Soccer mom

  • Hereby defined as a woman giving those that need it a swift kick in the rearend. We don't rock the vote, rock the cradle, or even out the playing field: we come to show them how it's done.

Commentary

Blog powered by TypePad

Donate

thank you!

Tip Jar

A (Nomi)Nation Moves Forward. Slowly, at first.

The long and heated, sometime ugly, sometimes inspiring, Democratic nomination fight has come to a close. Barriers were broken, but so were a lot of other things. The exposed wounds are not yet healed.

But they will be.

As a Clinton supporter, my disappointment is mixed with relief that the primary process is over, and frustration with the diehard Obama supporters angry that Hillary has not yet kissed the coronation ring.

Give her, and her supporters, some time.

Give us some time and we will rally around your candidate.

We will support his charismatic leadership, his vision of a nation that can do better than we are doing now, his belief in diplomacy, his personification of a multi-faceted nation, somehow united.

We will encourage him as he crafts his foreign policy, even as it evolves from where he began. That is good. It shows growth and an ability to adapt to "the reality on the ground." Something the country desperately needs after 5 years of unsuccessful "staying the course."

We will applaud when he stands as a champion for affordable health care, job development, sustainable energy policy, and educational innovation.

And when the time comes, we will defend his flaws.

Just as we defended Hillary's. And Bill's.  Because for all of his impressive qualities, Barack Obama is still human.

Similarly, we will support Michelle Obama, because as Hillary supporters, we have seen what she will soon be experiencing, and much of it ain't pretty.

But please don't shake a finger at us because we are not there yet. It's been a long battle, a hard road. We are weary.

But we are still strong, and we'll be there when you need us most.

Undecided

The primary elections today, in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., have taken on more importance than expected early in the presidential campaign. Up for grabs? According to NPR, 168 delegates, with most of the attention focused on Virginia ["Virginia will offer the greatest number (83), followed by Maryland (70) and Washington, D.C. (15)"]. Right now, Obama has 943 pledged delegates to Clinton's 895, according to a count by MSNBC -- well short of the 2,025 needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. So it's anyone's ball game.

The same NPR article said this: "Virginia hasn't been for a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. In recent years, however, Virginia has elected back-to-back Democrats for governor and unseated a Republican senator, and it is favored to win another Senate seat this year. Now, Democrats hope to carry the state in November for their presidential candidate. But first they will have to decide which Democrat has the best chance." And that pretty much summed up my dilemma this morning. Who has the best chance of defeating the Republicans (specifically John McCain since he appears to have all but wrapped up the Republican nomination). As one voter put it: “Who can win? Who can bring in more votes? Who is less divisive? I think Clinton is too divisive. It comes down to: who can bring the party together and bring in independents?”

Is Barack the answer?

As I did my research, both candidates appear to be on the same page with regards to the biggest issues. From Health Care to Energy, Education, and the Economy, their plans are similar (though I did find it easier to determine Barack's stand on the issues with his very handy down-loadable file "The Blueprint for Change" available on his website; it took a little more work to find Hillary's actual concrete plans for change). The main difference I could find was their stance on Iraq (my local paper said Hillary's withdrawal plans won't be completed until 2013). Also, I really liked what Barack had to say about Ethics in Washington ("I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."). After 8 years of Dick Cheney and Bush cronyism, this is quite a breath of fresh air. Imagine, actual qualified people in important jobs like the head of FEMA.
So what to do? MSNBC said, "the biggest difference between the two “appears to be judgment versus experience: Sen. Obama's media blitz portrays him as the candidate for change — youthful and charismatic — he even took a page from the Clinton handbook using ‘Hope’ in his book title. Sen. Clinton is an accomplished senator, master political tactician and invaluable asset to the party.”
I felt like a teenager cramming for a test as I pored over documents I had downloaded from their sites last night. I continued to read as I waited in line to vote this morning, truly undecided until I put in my voting card. But in the end, I went with my gut, and voted for Obama. I'm sorry Hillary, deeply sorry. As much as I want to see a woman in the White House, I don't think you are the one who will get there, at least not this time. As much as I'd like to see another Clinton leading our country, I don't think you are going to be able to pull this one off. I think Obama is our best hope for both defeating McCain and for giving us real change in the White House. 

Should I Bother Voting?

I never thought I would hear myself utter these words or let them cross my mind -- should I even bother voting? 

After what's happened this week with the scheduled Michigan primary, I don't think the Democratic presidential candidates care very much whether I do or not.

You see, I don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire.  Living in a reliably blue state, I have resigned myself to the fact that Democratic candidates don't really spend a lot of time campaigning here.  I understand that they are going to have to spend more time in the bigger states with more electoral votes or in places that make a big first impression.  What I don't expect is to be totally ignored.

For the moment, that seems to be what's developing in Michigan. 

Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden have all pulled out of the Michigan primary that's currently scheduled to take place on January 15.  Apparently some of the Democratic power brokers have their panties all in a twist because some states, like Michigan, want to move their primaries ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire.  It seems that some of the states with more electoral votes have this crazy notion that maybe their primaries should carry a little more weight in determining who the Democratic nominee will be.

There is a growing, and I would say justifiable, political outcry over why Iowa and New Hampshire should, effectively, be the first and last word in Presidential politics every four years.

To further solidify the Iowa/New Hampshire one-two punch, the DNC wants to punish states who dare to challenge the status quo by either threatening to keep their delegates from the convention or through this scheme to get the candidates to withdraw -- then there is no front runner to vote for and not much weight goes to the outcome.

This way, the DNC gets to throw the perceived front runners a bone since Iowa and New Hampshire are the states where candidates have invested the bulk of their time and money.  The DNC already has rapped Florida's knuckles for wanting to do the same thing as Michigan, and have threatened to refuse to admit Florida delegates to the convention next year in Denver.

I'm a politico from the word 'go.' But this really disgusts me.  If we're going to have an electoral system where the national election process is managed by the states themselves, then neither the national political mucks nor the candidates should be able to game the system.  And that's exactly what's going on.

I hate to be critical of the Democratic presidential candidates, but maybe they should spend a little more time thinking how this is going to play with the voters.  You all might want to rethink this one.  Because if you're really more interested in the votes in New Hampshire and Iowa, maybe I'll just stay home next time around.  And I'll convince my blue state friends to do the same while we wait for a candidate who cares about everyone's vote.

What is Obama doing Right?

IMG

The Illinois Senator is running second in most of the reputable polls out there.  He is eating John Edwards' lunch, Edwards is running a distant third according to these same polls. (Shockingly, those pricey visits to the beauty salons in various states haven't provided the bump Edwards expected). Obama was nearly even with the H word in June but has recently dipped to "I'm also running but I'd rather hang with my girl Oprah" status. Frankly, his pro-choice, anti-war, pro-civil unions, anti-education vouchers, "big government is the best" ideals should make him the darling of the democratic set but, alas, no.

So what is this fresh faced (yes folks still fresh) young (he's 46) man (his wife confirms this) doing right?    He's staying the hell away from Jena.  What's Jena?  What are you a rock? The Jena six are the black teenage media darlings who beat up a white kid and then were sentenced to death....okay that's not exactly what happened.  See the actual details here.  Unlike (unsuccessful) black presidential candidates in the past who've paraded themselves before every black cause celeb Obama has shown remarkable savvy in staying out of that fight.  By this act, he proves he is bigger than the black community in Jena.  He is bigger than the black community in this country.  He might just end up being big enough to take it all the way.  Keep an eye out.

Emily's List

While at BlogHer 2007, I attended a session entitled "Earn Our Votes: What Questions Do Women Bloggers Want Candidates to Answer in Election 2008?" When the floor was open to comments, a representative from Emily's List rose to speak. I had never heard of Emily's List and I was struck by what she had to say. So I looked up her site and found a group of women, working on a grass-roots level, to get things done. Their ideology (pro-choice, Democrat) was the same as mine. So today, as I recuperate at home from surgery, I thought I'd tell you a little more about Emily's List and the power of Women Voters because I believe, that regardless of if you are a Democrat, Republication, Independent or Libertarian, in the end, we are all women voters, with common issues and values.

Who is Emily? From their site: "Who is EMILY? EMILY is an acronym for “Early Money Is Like Yeast” (it helps the dough rise). When EMILY’s List was founded, we knew that early money made women credible candidates and gave them the best shot at winning. That is still our organization’s goal: to help elect pro-choice Democratic women. EMILY's List, the nation's largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office.

We are a network of more than 100,000 Americans -- from all across the country -- committed to recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; training the next generation of activists; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."

Back in 1992, Jennifer Granholm, who is now the governor of the state of Michigan, put it this way:

“EMILY is every woman who has ever sat at a business meeting while someone else took credit for her good work.

EMILY is every young professional who’s been told to wait her turn and every seasoned one who’s been told she still has to pay her dues.

EMILY is every working mom who’s managed to balance a checkbook, who’s managed a clean house, a corporate budget and a 12-year-old’s basketball tournament in one day.

EMILY is every stay-at-home mom who has ever been asked, “No, I mean, what do you do? What do you really do?”

She is every woman who’s ever had to defend her right to be pro-choice. She’s every woman who’s ever had to explain her choice not to have a child. She’s every woman who has ever demanded a raise because she’s been doing the same work as the man in the next cubicle for the same number of years, and she’s still not getting the same pay. She’s every woman who has ever wondered why the company won’t cover her contraceptives, but will cover that same guy’s Viagra.

EMILY is every working mom who has ever fought for quality day care or family leave time. She is every woman who has given up a single day of vacation to care for a sick child or a sick parent.

EMILY is every girl in every classroom whose hand was still in the air after the boys got their questions answered. She’s every athlete who’s ever been told, “She throws like a girl.” She’s every candidate who’s ever been asked how she can run for office and have a family at the same time.

She is every African-American woman who has had to work three times as hard to be considered as good as her white male colleague. She is every Jewish woman who has ever been called a princess. She is every Hispanic woman who has been asked how long her family has been in this country. She is every woman who has been called too soft or too strong or too aggressive or too nice or too ambitious to get the job done. She is every woman who has ever been measured against a glossy picture in a magazine.

EMILY is the seamstress who has sewn the graduation gowns for years but has never worn one. EMILY is every woman who helped set up this room today and who will clean up after we leave … and that same woman who only wants her daughters to dream big dreams, because EMILY knows that young girls cannot be what they cannot see. She is you. She may be your next governor … she may be your next vice-president … she may be your next president. And EMILY doesn’t get mad — she gets elected!”

-- Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm, EMILY's List Majority Council Conference, June 2002

******

How many of you can relate to what Jennifer had to say? How many of you see yourself in her statements? At BlogHer, Emily's List passed out a fact sheet about what everyone should know about WOMEN VOTERS:

wv_poster_thumb.gif

Women Voters Will Be the Key to Success in 2008 - Women will have an incredible impact on the results of the Presidential Election in 2008. Nationally, there are 9 million more registered voters than male voters.

More Women Vote Than Men - Women comprise a disproportionate share of both Democratic primary and general election voters. Women turn out at a higher rate than men do in general elections, comprising 54% of the electorate in 2004.

Women Voters are Critical in the Primary - In the primary, women are likely to make up nearly 60% of the vote.

Women Supporting Women - Women candidates fare better on the issues with female swing voters, who in 2004, made up 32% of all women voters and 17% of the electorate. Female swing voters expect that a female candidate will better handle family values, education and health care than a male candidate.

"EMILY's List does more than just recruit and fund pro-choice Democratic women candidates. They also help them build and run effective campaigns and mobilize women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation." Go here to find out specific details on their programs and how you can get involved.

change_wallpaper_thumb.gif

The people behind the politics

Jen Lemon (a fabulous artist and writer) recently wrote on her blog about meeting Elizabeth Edwards at the recent BlogHer Conference in Chicago. If you have any desire to hear more about this remarkable woman and why she's totally committed to her husband's presidential campaign despite being faced with incurable cancer, click the quote below for more.  Jen writes:

“I worry about you,” I said, surprised at how emotional I felt putting these thoughts into words. “I know your cancer is back and that you have these little children. I want to be so supportive of what you’re doing, but at the same time I don’t want to participate in something that would diminish this time in your family’s life–your time is so precious.”

It's an excellent reminder that there are real people behind the politics.  Follow the links for more on Mrs. Edwards and her participation in blogging.

SiCKO: Americans Deserve Socialized Healthcare

Hello Everyone,

The beginning of June marks the convergence of two intense yet exciting events -- the FIRST is that my father survived a major abdominal surgery two days ago in San Diego, where I have been with my family for the past week to support him (he was given a 50-50 chance of surviving the surgery). The SECOND is the June 29th theatrical release of Michael Moore's new documentary SiCKO, which takes on the American healthcare system (go to www.michaelmoore.com to learn more about the film and lots of great links to learn more about the healthcare revolution, including what YOU can do to help!).

As I sat for 10 hours in the hospital while they cut and pasted my father back together on May 30, my thoughts wandered... I felt so blessed that my Dad has health insurance through his wife's teaching job (or he wouldn't be with us today).

I thought about how grateful I am that my two-year old daughter (and ALL children in Canada) are fully covered by the socialized healthcare system in Canada, where I have lived as an American Expat for 17 years (but am still a registered voter in Oregon). It is not a "perfect" system, but it is light years ahead of the U.S., where I spent my most of my childhood and all of my college years UNINSURED. Luckily I never got seriously ill, but I absolutely refuse to take that kind of crapshoot with my daughter's life.

I then shuddered at the thought of innocent children in the States who are living examples of the character in the movie JOHN Q -- a film starring Denzel Washington who plays a uninsured father that takes a hospital hostage to force them to perform a life-saving transplant on his young son. A film worth seeing, if only to help you viscerally understand the plight of so many children and families in the States today.

Did you know that there are about 8 MILLION UNINSURED CHILDREN in the U.S.A. right now?

We as politically-active mothers and citizens MUST get involved and force Congress to pass legislation moving toward a more HUMANE healthcare system in the States. The ONLY reason we do not have socialized healthcare in the States, simply put, is that corporations controlling healthcare do not want to lose their billions of dollars of profit. And they spend a large portion of that profit paying for lobbyists to coerce our politicians through financial support (thereby expecting and usually getting political favors). It is not about protecting our children. It is ultimately about GREED.

In Canada, no matter how bad things got, how much more people were taxed, they would NEVER EVER let socialized healthcare go. Canadians say it is a basic human right, regardless of social class, and although there are waits for non-emergency surgeries, I know that if my daughter is rushed into the emergency room (God forbid), that she will get the best care in the world.

So for the sake of our children, and our children's children, WRITE and CALL your congressional representative (go to: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ to find out how), and don't forget the White House direct  at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. Turn off the TV and start making some NOISE, which historically is the only way anything can be changed in our government.

SIDEBAR: I hardly ever watch television because it is mind-numbing, and a key factor in keeping our citizens silent and passive -- especially given that the majority of our media outlets are controlled by conglomerates who filter the "news" you get. Try going to new online networks like www.currenttv.com, that includes stories submitted by people like you and me -- regular Joes and Janes -- which is helping democratize our media in new and exciting ways.

But before you start painting your virtual protest signs, here are a couple sobering facts to get you properly motivated, which I found on the National Coalition of Healthcare (NCHC) website at http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml:

  • The number of uninsured children in 2005 was 8.3 million – or 11.2 percent of all children in the U.S.  The number of children who are uninsured increased by nearly 400,000 in 2005, breaking a trend of steady declines over the last five years.
  • Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2005 – 30.6 percent of this group did not have health insurance.
  • I refuse to stand by and watch our children, and their children, face a future without having the basic right of healthcare. Writing to you all today is a small step toward helping effect this positive change, and I hope this post helps accomplish the following:

    1. to start some much-needed dialogue about U.S. healthcare & encourage ACTION.

    2. encourage you see SiCKO, Michael Moore's new documentary, that hits theaters June 29, 2007. And tell your friends and family to see it too. It will undoubtedly be a big catalyst for healthcare revolution, at very least, getting everyone TALKING about it!

    3. to ultimately work towards having socialized healthcare in the U.S.A... and the winds of change are in the air... everywhere... blowing in that direction.

    Look forward to your feedback!

    Alas says the cynic

    Clearly not known for eloquence of late, Senator (and one of many Presidential hopefuls) Joe Biden shared yet another insightful gem last week. The same man who told NBCs' Brian Williams that he could have the discipline required on the world stage gave yet another sound-bite hot potato days later.

    Friday at South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn's fish fry, a major political event for Democratic presidential candidates, C-Span captured the moment which has since hit The Politico website and then all things touched by the AP wire. Biden, in reference to the President's expected veto of the Iraq funding bill, told a South Carolina voter that Congress should "shove it down his throat."

    Now, I could meander through my reasons why I'm not against the war per se. I could tell you why I think this funding bill is a bad, bad idea. I could go through a litany of different things and yet, the truth is, for me, these simple five words have nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with the current state of politics.

    Once upon a time I was naive enough to think that politicians could one day play nice in the sand box together. Over time, and honestly, not that long of a time span, they've worn me down. I'm normally a nice optimistic kind of girl - except when it comes to people who earn their jobs in a voting booth. My name is Sandy and I'm a political cynic.

    I used to think that politicians worked together for the better of us all. That they strove for compromise. That they could sit together and find middle ground. I used to think even when they disagreed they could do so with respect - the sort of debate I'd want my kids to learn from.

    I was ignorant back then.

    The truth is politics is nasty and it's self-serving. The scary thing is it's getting worse.

    I do think this bill is a bad idea. Then again I also think it's pandering to a nation of drive-thru junkies - myself included. Let me be honest. I am insanely jealous of people who live/work near a Starbucks with a drive-thru because frankly, those extra minutes getting out of my car to get my Venti skim-sugar-free-vanilla latte just kill me. Modern day America is impatient. We want what we want and we want it now. No, strike that. We wanted it yesterday. Victory in Iraq is no different.

    We mourn the loss of life - we all do. My heart breaks with every headline. And yet, the truth is rushing out of there is not the answer. We're skittish with the nightmares of Vietnam and we're spoiled by the video-game style war of Desert Storm. In reality the evolution of a renewed country takes time and diligence. It takes patience. It takes sacrifice.

    In reality, whether you agree with the war or not, the fact is we're there and we're committed. In reality, leaving because it's hard and it's scary means every man and woman -- every child -- that has died on Iraqi soil through today did so in vain. It means running so quickly we leave the door open to all sorts of undesirables to move in before the dust of our wake settles. It means telling the world we're too frightened to really commit to the fight. Its saying we can't handle the hard road and we'll crumble if they push us hard enough, often enough.

    It's dangerous to leave. It's dangerous to stay....but in reality, it's MORE dangerous to leave.

    We ought not to take up permanent residence in Baghdad. We ought to have a road map to the end game -- but that map can't simply lead to the nearest emergency exit because it's politically prudent in some election year. That, to me, is exactly what men like Biden are doing - it's pandering to the polls. It's giving a sound-bite to drag out at the primaries.

    To me the end-game road map ought not to have a definitive end date attached to it. It should have a series of outcome scenarios. "We leave when objective a, b and c are at x% completion." or "We leave if y happens."  I don't know what those variables are. . .but I do know that no one, not even the best military strategist can throw a dart at a calender and pick those dates with accuracy.

    Yet, deep down, even with all these opinions, I'm not surprised by the poll-pulse takers. I'm not even surprised that the populous seems to reward them for it. I'm now a cynic. I see Biden's comments for what they are - a misguided attempt to say "I saw the Gallup numbers today. I know what you want and I'm going to do what it takes to give it to you."  I'm cynical enough to know it's not going to change -- and beat down enough to almost not care.

    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.

    Capitalism In Action

    • BlogHer Ad Network
      More from BlogHer
      Advertise here
      BlogHer Privacy Policy