The method of delivery.

At the Corner this morning:

Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere remains a hot topic in the presidential campaign. Fans and foes of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin continue to debate whether or not she supported the much-lampooned proposal for a link between Ketchikan and Gravina Island — population 50. This PowerPoint presentation offers relevant facts on this issue.

I'm thrilled with Palin, but I have questions about the maneuvering behind the Bridge to Nowhere. Even so, I can't think of anything I'd rather click LESS than a powerpoint show.

Testing what's really important.

All of this to do about the so-called Bush Doctrine is telling us more about Charles Gibson than Sarah Palin. "How do you define the Bush Doctrine" isn't a foreign-policy pop-quiz gotcha, it's a media buzzword question. Bush hasn't come out and said "Here it is: My Doctrine!" The only people are defining it are columnists. No wonder Charlie (ha) was so affronted.

Implicit message: It's not enough to be familiar with and have opinions on your foreign policy positions. You have have to be familiar with and have opinions on the media's foreign policy positions.

And, of course, the fact that media doesn't know its own foreign policy position is immaterial.

Why should Charlie know what he's talking about? It's not like he's running for vice president!

My letter to Sally Quinn

. . . or how I learned to stop using the spell check and love the legalese. (Sorry)

I found this post from Sally Quinn via the Anchoress. Her attacks seemed so grossly and outrageously unfair that I felt compelled to respond.

[ETA: Welcome visitors from the Anchoress! Thanks for giving me a read. Even though I haven't been blogging here long, I intend to continue. So if you're interested in what I have to say, there will be much more to come.]

Ms. Quinn:

I'm a conservative Catholic, so you may regard me as someone even more strange and foreign to you as the the evangelicals and Southern Baptists you want to hear from. Goodness knows you've got issues enough with the Catholics these days.

Don't think we Catholics don't hear our own fair share of horrified "feminist" flutterings at our daring to have faith in an institution that has served mankind for thousands of years but fails to conform to the politically correct hegemony of the last thirty.

There are more parts of Catholic belief than the requirement that priests be men. In all facets of life in and out of the church, women have a distinct and valued relationship with God. Men and women are not "better" or "worse." My faith fulfills me. Why would I care about not being a priest? I have my own role.

I have never felt less-than as a Catholic woman. Every role has its own challenges, rewards, and sacrifices. We all face the challenges of sometimes not getting what we want for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Our job is to learn to accept the things we cannot change with good cheer and seek God's plan within whatever limitations exist. Not everything is a fight, and I certainly don't want to fight with God.

I have never felt the need to look at another's share in church life and compare it unfavorably with my own. I have no doubt that the majority women of evangelical and Southern Baptists faiths feel the same way. The purpose of a church is to worship together, not to one-up each other. It is not a competition between the sexes. It is not church leaders versus everyone else. Women in conservative churches are not slaves plotting to overthrow their masters. Everyone has his or her own role.

Christianity is a community, not a cult. Tell your friends!

So to answer to your questions, which I am assuming you've asked in good faith:

1) A woman has no right to be a Catholic priest. No one has the "right" to be a Catholic priest. That calling is not open to women. Many others, co-equal in dignity, are.

2) As a general proposition, Catholic husbands and Catholic wives have different roles within the marriage and different relationships with the children.

3) Sarah Palin has a responsibility to God and her family. She also has responsibilities to her country and to keep her promises. Fathers have responsibilities toward God and their families as well. Sarah Palin has accepted the task and given her word to serve as a public official. If she and her family feel that their needs can be met despite her decision to serve the public, then that is between her and her family. Many men are primary caregivers by choice or otherwise and they do just fine. If Todd Palin has agreed to do so in support of the larger goal, then he owes it to his family to live up to his own word.

This position could also benefit her family as well. Perhaps Ms. Palin feels that this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity can serve a much greater goal, to be an example to the world (and her daughters) of how to a woman of faith conducts herself on a world stage.

Presumably, the governorship has given the Palin family a test-run of the practical considerations. At any rate, I don't presume to have the knowledge to judge what the requirements of her family are. That's personal. Neither you, nor I, nor the public has any means with which to judge what the Palins, rightly or wrongly, have chosen to embark on. We simply don't have the information necessary to know. There's a reason for that: IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS.

4) You ask what I think of Sarah Palin's priorities as a woman with five children, still breastfeeding, one pregnant, and who's made (what you have decided) is a "risky" decision to fly to Alaska to have a child and then go to work days later. What do I think of that? I think it's ADMIRABLE. I think it's INSPIRING. I think that her family is going to sacrifice mightily, but they see some purpose and perhaps reward in following this path. It's a high risk with a chance of great reward. Some people are more risk-averse. Others make history.

5) You ask whether I believe her first priority will be as a mother or as a governor or vice president. I think that her first priority is, obviously, to God. This is clearly a woman who feels that she's been blessed with an opportunity larger than herself. She has actually already proven herself willing to sacrifice a child on behalf of her country through her encouragement of her oldest son. Presumably, she thinks that the good is worth the risk. I would expect that the good she feels she can do as VP will outweigh the costs to her children and family.

6) You ask what I think about her judgment in accepting the role of vice-presidency while her family situation was chaotic. We don't have the information to judge whether her family can handle it or if they wanted to. We don't know the costs and we don't know the benefit that she is seeking. As to her judgment, time will tell, I suppose. It would obviously not be good judgment to think that there would be no costs to her family or her relationship to her children. I don't think there is any indication whatsoever that she hasn't considered that.

But this is a judgment question insofar as it presumes that she has improperly calculated the costs and benefits. It's a judgment question insofar as it presumes that family obligations are the immovable object that all else must accommodate. Her religion does not require that this be so. The fact that she has conservative beliefs does not mean that this is a judgment call she's made. If she has chosen her course in spite of the costs, then that is a values question. Should she value her children's comfort, privacy, and happiness less than her official duties, that would not disqualify her for office. This unstated implication in your questioning of her choices is what's causing the right to cry sexism. The value a parent places on their children ought not be part of the job interview.

As to the judgment aspect, I don't think there's any way for us to say that the older members of the family, including the eldest daughter, don't have their own opinions that they've made known. I can't imagine being a pregnant seventeen year old girl and having the weight of my parents' hopes and dreams and the potential course of history hinging on a moment of poor judgment. The guilt would eat me alive. I don't think we can say that her decision, on its face, is evidence of poor judgment. If she proves to be a bad mother, well, then that is between her and her family and God.

So those are your questions, but I don't think those are your concerns. I think you're wondering whether she's taken on too much. You're wondering whether she has any idea what she's getting into and what's going to happen to the country if she realizes that her do-it-all Supermom plan isn't going to work. From what I can tell from your last column, I'd bet that you and I both have had the experience of planning a tour-de-force return to the workplace after having our first and only babies, only to find that while our skills remained sharp our desires were gone? And it comes back, after awhile, and you get used to the new normal of being separated from your kid during the day and of trying to make the evening hours as "quality" as possible, (whatever that means). I work as an attorney in a major metropolitan area and I've got a baby at home. Most of my friends are female attorneys. Unlike the male attorneys we know, whose wives care for their new babies, the families of women attorneys seem to be more dependent on their incomes. So we're sad, but we go back to work, and yes, we cut corners in our jobs, especially during the first few years of our babies' lives, because it's really hard to bring yourself to care about work under the circumstances.

I think you're concerned about what's going to happen if Sarah Palin tries to cut corners in her job. After all, she has a baby at home, and one who's going to require a different kind of care than most parents have to deal with. Still, I'm not concerned about the choice she's made for the following reasons:

1) She's done this before and knows the demands of her family. She's a woman with five children, and anyone whose spent time around large families know that you can love your children equally, but where everything is strange and foreign with your first precious snowflake, by the time you hit kids number three and four you've got a better understanding of what to do and how rugged and adaptable kids really are. She's also got a good understanding of the way their family works and the extent to which her husband, parents, and extended family will be able to provide for her children in ways that her job prevents her from doing. The fact that her youngest has Downs suggests that he's going to need more care, but does not necessarily require that she personally be the one to give it. She's also had four months to get used to his care and learn about his condition - his need for additional care is not going to prove overly shocking while she's in office. She is going to have access to doctors, nurses, nannies, and tutors, not to mention cooks, maids, and drivers (yes, yes, leaving the speech aside). If she only sees Trig for a bedtime story most nights, it's not like he's going to starve to death.

2) I think your concerns also assume that if there came a time when she had to choose between her family and her job, that you believe she would choose her family. I think the reason you make that assumption is because of your own experience and your understanding of what's required of evangelical women in relation to their family. I don't think that is an assumption that can be made. For one thing, the assumption that the evangelical belief limits her to cooking and cleaning is too narrow. I'd bet that her family is viewing this as a shared family endeavor and that all are on board and willing to share her burdens. So long as someone is providing the love and care to her children, her duties to them can be discharged.

The main problem with this concern is that it presupposes an incredible amount of naivete about the burdens of the office. Sarah Palin is cute, but she's a political animal. She's been working to raise her national profile ever since she's been elected governor. I think everyone, including her, was surprised that she rose this far this fast. I do not believe she hasn't given serious clear-eyed thought to the burdens and costs. But given that she's been savvy enough to politic and sell herself to, at the very least, McCain, I have trouble believing she would be that naive.

3) We all have to worry about what happens if, after all, she can't reconcile her obligations to her family and her obligations to the job. There may come a point for Sarah Palin, that she just can't do both. You're concerned that she'll give the job short shrift. I don't think it's a given that the job is what she'll necessarily choose to sacrifice. But this isn't a concern limited to Palin. What if something happens to the Obama girls, or McCain's? What if the president or vice president commits a criminal act, or suffers mental health, or criminal [mean to say "addiction" -ed] issues? We can only hope that whoever is president or VP will have the integrity to step down if they ever reach that point. That's not something that's limited to Sarah Palin. As I've laid it out above, I don't think that situation is as likely as you seem to think. But moreover, I've seen no reason to doubt her integrity.

Sally - may I call you Sally now? We're practically friends now - after both conventions, it looks like this election is going to degenerate, as so many do, into an all-out culture war. It's fair for you to raise questions, but the vitriol coming your way stems from the assumptions underlying your concerns (the naivete, the lack of integrity, the simple-minded understanding of the role of formal religion). It's particularly galling to be called to account for one's faith to, of all people, the founder of "On Faith"! But I hope that you are able to get some answers to your questions and examine your own assumptions before making judgments about people. I've no doubt that I've misunderstood some critical point of yours, and hope that you'll let me know so I can examine mine.

Thanks for your time,
A. DePaul

Peace and purpose.

The opposition response seems tepid. I've no doubt that the leftists, the media, and the Obama campaign are working on what to do about Sarah. I have (of course) lots more to say, but I think I'll just take one night to bask in the afterglow of the vindication of my hopes. Time enough tomorrow for the hard work to make them reality.

Palin!

Good speech. For all it was hyped as a win it-or-lose it night, she was great, but not earth shatteringly so. She is a gifted politician. I think she struck the right balance between talking about herself, McCain, and Obama, with just a wee bit of Biden (through the Delaware comments). [ETA: Not Delaware, Scranton. I think it was Rudy who mentioned DE.] At first I thought she was going to overdo the folksy small-town talk, but it was a good fit within her overall theme of reinforcing the differences between the tickets. Worst part of the speech - the foreign policy pop quiz (Caucasus, Venezuela, blah blah). Best part - she went on the offensive! The bit about the Obama-Georgia-UN Security Counsel gaffe was great!!

As for the commentary, I watch PBS (Cox Cable sucks). Jim Lehrer seemed pretty neutral. David Brooks was much better tonight. Either he genuinely thinks she did a good job or he's smart enough to anticipate the backlash against the media and distance himself from the Palin lynching. Peniel Joseph's commentary was interesting, even though I disagree with him for the most part.

I'd never paid any attention to Mark Sheilds before this convention, but I stand by my original impression that he seems like a pissy little bitch, and not a very clever one at that. Gwen Ifill looked like she was drugged at the end - take a nap, Gwen! - and I think her bitter tone when talking about the Obama attacks are going to be indicative of the overall media reaction. That faux-hurt clucking over poor Barack's feelings is not, I don't think, going to play well overall.

B+ for Sarah
C- for Jim Lehrer and Co.

Who makes the case? Judge DePaul makes a ruling.

I'm a litigation attorney, and that frames the way I generally approach political issues. In politics, though, the one-on-one debate isn't as effective as an adversarial legal argument because there isn't a judge there to call bullshit and make you actually argue the same point as your opponents. In this new bloggingheads, Cohen and Loury (indirectly) tackle the question of how to attack the Palin pick. I'm going to judge who's got the better advice for the Obama campaign.

COHEN: "This is someone who is obviously unqualified."

Lawyering Practice Tip: Anytime I submit something to a court, I ALWAYS make sure to remove any hint of the word "obvious." It's argumentative, and the argument is: "You should just know." The corrolary is: "Therefore I should not have to engage in the substantive facts." The argument that things are obvious is always a loser. The unwillingness to engage in the facts undercuts Cohen's critiques right out of the gate, as it's not obvious to me that, based on criteria set by me or criteria set by the Obama campaign, that Palin isn't qualified.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

They talk about the Palin stating in response to a press inquiry in 2007 that she hadn't given much thought to Iraq because she's been focused on her governorship.

COHEN: "It had the virtue of being an honest answer. . . rather than get some moronic version of the party line. . . That's the problem with it that it's an honest answer. . . You don't really have a view of the war the country is involved in."
LOURY: That answer is unremarkable for a governor of a small state who wasn't running for president.

Both men discuss their firm belief that it was an honest answer. Both take great pains to point out that Palin is remarkable (so as not to condescend), yet neither addresses the possibility that it's a politically calculated act. It looks like Palin had just won her governor's race with 45% of the vote vs. 44% to her opponent. Neither addresses the possibility that Palin could have been purposefully treading lightly so as not to lose a slim majority (approval ratings don't last forever and Iraq incites the crazies). Cohen asserts that you can prove she doesn't care about Iraq by contrasting her answer to an affirmative answer on a climate question. Palin was the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, which seems like it would make it more difficult to demur on a climate question. Neither man fully explores the assumptions underlying their arguments, but Loury at least mentions the context.
(slim) ADVANTAGE: Loury.

During this part of the discussion, there was also this.

COHEN: She was not one of these people who thinks there are human sources of climate change. She didn't say I hadn't thought about it very much, but it was obvious. . .

Again with the obvious, plus most judges don't care for assholes.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

Loury argues that Democrats shouldn't try to attack her on qualification grounds because it reinforces the Republican culture war theme that casts Democrats as arugula-eating metropolitan snobs. I think he's right, conservatives are always bitching about that. Cohen responds by saying that you can tell this is the case because Dobson and Limbaugh are all over the Palin pick "like stink on shit." He ignores the fact that lots of people listen to and agree with Dobson and Limbaugh. Plus, it's gross.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

Loury points out that people are invested in Palin the way people are invested in Obama.

LOURY (paraphrase): Republicans just defined their own niche - fundamentalist pro-life red America red-blooded American girl. She embodies the hopes and dreams of a derogated social group. There are probably comparable numbers of people who will be voting for Obama for the same reasons.

Interestingly, unlike almost all other Democratic analysis I've seen, Loury RIGHTLY gets that Palin is not an appeal to women, but to conservatives!

This is, I think, the most significant part of this debate:

COHEN: When he picked Biden I thought ok, when he was making this decision, somewhere pretty high up on this list in things he wanted from a vp is confidence that the person could do the job as president. . . When I think about what was on McCain's list in making the decision I don't see that it could have been anywhere on this list that she has the qualifications to do the job.

(So much for not condescending.)

LOURY: I have to object. I think its a nonsequitur. 'Obama choice made for decisions that are credible, weighing the well-being of the country high. The McCain reasons for choosing are dishonorable and weigh the choice based on more dishonorable purely partisan motives.' I don't think there's any difference between these campaigns in what they'll do to win. Obama's decision not to participate in public funding was a serious shift. The motivations were "what does it take to win."

Cohen shows a total inability to understand his Republican opponents. (I read a blog recently that theorized that Obama supporters seem not only to want to prove he's a better candidate, but that he's a better person. I wish I could remember who wrote that!) His "McCain is putting the country at risk" argument is not going to convince anyone that doesn't come preloaded with a hefty set of assumptions. It requires you to ignore any tactical political advantage in Biden, but I can think of several (he can attack without dirtying Obama's hands while retaining his regular Joe likeability for the most part, he brings, if not gravitas, then staidness to the ticket. He fills the holes in Obama's resume where people have concerns - they may think that a 28 year Senator isn't about to advise his young friend to be too radical.) These are not assumptions that voters just tuning in are likely to have.
ADVANTAGE: Loury.

They then discuss a point raised elsewhere (I think first by Begala), that Obama's experience is off the table because 18 million voters thought he had enough, whereas only 1 person has ever expressed confidence in Palin. I don't really understand this point, as Palin obviously hasn't gotten the chance to have the nation vote on her. Does that mean if she ends up as veep they will never question her suitability in the veep role?

OVERALL ARGUMENT: Cohen seems to be saying that she's unqualified and McCain is risking the country unduly by picking her. His whole argument on her qualifications is a condescending assumption that she doesn't think about Iraq and a refusal to deal with the substantive facts of Obama's resume (because he feels that the judgment of Democratic primary voters should suffice). Loury seems to be saying that attacks on qualifications raise questions about Obama and his own criteria for being president which is a losing battle because Obama may be more qualified but he is, after all, running for the top of the ticket. He also points out that separate from the double-standard argument this kind of attack seems to raise, it reinforces a theme prevalent on the right that there is a culture war and that the Democrats don't understand or care about them. He's right about this too.

THE WINNER (In a surprise upset!): REPUBLICANS!
Loury has convinced me that the best way to go after Palin is on the substance of her policies. In a head-to-head, conservative principles are better than modern liberal principles.

So we win.

Good for Obama!

Today:

I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.

I don't think Obama is sexist, despite the virulent misogyny of his supporters. It just goes to show you that you that just because really awfulpeople hold a certain view, it doesn't mean that everyone who holds the view is awful. [Come to think of it, this has come up recently.]
Let's watch and see if the media remembers this fact next time any high-profile evangelist says something awful.

But in the meantime: thank you, Barack.

White trash I ain't. Or maybe I is.

McCain being McCain, actually, he would probably find it hilarious.

Actually, it is hilarious, asshole. And adorable. The more I see, the more I like her. Besides, isn't white trash an acceptable pose these days anyway? The imagery isn't going to turn people off automatically.

The comments are pretty funny too.

Hillary who?..., that Sarah girl can sit on the bottom of my ticket anyday.
Posted By: Willam Jefferson Clinton | August 31, 2008 at 06:52 PM

....and to think if I wasn't such a creep I could have debated her.....
Posted By: John Edwards | August 31, 2008 at 06:53 PM

Thanks to Sarah, I just cancled my Viagra prescription.
Posted By: Joe Biden | August 31, 2008 at 06:57 PM

Thank God I don't like women.
Posted By: Algore | August 31, 2008 at 06:57 PM

Speak for yourself there Al.
Posted By: Hillary | August 31, 2008 at 06:58 PM

Although I shuddered a little at the Edwards comment, I'm glad she doesn't have to go near that creep. (I can't believe I actually gave him $$ in 2004!)

Women and Children First!

I cannot believe the insinuations the Dems are making about the Palin family. First the comments about whether the veep can adequately parent a newborn. Then they say that her 17 year old daughter birthed her new son (because Downs happens at such high rates in 17 yo vs. 44 yo, right?) . In doing so, they are committing slander per se against a seventeen year old girl who has not, of her own volition, ever made any attempt to seek the spotlight.

Now the ever-disgusting Alan Colmes claims that Palin didn't get proper prenatal care, gets caught in that disgusting bit of misogyny, and blames his spineless (failed) cover up to "vile" "conservatives" who "invade" (apparently visiting a public website is an invasion now). Proving he still doesn't get it, he says that his position can be summed up as follows:

I love how everyone keeps trying to accuse Alan of accusing Princess Mooseburger of birthing a mentally retarded child on purpose. He asked a judgement question about a 7 month pregnant woman who just had her water break GET ON A 12 HOUR FLIGHT TO GIVE BIRTH after giving a 30 MINUTE SPEECH instead of doing the SENSIBLE THING AND STAYING PUT WITH A DOCTOR.

Because who are you, Sarah Palin, mother of four and expecting your fifth, to decide what's appropriate for your body and your son, because ALAN COLMES and his hateful commenters know better than you about your body and your pregnancy. How dare you suggest otherwise, you uppity freak.

Disgusting. It's almost like the party that's going to save women's "reproductive freedoms" is trying to keep her down because of her uterus. I'm starting to understand why lefties get so emotional on social issues - it's not a great feeling having the villagers with pitchforks coming for my uterus. Apparently reproductive freedom extends only to the freedom to kill - not the freedom to breed.

At least Colmes didn't try to pretend he gave a crap about Trig Palin. Because we all know he's thinking that she should have just killed him in the womb anyway. That, to me, is the more salient judgment question.

The horrors of tokenism

James Fallows on Palin:

Always and only the comparison should be with Clarence Thomas -- with this one interesting difference. Thomas was a shrewd choice not simply because his race made it more complicated for Democrats to oppose him . . .

More complicated? Thomas experienced the most vicious attacks on a Supreme Court nominee that has never been seen in this country before or since (led, incidentally, by Joe Biden). At least Bork was never asked about his genitals. Democrats see any Republican use of identity politics as dirty pool - hey, that's OUR gimmick - and so feel compelled to respond by tearing down the individual with the most disgusting racist and sexist tropes they can imagine. Invoke the spectre of the sexually rampaging black man! Send the woman back to the kitchen to take care of her disabled baby! But since the Democrats are protecting blacks and women from 'tokenism,' it's all fine, really. It's not as if they are actually racist or sexist - after all, look how well the Obama/Clinton war was on that front!

but also because, once confirmed, all evidence suggested to conservatives that he'd be the kind of Justice they were looking for. In Palin's case, this seems to be a choice that looks forward to Election Day, and not one day beyond that.

This I don't understand. Conservatives aren't looking beyond election day for Palin? She's more conservative than McCain is. She's perfect on guns and life. She's an expert in energy policy. She's also pretty solid on the division of power between the state and the feds. She has more executive experience than the other candidates.

The only thing she's weak on is foreign policy. But even there, she's made trips to the Middle East and her son is on his way there, so it's not like she's going to take it seriously. Chances are, she's going to have some time to learn on the job. McCain is unlikely to die in the next few months. And what's the alternative? If experience is your primary concern, then your choice is to take it at the top of the ticket or at the bottom.

Why she's a gamechanger.

Read the whole thing.

ETA: See here too.

Anticipating the veep debate

I know that this was a particular pander to a particular crowd (see :00 to :30), but I love that the first self-stroking Biden comes up with is "I'm only a Senator because I was endorsed by the United Steelworkers." Dude, Mr. Palin is IN the United Steelworkers.

I can't wait to hear the rhetorical differences between Palin and Biden during their debate. She's got so many colorful stories, I hope she uses them. Like this one about the time she sold the state jet on eBay. What's Biden going to say: "Remember that time I was an asshole to Clarence Thomas on tv?"

Can the abortion middle-grounders be flipped?

Much as people like to think that “Disaffected Hillary voters” are a "McCain concocted myth," anecdotes abound to the contrary. I've spoken with two women recently - one formerly on the fence, one a committed Dem/Hillary voter, both of whom now have tentative plans to vote for McCain (although the latter swore me to secrecy). Because McCain's been "the maverick" foreover and Hillary is more of a centrist than many Democrats, there can be a substantial overlap among undecided non-ideologically driven voters. I think that people are overestimating the degree to these voters will reject Palin for her pro-life views. This in particular seems overblown.

Sarah Palin is not a supporter of women’s civil rights. She’s rabidly anti women’s right to self-determination, which means she’s the conservatives’ darling. But she’s got bigger problems than relegating females to second class citizens. McCain’s against equal pay, so it’s not like he’s picking Palin out of respect. This is desperation time for the Republicans.

Right or wrong, many people's attitudes toward a position are going to be shaped by who is conveying the message. There are lots of people who use otherwise reasonable ideas as cover to promote more nefarious goals. Whether or not an idea is "cover" for something worse is going to be examined, like it or not. Much as those at the edges may not be able to believe it, I think there are lots of American women who are ambivalent or undecided on the abortion question.

Polling data shows that American women are, on whole, deeply uncomfortable about the idea of abortion (ie: they would never personally do it). I would bet that many are, however, worried about whether men use anti-abortion rhetoric as a means to control women. The day-to-day chance that men (husbands, bosses, doctors) are going to try to control their bodies in various ways (get up, go to bed, don't eat that) is a lot higher than the chance they're going to need or want an abortion. Especially when you're pregnant, it seems like the whole world wants to micromanage everything you do. For crying out loud, strangers touch you like they own you. It's also very difficult to be pregnant and find out how little doctors actually know, how little choice you actually have (try telling a doctor to save your 22 week miscarriage and watch how hospital policy trumps respect for the patients' body and choice). The NYTimes reported this week about women being upset at their doctors treating them as constantly "prepregnant." And yet, all those people that are so concerned with what's going inside you disappear instantly when there's actual parenting to do.

I think there is a wide middle ground on the issue of abortion pragmatists who think: abortion is horrible, but so is pregnancy itself. For those women, let them pick the side that prevents still more people from interfering in our day-to-day lives. I think the control issue may be more of an emotional hot-button than the abortion itself. That's not because the decision to abort isn't emotional, but the stakes of that decision are more evenly balanced and more removed from most women's daily lives.

I don't see Palin setting off the "here's someone else to micromanage my life" alarm. This isn't a showily pious evangelist preaching pro-life out of "respect for women" while occasionally battering his wife. Nor is she the stereotypical Kool-Aid drinking wife-and-mother spouting traditional orthodoxy without recognition of the burdens imposed by the position. Palin may be a hardliner on the issue, but I don't see women thinking that the desire to control and subjugate women is the actual driving force behind the decision. She's someone whose lived her life the way she's seen fit, made a decision, and lived by it, taking the bad along with the good.

Because seriously, come on. Does this look like someone whose coming for your uterus?
This isn't someone who is pro-fetus because she's anti-you. This isn't someone who looks like she would take the suffering involved in pregnancy lightly and just expect you to deal with it just because that's what women are supposed to do. I mean really, she announces her candidacy and then goes right backstage to feed and change the baby.

The Blackberries, diapers, and wipes on the table wholly encapsulate the plight of today's working women. (I love that she uses the same store-brand babywipes that I do.) And since quite a few of those women were Hillary voters, they may very well be looking for someone else who understands them and their interests. I don't see the pro-life position as a dealbreaker for them.