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?