Some are trying to spin various things to make Obama supporters into hypocrites. This is, to be generous, ironic. For instance, we are not supposed to raise the experience card because of Obama's alleged limitations. McCain was the one who raised that issue (with an assist from HC), so had the burden of proof, not Obamites. But, if you want to compare Obama with Palin, fine:
Obama, by contrast, has had a much tougher time. He became a state legislator by navigating the local politics of a major urban center. He’s been a Senator. And most importantly, he’s been under unrelenting scrutiny for years — managing a presidential campaign masterfully and knocking off a Democratic President’s financial and political machine.
He’s also had to master the national spotlight, and respond to a million different type of questions. He’s also developed extensive policy positions and has defended them in debates and to the public for years. And he’s never lost his cool, showing calm judgment coupled with far-sighted strategic planning (e.g., early organizing, hesitancy to chase the news cycle).
In short, Palin’s “experience” trumps Obama’s only by elevating arbitrary categories over underlying factual realities.
Anyways, if you go to the previous link and others (see, e.g., TPM), what this all underlines is why I don't trust McCain's judgment. The choice of Palin overall was handled badly. Ultimately, judgment is an important aspect of "experience," and not just in the federal judiciary. How much executive experience did Lincoln have? Douglas had more in that department, surely, but he wouldn't have been my choice. OTOH, some think Palin has the right judgment (no pun intended), especially those who are anti-government (or anti-DC) overall. Ditto those who share her moral beliefs.
On that front, since her conservative/religious beliefs clearly factored in the choice (more so than McCain's own desires, perhaps), they cannot really have their cake and eat it too. IOW, yes, some of her private beliefs and so forth are fair game because THEY MADE IT SUCH. Let it be noted this isn't "sexist." Cheney's lesbian daughter was an issue given his support of someone who wanted to amend the Constitution to include bigotry. Edwards' affair was big news. etc. In fact, though it does reflect sexism in part, his haircut issue (blah) underlines appearance also pops up with guys too. See also, Bush's cheerleader shots.
Anyways, how about her daughter? Obama said children are not fair game. Fine enough. But, given the sanctimonious nature of some on the other side, it is okay to mention a bit that Palin's unwed seventeen year old child is pregnant. I thought only secular liberals did things like that. Oh, but Palin will have the baby and marry the eighteen year old boy involved. They stick to their beliefs (eventually). The last snarky comment underlines this is true enough, in a significant way that some will elide past, but only saves them just so much. Likewise, let's remember not everyone has the same support etc. as Palin does. Others have premarital sex with guys they "love," but a similar choice would be much different.
And, I'll let you live your life, if my teenage relatives can make their own private choices, perhaps using different moral paths. Key issue here underlines the annoying use of terms like "pro-abortion." I might think having a child is bad in such and such a case, but ultimately, my bottom line is supporting the right to choose. Does my support of the right to be an evangelistic Christian mean I'm pro-fundie? Only in a rather misleading use of the term. Anyways, the ideal is to not mention her at all, but (1) Let's be real about what we are thinking. (2) Individual stories make things real. Ditto the abstinence only education is unproductive issue. More here.
A final word -- politically, the best thing would be to lay low. To the degree it looks bad, it is obvious, and there is no need to force the issue. Likewise, it helps change the subject from worse things about this vice president choice. And, honestly, it is the right thing to do. Finally, with names like "Bristol" and "Trig," can we now admit that not only black parents give their children kind of weird names?
---
The Thornburgh ruling btw is an important place to go to understand the debate over the right to choose an abortion. The majority opinion is mostly pro forma, in place mainly to remind people Roe is still good law. The meat comes in the debate between Stevens (concurring) and White (dissenting). White has a problem, since he supported Griswold and various related cases. Why is the right to choose an abortion so different? Well:
However one answers the metaphysical or theological question whether the fetus is a "human being" or the legal question whether it is a "person" as that term is used in the Constitution, one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information that characterizes a member of the species homo sapiens and distinguishes an individual member of that species from all others, and second, that there is no nonarbitrary line separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human being. Given that the continued existence and development -- that is to say, the life -- of such an entity are so directly at stake in the woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, that decision must be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy.
As Stevens argues, this is a value judgment. White recognizes rulings regarding the fundamental nature of making decisions involving child-rearing. Such rulings clearly affect constitutional persons, often in significant ways. Where one sends one's child to school or the religious tradition one is raised directly affects how one develops and the path one takes as an adult. And, various decisions have not so clear lines and limits, but we manage to set them all the same.
So, why exactly is let's say using an abortion pill to abort a one week old non-fetus (the term annoys, since it rightly applies to second trimester abortions alone) "sui generis" as compared to not letting your child go to a different school (or school at all) because it does not have the right religious education component? Or, more directly, any number of custody decisions, including medical decisions involving the child that are left to the parents, down to removing life support?
Only the ultimately personal choice involving deep questions of conscience (and, unlike White argued, quite arguably inherently religious in nature) of making an early abortion akin to child abuse (as he does in a footnote) makes it not a choice involving fundamental rights, but some loosely protected liberty interest that can be easily trumped. A telling dissent.