Nice article.

Ms. Montee says "she’s offended that Republicans expect Ms. Palin to lure Hillary Clinton supporters to the McCain ticket simply because she’s a woman." Who said that? I am Very Glad, I mean Very Glad, she isn't anything like Hillary.

I'm curious if Ms. Montee is equally "offended" with Obama for luring black people to vote for him simply because he is part black? It's also a slap in the face to women voters to suggest that they cannot make up their own minds and are that easily swayed.

Yet another example of the double standard mentality that the Obama camp is quickly becoming famous for.

How Sarah handles her home affairs is her own concern. As Trophy Vice, she would have resources to draw on.

To say that Sen. Clinton's supporters will switch to Sarah because she is a woman is like saying that Sen. Obama's supporters would vote for Snoop Dogg if the republicans nominated him because he's black. Ridiculous thought isn't it? Both analogies could be described as pandering and insulting.

Somehow when the GOP was discussing how being a small-town maverick mayor qualified Sarah to be V.P., I kept thinking about our own Mayor Ken and Mark Funkhauser - now there's a real dream ticket.

Sign me "Not a Hillary Supporter"

Hey Rax, I guess you didn't see Palin's "crack in the ceiling" acceptance speech, which was 100% directed towards female Hillary supporters, as ALL pundits conceded directly after her speech.

And yes of course, REPUBLICAN Palin's inference SURE WAS a slap in the face to ALL women everywhere.

To watch Republicans try to convince America to send them into Washington (again) to "shake up Washington" is no different than a wolf seeking concensus to replace another wolf whose been guarding the same hen house...

Democrats have 4 million new registered voters (so far) this year, & you?

Frank - The democrats may have 4 million new registered but you best ask yourself one critical question. After nearly 8 disastrous years under W why would the democratic challenger be in a statistical tie with the republican?
This presidential election should have been a slam-dunk for the democrats and instead they are looking at a race with no better than a 50/50 chance of winning.
Perhaps now that the country is faced with making a choice the allure provided by the rhetoric of eloquent speeches has diminished and the hard questions are being asked.
As for Palin, she would not have been my first choice but the democrats best figure out that their political attacks on her are doing nothing to advance a quest in discrediting her and may well be pushing many independents like myself to the right of center.

since candidate palin is not really of the glass ceiling generation, the best she can do is thank those who made it possible for it to be considered appropriate??? for this nation to be facing a hockey mom as VP. i do not really think that this can be deigned a "double standard". lets examine the huge controversy regarding Male presidential candidate , and Democrat john edwards. this issue arises from the "how could they" group, which decries the very mention of candidate's families, and considers them to be sacrosanct. that position is fine with me..... but in both these situations candidates made the conscious decision to move forward into the national arena when they had certain knowledge that this decision would forever impact the lives of their children. just as elizabeth edwards decided to help her philandering hubby to deceive the country, and then cried foul when that selfish decision caused her children to be under scrutiny, gov palin is now faced with the very real likelihood that her own lack of concern for her family is now having repercussions on her under age pregnant daughter. ms. palin should simply have said that there were situations in her life which would be complicated immensely by accepting this nomination, and bowed out. since she chose to force bristol palin to endure this scrutiny, i call that the height of poor parenting and bad judgement. both candidates made their beds ( or in the latter case their daughter's) and now the children get to live with it. i think that both candidates are young enough to have made their own dreams come true another day, and not at the point in their lives when their children need them most. neither has my respect or admiration, male or female, dem or rep, it is rotten to throw your kids under the bus. edwards put it well when he described himself as growing more and more narcissistic. governor palin is also a card carrying member of the club..........

The matrimonial trespasses of her father, her mother's acceptance of them and the resultant publicity doesn't seem to have done lasting harm to Chelsea. Oh, I forgot....that was all just a "vast right wing conspiracy."

uh, chelsea wasn't carrying a baby to term, without the option of changing her young mind in the next four months. adoption would have been been a viable remaining choice, even if her mother was so irresponsible as not to have made terminating the pregnancy the other.

Gee, I thought it was only the potential damage caused by media scrutiny you were concerned about.

apmastrangelo said "After nearly 8 disastrous years under W why would the democratic challenger be in a statistical tie with the republican?"

Because the polls couldn't be further from the actual truth, which has already been pointed out several times in the national news arena.

Demographics stragelove, demographics. Polls have never gone "there" before.

Anyway, POLLS??? You've got to be kidding, right?

Haven't YOU noticed the largest crowds (of WE THE PEOPLE) in history turning out for the rallies, CONVENTIONS, etc?

Contrasted to the RNC's (who's excuse was the hurricane, ya right...) pitiful turnout.

The next Democratic TV commercial should have 15 poverty level families standing together on the left side of the screen, & Cindy McCain in her 300k RNC dress by herself on the right side of the screen.

Pictures really do say a thousand words sometimes, just like this one.

Fifteen poverty families would certainly be a fair representation of the intellectual capital of the Democrat Party.

heritage::: rather self righteous aren't you? How do you know that she hadn't already decided to carry the baby full term ,and keep it.She has had 51/2 months to think about her options and make HER decision. I am sure as stated in the news the daughter was told all the press would blow this up and send her directly into the spotlight. And would have people like you judging her.She was given the choice to deal with it or not. Are you a perfect parent?(( No such thing!! )) One that can judge other parents ? Especially not knowing that person and all the talks and so on that goes on or went on between parent and child concerning this matter. How dare you appoint yourself judge and jury against her as a mother. Would you trust someone else to judge what was best for your child or your own judgment? No one knows a child like the Mother of that child. Give this girl and her mother some credit for facing it head on, and her mother for supporting her daughter and not being ashamed of her and hiding her away or kicking her out of the house as some parents do.None of us know what went on in that family enough to be able to judge them. No one.

To heritage, a loving mother not urging the murder of her unborn grandchild is "irresponsible."

Frank - Believe what you wish but the numbers are not isolated samplings and Obama has lost the single digit leads he held in every "independent" poll.
You are absolutely correct about pictures and statements including those of Ms. Obama.
I won't get into the debate over the Freudian slip made by Senator Obama while on the TV circuit this morning but sure it will be on the evening news.

I am not going to vote for McCain/Palin because I don't agree with their positions on many of the issues. That said, I think that many of the attacks on Palin have been ridiculous. If elected, she will handle motherhood while working the same way any working mother does. It's silly to question that. The fact that her daughter is five months pregnant is a private issue that has absolutely no bearing on Palin's abilities to be a VP.
I am a firm believer that ALL people should attack the stances on issues; not each other.

momwisher, the fact that there are four months left in which to continue to mull over this decision is exactly my problem with this decision. it does not take a rocket scientist to know that 16-17 year old mothers -to- be change their minds from minute to minute. many unwed mothers do not make the decision until late in the pregnancy, even in the last weeks to give their child up for adoption. her mother effectively took that invaluable time away from bristol.

i wanted mccain to pick lieberman.

Momswisher: "Would you trust someone else to judge what was best for your child or your own judgment?" No. But that is exactly what McCain, Palin and a majority of their supporters want to do--by campaigning to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are also more than willing to do that when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Frank,
Yes, I did see Mrs. Palins' speech and I thought it was one of the best I've ever heard. She is an incredibly intelligent and talented woman.
Do you not understand the purpose of campainging? Exactly what do you think a candidate is supposed to do, campaign to not get votes? Of course she is trying to sway voters, what else would she do? Just as Obama is using race to garner voters, Palin is smart to use her gender to get women to vote for the winning ticket of McCain/Palin. It is no different that Obama using racist tactics to boost his numbers. Check to see what race the majority of the "4 million new voters" is, then ask yourself why that might be. Unless your incredibly naive, you already know the answer.

I am much more concerned with the Republican's candidate for president than Ms Palin. That is one scary man.

I wonder why the GOP hasn't been pushing Palin onto all the different talk shows and one-on-one interviews. Most of the time, they love free press and jump on it as often as they can. I would imagaine most media outlets would jump for joy to get Palin. I know what I have read about her and her views and from all of that, I don't approve of her. I have seen her scripted speeches and they are good if you are fond of sarcasm. But what I would really like is a good unbiased reporter to ask her questions. Maybe my views on her would change if I could see the "real Sarah". Has anyone seen a one on one interview since she has been announced as a VP nominee?

I had my first of 5 children at 16. I married before he was born. I have been married now, and happily married, for 49 years. It depends on the mother to be. Some are not able to deal , but some are. It is a family matter that others have no right to judge. Rockchalk ::We are talking about this situation, not
Roe v. Wade. heritage is judging This mother to be and This Grandmother and that is what my response was addressing.

KAS::: a good unbiased reporter?? Do they exist??

Why is everyone so concerned with Sarah Palin's story? Or John McCain's story? Or Barack Obama's story? Or Joe Biden's story? These "hero sagas" have nothing to do with the job of the presidency or vice-presidency. When you interviewed for your current job, did anyone ask you "what's your story"? Or did the interviewer ask questions about your qualifications? The idea that Sarah Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" has no relevance whatsoever. Which one of her kids is playing hockey today? In the midst of all the story-telling, your neighbor could be behind on mortgage payments. Is the story of a homeowner more compelling than the story of a former homeowner? Leave the story-telling to Studs Terkel, Mother Goose, and Garrison Keillor. This election is about more important things than someone's nickname in high school or who can raise kids while working full-time. Our country is on the brink of disaster...now, there's a story.

localgirl:: since the article we are discussing is titled ""Palin faces 'uniquely feminine issue'"" maybe that is why we are talking about her.I do agree with the why it should matter part though.

localgirl-
I don't think that Palin's "story" is what is relevent. I think it is the issue that she is a woman who wants to take women's reproductive rights back 100 years, yet is facing an issue of her teenage daughter being pregnant. The turning point for me was when she released the statement saying that she and her husband were "proud that her daughter made the choice to HAVE the baby". To me, that signified there was a decision made-- and there was the right to make that decision because of the millions of women (and men) who have fought for the reproductive rights of women in the last century.

Yes, I am past child-bearing age but I have daughters, nieces, etc who are of child-bearing age and I feel they have the right to comprehensive sex education. Abstinence only education does not work-- and Palin's family is a perfect example.

Women, no matter what the age, deserve the right to be educated on all forms of birth control. Palin believes in abstinence only until marriage and then rhythm method after marriage. The rhythm method has up to a 25% failure rate-- is that what women of today want to face? Most men wouldn't be fond of a 25% failure rate either :)

When does a persons children become "fair game"? Has this society stupped so low as to make this a policital issue. I myself feel very comfortable with a down to earth,common sense Lady in a VP or Pres. position. Hey, look back at all the so called experienced people that have been in office, look at the shape we are in now because of that experience. I for one am willing to try something totally different from the norm for the next 4 yrs., certianly can't do any worse and GOD forbid this country has a good chance of maybe getting better.

AMEN countryvet!! Well said!

I agree that children shouldn't be "fair game". But politicians shouldn't really have it both ways-- parading their kids around and then getting mad when the media has a heyday with them. Maybe if the politicians would not throw their kids to the media (and they all do), the media wouldn't make so many comments about them.

Something different needs to be done for this country-- I just hope it happens soon!

KAS you make a good point! Politicians I have always thought, should never put anyone in harms way, but then thats just simple hopful thinking.Pretty much everyone wants to keep their personel life to themselves. I guess what I was trying say was.."That just because a politician is putting their children in the media eye, should the American public look at that as a go ahead to persue personel/private information". Seems to me like someone puts a child in harms way and some person harms that child, then which person is so called "more wrong"? The person that put the child in harms way or the person that harmed the child? In many ways, it's very confusing. We need to get back to the lost idea of Government of the people and for the people, not a select few that feel an election gives them the right to do as they please.