Stephen Best

And that "one" is you. What's so special about Palin? She wants to be Vice President of the United States and she has a new baby with Down's Syndrome and a teenage daughter who's pregnant. That makes her "goddamn special", at least I think so and so do many, many others. How many people do you know who have been in similar circumstances. Where "pray tell" did I suggest that "working mothers with challenging family issues must sacrifice either family or career"? Each working mother or father and family has unique issues they confront every day. We're talking about Palin's situation, or at least I am. What are you talking about? In general, I'm fully supportive of women having it all. Ask my wife and daughter. But each situation is different. Sometimes you have to put personal ambition on hold because someone needs you. Perhaps there's more to Palin's decision, but at the moment it seems that her personal ambition takes precedence over both her children and her country. Just for the record, I am not alone in questioning Palin's choice. The media and forums like this one are filled with people doing the same--men and women.

Maybe that's why she accepted McCain's offer to be VP. She needs the job and pay increase to raise Trig and support Bristol. Is that why, if you're American, you'll be giving her your support on election day?

It's not her and Republican supporters that Palin and McCain need to concern themselves with. They need to concern themselves with people who are not supporters, but might give them consideration.

That's how your logic leaps, not mine. In fact, rarely can one logically leap from the particular to the general. For the simple reason that the particular is usually an insignificant statistical sample. Also, you can rarely leap from the general to the particular. Research may show that men are generally, on average, physically stronger than women, but it doesn't follow that any particular man is stronger than any particular woman. You should be careful where you leap your logic. It may not be logical at all.

The issue is which particular political ambitions and which particular children's needs. I've not heard anyone say she should resign as Governor of Alaska and stay home with Trig and Bristol. What is being judged--and rightly so--is the Vice Presidency of the United States and Palin's decision to pursue it with two, not one, what most people would consider serious family situations at home. Perhaps helping a daughter through a teen pregnancy and caring for Down's Syndrome baby are trivial matters, in fact. That's what the conservatives on this thread seem to suggest. It would seem that Sarah Palin is putting her political ambitions ahead of the needs of her Down's Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. She has every right to do that. It's her children and she can treat them however well or badly she deems appropriate. She can decide how much time she wants to devote to or waste on them. Voters will decide if they want a person who favors political fortune over family members in need as their VP.

The goal posts are very simple, and obvious to me. Sarah Palin's Down's Syndrome baby and her pregnant teenage daughter need her more than her country. It seems you and Sarah don't think so. The USA can get along fine without Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. She's also very young, and has years to fulfill her political ambitions. I don't wish her well in achieving those ambitions; her values are not mine. What makes you think I'm against Todd Palin staying home and caring for Trig and Bristol?

Then you think George Bush should not have been President, or John McCain or most of the past Presidents. Clearly, being President is not incompatible with raising children. However, Sarah Palin's situation is that, at this particular time, she has a Down's Syndrome baby and a pregnant teenage daughter who need her. Moreover, there are many better qualified people who could serve as McCain's VP. It is important to understand that concerns about Sarah Palin have nothing to do with mothers or parents or women serving in the highest offices in the land. The concerns have to do with Sarah Palin, in particular, and her choosing between her political ambitions and her children's particular needs at this particular time. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? It's the one most feminists are making. It is interesting that similar concerns about family were raised about John Edwards pursuing the Democratic Party's nomination with his wife suffering from cancer. It was Elizabeth Edwards who insisted that her husband continue his campaign.

I'm not aware of any person--male or female--who like Sarah Palin has, in effect, abandoned a special needs baby and pregnant teenage daughter to run for high office. Can you name any such person, male or female, other than Sarah Palin? It seems you're asking me to post a link about something that hasn't happened.

What little I know of the Obama and Palin families, it would seem that Mr. and Mrs. Obama are doing a better job with their children than the Palins.

If you'll recall, I didn't introduce the Palin/Pelosi comparison. White Doors did. I provided the facts and what those facts logically entail. If you find the facts uncomfortable, you'll have to jump through whatever mental hoops you need to to either deny or reconcile them to your beliefs. By the way, it's refreshing when so many conservatives here are questioning my "progressive" bona fides. Does this mean that the conservatives here have now accepted the supremacy of progressive over conservative values?

Why would you make such a leap? We're not talking about the generality of women or mothers running for the highest office in the land. We're--or at least I am--talking about a particular person, Sarah Palin, and her particular family situation at this particular time. To remind you, she has just become the mother of baby with Down's Syndrome and she has a teenage daughter who is pregnant. It's silly for you to extrapolate a legitimate query and concern about Sarah Palin in particular to a charge that I am advocating only childless celibates run for office. Why would you make such a silly, unsupportable statement? How odd.

It is everyone's decision to vote or not vote for a ticket that includes Sarah Palin, or a Presidential nominee who would pick her as running mate. How she conducts her family life, how she chooses to split her time between her children who need her, because of an unwanted pregnancy and Down's Syndrome, and a country that is relying on her are legitimate areas of concern for voters. When you put yourself forward for the highest office in the land everything about you is of legitimate concern to voters. She will make her decisions, and voters will make theirs. Voters will weigh Palin's decsions in theirs.

White Doors, it would appear you don't want to confront the question or real issue at hand.

In my view, how she treats her family, particularly her new baby with Down's Syndrome and her pregnant teenage daughter, will give you some indication how she is going to run the country. I'm not comforted by Palin's apparent disregard for her special needs baby. It seems that as an anti-choice zealot Trig's being born was never in question, but her caring for him herself is. You said you "wanna know how she is going to run the country". Would I be wrong in assuming that, like many of us, given McCain's age and medical condition that you are expecting Sarah Palin to become President? What kind of President do you think Sarah Palin would be?

It would be appear she is choosing both, and one or both of her obligations will suffer simply because of the time demands of each of her obligations. Let me ask you now, if there is a conflicting demand on her time and she has to choose between her duties as Vice President and as a mother, which obligation should take precedence? The needs of her infant with Downs Syndrome or the country? As of now, it seems she's handed caring for Trig, her new special needs baby, over to her pregnant teenager Bristol. Is this how you'd raise your children?

I think that given Sarah Palin's unique family situation (the mother of special needs infant and a pregnant teen aged daughter) that if she accepts the VP position and gives it the effort the VP position deserves, her family--and particularly those most in need of her--will suffer. If she gives her special needs newborn and teen aged pregnant daughter the care and attention they deserve and need, the country will suffer. In my view, there would be no one better than Sarah Palin at taking care of her children at these particular times in their lives. There are many Republicans who can fill the VP slot, many of them far more qualified than Sarah Palin. Examples would be M. Jodi Bell, Linda Lingle, Christine Todd Whitman, Christine Gregoire, etc. Given those facts, in my view, Sarah should choose family over career because that's were she, personally, is most needed at this time. And, the country can get along fine--maybe even better--without her. Sometimes in life you have to choose to do what's needed of you and not what you'd like to do yourself. Governor Palin it seems to me as opted for the latter, which does not reflect well on her character and, by extension, John McCain's judgment. This has nothing to do with "progressive" thought. To characterize it as such is disingenuous. It it has to do with competing demands on a person's limited time. If I was in Palin's position where I had to choose between something for which I was indispensable and something for which I was not but wanted to do, I would choose the latter. Most people would, but not Sarah. That says a lot about Sarah Palin's values.

What you're suggesting about media coverage of Sarah Palin simply isn't true. Quite the contrary. The media seem to go out of its way to mention her accomplishments and expertise, as slim pickings as they are. Official Republican talking points are mentioned in most commentary. The problem isn't the media. It's Palin herself and McCain picking her to be a heartbeat away from a President whose chances of surviving his first term are slimmer than most. That raises the question of McCain's motives for picking her (politics before country) and his competency to make sound judgments. And lastly if McCain won't vet his VP properly before picking her, perhaps it is the media's job to do so. Don't we want an informed electorate?

My posting was in response to White Doors asking me "Do you feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi? The Democrat head of the house? She has 5 kids? Can you show me the post where you think that she is being selfish? thought not. Consistency please." It is clear from the facts that Palin's and Pelosi's family situations and how each approached them are not comparable. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that facts demonstrating that might be appreciated. Pelosi's approach to her family is quite different from Palin's. Pelosi put her family ahead of her career. Palin has not. Those are the facts. White Doors' comments about Pelosi obscured those facts. There is nothing in my post to suggest that I hold the notion that "woman should stay pregnant and in the kitchen." Why would you make such a leap? However, I do question a person--male or female--who voluntarily and unnecessarily puts career before family, particularly a special needs infant, and professes to be champion of the Right Wing's notion of "family values.' Is it inappropriate to ask such questions? If so, why are they inappropriate?

Has Nancy Pelosi just given birth to a special needs baby? Is her teenage daughter pregnant? Nancy Pelosi didn't run for office until 1987 after her youngest child had graduated from high school.

It seems to me that given Palin's family situation, notwithstanding her husband seems very supportive, if she takes the VP job, either her work as the Vice President will suffer or her children will suffer. It seems to me she's demonstrated that her political ambitions are more important to her than either the well-being of her family or the country. And that calls into question, John McCain's judgment and capacity to make a good decision.

It's worth noting that there's nothing to suggest that global warming caused by the Sun and by human activity are mutually exclusive: an either/or proposition. Both could be happening.

Will happily tone it down. Will welcome it. And will you in turn, before suggesting I'm in error about something factual that I post have the courtesy to, at the very least, actually check out those facts?

I'm not aware of anyone--right, left, conservative, liberal--who suggested that Biden was unfit. Perhaps there was someone (maybe you could enlighten us), but it seems to me that there was a broad consensus that Obama picking Joe Biden as his running mate was an excellent choice. Consequently, who Obama's running mate is, is not an issue, never has been, never will be. However, across the political spectrum, there are many people questioning McCain's choice, for good reason. Maybe, Palin will prove herself. But for now, McCain's choice--his first important decision as a potential President-- has made his competency and judgment an issue. That's not an issue a presidential nominee needs. In my view, the only reason Palin got the nod is that helps shore up the Republican uber-conservative base. Without the base, McCain has no chance. There's also the "Hail Mary" notion that some of Hillary's supporters will support McCain because he nominated a "girl" (in matters of Sarah Palin the term "woman" doesn't resonate). So, in Palin we have proof that McCain puts his personal political success before the needs of his country. Isn't that what McCain once accused Obama of doing?

The fact that McCain's choice of VP is being questioned at all, and questioned legitimately, mean's McCain picked poorly. No one seriously questioned Joe Biden's qualifications. Millions are questioning Palin's, and doing so they doubt McCain's judgment. And rightly so.

Your comment is so uninformed it makes wonder about your other views. Get back to me with a valid response about direct mail costs (if that's what you want to talk about) when you've prepared a budget for a 100,000 mail drop that includes: production and design; list selection; data management (de-dupe, merge/purge, postal code sort, etc.); printing a 4 page letter, outer envelope, BRE, coupon, and flyer; lettershop service; and postage (use the lowest rate of $360/M if you like.) Now give me your under $500/M budget. As for your Pamper diaper that you got last week, use it for your opinions on direct mail.