The Soccer Mom Vote

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.

Universal Healthcare is the Best!

hello everyone,

i am literally boiling over about the healthcare issue and must voice some perpective to all my fellow american citizens who have never lived in a country that has universal healthcare. i was born and raised in the usa (most of the time without health insurance) and after falling in love, have lived in montreal for 11 years.

in short, canada takes care of its own on the healthcare game, HANDS DOWN. i luckily grew up "healthy enough" in the states that i didn't end up having a situation like John Q (watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqFiFhGpB34 and tell me what YOU would do as a parent!), or like some of the people in michael moore's new must see film SiCKO. he's taking the film one step further to encourage americans to SPEAK OUT about their own healthcare challenges in the usa to help lobby congress at:(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEFoq_5RbC4

i have to tell you, after living on both sides of the fence (so to speak), that canada's universal healthcare is an AMAZING system that americans could only be so lucky to have! that is the plain, simple truth. those who disagree are most likely either:

a. americans who have never lived in canada themselves &/or are misled by the majority of advertiser-agenda-controlled american media.

(or)

b. canadians who have lots of money and would like to be able to have private healthcare so they don't have to wait in line for a medical check-up... which i hate to say is why alot of americans don't believe in universal healthcare -- because they can afford private insurance (and the preferential treatment that comes with it) and don't want to pay higher taxes to subsidize those who cannot afford it. it is a very selfish POV, if you ask me.

and as the film SiCKO reveals, even having private health insurance in the states is wrought with horrific stories of scandal and greed-driven, inhuman cases of dying humans being left in the lurch by insurance companies unwilling to help them!

to further illustrate my point, i shall kindly refer you to an american tv clip below, which takes the healthcare crisis even one step further... how pharmaceutical companies and government have A LOT to gain by people getting sick in the first place. this is the hard truth and i'm sure is too difficult to swallow for most people. check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg&eurl=http://widget-91.slide.com/widgets/sf.swf

the point of the clip, to me, which mirrors my views in general, is that the problem ultimately comes down to our FLAWED ECONOMIC MODEL in the usa.

capitalism is about greed and profit. until we prioritize the greater common good over the individual on issues of health and education in the usa, nothing will EVER change. even if everyone could afford private insurance, the system is based on giving the least amount of care so insurance companies can make MORE money for their dear shareholders. only universal healthcare can give you a system where a doctor will prescribe what you need, not what an insurance company TELLS him or her that you need...

canada is a socialist society, which means (among other things) that citizens believe that it is a basic, human right to have equal access to healthcare and education. as such, they agree to pay higher taxes to make that happen! and they even throw in public television and the arts as well (ie: our national public broadcaster CBC -- the PBS of canada -- is subsidized by taxpayers!).

it boils down to priorities. if you believe that we are one big family on this planet, then we should put our $ where our mouths are. pay higher taxes and help EVERYONE have these basic rights like the citizens of places like canada, france and sweden.

our children, and our children's children, deserve better than what we have given them so far. PLEASE take the time to speak out about this issue. it is time that americans brought back the humanity in democracy. it is not too late!

i look forward to your feedback! and if you're ever in montreal, let me know and i'll give you a personal tour of our healthcare facilities!

sincerely,

soccermombobbijo

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.

A bit of inconvenience for everyone

I finally watched Al Gore's documentary - "An Inconvenient Truth" - a few weeks ago.

In the interest of full disclosure, if you don't already know, I'm a registered Republican.  I also have a B.S. in Environmental Science, which included an internship (and a follow-on part-time position) with an 8(a) minority-owned environmental consulting firm.  My father started the Environmental Management office at one of the US's largest military bases, and then went on to become the site manager at a Superfund site.

My point?  Conservative thinkers are not necessarily anti-environment.

But environmental hysteria does not impress me.  Likewise, callous dismissal of evidence as mere "hysteria" doesn't impress me either.  Objective scientific research, presented in a thoughtful manner - that's what gets my attention.

I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed this documentary - well, apart from being a bit disconcerted by some of the evidence presented.  I've never thought Al Gore was an engaging speaker, but he held my attention throughout the environmental discussions.  I could have done without his personal vignettes, which really added very little to the topic.

But while I took away some new information from the film, I also kept in mind that the environment is Al Gore's passion (sloppy kisses at political conventions aside).  It's in his interest to present evidence that supports his conclusions.  After alll, the man is a lawyer.

I've since done more investigation and found some critical analysis of "An Inconvenient Truth".  The Competitive Enterprise Institute published "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth".  I haven't yet read the entire document, but the executive summary has piqued my curiosity.

I'm curious NOT because I want to prove Al Gore wrong or discredit his claims.  I'm curious because that's how we LEARN.  If you take the word of one source - be it Al Gore or President Bush or a nightly television news anchor - as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - you will come away no wiser, regardless of your political leanings.

As always, my plea to all people - soccer moms or not - is to take a second look at all issues.  I took a second look when I watched this film, and I'm taking a third look by reading the CEI response.  But I can't stop there; I need to keep reading, keep learning, taking new information into consideration.  We all do.

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.

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.

Boycott “Boycott France” (Un Vandale Parle)

I have lowered myself to a new level: vandalism. You read right. Me: Proper, ethical, occasionally self-righteous, scaredy-cat me. A vandal. I can’t believe it either. It just… happened.

I was leaning on my parents’ Infiniti (conservative black with audacious gold trim) listening to my stepfather generously praising me on the lovely Thanksgiving weekend, complimenting me and my children, saying his sweet goodbyes, and before I knew it, a la Homer Simpson,  I was watching his mouth move but I couldn’t hear a word he was saying. I was too busy listening to my own internal dialogue and staring at the damned “Boycott France” bumper sticker at the lower left of his rear window. I am only 5 feet tall. It was right in my face. Staring me down, tempting me, daring me to do it.

I have always hated that bumper sticker. I see it on cars all over my own liberal city, and I just cringe. “Who are these idiots?” I think to myself. “Who are the jerks that would spread such a ludicrous idea?” Oh. They are apparently members of my own family, that’s who. One of them at least is the same loving old man who swoops up my children and spoils them with generosity, who dotes on my mother, who loves me.

Still, I couldn’t help myself. I leaned across the car, feigned interest in what he was saying (recalling his rants of praise for Fox news and George Dubya to fuel my fire) and in between smiling and nodding, I peeled that hateful piece of propaganda off his window. Right under his unsuspecting nose. It almost came clean off save for one rectangular piece of stick-em.

God! It felt shamefully good. I was inexcusably pleased with myself. I’m an asshole, that’s what I am. I defaced someone else’s personal property. I had no right to do that. I do not condone that kind of behavior. Uhr, I didn’t think I did…

But let’s move beyond my (minor?) sin, shall we? Let’s explore the aggravation that pushed me to do it: the stupid bumper sticker.

Boycott France. Why? Because the French are cowards? Because they are rude? Because they are snobs? Puhleeze. Because they refuse to speak English to tourists in their own country? Because the French government, past or present administrations, did not or does not govern to your approval? Because they don’t rush to war or support American efforts the way you think they should? Freedom Fries?  Si vous plait.

As I am determined to abandon previous habits of mine (don’t want to jump on just any old bandwagon), I decided to research this issue further. And honestly, what I learned surprised me. 

My Google search of “boycott France” turned up several web sites I expected: www.billoreilly.com, places to buy t-shirts or teddy bears or bumper stickers, all decorated with anti-French sentiment, lists of French companies you can boycott so as not to support their evil empire…

The site I wasn’t expecting was this one: www.boycottfrance.com is sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the American Jewish Congress. Their site claims to be "the central repository of information about anti-Semitism in France from the Dreyfuss affair to the present day." It outlines their discontent with Jacques Chirac and details anti-Semitic activities in France that have been, according to the American Jewish Congress, all but condoned by the French government. While I was well aware of the anti-Semitic activity in France (at least what is reported by NPR), I honestly had no idea that the American Jewish Congress would have turned up in such a Google search, much less that they would own that domain name. I read their site and they seem to me to be very well-intentioned.

So I am conflicted to say the least. Do I see a need for action? Certainly. Would I like to see an end to anti-Semitism in France? Of course. In France and anywhere else it exists. Given my recent findings, have I changed my mind? Do I support the damned bumper sticker? No. Absolutely not. And here’s why: That slogan is too far gone.

At this point, “Boycott France” (regardless of whether it’s fair) is now associated with staunch conservatism and it has more to do with a disgust for the French than any desire to stop anti-Semitism. It is driven by negativity and only spreads ignorance and a loathing for foreigners. It furthers a disdain for an entire group of people simply because of where they live, because of where they were born, because they speak a certain language. That’s bigotry. It’s ignorant and I absolutely do not support it. As much as I hate to admit it, I’d sooner support an effort of vandalism to remove these bumper stickers across my fair city.

If you don’t approve of the French administration, DO something. Get involved in something that will make a difference. What can you do?

• Write. Write a letter. Write lots of letters. Write to your congressman. Write to your senator. Write to your newspaper. Write to Mr. Bush. Write to Jacques Chirac. Tell them what you think.
• Boycott. Go ahead and boycott if you want to. Do I see value in the idea of a boycott, economically, politically? Sure I do. It’s just that I don’t think the “Boycott France” bumper stickers are accomplishing anything remotely related to what the goals of an actual boycott would be. You can boycott a product or boycott a company, but not a country. Not a people.  If you want to boycott, quit talking about it and do it. Research the products you’re buying. There are plenty of web sites out there that list French products and companies for your boycotting pleasure. Research well, mind you. Some of these sites seem to be full of crap. But I’m guessing there are some legitimate and well-intentioned sites to be found with this information.
  
  According to the U.S. Department of State, “Principal French exports to the United States are aircraft and engines, beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, cosmetics, and luxury products.” If you don’t like what’s going on in France and you’d like to make a difference, look at the beverages you’re drinking. Consider the airline tickets, electronics, cosmetics, or luxury products you buy. If you don’t want to support French companies, don’t buy those products.
  
  For what it’s worth, the American Jewish Congress actually states that they do not currently support a boycott of French products. And I am guessing that they have absolutely no connection with the mass marketing of bumper stickers like the one I rebelliously liberated from my stepfather’s window. They say: "We are not calling for a boycott right now. Our goal is to inform the public of the anti-Semitic attacks in France, and the inadequate response from the French Government. We urge people to write letters to consulates and ambassadors. We encourage people to discuss the situation openly. Should the attacks continue to spiral out of control without proper response from the French government, we will reevaluate our recommendation."

• Finally, pay attention. Listen to the news. Support the unbiased media, the media that reports the facts without spinning their own propaganda. Do not tolerate those that lean right or left to push their own ideas. Write them letters. Stop listening; stop reading when they twist the facts. According to Media Matters for America, there was no truth to Bill O'Reilly's claim that an American boycott of French products has made an impact on the French economy.

And here’s what NOT to do: Don’t spend money on propaganda that does nothing more than advocate a bad idea. Those bumper stickers advocate hatred for a group of people you don’t even know. More than likely, the French citizens are just like you. They have kids and husbands and wives and jobs. They’re probably just as disappointed as you are in their own government and the state of things.

It’s a bunch of maird. Dump the sticker.

Late Bloomer

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Tamara and I am a late political bloomer.

I wasn’t always a liberal. I admit it. At first I thought I was a Republican. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… It’s just not me. If you note my confessional tone, it’s not so much that I feel guilty for having voted Republican. I know lots of intelligent, well-informed voters who identify with the Republican Party. My confession has more to do with the fact that I was, well, following the crowd.

The first time I ever voted was in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race. I was 19. Here’s the confession part: I voted for Clayton Williams. If you haven’t guessed, I would not vote for this man today. But let’s not get distracted; Clayton Williams is not the issue. Whether he was deserving of my vote in 1990 is beside the point. My stomach turns on this issue primarily because I knew so precious little about him when I cast my ballot. It had not occurred to me to do my own research, talk to more people, or go to the library. (Those were the days when you went to the library.)

I believe this kind of lemming-like parade through political existence happens far more often than any of us would like to admit. At 19 years old, old enough to know better, I was one of those lemmings. I simply jumped on the bandwagon that carried the respectable authority figures in my family and inner circle at the time. And I continued to do that until I was well into my mid-twenties. Sure, I was young and immature, but that’s no excuse. (On many levels, I remain very, very juvenile. I still laugh uncontrollably, for example, when someone falls down. Sorry, I can’t help it.)

The rest of my voting record reads much like a coming of age story, where the person coming of age starts out greener than Kermit the Frog, though not nearly as politically savvy. Too often, I failed to question the candidates, the issues, and most of all myself. But, I eventually came to my senses.

By the 1996 presidential election, I was 25 years old. I had a college degree, was in the work force, had traveled a very good bit of the U.S., Europe, and Mexico, had gotten married, then separated, and was just a little bit of legal work shy of divorce. I was coming into my own. I voted for Clinton in that election and although I’m not pleased with everything he did, I stand by my vote. And I’m happy to say I stand by every vote since then. I have found myself, politically.

A strange way, I suppose, but with this, I introduce myself: a late bloomer, a belated Liberal, a tardy cross-examiner of the U.S. political system. I’m getting involved here in hopes of questioning myself. I’d like to question you. If you have any good sense, you’ll question me. And I hope we spur others on to question each other so maybe we can get a little closer to ridding this place of lemmings...

Smack a Label on Yourself

In my family, I'm thought of as the token liberal -- and since the town we live in is full of them, my in-laws like to refer to our fair city as the "People's Republic".  Yet another label.

When I was teaching English to junior high school students, we spent a fair amount of time discussing "connotation" and "denotation".   While denotation refers to the dictionary definition of words, the connotation refers to emotions or associations we have with those words.

Before I joined this site as a guest author, Nicole asked me to describe my political viewpoints and background.  I had a difficult time identifying how others would interpret my own labels.  For instance, if I tell people my voter registration card reads Republican, then would they imagine an evangelical patrolling the border?  If I mention I'm a Liberal with a capital L, what does that really mean?  I have loose morals and hate God, not to mention our troops? 

In my quest to find a way to express my political philosophy, I happened upon a fun website.  VoteMatch is a quiz willing to label me in less than two minutes.  It is only one opinion, but I found it interesting.  Taken a week apart, my quiz scores show I'm either a "Hard-Core Liberal or a "Populist Liberal".

Basically I fall into the liberal realm, the site claims, because I believe the government should not interfere in people's personal lifestyles, but it should be involved in people's lives economically. Conservatives feel the opposite, and Libertarians feel the government should have minimal intervention in BOTH.  Populists?  I'm not so sure, but from what I gather, Bill O'Reilly refers to himself as a Populist.  Which has all sorts of connotations.

Take the quiz for fun and -- as they recommend -- a grain of salt.