It's so helpful to hear about your perspective on this issue. You bring up some great points. I agree with you on John Edwards' home situation. The community at large needs to come to an agreement on parental standards that apply to both men and women. And maybe we should consider the fact that some of us can't have it all.

Uhm, here's a shocker, folks. The kid has a dad, too. I know, I know, it's soooo passe for a family to have two parents, but it just happens to be so in this case. And here's another thing: It's ok for the wife to be the breadwinner these days! OMFG, What a concept!

So, perhaps you folks should consider minding your own business and stop the bitter, divorced, career oriented whining. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourselves.

Women have to work so hard to break the glass ceiling. We hear that we won't do as good a job because of our children, we hear that our children suffer because we work. These sentiments are sexist because men are never told that being parents makes them less able, or that their children will suffer because of their jobs.
I'm convinced that your objections to Mrs. Palin are partisan. Otherwise, if you really had the courage of your convictions, you'd quit your job to be a mother to your children. And advocate that all women do the same.
I am really disgusted to hear Obama supporters use Mrs. Palin's children as a reason she shouldn't be in office. No one says that Mr. Obama's daughters will suffer irreparably if he is President, and thus he shouldn't be running for office. Speak honestly about the issues you have with her. That's ok. But having a family should not disqualify anyone, man or woman, from holding office. And I have no time for people who believe that it should.
I am so angry & disappointed, I'm cancelling my feed reader's subscription to your site.

I am a parent(dad) of a young little boy with Down syndrome that is 6. My wife and I also have a 9 yr old girl and another boy that is 7.

My wife is a full-time parent and I work from home 3 days a week so that I can be there to help.
Trust me, it's a monumental task for the two of us even.

Our children are our lives and we both know that the moment we became parents, our roles and tasks in life changed. This became even more evident with the birth of our littlest and his very special needs.

Parent first.

Thank you!

I completely agree with what you have posted on your blog. I don't have children (not God's plan for me), but it irritates me beyond words for those who have been blessed with children to treat them with such disregard. My best friend has two special needs children both under seven years old now, and her sole purpose in life is to get through each day with both. I hear her pleas for sanity yet know she wouldn't give up her role for the lottery jackpot.

Palin's selfish pursuits are going to damage her family beyond what she can probably imagine. It is irresponsible to think that she could lead this nation when she is quick to push her family's needs off onto her husband and/or the public so easily.

How can you suggest that just because Sarah Palin has young children at home, she should not accept this opportunity? Would you say the same if her husband had been named as McCain's running mate and Sarah was just gonna be the devoted little housewife/mom keeping home together for him?

Pardon me, your double standard is showing.

If it's wrong for Palin to run, why isn't it wrong for Obama? He has young kids, too. And he also has a devoted spouse in the wings. Only their family just happens to fit the traditional mold: Daddy earns the living while Mommy makes the home. So, just because the Palins have turned this upside-down, she's vilified and the Republicans are idiots to choose her? WHY?

Feminists have been telling us for decades that we CAN have it all. That the fact of our womanhood and motherhood should not detract from evaluation of our career ability. They've been telling men that they should take a more active role in child-rearing and home-keeping. But when a gutsy woman and her equally gutsy husband decide to actually live out what the feminists have been telling us we should do, suddenly she's a horrible mother and he's a wimpy guy?

You cannot have it both ways.

And the special-needs status of their child doesn't really matter. First off, the VP makes more than $220K per year. So they can afford more and better household help than you can. Nanny, tutor, housekeeper, manager, private physicians, personal assistants … they are going to have plenty of help in managing the family.

Furthermore, the VP lives in the 9100 sq. ft., fully-staffed VP's residence (aka the Admiral's House), and earns more than $220K /year. Housing and staff is not really going to be an issue for them. In fact, Palin might find that she has more, and higher quality time, to spend with her children, simply because so many things will not be required of her at home.

So here is a woman who has been able to land a really high-powered job, who has the support of her husband and (mostly grown) family, and who has the financial means to ensure that her family will not be neglected while she performs her duties, yet all of the so-called women's-rights advocates are lambasting her because she has a new baby with Down's Syndrome. What happened to women having power, having choice, having equal opportunity?

I'm sickened by the whole, disgusting brouhaha. WE women have been standing behind our talented men for centuries. Now it's our turn to shine a little, and I think that's grand.

So I say, GO PALIN! Show the world what a determined, well-educated, respectable woman can do. And GO MR. PALIN! You show the world what a supportive man can do to help his talented wife achieve great things.

No doubt we can appreciate that you and palin have a unique struggle with abnormal children and that that hurdle is a high one.

It still remains that you are fantastically ridiculous (yes, I'm entertained and will continue to read about gen y nonsense and your failed personal life. many thanks). i do suspect that you'd be offering a different tune if palin was a liberal. she would then be strong or whathaveyou. Why aren't you at home? gen y and the careerists of the world need your help more? gen y doesn't have real problems yet. according to you, your children do.

“She is nuts. And the Republicans are nuts for putting her on a ticket. She has a five-month-old kid with Down's Syndrome.”

I agree. As governor she already has a load of responsibility. It is obvious that she does put her career above her family, but that is her business.

“Because every parent in the world has had to compromise, and it's fair to judge public figures on the choices they make.”

I agree 100% with you on this and everything you said in this post and I don't do that often.

Cyber hugs for you and the hard work you do.

This was a great choice for McCain because it gave him instant celebrity status. Now everyone is talking about Palin. Instead of talking about how great Obama is or what's wrong with the country, everyone is making Palin relevent. The substance is irrelevent; controversy sells. And if it starts to look like she could actually hurt him, she can heroically withdraw in October earning sympathy votes.
Her choices are not necessarily selfish. She has an opportunity of a lifetime and perhaps her whole family decided this was best for the country…just like sending a kid to Iraq. Opportunities to change the world like this are tempting and rare. Who's to say passing up on it might not be a cop out. When it's your turn…when the call to service comes…you find a way to make it work andto hell with what other people think.

Wow Penelope, just wow.

I get that you lean waaaay to the left, but I have always respected your intelligence and I admire the fact that you promote introspection and self knowledge.

But here is a fact: by your own admission, you are at best "non standard" and at worst, highly dysfunctional.

Your partisanship pimp-slapped your principles and ideals to the point that you make a laughable argument about what is best for someone you do not know and do not understand.

Sarah Palin is virtually incomprehensible to an East Coast Democrat. Just admit it.

Hey, I don't get Chuck Schumer or Hillary or any any of the Kennedy clan. Not in my DNA, not in my culture, not in my values. I think you people that like them are… all kinds of things.

The difference here is that I at least understand the cultural and ideological gap. I understand WHY I don't "get it" and I don't pretend it is a matter of intelligence or education when I know it is all about world view, values and ideology.

Pretending you give a rats ass about her kids or her family or her marriage is disingenuous to the core. Shame on you and shame on everyone else who is afraid to just stand up and say "I strongly disagree with this womans values and ideology and I think her ideas are bad for the country"

That would be honest and a little courageous, not fake and gag inducing like it is when you pretend to give even the slightest damn.

I am so proud to see what Sarah is doing. She is a Republican and like most Alaskans, she has a strong libertarian streak and a low tolerance for political BS. As a former citizen of Wasilla (I went to the same church and schools as Sarah) I cannot wait to see what she will do next.

I feel this way because I have a high degree of alignment with her life experience and her values – is she good or bad for the country? Depends on your values – to me she is good, to you she is bad – but have the decency to be real about it.

And another thing – few things are more ridiculous than Easterners whining about drilling in ANWR. It's a frozen wasteland. The part they want to drill is like a postage stamp on a football field and support for drilling is almost universal among Alaskan citizens. Really, the nerve of some of you (commenters).

Now I am off to see if I can't find some religion and guns to go cling to.

I agree with your conclusion, that the Republican VP candidate choice is risky (at best), but not for the same reasons listed.

I don't think autism and down syndrome are fairly comparable. They are not quite the same. Downs syndrome babies, (children, even adults,) are notoriously easygoing. I'm not bothered by a five month old baby, who will be almost a year old by the time they office, and who has a ton of family to help care for him.

Palin's family situation is not like Penelope Trunk's, and not as tragic as John Edwards' either. Cancer is a lot harsher than Downs syndrome. Palin has a lot of factors in her favor.

The reason I think Palin's risky – is because she has a bachelor's degree in journalism, from Idaho, compared to Obama's law degree from Harvard. Sorry, but that's my prejudice. I think anyone can get into her college, but his graduate school record is amazing, and at an amazing institution. He's a lot smarter, that's all. Maybe it's "book learning," but that counts. I think she's clearly an … amateur.

While I'm thrilled to see Gen Y folks finally get into the political scene, and pleased to see a woman in her 40s "making it" in her chosen profession, and can even laugh at the "passing of the torch" and marvel at the changes in society, bottom line is I'm terrified now – she might actually become president. Wow. Talk about bad sucession planing. McCain is clearly the idiot.

At least Hillary Clinton had international diplomatic experience, had been intimately involved in the country's politics … for decades, and I believed she could assemble a good working team of respectable and powerful policy makers. (It matters, for instance, who is secretary of state.)

Happy as I would be to have dinner with Palin, or McCain even, I wouldn't trust them. I don't think either are wise enough to make good decisions, for all our people, nor inspired to lead this country, basically to spend our millions on projects that help rather than creating wars.

Then again, I didn't trust Bush either, either one, nor Reagan, and I have always felt Al Gore won, in 2000. I still Bill Clinton won not from experience, but with an excellent education, and talent, combined.

It's bound to be an interesting couple of months!

Hip Hip Hooray. Thanks for stating what I think is obvious. IMHO, Palin accepting the nomination as VP candidate is one more example of her willingness to sacrifice women's right to choose. She had a choice to say NO to the very tantalizing invitation to run as VP, and she passed up on that choice – because she didn't feel as though she had a choice. I hope we end up with someone in leadership who supports all of our rights to make many choices. Regardless of gender, regardless of the choice.

* * * * * *

I love this comment. Thanks, Kathleen. Your point is eloquent and sharp and I wish I had said it this way.

-Penelope

bigoted comment alert "And it's nearly impossible to keep a marriage together when the husband quits his job to take care of the kids (which Palin's husband just did)…"

so it's fine for the wife to stay at home, but not the husband?

and the elitist comparison of Obama's education record vs McCain/Palin?? my gosh, look @ the relative real life experiences both bring.. McCain almost gave his life for the USA and you dismiss him because he didn't finish at the top of his class?

Heck, I like Obama allot, but you need to have some realistic benchmarks and weigh all pertinent facts.. The USA is so divisive, it's either one way or the other.. You don't value what you truly have.

You may higher maintenance than Mrs. Palin. She is raising her family with her partner of 20+ years. For whatever reasons, you have not found a partner for that duration. I think this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Sidney,

Re; "regardless of whether or not she can juggle this role, her decision to subject her family to this mess, especially the teenage daughter; shows as much about the dark side of her decision making as the choice of Sarah Palin as VP showed the dark side of John McCain's decsion making."

Perhaps Governor Palin should have said turned down the opportunity and let Bristol live with the guilt that she cost her mother the opportunity of a lifetime, eh?

Sidney,

The Naval Academy is a notoriously hard school where everyone is essentially pursuing an engineering curriculum. But does McCain's college performance matter all these years later? Does Biden finishing near the bottom of his law school class (76 out of 84 I belive) really matter?

In any event, how does this matter? Governor Palin has been successful at every stop on the way. And she has managed to raise a family as well. Penelope is certainly entitled to her opinion. But it is amazing to me that feminism was supposed to give women choices and opportunties. I guess they mean that women should make certain choices.

Penelope,

This looks mad to me, too.

Has anyone noticed that as soon as poor Bristol's pregnancy was announced, the baby was handed off to the next daughter in line? These girls ARE the child-care back-up plan, at (I suspect) a severe cost to their own lives. They look even less animated and happy than politicians' children usually look.

Mr. Mom is bearing up with good grace so far, but it can't be easy.

Personally, I think this VP decision was quite sexist…against men. A man that had the "credentials" she had would have been deemed inadequate. Guess it pays to be female. McCain picked her because he knows most Republicans cant stand him, yet the women he was targeting with his pick would have voted Republican anyway.

On the other hand if Sarah can juggle the kids and her career then just maybe the religious right (James Dobson of Focus on the Family) will finally get off their high horses about women working outside the home being bad for raising kids. I heard Dobson on a radio show go on and on for over 20 minutes about how bad that is for the kids and now he thinks Sarah is the perfect for VP. So now he gets it. Good for him.

McCain has like ten kids. How many does Obama have? I don't even know. No one questions the man's ability to do a job based on the number of children he has.

Penelope,

I am so glad you addressed this topic. As the father of a 5 year old son with Down syndrome I have some strong opinions about Ms. Palin’s nomination to the Vice Presidency. My wife and I have also have two other boys ages 3 and 7 months.

I don’t want to politicize the issue but I do want to comment on raising a family with special needs. Certainly Penelope knows the joys, triumphs, and frustration. It isn’t easy and I can’t imagine how challenging it must be as a single parent.

Managing our son’s challenges is a full time job; negotiating with health insurance companies, attending meetings at the school, and advocating for our son so that he can share the same experiences as his typical brothers. It is hard work and not without its share of arguments and frustration. My wife and I make it work.

Penelope’s thesis has merit. Perhaps Ms. Palin’s focus should be on her family. The reality, however, is that she may very likely be our next Vice President. There is no turning back for the Palin family. More than likely her husband will have to assume the duties of “homemaker” and Penelope has already cited the pitfalls of that type of situation.

I think Cait is onto something when she compares the special needs situation and the global warming issue raised by Vice President Gore. Ms. Palin stated unequivocally that parents of children with special needs will have an advocate in Washington. I believe her. I believe we should take advantage of her willingness to advocate and champion the needs of our most fragile population; our special needs population.

I wish the Palin’s the very best. I hope her family is strong enough to survive the campaign, teen pregnancy, the issues surrounding Down syndrome, the education system of Washington, DC, and having a stay at home father.

One challenge to a comment. Yvette believes children and adults with Down syndrome are easygoing. One of the myths about Down syndrome is that people who have it are happy easy going people. People with Down syndrome have the same range of emotions as the rest of us. They feel sorrow, pain, anger, love, and happiness the same way you or I do. Take it from a father of a 5 year old; sometimes our son with Down syndrome is more stubborn than our other children. I would encourage everyone to visit the National Down Syndrome Society website (www.ndss.org) for facts about Down syndrome or join a Buddy Walk to help raise money and awareness about Down syndrome.

I applaud Penelope for taking a stand. She speaks from the heart, with conviction and the experience of a mother of children with greater needs than others.

I can't get behind you on this one, Penelope. I don't like her but I don't think she needs a less demanding job because of her kids.

Why are we all pretending it's acceptable for two 17 year old kids to marry? Does anyone else see this as tragic?

Marriage is hard enough for adults. Why would a mother encourage/endorse the marriage of her young daughter to a boy who is just as unprepared?

This irresponsible and disgusting.

Thanks for writing this Penelope. I think the issue of Palin and her kids has been "the elephant in the room" that no one will talk about.

As a mother of two kids, one <1 year old, neither so far appear to be special needs, I can't imagine agreeing to take on those levels of responsibilities.

Irrespective of whatever else she has done or hasn't that makes her qualified or not, I have to question her character at agreeing to take this on. She could end up abandoning her kids. (And, I always questioned John Edwards' character for the same reasons Penelope mentioned).

My only mitigating thought is that she expects her ticket to lose, so this will be a couple months in the spotlight and then she'll go back to small town Alaska, maybe join the speakers circuit for $40,000 a night. The latter would mean a good income and time with the kids.

My other conspiracy-oriented thought is that she has agreed only to be on the ticket, not necessarily to serve if elected. With a complex family life, it would be believable for her to say she can no longer fulfill the role and step down about 6 months into the term, allowing McCain and the republicans to select someone McCain knows better and wants to work with.

If you are going to take a crack at Palin, there is plenty of fodder from her speech alone. Why bring her family into it at all? This wouldn't be an issue if some politician's wife quit her job to help out with the children so why are you making it an issue? I think you are full of crap. I'll be even more specific: I'm a democrat and an Obama supporter and I think you are full of crap. As a matter of fact, I am betting you just wrote that blog about Palin to be inflammatory and to get people to respond to it – well, I consider myself duped for the last time. I'm done reading your blog for good. Hope you get a clue someday.

I have a lot of mixed feelings on this post. You have a lot of merit because of your own special needs children. However, I'm sure Palin has this once in lifetime opportunity. I'm not voting for her, but its not because I think she should stay home. It's because she doesn't hold my same views. Have you ever heard of Coya Come Home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coya_Knutson

Another time, another place, same issue. I don't think the fact that she is a mother should be an issue of whether you vote for her or not. Please don't write the Sara Come Home letter.

Minor nitpick–it's Down Syndrome, not Down's. Down didn't have it. Dr. Down named it.

I don't even have a special needs child. I have two teenagers, who are active in school, swimming and cross country. This week alone I've had two school open houses to attend and one swim meet. This weekend I have a cross country meet to attend. I'm a Democrat and I dislike Sarah Palin's politics immensely. However, tonight I was thinking about her as I was running around at my daughter's open house. I was thinking about the fact that there is no way she can be Vice President of the United States and parent at the same time. Which is fine, if that's what she wants. What I resent is her standing there acting like she's some great mom. How can you be such a great mom when you're not even present? Everyone but her is taking care of her young children.

This is a very well thought out article. One issue we are missing is the fact is she making her 17 year old daughter marry the boy( yes boy) who got her pregnant.

Also, if she is 44, she got pregnant at 43 so she knew ahead of time that the chance for child being born with Downs is expentional.

She did it anyway.

She advocated shooting polar bears, he shot a grizzly bear herself as a trophy. Animals as trophies that is barbaric and cruel.

My father was a two term Vietnam vet and he would shoot deer, because the population would over run in the area I am from. My mother was the voice of enlightenment she said," No dead animals on my wall" We are not barbaians.

Also, being tough does not mean being savage and over-achieving. We look to women to be the ethical, moral and sensiable thinkers. Not the overbearing( not a pun I promise) type A personalities. Women are strong just from existing in this wonky world.

Acting like a Man is not the soultion. She is horribly irresponsible in her own life and she is only a soccer mom. I am not berating that but its a nation not a ball game.

Majority of comments are against Penelope's opinion.

Honest question: are u hitting sarah just to increase traffic?

No marriage is that rock solid. That kind of stress on a family will either dissolve it or her.

But then politics isn't based in sanity.

"In politics, absurdity is not a handicap."
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821)

This is the BEST post about Palin I've seen yet–I love it. You are 100% right on every single point. I can't believe how much everyone is tip-toeing around this topic–saying stuff like "I though the mommy wars were over" and being shocked that anyone's even questioning Palin's ability to both be VP of the US and mom to an infant. Like you said–it's one thing to be a working mom who can be home at 2:30 or whatever, but it's quite another to be VP of the United States. That's not just a job–it's a life.

I also think your point about her marriage being in serious jeopardy is a great one. People are so glib about how it shouldn't matter whether it's Palin or her husband taking care of the kids; the fact is that a) it does matter and b) it will matter to his ego.

I seriously think if McCain read this post he'd be kicking himself for having picked her because there is no way he'll win with her as VP.

Thinly disguised endorsement for one party. It's fine by me if you tell us who you support, but why don't you just come out and say it?

This column was incredibly sexist. The attempt to liken Ms. Palin's situation to that of John Edwards fails miserably because while you may feel the same way about Edwards' situation as you do Palin's, I don't remember any scathing columns slamming Edwards for his choice. Yet you feel free to criticize Palin. Your column was yet another example of women keeping other women down by unfair criticism that would not be leveled at a man in the same situation.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Penelope. I think you got one thing wrong though. John McCain doesn't intend to let Sarah Palin do any actual work as VP, she's just there to look pretty and get votes. So she should have plenty of time to take care of all those children in her fancy new house once they are in office.

You want the focus to be on the family?! You, with a team of domestic hired hands?!

You lost credibilty with me on this issue.

Really. Hey Rachel under you system we can't have John F. Kennedy. Men and women can lead, work and raise kids. Vote yea or nay on the issues. Sarah appears capable and not easily overwhelmed. Current President seems easily overwhelmed. I like the perspective a working mother can bring and the current knowledge of family and healthcare issues she must have. It is the quality of the time that matters not the quantity when dealing with children. You are selling her, yourself and women short. This oldster has learned there are many paths to child rearing, marriage, life and politics. Frankly we need more working women with children in the workforce and leading the country. As a group I find such people to be energetic, practical, and unafraid to make quick but thoughtful decisions.

I must say, thank god for your John Edwards comment. As a women I think it is incredibly antiquated to place all the "good parenting" responsibility on the mother. If you're lucky enough in this day and age to have a father there to help you raise your child I think we are far enough removed from our biology that we can safely state the job of raising a child should be 50/50 for mother AND father. With that said, I would hope all the male candidates would be held to the same parenting standards Palin is. Bottom line, perhaps politicians would be better off not having children while in office if they'd like to avoid situations like Palin's…

Go, Penelope! I'm the breadwinner with a toddler and also getting my MBA. I'm all for a woman in the White House. In addition to your points, Palin is running on a values platform, and I seriously question her values. She has two children in crisis – this is NOT the time to attempt to run the United States as well. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a PARENT.

Bravo! What a fabulous point! All parents with disabled children should basically stay home instead of taking opportunities that come their way.

By this account, Gordon Brown, the UK's PM – leaving aside for a second his policy and political situation – should go home because he has a child with Cystic Fibrosis.

Not just that, David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, should also stay home because his wife, as the Creative Director of Smythson, earns way more than he ever will and they have a severely autistic child at home.

Public figures with physically or mentally disabled children are needed in much larger numbers than we have right now. They would help bring the disability issue from under the carpet into the mainstream of political debate; into the mainstream discussions in the corporate world, which shuns disabled people from the workforce; and into the eyes of society which really needs to do more than to condemn the parent of a disabled child to a solitary life of misery.

My first child, born over 40 years ago, was a "special needs" son. Within the next 4 years, I had two other children – so 3 kids in 5 years, one with serious disabilities. YES, I took off 8 years to do the "mom thing." I prepared 9 meals a day and – if I was lucky – had 2 hours to myself.
YES – it will be a strain on the marriage. YES – the teenager and boyfriend will need their parents when their child is born because they, too, are children.

I am now a very successful career woman, but I had to wait until my 30s to get my business started…the same time I got divorced. Ms. Palin will fail at one of her jobs, I guarantee – wife, mom, candidate. Heaven forbid that McCain gets elected and his cancer (or worse) comes back. As a Democrat – I love the choice. As an American – I am scared to death!

If "she is nuts" and "Republicans are nuts" then obviously she has no chance of getting elected, so this is a big fuss over nothing. A campaign is difficult, but that will be over in two months. Actually being Vice President is a much easier job than any governorship. You preside over the Senate and go to the occasional state funeral. That's about it. Plenty of down time.

You asked "Why is no one writing about this?" Do you read any news sources at all? Everyone in the English-speaking world is writing about Palin and her family.

PT, all I read is "she is nuts," and I already had to comment. Because you are so damn right. Okay, now I will read the rest. Thanks for stating the freakin obvious!!!!!!!!!!!

We're all Sarah Palin in a way. She's a working mom and she has challenges at home but she's not letting it stop her. She doesn't have my vote but she has my admiration.

As a working mother of two (and I get to be home by 4:00 and have summers off!), I am stretched thin as a parent. I don't see how she is going to be successful, but I felt guilty even thinking that. I am a feminist, I believe that mothers *should* work outside the home, but as a VP and potentially President? I am not so sure that will be right for her family. Thanks, Penelope, for bringing it up – out loud.(or, I guess, in writing)

Again your blog is too offensive to remain subscribed to. I put up with other blog entries that I disagree with but now I'm very much against your opinion and stance. I won't be back.

JFK had a baby at home, and was one of our finest presidents. If you really believe that a family with a stay at home dad can't survive, then you don't know the right stay at home dads. Every one I know, and I know a lot, have fine, strong, healthy families.

Karen… I love it when people say things like, "And P – I think you're a great mom, certainly doing better than most."

That is exactly the type of "drivel" that I would expect from biased liberal – "love speak".

How could you possibly know how "P" is parenting.

You sound like an objective thinker…

Co-signing! I said to a co-worker yesterday that she has ALOT on her plate…for anyone! I also felt that although Mrs. Edwards wanted her husband to continue campaigning that he should have made the decision to stop and care for his wife. IMO

I totally disagree with your arguments. I believe it is the Palin's family choice and if they feel they can handle it, no one should second guess them. I have 2 kids and one with special needs. I quit my jobs for each child for about 1 year+ to stay home with them when they were babies. I went back to work full time afterward. I believe each family situation is different, I have a loving and supportive husband and we both can juggle our full time work fine. I find the best daycare, best nanny for them while I am at work and the school system in my town provides the best supportive service to my special need child. Yes, I can handle the challenges and happily working full time and still have time to cook for them daily, pack their lunch and monitor their homework. If the Palin family think they can handle the challenges, why we want to point our intellectual fingers against them?

Any candidate running for office at that level probably truly believes that they're going to improve the conditions of this country, and give their children a better future. (At least I hope so.) She's making a temporary sacrifice of her time with her family to accomplish that. Yes, it's a difficult choice, but if you believe in a cause, that's probably an acceptable trade-off. We don't know the extend of her family's support – we only know what the (biased) media has chosen to tell us. Time to put away the jump to conclusions mat.

Folks,

I'm checking out of this website and others until after the election that allow this type of devisive issues enter into what is generally a sane and useful website.

I grew up with a cousin with Down's and my mother was a divorced night club singer. She raised three kids and my cousin. My cousin with "Downs" just retired from the Post Office after a 30 year career as a Mail Room Assistant. I'm not so sure that give the same situation that I could volunteeer to raise a Down's syndrome child today.

My response is that God never gives you more than you can handle. Who am I to judge when I don't really know the tangible and personal resources available to the individual. We see this through our own experiences and I have mine and you have yours.

Can we leave it at that?

I'm kind of torn on whether I not she should have accepted the VP nomination with everything else that's going on (and not just in her family life), but I take exception to the statement as if it is fact that if a 17 year old has a baby it will be raised by her parents. Part of the growing up that must be done when you decide to become a parent is that you realize you no longer get to be the "kid." I know not everyone lives this way, but not every teenage mother passes their child on to their parents to raise, and assuming that's what Bristol will do isn't fair to her. I know of many women who became pregnant while in high school who raised their children themselves. They might have still lived at home for a while, but their parents weren't built-in babysitters, and the women had to give up a lot of the things the rest of their high school class got to do because they were responsible for someone else (prom, extra-curriculars, etc).

We shouldn't assume we know what other people will do, just because we think it's the way we (or most people) would do it.

If you were so down on John Edwards' choice to run for President, why didn't you rush out to write a giant post about how irresponsible and insane his decision was? Any reasonable person would be silly to think that any man in a similar position would be criticized for taking on a demanding job while balancing family responsibilities the way you've criticized Palin.

That being said…I agree that Palin shouldn't be McCain's choice for VP. And that is largely because McCain's choice implies that women are very, very dumb. So dumb, in fact, that we would support a candidate just because she happens to be female. That we would, in a you-go-girl frenzy, look past the OBVIOUS indicators that Palin won't help, and will probably hurt, our standing in the home, the workplace and the world.

In typical, self-centered, human fashion – I can't do it, so nobody else can fashion, what works for me will work for you and what won't work for me won't work for you. I hear this from parents all the time since we've had two children. The "oh just wait" comments, the "you'll see" comments and the "when you child is this age, they'll be doing this. Mine did and so will yours."

You know what? Horse stuff. I don't pretend to know how to raise other people's children – and you shouldn't either.

I'm surprised by your view, Penelope (maybe that's simply because I don't have special needs, or any, children). I respect you greatly, but I agree with other posters that it seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Your experiences (with special needs children, career, and marriage) are not universal, and, from what I can tell, look very little like Palin's. A VP Palin would have considerably more assistance raising her family than any of us mere mortals could ever imagine. That's no substitute for a present, attentive parent, but help with household duties leaves a parent more available to be there for their children in other ways. After all, it's stresses over money and everyday household management that often place the largest burdens on families, and neither of these will be an issue for the Palins.

I'm not going to be absurd and use a label like "sexist" (which is so overused it doesn't mean anything anymore), but I will also say that this issue would never arise if Palin were a man. I don't think mothers and fathers are perfect substitutes, but only the family in question knows how tradeoffs in parenting can be made to work.

In my skimming of the comments I am surprised not to have not seen (or missed) this said yet: she has been the governor of Alaska for two years, and was the mayor of a town for six. Do we not think she has SOME idea what the time commitment of a VP will entail? Doesn't her husband? Hasn't she probably already done some important work toward striking a balance between career and family, and an understanding between children and parents? It's not as if this would just be thrown on them suddenly come January. Perhaps her decision to be in this campaign reflects that she already knows her family can do it.

As a political aside, it kills me when people, liberals and conservatives alike, assume that Penelope's critique of Palin is BECAUSE she may be liberal, or that those who support Palin's choice as a mother to join the campaign mean they MUST BE conservative. There are so many other, more interesting elements to this issue, and all perspectives are pretty legitimate — it's that hard of an issue. We'd all do better at understanding each other if we could avoid those labels, especially when they are used dismissively (really, does ANYONE feel that one party or the other represents them perfectly?).

I wish you'd applied this advice to yourself.

Right on Penelope. I am so tired of hearing ‘if sarah was a man, no one would be questioning her dedication to her children’. Well she’s not a man. She is a mother! Her 5 children (especially the baby—regardless of special needs) need her to be available for them. If you don’t understand the difference between a father in this situation and a mother in this situation, you either don’t have a uterus or don’t have children.

I am a mother 4 kids and work full time. It’s is safe to say that most things get done pretty half-assed because I only have so much time in the day, and I only work 40 hours a week. My job (as most) holds no where near the time commitment or responsibility needed to be the VP. I would guess the VP of the US would need to put in a lot more that 40 hrs a week. VP of the US….mothering 5 children….somthings gotta give in this situation.

People need to get over trying to be so PC and understand that children need their mother and Sarah’s kids will suffer if (god forbid) she becomes VP. The US will surely suffer, but that’s a whole other comment….

Are you deliberately trying to drive down traffic/sabotage your blog as part of your divorce strategy?

Absolutely pathetic — and quite telling. Given your comments here, how dare you criticize anyone else's judgment?

Can anyone tell me what the VP really does other than waiting for the president to die? Split ties in the senate? Right, remember all those ties that were busted up last year.

C'mon, if she could pull this off as gov she can pull it off as VP. Is her job going to be less demanding that Michelle Obama's?

Interesting how politics blurrs our perceptions. Dems suddenly care about the family (please ignore the womanizing behind the curtain) and the Reps suddenly want to fight for the rights of a woman to have it all (how short lived will that be)?

Penelope, I thought you wrote an article (post?) a while ago about why it is better for women to stay home if a choice has to be made. If I am correct, than congrats for being consistent.

Wow, by this logic no one who has ANY kids should be in ANY position of authority AT ALL. Which is great for me because it means we child-free people can have our pick of the high status jobs while you parents stay home changing diapers!

I agree with most other folks who said this post is both an extreme double standard (Obama isn't being questioned about his ability to be president even though he has two young kids) and completely hypocritical. If you truly believed this crap, Penelope, you'd be staying home yourself. Why is it that career-driven women with kids preach that other career-driven women with kids should stay home?

So what your saying here is that moms just can't win because even other moms are going to criticize how other moms parent.

I'm not Republican and it drives me nuts how a lot of women journalist are coming out of the wood work to bash Palin and especially to say how wrong she is as a parent and how right they are.

Bless her for having such a supportive husband, family and friends and people who believe in her.

It's sad how women fall into this trap that if you have children you have to give up your life.

It doesn't send a good message to our children and it mainly has to do with what other people think about you. More women should be like Palin and ignore people who say certain things can't be done. It's her life not theirs.

It is two competing mindsets: those who want one or the other and those who want both.

Girls need to stick together not be competitive.

Learn to want both.

@Lauren: The circuity of what you said is dizzying. Are you saying that the criticism of Palin leveled by Trunk jive with "your" feminst values?"

You're right, Palin shouldn't have it both ways (of course the abstinence comment applies to her daughter, not Palin, as you so deliberatly ignore in furtherance of your own venom-filled agenda). Nor should Trunk, which makes her criticisms/judgments here so galling.

Your use of the term hypocritical is indeed hypocritical.

Penelope, as I read the heartfelt comments coming from all sides, contrary to what I first felt about your post, I think it was a mistake to raise this issue. What I think is happening here is the classic "divide and conquer" strategy, designed to pit women against women. I don't think you could dream up a more visceral issue to put before the public, racism(a political no-go) included. I really think that regardless of what your opinion is, we are all being manipulated. If everyone just stops making such a big deal of this person's characteristics, and just let your vote do the talking when the time comes, you will have had the greatest impact you can have. As we go back and forth debating this across the country, Rove and McCain are chortling away like pedophiles at a daycare center.
Steve C.

Hi Penelope,

Good discussion, but It's not you, it's that we as Americans are so polarized we're paralyzed as a nation. We can't agree on anything anymore like, basic healthcare, education, and human rights for our kids. We waste so much energy in the minutiae. I would not be surprised if down the road we split in two as a nation.

I don't think it's fair to accuse Penelope of being hypocritical. Her (soon to be ex-) husband is home with the kids and she has a job that lets her be home by 2pm. She says it's still really hard. Being VP is a million times that.

However, as I said before, I think the appropriate debate about Sarah Palin is about her politics, policies and experience.

To Chris Yeh, who aptly noted that we all live in glass houses and have double standards at times; and change our minds at times; and can see both sides, at times . . . but not always . . . Amen.

How about this analogy? We are extremely tolerant of physicians, who are absent from their families in the interest of saving lives. We are not only tolerant, we place them on a pedastal. What is the difference between a doctor, male OR female, and a VP who may be absent from her children/family?

PT's point about how difficult it is to rear a special needs child is spot-on. It is extremely difficult. I, too, speak from experience on this matter. I work part-time on a schedule opposite my partner, in order to "be there" for my son, who has complex/multiple medical issues and who will never live independently. If the governor of Alaska is satisfied to see her child provided for by her husband, her older daughters, nannies, household help, fine. As long as the child is well provided for.

We cannot very well stick to political issues and leave her family out of it if Sarah Palin has freely chosen to be a public figure. Palin has bought the whole package, including living in a fishbowl. I think it IS possible that her family could get thrown under the bus in the interest of her quest for public office–some would say, in her quest for power.

PT, as usual, is brutally, brazenly honest about how she may believe in good parenting, love her children till she aches, AND, at the same time, have a hard time staying home full-time with young children. A lot of people feel this way. Your heart is divided–on this and on many things, in life, it seems to me. I.e., I love my son AND he drives me nuts–both at the same time. Heart divided. It is okay to feel this way and to admit that you feel this way.

It is what you do next that counts. Do you flee from your children to go to work, to a career that brings you more satisfaction, prestige, and has a paycheck, to boot? Do you compromise and work part-time? Do you throw your career under the bus for your kids' sakes?

Or do you do some of each, by turns, over the years, as your children mature. However, in the case of some special needs children, they do not grow up to be self-sufficient, and the parent may have to keep on making these difficult choices for a lifetime . . .

And that may be the hardest thing about raising a child with special needs: Your child will ALWAYS need you in the same intense ways. You will never be done putting out in ways that may cost you career and your marriage and more . . . (the divorce rate in marriages with special needs kids is about 85%, I believe). Like PT says, it is a hard reality.

CAK

I think you are absolutely correct. Just was talking about this with my best friend today. People would think you were crazy for trying to be the VP and hold to your job as governor, too. Same thing. Two huge jobs.

BTW I am one of your biggest fans, Penelope. I read you religiously… thanks for always speaking your mind.

My boys have had their dad home as primary care giver since the youngest one was 2 1/2 years. Granted I am not VP of the biggest lump on earth but work is work and not there is not there.

The one who really suffered in this situation was me – suffered from comments from ill-informed strangers that I should be home with my babes, suffered assumptions that their dad could not parent like a mother – no he did not – he parented like a father. And I suffered guilt, stress, angst and all the other negative stuff.

Yet against this all I still stand up for each family to choose how to parent and raise children – a stay at home mother is not better than stay at home father – mearly different. And it is the differences that make the world go round.

Reading this work made me sad as what I really felt Penelope was your pain.

I enjoyed this true story about the decision to carry a Down Syndrome child to term . . . you may recognize the author . . .

Expecting Adam is an autobiographical tale of an academically oriented Harvard couple who conceive a baby with Down's syndrome – Expecting Adam: A True Story of Birth, Rebirth, and Everyday Magic

About 85% of women who, through prenatal testing, discover that they are pregnant with a Down Syndrome child, will abort that child.

The older a woman is when she conceives, the higher the likelihood that, due to "aging" eggs, she will have the chromosomal abnormality known as Down Syndrome or Trisomy 21. For a woman in her 20's, the incidence is about one in 1500; for a woman of 45, the incidence is one in 32.

I have taken care of many Down Syndrome newborns in my line of work.
Here is what they are like:
They often have low muscle tone, as someone else has already stated.
That means that their posture is poor–the don't keep their head in alignment with their body; they aren't able to support their head for a very long time.
When they feed, they may have a tongue-thrust, which makes it difficult to feed them. They lack the coordination necessary to successfully place their thick tongues underneath the nipple and "milk" the nipple.
A certain percentage (40%)have cardiac anomalies and some of those will require surgery.
They may have skin issues–ruddiness and/or dryness. Their lips and later, their tongues, have fissures.
Eight percent will develop seizures.
They have depressed immune responses.
They may have vision issues: strabismus, amblyopia, nystagmus.
They are vulnerable to periodontal disease.
As they grow older, they may be delayed in achieving developmental milestones. They are said to have "global developmental delays".
As they get older, they are subject to weight gain.
The children in my son's classes through the years have had delayed speech and motor delays.
There is the issue of cognitive disability–most have some degree of cognitive disability. This is highly variable. The literature says that children may have I.Q.s anywhere between 15 to 69, with the majority between 40-55. The cutoff for a "mental retardation" diagnosis is 70 (though some references will say 90).
To this day, the children in my son's class do not speak clearly. Even when they learn to talk, others may have a hard time understanding them.

The parents of a Down Syndrome child will have to get services for their child: OT (occupational therapy), PT (physical therapy) and Speech or SLP (speech/language pathologist). The schools spend huge sums of money on these services, and may give the services grudgingly. The parents will have to become savvy about Special Ed law/ IDEA, and learn the lingo. They may have to FIGHT every year, as the child's Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) at school is reviewed, for their child to continue to have services. Typically, as the child grows older, services tend to be withdrawn, little by little.

Really involved parents will go through emotional turmoil over these fights and adaptations. There is a syndrome called "chronic grieving," in which a parent grieves cyclically, again and again (perhaps each year at the time of the IEP Meeting, for what might have been . . . for the unfairness of it all, including the loss of their own career or marriage.

So, when PT says it is "hard," this is what it means, blow by blow . . .

While Sarah Palin's Trig is an infant, he may not be so different from other infants, all of whom require total care. After that . . .

CAK

For you that think its not possible to have kids or family requirments and still have a job and do it well need to take a look around and get with the program.

Your opinions are ridiculous. Just because you are incapable of of balancing your personal life with work doesn't mean that another woman can't live up to the test. Stop being so selfish!

Interesting post and interesting comments.

One thing that I think is missing from this discussion is the realization that the job of President of the United States is perhaps the most demanding and important job in the world.

My very life depends on the president being able to do her job well. Failure in other jobs doesn't potentially result in nuclear world destruction.

Although only the VP nominee, Palin's ability to preform well as president is the how we must judge her — particularly because McCain is aged and in ill health.

I look at Palin and see a person who has a family in crisis. She's got a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant and a newborn Down's baby, and a son about to be deployed to a war zone. That is the definition of a family in crisis.

I am not saying that they can't weather the crisis and thrive as a family. I hope that they do. They seem to have a strong family.

But am I willing to risk my life on a president who is in the middle of a crisis in their personal life?

No.

I want a president who is focused on the job at hand.

@Steve C: Thanks for covering the liberals and being "the voice of the really rabid, vicious, so-called [liberals]." Impressive that it seems you didn't even pause halfway through your rant and see the patent hypocrisy of what you were saying? Really deep.

@steve C: Huh??

Meredith, thanks for pointing out the vile nature of Palin and the GOP for suddenly deciding that asking questions about a candidate's family is out of bounds when the conservatives in this country have been making political hay out of prying into other people's families for decades now.

Palin is happy to tell me what sort of family I can have (no homos allowed!), what sort of sex I can have and with whom, when I can become a parent or not — and then she gets indignant when people question the personal family decisions she makes?

Please.

i want to echo what kathryn just wrote.

i think that same thought every time i read. it really is very brave of you to write the way you do. as a former writer myself (turned corporate marketing and PR person) i've always thought that courage is the cornerstone of ALL good writing (i.e., fiction etc) and it is certainly true of blogging.

even if i disagree w/ something you've written, which is rare, i am just in awe that you have the confidence and courage to write from the heart.

thanks so much.

I recommended you to friends as the most transparent and intellectually honest blogger I've ever read.

Sorry, but either you're way smarter than this post or I've way overestimated your intellectual honesty.

Hopefully you're just being dumb. I can put up with a lot of dumb. But manipulation will send me packing, and today I feel abused.

Breadwinning, traveling mother here. I grew up in a house with a special needs sister. My parents divorced after 20 years of trying to make it work. My Mom put herself through college in addtion to meeting the needs of my sister and the three other kids. I have much to say on this issue.

I think it's easy, as a mom to want to escape from the very difficult challenges you face everyday trying to care for a child that in some cases will never be able to tell you how they appreciate the efforts you put into it. The rewards for raising special needs children can often times feel few and far between. It's human nature to want to feel fulfilled through a challenging career. The problem: it's easy for parents in this situation to get completely self-absorbed in meeting their own needs, cause that's where the personal validation comes from. Before you know it, it's all they see.

I have found myself getting caught in that trap myself. I realize that my big important job is still on my mind when I'm with my family. And, I've started to take myself and my career too seriously, at the expense of my relationships with my family. After 8 years, I've finally realized that it's not solely about quantity of time, it's about quality. Now I leave my work at the office, I don't work at night or on the weekends. My time with my family is completely theirs. And, even with that, it's still hard. My Mom was home with us everyday for 14 years of my life before she took a full time job, but she wasn't really there in her mind. Her investment of time fell short because her heart wanted something more, and she was drained everyday, giving to a child who couldn't really give back. It's a healthy balance of both quality and quantity that can make it work. This applies to both Moms and Dads.

For someone like Palin, should she be elected into this big important job of the vice presidency with the spot light on her every move, how will she be able to get beyond her own sense of self-importance, leaving all her responsibilities behind to really be "there" for her kids? I think that's the real question. It's safe to say the quantity isn't going to be there.
Will the time she has with them be enough?

At the end of the day, what she chooses for herself and her family is really out of any of our control. And, if she weren't standing on a soap box of "family values," playing up her special needs child as though this elevates her in the eyes of all parents, pretending she's excited for her pregnant teenage daughter and her boyfriend, who has admitted he never wanted kids.

To still stand behind abstinence as the right thing is clearly not reality, and not recognizing the needs of her own family.

She can be proud of her family, but be honest. It's hard to be a parent of a teenager; it's hard to be a parent of a special needs child; it's hard being in the public eye being scrutinized for your every move. It's hard to know if you're really doing the right thing by working on your career goals versus staying at home with your kids. Get real. Talk about what's real. Make decisions based on reality, not on some idealogical principle that might help you get elected with the conservatives. Admit when you're wrong. That's what counts. That's what has integrity. That's what'll mean something to your family in the end.

Jesus!
No one would have told a man to stay at home. But a woman…

The children have a father, it's a privileged family and they'll get loads of help. They'll be just fine. Yes it's much harder with a DS child, but again: Loads of help.

Has it occurred to anyone that the Palins may well not be through giving birth to children they don't want to raise? Given her views on abortion, and sex education, isn't it likely she's opposed to birth control as well? After all, who would have PLANNED getting pregnant for your fifth child at 43 only seven months after you took the oath of office as Governor? Can we expect the person a heart beat away from the presidency might be in labor when she gets the call? I have been researching the 8 women governors, only one has school age children, and her husband resigned his job when she took office. I am a feminist and I believe women can do anything, but, not EVERYTHING SIMULTANEOUSLY. It is just plain irresponsible to try!

>>>So did you rail against John Edwards when he was campaigning? It seems he had a small child as well as as his wife's illness to (not) take care of. Should we be upset with Biden for ditching his sons in the hospital after the death of his infant so he could go be a senator? These issues have not come up and a good part of the reason is because columnists (like you, Penelope) have never raised them. Because a man is allowed to have a family and a career.<<Don't tell me that this is not fair to women. Because you know what? People should have railed against John Edwards running for President when he had two young kids at home and a wife fighting cancer. Fine if she wants him to run for office while she fights the cancer. I get it. But I don't get how the President of the United States was going to have time to console two school age kids about their mom's death while leading the country. It's irresponsible.<

She DOES talk about Edwards! Go find it for yourself – 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

As for Biden – it's REALLY easy to look up his biography from any number of sources. He DID NOT leave his two young sons bedside after the death of their mother & sister. He DID NOT attend his own swearing in to congress, as he'd only recently been elected – rather it was held at the bedside of one of the boys IN THE HOSPITAL. He ALWAYS went home to care for his boys after the accident, every night, once he did return to work. And left his staff with orders that if one of the boys called – no matter where he was or what he was doing – he was to be interrupted to handle their calls. The man still refuses to work each December 16th in reverence to the day he lost his first wife and young daughter.

I'm all for you defending Palin, if that's your choice, but do so by defending HER – not simply spitting out the first piece of crap that enters your head about everyone else. Get your facts straight and argue like an adult.

To Juki:
Just as Sarah Palin has "energized" the Republican party, and given us a debate forum, and polarized a lot of women . . . so Juke's post has energized me.
You are SO right, Juki! I talk to a Danish-born woman at Tae Kwon Do, who says what you say.
You are right to challenge a basic assumption that American women have: that they simply must be Superwoman, who does it all and has it all. And yes, I, too, think that we are all trying to prove something/prove ourselves. Which has the feeling of being chased down the railroad track by a train that is gaining on your by the minute. Of course, you will eventually be cut down . . .
Those who adjust (manipulate?) their lives to deal with mothering special needs kids should talk about the details. They should talk about their adaptations. In positive and negative ways. I want details.
Your point about being a change-agent is also well-taken. Sarah Palin's commitment to being an advocate for special needs families rings false with me because she lacks experience in that arena (as in many other arenas) and because she is leaving the adaptations to other family members and to ancillary staff.

CAK

Your children didn't (and don't) take precedence over your work, so WTF are you saying? I personally can't stand the vacuous, ignorant, religious rantings of Ms. Palin, but you are a complete imbecile and: disingenuous, dishonest, intellectually inconsistent and, lastly, full of cf*p. You can't have it all. Sorry, it is not possible. There is more than enough to disqualify and never have to address issues like her children like: she is a batsh*t crazy wingnut calvinistic evangelical who wants to replace capable government staffers with religious shills, she has utterly no experience, she is anti roe vs. wade, she wants to ban books, she would roll back civil rights, she would gladly drill on the north slope w/o environmental controls, she uses her elected offices to harass and to influence peddle, etc. She doesn't give 2 sh*ts about "special needs" children, since she cut that budget in Alaska by more than 50%. Now, you can start growing up yourself.

Thanks to Juki and CAK for a refreshing bird's-eye-view perspective of the issue, and for some pointed and valuable information regarding the truth behind the advertising of the McCain ticket. It doesn't surprise me that the most uplifting analysis in this dialogue so far has come from one who does not live in this country. Uplifting and sad at the same time. It takes a village.
Steve

An article related to this subject:

UNC study: 'chilling' hardship rates among families raising disabled children
Monday, August 18, 2008

http://tiny.cc/ZNg8v
or

http://uncnews.unc.edu/news/health-and-medicine/unc-study-chilling-hardship-rates-among-families-raising-disabled-children.html

Great response from Susan! Those of us who have had to manage children alone would never THINK of putting our need for power ahead of the welfare of the country. I agree, women can have it all, just not simultaneously! It isn't fair to the children and it isn't fair to the country. Also, with age comes wisdom, and this woman needs to AGE! There are 8 women governors in the US currently. Only Michigan's Jennifer Granholm has school age children and her husband resigned his job to take care of their three children when she was elected. Guess what, he doesn't believe Palin's decision to try to 'have it all' is responsible! This is not being a C.E.O., this is not geing a Governor, this is not even being a Congresswoman, this is sitting a 72 year old heartbeat away from the highest office in the land, and world. That isn't even to mention how far from the mainstream her ideas and policies are. I think the ACLU needs to take a look at some of the 'religious proclimations' which have come from her office. Perhaps it will be a blessing that McCain brought her policies to national attention. After all, she wants to take Polar Bears off the endangered species list and put gay people on.

Editormum. Helloooooooo. Have you not heard of a guy named Dick Cheney? Where have you been for the last 8 years. This is a VP who has changed the course of history (and re-written it to his own liking), and not in a postive direction. I honestly cannot believe that you think this is a position with no impact on the direction this country takes. Many suspect the VP is the man behind the curtain in this administration. Your's is a very dangerous perception indeed.
Steve

Thank you Steve C! You are a voice of reason in these comments. If McCain is elected it is LIKELY he will not live out his first term of office. He has had cancer FOUR times. P.O.W.s have a shortened life expectancy due to the stress, nutritional deficiency and abuse they endured. And John McCain is 72 years old. So the question becomes, would you vote for Sara Palin? My answer is a resounding NO! This is a package deal which, as Ariana Huffington wrote today comes with a TROJAN MOOSE! Palin is absolutely unprepared to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
She has been Governor of a sparsely populated state for 20 months (how many of them were spent on maternity leave?) She (and her 5 kids and husband) spend $98,000 on travel last year including a trip to a $700/nite hotel in New York (while claiming to be a fiscal conservative and reformer.) She even charged a per-diem to the taxpayers of Alaska to stay in her OWN HOME in Wasilla! This woman is scary WITHOUT the five kids!

Phew. Who invented these blogs sites anyway? I'm putting way too much time into this. Just a couple of things on my mind. The one family I was close to that had a severely disabled child gave me a look at how totally consuming it is, for at least one of the parents, and usually for at least one of the siblings. But the thing I remember most is how frustrating it was for them to deal with the school system, trying to force them to provide the services they were required by law to provide. The obstacles included the schools taking money earmarked for special needs children, then using it for something else for the regular students. As I recall, this was an on-going battle.
So I hope that no one mistakenly awards Ms. Palen the kudos that belong to families who have been dealing with these issues far longer than she. From what I have gathered about her dealings with special needs programs so far, she wouldn't be on my friend's Christmas card list.
Obviously, my interest in these discussions here is political, and I am a Democrat who will support Obama even though I think it was incredibly short-sighted for him to not have forseen this situation and guessed what Carl Rove would come up with, and I would have been more excited to have Hillary Clinton in the white house, if only for knowing how distressing it would be for all the ditto-heads out there..By the way, some on my best friends are republicans, so I'm not as bigotted as it may seem..
Here's the thing that really gets to me: Rove is manipulating McCain, who is manipulating Palin, who is manipulating her own 17 yr old daughter, who is manipulating someone else's son(who and where are his parents?) I really feel sorry for these kids. What kind of person(s) would willingly subject children to this type of circus? And enjoy doing it??? It certainly didn't phase McCain.
When I was thinking about all the homes being foreclosed on, I couldn't help but think about all the kids losing thier bedrooms and neighborhood pals, and wondering what school they would be going to. It's the kids that end up suffering because of our actions. I guess you can abandon children in more ways than one.
Politicaly, the bottom line for me is this: the real power lies in the hands of the special interests that these people represent. If anyone doesn't see McCain pandering to the extreme right wing here, I have to refer them back to my comment about P.T.Barnum and how many suckers are born every minute. But McCain is just playing out the hand that Rove has dealt him. There's really no telling what he may do if elected. Palen, on the other hand, has made it crystal clear what special interests she will represent. Is it worth electing McCain, just to say we have a woman in the Executive branch, and possibly the White House, who will proceed to advocate for her known special interests? I'm really terrified for my sons, that's for sure.
Steve C.

Pointing out a huge irony . . .
This argument for being single-minded . . . it is the same argument that Catholic Church uses when insisting upon celibacy for Catholic priests/nuns.
Priests (and religious women)cannot marry so that they can single-mindedly focus on service . . . a family would be a distraction . . .

CAK

THANK YOU! So much! My thoughts EXACTLY. This is what I've been trying to tell people all along – oh, thank you!

PT, someone has to say it, you are clearly a smart person, successful and good at what you do.

But… you're also an idiot. You fail to see that ALL people don't think think the way you do. So when you encounter someone who doesn't think your way, the immediate response is that their failure translates into their inability to think correctly.

Jeremy, I have not heard anyone here, including Penelope, saying Sara Palin has any 'fault' or is 'nuts.' What I am reading is how HARD it is to try to have it all simultaneously. I think many, many, many women are shocked at how difficult the task is without having children with disabilities. Sarah Palin is 44 years old. If she feels called to national service, I believe she would be better prepared for those demands when 1) she has more experience, 2) her children are older. The recent photos from her office in Ankorage showed a baby
swing. How can that possibly be appropriate in the Oval Office? Her son with is only 4 months old, she has NO idea yet what additional demands she will face. Perhaps she can have it all, just not simultaneously!

In her first interview with Charlie Gibson, Sara Palin demonstrated her lack on knowledge on the national or international level, as represented by her answer on the 'Bush Doctrine'. I believe the next administration needs to take a serious look at the challenges to our constitution which have taken place under the Bush administration. Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that it was well intentioned, absolute power, by it's nature corrupts. What happened to the right to a fair and speedy trial for the detainees in Cuba? Are we under no moral obligation to follow the Constitution just because they are held offshore? I am often amazed at the command of the facts many world leaders have. The only way to obtain that is 1) to be of exception intellect, 2) to read, read, read, read, 3) to travel. Sara Palin had an undistinguished college career, attending 6 colleges in five years to obtain a Bachelors degree in Journalism, 2) Sarah Palin cannot possibly have the time to read, read, read, read when having an executive level position, a husband and five children, including a developmentally challenged infant, and 3) she has not traveled beyond Canada and Mexico. I am also concerned she places the welfare of Alaska above national interest. If making impulsive decisions makes a maverick, then I guess John McCain is a maverick.
This is a dangerous stunt, designed to convert Hillary Clinton's voters and 'make history,' and to appeal to the religious extremists in the Republican party. I am confident the more she speaks, the more her inexperience will be revealed. Delivering one speech written by George Bush's speech writer well, does not make a president. We all need to responsibly assume a vote for John McCain IS a vote for Sara Palin as president, given his age and health.

It is interesting to note, the women who oppose Palin as Vice President, and potential President are the highly educated, career women with children who have tried to wear the cape. My experience has shown me there is NO substitute for MOM! Even with a supportive, involved father and/or extended family there is 'Mom' and 'Not-the-Mom'. What feminism has not acknowledged is that we are creatures of our biology, programmed to bond with and nurture our children. For an infant, Mom is food and protection in one package. I was fortunate enough to be able to work part time from a home office with a nanny when my children were young, and even with that schedule, both children were terrible sleepers, making it very difficult for me to be at full functioning during the day. If they wern't getting enough of me during the day, they were going to take it out of me at night. When my children were ill, they ALWAYS called for me during the night. In most marriages, even when the women's career demands and earnings exceed her husband's, Mom is still the primary caregiver. Perhaps the next wave of feminism needs to provide more support for Motherhood, particularly for young children. We can look to the Scandinavian countries for family support policies. I have heard non of this kind of public policy request from the Palin administration.

Penelope,
You have a nanny, a house manager, and a cleaning woman? Oh, and a career? I have a career too and children and a farm, and NO nanny, NO cook and NO house manager.

You sound like a spoiled, whiney, woman who makes other hard working women and parents look bad.

Sarah Palin deserves everything she's worked hard for and she and her husband are obviously an effective team. Maybe you should ask her for some pointers instead of criticizing her. She's an inspiration.

Steve, I agree that the McCain campaign selected Sara Palin for their own political purposes. And I don't agree with her positions on Rowe v/ Wade, the environment, or the 1st Amendment, reason enough to make a choice as a feminist for a candidate who's VIEWS on the issues are more parallel to mine rather than just voiting for gender. However, many capable women, including Michigan's governor Jennifer Granholm, have been in beauty pagents. This is one symptom of our changing times. Women now have more choices for recognition and influence than they did in the past. It's tough for a woman to break out of expectations that we can have it all, be it all. Beautiful women can't be smart? Smart women aren't beautiful? Read the interview with Ms. Palin in Vogue Magazine, she comes off quite differently than she does as packaged by the Bush speech writer. There's plenty to admire about her guts and determination. I simply don't agree with her on the issues, I am concerned about her lack of international experience, and I agree with Michigan 'First Gentleman' Daniel Mulhern, she has NO idea what she would be putting her family through to uproot them and move them to Washington. This isn't the right timing for either the nation or her family.

Alright Steve, I think we're taking over here! But if you haven't read it I thought you might enjoy the following perspective which provides a deeper analysis of our national motives as reflected through the 'Palin Packaging.'

Obama and the Palin Effect
From: Deepak Chopra
Posted: Friday, September 5th, 2008
At The Huffington Post

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)

I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:

–Small town values — a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.

–Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.

–Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.

–Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

–Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.

–"Reform" — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, who’s smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Sarah Palin is selfish,putting her vp position over her children, no nanny could supply a mother's love and understanding. If she dis her kids…she will dis America even worse….she is the worse person in the world.

People Please get her out.

Dear Shefaly, Why does Deepak Chopra have to be an 'authority on politics' to express his view that there is a spiritual component to the unfolding political events? And Dear Alexis, Why to comments have to turn hateful and personal to express one's differing views? The 'silver lining,' if you will, could be the beginning of a respectful national dialog which leads to more support for families. With regards to Sarah Palin, the more she speaks, the more she will be revealed.

What Steve, You don't think Ms. Palin can click those ruby slippers together to take us home? Home to a place where global warming and the resulting climatic fallout doesn't exist? Home to a place where the only endangered species are gay men and womeb? Home to a place where family values but not family planning are taught in schools where books are banned? Home to a place where those who disagree are simply fired? Home to a place where the wealthiest are allowed to continue prospering on the backs of an entire nation and planet? Home to a place where a 'wild west' shoot-em-up mentality replaces diplomacy? You bet it's scary! The stakes are INCRECREDIBLY HIGH! To those policies to nowhere, let's just say NO THANKS!

My sentiments exactly, except you left out the parts about who put this whole thing in motion, the Carl Rove Republican manipulation machine.

Does it make me a bad person to delight in the collective apoplexy of those possessing a different world view and ideology?

And look here – Sarah and Todd were likely pregnant when they eloped? I am trying no to giggle. I suppose fornication is a sin in most any church so are we now persecuting her on the basis of "sin"?

Really?

I can actually respect the people that oppose her on the basis of her stance on abortion and firearms (we know they scare you city folk, it's ok; gun ownership is a right, not a requirement) and all the other issues real and imagined.

Still, the most ridiculous argument is that she needs to stay home with her poor lost little children. I know you care, I know you feel things so… deeply, but this is beyond theater and firmly in the realm of the preposterous.

Now please carry on.

Sorry, I meant prosecuting, not presecuting.

Three words people:

PARENTING BY PROXY!!!

Is it really fair to a child that a mother or father "have their cake and eat it too"? Really, in the end, how does a child benefit being without their mother those first six months? Can any of you on this comment thread give a true BENEFIT to a new, special needs baby being without its mother. I would LOVE to hear it.

Being a lacation educator, I am wondering (in a very nosy way, of course) if this special needs child is getting human milk. But I digress.

This goes beyong being feminist, politically inclined, male or female, gay or straight. It is about doing what is right. Sure, Dad can raise kids. Those of you who claim Todd (?)Palin is a loving devoted father; HOW do you know this? Those of you that claim help in the form of nannies and older children (ask me about my daughter's friend, the oldest in a family of five, who ran away because she was constantly being handed a baby to co-parent before the age of 15), are you trying to convince us on here that THIS is an IDEAL way to raise any child? Hasn't the last two decades of kids raised without IDEAL attachment, who are now part of escalating violence and other social ills taught us ANYTHING? Don't have time for kids? Don't have them!!! Having them anyway? Step up and make at least one year of commitment…it is the most crucial time in a child's life.

And to clarify…I am one crazy, liberal, stay-at-home-work-from-home, homeschooling parent of two kids, one husband (who owns his own business), one dog, and 11 goats. I was raised by a single parent who got bashed for being single, got lower pay, and barely made ends meet. But when my father walked out, she elected to go on welfare, get a degree and stay home until I was school aged. Everyone has a choice. Sarah Palin's choice speaks volumes to me. I do not want a VP that can so easily walk away from a new baby. If you can do that, your decision making can be easily as cold and heartless. Period.

Steve,

Two kids, one on the way.

Jaime,

Please clarify what you mean by "escalating violence". Violent crime has been on the decline since the 1990s.

Also, there is no single "ideal" way to raise a child. All children, families and circumstances are different. All parents make mistakes and sacrifices. Most interesting is that while most kids turn out more or less ok, there are plenty of examples of great kids coming from horrible parents and horrible kids coming from great parents. In the end, we are all individuals and we choose our behavior.

My boys were breast fed past their first birthday and raised by their stay at home mom who taught the oldest to read and do math before sending him to first grade at the local public school. We do a lot right and plenty wrong, but we trust it will all work out

Women are not being deprived of rights or hurt in any way by taking responsibility for the children they've been blessed with. Tough is not more important than responsible. In this case, Palin's tough, to me, is an example of cold-hearted run-away ambition. Her poor judgement with this child began during her pregnancy when she hid her pregnancy for so very long, traveled 4 weeks before her due date without medical consent, kept traveling with LEAKING AMNIOTIC FLUID, and then traveled back to Alaska from Texas after her water broke! For a woman who calls abortion for a rape victim murder, what does she call risking her own child's life for her selfish ambition?

And please spare me the women's lib tirade! I'm all for women's rights and my husband even played Mr. Mom for a year after my second child was born. However, I did stay with my baby for 3 months before I left. He can love our babies, but he can't give them my smell or my milk or my heartbeat those things that only mothers are engineered to do. If a woman cannot commit at least a few weeks to a child, then she shouldn't have one. I can even understand a mother going back to work after 3 weeks, but 3 days?!! For those people who don't want to understand that, I have nothing for them, b/c there's obviously nothing can be said to them!

And women can work and learn and earn and play like men, but when they choose to have a baby, they must put that child's welfare before their own at least for a little while. There is no comparison between Palin's family and the Obama's. And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that Barrack is running b/c if it were Michelle running and him in her shoes, I'd be just fine with it. They have the strong support of Micehelle's mother and those girls are around both of those parents. Palin's family values, or lack thereof, are VERY important to me as a voter. This is a woman who might lead this country and her values are so far removed from my own, that the thought of her as our leader makes me shudder! Add to this the fact that she voted against legislation for young mothers and for special needs children, and has only now began to show support for those causes, b/c it affects her directly shows me that she is incapable of supporting anything that doesn't help her or her own.

As for those people who just bashed you with their comments, I say that they need to improve their reading comprehension skills, but then again, the ignorant usually lack in that area, don't they?

I agree completely. I'm a mother and a feminist who had to work full-time all my life. It is so hard, and I only had two children and none of them were special needs. Yes, women can have it all, but we can't have it all at the same time. If Palin's children were older, it would be different, but with so many so young and her oldest daughter pregnant, taking on the huge job of running for VP right now is not in the best interests of her family. I say Children First, not Country First. When our children are taken care of, then we can focus on country or God or whatever.

Again, I would like to thank all the liberals for further proving my point that the panic you feel has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with any real concern for her or her children.

Tracy:

The 60% cut to special needs children in Alaska is incorrect. The funding was split from a single budgetary item to two items and funding went from 7.9M (2006) to 8.85M to 9.2M (2008) Hardly a 60% cut, but a quick visit to factcheck.org might disappoint you with the truth.

Lane,

Her "children" have "disabilities"?

She has a baby with Down Syndrome. If she is elected, she will have a huge house and lots of staff to cover the daily grind and her husband and her to help with the kids, plus I am sure they can afford to hire an extra hand to help.

Obviously you had a unique experience growing up, but we do not know that Sarah Palin's son will be so severely disabled and they seem to have access to plenty of resources.

If you think what she is doing is child abuse, then you should call social services. When the laughing subsides, they might tell you – people are free to raise their children the way they see fit.

Poor kids, this is what they have to be raised in:

1. Parents with a 20 year marriage.
2. Four siblings
3. Successful, hard working parents
4. A nice home on a lake in one of the most beautiful places on earth.
4b. A nice historical home in Washington DC
5. Extensive family and friends
6. All your basic necessities met (food, health care, education, etc)

Her kids have more social and material resources than 99% of the children in this country. They will probably be fine, but there is no way to guarantee that.

Some times you people seem crazy, but then I realize that the ideological threat is just that scary and fear can make us act irrationally.

David,
I stand corrected. Shame on me for not checking my facts for that one; however, the most important facts for me still stand. Her irresponsibility as a pregnant mother and now a mother of, among others, a 5 month old downs syndrom child, shows judgement far from anything I find acceptable. And to those people who want to applaud her ability to pay others to raise her children, especially her infant, there's little I can say if they don't understand the difference. Her declarations against a woman's right to choose are far from anything that should even be on the table in this day and age.
I also will not bother to debate further with someone like yourself; it's pointless. I will let you know, however, that liberal sounds an awful lot like liberty and views of conservatives sound to me like people who don't buy into the idea of the new world. Perhaps conservatives would be more comfortable in a country where there is no division of church and state…

Steve,

I don't have a problem with being a liberal in the abstract, only when it is applied to specific things.

I worked with some groups in California that challenged the racial and gender discrimination in the issuance of pistol carry permits (ie: people who are not rich white males need not apply).

So in that context, was I a conservative because I believe that the second amendment applies to everyone or was I a liberal for trying to hold authorities accountable for the inequitable application of their discretion?

Not many Democrats in California really care to see concealed pistol permits become more widely available – but how do they feel knowing that the ones that ARE available are issued in a way that is repugnant to anyone believing in equality.

So what is a good "liberal" or "progressive" to do? Make the system gender and color blind? to advance equal protection – that's pretty progressive, or do we keep the system discriminatory so that there are "fewer guns on the street" – isn't that a frequent aim (no pun intended) of "progressives"?

We found that most people preferred to ignore the situation as parsing their values at that level was… problematical – especially after they verified the party affiliation of the gored ox.

So my larger point is that we can all be defined as liberals or conservatives if we go by the definition of the words – thats the human experience – to advance what we aspire to and protect what we hold dear. When we get what we want, we call it "good" and when the people who hold opposing values get what they want, we call it "bad".

Perhaps that is why politicians try, as much as possible, to stay as undefined as possible and present them selves as "For good things and against bad things".

I mean, only a bad person could be opposed to that – right?