire staff for (getting caught at) bringing up the pregnancy -- and he could have addressed staff PRIVATELY.

His public address was just an attempt to get points. And for all we know, he wasn't sincere. Remember when he told the debate audience that Hillary's Bosnia lie was no issue to him -- then a few days later HIS STAFFERS were talking to the press about it?

Me, I'm just getting tired of the political theater. I think Obama will win. I'm ready for November to come and go.


There's no equivalence between Obama's statements on Hillary's Bosnia story, and Obama's statements on Bristol Palin's pregnancy. In the first case, he said something along the lines of "it's one of those things that happens on the campaign, and I don't feel the need to harp on it here". In the second case, he basically said "it's off-limits and I will fire any staff that bring it up". There's a difference between minimizing an issue, and saying an issue is absolutely verboten.

That said, of course you're right that he said it publicly for political reasons. More precisely, he was trying to distance himself from the story so that the Republicans would focus their blowback on the media as oppose to on the Obama campaign. But there's no reason, even accounting for past incidents in the primary, to think that Obama is being insincere here, or that he would fail to follow through and fire staffers over this issue.

I agree that Palin deserves criticism for her policies on abstinence education and early childhood care. But the fact that these issues hit home for Palin doesn't really make her a hypocrite or anything. If she was one of those firebrands railing against the collapse of family values, then sure, the desire to set aside indiscretions in her own family would show hypocrisy.

Deb Cupples


Given how many times I've seen solid evidence of insincerity, I just assume that Obama is not sincere until proven otherwise.

That's HIS fault, not mine: he is the keeper of his own credibility.

I'm still voting for Obama, though, because I think he's a slightly safer dice roll than the new McCain.

You're right. In my other post, I didn't really label Palin a hypocrite -- just a personally irresponsible policy maker who is more interested in adopting the pro-life label than in actually nurturing life.

The comments to this entry are closed.