Still, I found some of the subject matter disconcerting and chilling. Some people on DailyKos are falling all over themselves to praise McCain's performance, saying "we're lucky that McCain didn't show up sooner." It's like he hasn't spent the past few weeks calling Barack Obama a terrorist sympathizer. It's like he wasn't on Letterman merely hours ago whining about the the town halls and John Lewis' remarks & saying G. Gordon Liddy was less dangerous than Bill Ayers because Liddy went to jail. I bet McCain won't be so complimentary tomorrow. Thank God that Letterman exposed him tonight. It doesn't help that most of the headlines say "McCain Charms the Crowd" or other such nonsense.

It's infuriating to see the press (and other politicians) laughing at Palin, for instance. If they think she's such a joke, why aren't they writing more stories about her? Why aren't they reporting on her abuse of power scandal? Why are they pretending that this dangerously unqualified person might not be heading our government?

I'm not against jokes, but I can't find certain things funny now. Jokes about Barack Obama being the Messiah may be funny. Jokes about ACORN (which is currently being investigated by the FBI while Bush roams free) aren't.

I guess I'm just trying to say that I wish we had a truly independent press, not a bunch of lackeys. I wish politicians couldn't do heinous things and then joke them away or chalk them up to "politics as usual." I wish journalists wouldn't let them. Perhaps I'm too partisan, but -in general- I'd rather see Democrats yelling at Republicans than laughing with them. Of course, the candidates aren't going to fistfight at a charity dinner. But, I'm sure you get my point. For instance, I loved Harry Reid's statement that he wasn't going to go around praising McCain, that he wasn't going to pretend he wasn't abusive and difficult to work with. Reid made this statement weeks ago, while too many Democrats (including one I greatly respect, Russ Feingold) were praising McCain.

This DailyKos diary sums up a lot of my feelings.
The Al Smith dinner and my grip on reality...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/17/0921/6465/450/633135
An excerpt:
There have been more and more of these contradictory messages over at least the last eight years. The president says there are weapons of mass destruction we have to disarm in Iraq. We invade. No weapons. Who cares? He makes jokes at a dinner, looking under couches for those weapons (after thousands of American soldiers have died in a similar search) and the reporters who are supposed to sort out reality for us laugh. I mean, am I crazy? Am I seeing the same thing everyone else is?

You say you wouldn't feel comfortable telling a woman you impregnated to have an abortion. That's why it's HER choice, not yours or the government's. Hers and hers alone.

Moreover, I happen to believe that just not wanting to have kids IS a valid reason for getting an abortion. Is there something inherently selfish about choosing not to be a parent? Why should someone else decide how many children a woman has? Another woman's choice to have an abortion has absolutely no negative impact on my life.

There are also instances where a woman decides to have an abortion after previously giving birth. Who is to say that a woman should have 3 kids she can't adequately support as opposed to 2 or 1? Is she selfish? What if a woman is in an abusive relationship and knows that having a child would only complicate matters?

You say that it "is a terrible thing when a life that is created has to be destroyed." Abortion is NOT murder or the destruction of a life. I think it is very shortsighted of you to imply that. What about the possibility of destroying a pregnant woman's life by forcing her to carry to term? What about illnesses that develop late in pregnancy? On another note, the fact that some women might feel guilty after the fact is not reason enough to deny choice to all women or to justify being anti-choice. Think of the alternative: imagine the mental health of a pregnant woman who isn't allowed to have an abortion as she preferred.

You say that you spend a lot of time thinking about these things. But the fact remains that you will never get pregnant, ever. You will never have to go through childbirth. It is simple for you to suggest adoption when it's not your body. Childbirth is a lot safer than it was years ago, but there are still health concerns (minor and major, physical and mental) to consider when giving birth. There are plenty of children right now waiting to be adopted. What's stopping people from adopting these children?

I realize he was talking about women requesting mental health exceptions in their third trimester. But, he still sounded pretty flippant to me; it was amplified by the fact that he was talking to a Christian magazine that has published more than a few anti-choice articles.
Moreover, the instances of women requesting mental health exceptions in their third trimester has got to be extremely rare.

Moreover, I think it takes us into very messy territory when we try to start defining who should be allowed to have an abortion and who shouldn't. There are more than a few people who don't think mental stress/concerns about mental health are a legitimate reason to get an abortion (it reminds me of the people who think postpartum depression is just a bad case of the blues). I cringed when I say Barack Obama make a similar statement. We have a long way to go in this country before we have mental health parity. Is there any guarantee that bans won't hurt women with mental health concerns?

If a doctor says that an abortion is medically safe, the courts should respect that.

To me, the argument that women should "choose life" or adoption except in cases of rape or incest or life endangerment doesn't hold for a variety of reasons. What if a woman is financially unable to take care of a baby? What if a woman simply doesn't want children?

The adoption argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the woman would still be carrying the baby for nine months. If she's poor and can't afford the baby, who is going to pay for her prenatal care? Pregnancy is stressful enough if you want to have the baby. Imagine pregnancy for a woman who does not want to have a baby. Women should not be forced to have children if they don't want to. Moreover, women should not have to justify why they don't want children. The government isn't asking people to justify why they want to give birth. Women who don't want to give birth - for whatever reaon - should have that same courtesy.

You state that "abortion is a terrible thing." I have to unequivocally disagree. Abortion may be a difficult decision for some women to make, but that does not make it "terrible." Despite what conservatives say, women who have abortions aren't all driven to suicide by feelings of guilt. They don't think of themselves as selfish murderers. Abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure. It does not need to have morality or the stigma of words like "terrible" ascribed to it.

I must add that I am "pro-life" as well and I hate how conservatives and opponents of choice have co-opted this term. I'm against senseless wars and the hideous death penalty. I'm for universal health care and decreasing crime and improving education (including comprehensive sex education that decreases unwanted pregnancies). I'm for stem cell research and more affordable childcare and longer paid maternity/paternity leave. Opponents of choice are often quite concerned with fetuses, not so much with the children or their parents after the birth. People who are truly "pro-life" would concentrate on improving the quality of life of the people on this Earth. They would not be trying to legislate the reproductive decisions of half this country's population.