Don't worry this won't cost him the election. The fact that he's less popular than Obama and not as good a candidate will cost him the election. The pick of this corrupt woman will just make him lose by a larger margin.

If Obama does happen to lose, will you please post some pics of your imploded head for us?

I can't do that, but I will take a photo or two of me paying out about $3,000 I've made in bets.

Obamas response to the pregnancy was a master stroke in my opinion.

And the proper one. Her kid getting knocked up in High School has nothing to do with it. The daughters of people who promote early sex education & contraception, also get knocked up.

Delaying medical attention, and flying, after her water broke, might make some people question her priorities. OK, fair question, but leave the kid out of it.

Harassing her ex-brother, and lying about it, is more interesting to me.

Governor “Squeakyclean”….or not. about half way down the page.

Very interesting if it's true. Custody battles can get pretty nasty, and the line between truth and fiction often becomes very blurred as we all know. Still, doesn't look good for her though.

Sorry but dishonesty and hypocrisy in a candidate is important to me, even if it's in their home life. Her daughter's pregnancy are as politically important as John Edward's relationship with the woman he cheated on his wife with or the blow job Clinton got.

The public has no right to know about these things, but they should be out in the open when someone wants to act like a pious and holy person who tells other how to live their lives. If someone wants to create laws to force their Christian morality down the throats of others, they should live up to the same standard.

Yeah...we should all be responsible for the mistakes others make.

eta: Of course, this is definitely not a very libertarian viewpoint.

Just remember Radar has a violent and unreasoning prejudice against anything with a Republican label -- for all that the Democrats are manifestly the bigger socialists, which are about as antilibertarian as a viable American political philosophy gets. He avoids understanding this. He probably won't go near the elephants at the zoo.

I didn't say she was responsible for the mistakes someone else made. She's responsible for her own mistakes, as in the mistakes she made when raising her daughter, or in focusing on her career rather than being focused on raising her kids in a way that was consistent with the morality she claims to subscribe to and which she's trying to shove down everyone else's throat.

The woman doesn't believe in evolution. That alone proves her to be a nutjob.

For the record, Republicans are more socialist than Democrats and Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats.

"...would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives" That's far from shoving down throats.

And so you indulge in rumor-mongering and overstatement. Care to apply your own standards to yourself?

True, abstinence is just about as unrealistic as say getting even a tenth of the country to believe your views on taxes, national defense, or... really just about any damn thing you've hung your flag on. Completely unrealistic. But here's the thing, I don't consider you a nutjob because I disagree with you. Why is it that she must be a nutjob if she disagrees with you?

Pfffft! Facts? Facts can be used to prove anything.

The truth doesn't change based on the number of people who believe in it. I contend that anyone who thinks evolution is false and creationism is true is mentally deficient. It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of having the ability to discern science from fairy tales.

The majority of the world believed the world was flat. The majority of the United States believe income taxes are legal. The majority of America is stupid enough to think the federal government has powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution. They are all equally correct in their beliefs.