The Soccer Mom Vote

No New Taxes ... but a whole lot more fees

It's budget season in New England. All over the region, cities, suburbs, and small communities are preparing their budgets for the next fiscal year that starts in July, and except maybe in the wealthiest communities, it is ugly.

The next time you drive through town, to your child's school, or to the park, or past the police station, think of this: your taxes pay for all of those services. And unless you have an all volunteer force, taxes pay the firefighters, they pay for your street to get plowed and your trash service or transfer station.

In large part, it is property taxes that pay for those services, and this makes sense because the community should pay for those services it chooses to offer.

Except:

What if the cost of those services exceeds the community's ability to pay? What then? What services would you cut? Police, fire, teachers, sports?

Or would you raise property taxes, as some choose to do, to maintain those services? Great.

Except:

Let's say the couple next door to you, or the one down the street, are retired. They own their home, they payed off their mortgage long ago, but they are living on a fixed income and a significant tax increase on their property would strain their finances. Should they be forced to move? Sell their house and buy a condo, or move to a retirement community?

And it's not just property taxes, there are now fees to use the community transfer station, or maybe there's a pay by the bag program. The cost of parking in the center of town has gone up as has the fee for a dog license, a building permit, beach parking, In the schools your kids pay to join a sports team, and your system is considering new fees to join the chess club or the debate team.

The community next door to mine can't raise that kind of money from its citizens. Health insurance costs for municipal employees are up 20% this year, and the cost of heating oil for municipal buildings will take a bigger chunk out of their budget than they have had to deal with in years past. They are talking about closing and selling their largest elementary school. They've already closed two firehouses, which is being blamed for the death of a local woman from smoke inhalation when firefighters took nearly twice as long to respond as they would have before the close.

What's happening here?

Politicians love to talk about tax cuts, but they aren't as willing to acknowledge the impact on average taxpayers. You see, when taxes are cut at the Federal level, that doesn't mean that the government stops spending, they simply transfer the burden on to the states in the form of (usually smaller) block grants. Not to be outdone, state governors and legislators want to cut taxes too, and that translates into big cuts in aid to cities and towns. Scrambling to make up the difference, municipalities, particularly those with small business bases, seek to raise property taxes and increase fees.

This puts a much larger burden of generally agreed upon services upon the people who can least afford it; the poor and the elderly.

But when services (and federally mandated programs) are paid for through income taxes, the cost is more fairly distributed based on ability to pay.

Certainly there will be those who would call this "income redistribution," but really it's a sliding scale of contributions to services most of us would agree are needed.

The federal budget is large and complex. It's hard to know where the money goes, and every day that we hear about the cost of the war, pork-barrel projects, and bridges to nowhere, the level of mistrust leads to calls for tax cuts. Less and less money "trickles down" to cities and towns forcing citizens to oppose a 2 or 3% raise for teachers and police.

Municipal budgets are much smaller, and while they are hard to understand at first, they can be eye-opening and educational. They are public documents.

So if you have the opportunity to attend a town meeting, or a city council budget hearing, try to make the time. Learn about the needs of the town you live in and how it collects revenue and where those dollars are spent. And the next time a politician at the state or national level talks about tax cuts, ask yourself how those cuts will hurt your community.

Bereavement in America

In the last couple of weeks a friend of mine gave birth and lost her son, all in about five days. He was born with a heart defect that caused massive brain damage and could never even breathe on his own. Born at home on a Sunday he spent the rest of the week at the hospital, hooked up to machines and undergoing diagnostic tests as they tried to determine what went wrong in this tiny, perfectly beautiful little person. By Friday everyone had had enough and the family spent four hours fighting the hospital to take their son home.  They hadn't been allowed to hold him, not once since his birth, and wanted him to die where he'd been born. The removed him from the ventilator, snuggled up with him on the couch and watched him until he passed, his final breaths easy and a sense of peace washing his being. I can't think of a better way to die.

The parents were shattered, of course but they felt like the struggle was finally over both for their son and for the litany of choices they were forced to make. They spent a couple of days on the road, working through healing only time and distance can give. When they got home, mom called in to work to tell them what had happened. She got an email several hours later from the payroll department informing her that she had to come back to work; with no child her maternity leave had been canceled.

This is most likely the result of someone who hasn't a clue what they're talking about. Maternity leave, as it was explained to me, is disability for pregnancy and childbirth. It is in no way connected to the end result (baby living, baby not). Her union rep made it very clear that if her employer didn't fix this, his next call would be to the media. Every attorney in town would be thrilled to take on this case, as I'm pretty sure she'd win.

But what got me thinking about politics, and therefore the Soccer Mom Vote, was the casual air with which mothers are systematically disregarded by our employers. How can it be that the "greatest nation in the world" allows their mothers no more than six weeks to bond with baby? How is it that our neighbors to the North get a year to bond and we get a pink slip if we don't hurry back? How is it that so many work places have no location for a mother to pump breastmilk or in house daycare? How has our focus become so anti child that a payroll flunkie could make the assumption that a grieving mother with stitches in her girly bits better get back to work or risk loosing her job? 

I want to give you all a task - a way to make this better - but the truth is, I don't know how. So I turn to you: how can we make our work places more sensitive to the needs of parents? I really need to know there is a solution, because right now I am so disillusioned with America, I'm this close to running off to a country who values children and their parents. Any suggestions?

Let's Talk About the Hype

Let’s talk about the hype for a minute, shall we? We’re about to be knee-deep in it, after all, what with the politicians touring and the impending nominations.

I’m slightly embarrassed to admit it, but I will. I like a little bit of hype, generally speaking. I love sitting through the previews at the movies, for example. I love getting those quickie little blips of adventure and excitement: the music, the explosions, the dramatic close-ups. And I am painfully aware as it’s happening, that I’m getting sucked in, that I’m being marketed to, that they (whoever they are at the time) are appealing to my emotion or if nothing else, to my inner sense of boredom.

It’s a big world of marketing that we live in, and not just in the movies. Sexy sells, and it sells in the political domain just as much as it does on the big screen. Fine. I can live with that. I can do my best to turn up the volume on my internal self-awareness meter and try to temper the degree to which I fall victim to all the ballyhoo.

What worries me though, is the collection of voters who are not so mindful of the hoopla. And if I’m really being honest, I must humbly include myself in that category. You should too. I think it’s important to admit how easy it is to get sucked in from time to time. Politicians are charismatic and powerful individuals.

Barack Obama came to my town a couple of days ago and about twenty thousand people showed up to hear him speak. He hit on the war in Iraq and national healthcare issues and the crowd went roaring as soon as he mentioned these topics. This immediate applause is a function of the crowd, much more than a function of Obama, I think. Maybe it’s just the nature of crowds. But it’s a problem.

I worry that oftentimes when people gather to hear someone speak, they want so much to hear what they want to hear, that they frequently applaud too soon. They hear “troops in Iraq” or “the state of healthcare” and instantaneously go nuts with the cheering and the hand-clapping before they hear anything of true substance from the speaker. I want more substance.

But you really have to dig deep to get to it. A local news station covering Obama’s visit repeatedly referred to him as "the nation's political rock star" and that is indeed how he was received by Austin. Like any good politician, Obama ended his speech with simple, straightforward hype: 

Let's go, Austin - Let's get busy - Let's get to work - Thank you!

And the crowd went nutty. I’m not saying I wouldn’t have done it myself. I’m a fan of Obama already. I would like nothing more than for him to be the man so many are building him up to be. And I think that’s pretty typical. Surely, most Americans want to believe in their leaders. Whether they’re able to actually do so is an entirely separate issue. When some new, heretofore unblemished character is standing at the podium, telling us what a great country we live in and how they want to lead it, it’s easy to be swallowed up by the hype. Deep down, we really want to believe them. We want them to believe in us. My stomach hurts at the thought of them being moved by career aspirations, or power, or raw ambition. But of course they’re moved by such things, at least on some level. They’re human.

The truth is we don’t want them to be human. We want them to be smarter, better, stronger than the rest of us. We want them to be leaders.

We as voters need to be a little more cognizant of the difference between what we want to hear the candidates say and what they are actually saying. We need to hold our applause for as long as we can, to delay the hype, to force the speaker to give us some substance.

The democratic primary here in Texas is still about a year away. And already it’s getting pretty deep around here. Do you know where your boots are?

More Moms Rising News

I recently read this article in the New York Times and thought those of you who frequent this site might be particularly interested in it.  It's a good article and introduction for those still not familiar with MomsRising.org.  It's a truly dynamic organization and they're getting noticed, taking action and taking names.

Mothers (and fathers, too) have been discriminated against for long enough; we have struggled to "balance" family and work without much help from the work side; so if you want to help make a change this is your opportunity.  From many of the same people who brought you MoveOn.org (and we all know what a tremendous political force they can be), MomsRising.org is a wonderful opportunity to join a grassroots organization moving toward real change.

He said, she said

Oh, that Maureen Dowd.  She just loves to stir the pot, doesn't she?

Given that I'm not likely to vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama regardless of which one wins the nomination (and which one becomes the other's running-mate), it's easier for me to step back and look at the exchange from an objective point of view.  That is, while I don't plan to vote for either one, it doesn't matter to me which one I don't vote for.

What did David Geffen say?  According to the CNN article, the former president is a " 'reckless guy' who 'gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.' "

Is he wrong about President Clinton?

The article states that Geffen was referring to the situation with Monica Lewinsky.  While he's not indicting Clinton for his dalliance, he's stating the effect of that dalliance.  I agree that the situation was a terrible distraction - thanks largely to the cable news channels - and that Clinton handled the situation in a way that ended up working against him and his efforts to lead the country.  And the President of the United States flirting with an intern, let alone having physical contact?  I'd say "reckless" is an appropriate characterization of that behavior.

Next, the CNN article states that Geffen is quoted by Dowd as saying, "Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is -- and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? -- can bring the country together."

Let's break this down.

Is the world disappointed in the behavior of America?  Justified or not, I'd have to say yes.  We're not enjoying a great deal of support, at home or abroad.

Is Hillary Clinton ambitious?  Absolutely.  Her drive to succeed and her track record of success are unquestionable.

Is Hillary Clinton polarizing?  That's the first subjective question.  Aren't all politicians polarizing to some degree?  In most cases, they align with one party or the other - and even though the two major parties are not diametric opposites, they are certainly construed as opposites, moreso at election time than any other.

That said, there are a lot of people who hate Hillary Clinton, and there are a lot of people who love her.  To become president, she doesn't need everyone to love her.  To be an effective president, she doesn't need everyone to love her.  But she does need to convince the country - and the world - that her priorities align - in whole or in part - with theirs.

Which brings us to the final point, the second subjective question:  Can Clinton bring the country together?

I honestly don't know.  There's a lot in her past - ranging from college all the way through her tenure in the Senate - that might cause voters to hold a grudge.  Shortsighted and unfair?  Certainly.  But that's the reality that she and other presidential candidates must work within.

What I do know is that the rhetoric being traded by the Clinton and Obama camps is tiresome, but it's also politics as usual.  While I understand that, in the spirit of politics, neither side could let those remarks lie, I think Senator Clinton's spokeman was a bit irrational in his statement.  Likewise, while Obama himself was polite and to the point, his own spokesman matched Senator Clinton's in terms of overreaction.

It's a minor exchange, but it illustrates well the point that we need to get our information from diverse sources and consider it carefully before drawing conclusions.  I'm confident that even if the country can't maintain such objectivity, we here at The Soccer Mom Vote surely can.

Politics, Unusual

Hello, I'm Lisse. I think I'm the newest member of the team. I believe I found this site from the link at MotherGooseMouse and was so pleased a few months later to be invited to join.

My earliest political memory was Nixon's resignation. He cried a lot and talked about his mother. That's all I remember about that. At the same time my own mother was muttering under her breath "he's a bum, he's such a creep," and the like. That may have been the origin of my tendency to talk back to yell at the TV when I'm watching a speech or a political debate. In recent years, I haven't been able to watch much at all. Not good for my blood pressure, you see.

Still, I remain a student of political gamesmanship. I'm not all that good at it in real life, but I know it when I hear it. I realized this one day when I caught myself responding to the Clinton impeachment proceedings as one might keep score at a sporting event. Like soccer.

Not to be entirely flip about all of this...I do take politics pretty seriously, but I think it's important to recognize the games and posturing for what they are, and that they can have some serious consequences. I think if the average voter were more aware of the gamesmanship going on and the way politicians use language, that we would have a more informed populace; one that can look past the rhetoric at the real life effects of the way issues are decided in this country. And then, though perhaps this is overly optimistic of me, our conversations on policies could be based more in reality than on the outrage factor. Extremism on either side solves nothing.

My bio says that I'm moderate to liberal or perhaps the other way around. But mostly I'm for whatever solves the problem, whatever problem that might be. I find that too often we want to slap a "solution" on something without looking at the whole picture. That may be a product of our sound bite society, but it rarely gets the job done. In the variety of issues I've spent any time looking at, I've found a couple of common themes.

A real solution is often a combination of cutting or restructuring and investment of some kind. Cuts alone do not equal reform. Want to get more people off welfare? Great, don't forget about job training and day care. Want to alleviate the burden of immigration? Enforce existing laws, but encourage and assist the Mexican investment in infrastructure. Decide who you are going to allow to stay and get those people on the tax roll rather than the welfare roll. Want to cut down on violent crime in the cities? Two words: community policing.

Punitive measures are rarely a solution. Mandatory sentencing has not made a dent in drug use. Denying marriage rights (or rites) to a segment of the population will not improve the state of marriage in this country or the well-being of children. Tougher banckruptcy laws will not help creditors recover money from families with catastrophic medical bills. Withholding funding from underperforming schools will not help them succeed. Treating your enemies (or your allies) like recalcitrant children will not encourage them to your way of looking at things.

And finally, as I said before, solutions are not simple. We really need to stop shying away from complexity in this country. I'm afraid that our tendency toward anti-intellectualism is going to put us in a hole from which we will not recover. That applies to the media, the government, and private industry, in matters of health, credibility, and competitiveness. Case in point; while Europe and Asia invest in conservation technologies and alternative fuels, American companies invest in denying global warming (Google that one, BTW, the coverage in domestic vs. international media is quite telling). How many layoffs might have been avoided if the "Big 3" adhered to the CAFE standards of the previous administration?

So that's my view of things in a nutshell. I'm excited to be a part of a site that is striving to elevate the debate.  It's important.

My jersey number is 28, so I'll be back then to discuss something, probably taxes, a bit more in depth. Keep your eye on the ball!

Big Brother or Strictly Safety?

Recently I was watching the evening news and there was a story about a local mother who had voluntarily elected to have an ignition interlock device installed in her car; the very same car her teenage daughter was learning to drive with.

Many states have chosen to order repeat drunk drivers to install these devices, which force the driver of the car to blow into a Breathalyzer before being allowed to start the car, in an effort to curb repeat offenses.  When legislation was passed recently in Massachusetts requiring those with two or more OUI convictions to have these devices installed in their own vehicles, with the offender footing the bill, I admit I thought it was a good idea.  I was a little hesitant at first, but the sad truth about drunk drivers is that often they don't kill themselves when they choose to get behind the wheel, but instead kill or seriously injure an innocent bystander. 

Then this news story showed up.  Mom had the ignition interlock device installed voluntarily in order to prevent her 16 year old daughter from being able to start her car if she had been drinking.  In fact, these devices can be programmed to have a zero tolerance standard that will prevent the car from being started if any alcohol is detected on the driver's breath. You can also customize the system to allow for retesting at a particular time interval or set it so that the driver will not be able to start the car until the device is reset.  Parents can also elect to receive a report that states how many times the device was engaged and what the results for each test were.  Quite a nifty little system, isn't it?

Well, my gut reaction was similar to what many teenagers had to say about this system: Whatever happened to privacy?  What ever happened to trusting your kids?  Whatever happened to teaching them about the dangers of drunk driving and then allowing them to make the right choice when inevitably faced with the question of whether or not to get behind the wheel?

Then something the mother said really hit me.  She said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "It's not that I don't trust my daughter, but she's a teenager and teenagers make mistakes. I'm just not willing to risk her life if she makes this particular mistake."

Well now, Mom does have a point, doesn't she?  I mean, her daughter, after originally being against the device because she felt like her mother was saying she didn't trust her, now thinks the device is a good idea so that even if she was tempted to drive after drinking alcohol she wouldn't be allowed to.  She said that she understood it was because her mother loved her and not because she didn't trust her that she had the ignition lock installed.

But I'm still conflicted.  I'm one of those people who is very sensitive to all the "Big Brother is watching"  scenarios.  I've read "1984," "Brave New World," Fahrenheit 451," etc. and I take a lot of what those authors had to say very seriously.  So if we "voluntarily" allow devices like these to be installed in our automobiles, how long will it be until these devices become mandatory?  What about devices that monitor our speed while driving?  After all, that again would be a safety issue on the surface, but what if the DMV could issue tickets through such a system.  No more pulling people over and requiring a police officer, who risks his life every time he makes a traffic stop, to engage with the speedy offender.  What if you just got a speeding ticket in the mail because the computer printout from your car said you were speeding at a particular date and time?

Then again, drunk driving and speed related deaths are at an all time high in many states and are particularly prevalent in the deaths of inexperienced, teen drivers.  So is it more important to keep our children safe than it is to protect our rights to privacy?

As the mother of two small boys, I'm really not sure, so I'm hoping some of you might be able to shed some light on this one for me.

freedom to marry

With Valentine's Day falling mid-week and spring just around the corner (at least here in parts South!), love is in the air.  It seems then, that there is no better time to talk -- again -- about gay marriage.

I fully support gay marriage, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that it currently holds for heterosexual couples.  Quite frankly, I'm fed up with all the hate and hoopla.  Cries that it will "ruin the institution of marriage" or "legitimize sinful relationships" only point out one of the central issues at the core of this debate: separating the view of marriage as a religious institution from its role as a legal contract between two people.

Truth is, marriage isn't just about love.  (Shhh, don't tell my husband.)  Yes, I think love and romance and all of that can be elements of a marriage, but they aren't necessary or sufficient to call a relationship a marriage.  We all know married people who no longer love one another, and we all know people who love one another without being married (and sometimes, in addition to the people they are married to). 

Nor is marriage necessarily about religion.  Right now, any heterosexual couple in the United States can choose to have a civil ceremony performed by a justice of the peace or similar officiant.  These ceremonies don't have a religious sanction, and they may or may not include any religious text.  While many couples in the United States choose a religious wedding, it is by no means required.  Religious and civil ceremonies are recognized equally under the law.

So let's, for a minute, take love and religion out of marriage: what do we have left?  We're left with a social and legal institution that binds two people together with a specific set of rights and obligations.  The marriage contract, in one single act, clarifies the rights of partners to health and insurance benefits, to medical decision-making, and to custodial rights of any children that come into the family (whether by birth or adoption).  The same contract obligates partners to each other's financial decisions and debts and changes their taxation status.

While there are certainly some legal means for homosexual couples to secure these same rights -- by specifying beneficiaries in an insurance policy, for example -- not all are necessarily extended.  Many companies do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for medical benefits.  Children adopted or born into a gay partnership legally "belong to" only one of the parents.  Gay couples file taxes as "single" regardless of the length and commitment of their partnership.

These relationships deserve recognition.  Here we have two men or two women willing to say, "I'm in this for the long haul," willing to provide one another with stability and nurturing (which one author astutely offers as the true purpose of marriage), and we're saying "No!"  WHY?

There is a growing body of good scientific evidence that homosexuality is based in biology, not a choice.  There are years of experience from other countries, where gay marriage has been legal for almost two decades, that the legalization of same-sex commitment does not lead quickly down a "slippery slope" toward polygamy, bestiality and incest.  And the American Academy of Pediatrics -- not exactly a stronghold of liberal policy -- has an official policy statement on co-parenting by same-sex couples, citing solid research that children with gay or lesbian parents fare just as well as their peers on measures of "self-esteem, depression, anxiety, school 'connectedness,' and school success."

These couples deserve support and recognition.  These parents and children deserve the support of a social and legal structure that fully recognizes their family ties.  It's time to stop hiding homophobia and hatred behind scripture and start accepting same-sex relationships as legitimate, legal, nurturing partnerships.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks to reader Kelly for bringing Freedom to Marry Week to my attention.  For a round-up of others writing online about these issues, head over to Mombian.

What gets you hot?

When Nicole originally approached me about joining the team I was hesitant. While I lean to the left politically, I'm not a very political person. But when she told me that there would be opportunites for social, as well as political, commentary I gladly accepted her invitation. I'm more comfortable in the social realm so bearing that in mind I bring you a round-up of hot blog topics from the last week. Leave your comments about these stories below. I'm dying to know what you think.

V-Day Detente
Jeanne, one of the Musing Mamas, took on the topic this week of parents who go over the top for school Valentine's Day parties (and she might as well have been talking about birthday parties too). She's irritated with parents who feel that the sweet, little Valentines of years past aren't enough and wishes these parents wouldn't try to one-up each other by bringing extravagant goodie bags full of candy and toys for their child's classmates.

"I wish we could have a parent pact to cease and desist, but in the absence of one I'm going to do my best to teach my daughter that it's not the size of the gift but the sentiment, even if the lesson exacts a little bit of pain."

What is it about children's parties these days? Why do parents feel the need to have their party or party favors be the end-all, be-all that tops the others? Is it the parents who feel insecure and have something to prove or is it the kids who pressure their parents into giving them BiggerBetterMore so they feel confident in their parents' love? I'm not sure. What I do know is that the size and kind of parties kids are having these days seem to be out of control. My daughter isn't quite two and yet she's received several birthday invitations to other two-year-olds' birthday parties being held at places like Chuck E. Cheese and Gymboree. Isn't that going a little too far? Aren't two-year-olds a little young for expensive, flashy parties they aren't even likely to remember? Or am I just a cranky middle-aged penny-pincher spoiling everyone's fun?

Got booze (in your breastmilk)?
Blogging Baby had a post this week about "Milkscreen," a product that tests the alcohol content of breastmilk. Susan, the post's author (and writer of the popular blog, Friday Playdate), asks,

"Perhaps I'm missing the point, but wouldn't NOT having a drink ALSO provide peace of mind that your milk was alcohol-free?"

Sure. It would. But after nine + months of abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy, I desired an occasional glass of wine at dinner with my husband. My daughter completely refused any and all bottles and she had a pretty rigorous nursing schedule. I was an overly cautious (perhaps even paranoid) first-time mother with nothing but my baby's best interests at heart. So I would have loved the chance to test my breastmilk prior to a feeding and after one or two glasses of wine even if I'd waited the recommended two hours per drink before nursing again. The peace of mind a product like this could have bought me would have far outweighed its $13.95 cost. Wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? And isn't it great when science provides us with worthwhile products we can choose to use in the hopes of protecting our children?

They wouldn't have assigned that story to Jimmy Olson
Cathy, another of the wonderful Musing Mamas (Yes, I'm pimping them a bit today but you must to get to know these smart, funny women!) discussed the recent story of columnist Debra Pickett resigning from the Chicago Sun-Times after her editor proposed that she breastfeed in public and then write a column about it.

Cathy, a reporter herself, was incensed about the editor's request of the columnist and said,

"Now, I have put the girls on (very discreet) display DURING assignments (Example:...I nursed outside a wedding chapel when I took my eldest along for an interview.). Never, however, have I been asked to bare my breasts FOR an assignment. When, may I ask, has a male journalist ever been asked to haul out his boy parts for a column on...say... vasectomies? Or perhaps erectile dysfunction?

Can you feel the collective shudder in the newsroom budget meeting? I can."

Debra Pickett was not being forced to do the assignment but the audacity her (female) editor and her (male) editor-in-chief had in proposing this story, in a day and age when women still work doggedly for equality in the workplace, was a slap in the face.

I think Pickett was right to quit. Do you agree or do you think she should have taken the assignment and capitalized on the current parent-as-navel-gazer atmosphere that's all the rage these days?

When character matters

Some of my favorite bloggers have recently discussed a Washington Post column related to women and voting.  Linda Hirshman's column, "You've Come a Long Way, Maybe" opines that women have never been a strong force in getting a candidate elected to the Presidency.  Part of Hirshman's theory on why this happens is that women do not follow the news and political happenings themselves, but rely significantly on their husbands to tell them what to focus on come election time -- thus, they are last-minute impulse voters.  Hirshman also feels that women do not pick a strong policy stance and vote according to the issues important to them; "Instead, they vote on... elusive factors such as personality."  In other words -- they vote for the person, the character -- not the platform.

I found some of Hirshman's observations quite maddening, such as her informal survey of Washington-area stay-at-home moms.  (Unscientific, indeed -- just because a handful of the women she talked to read People and Real Simple doesn't mean *all* women avoid news stories and political information.)  And insinuating that Hillary Clinton might be an intriguing candidate to women because she has suffered, soap-opera like, at the hands of an unfaithful husband?  Please.  I outgrew soap operas in my teens.

However, from a personal perspective, I can't argue with some of Hirshman's observations about how women might view political candidates differently than men when deciding to vote.  I don't vote based on policy issues alone, but actually do consider a candidate's character when I am deciding what candidate to support.  Granted, I don't consider ONLY character or personality when trying to determine who to vote for -- but I believe it is an important factor in my final decision, even when compared to a particular politician's stance on policy issues. 

What are my motivations for choosing to consider the "elusive" factor of character when I enter the voting booth? 

Candidates and elections are full of shades of gray

Because I am not a party-affiliated voter, I am more inclined to consider character as a determining factor in my vote.  For example, when I am not solidly smack in either candidate's camp with respect to policy issues -- perhaps I like one candidate's views on issue X and another candidate's views on issue Y -- I might select a candidate with the more palatable character. 

Hirshman would argue that this makes me wishy-washy in terms of taking a stance on political issues -- that, like other women, I'm not a "rational policy actor" who will "make firm policy commitments and back the candidates in the direction [I] want it to go."  This may be true, according to her definition -- but I don't think it's that simple.  I found myself nodding my head at one of the comments Hirshman received in the online discussion of her article on the WaPo: 

Couldn't it be possible that women ARE interested in these big foreign-policy issues, but don't like the way they are framed and talked about? The male perspective still is in control, with the result that politics is a horse race, foreign policy is a shout-fest, and everything comes down to winning or losing, not shades of gray.

I am sure there are other women like me -- attuned to the "shades of gray" that are inherent in discussions of policy issues.  Perhaps you're not exactly "for" or "against" gun control, but believe that some more moderate stance is appropriate.  Maybe you believe in universal healthcare, but don't like the way that either presidential candidate frames and tackles the issue.  When the candidates and political parties tend to represent themselves according to the extremes, where does a moderate fit in?  How do we vote?

I'll tell you how I vote: all other factors being equal (or the good and bad being equal, in many cases), I will vote for the candidate with the best character.  Not the one that's made racist remarks, or the one accused of sending inappropriate e-mails to the underage daughter of a campaign worker. 

Personal integrity is an important value of mine

I feel strongly about personal integrity in my everyday life.  I have the utmost respect for the coworkers, family members, and friends that exemplify the values I believe strongly in: consideration for others, a good work ethic, a commitment to living a moral and socially responsible life.  I try to serve as a positive role model for my girls, to show them they are part of a broader community and must act as a responsible member of that community. 

And really, what's wrong with bringing that viewpoint into the voting booth?  Why is it bad to vote for a person that exemplifies strong character?  Do you think this country would possibly be in better shape today if more people voted for the candidate with integrity rather than the one that would protect their pet projects?

Yes, I do think voting exclusively based on a candidate's character and integrity is naive.  If a Presidential candidate has little to no experience in the global policy arena, he or she probably will not be successful in the Oval Office regardless of how considerate, honest, and hardworking they are.  But if we all demand that our political leaders demonstrate great personal integrity along with their other qualifications, perhaps we will end up with a higher caliber of leader in our political system.

It's all about people anyway

Hirshman would probably take the stance that elections should be about the policy, the issues, and not so much about the "personal" factors.  But in my mind, elections SHOULD be more about the people, less about the issues.  Why consider a candidate solely based on how he or she looks on paper (e.g., in the media and political publications)?  If you were hiring an employee for a new position in your company, would you make a job offer based on the experiences listed on her resume, without bringing her in for an interview to make sure she "clicks" with other members of the team?  Of course not, because personality is an important factor in determining workplace success.  Thus, why should we remove the human element from our election decisions?  If we vote strictly on policy issues we risk doing just that.

Let's face it, aren't people at the core of all the issues anyway?  Why debate about war as an abstract (in terms of timelines, dollars, and resources) when we should be focusing on the human lives that hang in the balance?  How can we discuss healthcare as a broad topic without considering the faces of those who rely on the healthcare system to keep them well?  We can't, really.  I know *I* don't want a candidate whose values and integrity I don't respect to represent all the people affected by these issues.

So, Ms. Hirshman -- sorry to rain on your parade, but at least one woman out here has been deliberately considering character when heading into the voting booth.  And despite your theory that Hillary Clinton may have to launch attacks against her opponent to garner the female vote in this election, that particular strategy won't win me over.  Because character DOES matter to this voter.  And I may be the only one that feels this way, but I don't think so.