So where's Bridget?(McCain is ashamed?)

Subject: So where's Bridget?(McCain is ashamed?)

I don't know if you remember what happened with her during the 2000 campaign, but it was pretty nasty. Oh, and it was the repugs that did it to her, not the dems. But anyhow, I don't blame him for keeping her out of the spotlight. She's what, 16-17 now? That sort of nonsense would probably hurt her a LOT more than it did back then. If anything, he's probably passing up an opportunity to show how diverse and whatever he is by utilizing her.

BTW- She was at his event last night for hurricane relief.

daver, could you refresh me on what happened in regards to her in 2000?

Bush's campaign did "push polling" -- asking voters in South Carolina "hypothetically" whether they would still consider voting for McCain if they knew he had a black child...

(Barack Obama has two!!!)

Except she's Bangladeshi, not black. Though I guess that distinction was lost on some of the voters in South Carolina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/18cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A smear campaign during the primary in February 2000 here had many in South Carolina falsely believing that Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. Mr. McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question.

In the years that followed, many around Mr. McCain said, the South Carolina ghosts were not easily exorcised for Mr. McCain or the people close to him. Just a few months ago, at the onset of this campaign, Bridget, now 16, summoned Mr. McCain’s aides and asked them to explain in detail what had happened in South Carolina and to give assurances that it would not happen again.

Mrs. McCain was also unsure about another run. The ultimate decision was in her hands, she said, and she was deeply influenced by the feelings of Bridget, who only learned about the events of 2000 when she Googled herself last year.

...

People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.

...

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, and the entire Bush team strongly denied involvement, though it was clear Mr. Bush was the beneficiary of the campaign.

apollonia666 wrote: she was deeply influenced by the feelings of Bridget, who only learned about the events of 2000 when she Googled herself last year.

The first time you google yourself is very, very special...

man, that is so sad.

somehow i had missed knowing that story -- although, come to think of it, i did have a half-memory that mccain had an illegitimate mixed-race child, all Strom Thurmond style. that's some nice smearing. rove, i assume?

The thing apollonia posted. It was some pretty brute depraved shit to pull on an eight year old, if you ask me.

I know a lot of people here don't buy the maverick label on McCain, but that is because when you are a dem the difference between McCain and the std repug is pretty small. If you ARE a straight line repug though, he is a serious maverick. And they really took a special thing where Cindy McCain had done a LOT of volunteer work and ended up adopting this Bangladeshi girl, and turned it into a dirty ugly John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. I'm not a McCain fan, but I found the whole thing pretty horrid and awful.

I think it speaks to the fact that McCain is an idiot that he came back to run again. But anyhow, I don't think that he is *hiding* her, but I don't fault him one iota for keeping her a bit out of the spotlight. Especially when there are so many _other_ things to fault him for!

daver wrote: I think it speaks to the fact that McCain is an idiot that he came back to run again. But anyhow, I don't think that he is *hiding* her, but I don't fault him one iota for keeping her a bit out of the spotlight. Especially when there are so many _other_ things to fault him for!

This^^^!

There are plenty of absolutely valid things worth questioning about both McCain and Palin in terms of their records (or lack thereof), their character, and their beliefs without stooping to attacks on their families.

agreed.

on another note, how come we're not hearing a lot of "doesn't it make mccain a bad father with poor judgment to run when it might hurt his daughter to be scrutinized/used against him in a smeary way?" the way we're hearing about what a bad mother palin is for opening bristol up to attack?

sweet tea wrote: agreed.

on another note, how come we're not hearing a lot of "doesn't it make mccain a bad father with poor judgment to run when it might hurt his daughter to be scrutinized/used against him in a smeary way?" the way we're hearing about what a bad mother palin is for opening bristol up to attack?

The difference is that Palin brought her daughter into the campaign when it was totally unnecessary for her to do so, when if Trig is in fact her child, she could have released her medical records to prove that unequivocally. Instead, she came out with "my daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock so she couldn't have been the mother of that child." Palin chose to bring her daughter's out of wedlock pregnancy into the campaign rather than directly address the issue of who is in fact Trig's mother.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=14590

Carnivore wrote: The difference is that Palin brought her daughter into the campaign when it was totally unnecessary for her to do so, when if Trig is in fact her child, she could have released her medical records to prove that unequivocally. Instead, she came out with "my daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock so she couldn't have been the mother of that child." Palin chose to bring her daughter's out of wedlock pregnancy into the campaign rather than directly address the issue of who is in fact Trig's mother.

Not to contradict Salon, but that isn't exactly how it went down.

daver wrote: Not to contradict Salon, but that isn't exactly how it went down.

And you believe it differs in what particular?

The republicans only exploit children when it's to their benefit - when it's part of the message narrative - like tonight when they drag those 2 17-yr-olds into the spotlight - right after they told all of us that they were "off-limits"

The Gop is a bunch of fucking hypocrites and have sold out completely to the evangelical radical right

Livetotravel wrote: The republicans only exploit children when it's to their benefit - when it's part of the message narrative - like tonight when they drag those 2 17-yr-olds into the spotlight - right after they told all of us that they were "off-limits"

The Gop is a bunch of fucking hypocrites and have sold out completely to the evangelical radical right

Chelsea clinton wasn't exploited during the Lewinsky days with all the pictures of her standing between her parents holding both of their hands?
John Edwards wasn't exploiting his family during hs wife's cancer while he was boning the camera girl telling her "We'll be together once my wifes dead"?
Barack Obama didn't exploit his family when they went on access hollywood?
Joe biden isn't exploiting his family by using his first wife's tragic death as a talking point?
Palin would like the media to highlight that her son is leaving for Iraq and ignore her daughters situation.
Even McCain who historically strongly resisted using his own children for political gain has changed somewhat.

So the idea that somehow either party holds a monopoly on exploting their families is silly. Every politician, of every party has exploited every beneficial aspect of their personal lives and families when they need to.

I give McCain some credit for not parading his family in front of the cameras, unlike the Palin's shameful display of passing around their 'special needs' infant.