Becoming what you hate

It's actually an in-correct title, as Andrew Sullivan previously strongly backed Bush both times, he's already there:
Now they've cleared the air on this - and good for them - what harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Ann Soetoro Sarah Palin delivered Barack Trig on August 4 April 18 in Honolulu Wasilla? This is not hard: there must be an obstetrician, medical records, and data that can easily refute this rumor. It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records. So let's have them. And then we can move on.
Get it?

Does anyone consider Andrew Sullivan a "liberal blogger" that's on our side? Is there any other "liberal blogger" that is promoting this storynon-story other than Andrew Sullivan? I know there was a stupid diary that was on DailyKos but other than that shouted-down diary, its only Sullivan hyping this up for the media to say that Obama supporters are pushing this nonsense.

Tags: Andrew Sullivan (all tags)

Comments

98 Comments

Re: Becoming what you hate

Jerome, this is honestly kind of disingenuous.

The reason this is such a scandal is because everyone is waiting for the fundie right to eat her alive, asides from the fact that it shows that McCain didn't vet her because he didn't have the sense to get in front of this.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think less of her or Bristol, but I do think it shows that the McCain campaign hasn't got its act together, and I do think it's going to test the fundies' commitment to their so-called values.  I don't think anybody who posts here thinks this is a valid line of attack - I certainly hope not.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-01 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate
I guess you haven't read the smears going on against "liberal bloggers" for attacking them on this. You can start with the NYT's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/pol itics/02PALINDAY.html?partner=rssnyt& ;emc=rss


"Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, was asked at a brief press conference in Monroe, Mich., about the suggestion by some Republicans that Democrats -- particularly liberal bloggers -- were trying to advance rumors about the Palin family."

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-01 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Oh, I guess I see what you mean, and I guess we fundamentally agreed - I can't imagine there are true progressive voices doing more than looking on in shock at the whole circus.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-01 05:28PM | 0 recs
A New Low for the Left Wing
The backtracking going on in liberal blogland is something to behold. Sexist, vile, and beneath contempt all wrapped up into one.
Have you no shame?
by oliver777 2008-09-01 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A New Low for the Left Wing

Woo, certified McTroll.  Can I have fries and a McShake with that?

by auronrenouille 2008-09-01 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: A New Low for the Left Wing

You forgot your patented, "Did someone have a speech the other night?"  Troll.

by rfahey22 2008-09-01 05:57PM | 0 recs
No Reason to Attack Sullivan

Many people on both the right and left have speculated about this story. I applaud Barack for his statement earlier today. He is truly a class act!

The person who is most to blame for any negative fallout for Bristol is Sarah Palin. If you have to choose between protecting your family and running for vice-president, decent people will coose the former.

This is not important in determining Palin's fitness for the job. Her dishonesty and lack of any relevant experience make her unqualified. Her candidacy is a joke, and deservedly so.

Speaking of jokes, when will you remove the stupid 'Delegate Counter'. Is your dislike for Sullivan related in part to your obsession with Hillary? Are you now willing to endorse and support Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States? If so, hallejuia!

by OIL GUY 2008-09-01 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Sullivan backed Kerry in 2004, FYI.

by bosdcla14 2008-09-01 09:28PM | 0 recs
I have not posted about this at my blog

but I am waiting to hear what the National Enquirer reporters on the ground in Alaska find out.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I have not posted about this at my blog

oh man.  I heard a talking GOP head on CNN say the Palins had "hoped" the press would respect their family's privacy.  Um.  yeah. well.

Maybe you can shame the MSM, but there's no shaming the Enquirer.

by GRO 2008-09-01 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Agreed Jerome. "Liberal blogger" is a kind of smear tactic that the institutional media also loves because it fits their narrative that we're all unqualified conspiracy theorists in our mother's basements. The GOP can smear that all over the wall with their PR machines and the CNN's of the world will air it "objectively" by citing sources in the McCain campaign, etc...

I don't know anyone who's pushing the wild version of the story.

by mikeplugh 2008-09-01 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Sullivan has clearly been pushing it, and yes, the "liberal blogger" smear is what is going on here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-01 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Never be smeared as a liberal blogger.

by duende 2008-09-01 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

If any story kills Palin, it will be membership to the AIP.

by RandyMI 2008-09-01 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Yeah, I'm waiting for that to shake itself out.  Palin's weaknesses are TrooperGate: The Alaskan Edition and the AKIP.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-01 05:27PM | 0 recs
It'll never hit the mainstream

Believe it or not, given a choice between supporting Alaska's secession from the union or babygate, the MSM will go with the soap-opera laden, ratings infusing baby mama drama every time.

by shalca 2008-09-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

I don't understand why any records need to be released. I believed before Barack said anything that this wasn't our business. It's not relevant to the campaign. I don't care about Palin's (grand)children. Children will do their own thing and are not always a reflection of good or bad parenting. Everyone knows this because everyone was a kid who did stupid shit at one point or another.

Let's move on. The more we talk about it, the more the MSM pushes the villainous commie blogs = Obama meme.

by Covin 2008-09-01 05:26PM | 0 recs
have to disagree with you

At Palin's rollout event, they made a big deal out of her continuing a pregnancy after finding out the baby had Down syndrome.

So if it turns out she was not pregnant, but was covering for her daughter's pregnancy, that is relevant.

Palin's story about traveling to Texas while eight months pregnant, then getting on a plane to Alaska after membranes had supposedly ruptured, then going to an out-of-the-way hospital to deliver rather than going straight from the airport to the main hospital in Anchorage (which would have had the best maternity unit and NICU) is also odd. We are talking about a premature birth of a special-needs baby.

My midwife didn't want me going out of town period once I was in the third trimester, and I had low-risk pregnancies.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: have to disagree with you

We're expecting here (within a week or two) and that story struck us as odd too.

by fogiv 2008-09-01 05:46PM | 0 recs
especially since she says she spoke to her doc

from Texas. I can't believe a doctor would not have advised her to go to a hospital to check to see whether membranes had ruptured. That's a no-brainer whenever a pregnant woman has reason to believe she may be leaking amniotic fluid.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: especially since she says she spoke to her doc

Exactly what my significant other said.  When the "water breaks", it is definitely go time.  Hospital, that is.

by fogiv 2008-09-01 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: have to disagree with you

DMD, suppose we pursue this and it turns out she lied. Then to the majority of voters, she was a mother lying to protect her daughter, and if anything it makes her more of a heroine. And the Dems look like heels for invading her family's privacy. Getting down into the mud on this is bad strategy, and bad morals.

There is so much better stuff to go after - let this one go.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 05:51PM | 0 recs
we shouldn't pursue it

but I have no problem with the Enquirer pursuing it.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:53PM | 0 recs
I do

It is her family's private life. So they engaged in a little hagiography over the Downs Syndrome baby, so what? You don't think some aspects of our candidates' life stories were (ahem) optimized? We are out to defeat her, not destroy her and her entire family.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 06:07PM | 0 recs
who could have predicted

that they would respond to the rumors by issuing a press release about Bristol being pregnant now?

That is totally unnecessary. They could instantly kill this story by releasing Sarah Palin's own medical records. There was no need to say anything about Bristol planning to have a shotgun wedding.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I do

I want to know if John McCain picked a woman who, aside from being so inexperienced, unprepared and uninterested in foreign affairs that we will need to find a new term to apply to her, and having an ongoing investigation about abuse of power, and lying about standing up to the porkers in DC, aside from all that, now that we know he picked a woman who already has a pretty significant family matter going on, might have had as second personal family and untruthful incedent in her very recent past.

She's totally unqualified to be on any ticket in my opinion. And McCain's judgement is definitely in question, it only remains to be seen just how much.

by greenvtster 2008-09-01 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: have to disagree with you

That was your pregnancy. Obviously, Palin handled it differently. I don't understand why it's okay to think we should manage anyone else's personal life, as you seem to be suggesting. Maybe she didn't do what was best for her child, but as a mother, that was her decision to make. It was not yours and it was not mine. I don't care if you think you know better--I don't even care if I think I know better--it's irrelevant. It's none of our business. Leave it alone.

The lying tells us about her character, but there are many other lies we can use against her. We do NOT want to get down and have this kind of fight with Republicans. That's what they want. Their base would explode with indignation. If we takes this up, they win every time. They will paint us as villains for invading her family, even if that's not true. They will use this to point to us as big government micro-managers who want to tell Americans how to raise their children.

Stay away from this issue.

by Covin 2008-09-02 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

I wouldn't call him a liberal blogger at all, and neither would he. During the Democratic convention, he mentioned something that made him remember why he never joined the Democratic party. But he IS one of the biggest voices discussing exactly how unqualified Palin is. He pushed the Cross of Gold tale to the point that we discovered Chuck Colson and Billy Graham made the whole thing up! I think this is at least in part an attempt to shut him up, and I'm not going to blame the guy for asking about the truth. I'm sure he'll be doing the same to Obama at some point, and I'm willing to accept that gambit in exchange for a known non-liberal that will actually follow these stories to their logical conclusion.

by vcalzone 2008-09-01 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

The 'logical conclusion' on this was known yesterday.  

I couldn't give a crap if he continues his 'search for the truth' angle. But really, that he sounds just like the "Obama is a foreigner" conspiracy ones ought to give you some pause in coming to his defense.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-01 05:30PM | 0 recs
I loathe Andrew Sullivan

but I find aspects of Palin's story difficult to believe and I don't see why she can't release medical records. Haven't Obama and Biden released medical records?

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I loathe Andrew Sullivan

Candidates release the results of a physical. If they have a history of medical problems, they release some records relating to those. A recent pregnancy is not a medical problem that requires releasing medical records.

The purpose of releasing medical records is to ensure that the candidate is in good health, not to satisfy the prurient curiosity of vultures.

by letterc 2008-09-01 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I loathe Andrew Sullivan

Ah, no, not really.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-01 06:32PM | 0 recs
Obama's doctor released an okay

From what I read, while McCain let assorted reporters go through his medical papers from the doctor, Obama's doctor released a certification that Obama's health is fine.  At most it was a summary saying that.  As a result, it might be more invasive for the Dems to demand her medical history.

by Andrys 2008-09-01 07:23PM | 0 recs
Obama's doctor released an okay

From what I read, while McCain let assorted reporters go through his medical papers from the doctor, Obama's doctor released a certification that Obama's health is fine.  At most it was a summary saying that.  As a result, it might be more invasive for the Dems to demand her medical history.

By the way, I saw a very informative, unusually balanced note about Palin from one who has watched her rise from the perspective of a council-member attendee and has plenty to say.  While it gives even more ammunition to those against her nomination, and in a better way than going after the famiy, it also leaves Palin some credit.  But as for what she's done and how she can(mis)handle her power, it's eye-opening.  This was almost lost in scrolling comments so I took it out and put it in its own page at
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.htm l

by Andrys 2008-09-01 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Thank you thank you thank you for calling him out.  We have serious business to deal with over the next two months, but I hope that one of the things that we in the blogosphere undertake some serious soul-searching afterwards.  I always thought that our online communities were the antidote to the right wing noise machine, and not just our version of the same.

by ASDem 2008-09-01 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Ugh, I vomited a little in my mouth just reading that Sullivan quotation. Unless they are part of the campaign, the candidates' children should be off limits, period. Honestly, Obama would do himself a favor if he or a surrogate would come out promptly and stomp on any of this kind of talk coming out of his camp. I sincerely hope there is none to stomp, at which point he should start stomping any media people who dredge this kind of crap up. This is just the kind of "old politics of personal destruction" I thought he was talking about for lo these many months.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Yeah, he jumped on it pretty heavily today, saying anyone in the campaign would be "fired" if it came out they were spreading this.

There's enough great stuff about Palin out there outside of this ;p.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-01 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

True enough.  There's plenty to chew on without this.

by fogiv 2008-09-01 05:48PM | 0 recs
Thanks

I agree, we don't need this issue. Even if we did, we should not touch it.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Most likely I have missed a lot of this story, because I have been busy this weekend, and I tend to ignore this kind of character assassination unless it blows up into a major storm. So forgive my ignorance if my comment is out of place. Just reacting to the quote.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 05:37PM | 0 recs
they have made Palin a heroine

for continuing this pregnancy. I think it is fair to ask for proof of whether she was pregnant. Can't her doctor step forward to confirm that she delivered Sarah Palin's child?

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

He's a disgrace...end of story.

by hootie4170 2008-09-01 05:33PM | 0 recs
we knew that in September 2001

when he said the left may become a fifth column impairing the fight against terrorism in the U.S.

Sullivan lost me permanently at that time.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:55PM | 0 recs
Sullivan is a vile
pig...his hatred of women in general is pretty obvious; of Hillary in particular, sick and scary.
How anyone could listen to this a**hole stuns me.  I don't care how much he said he supported Obama or whomever wasn't Hillary.  He voted for W twice and has been trashing democrats for a long time.
The fact that he is choosing to publicly trash Palin over a personal matter while giving W a pass for all those years, ought to  give a clue all of liberals and progressives.  Of course it didn't help with other "suddenly progressive" former right wing neocon, Clinton haters either.  They too were given credence in many liberal blog communities.
by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Sullivan is a vile

"He voted for W twice"

Actually, he never voted for W - he's not a US citizen. And in 2004, he supported Kerry albeit as the lesser of two evils.

by Ian S 2008-09-01 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

This is all about McCain and even Sully emphasizes that. The whole "story" about which Palin family members may or may not have given or about to give birth to other family members is silly. Palin has other far more serious problems - she is lawyering up for troopergate and now her ties to an Alaskan secessionist group are getting scrutinized. These latter two problems speak to her suitability to be VP: we don't need another power-abusing VP nor do we need one who supports the breakup of the country.

What's appalling is that the McSame camp did little in the way of vetting a virtual unknown. They have no business anywhere near the reigns of power.

by Ian S 2008-09-01 05:34PM | 0 recs
Half Sigma seems to be go to blog

For all things Bristol Palin. See Half Sigma.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-09-01 05:37PM | 0 recs
oops! 18?

that's statutory rape.  Just sayin.

by GRO 2008-09-01 05:44PM | 0 recs
Hold on

So are you finally disowning TexasDarling's search for Obama's fake birth certificate?

by duende 2008-09-01 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hold on

Have you checked in on her lately?  If you can believe, it's even more crazy than before.  Now she's pusing the "Manchurian Candidate" angle; Obama's been funded and groomed by mysterious muslims, oh and his book was written by someone else.

Ol' TexasDarlin' hit bottom and started digging.

by fogiv 2008-09-01 05:56PM | 0 recs
The bottom line is that Sarah Palin was NOT

fully vetted at all.  This is not a strike against her but a strike against JOHN MCCAIN.

It is John McCain who has FAILED his first test as a presidential candidate which is to choose a VP who can start as PRESIDENT on day #1.  Obviously Sarah Palin has no foreign policy experience and IMO wouldn't pass that test.

Also, by FAILING to fully vet Sarah Palin, McCain has FAILED IMO to put Country first.  

by puma 2008-09-01 05:41PM | 0 recs
Its January 2008 all over again!

Only this time its Sarah Palin who gives Andrew Sullivan "cooties" and not Hillary Clinton.  Mary Matalin was on FOX repeating the "liberal blogger" meme today, and saying how "sexist" the liberals are. Maureen Dowd is writing poisonous columns mocking Palin's credentials as a "feminist."  

All thats missing is Glenn Beck laughing at her. Maybe Randi Rhodes can call Sarah a whore, and David Schuster can can explain how Bristol is being pimped out by her mom.  

Kudos to Barrack Obama this time though.  He issued a forceful rebuke to anyone who uses these kinds of attacks.  At least the Obama campaign has learned something from the primaries.  Its sad that the media has not.

by Sandy1938 2008-09-01 05:46PM | 0 recs
Obama's comment was exactly right

but I think you are missing the point of these questions.

To Palin's supporters, one of the best things about her is that she continued a pregnancy after learning that the baby had Down syndrome. If there is reason to suspect that this is a false legend, I see nothing wrong in journalists asking for evidence about whether Sarah Palin delivered baby Trig.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:51PM | 0 recs
I dont agree

Jerome is totally right -- these kind of questions do not have any place in our politics.

Andrew Sullivan has totally gone off the deep-end with this, and I don't think anything justifies it.

by YuedoTiko 2008-09-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's comment was exactly right

I think it is you who are missing the point here. I am frankly surprised, based on all your previous writings here, that you would take this position, but we all have our blind spots.

This thing is ugly to the max. If we do not squash it, we tacitly give our permission for Sullivan and the Enquirer and whoever else to do it again. Who knows who or what they will target next. It has to stop.

Besides, we do not need it. We have this

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
And much much more.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 06:16PM | 0 recs
Sarah Palin didn't need to issue today's statement

There was no need for her to say anything about Bristol being pregnant now. That could have been concealed for the duration of the campaign.

If there is nothing to the rumors, Sarah Palin could have simply released medical records documenting her own pregnancy. End of story.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 06:58PM | 0 recs
today's statement

Ugh. So Palin (or the campaign) is handling it badly, and feeding the sharks. That does not exonerate the sharks. The more I learn about this, the greater my urge to shower. Blech!

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's comment was exactly right

Actually, the chances of a 17 year old having a Downs' baby are very, very slim. It is strongly correlated with having an older mother. That doesn't mean older mothers can't have healthy babies -- they do, all the time -- it just means that the VAST majority of Down's babies are born to mothers age 35-40+. It has to do with the aging of the eggs.

I find the whole "Trig is Bristol's baby!" thing close to absurd just because of the medical unlikelihood of it. I think it should be pretty obvious Trig was born to the 44 year old Sarah and not the 17 year old Bristol.

Check this out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triso my21_graph.jpg

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-01 09:16PM | 0 recs
actually, the majority of Down syndrome

babies are born to women under 35, because there are so many more women that age having children. But you are correct that a woman's chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome increase as she gets older.

From what I read, the chance of a woman under 25 having a Down syndrome baby is about 1 in 1,500, and the chance at age 35 is about 1 in 300, whereas the chance of a woman in her 40s is more like 1 in 100.

I staffed a table for a non-profit group one time at an event for a Down syndrome charity in the Des Moines area. Lots and lots of young-looking moms with Down syndrome children were there.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-02 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: actually, the majority of Down syndrome

Yes, that's correct, but what I was trying to say is that the 17 year old's PERSONAL chances of having a Down's baby are very small, while the chance of a 44 year old having a Down's baby are, while not huge, much more likely than for a teenaged Mom.  I mean, the odds against any one young mother, like Bristol, having a Down's baby are are huge, while the odds of one older mother like Sarah having a Down's baby are much less so.

Anyway, I haven't seen anyone take Trig's disability into account when trying to evaluate the "Trig is Bristol's kid" rumor. And I think they should.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-02 08:09AM | 0 recs
don't think this is the issue either though

Sullivan's hatred of Hilary was a totally different sort of ugliness.

His "truth-seeking" on this stuff is much more an issue of "politics of personal destruction."

by YuedoTiko 2008-09-01 06:13PM | 0 recs
Funny how many of those media types

became heroes to some liberal bloggers.
They loved it when the MSM and the Sullivans and their boys and girls on MSNBC were trashing Senator Clinton.

And how many of them defended using words like "wh*re" and "pimp" and scolding us for not being hip enough to get past the words..after all for the kool kids those words are not sexist....

And Andrew was funny and entertaining...(because you know, hate and sexism and ageism are so humorous if only you are progressive enough).
Yes, I am glad that the Obama campaign has learned some lessons.  But I doubt the DNC has..

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 06:31PM | 0 recs
I have always been an Obama supporter

and have always hated Andrew Sullivan.

by YuedoTiko 2008-09-01 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian conservative. Or as many out in the wildnerness like him are feeling lately, a 'true' conservative.  There are many many Obama suppporters of this ilk who lament how Rove and Cheney and the Evangelicals have distorted conservatism and see in Obama a redeeming quality that overrides policy positions. It has been amusing and kind of delightful to watch him ruminate and his seminal article on Obama's candidacy is a must read. Yeah, he goes there. So? With his credentials, I wouldn't give a shit what anyone says.

by Iago 2008-09-01 05:48PM | 0 recs
Sullivan endorsed Kerry, by the way

reluctantly, but he did back Kerry in the end.

I can't stand Sullivan as a blogger, but he didn't back Bush strongly the second time.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-01 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

The entire baby stuff bores me to tears...

The AIP story is the steak, so far as I'm concerned.

How do you stand for Vice President of a country for which you don't want to be a citizen?

by zonk 2008-09-01 05:51PM | 0 recs
You stole from my deleted diary!

I would like to point out this this diary is really a response to a diary I posted earlier today, in which I called Sullivan a a "former conservative" who has, indeed, become a "liberal blogger. My diary was deleted for propaganda purposes by the admin. So, Mr. Jerome Armstrong, you should give credit where credit is due, instead of deleting my diary, yet quoting from it at the same time!

Bad form, really.

by venice1789 2008-09-01 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: You stole from my deleted diary!

I am pretty sure the laws on plagiarism are on Jerome's side here, since it is his website.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You stole from my deleted diary!

You misuse the word 'law' here. Arbitrary whim more like

by duende 2008-09-01 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You stole from my deleted diary!

I have no idea what you are even talking about...

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-01 06:26PM | 0 recs
Andrew Sullivan has no credibility

His absolute hatred for the Clintons has crippled what little number of brain cells he had to begin with.

I don't understand why he's still being taken seriously.

by Sieglinde 2008-09-01 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Sullivan passes for a liber bloggerby the MSM standards probably for the same reason they went to Anna Marie Cox for a liberal perspective in 1994: They look good on TV even though one was fluff and the other is a true conservative. Perhaps they think he is a liberal because he happens to be gay.

On another note, the MSM smells blood and are discussing the "R" word.

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina said that he had heard no discussion about removing Ms. Palin from the ticket. In fact, he said, he thought her daughter's pregnancy would not hurt her with voters.

I don't know if the NYT just brought it up or they hear something.

by RandyMI 2008-09-01 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Say what you will, but the Kos story did move the national news in a major way. It forced the McCain campaign to admit something which, quite frankly, they should have been open about to begin with.

Is there going to be blowback? I don't see it. "Liberal bloggers" are a pretty hard target to hit. I also don't think it hurts the Obama campaign despite McCain's clumsy attempt to tie him to it.

by animated 2008-09-01 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

For six weeks Mcbush tarred Obama with calumnous smears. Pundits and many Democrats lined up to say it was working.
I didn't agree, and the polling never really backed it up, but it sure as hell didn't hurt him.

I have yet to know or care what was posted at dKos, but I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time feeling sorry for McBush or his VP over it. Neither will I fret over what harm it will do to Obama for McPalin to have her personal life vetted by the media when McBush should have done it himself.

And this brings to the front an issue that should be imporatant to Democrats and all Americans. Sarah McPalin is a right wing crank who thinks teenagers should be denied education about reproduction and contraceptives. And her own daughter is now a living example of why she is completely full of shit.

by ObamaOrBust 2008-09-01 06:16PM | 0 recs
oh SNAP!

it would suck to be you, Andrew!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-09-01 06:04PM | 0 recs
Be careful for what we wish for

Some are comparing Palin to Eagleton.  But what if she's dropped from the ticket?  Jindal would likely replace her, and the GOP base would be even more fired up.

Laying off and letting the story develop and evolve seems best.  In the meantime, remember MaCain's the target.

by esconded 2008-09-01 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful for what we wish for

Stomping on the story seems best to me. These media people have no conscience - they will not stop until someone makes them.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
If She is Replaced or Withdraws ...

... them John McCain looks like an incompetent, half-assed, clusterfuck of a candidate prone to rash decisions.

You can't completely botch the VP selection.  If you do, game over.

by Collideascope 2008-09-01 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful for what we wish for

If McPalin is dropped, McBush will become McGovern.

And I must correct you: Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin and the entire GOP is the target.

by ObamaOrBust 2008-09-01 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Jindal?

You mean the self-styled exorcist? Yeah, bring that one on. Please!

by Ian S 2008-09-01 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Look at the timeline here...

Within minutes of Palin being announced I was able to find (I love goggle) two separate rumors: (1) the Palin's baby is her grandson one and (2) the daughter is pregnant one.  Where did I find them? AK blogs and Right wing Blogs, most of those posts from several weeks ago.

Within a couple of hours, rumor #1 began to show up on KOS and a couple of other places.  By Saturday is was gaining steam.  Sullivan posted it the first time Sunday afternoon and then the McCain announcement came out monday afternoon.

So, if you really want to be technical about it:  right wingers started the rumor, liberal bloggers gave it some steam and Sullivan forced the MSM/McCain campaign to address it.

by dham340 2008-09-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

You are wrong about Sullivan supporting Bush in 2004.  He endorsed Kerry in 2004.  I think Andrew Sullivan is one of the few conservatives who really tries to see things from both sides.  While still calling himself a conservative, he criticizes the Bush administration relentlessly on the war in Iraq and especially on torture.  He has been backing Barack Obama since before a lot of liberals were and is critical of McCain.  He has come to especially dislike the Sarah Palin choice, after trying to accept her, commenting that McCain should change his campaign slogan to "Putting.America.Last."  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.  There are one or two conservatives we can tolerate.  No?  He is the only one I can stand to read these days.

by takeahike 2008-09-01 06:13PM | 0 recs
Of course

He has an extreme case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  He is a hero to some of the libertarian Obama supporters....no surprise there. Hate Hillary and your a hero...regardless of the fact that he supported W in 2000 with no reservation.  But people say "Oh that's OK...like there were no W stories that could have prevented the last 8 years!

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course

Oh, you are certainly right about him having "Clinton derangement syndrome."  I don't agree with him on most things, but he is supporting Obama even though it goes against his conservative cronies.  I say let's give credit where it's due.  He did endorse Kerry in 2004.  That was a very unpopular thing to do for a conservative.  Even a lot of Democrats didn't vote for Kerry.

by takeahike 2008-09-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Jerome, your diary confuses me.

Besides, this CNN iReport showed up BEFORE the DailyKos diary and before Andrew reported on it.

by RussTC3 2008-09-01 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

This entire disclosure about the two children can do nothing but help Palin. Why? It now discloses publicly the last child has Down's Syndrome, something already known to all the people following it closely, but not to most Americans. It's also known that she was counseled to abort and kept the baby.

Now it's known that the daughter is pregnant and has also decided to keep her baby.

Two big scores for the pro-life right.

These are things the McCain camp could never "release" on their own without looking like they were taking advantage of this for political purposes.

But, if they can get the left to fumble all over it and force them to come out with the truth, several things are accomplished.

  1. they make the left look stupid, angry, and petty
  2. they get the info out that they wanted out in the first place, which solidifies Palin even more with the base.
  3. they make Palin get a little sympathy from general America for being attacked by these baseless smears from the left.

Congratulations lefties.  You walked right into the trap.

Oh, and I love this quote:
It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records.

Except Democratic candidates, that is.  Still no medical records for either Obama or Biden.

by cjbreisch 2008-09-01 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

assuming that is where you stop looking.  The underage (statutory rape?) unwed daughter having a kid...that will earn mom some doubt.  Period.  Keeping the downs Sydrome baby when couseled to abort it...do we have a doctor's quote saying this is true?  It is one thing for a Doctor to give options and another to counsel FOR it.  I hope the MSM goes after THAT angle because it sounds fishy for medical advice TO a conservative patient by her doctor when she is the CONSERVATIVE Governor.  IT is not like she was mayor at the time or something.

I think this is a HUGE can of worms to let the MSM kick around.  I wish this was not the way this subject was dealt with (my mom was a 17yo Catholic who got pregnant with me unwed) but to be honest, conservatives LOVE to gossip about this stuff.  Count on them to be the source, we just have to refute McLIAR that it is perpetuated by the left.

by Hammer1001 2008-09-01 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Well, some on this blog (DailyKos haters) are pushing the fact that the "liberal blogosphere was responsible for this and other rumors".  It's clear that Sullivan is the only pig pushing this bullshit but when you have "liberals" calling out other liberals for things they didn't do then things become a bit....difficult.

Great post by the way and I agree 100%.

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-01 06:17PM | 0 recs
And Every dKos Diary Pushing This ...

... had hundreds of comments, 90% of them (myself included in many of them) decrying the diary, demanding it be deleted, calling the entire notion ridiculous, tinfoil-hattish, inappropriate, and so forth.

I rarely use all my donuts over there, but I blew through them all quickly this weekend.

by Collideascope 2008-09-01 06:22PM | 0 recs
Except that several

so called "liberal" bloggers have had cheering sections for Sullivan and MoDo and MSNBC as long as their object of derision was a Clinton.

NOW, they don't want to cheer for him any more?  
Apparently not eveyone got the memo.

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Except that several

Need to get over the primary.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-09-02 04:14AM | 0 recs
The baby is NOT the story

The story is Palin's stand against sex education unless it is abstinence only and her stand against contraception.  We finally have conservatives, in their zeal to defend one of their own, admitting that kids will have sex regardless of how loving their family life is.  We should use this as a springboard for a rational discussion on contraception and sex-education.  The U.S. has the largest percentage of unwanted births of any industrial nation in the world.  It's an issue and it should be dealt with.

by shalca 2008-09-01 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The baby is NOT the story

If this story becomes a springboard for a rational discussion on anything, I will be amazed. Right wingers do not think about these matters rationally, and especially not when it hits close to home.

by itsthemedia 2008-09-01 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Is this even a sentence?

"I know there was a stupid diary that was on DailyKos, but other than that shouted-down diary, its only Sullivan hyping this up for the media to say that Obama supporters are pushing this nonsense."

by Kamran J 2008-09-01 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Wow, okay. Jerome's first sentence is false. If you're going to call out one of the most popular bloggers on the net, at least get your facts straight. It would have taken...what? 3 minutes of research?  He didn't support Bush in 2004. That's big. I can forgive voting for W in 2000, but not 2004. By then it was clear for any clear minded, rational conservative that Bush was a disaster.

I'm a huge Andrew Sullivan fan--and no, not because he raged on HRC. I was no fan of Clinton, but he went WAY overboard. I read him religiously every day and while I won't go into the reasons I read him and enjoy his blog, I will say that he didn't start this rumor. He picked up on it after it was posted at Kos and he made it part of his "McCain didn't fully vet her/McCain is unserious and rash" talking point. I, along with many here and at Kos, thought the whole line of questioning re this story was out-of-bounds and reaked of Republican smear tactics (ala the Birth Certificate stuff). I was actually getting ready to email him and voice my displeasure over his furthering the story.

And that's what I'd suggest all of you do--email him. He's very self critical and will post "dissents" that readers send in and is not above admitting he's wrong. He's no liberal--more of a libertarian conservative in the 'classical conservative' mold. I respect him because he took a step back and saw the republican party for what it had/has become: Sanctimonious, hypocritical, corrupt, gay hating, lying, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win "Christian" party. He's been one of the biggest anti-torture advocates on the center-right along with being against Gitmo, FISA immunity, showing admin's war crimes, gay rights advocates, etc.

by bigdaddy 2008-09-01 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

Sullivan is insane, but I don't consider him a liberal blogger. I consider him an Obama blogger, not a liberal blogger. The liberal blogosphere hasn't covered itself in glory either. It's taking a fairly major pounding in the media and the television networks.

by blueflorida 2008-09-01 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Becoming what you hate

I think Sullivan's hatred of the Clinton borders on the irrational, but I have to admit I'm a fan of his.  I think he's honest and a good writer and generally does a good job of justifying his opinions.

And on this story, while I totally agree the Obama campaign shouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, I think there was enough strangeness to merit some investigation.  Specifically because Palin's son has become part of the campaign.  Her decision to have him is a huge part of the reason the religious right loves her.  If they didn't want him to be part of the campaign, they could have asked that their family be off-limits, as other candidates have in the past.  But instead they've run with it, and are totally happy to use their son as a demonstration of their convictions.

I'm usually pretty anti-conspiracy-theory (a few guys where I work are big-time 9/11 conspiracy theorists and I think they're utterly insane), but there were enough things that were odd to warrant some investigation.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all these are true:

  • Palin's pregnancy was revealed surprisingly late.
  • There are photos of her at 7 months not looking particularly pregnant.  She wasn't in a bikini or anything, but she certainly didn't look obviously pregnant.
  • Her daughter was pulled out of school for an inordinate amount of time, even for mono.  5+ months.
  • When her water broke, a month early and with a known downs syndrome baby, she took two multi-hour plane flights and a 45-minute car ride to a local hospital.

Of course that doesn't prove a thing.  And one of those, by itself, wouldn't raise too many eyebrows (though the plane thing is pretty overtly negligent).  But all of them together makes me think that something strange was going on.  Maybe not, maybe it's just a coincidence.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to say "hey, all of these things are kind of strange, and we don't want to jump to any conclusions, could you just provide us with some typical documentation to assure us that things are on the up-and-up here?"  

Why would she NOT release enough medical records to put this thing easily to rest?  It's no invasion of privacy to get a doctor's records of a baby being delivered.  She's on the public stage, she should expect that people aren't necessarily going to be taking her at her word on everything, especially when she's such an unknown.

So no, I don't think Sullivan has anything to apologize for, and I think he approached it with a reasonable amount of skepticism from the start.  He never pushed any of the rumors or guesses as fact, and he always asked for confirmation that she was telling the truth so we could put the matter to rest.

And for the record, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to ask for verification that Obama was born when and where he said he was born either.

by ChrisKaty 2008-09-01 10:13PM | 0 recs
Um, about those liberal blogs

There are three that have pushed this rumor and many variations/mutations of it:

Daily Kos, Open Salon, and this one:

http://www.barackoblogger.com/ (as reported in Reuters).                                                                                           And I have to say, liberal blogs have pushed this -- almost gleefully. It's despicable; it's wrong; it demeans what liberals are supposed to stand for; and it's Rovian.    

by mabelle55 2008-09-01 11:29PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads