What if in 1992, when Bill Clinton was a relatively new face on the public scene, his only daughter Chelsea was unmarried and pregnant? What do you think those lying, hypocritical Republicans would have said about him and his wife Hillary?
I'll tell you exactly what they would have said.
How can we trust him with the country when he doesn't even supervise his own daughter?
He may say he is a Christian, but he sure doesn't model family values.
He is obviously still a sixties radical who taught his daughter to make love not war.
He is a scum and so is his wife. They are godless heathens, no matter what they say.
Typical liberal sexual promiscuity!
Now, would that have been sexist? No, it would have been BS, but it wouldn't have been sexist. And it isn't sexist for others in this campaign to question Sarah and Todd Palin's attentiveness as parents and wonder if she can handle the vice presidency when she can't even attend to her teenage daughter.
And if the Clintons had hauled Chelsea's boyfriend, the daddy of her unborn baby, up on the stage at the 1992 Democratic convention, what would the scumbag Republicans family values crowd have said?
I'll tell you what they would have said:
This is disgusting.
What will we tell the children?
What kind of role modeling is this?
They should be ashamed.
They're not fit to be parents, let alone in the White House.
They'll have to paint a scarlett "A" on the White House.
And if Hillary and Bill Clinton had just had a baby with Down syndrome, especially after Bill as governor of Arkansas had cut funding for social services for the developmentally disabled, and if they had passed that baby around at 10 p.m. at the very loud Democratic convention, what would the Republicans have said?
I'll tell you what they would have said:
That baby should not be used as a prop.
That baby is only four months old and belongs in its own bed.
What kind of parents are the Clintons?
How shameless to use that child for political gain.
And if Hillary had been giving a speech when she was eight months pregnant, and when her water broke thousands of miles from home she insisted on flying home to give birth in a tiny local hospital, thereby putting the child in danger, what would the Republicans have said?
I'll tell you what they would have said.
How could she risk that baby's life?
What kind of mother is she? And what kind of father would let her do that?
What business does she have flying thousands of miles from home when she is 8 months pregnant?
What is the matter with these people? Are they insane?
But we Democrats are not allowed to ask these questions, because the McCain campaign will scream that we are sexists. No we are not sexists. We are concerned about the kind of judgment and stewardship these people are offering. It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with responsibility.
Sarah and Todd Palin have five children, three of whom are facing tough challenges right now. The eldest is deploying to Iraq, at the age of 19. The eldest girl is pregnant and unmarried and getting ready to marry a redneck who loudly boasted he never wanted children. And the youngest will need special care for the rest of his life. Won't this be a bit distracting for the couple, regardless of which one is the nominee?
And didn't McCain take any of this into consideration when he chose her?
When John and Elizabeth Edwards announced during the primary that she had terminal cancer, I knew immediately that I would not vote for him. He probably would have made an okay president, but his mind could not have totally been on the job with a wife facing such a poor prognosis. And had she died while he was in office, he would have had sole responsibility for the emotional well being of those children, while he went through his own terrible grief.
It's not sexist to ask a candidate (male or female), who has enormous family problems, how they can possibly juggle the struggles and strains of family issues and protect the country and get its economy going again. As long as the questions are respectful and pertinent.
The difference between how the Democrats and Republicans would have approached the subject, however, is crucial. Republicans would have used a family issue like an unmarried pregnant daughter of a Democratic candidate to attack his or her morals and competence. They would have been ugly, cruel and unmerciful. With their own candidate, however, they are forgiving, and ready to elevate Bristol and Sarah to sainthood.
Democrats, on the other hand, are simply asking how qualified the candidate is, whether she is showing good judgment and whether her mind can possibly be focused on this very important job. They would be asking the same of the candidate if it was a man and he was highly involved in the children's upbringing.
That is not sexist, no matter what those hypocrites say.
