Vilsack’s Adoption
December 24th, 2006 at 01:41am Ben Weyl
Big news for Tom Vilsack: he now has the chance to learn more about the circumstances of his birth (he was given up for adoption) and may be able to find out who his real mother was. The article has an interesting line: “But Vilsack acknowledged this week that the unexpected letter — and the realities of a modern-day presidential campaign — may cause him to reconsider [forgoing knowledge about his past].” Does finding his real mother help him or hurt him? If she turns out to be a rotten lady with shady dealings (no offense Governor), it could cast a bad light on him. On the other hand, there is a huge potential for positive publicity as Vilsack explores his past and the woman who gave him life; the whole thing just oozes the kind of cheesiness America loves. All this aside, I’m not trying to denigrate what I’m sure is a very tough and personal experience for Vilsack. But as the Register notes, when you’re running for president, the game of politics is never put on pause.
P.S. — Wondering if America has ever elected someone who was adopted, I did a quick Google search. The closest I found was this site which said three presidents — George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan — had adopted children of their own, but there is no mention of any president having been adopted himself. Therefore, 2008 could be a bigger year than previously thought: the potential for the first female, black, or adopted American to be elected president of the United States.
Related Posts
- Tom Vilsack and Money
- Vilsack To Drop Out Today!
- Tom Vilsack’s Next Step
- Tom Vilsack Is Winning Mt. Pleasant
- Where Does Tom Vilsack’s Money Come From?
Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous, Tom Vilsack
Related Searches: tom vilsack, google search, shady dealings, ronald reagan, google
3 Comments Add your own
1. Rita McGill | January 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
If you are going to write about adoption please use the term “birth mother” or “biological mother”. To use the description ‘real mother’ is offensive to every adoptive parent. Is an adoptive parent somehow less “real” by not contributing DNA to a child. Is a birth mother more “real” than a mother who stays by her child’s bed taking care of her sick child? For future stories, please carefully consider how you choose to label all the players in a very personal and difficult story.
2. Ben Weyl | January 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
You’re right Rita — I’m sorry for my poor choice of words.
3. Karen Dawber | January 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
The term “natural” mother is most widely accepted by mothers who were forced to relinquish their babies between 1945-WWII and 1972 Roe vs. Wade. No need to add birth or biological that would just be redundant. Yes, adoption is a very personal and difficult story. But adoption is most decidely biased towards the stork marketing agencies and their clients with little consideration for the long term effects on the child.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed