"Okay, V.P. is a really big, really cool job"

Yeah, but not really. VP's job is to get people talking about their nomination and to get the ticket some airtime. Once elected, not so much.

I know, I know . . . one heartbeat away and all that other tail-wagging-dog stuff. Still won't get me to vote for Obama.

I see where you're going with that, Amy... But eventually we can't be all control-freaky about how other people reproduce. Now, someone speak up if any of this is wrong (I almost bungled the abstinence thing):

Todd Palin is apparently a working man of spotless enthusiasm and good character. Between a union job in the oil fields and the family's private fishing business, he cared for his family with a six-figure income without a college degree.

But then his wife became Governor of Alaska. At that point, it's not like her career was a little gift & greeting card shop she was running to keep busy... She was going to have executive opportunities at the end of even one term that would have covered the needs of the family for many years to come.

Apparently both Todd & Sarah wanted a lot of kids. There must have been conversation along the way where these outcomes were discussed.

And FWIW, the newborn child will need lots of attention, but his character is not likely to be warped by failures that threaten other kids. If'n you catch my drift.

If the husband weren't such an apparently stellar guy, I might worry for the feelings of the youngest daughter (the one who wore the [plastic] tiara to Mom's inauguration). But the others are old enough to deal. The eldest son's going to Iraq; the eldest daughter's going to parenthood.

Parenthood doesn't mean you can never do anything else, ever. It was cool for Pelosi to get into politics with five kids, right?

I think about it this way: Sarah and her husband are in their mid 40's and just had a son with Down Syndrome. They make about $200,000 a year. From all reports I've read, they are very smart and have a very solid investment portfolio for a middle class family of 7. (And yes, $200,000 a year IS middle class no matter what Barry says.)

My daughter is almost 16. I'm 49. I have two fears: 1)I won't live long enough to see her be self sufficient, or 2) I'll live too long and be a burden to her emotionally and financially.

I buy lottery tickets.

Sarah and Todd Palin just hit the jackpot. If McCain loses, Sarah Palin will make millions. He if he wins, she makes millions. The honest way. The speaking fees alone would be enough to ensure not only all their kids will never have to worry about money, but they'll never have to worry about Trig when they get old, or if they die young.

And what an opportunity! She's a smart, strong woman. She will show her kids the world. At worst, it's a few months campaigning and then she goes back to being governor. If they beat the odds and they win? Anyone who has kids, and a real chance, who be nuts to pass up such an opportunity.

Eight years from now she and Todd and Trig, and any of the other kids who decide to, go back to Alaska.

Unless she decides to run for President. She'd be 60 when she leaves office. What a retirement.

I like her. I'm impressed with everything I've learned about her so far. If she doesn't fuck up tomorrow night, I think she'd make a great president.

Ima gonna have to say you are over thinking this Amy. Being a mom doesn't mean the kid is a growth on your neck. Being the stay at home mom that caters to the kids whims is a recent thing. Prior to that keeping the house was a ton of work, you may have had a large family because you were a farmer and everything was done by hand. Right now there are many who make the conscious decision to work and have kids. AND it is less likely now that there are older sibs to help. My mom owned a general store when I was a kid, and my baby sisters grew up in it.

I don't buy the idea that kids become juvie delinquents because mom works outside the house, any more than I buy the idea that the stressed out "soccer mom glorified cab driver" turns out better kids. YMMV of course but every situation varies. I think it's a load of codswallop to say that every mother must stay home with the kids. For some it is likely better that they go.

You are turning the decision to have children into a do-or-die thing, and if it worked that way, humans would never have started piling rocks on top of each other to keep out the cold.

I think you will find many more regrettful people who put their lives on hold to have children than regrettful people who simply wove the children into their whole lives.

What exactly do you teach children if you say that the world stops when they come on the scene? Either that they are way TOO important, or that you life ends when you have a family...

Well, maybe if McCain gives her a really long chain between her ankle and the stove?

Presidents and vice presidents have always had their families with them. Suddenly it's a problem.

Geez, Amy. I think you pissed off Republicans and "progressives" with this post.

Nice work!

You can bet your bottom dollar that the leftists that control the media are thinking EXACTLY what you wrote. However, they simply cannot say it because they'll have to placate the hoards of "feminist" harpies who's votes they desperately need.

You know, I disagree with Amy on this issue. However, it's something that she's written before, and will write again. I have no doubt that she would be writing EXACTLY the same thing if Barack Obama had chosen a female VP with a small baby. Amy is consistent in her views, and she's been unafraid to say this before and take flack from the left (among others).

What I object to is the people who would CRUCIFY a CEO or a Republican politician for suggesting that active motherhood and high-level responsibilities can't mix well, yet are perfectly happy to suggest such things about Sarah Palin. Tom Brokaw et al are saying things that would get the average Joe Schmoe sent straight to HR for "re-education" if he uttered them in the workplace. I have no doubt that Amy would be defending the CEO, the Republican politician or the Joe Schmoe.

Amy is one of the relatively few people out there who doesn't seem to be a Palin fan who doesn't seem terrified/enraged by the mere presence of the woman in the national scene. For that, I salute her. Yes, yes, that should be the minimum expectation, but I've come to realize that it's not over the past few days. Amy certainly doesn't need my permission to hold her views, but it's nice to come to a site where sanity reigns.

I like to keep 'em guessing!

Actually, the truth is, I just think about my views: I don't toe a party line. I wish more people would try it.

I have to say, I think a number of people who comment here are of the same mind -- i.e., they have minds and use them in deciding who and what to vote for; they aren't strict party line voters.

Presidents and vice presidents have always had their families with them. Suddenly it's a problem.

These people have FIVE children. And the woman has a Down's baby now, plus a small daughter. When you're governor, maybe you say, "Whoa, can't do it all." At least, if the husband is not the primary caregiver like my friend Glenn was for his kids. SOMEBODY has to be the primary caregiver.

What exactly do you teach children if you say that the world stops when they come on the scene? Either that they are way TOO important, or that you life ends when you have a family...

Life doesn't have to end, but again, you can't have it all. Or you shouldn't, because something will suffer, and it shouldn't be those kids.

I'm not saying women should all be chained to the stove for the rest of their lives the moment they have children. But you don't just get to squeeze them out, five of them, and just go full steam ahead because you have political ambitions.

Birth control, anyone?

You know, I disagree with Amy on this issue. However, it's something that she's written before, and will write again. I have no doubt that she would be writing EXACTLY the same thing if Barack Obama had chosen a female VP with a small baby. Amy is consistent in her views, and she's been unafraid to say this before and take flack from the left (among others).

Thanks, Marion -- truly appreciate that.

Man, I made a promise to myself to stay off the computer for the long weekend, and look what happens!

I don't know that Ms. Palin's bitten off more than she can chew; time will tell. I'm like Jaynie59, though. I have 2 girls, one almost 16, one almost 13. I'll be 51 at the end of the year. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but we do alright. I have a good job, we live fairly comfortably. BF kicks in the lion's share. We both pay our bills on time, and provide as best as we can. He's in better shape, retirement-wise; been with the same company for the past 25 years (a rarity, I know). Me, not so much, but I've got an IRA that I contribute regularly to. That said, I don't think I'll be able to retire at the same time BF does. I just don't have the money. Circumstances from my first marriage led to divorce and single motherhood, which I think I've handled fairly well so far. We've thrived and had fun doing it, for the most part. We haven't been on state assistance, ever. I've always been able (and had to) work, thanks to my parents' help with babysitting and such. I'm luckier than a lot of women I know who have kids and have had to pay for daycare, etc. Bottom line is, it's tough for any family these days if you don't have the resources to be self-sufficient. Lots don't. But that doesn't mean that they won't have children if that's what they want to do, whether they can afford them or not. I see some of my daughters' friends who are living in sub-optimal conditions, and there's little I can do about it. But they're doing the best that they can. If Ms. Palin is up to this task, good for her. Time will tell.

Super one-liner on Metafilter about Palin's pregnant teenage daughter:

Has anyone made a "Juneau" joke yet?

Like you, Amy, I'm single and childfree and I agree with you. Palin comes across like your typical 'working mother'. The kind that come in late, leave early, stick their job duties onto the childfree, then boast about how great they are at juggling.

Again, I disagree with you when it seems we'd agree. I agree kids come first, as in, you don't get to go drinking every night or bring home lots of boyfriends after you've got kids. I agree that dumping kids in daycare all day every day means you probably should've examined your priorities before you had kids. I agree that both parents working while the kid is in daycare, just to afford the $50,000 SUV's and weekly manicures, is wrong.

Does that mean I think a mom can do nothing once she's got kids? No! If the dad (or coparent) is able to step up, and there is every evidence he can, manly Amy's fantasy lumberjack or no, and mom can do something meaningful and possibly country-changing, then for Gods sakes go for it! It's a good example for your kids. The baby will be fine, special needs or no. I am not a hugely social person, my social circle does not encompass hundreds of people. But I personally know 3 familes where the dad stays home and mommy has the kickin' career. And this is in Texas. These families do just fine. Even when the twins were babies (interestingly enough they all have twins, and a few have other kids too) daddy did just fine. This infant has already had more breastmilk than most American babies get in life, having 4 months of it. Most moms here who do bf have stopped by then, so let's not act like weaning the kid to a bottle is going to irreparably harm it.

As for the teen who's preggers, yeah it sucks coming at this time for her, when she will get so much scrutiny and flak, but that was coming anwyay. Her mom was governer, she was gonna at least get local press for it. She made a decision as an adult that she was ready for sex. Unfortunately she did not make the decision to use BC like an adult. She's gonna have to suck up the consequences. She's not exactly innocent here, and luckily she will have lots of family support, unlike a lot of pregnant teens. Do I think that means she should be attached by those scumbags? No. Tht's crossing the line.

There aren't a lot of female CEO's in this world, but I have read about 2. Can't remember the company or women's names and will go research them later, have no tme right now, but they were great articles. One of them was talking about the challenges of being a mom in the workforce, and she said she's never tried to hide the fact that she was a mom. If she was leaving early to go to a dance recital, she left out the front door of the building etc etc. She was a great, great CEO, very successful. The other one worked away from home mon-thur. She flew in thur night and was a SAHM 3 days, then flew back to work. Daddy stayed home all the time. She told the reporter she had a deal that if her daughter ever asked her not to leave, she'd stop, but that never happened. Should these women (I'll post who they are and worked for later) have stayed home? I think not. And neither should Palin have to.

And for the poster on the previous thread who said she should stay home, if she's so pro-family etc etc, uh, HOW many men have run on family values platforms? And NOT stayed home? Double-standard there?

Do I think kids need parents devoted to them and a parent caring for them? Yes. Does it have to be mom? No. Not even if the kid has Down's.

"Has anyone made a "Juneau" joke yet?"

Maybe if the commenter searched "Juno" instead...

I'm not really getting why Palin is such a target. Is she more careerist than other politicians with families? Bill/Hillary Clinton. Is she a bad parent? One near-adult kid with a baby is doing pretty well these days. Is she a druggie/bathroom sex-seeker/other kind of raging hypocrite? Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers/any other Congressperson or advisor of same.

At this point I honestly think it's an issue of urban hipster prejudice against exburban families. They HATE them. Sarah Palin is like a black Jewish Gypsy running for office in Germany, c.1933, which is why she was a _brilliant_ (if 100% tactical) choice for VP. Andrew Sullivan's blog alone this past week has been worth several FNCs, NROs, and McCain's entire attack ad budget. These people don't even know what they sound like, and they're sinking Obama with every word. At least HE realizes that - after his statement on privacy yesterday, I have more respect for him than ever before.

The questions is, would you be asking the same question if Palin were a man? Obama has two young daughters--certainly being president would detract from his time raising them. I have yet to see one instance in which this question was raised.

As an aside, it's interesting that the NY Times has gobs of space for stories on Palin and her supposed "scandals," yet they have yet to say a peep about Bill Ayers or Tony Rezko (you know, things that might actually matter).

I think children (having three myself) are stronger than we sometimes think, or remember. Gov. Palin's older two are leaving the nest. I do not know your history Amy, but I did not check in with Mom and Dad that often, once I left home - meaning I was really working on my own wings.

I really worry and complain that my older two (eighteen and twenty) do not call me more often. I was asked how often I called home when I was in college. Not much - no chance for money anyway. What is really interesting is that my youngest, a daughter, is very independent. I think it has to do with the older siblings.

Bottem line, I must admit, is I really, really like Gov. Palin. I am probably looking for reasons to believe she is doing the right thing.

I am probably looking for reasons to believe she is doing the right thing.

Is there really reason to believe you won't find any?

"Is there really reason to believe you won't find any?"

I just cannot find any reason to believe that she isn't doing the right thing. I am just leaving open the fact that I am just getting too old, as my ex keeps telling me, to see things clearly.

Well, Amy, I do believe your views on this are based on concern for the children, and that's good. I haven't listened to Dr. Laura in the past few days, but I assume she's saying the same thing. However, unless I find out that Palin's kids are in daycare or have a full-time nanny, I am totally fine with her family situation. I'll readily admit that I like that she's a mom because I'm a mom, and I can relate to her. And I have personal experience that the stay-at-home dad idea works. I worked for two years full time while my husband was unemployed, with a baby and a toddler at the time. I prefer to be with my kids, so I went part-time when he got a job. But if I ever had a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity that would give us all the money we needed, my husband would gladly be the permanent stay-at-home parent.

For me, once you have a kid, you lose your right to put you first.

Amy's (oft stated) opinion here makes me wonder about a link between Palin's recent newborn and her teenage daughter's "surprise" pregnancy.

It can be tough to have your mom's fertility dramatically on display once again, just when you are coming into your own physical baby-making prime.

Palin's teenage daughter certainly lost her right to privileged claims on her mom's time when the infant brother arrived.

Having a baby herself might well be motivated in some tiny part by primal competition.

(I can certainly recognize this dynamic in my own wider family.)

A few years ago I would have agreed with Amy.

I definitely think kids need LOTS of direct interaction with parents when they are very young - up to 3 or 4 years. My wife stayed home during that time in our lives - but it could just have easily been me. That's a crucial window for emotional bonding and security, and for language and other development that needs one-on-one attention.

Beyond that age... quality day care can be really positive in the context of a stable family life.

My opinion about day care has shifted a lot since I moved to Israel - which has VERY well funded daycare, which almost everyone uses.

There are some problems - for example, I think Israelis' reputation for being rude and pushy is partly because of the daycare thing - but I don't see kids freaking out or feeling abandoned. And we are a pressure-cooker society.

I think Palin will have a LOT of help with the school-aged kids. And a stay in Washington will be an incredibly enriching experience for them compared with what they'd see in Alaska.

I agree/disagree with Amy.

Once in office, the Palins would have a large staff to help take care of all the children. To be sure the nannies, special ed teachers, and Secret Service agents to handle carpool duties may be a poor subsitute for mommy/grammaw, but it's more help than many working families have. The Vice-President's daycare is bound to be a bit better than the neighborhood Y where many of us take our kids. Honestly, Palin deserves some credit for maneuvering herself into a position where she will have more access to quality services for her children/grandchildren. (Only the best for the second-in-command, after all.) Sweet gig, sister!

Palin's pro-life and abstinence-only position is more worrisome. Her own family is a prime example of how the latter DOES NOT WORK. Her daughter's pregnancy demonstrates the personal consequences of public policy; abstinence only policy is not just a talking point in a candidacy, but sometimes comes home to wake one up in the middle of the night. She and her family may be well positioned and better able to withstand a blow of this nature, but I'd bet the majority of American families could not cope so well. I would hope that her own daughter's condition might cause Palin to rethink her position on sex education, but I doubt that it will cause her enough inconvenience to make much of a difference.

Amy: Your opinions are usually well thought-out, but I think you've left the reservation this time.

First of all, it is misleading to say that she has five 'children,' as if all five were still toddlers. The oldest son is in the Army already and therefore (one hopes) 100% adult. The oldest daughter is about to get married; she might still need financial support (depending on the character of her boyfriend -- which none of us know anything about), but she obviously doesn't need her nose wiped or her diaper changed anymore. It is one of the weird quirks of modern American culture that we consider a 17 y.o. female as a 'child.' For 99.999 % of human history, 17 y.o.'s were regarded as fully adults.

And furthermore, Palin is only planning to be vice-president; this is the 'job' that was famously described by a previous V.P. as "not worth a pitcher of warm ****." It's not like she was taking on a demanding job like being an all-night waitress or a WalMart cashier or something. The vice presidency is a four-year vacation, unless the old geezer happens to kick the bucket in the next four years, and the probability of that is surely much less than one percent.

Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how much emotional support and hands-on childcare support Palin is expecting to get from her own mother, from her mother-in-law, and from her husband. But it will probably be more than enough to ensure that her THREE children are well taken care of.

I just found your blog today. I enjoy reading political sites and was drawn in by this posting. I remember when my children were little, I often heard the saying, if you want something done, ask a busy person.

Having had four children born within six years, I was called upon often to run programs and head committees. It was a joy and the more I accomplished, the more I grew as a person. My kids were/are proud of me.

"For me, once you have a kid, you lose your right to put you first."

I respect those who've either made the decision to live child-free or have not had children for any of a myriad of reasons, but I am afraid that the unknown is more mysterious than the known. Some people can handle a lot of responsibilities with grace and dignity. Others fall apart if their manicure is postponed.

You don't lose any rights when you reproduce. I did think I might lose a few brain cells with each child but I actually found the opposite to be true.

I was never that organized as a single person though I was a high achiever. After becoming a mom, I had color coded calendars, I networked like a fiend and got more accomplished than at any other time in my life, including my time now as an empty nester. I miss those adrenaline filled days. Yes, I am projecting.

I don't agree with her on all of the issues (I am agnostic) but I am jazzed at the prospect of Governor Palin being the VP. I think she will be an amazingly competent, intelligent and dynamic VP and her children will be just fine (no reasonable person or any of their children, if they have them, is expected to be perfect and trouble-free.)

I was an Obama supporter early on (I even donated to his campaign, twice) but my crush has ended. He's a man. He's just a man. And I've had so many men before, in very many ways, he's just one more. Time for a breath of fresh air (yeah, the moose thing is cool) and for real change (not just a slogan). Go Sarah!

How many kids are too many? What jobs can't a woman hold if she has children?

I'm very curious where you'd draw that line. My humble opinion is that it depends on the woman, but I don't get paid to give advice.

Mrs D and I were both happy that she could be a full time stay-at-home mom while the kids were young. Others can't, or as in the case of my sister, don't want to.

Amen to these points, Fallon!!!

"You don't lose any rights when you reproduce. I did think I might lose a few brain cells with each child but I actually found the opposite to be true....

if you want something done, ask a busy person"

Had an utter moron sitting next to me in class last semester. She was a 26 yr. old living at home with Mum and Dad, working one night a week at Caribou coffee and taking two classes that semester. She asked if having kids had killed all our brain cells, since a bunch of us non-traditional students were laughing like loons about our kids. I pointed out to her that she should ask Heather for help studying, since Heather had four kids, worked two jobs part-time, and was pulling a 4.0 GPA and had the highest score in the class at 98.7%. I knew the 26 yr. old had a 72% and was falling further behind. Too much time on her hands. And in case anyone is wondering, Heather's 4 kids are delightful; good grades, respectful of elders, well behaved in public, and do chores to help keep the household running. Some people are just an inspiration to getting your stuff together....however, I DON'T happen to be one of them *grin*

My understanding is that Lewinsky was not an intern when the affair began.

I think what they did was between them and Hillary Clinton, and I think Bill broke his vows in a way I cannot respect, but I wouldn't diminish Lewinsky's responsibility with the claim she was an intern and so not at fault.

According to the Wacki Wacki Wiki, Lewinsky herself stated years later, "This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through."

They were both of age and she presumably knew exactly what she wanted, and what she was doing.

> Has anyone made a "Juneau"
> joke yet?

Yesterday.

In Palin's defense, I think if I were the mother of five, and one with special needs, I would prefer the distraction of being VP. And it's probably an easier job than being governor, teacher, or housewife.

Plus the cool plane.

Hey Dad, on what forum did you find that Juneau pic? Or did you make it? It's terrific.

Is money the only criteria? If you have enough money, go ahead and squirt out all the kids you want and then feel free to neglect them by pursuing a time-consuming carreer. Are you really all saying money/power is more important than children because, frankly, anyone who thinks so shouldn't have children.

Face it, this woman had a litter. (Hope, you don't mind I borrowed that to respond to this story on another blog, Amy; it is an apt way to put it.) And everything else aside, that in itself is irresponsible.

But I'm with Amy on this. 5 and a special needs? And a knocked-up teen daughter? And I'm rolling my eyes over this shot gun wedding. It's more apt to be like Reba McIntyre's show than independence. Does it make it okay because she can rent a place for these two 17-year-olds and pay their way? This is who we're trusting to devote herself to an office a heartbeat away from the most powerful person in our country. Our opinion of her politics aside, it's just not feasible.

And men have done it only because women have enabled them to do it. If her husband does fill her shoes all well and fine but I'm still not thinking much of her as a mother. Just as I don't think much of men who put money/power before kids. I don't think much of anyone with kids who works 60/70 hours a week -- whether it's a high-powered attorney or a blue collar worker getting all the overtime they can get while the getting's good so they can buy a little extra for their family.

Apparently, money is the be all and end all of everything. If you can give your kids money and an occasional passing pat on the head, you're okay as a parent.

Let's face it, when you bring another person into this world, no matter how you handle it, you are responsible for their being here and that makes you responsible for them. Period.

You don't get to put you first any more. Tough shit.

> she was a _brilliant_ (if 100%
> tactical) choice

Right, yes, fine: He wants to be president and is deploying his resources to make it happen.

This is like the guy who complained about Palin being a "diversity" choice. Well, like, sure... If McCain's such a weak candidate that he can only accrue votes by pandering, then yes, that's what's going on here.

But if it's a pander, it's one that appeals to HALF the population. (Brilliant! Masterstroke! Coup! The cunning of a slithering Arizona viper!)

Eventually, we have to admit that yes, these people are trying to appeal to us in straightforward ways. They're not such dastardly wits that they're going to deceive you with any genuine nuance.

Work with me here: Maybe this sort of over-the-top suspicion is the product of all the whiny condescension Democrats have been pumping into the ether for the last four years. (Seven years?) Far too many of them have been screeching that Bush pulled the wool over our eyes. (And in the next sentence they'll tell you that he's profoundly stupid; do the calculation and guess what they think of our intelligence). Even if you don't let Democrats do your thinkin' for you, all that rhetoric may have convinced you that persuasion in politics can only happen through deception.

> makes me wonder about a link
> between Palin's recent newborn
> and her teenage daughter's
> "surprise" pregnancy.

Goddammit, I'd hoped that without a Clinton in the race, we'd be able to set all that bullshit psychoanalysis aside forever!!

...And was badly ashamed for having the same thought yesterday. This is a family that makes people think about fertility... Perhaps even within it.

A popular joke is that Sarah Palin has a "naughty librarian vibe". But actually, she doesn't. So far as I can tell she's lived a life of tremendous fidelity and propriety. She's probably told a joke at some point in her life; it just hasn't been reported yet.

I think she's just so pretty, and that jawline is so alluring, that people automatically think about shenanigans and themes from old porno movies. It's the same reason people made gay jokes about Tom Cruise for so many years... "He's so handsome, the boys must want some, too."

> Palin's pro-life and abstinence-
> only position is more worrisome.

Her Pro-life positions will be discussed here in due course. Liberals are apparently doing some idiot-savant work with language here, as "abstinence-only" comes to mean "anti-sex". But all you're talking about is sex ed, right? BFD.

I don't much care about sex education. It didn't have many useful effects on my cohort, so I mostly sympathize with parents who don't want school teaching their kids how to fuck.

But as rule, I hate children and education policy bores the shit out of me. It's not like the president is going to be writing curricula.

> Her own family is a prime example
> of how the latter DOES NOT WORK.

Bullshit. If every family in America worked as well as hers, this would be a motherfucking paradise, and you're a fool if you don't believe it.

> on what forum did you find
> that Juneau pic?

Yonder.

Sorry, I just can't buy into what you're saying this time around. Two reasons:

1. The entire analysis you're making about Sarah Palin's apparent disqualification would NEVER be made about a man ... unless of course you're CNN's John Roberts; but we threw him out of Canada long ago for good reason!

2. One of the reasons you cited was because of the effect on the children from the inevitable attack by the Liberal Fascist Brown Shirts. The day that any of us change our ways because of them is the day we should all resign from our lives and move into caves.

You didn't shut down your website after the recent attacks by the same group of thugs and no one would ever expect you to, even if you had 10 children!

I said very similar things in a comment a few days back. I'm also childfree by choice--I just didn't think I had it in me to do all the things a good parent should do.

I also read a quote from Palin, quoted in an Alaskan newspaper way before anyone outside of AK knew who she was. She said that after having her last kid (this would be Piper), she "gave birth on a Monday and was back to work on Tuesday." Like this proved how committed she was to her job. Um, WHAT? Why even have a kid if you plan on spending ZILCH time with it?! Especially if you're conservative and family-values oriented.

Shouldn't it be "right to a quality of life" not just to creating life?

Oh MonicaM, give the "honey" a break. Do you really believe that she meant she would spend no time with her child? I bet, don't know, she spends more than most with her children.

"This guy will step in, but by all accounts, he's been a commercial fisherman up till now."

Amy, that is offensive. We are quite capable. I agree we do not replace Mom, but Mom cannot replace Dad either.

My husband was home with my kids, on and off, and we had one nanny for 12 years. Palin's got an extended family, and I don't care if she moves the whole village into the house.

The kids and childcare shouldn't be part of the equation--when you interview, the HR rep isn't allowed to ask, by law, how you plan to care for the toddler at home.

Palin's record as an elected official is fair game, her childcare arrangements are not. Not unless you're worried about how Obama's going to manage car-pool and Putin.

> but we threw him out of Canada
> long ago

Like I was sayin', people around the world like to think they have a stake in this one. Here's an item on an Australian blog that links to article by a British journalist about Palin. Both the comments and the link are worth reading if you have a couple minutes.

I particularly like the line from the commenter that "Sarah Palin doesn't sleep... She waits."

In that spirit, I'd like to offer a story about the middle daughter, Willow:

One day Willow killed a Kodiak with her bare hands. The 13-year-old girl was walking along a river past a glade where a troupe of boy scouts was cooking smores and singing songs around a campfire. Actually, they were Webelo scouts from the inner city (Fairbanks... minorities, OK?). Suddenly the bear charged out of the dense forest of Alaska and raised a mighty claw with which to maul the little boys. At that point, Willow Palin fearlessly reached up and pulled the bear's motherfucking head clean off. The boys were very grateful, and while she was a hero now, when she got home her parents still made her take out the trash and tidy up her room before dinner. And she had to read to her little sister Piper after helping with the dishes, too.

That's a true story. This family is all about service.

Katecoe

> the HR rep isn't allowed to ask,
> by law, how you plan to care
> for the toddler at home.

I agree with you generally (see above), but employment law hardly describes humanity's best judgment about this stuff

All else aside, Alaska is an amazingly beautiful state. If you haven't been there, go. Well, now is probably not the right time.

Spent two weeks and in no way was that enough time. You should go and take the Alaskan Marine Highway (Ferry boats) and not the cruiseships if you can.

We saw wild:
hundreds of bald eagles, some no more than 100 feet away
brown bear
humpback whales
gray whales
right whales
fin whales
puffins

Glaciers, and glaciers calving

Didn't see:
grizzly
moose
cows, calves, or calves glaciating
penguins

"If you have enough money, go ahead and squirt out all the kids you want and then feel free to neglect them by pursuing a time-consuming career."

I don't know anyone who "squirts" kids out. That is a really offensive way to refer to childbirth. I think you are trying to be funny but I find your attempt at humor disrespectful.

I also do not think anyone is advocating the neglect of children. Do you really believe that all working mother's children are being mistreated or neglected?

I was a stay at home mom when my children were young but I did a lot of volunteer work and helped out working moms with logistics whenever I could. With regard to working and having a family, an either/or scenario is just not realistic.

Some women *have* to work, some stay home and some choose to work. The sisterhood of women (and their SO's or spouses) should support all of the choices, including the choice to be child-free, as valid.

"Face it, this woman had a litter."

No, this woman had a family. Making fun and being dismissive of another woman's choice for the size of her family serves no purpose. It just makes you sound mean and petty. (Which I'm sure isn't true.) If the children are well cared for, who are we to judge or even comment on this?

I often said that, innately, one knows the number of children they want. For some it is zero and for others it is eighteen. Who has the right to judge the number?

And, yes, having the means to afford one's choice in family size is important but not the most important determining factor in having a large family.

----

"Women with an hourglass figure (that famous .7 waist-to-hip ratio) and big boobs seem to be more protected from most on this and also seem to be smarter and have smarter children."

Whoo hoo! Let's hear it for hips and boobs! And, for my narrow hipped sisters, we all know that work ethic and time management more than make up for the miniscule loss of brain cells.

====

"The entire analysis you're making about Sarah Palin's apparent disqualification would NEVER be made about a man ... "

This is so true.

One of my grandmother's cooked for a logging camp, tended a farm and rented out cabins while raising 8 children. The other grandmother taught school before marrying and then illustrated science books while raising 7 children.

I have a great aunt who was a psychiatrist and another who pioneered compassionate group homes for the elderly. I was named after an old friend of the family, a woman who was the president of a local telephone company in the 1920's. All had children. All worked. Most of the children turned out fine. (No one is perfect.)

Women have always worked in and out of the home and raised families, they just couldn't vote or run for office for a long time. Thank ja, that's been remedied.

Sarah Palin has my respect and I am comforted by the thought that she would only be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

> I think you are trying to be
> funny but I find your attempt
> at humor disrespectful

I think people who need to be precious about such primitive bodily functions are trying to prove something to people.

> The sisterhood of women

I hate Unity Zombies. When someone demands that you join the team, you should always check your wallet.

> should support all of the
> choices

Some choices suck, and bring bad consequences to other parties.

> serves no purpose.

I just don't like you, and want to stay and make fun of you, but have to go to work.

Amazing.

I think many of you who say you have an issue with this situation are not really thinking she is a bad mom abandoning three young kids. What I see is you deep down think men are morons when it comes to raising kids, and just cant hack it.

Do you really think she made this decision without talking to her husband? Doubtful.

Therefore it is highly probable that he may be the driving force behind her acceptance to run for VP. Hell I would be if it was me. Bring on air force 2 for the fishing trip baby. And all he has to do is step up more in the primary parent role? How much did he take on when she became governer?

I bet governer is more time intensive then VP.

Be honest with yourselves and everyone else who has to read your posts. It is not Sarah Palin you have an issue with, it is that you just do not think Men can handle the lions share of parenting, because of their plumbing.

bad spelling sorry.

Crid: I will agree with you re people outside of the U.S. thinking that they have a personal stake in the election. Indeed, I am 25 miles north of the 49th Parallel on Canada's Left Coast but never in my life have I felt that I had a right to determine your election. Many Canadians and Mexicans and Europeans do though. Sad. I just appreciate Amy letting us "foreigners" chime in, when she very well could ban all non-U.S. IP addresses.

Looking through all the comments on here and elsewhere I'm struck by the notion that what this election is going to really boil down to is mostly a battle between:

1. Rural and surburban families who live their lives in a traditional nuclear family kind of way.

2. Big city liberals who aspire to a Sex & The City kind of lifestyle.

Clearly this division doesn't include everyone. Not Amy, not me, and perhaps not you, but for the most part, I do wonder if those will be the two large voting blocks.

No political stake from this Canadian (sometimes questions)...but nearly gagged at "sisterhood of women". Please let me off!

Yeah, I think we're supposed to lap sisterhood of women up, and not gag at it.

"Yeah, I think we're supposed to lap sisterhood of women up, and not gag at having it shoved down our throats."

Better, or too obvious? (Specifically leaving out other choices.)

(I am so hoopy that I am reading this now using Google's "Chrome.")

Jerry, I also checked out Amy's site with Chrome today. Not much difference IMHO.

I just read something hilarious. On Amy's site we're having a serious discussion (I hope) about the pros and cons of Sarah Palin as a VP. There are clearly alternate ways to view the "controversy": http://www.imao.us/archives/010376.html

Perhaps Amy should have a special Pay Pal button to raise funds for helmets for personal Liberal Fascist horde!!

Gosh, you guys sure got a different meaning of the sisterhood than I did. I heard it with the similar meaning of poopy diaper talk we parents do. It is meaningless and disgusting if you haven't been there, done that sort of thing. My youngest is twelve but I can still talk poop with young parents with gusto. I have a habit of calming temper tantrum monsters in stores - comes easy for me and welcomed by the harried Mother - kinda like a sisterhood that even us Dads get into.

But then Amy probably disagrees with my part in having children. I did not start til I was 42 and had my last (my ex fixed that) at 51. I waited until I could support as many as I could have, but needed a younger, much, wife. After 20 years and "only" three children she needed a younger man. At least she divorced well.

I haven't checked yet, but I think my old doc Nathaniel Branden would laugh at you farts and tell you to lighten up on the Palins'.

It's only been the last 50 years or so that parents were expected to cater to the emotional needs of their children. Prior to that, kids were supposed to be seen and not heard, and BOTH parents spent their time working - not playing games or spending "quality" time with them, the way we are expected to do today.

My grandparents, who were farmers, worked extremely hard - as did the kids, once they were old enough.

Back then, a mother was usually cooking, cleaning, sewing, churning butter, milking cows, tanning leather, and/or giving birth to even more youngins'. I doubt she had any more time - and probably less - than Sarah Palin does to spend with her children, even as VP.

It's just a distorted modern view to suggest that a woman today should choose between having a family or working. Women have always worked while raising children.

Today's "helicopter" parents think that we must be there to hover over our children or else we're doing them a disservice. Yet, then, people also complain that our kids are less independent, lazy, and spoiled rotten.

And I write this as a modern day stay-at-home mom, with the same tendency towards hovering...because it's ingrained in our culture now and we are made to feel guilty to do otherwise, especially with comments like this. But I don't feel that it's necessarily good for our kids or that my best moments as a mom have been about that.

The times my kids have been most proud of themselves is when they've HAD to do things on their own - when they learned to cook dinner because I wasn't there, or handled some other household chore or crisis, or when they did their own school assignments and science projects.

These were responsibilities that kids were expected to take on in the past because parents weren't guilted into coddling them. Parents were expected to neglect their kids in favor of hard work. It wasn't about putting themselves first. A parent's job was not to be a babysitter but to be a role model for their children - to teach good work ethics and citizenship.

And I think Palin is a very good role model for her children. She doesn't have to be at home every minute. She's showing them the world, while teaching them about public service. That's so much more important than whether she's there with an apron on to make dinner every night.

Did you ban me, Amy? I can't seem to post as lovelysoul anymore. Just for disagreeing with you on that one thread?

How do we know it's you? Show us your papers!

Crid, you're funny. I do have to say I was unfair to you. I hadn't seen your best work. I've fully agreed with many of your latest posts. But I guess I may not get a chance to stay and debate with you in the furture. I'm really shocked if I'm banned. I've been here all summer and I think I've been an articulate and welcome contributor most of the time.

Obviously, this commenter's an impostor. Let's get her fired! Let's have one of Amy's killer commandos --maybe Pirate Jo-- attack her in a parking lot.

No mercy!

"primitive body functions"?

Primitive? Did you really write "primitive"? How interesting...

"Unity zombie... check your wallet"

You are funny. (Note to self: Watch Shaun of the Dead, again, and get a wallet chain. They are so attractive.)

"Some choices suck, and bring bad consequences to other parties."

Kinda like jumping in on a blog and commenting without knowing the cast of characters? You're a glass half empty poster, eh?

"I just don't like you, and want to stay and make fun of you, but have to go to work."

But, I adore you and wanted to tell you all kinds of cute kid stories... like:

"My 3-year-old was sitting in the middle seat of our van as we ran errands one morning. 'Mom, can we plant this when we get home, and grow some hamburgers?' I turned to see what had prompted such an unusual question, and saw in his tiny little outstretched hand, one single sesame seed!"

I hope you had fun at work and feel fulfilled, enriched and nourished by your efforts.

-----

Thanks for the interesting read, Amy. You're a very good writer. I don't want to cause a board disruption, so I'll exit, stage right.

I understand your concerns about Governor Palin but I think you underestimate her abilities. Governor Palin will be a dynamic and successful VP.

No! Come back! PLEASE

Crid - I have to say that your way with women is worse than mine. I never thought I'd get to say that.

I haven't learned enough about Palin yet to decide if I like her as VP or not. I do think that McCain is hoping to sway the Clinton vote his way by adding a strong woman to his ticket.

My post here is really in response to Jody's comments about working mothers.

As a working mother for the past 12 years I have never been "The kind that come in late, leave early, stick their job duties onto the childfree, then boast about how great they are at juggling." To presume that all working mothers do this is insulting and fantastical. Many a time I have seen my single-child free co-workers call in sick after a night of excess (and brag about it later), leave early and dump their work load on others.

It takes commitment to balance children and careers - so maybe Jody's comment that "Palin comes across like your typical 'working mother'" is correct after all.

I think one difference between mothers who worked the farm in the past and working mothers of today is that, even though mothers weren't catering to the whims of their children or hovering, they were still *there.*

I don't know enough to say that having one parent at home is better than having two parents working. I just don't think it's entirely fair to compare a mother who is maybe 40 miles away at a job to a mother who is busy, but right outside.

"Obviously, this commenter's an impostor. Let's get her fired! Let's have one of Amy's killer commandos --maybe Pirate Jo-- attack her in a parking lot.

No mercy!"

I hope you're kidding, crid. I can't get fired because I'm self-employed.:)
Honestly, I don't think I did anything to warrant being banned. She could've outed me if she wanted to. I'll out myself if it's necessary.

Where's Vlad or Brian or Catspajamas? They can vouch that I'm not an imposter.

MonicaP, I agree that being *there* is really the critical component. Yet, today, with cellphones and instant communication, being *there* isn't that hard. Kids need to know you're behind them offering support, like a safety net. I know SAHMs that might as well not be home because they aren't emotionally supportive, and I also know working moms, who have terrific, well-balanced kids because they are truly available when needed. So, I think it's not really a matter of where you are - it's more about WHO you are.

testing 123

Oh, ok. It's working now. I was getting an error message that the thread wasn't taking comments, like happened when you shut down the Dailey thread. I'm sorry I annoyed you. I was honestly trying look out for your best interests, but it must've not come off well.

I don't totally agree with Amy that being a Mom of 5, including an infant, rules out Palin for the job, but she deserves to be questioned vigorously on how she plans to manage the responsibilities of political office and family, especially because her infant is a special needs child. (I suspect the media will shy away from doing so because it will introduce the subject of "why is there a double standard for women & men regarding child care?" Within living memory of people about 55 and older, John Kennedy had very young children during his three years as president.) Perhaps - just perhaps - between help from her husband, her own parents and siblings, and her husband's in laws and family - these great demands can be juggled, but for the life of me I can't explain how. I have two children, both were healthy as babies & little kids, and even with a stay-at-home wife I found it very tiring to attend to my children in their earliest years.

These people have FIVE children. And the woman has a Down's baby now, plus a small daughter.

See, I thought she had five kids, but thanks for pointing out that she has FIVE kids.

So there should be a quota -- What should we say, two? Three? -- and a No Retards policy.

Palin's a miserable choice for a VP, for so many reasons that I don't see the point in going after her for her family life. Although, man, her abstinence-only position when it comes to sex ed... it's hard not to pick at it, what with the knocked-up teenager and all.

Amy, I've followed your column and blog for the last year. I appreciate that what you write is well thought out, and when I disagree I like the opportunity to more closely examine my own beliefs. So I don't agree with everything you write, but I'm horrified at the pettiness of so many supposed adults. You should feel complimented that they're stooping to this level, rather than actually debating you. Go get em! I just visited the SadlyNo website and I want the last five minutes of my life back.

It worries me too that her son is special needs, but it does sound rather sexist to question her about how she plans to handle the demands of family. We wouldn't ask that of a man. She has a "househusband", and I'm sure she'll probably have nannies, as well as family help.

I come at this from the perspective of just having sent my son off to college. If you'd asked me back when he was in preschool what was best, I would've sung the whole stay-at-home-mom mantra. But, over the past 18 years, I've been exposed to all different styles of moms. There's the laid-back, slacker types, the high-energy career types, the holistic earth-mothers, the competitive, pushy types....all kinds of moms.

And, last year, our kids were seniors. I've watched these kids grow since preschool, and I wish I could say there was some discernable difference...that the kids of the stay-at-home moms turned out much better than the working moms' kids. That would've proven my(rather snobby) early parenting theories, but the truth is, there were successes and failures on both sides of the fence. So, to me, that's just not what makes the difference.

I sense what does, but I'm not sure I can quantify it. There are moms - both working and non-working - who are really into being moms. They make mistakes but keep a positive attitude and are really *there* emotionally for their kids. Then, there are the moms who are more concerned with status or boyfriends or partying - it's more about them than their family.

Those two types exist in both the stay-at-home group and the career group, so I don't think a woman's career, in itself, is the greatest predictor of how her kids will fare.

I find it funny, that everyone is talking about how she has 5, sorry, FIVE, kids.

Lets check a couple of things....the oldest, is in the army and stationed in Iraq...don't think daycare will be a problem for him.

The next oldest is 17 and pregnant...again, not a child.

So this takes the count of those needing mom and dad at 3. I haven't seen anything that Palin's husband won't be there.

My only question is, how come no one is questioning Obama and how he plans to manage with 2 kids?

From the single parent perspective, seems to me that she ccould handle the job. It is much easier for the CEO to work and be a mom than it is for the checkout lady at Wal-Mart.

Circumstances called for me to quit my job to raise my son. It was a tough call, but I felt it was my responsibility. I resigned a seven figure position working for Microsoft, and could have easily hired out help. But my son lost his mother to drugs/prison, and I felt like I could resume my career later.

In the meantime I work for a university in Texas, and as my son gets older I slowly move back towards the real working world following an altered career path, but an exciting and lucrative one as well. And the only thing it has cost taxpayers is the half million a year I was paying in income taxes from my Microsoft Stock options.

I give Palin the benefit of the doubt, not because she is a woman, not because she is almost my exact age, not because she is MILFY, and not because as a single father in a small Texas college town I couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons. I give her that benefit because so far she seems to have focus and drive and has been very successful, even with the bumps in the road and in her daughter's stomach. I guess only time will tell, but I think it will be an intersting story to follow.

"she deserves to be questioned vigorously on how she plans to manage the responsibilities of political office and family, especially because her infant is a special needs child."

No--it's none of our business. And a 5 month old with Down syndrome has rather the same needs as any 5 month old. Eat, poop, sleep, play.

Her childcare arrangements are none of our business. Did Gore get grilled about his plans for his kid with addiction problems?

Can I ask a question solely of the female readers of Amy's blog?

I'm a 43 year old male, single at the moment. All my life I've been told by women (family, friends, lovers) that they want & expect equal rights and equal opportunities. "Absolutely!", I always responded, because it made complete sense to me. After all, why should the daughters of my friends be denied anything available to their sons?

Now that we're going through an historic moment of a woman vying for Vice President of the United States, you would think that every woman on the earth would be ecstatic. But apparently not all.

I understand Amy's reasons, but I'd love to hear yours. Also, for any reason you provide, would you apply the same to a man?

Did you hear that if Trig has a nephew, he'll be named Cal and if a niece, Ali? (Short for Calculus and Algebra.)

If the child is born prematurely, the name will be Pre-Cal.

Everybody knows that Tom Cruise IS gay.

Palin is attractive, but her choice in eyeglasses is a mistake/

> How interesting...
> Kinda like jumping in on a
> blog and commenting without
> knowing the cast

I've been cast as "asshole". And as consequences go, these are pretty tame, aren't they? You started getting all hoity-toity in front of strangers and got busted for it, all anonymously. No harm no foul, right?

> your way with women
> is worse

There's probably a joke to be made about my first wife, but the wording is elusive just now.

> she deserves to be questioned
> vigorously

By whom? And what do you mean vigorously? Can we waterboard? That really sounds kinda commie and mind-controllish.

Amy's being sort of absolutist about it, but not by much. I think mothering (not just 'loving' or 'parenting') does special things to young children. (Many women are themselves distinctively affected by it.) And fatherhood does special things too, but perhaps not as much in the earliest times.

Now, it's hard to imagine composing a tabulation of appropriate parental interest that could be printed on a laminated card for one's wallet to guide one's thinking. Every kid's different, every parent's different... But motherhood is a real (if general) thing that deserves consideration. Amy's not a monster for being concerned about it. "Vigorous questioning" is something that could get out of hand real soon. Be certain that strangers will be asking Palin about it public in entirely informal contexts... That's more than enough. It's a personal matter and decent people won't be assholes about it.

Listen, when fathers alone were the ones who left the house and went into the public sphere for achievement, civilization didn't grind to a halt. Sometimes their kids were fucked up from inattention... But sometimes kids learned from watching those men that success demands sacrifices, and sometimes those sacrifices happen in every corner of the household, including the corners where (younger) players don't get to vote about how things should go, or which risks to take.

From now on in the civilized world, that's the way it will be for mothers as well as fathers. You gotta problem with that? Isn't that exactly what we need to make clear to fundamentalist Islam in order to kick the ball forward?

> her abstinence-only position
> when it comes to sex ed...
> it's hard not to pick at it,
> what with the knocked-up
> teenager and all.

Oh, then pick on it. Please! I am fucking begging you... Take a shot.

> it does sound rather sexist
> to question her about how
> she plans to handle the
> demands of family. We wouldn't
> ask that of a man.

Exactly, exactly.

> I couldn't get laid in
> a women's prison with a
> fistful of pardons.

I'm going to steal that expression... And will use it often.

> you would think that every
> woman on the earth would
> be ecstatic.

Why? Palin has political principles. She's being judged by them as politicians are, and not just by her genital configuration. I was happy when Hillary got defeated, but not because she's a woman.

Listen, when fathers alone were the ones who left the house and went into the public sphere for achievement, civilization didn't grind to a halt. Sometimes their kids were fucked up from inattention... But sometimes kids learned from watching those men that success demands sacrifices, and sometimes those sacrifices happen in every corner of the household, including the corners where (younger) players don't get to vote about how things should go, or which risks to take. (Crid)

I agree, but I'd like to add something. For most of human history, women have worked and lots outside the home. The traditional European way was for boys and girls to be raised by the mother. At around twelve, the boy would start to be raised by the father.

What do I mean by 'raised?' I mean the children went to work with their parents. By and large, men have always raised boys and mothers girls. Boys learned to be men from working with men. Girls learned to be women from working with women.

What's new,arriving in the mid-20th century, is the separation of children from the work that sustains the family.

It's just an observation. It's easy to think that people a hundred years ago lived like rich characters in a BBC historical drama. In reality, kids were reared by productive work supervised by their parents, for almost all of human history.

Like I said, I agree with you. In my unfortunate, long-winded style, I'm just giving a little context.

Word. See "not as much in the earliest times", above.

I read one blog today that complained that Palin has never had a regular babysitter.

For who? I'm one of six kids, and the older kids always were expected to take care of the younger kids. My mother worked evenings when I was little. My father did the grocery shopping (he was MUCH better at it and treated it as his mission in life), and either he cooked or one of us kids did as we got older. My mother did Sunday dinner with all the trimmings. Sundays were special in my house, but we ate the fish sticks and french fries and frozen dinners and Kraft macaroni and cheese the rest of the week and we all survived.

I'm a big believer in the John Rosemond school of child rearing. Family life should never be child centered, but parent centered. One of the biggest mistakes parents make, in my opinion, is thinking the kid is the center of the universe. They're not. It's up to the kid to conform to the family, not the other way around.

We do what we can for our kids, but kids grow up and we can't stop our own lives waiting for them to grow up.

Trust me. Because that's what I did when my daughter was born. I haven't had a social life in almost 16 years. That's the choice I made and it was the right one for me.

I don't begrudge any parent who puts themselves first. Because at the end of the day, that's all you're left with.

"we probably would if men breast-fed." Oh Amy, I'm so disappointed in this post and its follow-ups! You seriously telling me that pumping interferes with being VP? Yes, Palin had a "litter" of children but having five kids in and of itself is only irresponsible if you can't care for them. I'd argue that the Palins are exactly the people who should be having five kids, because they have the financial and familial wherewithal to care for them all, unlike some drug-dealer-dating single mother.

Feminists are attacking her because she doesn't support government-funded daycare and mommy subsidies. She is raising her family with the help of their father - that's exactly what we should be encouraging! And there needn't be any "primary" caregiver at all - when did we stop striving for or believing in egalitarian relationships? I know plenty of people who have equal say and responsibility in raising their kids, and both parents are able to pursue rewarding and demanding careers without submitting the kids to nanny or daycare 24/7.

And you've never addressed the point raised by your commenters, to wit: She's only got three "kids" to raise as VP since her oldest is in the Army and the next oldest is 17 and would presumably be heading off to college soon, with or without baby. So she has three compared to Obama's two, yet no questions about which Obama is the "primary" caregiver. Just the assumption that Michelle will give up her high-priced career to wave and smile and be the political wife so Mr. can run off and play President. And that's fine, that's between them, but you can't seriously not see the sexism inherent in assuming Palin is neglecting her children by pursuing high office in a similar manner whereas Mr. O isn't.

And I'm sorry, but if your teenaged daughter is pregnant and she cares for her own baby, it may tax your financial resources but it doesn't have to affect your career. I know several young girls who have made it work as effortlessly as older girls do - easier, in fact, since college's flexible schedule makes it a great time to be a young mother, as opposed to the early years of a career - by having an involved father.

"We probably would if men breast-fed".

That's a good point, Amy. There are benefits to breast-feeding, probably especially for a child with Down's syndrome, as it's supposed to raise intelligence a few points.

Is she still breastfeeding? My guess is that she already stopped when she went back to work as governor. It's not something you can resume.

I breastfed, and I hated it. I wasn't one of those lucky moms who had orgasms during breastfeeding (if only!). But I trudged along to my La Leche League meetings nonetheless.

Not every kid takes to it so well either. My son always seemed resistant and quit as soon as he saw a sippy cup, yet my daughter nursed for a year and a half.

It still probably falls under personal decisions too sensitive to address. Even as a breastfeeding proponant, I would never grill another woman for not breastfeeding.

Robert W, I am ecstatic that we can consider Palin and Obama purely for what they stand for, not because of gender or race. It thrills me to see women arguing the pros and cons of this woman, based on her views, not just blindly supporting her.

I'd like to be equally thrilled at blacks doing the same, but I haven't seen so much of that.

Fair question, Robert. And in the end, I have to say I'd hold both sexes to the same standard. However, I think anyone having more than three kids tops is pretty selfish and disgusting and tend to lean more towards having two and not increasing world population anymore than the world's already straining to sustain. If you have natural triplets or quadruplets, you're excused, in my book, but not if you have "unnatural" ones from using fertility drugs because the little darlings had to be your own versus adopting a child that really, really needs a home.

As far as questioning working dads as much as working moms, I think we're just not used to it and maybe that's where we need to change. I don't agree that it's none of our business how our elected officials arrange their day care. I think we've every right to question if it will interfere with their efficiency in office. We're just not used to asking the question when men run for office. But it's a legitimate question for Obama too. Though, let's be honest, we're talking two versus three or more. Three if the pregnant teen does stand on her own two. If she doesn't, it's back up to five.

Also, having an overabundance of children and her daughter getting pregnant (and, mind you, this is the oldest one, we don't know yet what will happen with the younger) does display some inability to run her own household and we're supposed to think she can't run one house but can step up to run the whole country if need be? The liklihood of which is increased, like it or not, given McCain's age. Whereas, Obama has limited his family to two, at least so far, and (also so far) has no behaviorial problems, that I know of anyway.

As for the rest of the issues raised in this thread, I don't approve of large families in part because I come from one. I grant you they're not all as dysfunctional as the one I come from but I agree with Amy that after two or three kids, the parents become over-extended. 8, however, was more than enough and 8 in 10 years no less. 8 in 20 might not be as bad but I don't think you're going to be able to convince me it's even okay let alone good.

Someone said something about the oldest children helping with the younger and I didn't immediately respond but I have to say I'm appalled that anyone would calmly even state this as something to put on a child they already have. You make the baby; you're responsible for it, not another one of yours who also didn't ask to be born let alone say whether or not she (or he but let's be honest, it's assumed a she) were willing to be built-in babysitter. That smacks of child abuse too, if you ask me. It is, at the very least, grossly unfair to the older child.

And I'll tell you how that translated in my family. My 2nd oldest sister (the oldest had obvious mental problems from the get-go and wound up institutionalized by age 13) was put in charge of the rest of us while my mother attended to the endless housework created by 10 people living in one house and eventually supplemented my father's income by cleaning other people's houses.

She ruled the only way one barely older than us knew how -- with an iron fist. She was very like Lucy to Linus -- I'll give you five reasons why you do as I say. Five fingers formed into a fist that is. In hindsight, (though I sure as hell hated her for it as a kid), I know she didn't know how else to control us. For the record, this is the same sister that wound up having one baby out of wedlock at 16 and another by a different daddy at 18. I think it had a little something to do with it.

Also, I'm not convinced that overpopulation isn't a problem. I think we all feel the effects of it every day. (Don't say it, brian, I've considered your point and sincerely hope you're right but am skeptical.) I feel the overpopulation every day just trying to find decent housing or get home from work.

In the end, in my judgment, flawed or not, all things considered, it still seems irresponsible to have more than three children at most.

"In the end, in my judgment, flawed or not, all things considered, it still seems irresponsible to have more than three children at most."

I would say, most people should have none, and some people should have 10. I may soon be posting as momof4. I can handle 4 kids. Lots of people can. Lots others can not handle 1. I know a mom with 14 kids. Her DH is an OB, they have the money. She homeschools some, some go private, some go public. They are all well-behaved, high-achieving, happy kids. Her 10 year old saved a boy from drowing last year in the flooded creek near their house and was on the news, and oh gosh golly he actually knew how to speak proper english when being interviewed! Studies have shown that people with more than 1 sibling do better in life, all other things being equal. It's a support net,and people with bigger ones weather life better.

The fact that people have issues with her having 5 kids is absurd! They have the money, the smarts, and are doing well. They may not have planned to have 5, late-life oops babies happen. And being prolife, they would obviously choose life. If more families were like them, the world would be a much better place.

Kids don't have to have cars the second they turn 16, and cell phones in elementary school (or at all). The expenses of kids are largely made up by hovering, spoiling, consumerist parents who don't have enough to do, or don't care to do things for their kids instead of buying things for their kids. Nor do they need mommy around playing candyland 40 times in a row, as Amy pointed out in a previous topic. Why that opinion of hers gets along with the opinion that mom can't work confuses me.

So if you want to condemn overpopulation, condemn it where it's needed: welfare moms popping out litters of daddy-less kids. Not the responsible family oriented financially secure married parents.

I find it very, very, very interesting that the people so concerned about her parenting while VPing abilities are the childless, and the failed-at-parenting-my-1-or-2-and-raised-nonfunctioning-adults group. Those of us in the trenches see no issue with it. Shouldn't tat tell you all something right there?

Saying she failed at her family because a 17 year old decided to have sex is absurd. Do you think you could raise a 17 year old who didn't have sex? If you think so, you've got blinders on and may be in for a little early-grandparenting suprise of your own. We have no way of knowing what kind of birth control info she gave her kid, but at 17 you know to use BC whether ot not your mom takes you to the clinic to get it. At least they aren't killing the kid in a desperate attempt to pretend this never happened and get on with life as usual.

As a woman, I like her. Women can be just as nasty and sexist to women as men can be, to answer your question about why women aren't all ecstatic. And some disagree with her views.

And no, she doesn't have to answer childcare questions any more than any other candidate. Get past that plase. Nor should Clinton have had to answer questions about his sex life. If the job's getting done, personal life is None Of Our damn Business.

If the job's getting done, personal life is None Of Our damn Business.

I've been saying this for years, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still too damn many out there who insist that it is their business.

T's Grammy, my heart breaks every time I read about your childhood. You've had a really tough life in many ways, and I commend you for rising above those challenges.

However, I don't think the large family structure was the problem - it's that your parents couldn't afford so many kids. I think older children should HELP but not be in full charge of controlling and disciplining all their younger siblings. That was a very unfair burden placed on your sister, though I'm sure it was because your parents had to be out working for the family to survive.

I agree with Momof3. A lot of families do very well with it. I actually suspect that many kids today are antisocial because they don't get the important multi-age-level play that Amy has written about in other threads. That used to be common with larger families, but now, kids are only driven around to playdates with other kids their own age. And children really benefit from having older children around to teach them, as well as younger kids they can teach.

Yet, it's not their responsibility. The parents still need to be overseeing this interaction and handling most of the discipline.

Bottom line is that parents are just individuals, and like Momof3 said, some can't handle 1 much less 5. Some can handle 14.

I am a laid-back, lower-energy type person, which is why I chose to only have 2 kids and be a SAHM. I know my limitations, and I wouldn't have been able to handle trying to "have it all".

Yet, I know high-energy moms, who bound out of bed every morning and get more done between 6 am and noon than I probably accompolish in a whole day - maybe a whole week. More power to them! They do a great job juggling the various demands of motherhood and career.

People like Sarah Palin are usually those types of "alpha moms". They CAN do it all. So, just because I can't, I would never say she couldn't.

And, certainly, she seems to have a great partner. If I'd been offered the VP slot, when my kids were young, I would've had to decline. My ex was too unstable and clueless about kids. He would've watched porn all day while they starved.

Either that, or I would've had to dump him and hire a really hot male nanny! ;-)

Joe Biden took his first oath of office at the hospital bed of his seriously injured toddler. Another toddler was also seriously hurt in the crash that left Biden a widow with 2 young children to care for.
But you already knew that. The Dems turned Biden into a Saint for deciding to continue his career in that situation.
No such luck for Sara. Stay home and watch the kids, bitch.
I'm not easily shocked but the vile attacks on her are getting me pissed. I may have to write a check to their campaign

I have an older brother and 2 younger, and us olders sibs were expected to look after the younger to some extent. That was the norm when we were growing up, in mine and my friends' families. I only have my 2, because mine were little when the ex and I split up and because that was all I could handle at the time. Am I doing well? I like to think so, and have been told so. Would I be doing as well with more than the 2 I have? I dunno, and it's too late to try for any more. I admire the hell out of women like my mom, and my friends' moms, who had more kids than we do and were able to handle it.

Okay, I would like to talk about the "abstinence-only" policy. I went to high school in Oregon, which, at least at the time, was an abstinence only state. Also incredibly odd because Oregon is super ridiculously liberal.

Abstinence only did not mean that we didn't get to learn about STDs, the birthing process, and the forms of birth control available including abortion. What it meant was that the teacher could make no other recommendation other than "practice abstinence." They also could not pass out condoms at the schools.

I'm incredibly pissed at the implication that Palin is responsible for her daughter opening her legs and not using birth control. At 16-17 years old, you can make those choices and if you don't know what a condom is, well, you're a fucking idiot. Condoms ain't that hard to obtain either.

I'm actually a big proponent for waiting for the right person to have sex with. Doesn't necessarily have to be "the one" but somebody that not going to dick you over. Somebody that's going to be respectful. I can't imagine having had sex when I was really young, I wouldn't have had the maturity to deal with it.

I don't give a rat's ass about the size of her family or her daycare arrangements. However, the more I hear of this woman the less I like her.

When she took office Wasillia had a balanced budget, when she left, they were 20 million in the hole for a fancy sports complex.

She is under investigation for misusing her office to settle a personal vendetta with her ex-brother in law, worse yet, apparently she was dumb enough to do this by e-mail and leave a paper trail.

Her husband belongs to a group of nutters who want Alaska to seceed from the union, and to cap it off, if politico.com is to be believe, two weeks ago she attended a church service where her pastor informed the congregation that jews in Israel deserve to be murdered by terrorists because they rejected Jesus.

Oh yeah, great pick. I can't wait until she's a heartbeat away from the White House.

I also have a problem with this shot-gun wedding between to 17 years old to bolster her polical career.

Ok, so Pelosi has 5 kids. I just found that out. Where was the indignation when she became majority speaker? Or is that not a demanding job? Or, is it ok for her to be a careerwomen mom because she's a democrat? I'm not asking Amy that, I'm asking the rest of the no-mom-should-have-other-demands-crowd that. I know amy doesn't kowtow party lines. Does anyone think Pelosi hasn't done her job? Had to stop meetings to care for kids, whether breastfeeding or giving directions to Brooklyn to a grown women via cell phone? (talk about helicopter mom, come on!)

I don't quite get Rommelman's phone call from Brooklyn thing, either.

"A barren girl like me, I work seven days a week and I'm devoted, above all else, to my job. That's also what I expect from a president and a VP. You?"

Amy, I mean no offense, but I think you overestimate what a parent's role really entails. As a parent myself, I can tell you that after the age of about 3, they start not wanting us around so much. And if you're doing your job right as a parent, you should be working yourself OUT of a job. You want them to become increasing less dependent on you. Parenting is one of the few jobs where you're supposed to make yourself obsolete.

Even if I wanted to be playing "Candyland" with them all day long, my kids would've balked at that after preschool age. They have their friends and activities. Basically, they want to know that you're there - feeding them, clothing them, and ready to talk if they have a question or need support, but otherwise, the daily task of most parents is to observe from a distance and intervene only when necessary.

I do that working from home - and I stay pretty busy with my own interests most of the time, while overseeing theirs - so I see no reason why a working parent can't do that as well, especially with a partner who is at home. In this age of cellphones and webcams, it's not hard to stay in communication.

Ok, well, I think it's fitting that the daughter of the governor of an abstinence-only sex ed state got pregnant at 17. It falls right into line with the stats on teen pregnancy nationwide- rates are highest where abstinence only is stressed. How nice for Bristol that she comes from enough money that mommy and daddy can clean up after her mistakes.

However, we wouldn't be talking nearly so much about this if Palin was a man. Here's what we SHOULD be talking about: That a 72 year old man has chosen a running mate who has under her belt 20 months of experience as governor of Alaska, and before that was the mayor of a town of 7000. She is not qualified to be so close to the presidency whether she has ovaries, a uterus, balls, or a cloaca. Then there's her policies, which is a whole different rant.

What irritates me is how as a woman, I feel pressure to express glee that a woman was chosen as running mate. Like I'm expected to toss all considerations about the best interests of the country aside and just celebrate a victory for feminism, even though I can't even find a single issue I agree with her on? And this is the most qualified woman McCain thinks he can find in the entire Republican party? My god. If I was a female Republican politician, I'd be steaming mad.

Palin is a younger, prettier version of Harriet Myers. Not like I was on the fence anyway with this election (I support Obama, which probably surprises no one), but this has me really frightened about how things will go if McCain should win.

> Palin is a younger, prettier
> version of Harriet Myers.

What could this mean? Who was her patron? Myers had Bush... Who did all that for Palin, and for what?

Despite my defense of her as a mom, I don't think she's qualified to be VP either, and I'm disgusted with McCain for choosing her just to pander to the far right. Apparently, he wanted Lieberman or Ridge, but party movers and shakers said "no way". So he picked her after only 2 conversations because he was running out of time. That's no way to choose a VP. It's almost like he did it as a pouty child who didn't get his way, so he goes, "Fine, I'll show you - I'll put this novice!" McCain is a hothead.

Oh... backtracked through the last few blog entries and it looks like there's been quite a bit of focus on Palin's extra-uterine activities. Awesome. I'll put my righteous indignation back in my pocket now...

If he had picked Lieberman or Ridge, he'd have lost by 10 points. Half the Republican base would have stayed home.

By picking Palin, he wins by 10. And if the freaks at DU and DKos keep it up, maybe 20. Every time they make up another story about Palin and her family, more Democrats lose faith that Barack can control anything.

Who thinks a politician can control the blogosphere? Please.

Katie B---

Alaska, according to Guttmacher, is # 1 for contraception access. So, please, don't preach about "abstinence-only" when you're wrong.

Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Alaska ranked

* 1st in service availability;
* 14th in laws and policies;
* 1st in public funding; and
* 2nd overall.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_data/states/alaska.html

The 28 states participating in a federal abstinence education program and the amount they have received in federal grants this year:

Alabama, $716,369
Arizona, $776,082
Arkansas, $440,640
Florida, $1.9 million
Georgia, $1.1 million
Hawaii, $122,091
Illinois, $1.4 million
Indiana, $565,556
Iowa, $238,648
Kansas, $252,832
Kentucky, $612,974
Louisiana, 962,673
Maryland, $427,257
Michigan, $1.1 million
Mississippi, $621,716
Missouri, $664,196
Nebraska, $164,055
Nevada, $210,130
New Hampshire, $71,177
North Carolina, $936,723
North Dakota, $66,744
Oklahoma, $517,756
Oregon, $365,772
South Carolina, $563,972
South Dakota, $102,285
Texas, $3.6 million
Utah, $216,117
West Virginia, $289,389

Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):

1. Nevada (113)
2. Arizona (104)
3. Mississippi (103)
4. New Mexico (103)
5. Texas (101)
6. Florida (97)
7. California (96)
8. Georgia (95)
9. North Carolina (95)
10. Arkansas (93)

States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19 (births per thousand):

1. Mississippi (71)
2. Texas (69)
3. Arizona (67)
4. Arkansas (66)
5. New Mexico (66)
6. Georgia (63)
7. Louisiana (62)
8. Nevada (61)
9. Alabama (61)
10. Oklahoma (60)

Notice a missing state?

Power blog comment.

I think it's disgusting that people are chortling over Bristol Palin's pregnancy to score political points re: abstinence-only sex-education in SCHOOLS. Get that? It doesn't mean abstinence is the only thing this girl has ever heard. Truth is, we have no idea what she knew or didn't know or what she had access to. (Frankly, I'm impressed that the daughter of the governor can score enough time alone with the BF to get knocked up in the first place!) And you can preach abstinence til you're blue in the face, shove handfuls of condoms at your kids, and even drag them to the OB to put them on the pill, and still they get knocked up. I've got that story in my family, so believe me I know.

And Amy, what about the 3 vs. 2 kids? You're still ignoring that. The fact is, her kids have nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack of) to be VP and the immediate response was simple sexism. And in 2008, that's just sad. I think too many women chose either/or, and because they believe that they can't handle both family AND career, assume no one else can either. Consider for a moment that others may have abilities you don't, just as I assume that you have abilities others don't. It is entirely possible that she's a good mom even while working a demanding, time-consuming job. I know some trial lawyers who work pretty crazy hours and they do just fine with their kids, with less resources than Sarah Palin has (and will have, as VP) at her disposal.

I just watched the speech (I know, I said I wouldn't, but she's hot, so I kinda had to).

Amy, you'd better get used to saying "Vice President Sarah Palin".

20 points. You heard it here first.

I'm appalled at the blogosphere's attacks on her kids. While I'm not crazy about a married with baby 17 year old, it's not the end of the world.

I think the East Coast Media sold Sarah the whole line of "You can have it all" and she bought it. So, when she was busy with job/life/kids, the ECM changed the story and told women they should buy Manolos and whine. She didn't get the memo, and now embarrasses them.

A few years ago, I promised never to pay any more attention to Peggy Noonan because she took viper money from Enron. But dammit, she's having a good couple months, and made a point similar to Katecoe's in the WSJ today...

--------

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

--------

Which may even be true. (Really, I only like the "reload this thang way".)

Anybody see the speech? Wudja think?

Dear T's Grammy: I trust you know that the demographic statistics of the Western world do not support your notion that people having lots of kids is a problem? If you don't, I'd strongly recommend you read Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. My country of Canada already has a huge population deficit problem, which is only kept in check by an enormous immigration program. Japan's in terrible shape, as is most all of Western Europe. I just found this for you: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tot_fer_rat-people-total-fertility-rate Please note that for a population to sustain itself, the birth rate has to be at least 2.1 per woman.

I saw the tail end of SP's speech, and I was pretty damned impressed - she made some very good, solid points. "The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of 'personal discovery'" being just one. I also liked "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."
And "Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."
But when she talked about how Obama, when talking about the war, never mentioned the word 'victory', except when he was talking about his campaign, that kind of sealed the deal for me. I like the woman. At best, she came across as someone who really believes in and says what she means. Unlike Shrillary, whose speeches and pandering just screamed "phony!" at me every time I heard her. I think McCain made a good choice. YMMV o_O

I loved the speech. Quite impressed by her now, for all the points Flynn mentioned.

And did you see Bristol's boyfriend? They call him "sex on skates." You could talk abstinance until you're blue in the face, but I don't think it would've worked for me around him either!

KateCoe, while the state of Alaska may be #1 in terms of contraceptive access, it certainly seems that the Palin household is a little piece of Mississippi. And if McCain by some horrible twist of fate becomes president and strokes out, leaving the Alaskan secessionist in charge, the rest of the country may start looking like Mississippi, too.

leaving the Alaskan secessionist in charge

Katie, you are either a member of the Sadly Pathetic leftist troll community, or in thrall to them.

Do not use lies to make your point, it makes you look stupid and uninformed.

Brian, do not accuse people of being part of a vast left wing conspiracy to make your point, it makes you look paranoid and wanker-like. You know, Amy has had some pretty strong words agains Palin, too. Maybe SHE'S in thrall to Sadly No!

What stuns me is how some people watched her speech and now thinks she's a great choice. What little record she has (if you look at Amy's thread on her fiscal policies as governor, in particular) tells us what we need to know. Campaign speeches aren't worth the paper they're written on. And yes, I give the same weight to Obama's campaign. His record compared to McCain's is the reason for my vote. All these people are just saying what they think will give them the most votes.

Obama's Senate record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Biden's record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53279

McCain's record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Palin's record: I can't link to her record. Because there IS NONE. All I can get on her through this excellent site are her speeches and public statements, as well as a brief bio. http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200

Get informed, yourself.

Katie - the AIP lie has already been debunked. The only people still pushing it (along with the "is Trig really Sarah's baby" smear and others) are the denizens of DKos, and Kos is trying to delete them as fast as he can.

Obama's Senate record is farther left than Joe Biden's. They're both farther left than McCain. For that matter, they're both farther left than Joe Lieberman.

Which means that even with Joe Lieberman on the ticket, from my vantage point McCain is still superior to Obama/Biden.

What little experience Obama has is, to me, his biggest liability. I don't like socialists. I don't vote for socialists.

Why would I go against a non-socialist on the basis that she might not have been impolite enough to Pat Buchanan?

Oh, and Katie - one more thing:

I'm more informed than you're likely to ever be. I remember the Carter administration. I remember the gas lines. And Obama is promising a return to the heady days of the end of the 1970s.

And I'm not willing to go there. And if you think that 1979 was a good year, then you weren't there.

Ok, ok, so she's not pushing for Alaskan independence. As has been notated by commentators elsewhere, that would mean Alaska wouldn't get those huge chunks of federal money anymore! But she's sure not hesitant to kiss some extremist ass in this prepared statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Remembering the Carter administration does not make you better informed than me. It makes you older than me, which could be why your priorities are different. I'm a woman of reproductive age. I'm in the health care field and I see the consequences of its failure every day. Many of my old high school classmates are in the military, and have served or are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It'd be swell if they didn't get landed in Iran next. These things, among many others, influence my support for a Obama/Biden administration, and my frank fear of McCain/Palin.

notated=noted. *cringe*

Well, Katie, your choice will get your buddies landed in Pakistan if Obama gets his way. There's no way Bush or McCain is invading Iran. See, they aren't as dumb as the douchebags at DKos, they know that any military move by us on Iran takes the population that is mostly fed up with the mullahs and Ahmedinejad and makes them immediately jump to the defense of their nation. Nationalism will do that for you.

If you think the "health care field" is failing now, wait until the federal government takes it over. Which do you think you are more likely to end up with: Congress' health plan, or the VA?

And if you're basing your vote on abortion, don't. Even though Roe v. Wade was bad law, the Supreme Court is not in the habit of reversing itself, especially not on controversial issues. Besides, the last thing either side of that argument wants is a legislatively arrived-at resolution. It'll put too many protesters out of jobs.

And my priorities really ought to be the priorities of everyone in a free nation: minimal government, strong defense. If we'd had the latter back in 1979, we wouldn't hear the Democrats bleating about the impropriety of using images from 9/11 on the campaign trail because it wouldn't have happened.

For all we know my buddies ARE in Pakistan. US troops are conducting raids across the border now- they just did so last week.

So much confidence in Bush and McCain in regards to foreign policy. Do you believe in Santa Claus, too? What from the past eight years is encouraging you to think that McCain possesses that much common sense- or is willing to use it? I really think he sees the Middle East as his second shot at the Vietnam War, which "everyone knows" we only lost because the government hamstrung the military.

And if you're basing your vote on abortion, don't. Even though Roe v. Wade was bad law, the Supreme Court is not in the habit of reversing itself, especially not on controversial issues. Besides, the last thing either side of that argument wants is a legislatively arrived-at resolution. It'll put too many protesters out of jobs.

My remark about being a woman of reproductive age was not meant to imply I vote strictly along abortion lines. Maybe I have more of a stake in the future than you do. People starting out their lives, professional and personal, could be more concerned about education, the environment, health care, and a long term solution to the energy crisis. You have, what, 20 years left to worry about gas prices? Looking at average lifespan, I've got upwards of fifty, plus the possibility of raising children in this clusterfuck. That's what I was referring to in this comment. I don't vote along vagina lines.

Maybe I have more of a stake in the future than you do. People starting out their lives, professional and personal, could be more concerned about education, the environment, health care, and a long term solution to the energy crisis. You have, what, 20 years left to worry about gas prices? Looking at average lifespan, I've got upwards of fifty, plus the possibility of raising children in this clusterfuck.

I'd rather hoped I'd live past 60, but hey, who am I to argue.

If you're concerned about education, don't send your kids to government schools. An education is the last thing they'll get there.

If you're concerned about the environment, don't vote for socialists because their answer to everything is government. And a quick look at the condition of the environment left behind by the USSR ought to give you all the information you need on how well the government husbands natural resources.

If you're concerned about health care, then voting for socialists isn't going to help you, I'm afraid. Let the government run it, and you'll get rationing and refusal of service. Get the government out of it, and we might have a chance.

If you want a long-term solution to the "energy crisis", then you really don't want to talk to people like Obama. Burning food for fuel is one of the dumbest things ever conceived, and there are no "renewable" energy sources that are going to fuel this nation's voracious appetite for energy. Given what we know now, it's nukes or nothing.

And I'm not voting for McCain because I liked Bush, or because I trust McCain. I'm voting for McCain because I KNOW the damage that Obama will unleash upon the Republic. We survived one Carter administration. I don't think we'll survive another one.