Good. In my opinion they are a day late. But after shutting down Obama's convention buzz, I think McCains people know what they are doing. ww

I can't wait to see this. Anyone who knows anything about both Palin and Obama can tell that she is much more experienced than he is. Then they can go after his judgment compared to hers.

Well, if this ad and Sarah Palin's speech tonight do what I suspect they will, Obama's going to have one hell of a wardrobe malfunction.

They are going to have to change soiled undies too.

Good post, Kim. And please stay on this topic because as you have noted (and Darleen made a valid point about this also) this is nothing but intimidation, bullying and harassment of a uniquely qualified woman.

I hope McCain pushes back twice as hard at these brown shirted liberal poseurs who demagogue about equal rights and opportunity while they have their jackboot firmly on the throat of the other candidate.

Good for McCain. Lay it all out there and let's see how it plays out. And I think it will play very, very well.

Hugh, it's sexist to suggest that she deserves kid-glove treatment because of her gender. Leave the sexism to her critics who seem to think that her being on the ticket is irresponsible because she has a young family.

It just occurred to me - I wonder if this is part of Obama's plan? He doesn't have to spend a dime attacking McCain/Palin. We've two months yet and we haven't seen the second and third wave of smears. McCain and Palin are going to have to spend a heck of a lot of cash to fight off these attacks while Obama can spend his on campaigning.

HB, she doesn't deserve kid glove treatment. She deserves to be treated the same way Obama is treated by the MSM.

For example, how many times has Obama had his familial duties questioned by a reporter? How many times has Obama's marathon campaigning been viewed in the context of whether he spends enough time at home with his young children? No MSM reporter would dare ask such a question. But they speculate endlessly about this in the MSM when the subject is Palin.

I agree with your point about her sexist critics; voters are not stupid, and women voters see through this pretense quite clearly.

it's sexist to suggest that she deserves kid-glove treatment because of her gender.

This is the dumbest comment you have made thus far. What did Hugh say to suggest Palin deserves kid-glove treatment because of her gender?

Hugh, personally, I'd love to live in some upside-down universe where elections were decided by only those voters willing and able to avail themselves of policy, and where discussion of and by the candidates was limited to policy and governance. We don't live there, though. (Perhaps a strong case for inter-dimensional exploration?)

While I think the same standard should be applied to Obama, as I think men and women ought to assume equal responsibility for their families, I have to wonder: when the argument is put forth that same-sex couples are equally fit to raise children, conservatives are quick to state that babies need mothers and fathers, and that mothers should nurture and fathers provide (two equally essential roles). While I would have absolutely no problem with Palin leaving her kids with a nanny (or a bunch of nannies) for the duration of her campaign and for most of her time while serving in office, one has to wonder: what do conservative child-rearing advocates think about this? I'm not being snide, it's a sincere question for those of you who think babies need their mothers in order to develop properly. VP isn't as demanding as POTUS, but it's hardly a 9 to 5 affair.

This should be fun.

I've said before, and I'll say again: Obama loses this debate even if he wins it.

The very fact that we're discussing whether Obama is as qualified as Senator McCain's VP pick makes Obama look small.

it's a sincere question for those of you who think babies need their mothers in order to develop properly.

Oh man. Talk about sexist.

I pray that you libs keep talking that way. It will most assuredly reap a windfall of gender votes for McCain/Palin.

Please...oh, please...keep saying that. And I love that it's so sincere.

Hyper, get real. You have no idea what a conservative believes. You only parrot what your lefties think we believe. I am not even going to waste my time trying to enlighten you, because you are too entrenched in the liberal dogma to listen.

I would like the media to now ask the Obama children if they knew that their daddy took cocaine. A felony. I want the media to ask Michelle how she felt when Obama was buzzed out on coke. Legitimate questions now. ww

You raise several points HB and they revolve around the task of parenting. I'm not going to argue the same sex couple issue because, as Jay Tea has referenced about the abortion debate, my mind's made up and it's unlikely I'll persuade the other side to change.

I think conservative child rearing advocates have no problem with a transitional parenting arrangement where one spouse fills both roles owing to certain circumstances. The point is that it is transitional. Parenting is a task that doesn't end when the child reaches the age of majority; the process of parenting obviously changes, but the task does not.

Ironically, and this is a point that has sailed past the media noisemakers during the last few days (because they actually don't care about the children), Sarah Palin's parenting tasks (and those of her husband's) will become remarkanbly easier if she becomes Vice President. Sounds crazy, but it's not.

Most parents here will understand this.

1) Their carpooling problems are solved by the Secret Service. Carpooling is a pernicious thing that consumes your time like nothing you can imagine.

2) Their cooking duties are eliminated if they live in the fully staffed Naval Observatory.

3) No mowing the yard, fixing the house or other domestic duties.

4) No house cleaning.

I predict the Palins will actually have more time to spend with their children. As most parents know, the biggest challenge to spending more time with your kids is the onslaught of mundane duties that consume most of our time during the day.

Not sure if that answers your question, but it's a try.

See what Hugh wrote, Willie? Do you see why nobody makes an effort to engage with your drivel? You don't say anything, but at least you're usually concise when you're saying nothing.

Clay, there are people who believe that children need a great deal of attention from both their mothers and their in order to flourish as "normal" people (whatever that means). While I'm stereotyping, I think most of Palin's culturally conservative supporters would agree. Now, how does a mother go about her motherly duties when working 60 hours per week and traveling all of the time? I guess she'd probably have tutors and nannies galore, but if a baby truly needs his/her mother, is that good enough? You could respond to the question instead of snarking off, though at least your snark has some funny in it.

Hugh, thanks for the response. You did answer the question. Wouldn't Palin already enjoy most of those perks as Governor of Alaska, though? But you're right, it would alleviate much of the mundane burdens of parenting and allow her to concentrate on the kids rather than family logistics. 60 hours/week, though (or however many hours a typical VP puts in), is a lot of time not to be around a developmentally disabled baby, isn't it? (I'm not a child psychologist, or a parent.)

HughS,

I agree with all 4 of your points, however, some of that additional time may be offset by out-of-office activities that go with the job. Things like receptions, state dinners, etc. which usually are attended by both VP and the spouse.

That being said, how she plans to manage her family time should be no more of an issue for a female candidate than it is for her male counterpart.

McCain is going to spin Palin as being more experienced than Obama! The American people aren't that supid and will see through it. McCain will lose what little credibility he has intact. I can't for the ad to roll out!

One of those rare occasions that I agree with Rance... It shouldn't matter that Palin is the mother and wouldn't attack a father the same way.
BUT
It doesn't surprise me that the left are going after her for it anyway. They've been minimizing the role of fathers since I can remember, likely before I was born (when did the "... like a fish needs a bicycle" thing come out, heh). So why not make Palin the only important factor in her kids' lives at the expense of their father? Part of their MO

For the record, I agree with what Rance just said. I don't care whether or not Palin has a lot of time for her family were she and McCain to win, but I think a lot of her supporters who are advocates for traditional upbringing of children might not have given much thought to how she can reconcile the lifestyle of Vice President with the requirements of being a traditional mom.

I think a lot of her supporters who are advocates for traditional upbringing of children might not have given much thought to how she can reconcile the lifestyle of Vice President with the requirements of being a traditional mom.

You really have little idea about how "advocates for traditional upbringing of children" really think and feel. All you know is your stereotypes of us-stereotypes that are not true.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think that you will convince conservatives, including Religious conservatives that they should not vote for McCain/Palin by pointing out that YOU KNOW she cannot have both a career and be a parent both.

Sue, read what I wrote, and then re-read it. I have never said nor implied that she can't be a good mother and a Vice President at the same time. I don't have a problem with leaving kids in the care of others for ten to twelve hours a day.

I grew up in a neighbourhood with a lot of homeschooling parents, and some of my relatives did it too. Nearly all of my relatives who are mothers would take long maternity leaves or quit their jobs outright so that they could devote themselves fully to the development of their children. (Grew up in a town with lots of baptists and pentecostal Christians, and my aunts and uncles are all conservative Catholic.) I don't think that's necessary to be a good parent, but there are people who do, and I want to know how they think someone can balance an incredibly demanding job with having a young child.

I don't want to convince anyone not to vote for Palin because she has kids. I want to know whether or not supporting her will cause anyone to revisit their advocacy for more traditional family norms, e.g. mom stays home and dad works, because I don't think those norms are based on anything having to do with the welfare of children.

Obama has spent as much time in the Senate as Palin has as governor of Alaska. Obama wins the "experience" argument.

"Dave" is one of the few voices of reason on this thread.

My 22. post should have had the key word "twice" before the first "as".

Palins nomination is no less historic than Obama's but I can't help but wonder if, had she considered running for POTUS on her own, would she have had to talk about the issues in order to be considered a serious candidate and what would she consider to be the most important issues we are facing as a country. Anyone care to guess? Teenage pregnacy seems to be a non-issue to her, so does the country's huge deficit. She is concerned about how to go about banning books, however.