That's all.

I'm glad that Palin's thoughts on rape have finally gotten liberals fired up on the crime issue.

My own belief is that the first person to be aborted in this situation should be the rapist.

Have you been paying attention . . . at ALL?

Liberals have been plenty fired up about the crime issue:

• the illegal invasion of Iraq

• the illegal wiretapping of American citizens

• the illegal torture of prisoners of war

• the illegal kidnapping and "rendering" of foreign nationals to governments known to torture

• the illegal use of the Justice Department to further a political agenda

• the criminal abuse and neglect of our nation's military -- and their families

• the criminal abuse of national security secrets for a political agenda

• endlessly lying to Congress, which is illegal

• the illegal suppression of voting through scare tactics, robocalls, voter list purges and more

• the illegal influence on policy by corporations with a vested interest (Enron anyone?)

• the criminal neglect of terrorism that led to 9/11

• the innumerable instances where the Executive Branch has not only abused its authority but denies Congress its Constitutional prerogative to investigate.

That was all off the top of my head and I didn't even have to mention Jack Abramoff. And, more to the point, I'm not sure you're aware of this -- or probably you just don't care -- but violent crime was DOWN under the Clinton administration and is UP under the Bush administration. I bet you can guess which way white collar crime is trending too, huh?

So much for law and order.

And McCain has the gal to call Senator Obama the "Senator Government".

And is Palin going to pay the expenses to raise that child up, put food on the table, provide shelter and health care, put her/him through college? who is footing the bill to rare this child here? Palin or the mother? Who will pay to restore (if that) an emotionally battered woman back to normal if that is even possible?

And is not that dictatorship to force others to do what is against one's will and wishes. First she is violated against her wishes, then the 2nd time violated once more by the government against her wishes, this time for life.

What a sorry state of affairs we have arrived at! so much for the delusional persuit of the liberty for all.

Well said! If all that was just off the top of your head, then I certainly look forward to your future contributions here.

A moving story. I love to see Sarh Palin bested. BUT...we all know that by and large it is not young (or older) rape victims seeking abortions. It's used by women who didn't adequately consider birth control, it is not atypically used as the method of birth control. The ad does not really address the phenomenon of abortion as most women in this country experience it.

You have said you are prochoice, but I don't see very many posts from you that indicate enthusiasm for the prochoice POV. Could you please elaborate under which circumstances you believe a woman has a right to choose abortion?

Why other women may or may not get abortions is besides the point within the context of this ad.

The ad explores what would happen if a woman was raped, got pregnant and it was illegal to get an abortion under any circumstances. She would be forced, possibly against her will, to bear her rapist's baby.

People like Sarah Palin could be saying that girls who get pregnant as a result of rape should marry the rapist. They're always saying crazy things.

Why is it less of a problem to abort a fetus from a rape than from a zesty backseat session between two consenting people? I am, btw, very pro choice. But why do we have to use the strawman that some circumstances behind a choice for an abortion are more acceptable than others? If the conservatives are all about the fetuses, why do circumstances matter?

Thing is, conservatives aren't really all about the fetus. Mostly they are all about women paying a price for having sex. Poke them and they start spouting words like "responsibility." The real horror to most conservatives is that women can have sex without consequences. That's why it's perfectly all right with them that Bristol Palin is pregnant... she's being adequately punished by, in the words of her own mother, having to grow up too soon.

The thing about the authoritarian mindset that's hard for non-authoritarians to understand is that authoritarians don't have any moral fiber or self-control themselves, so they honestly believe that if people aren't forced to behave properly by the government, the world will dissolve into chaos. One thing I find interesting about them is that on anonymous questionnaires, people who score high on measures of authoritarianism are also more likely to say they question their belief in God. In other words, they're walking a tightwire... it's crucial to them to pretend to believe, but they don't really, not in their heart of hearts, which is why they talk so often about "faith." Whereas the people who really do have faith don't usually talk about it.

That young woman has some guts. I hope Sarah Palin has seen this video.

Not because I want to hear about another "real" account of rape, but because of what happened to "Joe The Plumber" when it turned out that he wasn't exactly who he said he was. The trolls will have a field day claiming that the girl is another "false rape accusation" if she turns out to be an actress instead of an actual rape victim, even thought there are literally rape victims everywhere we look.

Looking at the video, it doesn't appear to me that she was acting (as I have heard a lot of accounts from real rape victims).

To T C-F, you were raped?

Surely, a well-connected and respected Salon journalist such as you, with sympathetic connections to all of the Democratic-allied campaign groups, ought to be able to find out if the woman in the ad is an actress, or is herself a rape victim.

I am guessing that such an inquiry might be met with, "We can't give her name or personal details. You know, confidentiality, rape shield laws, HIPAA, non-disclosure agreements, etc." You pick the protection.

Okay. No names or other identifying information. But can it possibly be a secret, a matter of a legitimate legal privilege, to know; is the person we are seeing an actress, who was not raped, or an actual rape victim?

I am surprised, frankly, that you seem so sanguine about the possibility that she is an actress. There could be an explanation, I suppose -- that an actress was speaking words that were uttered by a rape victim and transcribed for this use, except that the words -- a script, to be sure, since the words and phrasing are pure campaign ad and not a personal statement -- aren't at all natural. If the person we see is an actress, was she effectively appearing for another who could not bear to have her image on television as a rape victim?

It just seems surprising to me that the possibility that this ad consists of a professionally-crafted script, played by a professional actress, isn't a notion that the public might find startlingly manipulative.

Again, you're in a very good position to find out; and to ask the next, obvious question that you'd surely want to find out in the case of a McCain ad. Was she an actress?

Come on Tracy, enquiring minds want to know!