Vetting Palin: An Easy Guide to What's Smart and What's Not
By Al Giordano
Criticizing, ridiculing, and/or condemning GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for her slavish devotion to oil company destruction of the natural environment, for her efforts to criminalize abortion, for her crusade to force schoolchildren learn creationism as "science," for her record in public office (which is only now coming into focus), for her support of Pat Buchanan for president in 2000 (at a time when Buchanan's anti-semitism was no secret), for her lack of knowledge of foreign policy (or even much domestic policy as it applies to the mainland states), for her unpreparedness to be commander-in-chief, is all well and good.
Mocking her "celebrity" status in the coming weeks as she'll be on the cover of every glossy magazine on earth, and having good fun with her other her evident eccentricities - she seems very much a weirdo freakazoid (not that it's a bad thing, I find it endearing) - all seem to me to be within the bounds of fair political discourse.
So is this kind of humor (from Hunter over at DKos):
A McCain/Palin pairing? I'm sorry, but that's just... weird. It's a pairing that seems to be drawn not from politics, but from a 1980's network sitcom.
HE is an ex-POW turned multimillionaire. He has power, wealth, and more houses than most people have ties. But can anything -- or anyone -- calm his savage temper, and teach him to love again?
SHE's a young creationist who knows little about politics and is in trouble with the law. He'll take her in -- but can he teach her the ways of Washington before she embarrasses him at the big Telecom Ball?
(This is going to be a great ticket for Saturday Night Live.)
But here's what this blog won't do, and asks its commenters to follow suit:
Attacks on a mother for working when she has kids at home are a misogynist attack on every working mother, and, yes, including when one of those kids has special needs. Attacks on her personal decisions of how many children to have, and at what age to have them, are as anti-choice in sentiment as are her policies. Such attacks are also politically stupid, because they can only generate deserved sympathy among single moms and their kids who are otherwise- if you don't screw it up - already voting for Obama in big numbers. (We've just lived through a season where Obama was blamed for every act of sexism in the media or by anybody else for the past 5,000 years, let's not get that Rock-o-la spinning its tune again.)
Oh, and although it might be meant in good fun, don't ask her if she knows how many igloos she owns... Or why she named her kids Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Sunoco and BP!
Update: And as Sean at 538 notes, that goes for you too, Joe Biden!