August 2008 Archives

Along with everyone else, the iVillage message boards are buzzing with reaction to the announcement that John McCain has selected Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate for the Republican ticket. The unusual pick seems to have thrown everyone for a loop and it's fascinating to read some of the early responses.

From Politics Today:

"I actually feel bad for the posters who were scared about Obama's lack of experience because this would put them in a quandary." -- thestargazer

"She brings absolutely nothing to the table -- unless you come from the religious right wing of the Republican party.  Then she brings all the right votes and all the right priorities to the table." -- jane_afw

"I am just shocked!  I didn't see it coming.  Exciting actually, however, I am a Mom of two small children and I couldn't do it...she has five kids one a downs syndrome infant.  She must be an amazing person to even consider taking this on too!" -- jaqc2006

On Moms & Politics many are wondering how Palin's mom factor will play out in addition to her stance on issues like abortion, energy and social issues.

"I'm STUNNED. I really thought it would be Mitt Romney. Will be interesting to see how all plays out." -- musicalmomtograce

"I was thinking the working mom thing could be hurtful too. She would be spending a lot of time away from her kids and family and that may not sit well with ultra conservatives which he needed to attract." -- katieandzachsmom

iVillager candlegirl2006 brings up an interesting point on the Feminism Today board: 

"Think about this scenario... if McCain wins and only serves 1 term, we just might end up with a Republican woman vs. a Democratic woman in 2012. Now that would be interesting."

In the Lipstick Lounge, the ladies are mulling this over:

"If something were to happen to him, I'm not sure people would be crazy about the idea of this not-so-experienced woman taking over. On another note, she has five children. How she's had time for politics with that many kids to raise is beyond me." -- solush80

"Just like Obama choose a very experienced VP candidate (with a military background) to counteract his 'lack' of experience. I think the move is brilliant... but I would be voting for him no matter who he picked." -- cagirl_in_dc

"I completely disagree with her lack of experience hurting him. Obama is not THAT experienced and people seem to like it. The Republicans and Democrats are essentially running on opposite tickets." -- apple376

"I'm more concerned about what a candidate's issues are and the candidate's plans for this country than whether or not the candidate is a woman." -- gsquared1978

"I really hope that doesn't happen. I would like to see a woman in the white house, but not one who is on the other side of all of the issues that are important to me." -- caliclimbergrl
 

The moms on our Conservative Parenting message board seem to be curious and excited about the choice:

"I must not have been paying as much attention as I thought. I know almost nothing about her. Guess I will have to look her up today." -- momranhan 

"I also thought it was a smart move on McCain's part choosing a women. For the same reason, there are a lot of unhappy HRC supporters out there who don't like Obama." -- stacieb04 

"I was going to vote for McCain though I wasn't too thrilled but now I actually feel excited!" -- cl-janetis40

 

Whatever your political affiliation, the surprise pick of Palin seems to bring to the surface many questions about how gender, experience and age  in a presidential campaign. What do you think about this choice, one that some are calling very "out of the box"?  Do you think it makes an impact on how this election will continue to play out? How will her status as a mom of five be used for or against her? Will Biden or Palin really make this race be any less about Democrats vs. Republicans? Share your reactions, predictions and opinions here with us.

It's really no surprise that the political conversations have been really bubbling this election year, with so many iVillagers passionate about their candidates, the issues and the process. The Democrats have had an intense week in Denver and the Republicans will convene in Minneapolis-Saint Paul starting on Monday. Meanwhile, many are looking to the candidates, their families and the party elite to sharpen the campaign message during the conventions. And, ok, maybe some are also watching for any blunders or missteps. Former candidate Hillary Clinton spoke on Tuesday night at the convention and the Politics Today community has been reviewing the impact of her speech:

"Yes, she was at her best... I supported her throughout but I wish she, her husband and those who ran her campaign had handled things differently when they realized they had underestimated Obama and his campaign." -- calebsammaw

"It ticked all the boxes in trying to rally support for Obama and unify the Democratic Party... and more important than anything else (at least as far as Hillary would be concerned) it was good for HER... solidifying the fact that she still has quite a future in the higher echelons of power." -- suemox

"Hillary did wonderfully! How many follow is probably a function of McCain's selection." -- llhaesa

Others were more intrigued by the shots of Michelle Obama during the speech:

Last month I wrote about the wild sentence-name bestowed on a girl in New Zealand, and you sure had a lot to say about the business of naming. Not to be outdone, Gwen Stefani and hubby Gavin Rossdale have welcomed another bouncing baby boy to their family. And that boy will be bouncing along to the name of...

Zuma Nesta Rock Rossdale.

Yes, take a moment with me and let that sink in a bit: Zuma. Nesta. Rock. Sort of just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? And just think when that kid is in trouble on the playground and gets the full mom-is-calling-out-your-full-name treatment. The kids are either going to gear up for a full-scale taunting or be awfully jealous. (Probably more the latter because, hey, mom is Gwen Stefani, after all!)

They're reacting to this new celeb baby name on the Baby Names board and giving it the full analysis, wondering where in the heck the name Zuma came from:

"What are stars doing with these baby names? So many of them are crazy!" -- jasey24

It's a topic we've debated before and the idea of lowering the legal drinking age in the U.S. from 21 to 18 is now being raised again by what seems like an unlikely source -- college presidents from some well-known universities. In what's known as the "Amethyst Initiative," college chancellors and presidents are signing on to reopen public debate over the drinking age. The supporters of the idea say that the current drinking age sets up a scenario where younger college students are more likely to engage in binge drinking. Some feel that giving students the responsibility to imbibe in moderation and make smart decisions lets these campuses treat all students as true adults. Others think it's a deadly idea. Mothers Against Drunk Driving argues that years of statistics that say the drinking age of 21 has saved an estimated 25,000 lives since the legal age was raised to 21 in 1984.

So what do iVillagers say about this recent hot-button issue?

On Mom & Politics, it looks like not many are in favor so far and feel most 18-year-olds can't handle the responsibility:

"I think it would be a bad idea. Wow, could you imagine a high school party when most of the seniors can LEGALLY buy and consume alcohol?! That would be very scary." -- dansmom2003

"I think that the colleges want it because it takes the responsibility of enforcing the laws away from them. I even asked my 18-year-old son what he thought and he looked at me as if I was crazy... he said that it would be a really bad idea because there are enough drunken 18-year-olds with the law in place without there being more." -- cl-weberdns0

I'm not sure who started this trend, but over the past few years it seems that we have all become celebrity baby crazy. Absolutely bonkers. Forget when their next blockbuster debuts, we're more obsessed with when they're going to give birth, what sort of designer clothes will be in their layette, and of course, what the name of the little tyke will be. While we wait for the latest cover shot of the uber-famous newborns and their perfect parents, the reality for most moms is that the post-baby body isn't always what we hope it would be. Most every mom I know has struggled with losing pregnancy weight, not to mention coming to terms with fun stuff like stretch marks or that little pouch of belly that never seems to go away. I know you know what I'm talking about. Even though these issues (and the feelings that swirl around them) are common and normal, all of the public hype around celebrity pregnancies and the quick recovery of their superstar bodies may be creating an even bigger perception of not measuring up.

Post-pregnancy body image and losing the baby weight is a big topic in the iVillage community. rachnriley from the June 2008 Playgroup likely speaks for many new moms when she writes:

"Obviously, I am not exercising and I am eating too much and not the right things. So, it's not that I don't know why, it's just depressing because I know I won't be doing anything about it for awhile! With three kids and trying to work part time, I am just tired and hungry and don't have the mental capacity to try to either exercise or eat better."

As someone who works in front of a camera, nervous1sttimer2007 offers her fears:   

"I really will have to lose this weight before I go back to work, though. I'm a television reporter, and my bosses will freak. I'm serious -- one of my colleagues came back overweight after pregnancy, and viewers actually called to chastise her about her weight gain! Seriously -- they'd tell her she needed to lose a lot of weight, and ask her how "she could have let herself go" so much. It's horrifying, so I feel a lot of pressure."

 

Member newlamom is close to the Hollywood action in Los Angeles and sounds off on the unrealistic expectations celeb moms and the media are putting forth. ... 

It's no secret that any news of a politician's infidelity is an instant scandal that almost everyone has an opinion on. We saw a tidal wave of reaction to the Eliot Spitzer prostitution story, and the news that former Senator John Edwards had an affair with a campaign aide has set the iVillage community ablaze with commentary, disgust and some really interesting angles on this story.

On the Betrayed Spouses Support board, member carpenchri shares what many of us are probably thinking:

"Well...front page news again. Another person trying to gain our trust comes out as cheating on his family.  Cheating on his wife — while she's busting her butt on the campaign trail for him — while battling cancer ... what could have been SO horrible that he had to do that to her?!?!"

For the most part, we often see some degree of distrust for political figures. But what is interesting about this case is that John Edwards, by most accounts (well, at least until now), was beyond that, with his clean image, his value-based talking points and, perhaps most notable, his wife's struggle with cancer, which has played out often on the campaign trail and in the news. It's exactly this, though, that has created such a stir in a wide variety of communities. While the outrage is predictable, some of the secondary conversations have taken a tone that is more considered and curious. Some are even questioning who knew what and when... and how much a person is responsible for their family when they're living their life so much in the public eye.

From the All Sides of an Affair board fallenstar2005 also wonders:

"I question whether Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair in 2006. Would you agree to be part of a national presidential campaign knowing that there was someone out there who could publicly, on a whim, destroy you and your children's world? Not to mention the arrogance of John Edwards putting his political party at risk if he had actually won the nomination. Something just doesn't seem right..."