‘Course, the real issue is whether Janet Napolitano has what it takes to be our DHS chief. Personally, I don’t know if someone who endorses a “Crescent of Embrace” should be in charge of security, but that’s just me.

“I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?

Campbell Brown regarding Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.
Sept/ 2008

RobCon on December 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM

NewsBusters has an article expanding on your point.

mjk on December 3, 2008 at 1:03 PM

I’m single and kid-free as well and ICAM! I have gotten the old “You won’t mind staying late/working the weekend/holiday, will you?” pitch myself many times. I’m not sure if that’s more a gender bias thing or an anti-single people thing, but it IS annoying and it’s a ridiculous and unsubstantiated assumption that because we’re unmarried and have no kids that we are free and willing to spend our sadly unfulfilled lives slaving away in the office 80 hours a week. I enjoy my job, but I work to live, not the other way around. AND I would even make the argument that I have LESS time to spend working because I don’t have someone at home to share the chores with me. Groceries need to be bought? I do it. Car needs a tune up? I do it. Dog needs walking? I do it. Elderly grandmother needs a lift to the doctor’s office? I do it. Squirrels need to be evicted from the attic? I do it. I do ALL the cooking, ALL the cleaning, ALL the home repairs, ALL the bill paying. And this is stuff that would still exist to be done if I had a husband and kids. But the kids could be made to load and empty the dishwasher, the husband could be tasked with paying the bills. I don’t have that luxury. Anything that has to get done around here has to be done by me. And, believe it or not, I actually DO enjoy having some free time to read, or surf the Internet, or watch TV. If that’s called not having a life, I don’t know what more I can say. I’d like to invite ol’ Ed down here to my neck of the woods and let him live my non-life for a couple of weeks. He’d need a vacation when he was done.

That said, I think the bigger issue with this clip is Campbell Brown’s glaring hypocrisy. She blasted Sarah Palin for daring to consider running for VP when she has five kids at home, but now she’s outraged that Ed would suggest that having a family is a liability to someone seeking a career in higher public office. How these people get by with calling themselves journalists I surely do not know. And to answer her question whether a man would be held up to these same standards, the answer is a resounding NO as no one ever bothered to question whether it was possible for Joe Blow Biden to manage a career in the Senate AND parent his children, and he didn’t even have the benefit of an active and involved spouse as Sarah Palin does.

Campbell Brown has become much more “watchable” since she left NBC and went to CNN.

D2Boston on December 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM

Campbell has always been ‘watchable’… listenable is another matter

Apprently, no one has a corner on the outraged market.

I’m outraged that I’m not outraged! Errr, well I’m…just outraged!
I’ll need more time to flesh it out, but still, I’m pissed!

Apprently, no one has a corner on the outraged market.

I’m sure some of us would welcome a respite from the bathrobes and the basements.

You omitted the Batman pajamas, fuzzy slippers, and Cheetos!

I am deeply offended by that. I happen to lead a fun and fulfilling life. And I enjoy my life. I resent the idea that I am somehow not a real person because I don’t have children or a husband or that my life is somehow less interesting or valuable because of that.

Screw you.

What the hell are you talking about? He didn’t say she was not a real person. He said she was perfect. Are you high or just stoned on your own specialness?

Besides we all know Palin’s kid was impregnated by the holy spirit anyway, not parental neglect.

LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Very offensive comment.

Thanks for demonstrating your level of class.

What ****ing qualifications does she have?

lodge on December 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM

errr … none.

next question …

Maybe Napolitano had some abortions, …

Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM

errr … no. See the response below.

Sorry I can’t resist…….who would want to “cross pollinate” with her anyways?

grapeknutz on December 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM

next question …

how is Napolitano any worse than say, George W. Bush?

ColtsFan on December 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM

regarding, say, the border and immigration; no difference.

Y-not on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Y-not, I still do not see the offense, so I will agree to disagree with you on this. But a couple of follow up points

Ed Morrissey is not a woman, but he picked up on the offensiveness of Rendell’s comments. My husband did as well.

Ed and I have the same hairline, so I agree he is not a woman, but I can find dozens of people who agree with me, and many of them posted here. Each of us applied our own filters to this one and read more or less into what he said. I disagree with Ed on this.

Race has nothing to do with it.

I agree, but I wanted to just point out that there is only one group that is not hypersentative or allowed to be… they are not all men, and they are not all white, but a subgroup shared by both.

Maternity leaves can really disrupt a workplace. Is it legal or appropriate to factor that into a hiring decision? Nope.

Is it appropriate? It would be in a free and open market, but it is not legal, so it no longer is appropriate. Personally, I think it is a nice benefit for families, and I think it is good business.

I can’t think of a male candidate for a position whose family situation was brought up as a factor… Can you?

Everytime a married woman runs for higher office, the husband is brought up. Bill Clinton was brought up for Hillary, Todd Palin (as you noted) for Sarah, but local Congressional and Senate contests are not national, so it comes up less frequently in national politics.

The point is that when politicians compliment appointees, they do so on their merits, not on their family status.

This is the crux of the disussion, but it was a soundbite from a larger conversation. Rendell did not say that was her only qualification. Obviously if she were considered a terrible candidate except for her marital status, he would not have complemented her at all.

Often it seems that any slight, real or otherwise, that occurs against a female, it is always taken in a negative light. The fact that this was said regarding Napolitano has everyone jumping on the “he said it ONLY because she is a woman” bandwagon. Could it be that he said it and it had nothing to do with her lack of Y chromosomes?

Just maybe…

Not for those men Campbell, but I seem to remember you taking great delight with that debate with Palin

Butters on December 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM

The most straightforward analysis of Campbell and her ilk.

btw, Butters, “Loo, loo I’ve got some apples, you have some too?” ;^}

Now, his endorsement of Napolitano is the real problem here. After Al Qaeda ‘tests’ Obama we’ll see just how clueless this chick is.

Maybe Napolitano had some abortions, making her more acceptable to Dems?

Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM

I’m thinking there would never be a reason for Napolitano to have an abortion – unless her “friend” broke up with her after Napolitano was artificially inseminated and the Janet Reno look-alike didn’t want to be punished with a child?

Just a guess.

LOL, sorry, I crack myself up sometimes…

irongrampa on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Is my comment worse than Dan Quayle’s comment on bastard children?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Napolitano is a good pick, but Rendell’s comments are offensive.

“Assumption” Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination

… “assumption” stereotyping, which deals with instances where an employer is motivated by their beliefs about what women will do, given their family status.
In these situations, the employer’s concerns about how an employee or job applicant’s home life could affect their job performance are often valid in theory, but not in application. In cases such as these the employer only assumes that the employee will not be willing or able to do the job and has no reason (other than stereotypical views of women) to make their assumptions.