Loads of media types are already wondering aloud, what kind of parents the Obamas will be. For me, that question is sort of silly -- won't they continue to be the same kind of parents they've always been?

There is something about the phrase "Mommy Wars" that makes me want to gouge out my own eyeballs with a fork, rather than have to read it ever again. It is anathema to every thinking mother I know -- don't we have enough to deal with in life without some manufactured "war" amongst our very ranks?

And, no, I am not talking about that pesky little war in Iraq where we actually have hundreds of troops being killed in a foreign country. That only makes news when something "newsworthy" occurs because we all know a real war is such a downer to talk about. I am talking about the "newsworthy" war that we all should apparently be up in arms about. The Mommy Wars. Are you battle ready? Did you buy your fatigues and kiss your family goodbye? No? Shame on you! You are at war!

Last Sunday the New York Times ran an article on the changing face of this year's presidential campaign trail. Namely, the increase in the choices the candidates and their families have had to make in regards to negotiating the logistics of campaign life and family life. These campaign circumstances have no recent precedent. It states that "no fewer than five presidential contenders have children under the age of 10." The main focus of this article features the Edwards family who have made the decision to bring their youngest children--Emma Claire and Jack Edwards, 9 and 7-- on the road with them. This has brought Mrs. Edwards' mothering decisions under fire. One thing that really needs to be remembered in this scenario is that Elizabeth Edwards is not just a mother to young children. She is a mother with cancer. Terminal cancer. A mother who wants to spend as much time with her children as possible. You simply cannot take that out of the equation and still get the full picture here.