I don't see why this would be a major issue. People are so blase now about teen pregnancies, and so many teens become pregnant anyway.


This could work in Palin's favour, actually. She could use this to cement her pro-life stance, talking about teenage abortions, etc. The statement they released suggested that already, emphasizing that the daughter has chosen to keep the child, etc.

I agree, it's all in how she handles it, how people perceive HER character, morals, etc.

Americans are profoundly hypocritical anyway; they love redemption in all its myriad forms, so when they fuck up, they can still remain on God's good side. That's why the Republican party still exists.

The founding fathers didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance, and "Under God" wasn't added until last century, I believe?

All news to me!

I believe the Pledge is from the late 19th century, actually, so over 100 years after the founding of the US.

the first version was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance . It's written in 1892, and "Under God" wasn't added until 1954. I don't think we are expected to know, but for a political and Vice President candidate? It definitely could be categorized as a Dan Quayle type of gaff.

Yes it's only America that likes redemption. Definitely not Europe or Latin America too. Now say 3 Hail Marys, 2 Our Fathers and you're good to go.

On the subject of her daughter's pregnancy, I don't think it will hurt her much but it adds to the steady drip drip of tidbits that make it look like an unvetted and desperate choice.

McCain wanted Lieberman.

I find that Americans tend to conflate their histories, beckoning back to a collective founding moment which has become so heavily mythologized. I think people automatically assume that many of the things that are now traditionally 'American' beckon back to the Founding Fathers. I mean, if you'd ask most people if George Washington liked "America the Beautiful", I doubt many would realize that the question would be impossible to answer, given that the poem/song was written in the 1890s.

Um, "Under God" was not introduced to the pledge until 1954.

We're not talking about Europeans or Latin Americans here, are we?

I'd maintain that the redemption narrative is nowhere as strong as it is in evangelical America, though. It has to be to account for all the trespasses those conservative politicians, pastors, etc. commit constantly.

I was just pointing out it's also true for the Catholic church which as you know has had many priests take advantage of parishioners and ladles out redemption via the confessional. What you are describing is more about humanity in general.

I didn't want to get off on this side discussion, let's get back to talking about John McCain losing his marbles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance . It's written in 1892, and "Under God" wasn't added until 1954. I don't think we are expected to know, but for a political and Vice President
candidate? It definitely could be categorized as a Dan Quayle type of gaff.[/quote

Her not knowing this makes her even more relatable to the average American who doesn't know this either. The more of these kind of mistakes she makes, the more it helps her image in terms of attracting the vote of those who resent always having Ivy League elitists running the country.

Knowing it doesn't make one Ivy League elitist. If not having certain level of knowledge applicable to a particular job makes one more relatable to average American, we may as well keep electing Bush.

I hope you're kidding.

Palin's husband was arrested for a DWI in 1984, a McCain spokesperson comfirms. Something else the campaign "already knew?"

Where have you been Chris? I miss you

I don't think that will matter as much as that he's a snowmobile racer. It just makes it all seem so silly.

If it worked for getting Bush elected twice, why not?

Busy as shit. I'm in Florida visiting my bf for a couple weeks and killing time while he's at work...no work or school for once. Will be short-lived.

A couple of thoughts:

People may or may not know that "Under God" appeared only in the 1950's in the pledge of allegiance. It is a matter of trivia for most people but as a politician who wants to dictate policy they should know that at least.

Here Teenage daughter being pregnant. What do you expect she is pro life and this is what happens when you are both pro life and anti contraceptive people get pregnant because people have sex. It shows to me that she is not a hypocrite as most politicianswith that stance have almost very few kids and even fewer grandkids---which means that they never get laid or have the most even feratility cycle and follow the calender and tempeture cycles to the T. Not that this is a good stance to have as it is ultimately destructive in any place other than Alaska.

McCain lost the Experience argument but he also took away some of the historical sense of the election-either way there will be a change in the White House.

It will be interesting to see the VP debates. I am curious to see how much Biden will have to bite his tounge--Even the most staunch hardcore feminist will not really stand to see a woman being bullied around. Any negative effect from it IMO would not be votes from McCain but rather less entusiam and more votes that stay home. If McCain had chosen Elizibeth Dole on the other hand Biden would be able to take his gloves off.

I still think McCain should of chosen a Tranny because that wold of been completely left field and hilarious.

Final reason McCain chose Palin....She won't shoot anyone in the face hunting Quayle!

The whole point is for people not to have sex. Collateral damage was never part of the calculation.

It's not really about not knowing when the "Under God" part is added. I agree that is a matter of trivia. But the bigger issue is she didn't know The Pledge of Allegiance itself was only drafted more than 100 years after The Declaration of Independence.