No... but I notice Obama's children haven't campaigned all that much. like Chelsea Clinton!   Who will take on the legacy and campaign for Michelle when she seeks the office in 2016*?

*basing her experience on what she did as First Lady.

Why did you cousin want to be alone with young boys?
My cousin was the child involved in the program.

or just when he wants to be alone with a child?
My problem is the alone time with a child.

Al do you have kids?

No... but I notice Obama HAS no children!

He has 2 little girls

QUOTE: Why did you cousin want to be alone with young boys? My cousin was the child involved in the program.

And your family allowed him to be alone with an adult male?  For shame.

Todd, Are you all honestly saying that if you had a child and an adult man that took a keen interest in spending alone time with your child or any child, you would not be concerned???????

If that is the case then thank goodness women are usuallty the primary care giver.

Jodi:

To your question: Big Brothers program, is very strict and do extensive screening of the men wanting to join, are they profilling? I know this because my cousin was in the program.

The difference is that when one joins big brother/big sister everyone is vetted -- both males and females -- and those that seek to join the program do so because they want to spend time with unrelated kids who need a friend.  The program does not make the presumption that only males need to be vetted.  If they did restrict it to males, then yes it would be profiling.   

I hope you don't feel I am picking on you, sometimes when discussing a topic with someone my lawyerly instincts take over.  I'm not trying to attack you -- but I am having a hrd time reconciling your political positions with your feelings on the issue at hand.  It seems, to me at least, that you take a position until it affects something you hold dear.  Which in and of itself doesn't bother me, but I just question how you don't reconile the reality with your politics.  I agree we want to protect our kids -- I'd kill to protect my daughters.  But I'm not protecting them by giving powers to fears not based in reality or based on my prejudices. 

Bringing this on point with the election, what appeals to me about Obama -- and I am republican -- is he does not accept the politics of fear (something most of his fellow democrats cannot say in my estimation).  The shame of the Bush administration is the inference that fear protects us.  It does not.  It causes us to forget what we stand for -- for the liberty we enjoy -- liberty from unreasonable searches and seizures, such as warrantless wire taps or profiling based on race, or creed or, yes, gender.  Many of the policies I articulated above are based on a fear of being attacked again and are put forth to "protect us."  The fear of attack is real and we must be vigilant -- but we must not allow that fear to control us.  The numbers who want to do us harm are dwarfed by the number who want to live in peace.

So to with protecting our children -- the number of men who wish to do harm to kids is dwarfed by the number that want to protect them.  Wanting to protect our children from harm should always be at the forefront of our concerns -- but we must not allow fear to blind us from the people we want to be.  You should be concerned with the people your kids associate with and judge them independently on a case by case basis. But to de facto assume based on gender that someone cannot be trusted is doing that person a disservice as an individual.  It does you a disservice because its not consistent with your character (thats a compliment by the way) and it does your kids a disservice.  Because by so doing you are teaching them (at least tacitly) that its okay to distrust someone based on their gender.  And once you learn its okay to have one prejudice, it makes accepting others that much easier.  I've read your posts.  You're a nice lady, I know thats not you.  Do you see where I am coming from?