"Fierce Argument"

New York Times, front page Tuesday September 2:

A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers

When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was introduced as a vice-presidential pick, she was presented as a magnet for female voters, the epitome of everymom appeal.

But since then, as mothers across the country supervise the season’s final water fights and pack book bags, some have voiced the kind of doubts that few male pundits have dared raise on television. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

You're kidding, right?

Here toward the end of 2008 our paper of record is seriously devoting major front-page column-inches to a "debate" questioning whether a woman can have a family and work?

I thought we put that kind of argument to bed a long time ago; that only Neanderthals argued over it any more. What's next, "she can't be veep, who will cook for her husband?" Golly gee, if Hillary had won the nomination, Bill'd be living on TV dinners. And it explains why Cheney's daughter is gay - dad was too busy.

Not satisfied with dragging the discussion back to Betty Crocker's kitchen in 1955, the Times adds:

“How is this really going to work?” said Karen Shopoff Rooff, an independent voter, personal trainer and mother of two in Austin, Tex. “I don’t care whether she’s the mother or the father; it’s a lot to handle,” she said, adding that Ms. Palin’s lack of national experience would only make her road more difficult.

Oh, it the inexperience! Nice touch. Well, that certainly cleared up a thing or two... like who you plan to vote for in November. Hey - How about that father of two young girls who lacks any executive experience and is running for the other job, the one where you actually have to do something all the time? Apparently, there is no "fierce argument" about his ability to juggle job and daddy duties.

So where, exactly, is this "fierce argument" the Times cites playing out?

Is it coming from the Right? Hillary supporters? Obama's base of voters? Who is taking the anti-working side of this argument? Why have I only heard about this huge national issue now, and not during Hillary's or anyone else's campaign?

There is no end to the policy differences that Democrats can attack Sarah Palin on. Have at it. But there is no excuse for this kind of attack, particularly when it involves trashing progress that women fought long and hard battles to achieve. And remember, 30% are Republicans, 35% Democrats, but 54% of voters are women.

This article, its utterly fake "fierce argument," and the Times are a joke and a disgrace. Sexism has no more a place in the race of 2008 than racism does. No one would tolerate a "fierce argument" on the ability or right of of a black person to be President. No one should tolerate a "fierce argument" over a woman's ability or right to raise a family and work.

Seriously, tell me where is this "fierce argument" playing out other than on the front page of the Times?