That’s what bothers me. When I was her age we had *just* gotten over the idea that her current plan – pregnancy in high school and marriage to the father to cover that – was the only choice. Having this NOT be the only choice had taken generations of work. And it was SO amazing to have it not be the only choice at last, and the idea of not being judged for your choices was SO new.

But by now it often seems to me that barefoot and pregnant is turning into the new ideal, if not what people are coerced into again – now not as luck of the draw, but as Most Moral Model and so on. So I guess I’m saying that I hope right wing politicians / media don’t exploit this for *their* political ends, either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080904/pl_politico/13129

A reasonably fair rundown of reaction in the ‘MSM’.

I think they ran a “be” campaign in the primary anyway was because his record in public life is very thin compared to the last century of Dem candidates for president, going back perhaps to Woodrow Wilson. He didn’t have a substantial record of accomplishment to look at, so it has to be all about character and judgment, right? Wilson ran for President in 1912 after having served as New Jersey’s governor only since 1911! Somebody ought to point that out to all of these Palin mockers. Even Kennedy had served a few terms in congress and was completing his first term as U.S. Senator when he ran and won. (Carter may be a closer comparison, but he had completed a full 4 year term as governor, 1971-75, before he ran for president–relatively restrained by comparison to Wilson!)

Perhaps the Dems think that in making this election about Obama as a person, they’ve stolen a page from the Republican play book.

We’ll see if it works.

I don’t know where to draw the line, except that the line should be drawn at the same place for women and men candidates. I think it will be almost impossible to go after Palin personally without it quickly turning ugly. Republicans are rallying around her, and as Shinhao Li pointed out earlier on this blog, Republicans love to run against the media and will fight to protect their own. If she does halfway decently tonight, it will be a win for her. She’s been thoroughly bumpkinized and trashed in the media this week, so as long as she doesn’t mispronounce too many words or fall off the stage, she’ll be hailed as the next coming of Ronald Reagan.

Lowering expectations always worked for Bush. Once again, Dems like to let everyone know that they’re so superior and that they got better grades in college and joined fancier eating clubs. They’d rather do that than win elections, I think.

But what about the candidates themselves. Where do you draw the line between policies and personalities, especially when they seem to be blurring them.

While the children may enjoy the attention, it’s not their decision to be thrust into the national spotlight. So everyone else must back off–the news media, but especially the political opposition: it’s not just morally right, it’s also politically right. Attacking or holding up for scrutiny someone else’s minor child is like trying to win votes by kicking dogs. You’ll (rightly) look like the bully in the long run.

As for adult children: have you noticed how few adult children of presidents stay in the spotlight, unless they go into politics themselves? Most of them happily flee the media glare as soon as they can. In the case of adult children, it would only make sense to slam them if they’re involved in criminal activity, preferably criminal activity that directly benefits the parent’s political campaign, or hurts the political campaign of hir opposition. Someone’s kids drug problems, DUIs, etc.–not that interesting, and not really anyone else’s business.

So yeah, it stinks that politicians can use their own children, but 1) who wants to beat up a kid, and 2) it has ever been thus, so who cares? I don’t vote for someone because ze has a “beautiful family,” so it’s not the kind of thing that I really care about, but a lot of people like to see politicians’ families. I think the best political parents are like the Clintons, who really shielded their daughter and used their privileged position to expose her to things that would enrich her understanding of the world, and only when she was old enough to appreciate it. She’s about the best-raised child to come out of the White House–whereas the Kennedys, Fords, Reagans, and Bushes have all had their problems with drugs, alcohol, or bad relationships with the parents.

But, that’s just what I think. The kids have it tough, no question about it. What’s your line?

So when they make it about the person, what do you say in response? (Assuming, of course, you are trying to run a respectable. respectful campaign, and believe certain issues are off limits).

It seems to me that this goes back to your distinction between “do” candidates and “be” candidates. When a campaign makes the personal political, what is the line between appropriate and inappropriate? Where you draw the line between public and private when the two are so often conflated in today’s understanding of a “good candidate”?

I ask these questions in a completely non-partisan way, because I think they apply to both parties at the moment.