I couldn't agree more.

Obama was going to disappoint progressives as predictably as he was going to offend the right. But given the magnitude of the many problems on his desk last January, their elements of intractability and mind-boggling complexity, why aren't we capable of just a few moments of compare and contrast? That is, compare and contrast where this economy, and the substructure for deeper reforms in education, the environment, and health care, all would have been with McCain-Palin.

I'm horrified by the decision to plow ahead with this absurd "war" in Afghanistan. I can't believe that this Administration has been as seemingly unfocused as it has been on job creation. But I still wake up every day grateful perhaps not as much for what is, as what isn't.

Hm. Sorry for the confusion, esp on such a gasoline-on-fire topic, but I ever actually said or thought that LW should have a child against her instinct. (Wouldn't come close: I was and am exactly like LW, and, post-menopause, 100% regret-free at my decision never to have kids.) 'Honor' is perhaps a non-PC, baggage-laden word. My point was about emotional fairness, particularly in these conversations that usually have an opposite-gender slant. That when we can't offer mutual respect to each other and it creates a conflict as profound as does this issue, then, to repeat, *it may be time to move apart*.

The reference to 'taking the dive' referred to LW's husband, not her, and to my mulling-aloud gut sense that no amount of kid-borrowing is going to rid him of that desire.

You seem certain that (1) because LW's husband had a bad childhood his desire to be a father is therefore suspect and defective and (2) that he's guilty -- already! -- of surely creating in the future yet another parental-duty, primary-caregiver hell. I sincerely don't know, just like everyone else (except LW, who should obviously respect her instincts) on this string.

Agree with Skyfactory: LW's husband's desire or decision should be honored, just as we would expect him to honor hers. Obviously, this creates a huge conflict....but I've seen it happen many times: eventually, he'll leave, probably for someone younger, and feel quite justified in it. Maybe he would be, just as I would be if I desperately wanted children and my husband said flat-out no. Hate to say it, but maybe we owe each other a willingness to support our spouses' (or s.o.'s) core drive toward happiness, and when we can't give it to them, it's time to move apart.

Love the idea of test-driving the parental/kid experience, but...not sure anything other than taking the dive will answer his need.

Part of the problem is that we have so little experience in our social-political lives with the tenor of remarks like his today that what is in fact a startling maturity feels to some like some sort of surrender or compromise or even betrayal.

Obama has shown, time and again, that he's smarter than just about everyone else in bridging change, action and idea; in inviting consensus and an atmosphere of respect even in the face of disagreement.

As an earlier poster put it: he won. For God's sake, for all our sakes, move on from this one.

The only real 50's moment for me came from the interviewer, not the Obamas.

It was that sequence from Steve that intimated that it would be problematic to have Michelle Obama's mother, Mrs. Robinson, live with them. After a strangely 50's question a la: Wow, moving in with a new dog and a mother-in-law!, Obama said with a good-natured chiding, "I'm not going to compare my mother-in-law with a dog, Steve." And there were one or perhaps two more, to which Obama, again called him out in a good-natured way, basically saying: man, you've got a real issue with this. Let me give you a few hints.

Both Obamas strike such perfect balances between the necessary restraint and honest, direct, conversation. What pure relief.