I question the judgment of John McCain and the advisors of the Republican party for deciding that a woman with minimal political experience, a special-needs infant and a pregnant unwed teenage daughter was the most appropriate choice for a vice presidential candidate. What was the rationale behind this decision? "She's pretty and seems like a really nice lady, so let's go for it. She'll appeal in a "Legally Blonde" meets "Juno"-ish sort of way."
I think those commercials that claim "he's out of touch" are right on the money.
I also question Sarah Palin's judgment for accepting the offer. With a 4-month old infant and a pregnant 17-year old at home, is this really a good time in her life for her to enter the jungle of presidential politics? She's young by political standards and has at least another 20 years to try to become a big shot national politician, especially since her party apparently likes her. Why not wait it out for another go round in 2012?
Future pregnancy pact teenagers (a la Gloucester) are going to have all kinds of great comebacks for angry parents now. "But why is it such a big deal that I'm pregnant at 17? The vp candidate's daughter is having a baby at 17 and her mom said she was proud of her for it. It's not a big deal. Why can't you be proud of me?"
Well, at least this takes care of those rumors that the 4-month old wasn't Palin's child, but her daughter's. Either way, I really question her judgment there, too. (I'm not the only one.) So much for abstinence education.