I just can't get over the fact that she has a four month old baby. How can she possibly run for Vice President and give a child that young the attention it needs and deserves? Running for Vice President is an all-consuming experience, involving constant travel, late nights, and so on. Is this really a reasonable decision on her part?

The child also has Down's Syndrome. More than likely she has a nanny. Inspite of her so called, middle class upbringing, that's what the wealthy do!

Amazingly, this is one of the narratives being trial-ballooned by the Obama camp and their MSM compatriots (talking heads on CNN raised this issue just this morning). And again, it proves just how sexist the Left can be.

Would you have raised this concern if Palin were a man?!

No one would ever question her decision she were a man. It's simple. She has a four-month old baby and a husband. I'm sure he can give the baby the care it needs.

Not just the wealthy--plenty of career women who feel the need to go back to work quickly.

I've known more than one woman in a middle management or engineering job to employ a nanny. It took a huge slab of their family income to do it for the ones I know. From disussions I've overheard, seeking out and employing a nanny was one of the scariest things they had ever done.

Her husband is an oil worker that spends most of his time away from home. She returned to the state house when the child was only 4 days old. Her husband cannot give the child what it needs all by himself.

A Mr. Mom type? All the hype over Obama, not knowing anything about him, eventhough he has been in the political spotlight since he was elected to the Senate a few years ago and campaigned for 2 years. We can say the same about Palin, we really don't know much about her, but according to the gop, she is the greatest thing since sliced bread! O and by the way, I am tired of the term "maverick"! In my opinion they are no more than fence straddlers.

I think the reason it is coming up is because they have made an issue out of her knowing the child has downs, she chose to have it anyway, to reinforce the anti-choice ticket. I would feel sorry for any baby getting into the middle of a presidential campaing no matter if it was the mom or dad at the podium. I feel sorry for the Obama girls too having lives interupted and camera's all over.

nextmike:

Would you have raised this concern if Palin were a man?!

I would think that either parent should carefully consider the impact of a new, all-consuming full-time job on their children. I've known many families who have broken up because of the difficulty of balancing the demands of a high-pressure job and a new family. I don't recommend it to anyone.

But yes, I remember when my own children were young and there was a unique bond formed between them and my wife when they were babies. I believe that bond is essential to a healthy life.

Obviously we all have to make compromises and women commonly go back to work after a few months. But I cannot fathom why a woman would take on a job like running for Vice President with such a small child. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Wow how sexist. As the mother of a mentally challenged child, I will tell you that criticism is really easy from the outside looking in. Shame on you. jonawebb. This woman obviously adores this child - she has made the very personal choice to have him rather than abort as most democrats would have done. She and her husband alone should decide what is right for him as all other Americans do with their families. How they decide to raise him is their decision alone. I have known lots of families who don't struggle with the issue of a handicapped child that have broken up. I also know lots of families with children with disabilities that don't get divorced even though both parents work (mine is but one). Thankfully we live in a country where sexism as well as racism is becoming a thing of the past. God bless America.

No, no one would question a man running with an infant. But, when they are under two, the parent babies generally need most is the mother. Men cannot breast feed. I wouldn't want to pass over my role of mothering to my husband. I would want to spend every waking moment holding my precious infant. And I agree that if you are committed to your infant's needs, even if you can bring the baby to work, which I did with both of my boys, work and care for the baby suffer and compete with one another. I am grateful for both employers that allowed me to do it, but I still went to the office three days a week without my sons in order to get any work done. And in the early infant days (up to 6 months), you run late all the time, you take up precious time breast pumping, you don't get sleep at night...life is just crowded and messy. I can't see how someone could accept a job that would require massive travel and long hours with an infant at home. I think now is just not the time.

To use the vernacular, Gov. Palin has made a different "choice" than you would have.

I'm told that's none of our business.

The lede to this issue has been buried in this thread.

What has not been discussed, and ought to be, is the fact that she and her husband chose to conceive a child when Sarah was 43. They already had four.

Any OBGYN would tell a prospective mother who is plus-40 that the risks of the child being born with Downs or a host of other afflictions is greatly increased because of the mother's age. These statistics and facts are medically documented and supported by both research and histories.

I don't want to hear from the concern trolls who will inevitably suggest that this was an unplanned pregnancy. If you plan to have sex and not use contraceptives, then the pregnancy that results from that decision is planned.

I would like to know at what point the Palins' son, their oldest child, opted to join the Army and at what point it became obvious that he was more than likely to serve in Iraq. The infant is 4 months old; add 9 months to that and you come up with July of 2007.

I ask this for a reason, and hope that someone will provide an answer; I would hate to think that Sarah Palin and her husband made the decision to conceive in the hopes of having another son in order to replace their soldier son in the event that he was killed in action.

Whether any of that is the case, and I admit to you all that it is, for now, speculation, it still points to a certain disquieting example of self-interest to risk, for any reason, having a baby born with birth defects; it shows lack of concern for the infant's quality of life, and underscores Sarah's decision to conceive as an attitude that can be described as all-about-me. It also negatively highlights the maverick image that the conservative camp has trumpeted. Do we really want a veep who would recklessly attempt something that cooler heads would advise against? And it also takes away any of the approval that has been aimed at Sarah Palin for choosing not to abort.

The decision to conceive was hers and her husband's. Regardless of how much they love their baby, they and they alone are responsible for his permanent condition. The choices women have to make aren't easy, but some should be no-brainers.