Still more on Palin

You would think I've had my say on Sarah Palin. But no - I'm not done.

The news coverage is non-abating. Personally, I think this is fair. For a couple of reasons:

• She is running for vice president. She is not a private person. Hasn't been since she entered beauty pageants and politics. Her children are a different matter, but it's all about how she has handled it.

• Palin is the one who presented herself as a wife and mother. I'm just a hockey mom, she said. She paraded her family out on the podium with her - she made her family the issue.

• It bring McCain's decision-making under question.

I have never questioned her desire to be a working mother. I believe that both parents can work. But I also believe it is very difficult for both parents to have extremely high-profile, high-stress jobs. If one parent has such a job - not just the man - then the other parent has to be around for the children. Someone has to be there, not just physically, but for all that is involved in child-rearing.

They have a special needs child. I understand that working women have babies all the time. But they don't typically return to work three days post-partum. I certainly hope her husband is there to pick up the slack - children need their parents.

I also think it's worth pointing out that the decision to have a baby extends well beyond giving birth. I refuse to laud her for her decision to give birth to her Down Syndrome baby. Many, many people with less resources than she has do this every day with no fanfare.

Because it isn't just about having the baby. It is about rearing these children, giving them everything they need. Which, those on the far-right, includes access to health care, to education, and a decent quality of life, meaning the parents must be able to earn a fair wage, live in decent housing, have transportation, and have a respectable quality of life.

Until the "pro-life" community can guarantee that to every child through the policies they are willing to support, then we can't have this discussion. And maybe we can't anyway, because we are still talking about a very personal decision, one that I'm not willing to take away from women.

And I'm bothered that someone like Palin cannot see before the evidence that abstinence-only is not working. Apparently hitting her over the head with the proverbial ton of bricks is not enough to sway her. What more evidence does she need?

McCain blew it with this one. He rushed in, chose this woman without doing the requisite background checks (he met with her exactly twice, once to offer her the job). His staff talked to few people in Alaska who knew her. The campaign claims it knew about the pregnancy, the DUI, the fishing license violation, the ethics controversy, her disputed involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party.

Palin has said she is against earmarks, but was happy to take the money when she was mayor of Wasilla. She says she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, but in fact supported it early on. She claims she turned the money down, but it was Congress who pulled the plug. And Palin kept the money.

I don't like it said that liberals are bashing her because she is a woman. I'm concerned about the hypocrisy. Conservatives were quick to jump all over Hillary Clinton for issues that had nothing to do with her credibility. I am not commenting on what Palin looks like - I am concerned about her judgment and her experience.

If the GOP could find more dirt on Joe Biden, you bet we'd be hearing about it. Just like Fox News has been too happy to spread rumors about Barack Obama's religion and promulgating his unorthodox middle name.

In the end, much of this doesn't matter. Maybe it should, but presidents are not elected on the strength or weakness of their VP candidates. But it sure does show what they're thinking.