Sarah Palin's daughter, from Reuters.

[jasd]

>>Of course, they would be saying "this speaks to character, judgment and leadership". How can he be commander in chief if he can't "command" his household?<<

But of course, the Right already has the issue; that is, his mother was that young woman whose actions paralleled Bristol's. Where have you found the Right making an issue of 'bama being a punishment, or an STD, or political fodder, or...?

No, that sort of thing, as I've previously noted, seems to have its well-spring from the left. :-o

[lazarus]

Both Sarah Palin and John McCain back abstinence-only education. No surprises there.

What's galling is this: When the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, minority teenage mother growing up in some (presumably Democratic) urban area, that pregnancy becomes fodder for lectures from conservatives about bad parenting, the perils of welfare spending and so on. But when the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, white teenager from some small town in a Republican state, that pregnancy is...a celebration of the wonders of God's magnificence--and choosing life!

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2...litics/war_room

[Dr. Shane]

Those that have not traveled to the third world may not be able to grasp the issue surrounding Obama and his half brother. When a person travels to the third world and sees the extreame poverty their heart goes out and they normally leave behind over half of the items they came with. I left behind my CD player, guitar and much clothing when I first went to Panama. That is a natural reaction. According to reports, Obama met his half brother but does not help him. That type of neglect reflects on Obama's character. Unless he is practicing "tough love" it reflects poorly on home. If members of this forum want to continue that conversation I am willing to do so. I have nine half brothers and sisters and have helped two sister-in-laws living in the third world go to college. I am in a very good position to say how Obama should or should not treat his half-sibling.

Sarah Palin's daughter got pregnant. How does that reflect on her? Maybe mothers shouldn't work outside the home. Is that what we should conclude? Is she a bad mother because she works outside the home? Maybe, as parents, we can only teach our children what to do and ultimately let them make their own decisions.

As far as speculation as to what FOXNews would be reporting if this was Obama's daughter,,, how far off the subject do we want to wonder? How about we talk about the price of rice in China. It isn't Obama's daughter and the thread isn't about FOXNews.

[carolaa]

How about we talk about the price of rice in China.

I don't know about the price of rice in China, but I just heard today that it's near impossible to find basmati in Pakistan these days.

:smile:

[Neil D]

[Tom Wetmore]

I just heard an interesting perspective on whether the families of the candidates are fair game for comment and scrutiny. Here is what one observer said:

"If your family are off limits, why are they on the stage? Why is there a profile in People Magazine of your family?"

Let's face it, the politicians (of both parties) parade their children out as political props at appearances on the campaign and they were there right up front at the convention. Such political pandering is crass and manipulative. It was the candidates that thrust their family into that harsh limelight of public scrutiny and to then object that we might be curious and check them out further is more than a little hypocritical, IMHO. They put them in the game, so they are fair game.

Tom

[John317]

I don't think there is any reason why a politician should feel he has to hide his children in order keep them from being bashed by the media.

The change has occurred in the media, not in the candidates or in the children.

A man serving this country ought to be able to walk with his child without having to feel that the newspapers or TV programs will attack or abuse the child.

On the other hand, if an adult child or member of the candidates family gets involved in the campaign, then the media has every right to question them and discuss their activities and words.

[Tom Wetmore]

How many of us put our children's pictures on our resume? Or take them with us to a job interview?

[Dr. Shane]

A politician taking his wife and children on stage with him in no way should give the media the right to attack them or pry into their personal lives.

Chelsy Clinton went on the campaign trail for her mother when Hillary was seeking the nomination. So should have the media checked into how many men Chelsy has slept with, if she uses birth control, if she has any lesbian friends, if she ever over-withdraws her bank account, what er credit rating is, if she ever drank before she was 21 or ever experimented with drugs? Did Chelsy make herself fair game to be investigated because she campaigned for her mom? I say, absolutely not. She was Hilary's child and should be allowed to sing the praises of her mom without having any of her own personal dirty laundry aired to the world.

[Tom Wetmore]

A politician taking his wife and children on stage with him in no way should give the media the right to attack them or pry into their personal lives.

You seem to miss the point entirely. The spouse and children are not applying/running for the job in question. Why drag them out on the stage into the limelight? If privacy is desired, one tends to avoid public exposure and the limelight. It is hypocritical to use them as adorable political props and then feign offense when the attention turns negative and try to redraw the line that they are off-limits.

We intentionally protect even the ID of minors thrust into the news by events and circumstances beyond their control, until we get parental permission. Celebrities that value privacy for their young children, aggressively avoid putting them in the limelight. Politicians don't seem to get that and should not whine and complain for the consequences of their own actions in the exact opposite direction.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Chelsy Clinton went on the campaign trail for her mother when Hillary was seeking the nomination...

Big difference. Chelsy is an adult and made her own decision to help her mother. She put herself out there.

Let's exam Sarah Palin's own words about the McCain invitation to the VP slot on the ticket. In her ABC interview she said she did not hesitate. Now one of the big campaign selling points is that she is a Mom and loving family person. Did her Mommy side not give a second thought to the implications of her political decision and the potential disruption to her family? Especially with a special needs infant? Especially knowing she had a pregnant teenage daughter that was going to have a tough time ahead, even without public scrutiny? Did she give adequate consideration to the tremendous time commitment and demands of just the campaign, not to mention being VP and possibly the Prez? Which is her priority - family or political ambition? (It seems I have heard some of you Palin fans express opposition to women as ministers and church leaders because of the detraction from family priorities...) For a political party that claims to hold Family Values as a very high priority, it seems family is being sacrificed on the altar of political ambition by both Palin and McCain. It all seems crassly insensitive to family values, IMHO.

Personally, I have passed up a number of highly attractive career opportunities for myself because I deemed them to not be ultimately in the best interest of my family. Even as a man, had I been in Palin's position, especially considering her unique family circumstances, that career opportunity would have been the one that would have gotten the "Thanks, but no thanks" answer. For me, that should be a no-brainer.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Why drag them out on the stage into the limelight?

It is an American tradition for the most part. Why decorate the White House for Christmas? Why grant a pardon to a turkey at Thanksgiving? This is part of American tradition that has been embraced by both political parties and there is no reason we should discourage it.

Quote:

Big difference. Chelsy is an adult and made her own decision to help her mother.

The fact that Chelsy is an adult and actively campaigned for her mother would give the media more justification to go after her private life. However even in the circumstances that Chelsy put herself in, I do not agree the media has a right to make her private life a public issue.

Quote:

Did her Mommy side not give a second thought to the implications of her political decision and the potential disruption to her family?

That is a sexist remark. Millions of American mothers with newborn babies go to work everyday. Do they question their "mommy side"?

Quote:

Especially knowing she had a pregnant teenage daughter that was going to have a tough time ahead, even without public scrutiny?

Her pregnant teenage daughter is engaged to get married. Would we expect a female teacher being offered the position of a school principle, or a nurse being offered the position of DON to decline such promotions because their teenage daughter is pregnant and engaged?

Quote:

Which is her priority - family or political ambition?

Another blatant sexist remark! Why isn't this question asked of Obama? He has small children at home. Is Michelle going to continue her career as a lawyer or will she stay home and be a mom? How dare we stick our nose into those personal decisions! And how dare we only ask such questions about the female candidate!

[Neil D]

Quote:

Why drag them out on the stage into the limelight?

It is an American tradition for the most part. Why decorate the White House for Christmas? Why grant a pardon to a turkey at Thanksgiving? This is part of American tradition that has been embraced by both political parties and there is no reason we should discourage it.

Things are different than people. Decorating at Xmas and pardoning the turkey, and not the same thing as introducing your family to the public. And that is all it is...introducing the family. "This is my family." is what the polictian is saying.

Quote:

Big difference. Chelsy is an adult and made her own decision to help her mother.

The fact that Chelsy is an adult and actively campaigned for her mother would give the media more justification to go after her private life. However even in the circumstances that Chelsy put herself in, I do not agree the media has a right to make her private life a public issue.

Is Julie Nixon a subject of interest in the media? Not really...She is so far removed from the White House, that there is only side/passing notes on what she is doing. Same holds true for Chelsy. She is now an adult and the media recognises that she is responsible for her own actions. And she is of no more concern than a what the celebraties wear...Now, if either of them ran for public office, like John Kennedy did, whole nother matter..

Quote:

Did her Mommy side not give a second thought to the implications of her political decision and the potential disruption to her family?

That is a sexist remark. Millions of American mothers with newborn babies go to work everyday. Do they question their "mommy side"?

OOoh Shane, it is NOT a sexist remark. That's your republican POV showing thru again. I got single nurses every day saying, "I wish I could stay home with [insert child name]."and they usually work 12 hour shifts, 2 or 3 day/nights per week just so they can stay home the rest of the time.

Quote:

Especially knowing she had a pregnant teenage daughter that was going to have a tough time ahead, even without public scrutiny?

Her pregnant teenage daughter is engaged to get married. Would we expect a female teacher being offered the position of a school principle, or a nurse being offered the position of DON to decline such promotions because their teenage daughter is pregnant and engaged?

If they were single moms, yes...If they were well established in thier profession, done with raising children, yes....but the raising of a child comes first...even to the problems of the country

Quote:

Which is her priority - family or political ambition?

Another blatant sexist remark! Why isn't this question asked of Obama? He has small children at home. Is Michelle going to continue her career as a lawyer or will she stay home and be a mom? How dare we stick our nose into those personal decisions! And how dare we only ask such questions about the female candidate! Three comments-

First, Michelle hasn't given up her reponsiblities for holding a job and being a mother. I expect that she will take a leave of absence from work if her hubby is elected. She knows that she will fulfil the job of being a White House mother...and she gives every indication that that is what she will do.

This is not a sexist remark. It is inquiring if the cannidate has the support needed to raise a family and fulfill the duties of President and if the support of the family is needed.

And as for that remark about "how dare we stick our nose into those personal decisions!"...now you know how some females feel with all the talk about forcing women to carry thier children to term regardless of the circumstances of the conception

[carolaa]

Quote:

Did her Mommy side not give a second thought to the implications of her political decision and the potential disruption to her family?

That is a sexist remark. Millions of American mothers with newborn babies go to work everyday. Do they question their "mommy side"?

I am afraid when I hear about women like that having any power. I know I was not ready to go home 24 hours after giving birth, but it was mandatory with my insurance. A few years later, the insurance companies were forced to allow 48 hours. If a woman wants to go home sooner, fine, but I would say most women are not ready. Just as most women are not ready to return to the work force at 2 weeks, which is a common length of maternity leave. Republicans tend to expect women to just deal with it however they can. Democrats are more likely to force companies to treat their employees and clients right. History has shown that companies do not have a good record of this without government intervention. That's why labor unions came along. I do not think Palin will promote policies that are helpful to women.

[Dr. Shane]

I know I was not ready to go home 24 hours after giving birth, but it was mandatory with my insurance... I do not think Palin will promote policies that are helpful to women.

An opinon based on one person's experience. When we do that we judge others based on our own personal experiences and feelings. That is to say that since "we" wouldn't have went right back to work, she must be a bad mother for doing it.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Did her Mommy side not give a second thought to the implications of her political decision and the potential disruption to her family?

Originally Posted By: Shane

That is a sexist remark. Millions of American mothers with newborn babies go to work everyday. Do they question their "mommy side"?

OOoh Shane, it is NOT a sexist remark.

[carolaa]

Oh, Shane, that's not what I said at all. I wonder if you even read my post. I said nothing about her being a bad mother. I said if a mother is ready to go home sooner, that's fine. You took the whole thing out of context. I was talking about how companies often have to be forced to treat their employees or clients right, and I don't think Sarah Palin would be in favor of forcing companies to do anything.

[Tom Wetmore]

It is almost bizzare that I get accused by a conservative Republican of raising a sexist question about their female candidate when those questions are most commonly framed from their own ideas of traditional family values - motherhood takes priority over career, etc. I posed the question intentionally from the traditional conservative role of women point of view and it appears the shoe just doesn't fit its rightful owner.

[Dr. Shane]

When we set different standards for women than men we make the world a sexist place.

BTW: I am a registered Democrat and intend on voting Democrat in my district's congressional race. I would register as an independent but in Texas we don't have that option.

[Tom Wetmore]

When we set different standards for women than men we make the world a sexist place...

I agree. But that is the world that results from Republican policies and that is most frequently promoted by conservative, especially in their religious views. It just seems that political expediency has taken priority and trumps the family values.

And the family standard that I mentioned was from my male perspective:

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Personally, I have passed up a number of highly attractive career opportunities for myself because I deemed them to not be ultimately in the best interest of my family. Even as a man, had I been in Palin's position, especially considering her unique family circumstances, that career opportunity would have been the one that would have gotten the "Thanks, but no thanks" answer. For me, that should be a no-brainer.

Even though I was an early supporter of John Edwards, I was not comfortable with his decision to continue when his wife's cancer came back. I would have dropped out. Men should take into account the impact on their families just as much as women should.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

I worked for a man that was a Democrat elected official. He owned a construction company I worked for. He was very much a sexist. Sexism isn't confined to any political party.

[Neil D]

Quote:

When we set different standards for women than men we make the world a sexist place.

Hogwash! The world becomes a "sexist place" when the people allow it to become sexist.

We set different standards for women and men because they are women and men. Traditionally women are caretakers and society encourages them to be caretakers because most women WANT to be the caretaker. Business allow women to take maternity leave of about 6-8 weeks because it is a bonding time for children. [Acutally the bonding takes place in a couple of hour after birth. The rest of the time is for the mother to become aquainted with her child.]

Most business do not allow family leave/maturnity for men because they are not doing the work of women in regard to children, ie giving birth to them. Society doesn't allow men to have maternity leave because "there is no bonding" taking place. [We know that this is untrue, now.]. My current place of employment now allows men to have some family/maternaty leave with thier new children.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

My current place of employment now allows men to have some family/maternaty leave with thier new children.

That is progress in this sexist world. Electing a female VP will be even more progress. (That is not to say I intend to vote for her and McCain)