The Soccer Mom Vote

What happens next?

"Why," my Republican friend asked, "can't we seem to field any decent Republican challengers in this state?

Of course I had a snappy answer, it is Massachusetts after all, but the question stayed with me. Most of the Republicans I know are fairly moderate, their message isn't that much different than the Democrats I know. The big difference is the level of belief in either private industry or unionized employees.  Some of the Republicans I know are anti-abortion, but not all of them.

We may be the Kennedy state, but we're not entirely anti-Republican. Until recently, we had a string of Republican governors; all moderates until they developed designs on national office. Then they started taking actions that conflicted with the wishes of their constituents, but still were not conservative enough for their national party. They couldn't win.

By most accounts, the national Republican party could lose big tonight; perhaps not the Presidential race, but certainly in both Houses. With several prominent conservatives endorsing Obama, one wonders where the Republican party is headed, McCain or no McCain.

Calls for change are cyclical; Ronald Reagan was the beneficiary of one, Bill Clinton, another.

I remember how hopeful I was when Clinton was first elected. What I was unaware of at the time, was the sheer number of Republicans who hated him before he even got started and were determined to bring him down. I also had no idea the industry that "outrage radio" would become, and how anger and name-calling would fuel politics for the next decade and a half. I couldn't imagine a country so bitterly divided.

So here we are again. Change may return a Democrat to the White House. And if it does, how will Republicans respond?

Will Sarah Palin be the future of her Party, as she so clearly believes? Will the voices of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity continue to drown everyone else out? Can moderate Republicans get a seat at the table without being excoriated as RINOs? Is there room for pragmatic foreign policy in a party where only the pro-war are patriotic? Can we finally say good-bye to Karl Rove, for the good of the party, and the country as a whole?

I have this theory that maybe the Republicans who endorsed or may be voting for Obama, have come to realize that divisiveness only helps those who seek power for its own sake, not for the good of the nation. Democrats, with the potential for a supermajority for the next two years, need to guard against this as well. Of course there's the more cynical view which says that the Republicans have turned on McCain, setting him up to fail so that the neo-cons can come back in four years and retake their party. I hope not.

Nearly twenty years of divisiveness have gotten us two poorly conducted wars, a world of growing anti-Americanism, and finally, an economy collapsed in on itself. We've come to as low a point in our history as I have seen since the Iranian hostage crisis.

But this morning I saw something I have never seen in all my years of working in and observing political campaigns.

There was a line at my polling place today.

And everyone was smiling.

Maybe it's not a game.

Like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to Thursday's Vice Presidential debate with a mixture of amusement and apprehension. I have already committed to "liveblogging" the event on a local message board with a variety of political junkies on both sides of the aisle. From the comfort of our own homes, we will pour a glass of wine, or two, and exchange snarky comments in a form of verbal scorekeeping.

For those who want to play along at home, there's debate LINGO; a cross between business buzzword bingo, and the "Who" parties you had in college while watching the original Grinch.

Already, Democrats, Republicans, and the press have engaged in expectation setting. Will Sarah Palin be a better debater than she has been an interviewee? Will she be wearing her hair down to hide the transmitter feeding her answers?  Will Joe Biden add to his long list of gaffes? The speculation abounds. I wish I could remember who commented last week (Jon Stewart, maybe?) that some people watch the debates for the same reason people watch NASCAR. For the crashes.

Even if you are one of the undecideds for whom this debate might actually matter, there's no denying the Circus Maximus - like atmosphere around these events. And while no one is about to die, whatever happens on Thursday night will doubtless be speared on news shows, blogs, and by the staffs of SNL and Comedy Central.

It's a fair question to ask whether the debates are still meaningful in this day and age. In 1960, they changed the game for Jack Kennedy, but Lloyd Bentsen's quick-witted  "You're no Jack Kennedy"  (audio) ultimately did not help Mike Dukakis on Election Day.

Are we looking for examples of leadership and statesmanship from these televised interactions? Or, as with the election of the current president, is there something else that overrides the oratory?

The nomination of Sarah Palin, her views and interviews, have contributed greatly to the comical atmosphere of this election. She's been called a Weapon of Mass Distraction in many quarters, and has indeed taken the spotlight off, not only McCain, but the very serious issues this election was supposed to be about.

As a country, we should be long past the point of it being acceptable to elect someone based on wanting to have a beer with him, But here we are, in a time of war and economic crisis, still reduced to praising Palin for her folksy delivery and seriously discussing why "elite" is a bad thing.

So we'll watch this debate with our ears open for a good sound bite or a serious misstep; we'll dissect it for the remainder of this week and probably over the weekend. But then can we get back to talking about the serious issues that will face the country, the world, and the next President in the years to come?

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?

Or Hillary?

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. 

Bye, Mitt!

There's a part of me that loves to say I told you so.

Long before Mitt Romney formally announced his Presidential bid, I was predicting he wouldn't make it to the final round.

Romney is the last in a series of GOP governors of Massachusetts who have tried to launch national careers from one of the most liberal states in the country. The only one who was even remotely successful was Paul Cellucci, the most doggedly punitive-minded of the bunch. For a short time he became Ambassador to Canada, leaving the likable, but hapless, Jane Swift in his place.

Fresh off the great Olympic Clean Up caper, Romney swept back into town, brushed Swift aside and became the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

I didn't vote for him, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. There's room in my politics for business-minded pragmatism. Of course, after all his pontificating about doing away with nepotism in state agencies, he installed all his own people wherever he could. They did the same power playing whole lotta nothing that the previous bunch had done. Ah, bureaucrats!

Romney's singular achievement, perhaps the only thing he really accomplished here, was the removal of former State Senate President Billy Bulger from his latest post as President of the University of Massachusetts. You see, Billy has a famous brother Whitey, and, for those of you not in New England, Whitey is on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list based on his Irish Mafia connections. Whitey disappeared from Boston years ago, he pops up around the world from time to time like an Elvis sighting. Billy claims not to know where Whitey is, so Mitt punished him by going after his job. In so doing, he deprived UMASS of the best fund raiser the institution had ever had. Thanks, Mitt! There's a feather in your cap.

When a concrete ceiling tile from one of our infamous Big Dig tunnels fell and crushed a motorist to death, Romney blamed the unions, he blamed the government transportation agency he had not been able to take over, and said absolutely nothing about the private companies involved, two of which were later criminally charged by our Democratic Attorney General (one reached a settlement with the State).

Romney is the only one of this crop of Presidential candidates whom I've actually met. I heard him speak at a State House conference on education. While he didn't engage in the blatant teacher-bashing that Cellucci was famous for, he talked predictably about achievement and accountability without ever acknowledging what deep cuts in local aid from the state had done to the schools in non-wealthy communities, and how difficult that made it for struggling schools to provide additional services to those kids who most needed academic support. He was utterly unconcerned about the issues we had come to the State House to discuss.

Mitt Romney personifies many of the reasons that, even though I am a registered Independent, I am rarely able to vote for a Republican. Privileged beyond my wildest dreams, they seem to have little or no empathy for those with fewer opportunities in life. Their connection to the middle class seems to rely solely in stirring up antipathy for those even less fortunate. Their sympathies lie with big business and its wealthy CEOs and shareholders at expense of everything and everyone else. They'd rather invest in prisons than public schools and their "solutions" seem to be similarly punitive in nature, all stick and no carrot.They lecture about values with no evidence of a conscience. It doesn't work for me.

Thankfully, even Republicans are starting to say that it doesn't work for them either (that's not counting those in the Bible Belt who felt Romney wasn't a real Christian). And while I struggle to figure out what "not conservative enough" means when referring to McCain, I am thankful that Mitt Romney, who was so unresponsive to his constituents to the point of mocking us on the campaign trail, has proven himself quite out of touch with the rest of the country as well.

Caucus Post Mortem

They’ve come, and gone, and I’m glad. The Iowa caucuses that is. The more it gets analyzed, the more I wonder how long the caucus/primary system will even remain in place. Antiquated? Of course it is, someday somebody will figure out something else I think. Perhaps about the same time they figure out how to make a Presidential election a popular vote only and completely eliminate the Electoral College vote.

These are not things keeping me awake at night, though. I’m a fairly insignificant cog in the political machine. And as a Libertarian, someone blissfully in the “middle”, I put it to my blog readers on caucus day to tell me where to go. (I also explained Iowa’s status as a very “purple” state as are highly unpredictable, our Democrats tend to be very liberal and our Republicans very conservative with a healthy dose of Independents and surging Libertarian base)

For those who are interested (and some of you may have already left this post), I did a little journalism from the trenches…just for you guys! Video Flip style.

First, in Iowa, the caucus day was never intended to be a litmus test for candidate viability. Never. It was supposed to be a day where political parties could carry on about the business of local politics. Get their Democratic and Republican ducks in a row, so to speak. About three decades back, give or take, it vaulted to this event in which to test the waters for Presidential candidates.

With this development, the Republicans changed the format of their caucus to reflect a need for a more efficient system. They have a secret balloting of one person/one vote.

The Democrats are still old school. It’s public. You stand with your candidate and there are several rounds of determining viability. It’s very interactive. And I’m not analyzing that one party has it better than the other, I’m simply stating that the contrast is there.

Thus, my blog readers voted to send me to the Democratic caucus as it sounded more interesting. I took my video camera.

The results in our precinct were similar to the state results. Obama way out in front, Edwards and Clinton neck and neck with Edwards edging out Clinton. I aligned myself with the “Uncommitted” group and tried to watch and learn as much as possible. It was an educational and fascinating process and I’m glad to have participated and observed when I had the chance as who knows when and if the caucus/primary system may change or be eliminated yet in my lifetime.

Here is the video I took, not at all professional or “slick” or very good, I was trying not to be overly obvious about it either, many people seemed a little freaked about being on film and I didn’t want to upset anybody.

In this first video blurb, the chair is explaining that, since viability numbers had been determined according to the total headcount, people are given half an hour to align themselves by candidate.  In our case, 36 people would have to be standing for a candidate in order for that candidate to be "viable" and receive any delegates to convention.

 

In this next clip, one of the guys helping has canvassed the room and gotten a headcount of each group.  In the Democratic caucus, there's aren't machines or anything even remotely complex - you are simply counted with your peers as in support of a candidate.  So I get a sneak peek from him as to how the initial headcount has broken down. In this clip, the Chair is announcing the first round of numbers to the group.  It is determined at this time that Richardson is 9 short and, even with the four of us who were standing in the Uncommitted group, he would not have enough to become viable unless people bailed from Edwards, Clinton or Obama.  Which, of course, did not happen and Richardson did not receive any delegates in our ward. I do have a few other clips of video footage on the same account if you're interested.  I was hoping to talk to someone supporting every candidate and that didn't work out.  And, once the Richardson people realigned themselves, Edwards gained the most of that group with Obama gaining a few and I don't think that any went to Clinton.

Anyway, this post was just intended to be an inside view I hope that my enthusiasm for the process comes across because, it is what it is and I hoped to learn and educate myself about it.  If you want to bash Iowa's placement in the system, you are barking up the wrong tree, because trust me, I have no influence with anyone to change it!  :)

But, I was willing to enjoy the ride!

Apathetic

I can't seem to get fired up about any of these people.  I am not alone.

All of them seem, what, desperate?  They are all so polished even though they  are all the "outsider" (Huckabee, Kucinich, Thompson) or the "maverick" (McCain, Obama, Paul,Giuliani)  or the one with great hair (Edwards, Edwards, Edwards).  Except for the ones who say they are clearly the best equipped to run for the job (Clinton, Romney).

What is it that I want?  Probably, Colin Powell.  Or someone like him.

Here's my list of requirements:

Someone who has served in the military and hates war for that very reason.

Someone who can speak, think, act, run, and eat like a leader.  I want this gal (or guy) to ooze leadership out of every pore of their being.  Which means, of course, that they don't have any "handlers". 

Someone who thinks that gays should be respected and demands that they be treated with respect.

Someone who respects unborn life and the mothers of all children.

Someone who has friends who are different than them culturally, ethnically and religiously.  Real friends.  Different from them.

Someone who thinks the federal government should be tiny and that local governments should have all the power.

Someone who seeks to ease the burden on the American taxpayer.  Not just in money.

Someone who gives a good example of service and values hard work.

Someone who understands the plight of our poor and works to help whereever she can.

Someone who concerns himself or herself with the protection of America's borders so that terrorists have to be truly evil to want to go up against it.

Someone strong, bright, eloquent, and  elegantly tough-as-nails.

Is that too much to ask? I'd love to see your list.

How Are You Going to Vote?

No, I'm not asking WHO you are going to vote for at this point.

I'm more interested in HOW you are going to vote.

The difference?

The pollsters and the media are trying to convince us that we've already made up our minds.  Hillary is "ahead."  Barack is in "second-place."  Edwards and others are "trailing."

Doesn't all this sort of make you feel that the process is a fait accompli?  But it isn't.  Not one vote has been cast yet, and so many commentators and news analysts are already talking as if it's a foregone conclusion who the Democratic nominee is going to be. 

I actually heard Tim Russert say on the radio last week that the 2008 Presidential election was going to be over in two months!  The implication being that once Iowa and New Hampshire are done voting, there's no point in the rest of us showing up again until November!

So as you are considering WHO you are going to vote for (please promise me you'll vote), ask yourself HOW you're going to arrive at your decision.

Will you vote by concensus or by conscience?  Should we cast our ballots for the candidate who seems to have a better chance or has the lead or the one who resonates with our personal philosophies and views about what our country should be and could be?

I have one small glimmer of hope about this.

My husband is getting REALLY tired of hearing me say this, but as an old political science major, I can't help myself -- the polls we see on the news by CNN and ABC and NBC are national polls.  We don't have a national primary -- we have state primaries.  So unless we're going to take separate polls for Iowa and New Hampshire and every other state, there's only so much stock you can put in the national polls.  They're not necessarily showing us the real picture.

And don't be fooled by those polls.  Have you looked at the "margins of error?" One of my professors in college was adamant that unless the margin of error of a poll was plus/minus three percent or less, it wasn't any more than a guess with some numbers attached to make it look like it's not a guess.

The margin of error on some of the big news polls is as high as plus/minus seven percent!!

Some people may think that if Hillary Clinton is so far ahead at this point, why bother to take the time to show up on primary day?

Maybe I'm naive, but if we stopped listening to the polls and just showed up and voted for the candidate who each of us thought would do the best job, then maybe the best man or woman really would end up in the White House.

She Should Run

Women in politics have seen some great victories in the last few decades.  There are more women holding elected offices now than ever before, and we have our first female Speaker of the House in Mrs. Pelosi as well as our first major-party presidential candidate in Mrs. Clinton.  There are sixteen women in the U.S. Senate, 70 women in the U.S. House, and nine women governors.  We've come a long way, baby.

And yet the number of women running for office is still surprisingly low.  There's no reason to believe that women have less interest or skill in politics, but perhaps we need a little push.  Maybe, just maybe, we need someone to ask.

That's the idea behind the organization She Should Run.   The aim of this program, part of the Women's Campaign Forum, is to gather a list of 1,000 pro-choice women who should run for public office.  Paired with training and endorsement, it hopes to launch more dynamic women into public office, for anything from the local school board to the federal government.

Yes, this particular program is limited to women who take a pro-choice stance on abortion, but it does not discriminate based on party affiliation.  When I asked their representative, Brad Levinson, about the rationale for supporting pro-choice candidates, I got this thoughtful response:

"The Women's Campaign Forum, similar to organizations such as EMILY's List, made the decision to be a pro-choice organization for this reason:  as the WCF's central mission is about women's empowerment, they're of the firm belief that women would not be where they are today if it wasn't for their right to have control over their own reproductive decisions."

(links added by me)

If this is a statement you agree with, and you know some fabulous women who would make great leaders, consider adding their names to the list at She Should Run.  Check out their list of candidate resources.  They've even got a blog!  (Who doesn't?)

While you're there, consider adding your own.  There are many women in this Soccer Mom Vote community who would make outstanding elected officials.  Maybe it's time for you to take that possibility seriously.

Any San Diego Soccer Moms?

"KPBS [in San Diego, California] is recruiting bloggers for an election-based project called Citizen Voices. Six people will be selected to blog as "citizen journalists" for KPBS.org from January 2008 through November 2008. Selected applicants will be trained (beginning Nov. 2007) in journalistic ethics to maintain fair and accurate writing. Those selected will represent diverse perspectives (culture, life experience, gender, and geographic) and write about how election issues affect their lives and their communities. In addition to being published on KPBS.org, bloggers will periodically be featured on-air on KPBS Radio and TV."

Click here or on the quote above if you want to find out more and/or apply.

Can Mike Huckabee be Elected President?

He's an ordained Southern Baptist Minister.  Baptists, for your information,  are not exactly rebels.  They don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance and don't run around.  What do they do?  If Huckabee is any indication, they are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Israel, anti-IRS and anti-gay marriage.  This sounds strangely familiar. Yes, I'm sure I've heard that before...

How does he differ from George W. Bush? For one, he is more articulate than the current President and most of the Republican field.  He concisely states a position and then elaborates with a depth that makes him credible but still likable. 

Extremely confident in his abilities, he even makes appearances where few conservatives dare to go, including "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO.  Famously, when Maher asked him about an evolution question during a recent debate Huckabee said, "I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth.  Now how He did it, I don't know.  I thought the question was utterly silly to be asked in a Presidential debate.  None of us are running in order to be an eighth grade science teacher.  We are running to be President."  If you like that answer then Mike Huckabee is your guy in 2008.

However likable, however confident, however willing to use the word "silly" on national television, it's highly unlikely the former Arkansas governor will be elected to the highest office in the land.  He's too quirky.  He throws his support behind things like the Fair Tax which would effectively do away with the IRS.  He supports a National Smoking Ban (um, Mike, you may want to brush up on how REPUBLICANS feel about the FEDERAL government passing laws for their own good...I think it will be an eye-opener).  He's also received some grief in the conservative blogosphere for his programs in Arkansas that were labeled "nanny state" programs (i.e. Body Mass Indexes for every student and banning soft drinks from schools). 

Look, Huckabee seems like a terrific person.  I think most people, regardless of their political affiliation, would enjoy having dinner with him.  He's bright, funny and charming.  He's just not electable in 2008.  His platform is bogged down by obscure ideas and too saturated with his personal faith for him to be elected post-Bush II.  I like the guy, but he will make an early exit in the primary or my name's not Larry Craig.