It's not sexist to say that mothers of infants are usually the primary caretakers.

Beyond that, I'm sure a parent of small children can be an effective leader, with enough nannies and a supportive spouse on board. Tough on the kids, maybe.

My concerns with Palin are about her policies, her inexperience, and the fact that McCain only met her once before offering her the gig.

Her policies, anti-choice (even for rape and incest), anti-same sex health benefits (which is just mean), pro-shooting wolves from airplanes (despite federal law, Alaska allows it), pro-big business and oil, anti-preservation of endangered species, and apparently not terribly interested in the infrastructure of Alaska (the boring stuff like health care and education), strike me as dangerous.

Her inexperience, which is not belied by living 70 miles from Siberia, is pretty spectacular.

The fact that McCain doesn't know her and may not have vetted her speaks more of his own state of mind, his desire to court the far right, his impulsiveness, and so on....

It's not sexist to have real concerns about Sarah Palin or McCain's choice of her.

It's not feminist to choose her over Biden.

Rin:

Please fact-check. She supports benefits for same-sex couples, and the wolves thing was simply a temporary measure to protect caribou and moose herds in areas where their populations were dropping.

She's taken on big business when she had to. She's stood up to the energy companies, too. And the GOP.

Her husband is a Democrat, and a union member. Her parents are union members.

And while I am pro-choice, as a philosophical matter it seems to me that the anti-choice people who don't make exceptions for cases of rape and incest are much more philosophically consistent than those who do want to make those exceptions, because what the latter are really saying is, "yes, you're right: pregnancy is a punishment for the sin of sex," and/or "a fetus is a person unless the sperm donor was an asshole, in which case it is not."

No logic, there.

But any effect that a potential President of the U.S. might have on abortion is highly indirect, and presumes (1) that "strict constructionist" judges would want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and (2) that the states would follow such an overturning with their own abortion bans.

I don't agree with everything Palin says or does. Nor do I agree with everything McCain says and does. But they seem level-headed enough, and, respectively, internally consistent and intellectually honest.

I don't have it in front of me, but Sunday's LA Times said she supported a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex benefits. ....

A brief search online suggests that she vetoed a ban on same-sex benefits because it was unconstitutional, but not, apparently, because she disagreed with it. Not encouraging for anyone who believes in gay rights.

As for choice, you're right, exceptions for rape and incest are inconsistent with an absolute devotion to the belief that all life is precious at conception. But politicians are supposed to live in the real world, supposed to keep their religious beliefs and their political duties separate, and supposed to be consistent to the extent of feeding, housing, educating, medicating, and otherwise protecting these precious children once they leave the womb. Why does a pro-life agenda so often stop at birth?

But surely you'd agree that a President, in appointing pro-life judges with a litmus test, has a profound effect on choice, at least in the long run? Many on the right said in 2000 that their support of Bush was in part predicated on the judges he'd appoint and the way they'd oppose Roe.

As for hunting wolves from low-flying aircraft, the state of Alaska (according to what I've read) grants more permits and turns a blind eye to the hunting of more wolves than are remotely necessary. They want to build up the caribou or moose or whatever populations for hunters, and the few herbivores killed by wolves can't be spared.

Wolves actually eat more mice and frogs than big game, by the way. They take down a big animal, usually a weak one, every few weeks, and share it with a whole pack. They don't hunt for sport and they don't waste what they kill. Unlike us.

ps, about same sex benefits...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290025

In a December 20, 2006, release about the Alaska Supreme Court's December 19 order. Palin's office stated:

"The Supreme Court has ordered adoption of the regulations by the State of Alaska to begin providing benefits January 1," said Governor Palin. "We have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution."

[...]

"I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide."

A January 1, 2007, Juneau Empire article reported that Palin vetoed the bill despite "her opposition to equal benefits for gay and lesbian government employees."

As a candidate for governor, Palin reportedly supported efforts to prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples. Noting that "the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees," the Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. 'I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,' Palin said. She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay." The Daily News further reported on October 31, 2006, that "Palin said that when voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman eight years ago, many believed they were also implying that a gay partner shouldn't get state benefits. 'I wouldn't oppose at all the voters going back to the ballot box to clarify that,' she said during a KTUU Channel 2 debate Sunday."

There is a huge distinction to be made between favoring same-sex benefits and advocating gay marriage.

Also: the idea behind constructionism WRT the U.S. Constitution is not that Roe v. Wade is bad law because it permits abortions, but because it Federalizes what should be a state issue.

However, even strict constuctionists are loathe to overturn a precdent on the level of Roe v. Wade, so simply because a given nominee for S.C. Justice believes in "states' rights" does *not* mean that he or she would automatically vote to repeal Roe v. Wade. So appointing constructionists is not tantamount to making abortion "a litmus test."

Tom Ridge just argued on the convention floor that Hillary supporters will turn to Sarah Palin because, although they'll disagree with her on many fundamental issues, they'll respond to her strength and, resenting how Hillary was denied the top or bottom slot on the Dem ticket, they'll want a strong woman to be in power somewhere.

As a staunch and articulate feminist as well as a lover of solid rhetoric and logic, aren't you offended by this?

Do they really think women will vote for a pair of breasts regardless of the policies lodged in the head above them? And are any two breasts more or less equivalent to any others?

I don't think I understand your caveat, though, about the difference between same sex benefits and same sex marriage. She's against both. I'm for both. I think they go hand in hand. Or rather, to be in favor of gay marriage is certainly to be in favor of same sex benefits. I suppose one could accept benefits without going so far as to support gay marriage. But why?

Because I believe that the term 'marriage' certainly has a distinctive quality that differentiates it from 'shacking up' or 'living in sin', perhaps?

My personal feelings are extremely homocidal, btw. I don't let that get in the way of rational discussion, so I hope.

Plus, I don't really care what you think privately. It's what you do in your official capacity that counts. And Sarah Palin followed the bloody Constitution, didn't she?

Jeez, I'm not even American. No offense, Rin, but 'liberals' are pretty dumb animals, ain't they?

Gregory, please take that back; Rin is a friend, and she's engaging constructively, here. And she's switchblade-smart, like you.

Also--"homicidal" (murderous), or "homophobic" (distrustful of gays)? I was confused by that.

Rin, I think that you will find that many, many people out there support same-sex (and straight "shacking up") benefits, but generally want to preserve the word "marriage" for straight couples who've jumped through a particular set of hoops.

There is a certain segment within Christianity and a few other faiths that supports the "civil union" compromise. I'm not sure how radical followers of D.H. Lawrence feel about it, of course ;)

As requested; Rin, I withdraw my remarks, and hope that you will forgive my insensitivity. I trust Attila's judgement - if she says you're smart, then you are and that's that. No excuse, but I am getting awfully tired of liberal talking points, and I'm banging my head against the wall at work too. No reason to take it out on anyone, of course.

Homophobia can be broken down as an unreasoning fear of homosexuals. Sorta kinda, it actually means unreasoning fear against 'the same' (presumably 'the same as yourself') but we'll use the more accepted meaning.

Homicide is broken down as deadly towards humans (hominids). Hence, homocide, deadly towards homosexuals.

I use the term 'homocidal' deliberately. I wanted to write a whole lot more, but suffice it to say that *fear* is NOT what I feel. Murderous is very close. I won't act on it. But I can't help how I feel. Nobody made or forced me to feel this way - it's just how I was born.

I'm an old-school kinda guy. Sex? Man + Woman + United in Holy Matrimony = OK. Otherwise, Not OK.

Her inexperience, which is not belied by living 70 miles from Siberia, is pretty spectacular.

So is Obama's lack of experience. And no, casting "present" votes in the Illinois Senate don't count, nor does two years of campaigning for President.