A convention is NO place for a baby!

by Jennifer Jordan (Subscribe to Jennifer Jordan's posts)
Sep 5th 2008 3:01PM

OK, is it me or is a national convention no place for a baby? As was widely covered (yet not as much as the Democratic National Convention, interestingly), the Republican National Convention showcased many of Sarah Palin's children (and a would-be teenage groom). Among them, Palin's infant son, Trig. I thought it was a lot to take my newborn to the local diner when he was born!

Now, while the Republicans seemed a little more calm and collected than their boisterous Democratic opponents, they were still a relatively rowdy bunch. The whole point of a convention is to get people riled up for the cause, and there was a lot of that going on, especially from Palin herself. It was a loud, crowded, noisy place, which, to me, is no place for a baby. Babies need stimulation and interaction with the social world, I'm sure, but the RNC is a far cry from what good old Doctor Spock imagined. I am sure that kid was terrified. He seemed ok in the arms of family members as the rest of the RNC wailed on, but I couldn't help but think he should have been home with a nanny or a sitter.

Of course, the whole point of having her family there was to drive home the point that she's a mom and that she is a working mother, too. And, naturally, rather than focusing on real issues that truly matter to the election, the focus was all on her family. Trig has down syndrome. Bristol is pregnant. Levi will we her. Both Palin and the press have done their best to constantly remind us of these things--things which matter, sure, but they shouldn't be a part of the race for the White House. Should they? Palin and her people say keep the children out of it, yet there they were, even the littlest one, at the convention. Obama was no better--he trotted his kids out for the cute factor, no denying that.

Thoughts? Should we keep candidates' kids out of the political spotlight? If so, shouldn't they NOT be on television?

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 2)

Add Your Comments

9-05-2008 @ 3:17PM

Baron said...

I am pretty sure that most of the family stuff came out after the press (mostly notably though, bad rumors started on the internet) questioned the campaign about them. I know they were always going to be part of it, but I really don't (other than from a family centric standpoint) think it would have been as big a part of her initial speech if not. I could be wrong though. As for her baby, it is my experience that babies that young can sleep through anything. I know ours has no problem with my running the vacuum around her, our dogs barking at strangers (I can almost assure you that if you are in the immediate vicinity, it is just as loud as it was at the RNC), loud restaurants, etc. I have a feeling that the family was probably only there for a short duration. I know that in watching the count down to her speech, the scroll bar was reading that she + her family arrived only a little bit before she actually spoke. Babies and children are a lot more resilient than us!

9-05-2008 @ 3:22PM

Derek said...

There is nothing wrong with her kids being there, they want to support their mom after all. There is nothing wrong with them going on stage and getting some shots with her either. Same goes for Obama, nothing wrong with him getting shots with his family. Both are family people that's the business of things, but... I think the line stays there... the media digging up things like her daughter's pregnancy was out of line. Unless the child is going out and campaining for the parent their personal life should be left alone.
Having the baby there was her choice, he seemed content and slept the whole time. Plenty of people have made worse choices then bringing their 5-month old with them to a convention.

Oh and I'm sick of people bringing up how Palin didn't discuss the issues. That wasn't the point of her speech. Her speech was desigined to introduce her, boost McCain, and get the crowd excited. The issues will come later in debates and other speeches.

SKL said...

1) He's not a newborn, he was born in April.

2) I see nothing wrong with bringing him.

3) If they hadn't brought him, you people would be saying "WHY didn't she bring her baby? Is she ashamed of him? Look, she's already handing him off to someone outside the family, what a shitty mother."

4) Why doesn't PD just have one big post where you all state that you are voting for Obama and think anyone who doesn't is an idiot, and get it over with?

9-05-2008 @ 3:37PM

Marie said...

Amen, SKL. I'm getting so sick of reading all of this liberalist oppinionated bull. I am so close to giving up on the Parent Dish completely.

9-05-2008 @ 3:52PM

Mary said...

I am voting for Obama, but I do agree with your first 3 points. Like, seriously, who the hell cares what she does with her own kids? As long as she doesn't tell me what to do with mine, I really couldn't care less about hers.

9-05-2008 @ 5:11PM

Nicola said...

Another Obama supporter who is in full agreement. A candidate almost certainly discusses the issue with her family before she agrees to run. In the current social and political climate, none of us is naive enough to think that a candidate runs solo -- their families are as much a show of "who they are" as are their professed political views. If her daughter didn't want to be involved, she wouldn't be there. In support of her mother, she IS there. Good for her.

As stated above, had she come without the baby, we would yell and scream about that. How would a nursing mother leave a baby at home? Had she stayed home because she had a baby, we would all have ranted about weak women who can't face life because they have a small child in the house. Etc etc etc. I think that this post is MAJOR nit-picking and completely pointless.

PS -- my son nursed until he was almost four years old and thus came with us pretty much everywhere. Concerts, soccer matches, baseball games, plenty of loud and raucous places. He is now a happy, gregarious, well adjusted, social little boy who loves life. Especially the exciting bits!

9-05-2008 @ 8:29PM

Joy said...

APPLAUDING SKL….agree completely.

Wanting to add that Jennifer, after your “first born” you will do things much differently with the second. You are just more relaxed. You may even put something in her mouth that fell on the floor!! I know, isn’t that a shock? I’m certainly assuming that Sarah has things well in hand by her 5th and none of those children looked anything but HAPPY! Kids can’t fake it.

Also, most women go back to work after 6-8 weeks. How is it different for Sarah to go back to work? I guess my daughter in-law and son don’t love their kids. After all, they both work?

9-05-2008 @ 3:28PM

Jen said...

I'm glad she is a working mom and she has an eclectic family. It is about time we have someone in Washington who is an average American and can actually relate to the majority of the people in this county.

Brooke said...

I see nothing wrong with Sarah Palin having ALL her family there to support her. At 4 months a baby could care less about where they are as long as they are being cared for and their needs are being met. I think she is the best thing to happen to this campaign.

lozanovp said...

I see nothing wrong with her having her baby there. What is the difference between that and any of her other children? She's a mom and we all should be proud of that! I think the issues they are making around her are sort of ironic because if the same had been made about a Democratic woman the press would be screaming that we were using the "gender card". Come on people we live in a modern world where women have been in executive leadership roles for years---when are we going to allow for women to have children and be proud of them (whatever their age). That baby isn't going to die because he was exposed to people cheering---he obviously was doing just fine. I think focusing on her parenting is SUCH a desperate attempt to ignore the fact that she is more qualified in her experience than Obama! Get over it.

9-05-2008 @ 4:07PM

One other point on this topic. It is interesting to me how the tide changes when the candidate and/or President changes. The media and all of their cohorts were so very delicate and discreet about President Clinton and protecting his daughter's privacy and about touting that his sexual promiscuity should be his own business. Palin, due to the media's vain attempts to dig up dirt and their blatant disregard for her child's privacy, had to address and deal with what was thrown out for all the world to see. She did it with grace and dignity. She brought her children and was proud of them. I think it is also ironic in this world of anything goes that the party that pushes that moral philosophy is so quick to expose and use Palin's daughter's pregnancy to make a point about Palin. Are you going to have a moral code or not? If not, then quit judging others who have followed your philosophy of no moral absolutes. And PLEASE!!! We ALL know living in the real world that children sometimes do things that we as parents would love to strangle them for. That DOESN'T mean we are bad parents or bad leaders.

9-05-2008 @ 9:09PM

Kimberly said...

Isn't she breastfeeding? Or at least I know she is pumping... so yea she should have her little one there.

I am 100% for Obama, but I feel like we are only hurting ourselves by continuing to attack Palin on things that aren't related to the issues.

9-05-2008 @ 4:36PM

JoAnn said...

Sarah Palin, unfortunately, is getting a load of media scrutiny because she is a woman. What is just as unfortunate is that, I feel, her being a woman was obviously one of the reasons she was chosen- to appeal to those who would have voted for Hilary Clinton. Or to appeal to those masses yearning for change. (which, to me- just smacks of gimmick and desperation)

I have to say as a woman I would be disappointed in those that vote for McCain simply because Sarah Palin is a woman. In the same way that her personal life and children have no place in being a factor in the vote, and don't make a hair of difference to me personally- neither should her gender.

9-05-2008 @ 4:55PM

ame s said...

I don't know who I am voting for yet.
I don't think she should have brought the baby. I would never have exposed my infants or toddlers to that many people. My daughters would not have slept through that noise. Ew, the germs that must have been floating around that place!
To each her own, though. Take your babies where ever you want.

9-05-2008 @ 4:56PM

maureen said...

I think it's fine for her to bring her family -- that's what politicians do.
I take offense to the statement from an above poster who says that democrats are pushing a moral philosophy of "anything goes". This is absolutely untrue. There are amoral folks in both parties, but most people in both parties are trying to live a decent, moral life while respecting their fellow man.
Just remember the lies that the right spewed at Kerry in the last election. Trying to smear the name of a war hero.... classy.

9-05-2008 @ 7:00PM

danielle said...

She should not have had her infant son there, it was inappropriate and another example of how she does not have her childrens best interest in mind, only her own political agenda. Any mother with a special needs infant needs to put that child first, and in four months she has not had near enough time to learn of his needs, and god forbid she is to become our vice president, she will not be able to give that boy any of the care he needs from a mother. Sarah Palin is a prime example of the problem with our society, a parent too selfish to parent her children.

9-05-2008 @ 7:25PM

Momma said...

My only thought is this, kiddos with DS can also have sensory issues. Although he seemed to be fine, the noise alone could really mess a SPD kid up.

9-05-2008 @ 8:50PM

Michelle said...

Do you not think that baby has been to political rallies, hockey games or his big brother Basic Training graduation? It's not like they were passing him around like a party favor. He was held the entire time, and he appeared to sleep through most of the commotion.

Momma, as a Mom to a child with SPD, I can say, not all SPD issues relate to noise, nor do they always show up in infanthood.

9-05-2008 @ 10:05PM

kristin said...

Who cares? Who cares? I have brought my baby on a plane at 10:00 p.m. Am I a bad mom because I did that? I am sorry if you think I am. I also take my baby every where I go. Does that make me bad? I love my kids and I like them to be with me.

It is insulting to judge a woman because she wanted her family with her at probably the one of the most exciting moments of her life. People need to get off their high horse and quit making judgement about what kind of mom she is.

9-05-2008 @ 11:37PM

Sandyone said...

We "lotsa moms" are a different breed than the rest of the world. Our kids are different, too. I could explain it 20 ways to Sunday, but you wouldn't truly get it unless you, yourself, were a lotsa mom. Think of the learning curve between your first and second pregnancies. Experience with a number of children counts. A lot more than I ever thought it did, but now that I look back at my life with fewer kids, I can see huge differences.

12 Next 20 Comments

Hot on HuffPost Parents:

A convention is NO place for a baby!