I think Palin will drop out in a few days, and they will blame the evil liberal media for picking on poor Sarah and her family. Then they will put Jindal on the ticket, he has been great in the readiness efforts for Gustav and they also get claim a first with his background.

I agree with all of the above, but for those who wouldn't consider abortion an option, maybe "keeping the baby" is meant as opposed to putting the baby up for adoption. I don't think the quote talked about choosing to continue the pregnancy but to keep the baby.

Sarah Palin's shotgun is pointed at a cowering, zit faced teenage boy instead of a moose.

This is not an appropriate issue.

Even Obama agrees with me.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Because when people are talking about Bristol Palin, they're not talking about Sarah Palin's neanderthal policy positions or John McCain's support of Bush's legislative agenda. And when people DO talk about Bristol Palin, both campaigns will rush to shut them up.

It's win-win for McCain.

Just as I was against using John Edwards' adultery to judge him as a politician, I'm against using Bristol Palin's pregnancy to judge Sarah Palin--I agree 100% with Obama on that. I will, however, mention that those who wanted to condemn Edwards--both Democrats and Republicans--should also condemn Palin.

I will agree with Ms. Traister that it is a pity that the first female candidate to VP with a real chance of winning should be this woman. It goes to show what a mockery the GOP is making of women and women's issues. And this is entirely based on her opinions and her work--not on her daughter's sex life.

I think she's pretty cool myself. Kay Hutchinson and Liddy Dole? You've got to be kidding. At least Palin seems to have some life in her. While she holds some positions I don't, she doesn't seem to be a fanatic about it.

In any case, it's not McCain's fault that the media and blogger boyz are flipping out. In fact, they're playing right into McCain's hands. McCain pulled a smart one, and we're looking like dummies.

What kind of woman would have a FIFTH child with Down's syndrome, then take off on a national political campaign when the child was just an infant? The same kind of woman whose daughter would end up knocked up at 17. A miserable mother, a terrible role model, and a monster.

You're asking why McCain would pick Palin, knowing that her female issues would completely dominate the political form for the next few months?! A stroke of genius! The alternative would be to talk about McC and his policies, etc. disigny

I just watched the stories on NBC and CBS. Nothing to see here...move on....change the subject. Any mention of it will be treated with faux outrage in the future.

If the GOP is smart, they will fully embrace Bristol's condition, since she is fully innoculated. I think a big media event wedding for mid-october. The Today Show's numbers are always highest when they do those special wedding shows.

No other GOP woman so perfectly embodies the traditional roles of women as Sarah Palin. Married, several children, not threatening intellectually, and a former beauty queen. This is the Right's ideal. Any woman with visible, widely-accepted power or high educational status would not be acceptable.

I am not even a little bit dispirited by Sarah Palin since she doesn't represent for me in any way a powerful, modern woman. She is as retrograde as they come. Hillary Clinton must be sitting somewhere right now laughing her *ss off at that dope McCain. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Olympia Snow are probably snickering behind their hands too.

I agree with everything you say, but I am worn out with liberal guilt over liberal guilt, or whatever it is, whenever this sequence of events occurs: (1) a Republican loon gets caught in yet another family-values debacle; (2) a few snarky bloggers somewhere out in the electronic ether gloat about it; and (3) every other card-carrying liberal in 50 American states and the outlying territories deplores the snarky remarks. You write: "When it suits us, we bypass the fact that many of us believe that what happens within the families and bedrooms of our politicians -- while diverting, even titillating -- shouldn't cloud our perceptions of how they do their jobs." Actually, hardly any of "us" do that. But we would have to be made of stone to ignore the fact that Republicans, who have been stepping on our necks since 1980, believe that what happens in the families and bedrooms of our politicians SHOULD cloud our perceptions of how they do their jobs -- indeed, believe that what happens there is the government's business so long as they are the government. So we find it hard to forbear pointing out their double standard. I agree with you that such hypocrisy is everyday stuff and not the real issue. And Obama couldn't have said it better -- leave the kids out of it. But can we at least point out that, on the best evidence available, Republican morality doesn't work even for Republicans and maybe they should give it a rest when they are legislating everyone else's?

A few of us have been pointing out Condoleeza as VP candidate, for months, even years. Especially now, when we have no Hillary, switching to Condoleeza might be a great move.

No matter what, I will not vote for Condoleeza or Sarah or John. Other Americans might vote for them, though.

If the family values crowd wants to draw a line regarding private vs public, then lets draw a wide one and ignore the sex lives of all politicians. Including Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, etc.

Maybe not Spitzer, since he was merciless in his abuse of prosecutorial power.

How about also getting rid of god. I'm tired of needing to have a personal relationship to Jesus as a qualification to be a serious candidate.

I think Palen gets a mulligan on this one. But if there is a single additional surprise, then she and McCain will just implode, and why not.