How dare they point out her hypocricy

When John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was his choice to be the Vice Presidential candidate, I thought I had a good idea of what political motives and thinking were behind the pick. Making the announcement when he did, shocking the political community by picking someone not on any one's veep radar, picking someone a generation younger than him, and, most shockingly of all, picking a woman for the post, seemed to be the quick read of McCain's decision.

I smugly told everyone I knew who followed politics that McCain's pick was a flailing attempt to get some press, and that at best McCain would get an immediate bump in the polls because of the fanfare about Palin, but in the long run the strategy would not sustain him through to the election. Oh, how smart I felt telling all my analysis, and how relaxed I felt in that McCain was no longer a threat.

Unfortunately, my self assuredness had blinded me from the truth of the matter: John McCain was a genius. His choice of Governor Palin and his campaign's handling of it has been masterful.

As I stated above, there are some obvious pluses that Palin brings to the ticket. Her young age does well to help draw in younger voters who were turned off by McCain's years. Being a woman, there was some hope that she may be able to sway disaffected Clinton supporters who still hoped to see a woman in an executive position within the government. Plus, she was able to play both the "maverick" card, showing she is beholden to no party (which, somehow, McCain is still able convince voters of despite his record), and say that she has the traditional social values of the right, an area where McCain is constantly questioned.

What I did not see was Palin's invulnerability to criticism. For all of her "traditional values", it is considered an outrage whenever anyone tries to call her out on those issues. Those that have are lambasted for being "sexist" and for bringing up personal family issues, something considered very undignified. They are told to stick to the issues, not go for cheap shots.

But what would be considered a cheap shot in most cases, and this generalist line of thinking is what is saving her from criticism, should be fair game for Palin. On the face of it, this sounds like an enormously unfair double standard for Palin, but she brings it on herself.

During her convention speech, Palin mocked the Democrats for having no values. That, unlike the socialist, liberal politicians on the other side, she was someone who believed in the "traditional family values" one is brought up with in a small town. As she was saying this, she was actively participating in the huge endeavor that is a presidential election, with the obvious ultimate goal of becoming Vice President, while raising a five month old child who has special needs. Democrats and other political commentators have been blasted for pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of this. How can one attack an opponent for having no family values, when the attacker has abandoned their newborn in the quest for power?

What genius it is to come up with this strategy. Palin is free to make all of the value judgments on her opponents with no fear of retribution. Palin doesn't even have to defend herself if someone goes after her on this. There is a long line of supporters and strategists ready to pounce if this argument is made, with the ready made comebacks that 1) it is not appropriate to question how one raises their family and, more bitingly, that 2) she wouldn't be questioned for this if she was a man and, therefore, it is a sexist accusation. It takes real genius to call former Hillary supporters sexist and have it stick.

The other off limits topic regarding Palin is her daughter's pregnancy. Bristol, Palin's daughter, as most who follow politics know, is only 17 and still in high school. The family announced that Bristol was going to keep the baby and marry the father. After the announcement, it was to be understood that any further questioning of the issue would be out of bounds.

As it was with the previous argument, I would generally agree that that topic should be out of bounds for political attacks. However, in this instance, it is a viable line of questioning. Sarah Palin, being the social conservative that she is, is for abstinence only sex education. She brought up the issue in both her mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns, stating clearly that she would do all she could to ensure abstinence only sex education was what Alaskan students were taught. Do I even need to tell you where I'm going with this?

Sarah Palin espouses a belief in abstinence only sex education, and, unlike the rest of us, has the power to do something about it. She is preventing the students of Alaska from receiving any kind of comprehensive sex education because she believes abstinence only is what works best, and the epitome of how flawed it is is within her own home.

Now, I want to make it clear is that this is not a criticism of Bristol Palin. Bristol is, in my opinion, the victim of this flawed policy that is empowered by her mother. Her, and thousands of other hormone driven Alaskan teens, are being denied information that could help them avoid some life long consequences by the mother of a pregnant teen who was taught abstinence only.

Again, Sarah Palin is allowed to espouse her belief and, more importantly, enforce her belief on the lives of thousands within her state, but no one is allowed to use the ready made argument against abstinence only sitting next to her. In fact, Palin is being painted as some sort of hero for dealing with problems that "real people" deal with. To those who try to paint her in this light I ask this...

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GOD DAMNED MINDS?!! She is not a hero, she helping to create more teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

What does it take to get people to see that abstinence only education doesn't work? If seeing the pregnant teenager daughter of the champion of abstinence only education doesn't convince you, then you, my friend, probably can't read this sentence.

So, there is the genius of McCain. Picking a bulletproof running mate who can say what she wants and nobody can touch her. Unless its about the "Bridge to Nowhere", "Troopergate", the windfall oil taxes in Alaska, or the pork Alaska gets from federal tax dollars (Alaska ranks no.1 in federal spending per resident). But I'm sure those points will be deemed, like the others, as unfair and, in some twisted way, sexist.