Originally Posted by valanhb
I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by some of the reaction I see here. Yeah, she has a baby, and a special needs baby at that. Does that make her less qualified because she may have to multi-task?
So much for women's lib and equality.
Guess you're not qualified unless the offspring are at least weaned, and preferably if you're past breeding prime. Should we make it a requirement that women politicians be spayed too?
As women, we have a choice to make. We can put our families first, or we can have extremely ambitious careers-- one at a time (though most of us achieve both by changing the priority over time). Men have the exact same choice, it's just a lot more socially acceptable for them to choose their career.
Then again, most people I know don't give half a hoot what gender someone is. Like I said, anyone who was often primarily responsible for five young children would not be high on my list for "in charge of the entire country". If Obama had five kids and a wife who travelled for long times very often, I wouldn't want him either.
This woman made her choice, and whether it's right or not, it looks pretty bad to be breastfeeding while campaigning for the White House. Look back at all our recent Presidents and VPs-- NONE had infants when they were elected, probably in part because of the age requirement.
I just think, mainly, that this was a ploy by the McCain campaign, and that it is going to backfire bigtime. He was expected to pick quite a few others before her, and for good reason-- they would have been better picks than someone who is involved in a scandal, oil, from a state with few electoral votes, and who will be (maybe wrongfully) seen as abandoning an infant with a disability.