When I first came across the Babygate diary post at DKos last night, I thought there was a legit story, but that the diarist should never have posted photos of the daughter (the pregnant one, I refuse to repeat her name).  It is the nightmare of all self-image nightmares to have the entire nation analyze the roundness of a sixteen year-old girl's mid-section.  Just icky and awful, in so many ways.

Now, we have the news that she couldn't have been pregnant then, because she's pregnant now.  Which completely ends the story.  The problematic behavior indicated by the original speculation was that the family made the daughter lie to cover up the "shame" of teenage sexual activity.  It would have indicated an archaic moral mindset whereby "fallen" girls were shipped off to convents to protect the family "honor."  Now that the family has revealed publicly that this same teenager, still unmarried, is pregnant, they have shown they do not follow this outmoded code of conduct. 

The argument that this story somehow reveals important information about the judgment of the VP candidate is akin to similar arguments about John Edwards and, yes, the big dog himself, Bill Clinton.  The GOP spent years arguing that Clinton's sexual behavior as President revealed a failure of character that spoke to his fitness to assess matters of public import.  It was a back-door argument that was easily refuted by Clinton's public record of sound judgment which gave us eight years of peace and prosperity.  Arguing that Babygate reveals shortcomings in McCain's and Palin's judgment is precisely the same back-door argument.  If Palin has formed reasonable positions on matters of foreign and domestic policy, then her decisions regarding the management of her own pregnancy or those of her daughter are completely irrelevant.  Just as Clinton's sexual dalliances were irrelevant to the performance of his public duties and obligations.

As to the politics behind the argument, there's nothing to be gained in the long run by stooping to their level.  It won't quash the conservative enthusiasm for her selection.  Evangelicals love nothing more than to forgive a repentant "sinner."  It allows them to combine feelings of superiority with offerings of purported charity.  I think the furthest this point can be taken is in Jake Tapper's question, "what would the right have done if Obama had a child in similar situation?"  But there isn't much to be gained there.  And I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the quickest way for this to be resolved is by releasing the candidate's medical records (which I thought was standard operating procedure), but that doesn't change my mind about the sancity of privacy in deciding matters of child-bearing. 

We'll have ample opportunity to examine Palin's quality as a potential VP.  She's a pork-loving pretender to the role of reformer.  She's a political ally of the uber-corrupt Ted Stevens.  She's a neophyte on foreign and national affairs.  She believes in Creationism, abstinence-only sex-education (which I detest regardless of her child's experience), and that the founders were still around when "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s.  Her elevation comes out of a twin desire to poach Clinton supporters and stoke the ditto-head crowd (politics, strange bed-fellows, etc).  It shouldn't be that difficult to question her judgment, and the judgment of her benefactor at the top of the ticket.  Leave the children out of it.  Period.