SLOW NEWS DAY

nothing to see here, move along
I'm not a political scientist nor study the history of presidential elections but I do follow the media and I really cannot think of another presidential race in my adult lifetime as surreal as this one.

As many of you may have heard, in order to rebut the rumor that Palin's fifth pregnancy was a cover for the pregnancy of her then 16 year old daughter, Bristol, Palin announced today that Bristol is five months pregnant (and hence, wouldn't have been pregnant when her son was born four months ago).

Let this soak for a moment because, truly, this is political theater at its most bewildering (and entertaining). Some thoughts:

1) I thought the "fake pregnancy" rumors were some of the most baseless (and kind of tasteless) smear campaigns I've seen this side of the "secret Muslim school" nonsense (or McCain's fake, half-Black love child for those who remember that Rovian doozy from 2000). If it were true, I wouldn't argue against the newsworthiness of it - it's just so bizarre - but the "facts" compiled for the "internet sites" propagating it (and I won't even deign to link to them) were so short of anything resembling responsible journalism, they made the Dan Rather, fake National Guard memo scandal look like All the President's Men.

YET, it's precisely because those rumors were so ridiculous as to be beyond the pale that I question why Palin, in her announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, felt it necessary to use them as the reason why she's disclosing now. Even the site that originally published it was backing way off - no responsible MSM site bothered to reprint the story because, frankly, it was stinking of b.s. from jump.

I'm not claiming some deep conspiracy theory here but seriously, I don't know why they even bothered to lend credit to some nutty story to begin with.

2) Since we're going to put out unsubstantiated rumors into public discourse, here's my prediction: the baby's father is really John Edwards and this mystery guy Levi is just a front.

(This is a joke for those unsure).

3) As many have pointed out, there is something massively ironic, if not hypocritical, about a fervent anti-choice politician trying to ask for "privacy for my family" when your own policies directly violate family privacy sanctity.

Not to mention: it is rich that someone who believes in abstinence-only as public policy can't even seem to make the idea stick in her own family. More proof the cosmos has a sense of humor not to mention the absolutely paucity of the abstinence-only idea. The fact that this fraud of an idea has been put into place in various parts of the U.S. (and in our foreign policy) is one of many embarrassments of the last eight years.

Some think this may weaken Palin's popularity with social conservatives but I doubt it. Personal behavior can have its consequences - see Giuliani's non-campaign - but in this case, so long as Palin's public policies are in line with the "family values" lobby, this pregnancy issue won't rank high. Among moderates they were hoping to swing however, I can't see this making the McCain/Palin ticket more attractive.

McCain's hail mary pass just got tipped at the line of scrimmage by one of his players. (And that will be the only football analogy here today).

4) One of the discomforting tangents of this whole situation is how many people I've heard openly question Palin's fitness to be a mom. Let's make this clear: no one ever puts this to politicians who are fathers. It's one of those ridiculous, sexist double-standards that female politicians have to deal wit. Unless we're talking felony neglect or abuse, people who supposedly value civil liberties (including privacy) should really check themselves lest you want the government to the turn the tables and peer into how you raise your own family.

I care far less about what Palin is like as a mother vs. caring what her policies are around things like maternity leave and social safety nets for children. Let those be the sites of criticism as opposed to this incessant, intrusive behavior around people's private lives. Left-leaning folks seem to have forgotten the lessons of Clinton impeachment circus. Or maybe they learned those lessons all too well and are now applying the tactics of ad hominem attacks.

5) Speaking of legitimate areas of criticism: you have to love how one of Palin's big selling points is that "she was against the Bridge to Nowhere" but as it turns out now...nope, she was all for it until it became so politically toxic, she had to turn against it. I believe that's what you call a ...

McCain's people did vet Palin, right? Right? Or at least, did they vet the talking points of her nomination?

--O.W.