Interestingly, he did set up that photo op and asked the press to show up to see him walk his kids to school and see them off. (Unprecedented for kids of senior politicians for security reasons-RCMP had a fit.) I have a son the same age as Harper’s boy and while he wouldn’t kiss and hug me or his Dad goodbye if anyone was watching, we wouldn’t shake hands either. Some of the other moms at hockey with me were chatting about this and we all agreed that we’d pat him on the back or ruffle his hair or whatever, but shake hands? Not likely….which is why his attempt to show he was part of a normal young family backfired and just made him look like a stiffy.

It’s why using kids for photo ops can backfire, and if I had a choice I wouldn’t risk it.

Amber had no choice.

That said, I stand by my original assessment, her press clippings and google rank and name recognition have shot up a hell of a lot more than they would’ve if that blogger had just shut up and said nothing. And name recognition is like gold in the political business. So in the end, she wins.

But Aurelia’s bang on about Amber not having a choice but to bring her baby, and therefore it’s ignorant and rude to accuse her of intentionally flouting her motherhood. It’s not a common thing for a politician, or indeed most work places, to have a nursing infant present, and like any bully, Tammy made light of an uncommon difference and picked on it. It’s just less obvious to some people that that is what Tammy did, because she didn’t choose something like Amber’s hair, or voice as the object[/behaviour] of ridicule.

And that’s exactly how I feel.

“…and that the media only slams the women who put their kids in front of the camera.”

And I’m not buying that.

And the 99% of male politicians who drag their kids around and do photo ops and have absolutely no reason for bringing their kids never get accused of using them for photo ops.

In fact, I’ve never once heard of a male politician being slammed for sending out a Christmas card stuffed to the brim with kiddies.

Oh and Himpster…Chelsea is not a good example, since she is a grown adult and not a kid, and when she was a kid, she did not participate in campaigns. Unlike Obama’s underage kids and McCain’s underage kids who seem to get trotted out constantly.

Feel free to slam politicians for using their kids—just know that it should be all of them, male or female equally, and that the media only slams the women who put their kids in front of the camera.

The fact is that I think most people (me included) are cynical and jaded enough that they operate from the premise that kid + politician = staged publicity op.

I’m not saying it’s right… I’m saying it’s the way I’m kinda wired these days. Amber + Kid staged publicity op is fine… I’m just saying that to dismiss the cynicism and believe in an unrealistic utopia will only leave one disappointed at the reactions of others… and that’s something I hope has been learned through this.

It’s not completely unacceptable to have your kid there (although I also do believe that there is a time for business and a time for family…), but you have to work very hard to convince the public otherwise that it’s not a stunt to make you more endearing to the electronic eye.

But you’re just buying into cynical Tammy’s bogus argument which was constructed as a means of attacking where she had no capacity to attack otherwise.