I think it makes you a realist. But frankly I would also be suspicious of a man with a four-month-old Down's baby who was running for veep. It just doesn't seem right.

I suppose it does in the True Feminist paradigm, but I'm not sure they have it right yet.

And it makes me one too, although I pulled down my post saying much of what you've said here because I am a PC coward :-)

What if I told you that a wonderful women named Susan was with the children everyday, brilliantly balancing the time with Mom and Dad and that the kids felt connected to both parents, so much so that they never hesitated to make mom or dad modify schedules when necessary and they cherished the time they had. Or what if an Aunt named Becky is also working with Susan and the children? Would we have things to say if we knew something like this was the case?

You bet! Some would immediately "know" that this could be a beautiful situation for the family. Other's would "know" that this is another sign that she is an irresponsible parent. It's the kind of "knowing" that is always right.

What if we knew that she was doing an average job of parenting? Would that matter? I doubt it. Some would already "know" that she can't possibly being doing average. This they would know because they already know what a family situation must look like to be responsible.

I have no clue if you are being sexist. I'd have to ask lots of questions and then I might only have a hunch. It seems to me that you already have a fairly good idea how the family is doing compared to most others.

I have no clue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that their situation was working as well or better than the Obama's. And that statement has NOTHING to do with any worry I have about the Obama's. It comes from the fact that I simply have no reason to believe things are going all that great or all that poorly with either.

As to your specific question about whether being concerned for children makes you sexist. I don't think so. I think people might be concerned about the rationales behind your concerns. But, hey, that might make them sexist as well...or racist or perhaps even ageist.

oh, finally: I'm a therapist. Even if we had scientific proof that a father touched his children much less than the average American father does, it would tell us absolutely nothing about how that factors into that given family. There is simply no evidence that better fathers touch their children more often at some magical rate. I have had clients who have real issues with touch and the family has no problem interpreting the love in all sorts of other ways. I just wanted to say that because I know there are many people out there who can get overly worried about the mathematics of love. Sometimes they read math-love questions and get overly worried about themselves. I'm not suggesting you should not have written about your concerns about the father at all. I just wanted to give my take on that subject as well. He might be a monster for all we know. Or maybe his kids have no doubt whatsoever about his love and availability. I'm so glad we don't need to know this stuff in order to evaluate our vote.

I didn't see this emerging as such an issue -- but it clearly is. Sally Quinn seemed to kick it off most prominently by echoing your point, Edna, in the Washington Post. I just saw Joan easily knock it down this morning on CNN. And yet, I think it will persist.

And I suspect this very issue is being debated, thousands of times over, among conservatives behind closed doors. . .

Thank you for this post. It's great to know others are on the same thought process. Now that's it for me. I'm shutting up!

I don't think it makes you a sexist. I think Sarah Palin's motherhood is entirely an issue, because she has chosen to make it one. If she didn't parade her children around like walking résumé points that spoke to her qualifications to run a country, I'd feel differently.

Yeah, it does, as Stellaa asserted and Red demonstrated. Unless, of course, you meet her caveat, just failed to mention it (that you were equally concerned for Robert Kennedy's kids).

No matter how her husband 'appears' to you, he is her equal full-time partner in all things including parenting, and totally capable of doing the majority of the parenting while she works the national stage. Many women before him have done this, and more, and solo. There should be question about him fulfilling his obligation to the family in the traditional female role. He is capable of doing so, which makes questions about the quality of Palin's motherhood moot as well as sexist.

Here's what I wonder: Why are we even discussing this? Is it really appropriate for us to be devoting any time or attention to our own moral purity?

Our country is in terrible condition. We are involved in an unsuccessful, unending war started for no good reason, thousands of young Americans have died for no purpose, the economy is in dire straits, we tortured prisoners in Guantanamo, and our government is shredding the Constitution. Beyond satisfying ourselves as to our own moral purity, is anything accomplished hand wringing over whether or not criticism of Sarah Palin is sexist?

Isn't this a luxury we cannot possibly afford?

here's my take:

@AmyTutuerMD - Here's what I wonder: Why are we even discussing this? Is it really appropriate for us to be devoting any time or attention to our own moral purity?

Amy is right that debating whether or not it is sexist is a waste of time.

However, examining how she runs her life and "manages" her family is a big part and parcel of how "qualified" she is for the potential office(s). On paper, she has little experience and repugnant positions. But, the right does not seem to care.

So, we're left with examining her as we would a new family in the neighborhood - a thought that occurred to me this morning as I realized that if she wins, she will live a short 30 minutes or less from me.

Voyeuristic, suspicious, and small-minded? Perhaps. But also, realistic, as in, who wouldn't be scratching their heads, saying:
What the H-E-double hockey sticks is going on with that family?

Why it concerns me are the following:
1. @CarolofCarol writes: What if I told you that a wonderful women named Susan was with the children everyday, brilliantly balancing the time with Mom and Dad and that the kids felt connected to both parents, so much so that they never hesitated to make mom or dad modify schedules when necessary and they cherished the time they had.

It would be more clear if she had a track record of balancing career and family in a high-profile, 24-hour a day, demanding international environment. She does not.

The Alaska governor presides over the legislature, which meets for less than 120 days.

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=2

There has been discussion that she was often not in Juneau and that her husband sat in on meetings, etc.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/shadow_governor

which is just icky, and I hate when any candidates say their spouse advises them. We're not electing a couple, but I digress.

"First Dude?" - Palin admits that they had to scramble for childcare, as she had assumed he would take over the duties when she became governor, but had not actually discussed it with him. (I will find reference)

2. She has admitted that she does not know what the Vice President does. [has anyone NOT seen the Youtube video]
and her sequestering over the last several days leaves me wondering if she had any idea what the President might have to do.

THUS, she is in wayyyyyy over her head. I am sure she is smart, but I don't trust her judgment. Based on what I know, she would put ideology and ambition first. I don't believe she would be the type of VP/President who would consider the potential consequences to all of our children before taking action.

JMHO.

Well, y'all have convinced me. I now admit that my question is sexist. But I still wonder. I guess I mainly am just curious as to how in hell she does it -- parents five young kids and runs a State, that is.

And I agree with AmyTuteurMD that there are MUCH more important questions we should be discussing. For instance, what's up with her trying to remove books from the shelves of that library in her town? Now, THAT's one of the topics we need to be discussing -- dontcha think?

Here's what I don't get – families of all political stripes would naturally assume that a woman with a teenaged pregnant daughter would want to be spending time preparing for the baby, counseling her daughter, and keeping her out of the limelight, especially since the woman's got a newborn of her own in need of attention. Women can have it all, but there are seasons to our lives. When you choose to have kids, the outside career takes a backseat for awhile because kids require so much time – “quality time” doesn’t exist for kids. Letting naked ambition contribute more to this family's current level of dysfuntion is turning off a lot of women.

here's another thought - maybe she knows in her heart that there is no chance to win the election, so she can put her hat in the ring, get in the Republican limelight, and then go back to Alaska and wait 4 or 8 years.

ok, I don't think so, but it is a cheerful thought.