I would be happy to if she would stay out of my reproductive life.

This isn't tit for tat. She's got very strong views about family values that she's certainly going to assert if elected. She's the one who put her basic qualifications out there as a "hockey mom".

If I were suggesting some esoteric notion of child rearing I might agree with you, but having done it 3 times, and having seen a fair number of other mothers going through it at the same time it is really conventional wisdom (throughout the ages and most of the world) that babies at that age need their sleep.

The footage showed a bleary-eyed baby that was being jostled around. Surely her "message" and "case for John McCain" could have been made without him and with her older children alone on stage.

I think I'm tired of the hypocracy. I am a perceived "liberal" democrat in my community, and I seem to among the most traditional thinkers with regard to child rearing. So perhaps I am not ready to have the conservatives tell me what is the right way to live, or raise my kids, or decide what I want to do with my body. Nevermind the big things that I have no control of like war, economy, and healthcare coverage.

So, I appreciate your high-minded appeal but do not agree that one should stand by and accept the hypocracy and mixed messages of the Republican party on principle alone.

No, but she does have a chance to influence whether I have a right to an abortion...so I think I can comment about her mothering behavior.

And while you're nit-picking...she hasn't made many, if any, policy statements of her own in this campaign so it would be difficult to determine her views on childrearing, except the observation that she is willing to use an infant as a prop for political purposes.

I think Sarah Palin is making a mistake and many people have the same reaction you had.

**I'm less concerned about the baby, who didn't really seem conscious, than I am about that poor little girl who seemed to be trying very very hard to recreate "buzz" with the baby. The parents were quite willing to pass the infant off to this little kid, and she seemed to know what her job was. Sad stuff.

Why don't you go call the fucking CPS instead of posting here?

It adds nothing to a political discussion here and you are obviously concerned about the matter. Make yourself useful.

Excuse me but I think she's using that baby as a prop. It's shows the public what a GREAT MOTHER she is. The minute she gets on stage, she passes it off to a family member, usually one of the daughters. What really, really upsets me is when she is descending the plane and walking down the stairs, in HEELS with that baby. And those are really steep steps. Why doesn't she use a carrier, which is a lot more safe?

You may think me cynical, but that's the way I see it. She's been filmed walking down those airline steps a couple of times holding that baby and I'm scared to death her heel might get caught, or she misses her footing on a step. I don't think any woman in her right mind would risk that with their baby in her arms. I wouldn't!

In your view a baby should never be out and about at midnight.

That is just your view.

Babies with Trisomy 21 have a high rate of AV defects of the heart requiring corrective surgery as soon as they reach a certain weight. They also are prone to high rates of infection--their immune systems are more fragile than other babies. Often heart surgery has to be delayed because of persistent infection. That baby should not be carted around as a prop. That's irresponsible and exploitative behavior by his parents. Period. End of story. Other parents of Trisomy 21 babies are counseled to isolate their children as much as possible in their first year until their health status is established and stable. I find the Palin's behavior with this child disturbing.

You know, a lot of you are missing the point, and maybe because you've never had a baby, or a sick baby, but the Palins are mistreating that baby. Maybe it hasn't reached the point where CPS has to be brought in, but their doctor should be telling them that flying this child all over God's creation and carting him out into crowds is endangering his life. I've done work as an expert witness for CPS and disability cases and the Palins are pushing the envelope here. Yes, absolutely, it shows poor judgment and "a lack of respect for human life." Sound familiar? It most certainly is an issue we should pay attention to. The way some people are talking here, if you murder your parents, it's a family matter. Can't be discussed. Bullshit.

Nice to see people hear playing to the stereotype that Dems want to be intrusive into your life.

Do you know if the kid had a nap?

Please don't tell me anyone here has a better notion of childrearing than any other. Short of molesting or beating the child up, we don't need others spying on us to make sure we are performing parenting skills up to "your" standards.

Well, as a veteran parent, I can attest that many small children, particularly infants, don't do well in big crowd settings, especially settings with loud noise, like a ballgame. That's why bringing the baby to the convention and passing it around, etc. seemed exploitative and ill-advised. It's different from JFK playing with a kid in an office, even if JFK was playing some politics. It's totally different from passing a baby around in a crowded hall or arena.

Friends,

Let me point out that:

• In Wasilla, it was barely past dinner time, not yet bedtime.
• Being held is very good for babies.
• Being held by people who permanently love you is the path to being secure.
• Babies can successfully reject settings they find disturbing by making sure everyone hears their objections.

Yeah, I think it's odd to run for vice-president with a four-month-old.

But then I encouraged a 9-year-old to consume caffeine several years ago and I agreed that a 12-year-old could stay up for the Colbert show on school nights--so I'm odd, too.

Gossip if you want, but if state officials tried messing with the Palins, my liberal clan would stand up right beside them for their rights as a family.

Palin endangered her baby's life before he was born and continues to do it today. She flew to give a speech in Texas when she was eight months pregnant ("I wasn't about to miss that speech") and started to leak amniotic fluid, a dangerous situation for the fetus. Instead of going to a hospital, she took a commercial flight back to Alaska ("I wanted him born on Alaska soil"), then drove to a hospital more than an hour away to be delivered. This is irresponsible, selfish, dangerous behavior, the same type of behavior she exhibits trotting that poor baby around in noisy crowds and flashing lights. Tiny babies are subject to damage to their developing systems and any pediatrician will tell you they do better at home with a routine. I was particularly appalled at the way she grabbed the baby after the debate, then handed him to 6-year-old Piper, who seemed not to know what to do with him and shuffled him off to an older sister. That isn't showing love, that's exploitation pure and simple. And if it was only afternoon in Alaska, as someone posted, why weren't the girls in school? You will never convince me that a woman who uses her children as accessories can be trusted to make good decisions about child care should she achieve her ambition of the vice presidency.

I think it all goes back to the judgement argument. We see Sarah Palin demonstrating exceptionally poor judgement with regards to her infant. Parenthood is one her (self-claimed) claims to fame. She's a great "hockey mom;" therefore she'd be a great VP. I don't know beans about hockey, but I do know something about Down Syndrome (Down, not Downs, KateO). There is the poor immune system, and the high rate of heart defects requiring surgery in infancy, there are often digestive issues, and usually overly stretchy ligaments which make for a very floppy baby. And, no, babies with Down Syndrome often don't cry to speak of - it makes it hard to know when they have a problem. This is the kid she is carting all over as a show and tell?

So, judgement is a characteristic of a candidate that is fair game for comment.

Kate is not directly caring for the child which is when a physician or other professional would be mandated to report abuse or neglect. In this instance, the situation is quite unique and the laws may not be written to address it. Also, the laws where they are traveling might be difficult to apply unless the abuse was flat out injurious to the baby.

The problem for me, from the trip to Texas and back; to dragging all the kids around and setting this example for other young parents. Yes, they are way off their time schedule and it doesn't help the immune system at all if they are not getting enough rest. Even if the baby had naps, it would not be that aroused at 9 o'clock at night (AK time).

Bristol does not need this kind of stress either. Pregnancy is hard enough on a mature body. Hers is still developing and at 17 she is going through some massive changes in the brains nervous structure - which puts teenagers at risk for schizophrenia and other psych diagnoses developing.

The Obama's have had the girls out for special occasions and some times when they were not on their ususal routines in school. The rest of the time, Michelle has taken a lot of precautions to campaign close enough she could be home to put them to bed. Her mom has been taking care of them a lot too.

At some point when Sarah was running for governor, the story was that Todd would be staying with the kids and working less if she was elected. Didn't happen. Trak didn't make grades good enough to go to college and joined the army. Bristol got mono and then got pregnant. Trig, as noted, doesn't seem to get anywhere near as much time with Dad as with his sisters. Dad at least doesn't wear high heels, he could be carrying Trig down the plane steps. The first Dude is not campaigning like Michelle or Jill. Jill has no children at home.

There is plenty of stress on kids in political families without making it any worse. If they really think the kids lives are better traveling with her, the exposure to the crowds, etc. does not have to be part of it.

For me it is both the stress on the kids and the example they are setting for other parents, especially very young impressionable parents like their daughter and future son-in-law will be.

I live very close to Dobson et al. Focusing on the family is what he and the Palin's are all about. I judge people partly on the known scientific/medical recommendations and also on their stated values. They are free to do what they want as long as they are not violating any laws. I believe in manners. I also think there are times when public or peer pressure can be appropriate means of discouraging inappropriate or risky behavior.

Call protective services on Todd if you feel the need to intrude on the Palins' child-rearing choices. Otherwise, butt out.

And jeez, this just really makes Dems look bad. There's plenty to not like about Palin as a VP candidate, and even more to dislike about the McCain-Palin ticket. Leave the kids out.

Kate:

You wrote:

Because people don't always take care of their children--they beat them, starve them, and sometimes kill them.

I wrote:

Short of molesting or beating the child up, we don't need others spying on us to make sure we are performing parenting skills up to "your" standards.

(Of course, the "your" is the general "you" here.)

So, I've made clear that CPS are required in extreme cases. The problem is that last I looked, the Palins weren't beating the child, starving him, killing him, or molesting him.

I think we are in complete agreement on that point.

I know many people that report things like this do it out of a "good heart"... they just "want to help". But it creates a general mentality that is very dangerous.

For example, Chinese parents let their pre-pubescent children run wild -- no bedtimes at all. It's cultural for them. In contrast to the US, it's post-pubescent that the Chinese parents crack down.

So... who raises their child the "right" way?

I can make an argument (others will refute it, no doubt) that I consider it mental child abuse to indoctrinate your children with notions of fairy tales and religion -- with no more thought than that's because that's the way the parent was raised. After all, you are literally putting the "fear of God" into the child. Why? It's cruel and merely for indoctrination.

So what constitutes standards? Do we really want a state where people are so concerned about the rearing of children that the parents are afraid of doing their job? Many of my friends and relatives already live in this fear.

From the "people trying to help." And these people are backed by the state.

I remind you of the 1980-90s where there were many cases of "child abuse" in daycare systems that were based on fabricated testimony of the children:

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

Now, I know the people involved were trying to protect the children... but merely having good intentions doesn't cut it. Half the population has an IQ that is below average and it's the tyranny of the stupid that is so very dangerous. Because it's entirely possible that the way you are raising your children doesn't come up to my standards. So maybe I should call CPS on you? Where would it end?

CPS is valuable for the extreme cases. But this blog and the defense of it, is a quick trip down a slippery slope -- and is a major intrusion of the state into private lives. The CPS should never be used to put parents in fear -- but that's what it's become because of the so-called "people trying to help."

The Palins did not exhibit any of the extreme behavior. You might do things differently. That's fine. Viva la choice. Maybe yours is better, maybe not. But I don't want the state involved in such things. Ever.

Let me be clear, I was only saying that the natural history of newborns with Down Syndrome is pretty clear. Until they reach a certain age and a certain weight (and they are slow growers) they cannot be full assessed for what they are at greatest risk of, which is congenital heart disease and a depressed immune system. A fair number of them are born with a hole in their heart that requires surgical repair. Because they are considered at risk for "pre-surgery" parents are often advised to limit their exposures to nonfamily members. I wasn't suggesting that CPS be called in, far from it, and someone upthread stated that I should report this to the authorities. I don't have a license in Alaska, I'm not treating the child, and I have no standing, so the remark was made in sarcasm, I hope. Furthermore, this doesn't warrant that aggressive action. I only suggested that one of the Palin's healthcare providers should be warning the family of the risk. This is about judgment by someone who bills herself politically as a mom. She's the one constantly making it an issue. You didn't hear Hillary on the campaign trail using her status as a mother in any terms but pride of her daughter--not to aggrandize herself. For those who think it's none of our business whether the Palin's choose to put their special needs baby at risk, maybe it's not, but she has made her parenting skills one of her political assets. I don't care about ANY baby being out in crowds at midnight, I care about a Down Syndrome baby, less than 6 months old, being out in crowds at midnight.

What the fuck are you doing here about it? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing here complaining about it?

There are three options:

1. One is concerned about the baby; or

2. One thinks this is an issue that helps in the elections; or

3. Both of the above.

If you are concerned about the baby, call the Child Protective Services. They will make a judgment and act accordingly.

If you think this is a winner issue for the election, call the Child Protective Services. They will make a judgment and act accordingly. If they take action, then it is the CPS acting and not some random Democratic person, which is a much more convincing electoral argument.

If you all are really so fucking concerned about the baby, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Coming here bitching about it is the worst thing you can do. If you politicise the situation too much, you are risking scaring off the CPS.

Clear your fucking heads. Shame on you.

I am not sure what part of the country most of you come from but the debate in the EST ended at 10:30. The debate was in Missouri which means it ended at 9:30. The other thing that isn't being even brought up is that we have no idea whether the Palin's have or have not discussed with their pediatrician any issues with having their baby out in public. As for having their daughter taking care of the baby, I have 6 grandchildren. The oldest being 16 and the youngest is 4. At 12 the oldest changed diapers, got formula mixed, heated it and fed the baby. The baby's first word wasn't MAMA but it was Ben for his big brother. Most large families work like that. My 3 oldest grandchildren used to fight over who was going to carry the baby around.
How many of the people on this blog have teenage daughters who they know exactly what they are doing every minute of every day? Even the stay at home moms? Seventeen years olds still get pregnant. And it has nothing to do with a mother working or staying at home. It happens.
We always talk about mothers being there to take care of their children but what about Joe Biden. It was tragic that his wife and daughter died in a terrible accident that also left his sons in very serious condition but that didn't stop him from becoming a Senator and going to work every day. We all do what we feel is right for our situation. He was a single father and was able to work and raise his sons. Sarah Palin has a husband to help her out.

John Edwards has small children too. Any complaints about his running for President? No. Because it was understood Elizabeth would care for them. No reason why that can't be done with the Palins as well -- that is, assume Todd will be a stay at home dad and take care of the kids if (God forbid) the McCain-Palin ticket wins.

If Palin's judgment is as bad as you think it is based on what you perceive to be her parenting choices, if she's as ruthless and power hungry as you may think she is based on her parenting choices, it will show up in other areas of her political life where we won't have to speculate about what it all means.

And guess what? It does.

This nitpicking her bringing her kids on stage -- that's all optics. And it is far wiser, IMO, to let people do what they will do with that. Either they notice it and agree with you, or they don't. There's not a whole late to be gained by harping on it.

And bottom line, for me anyway, I really hate it when people in general, and women in particular, start critiquing each other's parenting choices. This is not child abuse we're looking at. Come on -- calling it that robs that term of its really horrific meaning. What we see here, in the opinion of many (including me), is a politician who appears to be a little overly willing to use her children as props. But that's eye of the beholder stuff. Optics, as I said above.

We are wasting our time, and possibly hurting our cause, dwelling on it.

Here's my 2 cents - I felt really uncomfortable when I saw her hand the baby off to the youngest (Piper?) - she seems way to young to be lugging around a baby.

Every news clip I see, doesn't have the pregnant daughter in it - Palin's being accompanied by the other daugher (Willow?) she's up on the stage with Mom & McCain - so...she's dropped out of school, too?

Is the campaign paying for tutor to 'home school' these kids? I don't think this is an off limits question to ask.

And I agree with Kate, special needs babies are not props.

I agree special needs babies aren't, or shouldn't be, props. And it would be great if those who are near and dear to the Palins could make up the slack in caring for Trig. We can hope they are. None of us knows, of course, what his care is like in the 23 hours and 30 minutes per day, every day, that we don't see him on the T.V. screen.

I'm looking at this politically. I think it looks petty and hurts us to pick at this kind of thing. There is little to be gained by trying to persuade people that Trig is being used in a way that may not be in his best interests. Either they see it and agree, or they don't.

Children are not a petty concern. I said WE look petty when we try to use Palin's children against her politically.

As I also said, all we see is brief periods of time when Trig is lugged around on stage or is sitting in an audience. We don't know the degree of Trig's retardation, but like many Down syndrome children, especially those who are severely retarded rather than more moderately retarded, he looks quite lethargic. It's easy to conclude from that that he's tired and should be in bed. But, we don't see him during the rest of his day, we have no idea how much sleep he gets, and we don't know anything about his care.

We are simply using this to go after Palin. I think that looks petty and does not reflect well on us as Dems.

There are plenty of valid reasons to go after her -- like the fact she's totally unqualified for the job. Why are we harping on this?

Alright. This has gotten too old. I'm off.

I was wondering when people would take notice of this shameless and outageous behavior on the part of these parents. The baby is only 51/2 months old. It is incredibly inappropriate to drag him on stage , pass him from one set of arms to another in the lights and with flash bulbs popping for the sheer publicity of it. Half the time they don't even support his head. What are they thinking? why am I even asking this?
It would not matter if they were just a couple we saw out at night at a political event. Babies, especially children with problems, need schedules, bedtimes and a warm and comfy place to be - they do not need to be in a place with thousands of strangers, noise and all kinds of germs.
We already know she has this " special needs" child.. Take care of him for heaven's sake!
Shameless!

It's amazing how far people are willing to go in their judgments, and on the basis of very little information.

Before I had kids, I used to be appalled when I'd see children in the supermarket with stains on their shirts or faces. "What kind of parents would take their kids out in public like that?" I'd wonder.

Then, one day I found myself in line with my 4-year-old daughter, looked down at her, and discovered a chocolate ice cream stain on her cheek! "How the heck did that happen?" I asked myself. "Did I not even look at her before we left the house?!" It was an eye-opening, humbling experience.

That's not to say that a one shot experience like that is the equivalent to a conscious decision to take your child out on the campaign trail. But, I repeat: None of us here has any idea what kind of care Trig or any of the other Palin children receive when they're out of our sight -- which is MOST OF THE TIME.

Anyhow, that's all I have to say too. Those who want to continue clucking and murmurring disapproval over the Palins' parenting decisions, carry on.

Kate and Ginny, you are both flat out WRONG! A mandated reporter has standing WHENEVER and WHEREEVER they witness or suspect child abuse. You don't need to be treating the child--you could witness abuse at Walmart and you are mandated to report it. You witnessed this on TV so you have standing. Your apparent medical knowledge suggests the child is at significant risk of harm due to the manner in which this hypocritical, lying woman who is against women's rights treats and/or neglects the child's health and well being...so if you are gonna bitch about her neglect/abuse, LEARN your state law on mandated reporters and report her. Otherwise shut up about the abuse/neglect issue...there is plenty of other stuff to pick on this dolt about starting with being against Choice, equal pay of equal work, ethics in government (look at her own situation in troopergate)regulation (in spite of her lies in the debate)and she is for making raped women have the baby and pay for their own rape kits in the hospital that are used for evidence in prosecuting the rapist...yeah she is fine specimen to be talking about women's issues.

My point is time does stop because someone has a special needs child. Life goes on, families go on, some people go back to work, some people don't. If she left the baby home, people would be criticizing her as being ashamed of her special needs child. If she takes the child in public, he's a prop. I just can't stand armchair judgy about other people's family choices. Where is the coutcry from the special needs community and doctors if this is so dangerous? And even more than that if you have medical proof that she is endangering her child, bring it. Link to the articles. Show the medical opinions of dire concern for a Down's baby to be out on the campaign trail, and preferably not one of a dog with a freaking hat on it. Please.

If you have concerns with her stance on abortion, you can address that without attacking her parenting skills. This whole thread if it were about a Democratic poltiican instead of a Republican you would find it reprehensible. At some point I'd hope folks decide to return to some semblance of decency.

However, the presence of Down's means that parents do have to be watchful for various health problems.

Babies and children with the syndrome often have an immune system which makes them prone to infections, particularly chest and sinus infections.

Babies with Down's syndrome can also have problems regulating their temperature, and can have very dry skin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/1254702.stm

Compared to the general population, individuals with Down syndrome have a 12-fold higher mortality rate from infectious diseases, if these infections are left untreated and unmonitored. These infections are due to abnormalities in their immune systems, usually the t-cell and antibody-mediated immunity functions that fight off infections. Children with Down syndrome are also more likely to develop chronic respiratory infections, middle ear infections, and recurrent tonsillitis. In addition, there is a 62-fold higher incidence of pneumonia in children with Down syndrome than in the general population.

The above from Infants and Pre-school children section:

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/downsyndrome.cfm%5C#Infantsand

The above does not take into account the other study done (in the UK, I think) where that specific researcher claimed that the risks were only slightly higher and that the risks of infection increased only because of institutional settings that the kids were found in. Whatever.

Still, your point is fair about returning to civil discourse and away from judgment soaked topics. ;)

Later.

This social liberal has just read a thread with a title I find frightening (Call child protective services...please) and with lots of hideous and frightening comments.

Who are you people who talk like parents should become punished somehow because children aren't being raised according to your cultural standards? Not liberals by any stretch of my imagination, that's for sure.

While the original poster backtracked a bit, claiming only wanting to point out the hypocrisy, I don't buy it, given that the original post says her mothering choices for that baby are scandalous, which sounds like some uptight conservative WASP Republican out of an Edith Wharton novel.

I'm a social liberal and I fear people like you more than I fear pro-life people. You want to tell me how to live my life every day, not just whether or not I can have an abortion when I'm pregnant. I hope you realize that your type of thinking made liberals like me sometimes consider voting for Republicans for local offices starting about 20 years ago.

People like you especially strike fear into the hearts of welfare mothers who have to worry about whether the social worker will take the kid or the Medicaid or food stamps away or drag them into court because they believe in spanking or gave them too much candy or got caught keeping them up after 10 or let someone smoke a cigarette in the house. You strike fear into lots of rural whites who started voting Republican because they didn't like "liberal big government" telling them how to raise their children or when they can smoke a cigarette or what health care procedures they should have under threat of court action. Buttinsky people like you just strike fear of letting you get near any governmental power.

It's hard to think of a better way to help the Sarah Palins of the world than by advocating totalitarian child raising rules. First you're going to tell everyone how to enjoy their children, next you're going to outlaw my favorite junk food.

News for you all: I'm a social liberal who happens to like parents who don't take a strict "one size fits all" approach to infant, baby and child care, tends to look poorly on parents who are strict disciplinarians, thinking they are not into joy of life but into pushing kids into a rat race mold. But I wouldn't dream of telling them what to do.

I don't like politicians using their children to sell their candidacy, but I am resigned to it, because they do it precisely because of people like you who care so much about what other people are doing with their families, rather than about issues.

I'd like to invoke Godwin's law and call some of you Nazis, "enforcement agents checking on the child raising practices of every household in order to create a better volk" Nazis.

"No, but she does have a chance to influence whether I have a right to an abortion...so I think I can comment about her mothering behavior."

The logical conclusion is that you feel privy to comment on her mothering behavior because she has a chance to have an influence on your "mothering behavior" Hum. Pretty telling...

The document that this country was founded on says all men are created equal. That means upon creation, all individuals have rights. What about the right of that unborn? I guess you were "here first."

Selfishness doesn't cancel out irresponsibility. You better think about whether you have any reproductive rights after your child is conceived. I'm not your judge but you will be judged.