Why I Turned Down Good Morning America

This morning I received a phone call from a friendly producer named Kevin at Good Morning America. Kevin said he had been following the controversy here on Silicon Valley Moms blog based on a snarky, tongue-in-cheek post I put up a few days ago, that I assumed would receive the typical readership my posts receive: about 10 people, but instead was ultimately read by thousands and linked to on several well-trafficked blogs. A pretty startling response, given I had spent a whole 3 minutes writing the thing (an obvious fact, I thought, from reading it).

My original point was to say that in the past, Elizabeth Edwards has criticized Hillary Clinton on her personal choices, and, Hillary being my candidate of choice, now was my opportunity to criticize Elizabeth . While Elizabeth had criticized Hillary for working too much to the neglect of her child (not in those words, but that was the perception made by many), I was criticizing Elizabeth for using her children to the advantage of her husband's campaign for presidency. This could lead to an interesting discussion.  Or so I thought.

But, in part because I had worded my post so strongly, people responded to my vitriol with a great outpouring of support for Elizabeth, stating that the woman is on her last days, and shouldn't she be entitled to do what she wants?  There were also many descriptions of me being a "sanctimommy" and inspiring "mommy wars" because I criticized another mother.  Worst of all was the incorrect assumption that I was telling Elizabeth that she shouldn't work -- what I was saying is that she shouldn't force her children to be used as accessories in her husband's presidential bid if, in fact, doing so is not in the best interest of the children.  Ultimately, I admitted that I really don't know what is best for her children.  That said, that my original point remains:  it is unseemly when a candidate uses his or her children as accessories to help get them elected.  And I thought that a woman who had dished it out in the past would be prepared to take criticism in return.

Anyway, this is the conversation that I was hoping would take place, but, due to my own overly emotional post, which trust me, I'm trying my darnednest not to delete altogether at this point, the debate became totally twisted.

And given this backdrop, I'm supposed to speak to Good Morning America?   Although Kevin probably is a great guy and great producer, and he almost certainly was not responsible for mommy-bashing segments in the past, I have found that GMA, or television media in general, is probably not the best forum to explore complicated issues about campaigns, and finger-pointing, and difficult choices that mothers make.  Remember what happened to Melissa Summers?  Without the benefit of PR spin doctors and media advisors that celebrities, and, yes, politicians, enjoy, the poor woman was hung out to dry because of similar sort of writing to mine -- writing that is meant to be funny, snarky and taken with a grain of salt.

Why do I write in such a tone if it leads to people going off the deep end and missing my point altogether?  Well, usually I manage to walk just that fine line -- being acerbic without pissing people off TOO much.  Usually there are just a couple people who miss the point -- like the fact that I really, truly, don't actually think that Baby Einstein is so powerful it can make babies stupid.  (Sheesh!)

Specifically, I utilize sarcasm and hyperbole (and sometimes, hopefully, humor) for the following reasons: (1) because I am good at it; and more importantly (2) because it gets people to read.  I know that many of you that have posted disagree with me on this one, but a whole lot of you who haven't posted agree with me strongly - I keep hearing it over email privately, or in person, even from people I don't really know. 

What I have been told in private is that there are a lot of people who are afraid to criticize Elizabeth Edwards, even though she is very much a public figure, because she has cancer.  They tell me that they agree that it would be wrong to use children as pawns in an election, and maybe the children would be happier having a more consistent life.  They say that they too were upset when Elizabeth criticized Hillary Clinton, and they thanked me for being pretty much the only person they know who felt brave enough to question whether her actions were truly motivated by the reasons she points to, rather than perhaps motivated by something else.  All of these questions are very valid questions.

And here is another valid question, a quiet question that lies secretly beneath the surface of all of this:  When a highly competent educated woman, a woman who in a different world possibly could herself be considered a top contender for president, in a world where girls grow up thinking they too can be president some day -- when that sort of woman, a woman like Elizabeth Edwards, puts her career on hold (either temporarily or permanently) in favor of her husband's career (or for any other family reason), why is that woman by definition considered a hero?   As people who know me know about me, I am a seriously old-fashioned kind of feminist, not a new fangled "post" one, and I want to know:  why don't we all ask ourselves, her unfair state of health notwithstanding, why don't we live in a world where Elizabeth, and not her husband, would be the one we could vote for?  A world where Elizabeth would be a hero for dedicating herself to public service by running for the presidential office, not by defending the fact that her husband, his textbook-traditional nuclear family notwithstanding, is a social progressive.

What was proven by the vitriolic response to my post, which continues even as I type, is that the general media and many people are not able to handle these types of questions.  So why should I even bother attempting to raise the issue in a forum that is even more certain that this formerly friendly one to discuss the kinds of issues we usually are content to pick apart for days on end?  We all struggle with what it means to be a good parent. Because Elizabeth is the Moral Lead of Team Edwards for President, continuing on in the face of illness and young children on the road, despite poor polling and with a lot of money in the bank, it's fair game to wonder why she would be so certain.  Or perhaps it is her husband making the decisions.  I am sad that he is left out of this discussion.  After all, it's his campaign.

Ultimately, I decided that I probably would do the same thing as Elizabeth.   But it wasn't the personal attacks (on me) that got me there - it's despite them. And, as I have written very often in the past, I never really view myself as a good mother.  I'm a never-there-as-much-as-I-wish-I-could-be mother, and it kills me. 

Go ahead and bash me.  Tear this post apart.  But remember:  I am not your enemy.  I am just a U.S. citizen, worker bee and mom, doing what  feels natural : participating in the Democratic process and trying to make the world a better place.   And I invite anyone who wants to join me to return to the larger problems at hand.  I'll be the one over there, not over here, for a while.

Comments

[jeri]

Who are we to judge others?

[anon]

"why don't we live in a world where Elizabeth, and not her husband, would be the one we could vote for?"

Amen to that. I want to live in that world. While I'm not impressed with Elizabeth Edwards doing her husband's attacking for him. I remember being very impressed a year or so when I saw an interview with her on TV while visiting the States. After that interview I felt that it was she and not her husband who should have been running for President.

I hope HRC wins. She is by far the strongest candidate. I think she will be a very capable President. I have a lot of respect for her. I think that having a woman President will have far reaching effects which will be felt everywhere. The symbol of what a leader is, or what a commander-in-chief is, or what presidential is or what the boss is will change. It is a paradigm shifting event in favour of more representative leadership in all walks of life.

[Tane]

"I am not your enemy. I am just a U.S. citizen, worker bee and mom, doing what feels natural : participating in the Democratic process and trying to make the world a better place." - Rebecca

It's funny how you can't seem to grasp that Elizabeth Edwards and those who are in opposition to your opinions/postings are pretty much trying to do the same thing you are to use your words accurately - "participating in the Democratic process and trying to make the world a better place."

I'm done!

[Jana]

Do you really KNOW anything about Elizabeth Edwards? She did NOT put her career "permanently on hold in favor of her husband's carrer".

Read her damn book and you'd know Mrs. Edwards put her career permanently on hold on the day her beloved sixteen year old son's car was swept by a wind from the interstate and his life ended. She never went back to work. She went EVERY DAY for the next TWO YEARS to his graveside. Sometimes only once per day. Somedays more. She busied herself parenting her son's memory by building a learning center for children in his name.

And then she decided to spend her time and energy trying to have more children, the thing that brought her joy, and helping her husband serve the country.

So please, think, read, research before you speak. You don't understand why she'd put her carreer on hold? Hope to God you never find yourself in the same position.

[jm]

Rebecca--

It's unfortunate that this is getting the coverage on GMA that it is, I think, because everyone seems to be missing the message underlying your original post.

As I relayed in my comments yesterday, this is not about the "mommy wars" (oh, how I hate that media generated term).

You're angry about the comments that Elizabeth Edwards made comparing her husband and Hillary Clinton, and what you believe it implied. You tried to create a case for your candidate by wrapping it in a defense for how you believe someone else's children should be raised, using spiteful language in your post about it. Your reasoning was flawed and your tactics used to express it were inappropriate.

You built your case on incomplete data from a source which had a non-objective point of view.

I think you were wise in declining the appearance on GMA, but I think that you are not exercising good judgment in editing your original blog entry and continuing to post about this issue. At this point, it would be better to either apologize with no caveats or to just let this die down. Either would help your credibility while more editing or deleting your blog post would injure it more.

And, in the future, you might want to rethink using "snark" (as you have mentioned) in your blog posts. Sarcasm is a rather passive-aggressive way to present a point of view. Snark looks more like this:

"...it was interesting that she said that, considering she has never cleaned a bathroom in her life."

Snark does not look like this:

"John and Elizabeth: Seriously, people, you look like tools. Pack it up and go home to your pleasure palace. Your children -- and the world -- will thank you for it."

...the specific comment from your original post. That is vitriol.

[Jill Asher]

I still wish I could vote for Elizabeth Edwards for President.....

[Steven Olsen, MD]

Rebecca,
It's unfortunate that the internet has provided a forum for so many partially-informed individuals to promote their semi-constructed notions of right-vs.-wrong as some form of blogospheric all-knowing pontification. Wisdom is often times best evidenced by not speaking or writing each and every thought that surfaces in the cauldron of your personal idea stew. Next time, just consider the concept of maybe "not speaking your mind" on a subject that is beyond limits of your knowing.

[Michelle]

I've been following this whole controversy and think there have been some great points made on both sides. The only point that keeps cropping up that makes me want to tear my hair out is "who are we to judge?" Isn't "judging" others what debating is all about? Isn't it important to "judge" when someone is doing something that you feel is clearly wrong? I'm not talking about being in-your-face with everyone you disagree with, but does the "do not judge" crowd really think that no one should ever judge anyone or anything? I wouldn't want to live in that world. I don't think that all choices are equal, for parenting or anything else.

As far as criticizing EE, no one seems to have noticed that the original post referred to BOTH John and Elizabeth. It was critical of both of them, not just the "working mom" Elizabeth! Personally, I think that it is probably not the best idea for anyone, male or female, with very young kids to run for president or take any job that requires them to be away for very long periods. (OOOO, I'm judging!) Sure, the kids might be "fine" but I still think it has to be very hard. I know lots of dads in real life who arive home barely in time to kiss their kids goodnight and I think it is sad that our culture has no problem with that. And I'm wondering how much Barack Obama's kids are seeing of their parents, isn't he in the same situation as the Edwards'?

[edgery]

having only read about the controversy, I came to the source to get a clearer sense of what it was all about. so, let me see if I understand what's happened
- you support Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency
- and you didn't like something Elizabeth Edwards said about Clinton
- you thought a good way to express your support for your candidate as a rebuttal to what Elizabeth Edwards said was to write a sarcastic rant on a very public blog
- and after Edwards posted her response to your criticism of her parenting and other life choices
- you went back and edited your original post

And now you're trying to justify(?), excuse(?), defend (?) your "vitriol" by saying that you thought Elizabeth Edwards "who had dished it out in the past would be prepared to take criticism in return." You maybe expected her to let your words stand without response, or that she's write a humble post thanking you?

Now that you've gotten the attention you wanted (which you already admitted you were seeking when you said that you regularly use sarcasm "more importantly (2) because it gets people to read"), you posit a new question that isn't even based on the facts of Mrs. Edwards's life. And follow that with claims that "the general media and many people are not able to handle these types of questions" - a claim for which I see no basis.

I'm not going to go on a rant about what you've written or resort to sarcasm here. I think your words and actions stand or more accurately fall on their own.

Mrs. Edwards took your criticism for what it was - a self-admitted partisan attack on her personal choices. It seems you are less able to handle the criticism than you, given your editing of the original post and comments here.

[stephv]

The oft mentioned and hated "mommywars" term and the back on forth on this issue are fueled by this; women love to play the judgment game. Especially toward other woman. There is a reason why the term "catfight" was invented. Spoken out loud "Oh look she is giving her kid McDonalds" or whispered, it happens. The media loves this. We females are such fair game. Judgement is human,women just do more of it, it seems. Ask a guy what he thinks of his co workers parenting skills and he'll look at you like you're an alien. Who the hell cares? Get busy and on with life.

[GraceD]

Dude, you're still blowing it. Though you may concede to the opposing view on some issues, you're still obscuring your own argument with petty horseshit. This snark-ass line alone -

"Because Elizabeth is the Moral Lead of Team Edwards for President..."

- reveals that you're still channeling Ann Coulter, who employs the tactic you describe of yourself:

"Specifically, I utilize sarcasm and hyperbole (and sometimes, hopefully, humor) for the following reasons: (1) because I am good at it; and more importantly (2) because it gets people to read."

I would have paid more attention to your premise if it had been presented in the straightforward manner of your second paragraph above. Many others would have, as well. But, I think you fancy yourself as the pundit-who-likes-to-tell-it-straight on Silicon Valley Moms Blog. Well, should that be the case, this role you carved for yourself certainly backfired on you.

Your snark does, as a matter of fact, make you the enemy, as one of the media spinners whose shrill voice distracts us from the issues. Haven't you heard that the voting public is really interested in facts? In discussions of policy? Not on how the candidates criticize each other on family dynamics, but what exactly the candidates have to offer families in tax relief, entitlement programs and education reform.

Finally, this whole business about you being jsut a little old worker bee mama? You're an attorney, yes? Clearly you had access to an excellent education, I believe it was Stanford, correct? Sorry, delude yourself all you want, but that ain't worker bee in most folks' books, my friend. Come on over the hill to my neck of the woods. We'll drive down to Watsonville and I'll introduce you to some real worker bee moms, women who hold down a night job so they can be available in the day to make sure their kids get to and fron school, get them breakfast and an after-school snack and set up dinner for them once she goes to work. These women I know also have weekend jobs as do her teenage kids so they can contribute to the rent. Yes, these are citizens, not illegals. They're voters. And, they'll probably be drawn to Edwards because he's the only one who's talking about the working poor and policies on poverty.

Oh, heck, you don't need to go to Watsonville or Gilroy, or Salinas with me. All you need to do is cross over 101 and hang out with your friends in East Palo Alto. Oh, you say you don't have friends in East Palo Alto? Why does that not surprise me?

Regarding my own sarcasm in this commentary and what you may construe as personal attacks? Well, Rebecca, I guess I just wanted you to read this.

[stephv]

Right on to Grace D for speaking for the invisible worker bee mamas among us who live in
lower priced zipcodes, can't afford "help", and don't give a damn about designer shoes.

[Chilawmom]

Seriously Rebecca,

Were you not aware that Elizabeth Edwards put her legal career on hold because her son died not because of her husband? It is well documented that Elizabeth Edwards stopped working as a lawyer the day her child died.

Why in the world would you ask that questions that you do without mentioning this vital fact about her decision making.

Her career was put on hold by tragedy. Like many who have known such horrors her life had a 'before' and 'after' and she felt that 'after' she could not go back to what she had done before.

Please explain. Your you simply ignorant or did you really feel this was irrelevant.

Why did't you ask "Why would someone who had lost a child ever decide to put their education aside and put their carrer on hold"

Oh I guess the answer it too obvoious.

[bonggamom]

I admire you for admitting your mistake and retracting your "terrible mommy" insult on your previous post.

But with your statement, ".. a woman like Elizabeth Edwards, puts her career permanently on hold in favor of her husband's career..", it sounds like you are firing another missile straight into the midst of the Mommy Wars battleground.

EE and many women may disagree with your interpretation of her situation. Perhaps she didn't put her career on hold, perhaps she has no intention of returning to her former career. Perhaps she decided to change the direction of her career: instead of focusing on on a professional path, she has chosen to make a career out of raising her children, philanthropy, etc... Perhaps she thought that she had "been there, done that", and wanted to move on to something else. Perhaps she does not think that her considerable professional abilities define her totally as a person.

I do agree with you on one thing: I think she'd make a great candidate and ultimately a great President. EE, I wish you were running yourself, but since you're not, I'll do the next best thing and support your family in your presidential bid.

[robin]

"Specifically, I utilize sarcasm and hyperbole (and sometimes, hopefully, humor) for the following reasons: (1) because I am good at it; and more importantly (2) because it gets people to read." --Rebecca

Dear Rebecca,

You're not very good at it, actually.

Love, Robin

[Beth B.]

One point that is being lost is the media frenzy about creating "mommy wars" from opinions mom have on specific issues. They don't jump on it when moms talk about their positive thoughts - but if a mom dares share a controversial view - then they jump on it. I want to see the media share our positive messages also. I am tired of this!

[daulan gentry]

Rebecca, you were more than 'just lazy' (your words in your Epilogue)...you were boorish. Yes, opinions are free...and that's why some of them are worthless. Surely if someone decided to opine about your parenting choices, they would find plenty to note....as they would for all of us, which is why the comments about a mother in circumstances that none of us have experienced is without merit. You should save your venom .....and look in the mirror. You've had your moment of fame, now go back to what you know, whatever that is.

Carmel Mom

[Michael Asher]

First of all, I applaud Rebecca for speaking her mind and taking a big risk, although she probably didn't know quite the extent of the risk at the time!

I tend to keep my opinions to myself and only share with a small group of trusted individuals. The down side of this approach is that I often end up missing out on some of the thought provoking, honest discussions. By playing it safe, I also tend to hear feedback from people who are like minded.

When we had our first child, my mom disapproved of my wife going back to work right away. The message was "why have kids if you are going to have nannies raise them"? As you can imagine, this led to many arguments and indeed a bit of soul searching.

I have no idea what I would do if I were diagnosed with terminal cancer. How do you choose between spending time with your kids and making a significant impact in the world?

Of course EE has to make these choices with the world spot light on her. Rebecca has been able to voice opinions in relative anonymity. Now Rebecca is in the spot light! Turn about is fair play -- and tough. But I am glad Rebecca took a stand and voiced her opinion.

[Peg]

You claim that you wrote that initial blog entry in but a few minutes, and expected minimal response. I call BS on that on my blog.

I tried pinging this blog entry, but trackback doesn't appear to be functioning. Feel free to click my name to see my post in it's entirety.

[PunditMom/Also a D.C. Metro Mom]

Snarky? Tongue in cheek? That's not how it read. You are certainly free to say and write whatever you want, but then you have to be willing to take the heat and stand by it.

[Aruni Gunasegaram]

I haven't had time to read through the original post and all of the comments but what concerns me most about all of this is your statement:

"And, as I have written very often in the past, I never really view myself as a good mother. I'm a never-there-as-much-as-I-wish-I-could-be mother, and it kills me."

Why is it that we mothers often feel that way? Who has programmed in our minds what the perfect mother looks like? This insecure feeling is what I think results in people putting forth and being offended by such posts. Why are any of us judging Hillary or Elizabeth on their mothering skills?

Why aren't Bill or John judged on their fathering abilities for being or not being there or using their kids for their politcal gains? We need to shift this thinking and focus on what they and the other mothers are doing RIGHT!

[Tera]

I find it sort of sad that it took only three minutes for you to create a snarky, critical appraisal of another mother. I, too, support Hilary for President. But I honestly don't see how attacking Elizabeth Edwards' parenting provides any worthwhile political dialogue. It's awfully easy for us to criticize other parents, and it's damaging each and every time. Attacking Edwards for wanting to work (which is what she is doing) on the campaign trail and also wanting to include her children in her work life is exactly the opposite of a feminist perspective on the problems of working women. To top it off, her kids are getting the opportunity of a lifetime! How many people get to learn about politics from that perspective? And they get the benefit of more time with both of their parents than they would otherwise. I can't find anything to argue with those benefits. If we want to support women's rights, I think we need to support women's choices as well - even if we don't understand them.

[michelle lamar]

Three Questions:

1)For the Love of God...does anyone remember that a BLOG post is just someone's OPINION?
If anyone has ever read some of Rebecca's posts, it is CLEAR as DAY that her writing style is very tongue-in-cheek. Rebecca has a pointed, snarky voice. Take it with a grain of salt. A blog post is the same as an "Op-Ed" column in the newspaper---it is an opinion. Blogging on Silicon Valley Mom Blog is not the same as the Washington Post. Sorry folks.

2)Some of the comments completely bashed Rebecca for bashing Elizabeth Edwards. That was kind of confusing, especially since some people personally attacked Rebecca for being so harsh.

3)To get so worked up and angry at Rebecca's post is like reading Huffington Post and getting mad because it's liberal. Rebecca's online persona is snarky and tongue-in-cheek.
When you read her posts, you get some humor with an edge.

If some of people that got some upset at Rebecca would have been around in Erma Bombeck's time, she never would have been able to make some of her wonderful, outlandish columns.

Let's review: Opinion. Grain of Salt. Not to be taken as the Gospel. I support Rebecca simply because she has the nerve TO HAVE AN OPINION and to STATE HER OPINION.

Look what it got her. GMA showed pictures of her children on national TV without her permission. People are tearing her up FOR HER OPINION.

Agree or disagree with her post but keep in mind that it is an opinion....ABOUT A PUBLIC FIGURE. Let's have a little grace for Rebecca and at least give her credit for sharing her opinion, even if you might not agree. After the wonderful response she has received, I'm sure it will be a cold day in hell before she gives her opinion again.

PS-If you want to discount my opinion due to the name of my blog, please go ahead. I have a book coming out in 2008, being published by St. Martin's Press about the blog. The entire reason I gave my blog such a "non-PC" name was to send the message that we all just need to take ourselves a little less seriously.

[jm]

Michelle--

I would have no problem with a funny, snarky opinion.

Rebecca's post may have been an opinion but it was a poorly supported opinion. And it was neither funny nor snarky.

As I've said, I can't comment on Rebecca as a person, she is associated with someone I respect and, therefore, I imagine that she isn't a bad person.

And, I believe that she presented her point-of-view in this instance poorly. Very poorly. I don't care if she thinks that children shouldn't be on the campaign trail. She will do what's best for her children. I don't care that she doesn't want to vote for Edwards. She will support the candidate that she feels would do a good job.

I wouldn't care if she criticized Edwards record. Or if she sang Hillary's praises. I have an issue with the "tit for tat" thing. (As in "She criticized my candidate! Now I'll criticize her!") And her wrapping that grudge she has been nursing in the accusation of "You are a bad mother! You are bad parents! Your parenting makes you unworthy to serve in public office!"

She made this accusation based on incomplete and faulty "evidence". A third-hand account that was relayed by someone with their own agenda.

She chose to share this, not on her own blog, but on a collaborative site where many people write and many others read. In doing so, she opened herself up to others disagreeing with her post.

It seems that she believes that she was opening up a discussion about whether the Edwards were using their children as political capital on the campaign trail. However, there is no evidence, either in the NYT article or elsewhere that I have seen as of yet, to support her accusations that this is true. Or any more true than the the Clintons used Chelsea in previous campaigns, the Obamas use their children, the Romneys use theirs, and so on. And it was clear, at least to me, that the text surrounding that question was not inviting an objective discussion of "Children--should any politician include them in their campaign?" It was more like "Elizabeth Edwards, crappy mother, right? Hillary would be a better candidate, right? Who's with me?"

I think that many people saw through the hypocrisy of the entries. And that they are calling foul. And I think that is entirely reasonable.

[GraceD]

Well, "White Trash Mom", I suppose that's one way to pimp your new book.

[Jessica]

Yes, Rebecca is entitled to her opinions.

An opinion is "Elizabeth Edwards is a bad mother".

However, the statment that "Elizabeth Edwards put her career on hold in favor of her husband" is not an opinion. It is simply a FALSEHOOD.

Elizabeth Edwards put her career on hold because her son died.

Rebecca's inability to get her facts straight makes her opinions quite suspect.

[Squash]

Rebecca,

I don't know you, but from your writing (at least on the Edwards subject) I think you have some secret, pent-up anger stirring inside. What you call sarcasm (and you really think you're good at it?) is just mean.

Take care,

Squash

[stephv]

Every party has their snark queen. Even the libs-who seem to endorse the lets-be-tolerant-and-not offend anyone. What happened here?

[Sarah Granger]

I encourage you all to go see the recent discussion on the original post. Rebecca and Elizabeth have both commented again about how they've learned from this experience.

[michelle lamar]

Thank you, Sarah Granger, for pointing out that
there are lessons to be learned by this situation.

[Crimson Wife]

Weren't you the one last year bashing other moms' vaccination choices because it might've interfered with your SIX WEEK long luxury vacation to Hawaii??? Who the heck are you to be "snarky" about the size of the Edwards' house? Talk about one rich yuppie pot calling another rich yuppie kettle black...

[joannaas]

Rebecca: I want to reiterate something I have felt in the past: I think you are a great writer and I really admire you. I appreciate that you have strong opinions and are willing to take the risk of expressing them in an interesting, and perhaps sometimes snarky, way. I believe that all the personal criticisms of you are WAY off base, it is insane that people are criticizing you rather than just continuing the debate about EE, HC and using your kids for political gain, especially young kids who would rather be home with their friends. In any case, I hope you will keep posting, I really admire you!

[stephv]

Yes..but to say "I am good at it" (regarding ones writing) is pure ego talking. "Good at" is subjective. Snarky can easily cross the line into know-it-all-ness and arrogance. Public humiliation is a heck of a way to learn a lesson..

[Debra Condren]

Hi Rebecca. Amy Keroes at Mommytrackd alerted me to this firestorm. Re: turning down Good Morning America, and remembering what happened to Melissa Summers, I hear that. It happened to me on ABC's "Niceline" (see my Huffpost piece on this media ambush). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-condren-phd/abcs-niceline_b_41055.html

Thanks for having the courage to speak your mind and for trying to faciliate meaninful dialogue and debate. Great work; tough, but somebody's got to do it!

[vince kraemer]

Rebecca, I thought your previous post was your "last word" on this. This whole "situation" should get written up as a traffic generation case study. You did a terrific job and I am sure the svmomblog advertisers will end up rewarding the whole team at svmomblog handsomely because of it.

vbk

[Debra Condren]

Wow, VBK. So cynical. Or angry?...at women and men debating a real "women's issue"? Or am I just tone deaf, reading your post?

[Debra Condren]

Here, here.
Re Beth B's comment: "One point that is being lost is the media frenzy about creating "mommy wars" from opinions mom have on specific issues. They don't jump on it when moms talk about their positive thoughts - but if a mom dares share a controversial view - then they jump on it. I want to see the media share our positive messages also. I am tired of this!"

[Debra Condren]

Or, rather: "Hear hear." Excuse me.

Or, "I hear that..." re: Beth B's post. Listen up to controversy regarding women's lives! Our lives are complicated.

"Hear hear is an expression that originated as hear ye, or hear him, usually repeated. This imperative was used to call attention to a speaker's words, and naturally developed the sense of a broad expression of favour. This is how it is still used today, although one can always vary one's tone to express different sentiments; the Oxford English Dictionary noted around the turn of the century that the phrase is now the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons, and expresses, according to intonation, admiration, acquiescence, indignation, derision, etc."

[Jaime]

You know what? All these people coming down on you need to just get off their collective high horse. I mean, come ON. You didn't go on a news show and say this. You didn't post it on a (then, anyway) highly-read blog. You posted it on a forum which, as you said, usually gets maybe 10 readers or so per post. This is like someone starting a public ruckus for me posting something on my MySpace, or my Live Journal account. Yes, unfortunately, if you post something publicly there's always a chance of it getting passed around, but in general? CALM THE F DOWN PEOPLE. (And personally, although I totally understand Elizabeth wanting to be with her children as much as possible, why doesn't Mr. Edwards just...quit? She's sick, so why keep it up? Why not go home and enjoy their time together, whatever they have left? There's another election in 4 years, what, you can't wait? THAT is more selfish than anything, to me, especially if he doesn't end up with the Dem nomination after all that... what a waste of time to do this on the offchance he might get the bid??)

[de]

This is exactly how the Republicans win -- divide and conquer. News about this is still traveling, as I'm hearing about this whole fiasco a few weeks after the fact, but what strikes me is that we have become a society of people who believe the individual is more important that the whole, the opinion more important than the greater good.

Imagine how our voices could be heard if they were united as opposed to being diffused across the vast Internet.

The propagandists of the cold war could not have imagined how our own freedom of speech would be the ultimate tool that keeps the citizens, the worker bees, from having a say and control in their government.

To that end, feel free -- everyone -- to keep posting your little blog posts and making your snarky comments and teaching your children through example that the way to proceed in this world is through self-centered, ill-informed, opinion-making forums. Don't teach tolerance, don't offer help to those who you feel could use your guidance, continue to hide your true concerns behind opinion and indoctrinate your cynicism deep into your children so that the mere idea of critical thinking becomes repugnant.

Before you call someone a bad mother make sure you are above reproach yourself. Then, instead of heaping public insult upon them why not offer to help them?

God bless America.