Remember when Clarence Thomas introduced himself to the world by bashing the NAACP and declaring himself a steadfast foe of affirmative action? Many liberals expected Sarah Palin to do the same, and be a token female opponent of all things feminist. If she had done that, she would have joined a battle royale and made for a very interesting fall.

Instead, Palin struck a civil tone with Charlie Gibson, praising Hillary Clinton's actions (but not her politics) and respectfully discussing her views on abortion and working motherhood. In terms of tone (substance is another matter), what more could she have done?

I do not understand why liberals are calling her Pontius Pilate, of all things, and otherwise hysterically attacking her. She is what she is, in terms of her politics -- some like it, some don't. Case in point: the by-line above states that the Democratic congresswoman "hit back." Problem with that: Palin did not hit at all -- she rose above it.

Rosenkavalier:

Generally, "strict construction" means the Founding Fathers' views should control. Case in point: "cruel and unusual punishment." If that term prevented torture, but not capital punishment, in the 18th century, it should mean the same thing now.

Importantly, most strict constructionists speak not only of the founding fathers, but the "framers and ratifiers" of various provisions. Thus, in the case of the 14th Amendment, you look to what people thought in the 1860s.

Justice Kennedy raised an interesting question in his homosexual rights case a couple years back. He conceded, first, that if the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had ever imagined it would apply to gay rights, they would undoubtedly have written it differently, or expressly stated no such interpretation should obtain. Rather than argue further about the text of the 14th Amendment, Justice Kennedy then turned to the Declaration of Independence, claimed in effect it is a super-constitutional human rights charter, and proceeded to "apply" it using his own reasoned judgment as the guide. (Full disclosure: I agreed with the result but not the reasoning).

Coming back to McCain. The Whoopi Goldbergs of the world don't like "strict constructionists" because they stop their analysis with the text of the constitution, and are not willing to write on a blank slate in controversial areas like privacy rights vs. fetal rights.

I have followed politics closely since 1984, but the new Democratic talking point: that Jesus was a community organizer and Sarah Palin is Pontius Pilate, must be the most bizarre thing I have heard.

There are three things to consider. First, by his own admission, Barack Obama accomplished next to nothing during his three year drift through the slums of Chicago. He wrote later that he could not even describe what he did. So, assuming arguendo that Jesus was something of a "community organizer," it is still quite a stretch to equate Jesus with Barack.

Second, it is also a stretch to call Jesus a "community organizer." When he arrived in Jerusalem to enthusiastic crowds and was questioned by Pilate concerning his political ambitions, Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world. It was spiritual. This too is obviously different from Obama.

Third, on what possible basis does Sarah Palin come in for comparison to Pilate? Christians believe Pilate is the man who crucified their savior. Non-Christians, such as Josephus, simply present him as a brutal hatchet man who killed and repressed with equal vigor, and had no respect for the Jewish religion. Christian Democrats who make this comparison are demeaning their own faith, and/or defaming Palin, to the extent they are saying (presumably tongue in cheek) that she truly reminds them of the murderer of their savior.

Doloresflower --

You are mistaken in stating that Christians do not blame Pilate for Jesus' death. The ancient Christian creeds contain this statement: "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate." There are millions of Christians in America, every single Sunday, who commemorate, through the recitation of this creed, their singular condemnation of Pilate. There is no comparable reference -- in the creeds -- to Jewish collaboration in the event.

Now, of course there is a whole swirl of modern historical debate over whether Pilate or the Jewish leadership was responsible for Jesus' death, with heavy weight being placed on Pilate (he, after all, gave the order). Some claim it absurd that Jewish leadership would have played any part in the event, although if you read the works of Josephus and/or accounts of early Jewish-Christian tensions (e.g., Saul/Paul and the stoning of Stephen), you will find plenty of Jew vs. Jew religious violence in the ancient Roman period.

But back to the point. The New Testament portrays Pilate as a wily cynic who sought to release Jesus as a means of embarrassing the Jewish elite (presuming the crowds would rally to him). And, when that didn't work, he proceeded to crucify a man he apparently saw as little threat. Christians have always regarded Pilate as a sick villian.

Finally, is the Palin = Pilate argument simply a strange joke? The Congressman who started it did not appear to be laughing, nor was Donna Brazil. Proponents of this view are mature enough to live with their own words. The question is, are they comfortable doing so?