[Larue]

I am watching a recap of the convention. And I am sort of, well, floored. Polictics aside. Did they actually take an infant into the convention and parade them around on stage? I am going through a home study for our next adoption, and well let's just say, if I did something like this, we wouldn't pass. An infant in the middle of a national convention?! Are you kidding me?! Wow!

On the other side of the coin, as some of the other forum members mentioned, I am the breadwinner in my family. I also travel about 25% of the time, and when I am gone, DH is Sabrina's primary caregiver. Does that make me a bad mother? I have to say...I REALLY, REALLY hate the double standard. And in that sense, I sympathize with Palin.

Very interesting...

[Mariais5]

Laura ~ When was the last time that a candidate DIDN'T have their family on stage with them at a convention?

Michelle Obama handed her girls a microphone and gave them the stage to talk with Barrack last week at the DNC.

I don't understand your objection to having an infant at the convention.. Thousands of babies go to crowded places every day.. And, I'll just bet if you were accepting the nomination to be the Vice President of the USA, your social worker would give you the ok to take your infant with you..

[pamcita]

Many working Moms choose to pursue demanding careers with young children, even infants, at home. It's never easy, but balancing work vs family strikes me as a personal choice. Opportunities, resources, personality, ambition... all play a role. There are many paths to raising good, healthy kids. I wouldn't make Sarah Palin's choices for myself, but if she's comfortable with the arrangements she's crafted to balance work and family, more power to her.

But I am disturbed, or maybe disappointed, by reports that she was back at work 3 days after giving birth to her son with Down Syndrome. It's like she had to prove that giving birth (let alone to a baby with special needs!) wasn't going to slow her down or change anything. As if, to play ball with the big boys, she felt she had to choose work over family in such an extreme, 1950s male stereotype way.

It sends an unfortunate message: that taking time to recover and bond with an infant isn't a need, but a option for slackers.

It's too bad she didn't use her position as governor of Alaska to say, maternity leave is important (paternity leave too!) and I'm taking my paid leave because it's good for me, and good for society, and workers at all levels are entitled to this. She missed a chance to set an example: you can be a head honcho and also value children, family milestones, personal life. That would have showed more courage, and vision, and judgment.

It makes me wonder if her need to out-macho the men could lead her to support a military intervention, rather than risk looking weak (girly).

[Stormster]

Originally Posted by Waiting4Celeste

I gave up my career to be a SAHM, and honestly there are days that I seriously question my decision.

Not because I don't enjoy being a mother - I LOVE it! But there are times that I wonder what message I am sending to my kids about their dreams?

To give up their dreams if they choose to be parents?

For me the career came first (and more easily) and being mother WAS my dream. It's not as glamorous certainly, but I think I am doing the right thing for DS. I hope what I did teaches him that people come first, before money and achievement. I know this wasn't your point but what you wrote just struck me. If our chidlren arent' our dreams what is?

[bromanchik]

I have no problem with her being a career mom, or her parenting skills. My issues are purely political. She talks out of both sides of her mouth. She rejected "the bridge to nowhere" but kept the money. She is a big talker about "not to earmarks" but hired a lobbyist for the town she was mayor of and had twice the amount of federal money per capita than the rest of Alaska, which was already one of the highest in the nation.

And to be really honest, it scares the $%#@ out of me that she would be a heartbeat away from the Presidancy. Given McCain's health history and age I would think he would have chosen more wisely. I, too, an insulted by this obvious choice to pander to women.

[SKL]

Originally Posted by pamcita

But I am disturbed, or maybe disappointed, by reports that she was back at work 3 days after giving birth to her son with Down Syndrome.

I've heard this one a lot too.

It's my understanding that she attended "a meeting" and took her child with her. Not that she left the child and sat in an office for 10 hours a day.

She's the governor of a state. I respect her decision not to completely hand over the reins to someone else after the people elected her to manage things. Does Pres. Bush hand things over to Cheney every time he gets sick? It's not the same as most jobs. To say a mother must handle this role differently is effectively saying a woman who might get pregnant can't have this job.

I had a boss who was back to work the same day she had a child. It was busy season. That was how she chose to handle it. Throughout most of human history, women went right back to work after giving birth. It's not outrageous to me at all. I would be outraged if it was "required" of all working women, but I certainly don't agree that because one woman does it, everyone else will have to.

People talk like having a DS baby should keep a mother shut up in the house more than other mothers. Here again, I find it interesting that other people, who have had little more than a glimpse of her child, think they know his medical needs. There are some DS kids who have a lot of medical issues, and others who don't. This child's parents know best how much time they need to spend with him. This is the sort of issue that nobody would even think to raise with a male candidate. The same comments go for whether Trig should have been carried onto the stage last night.

[stephjoel99]

There are women - mothers with infant children even, some with special needs - who are deployed in the armed forces all over the world, away from their families. Serving our country, whether it's in the military or in the White House, sometimes comes with great personal sacrifice.

I watched the HBO miniseries on John Adams, our 2nd president. He was sent to Europe during the Revolutionary War era to "lobby" if you will France and then he served as an ambassador to England after the war - and he was gone for literally most of his children's childhood and early adulthood. He would be gone for years and years at a time. He is considered a great American president - one of the founding fathers of our country. History has not deemed him a bad father to his own children because he didn't see them for 10 or so years.

Now obviously that's not even remotely on the scale of what we're talking about here, but serving our country doesn't always jive with what we consider a "normal" family life.

And Laura, you know I love you so I say this with great respect to you: candidates have been taking their families, yes even babies, to conventions since the beginning of conventions. The public wants to see the families - that's just the way it works. And I do not think there are homestudy providers who would find that objectionable.

[BrandyHagz]

Posting the same message here that I have posted on the other political discussion thread:

Good morning/afternoon everyone.

I am your Political Thread Joy Stomper. Nice to meet you.

I need to take a few minutes to chat about some rules/guidelines that, in the spirit if 'friendship', we should all try really hard to follow on this (and any other thread) regarding the "P" word.

Some of you haven't been around long enough to be a part of the elections four years ago...but a thread, very similar to this one, was created and what resulted was nasty bashing, clique'ish attacking and overall unpleasantness. We need to remember, regardless of our political affiliation, we're all here for a reason (whatever that might be). Please, take a few minutes to consider how your words will impact others. Simply because a few people might get a rise out of whatever catty remark you might make with regards to (insert certain political or potential political figure here) - that doesn't mean everyone will. It doesn't mean you should quash your opinions - it simply means you need to be kind/respectful in their delivery.

There are a number of topics, which I am happy to laundry list out for you if you'd like, that are SURE (I don't care how hard we try) to turn ugly...very ugly. This is one of them.

There is a huge potential for hurt feelings here...so just be a little extra cautious, if you would.

Thanks everyone - I know we can make this thread (and all the other threads) about politics a great place for spirited exchange and healthy debate...

[SaraAvaandLileesMama]

Well, I have to tell you this I was not interested at all with any political campaign until she came along. I feel that there is someone finally in office that knows what my life is like on a daily struggle with 5 kids. So she has my support. I think the good ol USA will do great with a mama in office!

[Stormster]

i think it comes down to whether or not you are pro choice not whether or not she's a woman. I am amazed that there are so many feminists on this site and so many who are voting for her. I don't think you can be a feminist and say that our bodies are not ours to control. I personally would not have an abortion. But it will be a huge setback for women to take away the choice. PLEASE think about that!

[busterleroy]

Not being difficult here, but I have to agree that I can't recall a candidate in history that didn't have their family on stage with them when they accepted a nomination or were sworn into office.

It makes me wonder, if she didn't bring the baby with them last night, would a whole new round of rumors started circulating? The baby was ill, she couldn't handle scrutiny of her family, he was afraid of crowds so she should not be running, they were germophobes... whatever.

[Waiting4Celeste]

Originally Posted by Stormster

For me the career came first (and more easily) and being mother WAS my dream. It's not as glamorous certainly, but I think I am doing the right thing for DS. I hope what I did teaches him that people come first, before money and achievement. I know this wasn't your point but what you wrote just struck me. If our chidlren arent' our dreams what is?

Good point and I agree with you.
My point was that if I had dreams to be a Mom AND work... I'd want my kids to be able to see that it is a possibility. Yes, it takes sacrifice, but I'd still want them to know that it can happen to them.
And there are a lot of people working in fields (Social Work - which is eventually what I want to do) that definitely don't do it for fame or money or achievement.
I think each family has to do what is best for them and as long as people have options, I'm cool with it.

[SKL]

Originally Posted by Stormster

i think it comes down to whether or not you are pro choice not whether or not she's a woman. I am amazed that there are so many feminists on this site and so many who are voting for her. I don't think you can be a feminist and say that our bodies are not ours to control. I personally would not have an abortion. But it will be a huge setback for women to take away the choice. PLEASE think about that!

I don't want to get into an argument on this issue, but I am very disappointed to see how many people are voting based primarily on abortion rights. As a lawyer, my study has informed me that abortion is not the business of the Federal government, which means the right of the states to determine this should not have been taken away. I have never cast a vote based on abortion positions, though I am staunchly pro-life. The presidential election needs to be about national security, the economy, constitutional freedoms (of which abortion isn't one in my opinion), our nation's place in the world. I have never heard of any other country where elections are so influenced by abortion rights or the lack thereof. But here, we have a female candidate and a huge opportunity to forge new paths. Sad to see that it's largely women who are against her, and largely because of her beliefs about what's best for her own gender.

I suggest it would be more uplifting to women if we came across as caring about the big things that the federal executive branch controls.

[Stormster]

I do think about all of the other issues as well. I lived in England and Europe for three years during the George W. Bush administration. I can't tell you how little respect the people I met have for the American government. Whomever is elected I sincerely hope will help turn that around and we can re-learn the art of diplomacy.

I want peace more than anything.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by SKL

I don't want to get into an argument on this issue, but I am very disappointed to see how many people are voting based primarily on abortion rights. As a lawyer, my study has informed me that abortion is not the business of the Federal government, which means the right of the states to determine this should not have been taken away. I have never cast a vote based on abortion positions, though I am staunchly pro-life. The presidential election needs to be about national security, the economy, constitutional freedoms (of which abortion isn't one in my opinion), our nation's place in the world. I have never heard of any other country where elections are so influenced by abortion rights or the lack thereof. But here, we have a female candidate and a huge opportunity to forge new paths. Sad to see that it's largely women who are against her, and largely because of her beliefs about what's best for her own gender.

I suggest it would be more uplifting to women if we came across as caring about the big things that the federal executive branch controls.

Interesting SKL - I am pro-choice (and also a lawyer by training, though I haven't practiced for many years). While I disagree with some of what you're saying here, I agree with you that abortion, while an important issue, should NOT be the main issue on which votes for federal office are based. It's very strange how it has become the bellweather of appropriateness on both the left and the right, I guess because it's considered to be symbolic of a certain type of values on both sides. I don't think that's good for the state of the country.

All that said, I'm not planning on voting for Palin - as my avatar demonstrates.