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?

Some wise words about this bailout

Now, why isn't she running for President?

It's not about her family until it's about your family.

Count me out of those women who are questioning whether Sarah Palin can or should campaign for VP because she has young children. I'm not sure being a hockey mom qualifies Palin to be VP, but it doesn't disqualify her either. As a working woman well-versed in the tongue-clucking of SAHMs, I maintain that how she and her husband manage their family is none our our business.

Ah, but didn't she make it our business by parading all those children in front the cameras at the GOP Convention?

No. Just about every politician does that. It's like proving they're human; that they're "just folks" whether or not it is an accurate portrayal. If the kids were to start making speeches in public, that would be a different matter.

What kind of mother would leave her family to campaign anyway?

Sometimes, you get a once in a lifetime opportunity - a now or never. I think most people would want to take it and ask for the support of their families. One could ask how Michael Phelp's sisters felt about rearranging their lives around his swim schedule, or the family of any figure skater who has to move to another state so the child with talent can be trained for the Olympics. Or the family of a father who needs to move for a job. Sometimes a dream or a talent requires sacrifice for others, and why should it be the mother who always sacrifices? Few people would ever ask a father to do the same.

But what about announcing Bristol's pregnancy and impending marriage?

Well, it wouldn't have been my choice, but if she hadn't said anything about it, the media would have sniffed out the story and run with it in an even more embarrassing manner. This way, the Palin family have the opportunity to frame the story as best they can. And while I feel a bit sorry for Bristol, 48 hours of media scrutiny is not going to ruin her life the way a teenaged marriage might.

But...

But Bristol's story becomes legitmate fodder for public discussion because it has implications for the way the rest of us run our own lives and stories. Sarah Palin has endorsed abstinence-only education, which has been declared a failure all over the country, and the results of which Bristol Palin will carry with her forever. Never mind Roe v. Wade, members of Sarah Palin's party want to restrict access to birth control even by adult, married, women whether by legislation or regulation. Her policies would have more of our daughters end up like Bristol.

It's one thing to be pro-life. It is another thing entirely to be against birth control. Chipping away at access to birth control is not truly about respecting life, it is about controlling and limiting the lives of women. The GOP can talk all they want about "protecting girls from exploitation and statutory rape" as a reason to limit birth control; but the simple fact is that teenagers will have sex, and unlike Levi Johnston, most boys will walk away.

They won't be saddled with a pregnancy, denied entrance to the National Honor Society, be prosecuted or forced to marry. They may be in the baby's life from time to time or even pay child support, but their career and life prospects won't be limited by the birth and care of a child. They won't spend their lives being labelled "gimme girls" and "welfare queens" when times are tough and they need extra support. 

The best and most life affirming way to combat this, is to empower young women; something the GOP, whether they are limiting birth control, fighting Title IX, or denying equal pay, has proven loath to do.

The Republican party talks a lot about the evils of government intervention, but they want to define what your family looks like and control the choices that you make. Too bad that Sarah Palin wants to make what's happened in her family, happen to yours.

Palin - The Ultimate Pander

So, wow! John McCain really hit a home run with his VP pick, no?

Seeking to snag the disappointed Hillary supporters, he picked a woman. He really thinks we're that shallow.

Needing to convince the religious right, he picked an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell, evangelical who wants creationism taught in the public schools. She opposes abortions even for the victims of rape and incest.

Looking to shore up the Republican base, he picked a pro-gun, pro-oil, anti-environmentalist, who is suing the federal government for placing the polar bear on the threatened species list. She insists that human activities have no impact on climate change. To paraphrase my favorite line from John Kerry's campaign: What if we had a VP who believed in science?

Desperate to energize his campaign, he picked a 44 year old former beauty queen with less than two years in office. Sadly, the ploy might work, given the traditional demographic of McCain supporters. Pat Buchanan loves her, as does Rush Limbaugh, who calls her a babe. Um, eew. And then there's this bumpersticker already circulating on right-leaning websites. It should warm the heart of any woman in or seeking a leadership position who just wants to be taken seriously.

It does make you wonder why he passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe for Palin. I thought Carly Fiorina might have been a good choice. What must she really be thinking?

When Sarah Palin was first introduced, I was truly intrigued, and hopeful, even if I'm not a McCain supporter.  The more I learn about her, the more I am concerned that she may be a disaster for women - win or lose. 

If she wins, and maybe even ascends to the Presidency, her beliefs and policies stand to set back women's freedom and their children's economic, environmental, and global security for decades.

If she loses, or has to step off the ticket because of her complicated family issues (I'm deliberately leaving it at that) she, and not Hillary Clinton will become the face of women running for higher office. It's been 24 years since Geraldine Ferraro's family finances sunk the Mondale campaign. I really hope we don't have to wait that long again.

In alarmingly short time, the Clintons' fabled bridge to the 21st century has been converted to a big ole bridge to nowhere. Perhaps Sarah Palin should have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the McCain Campaign.

The Sputnik of our age

When Al Gore set down a challenge to the country that we find a way to derive 100% of our electricity from clean, non-carbon sources within the next ten years; a fair number of people, including the NYT, had visions of JFK and the old Soviet Sputnik dancing in their heads. Thankfully, you don't have to be President to lead on an issue, and in this day and age, it may be easier if you are not.

Critics were quick to fly the flag of Gore's hypocrisy - how dare a man who lives in such an enormous house and has been known drive SUVs lecture us about how to save energy? And those "carbon offsets" he buys are actually investments, from which he might make money.

But that's partly the point. Going green and clean is not about living in a yurt and milking your own goats. Sometimes it's about technology and innovation, spending our time and money wisely, creating jobs in new sectors, and getting ahead of the competition.

As it happens, some our competition in this area might still be from Russia, who has been using her natural resources to engineer a return to dominance in Eastern Europe. Russia has made an economic comeback on the strength of their natural resources and while the rising tide has not lifted all boats, there is a growing middle class that did not exist 15 years ago. Unfortunately, Russia is also using its resources to bully its neighbors - cutting off supplies to Ukraine and Belarus in an effort to keep them from getting too close to the West.

Now, what if some of the Eastern European countries had energy alternatives to fall back on? And what if those alternatives were based on American engineering, bought from American companies, or built by American engineering firms?

That's just one, oversimplified scenario. However, it shows that even if you are skeptical about global warming, there are other reasons to invest time, money, and effort into alternatives to oil and natural gas. If you are not convinced about global warming, what about combatting pollution, reducing the cost of all fuels, and reducing the burden on the local taxpayer?

Back in the early 80s, in the town of Hull, Massachusetts, a wind turbine was installed at the town's high school that lowered the school's energy cost to the taxpayers by 28%. When that turbine finally failed in 1997, it was replaced by more modern technology and is now providing energy to the entire municipality. Hull is now making money with the surplus generated energy that no doubt offsets costs in other areas, such as salaries for town employees, and lowers costs for the taxpayer.

Smart businesses are always looking for innovations that will save them money or improve the product they deliver to their customers. They look toward the future, identifying upcoming needs and trends and investing in research that will help them meet those needs when they arise. Companies that don't do this, but instead spend their time whining about change and trying to keep it from happening (read: Lobbying), get left behind. One has only to look at American car companies and the efforts they put into fighting stricter CAFE standards; insisting that "the technology isn't there yet" instead of working to create the technology. We see the results of this poor planning frequently these days in the form of layoffs and contractions in Big 3 operations.

Americans of all political stripes might agree that the United States needs to be leading rather than following or even obstructing this kind of innovation. So how do we encourage that to happen?

An article in the May issue of Fast Company discusses the role of contests and prize money in spurring innovation. Government and private funding of university research such as this solar storage solution at MIT aids in the development of technologies that eventually become saleable. And finally, some of those tax incentives lavished so heavily on oil and gas companies, could be either matched by or shifted to alternative energy companies.

In making the case for more drilling rights, more refineries, and the horribly misnamed "clean coal," Republicans often argue that we can't conserve our way out of this (oil) crisis. That may or may not be true, but we certainly can't solve a problem by continuing and expanding the behavior that created the problem in the first place.

Challenge tends to bring out the best in Americans, and this should be no exception, regardless of politics. If, as happened after Sputnik, we emphasize the study of science and technology, encourage young men and women to pursue engineering careers, and restore our drive to innovate, these efforts can only benefit our country, and maybe other parts of the world as well.

The Pregnancy Pact

Time Magazine, this week, published a story about a community North of Boston where 17 girls in the local high school have been identified as pregnant. The high number has been news around the state for a while; tied, erroneously it turns out, to a political fight about the availability of birth control pills at the high school health center.

In the Time article, the principal of the school revealed that there had been a pact among several girls to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Suspicions were raised when several of the girls appeared at the health center for repeated pregnancy tests and were visibly disappointed in a negative result. Further investigation revealed that many of the fathers were not students at the high school and one was a 24 year-old homeless man.

Reaction in the community and on the web has ranged from head-shaking to finger-waggling. Some are waving the morality flag and others pointing to the availability of welfare as some kind of incentive for this behavior. Many, many are screaming "WHERE WERE THE PARENTS?" 

Indeed, the best answer to the "why" of this situation comes from am 18-year old mother, not part of the pact, who was quoted in the article:

But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

Gloucester, Massachusetts may be best known for being the site of the film The Perfect Storm, and in earlier days, as the home of the Gorton's fisherman. Fishing is still its main industry, but as a result of environmental and regulatory constraints, as well as the factory trawling done by other countries, the propects for recent generations have shrunk. Tourism, the only alternative industry on the horizon, has progressed in fits and starts as the community struggles to maintain its fishing heritage.

Though the pact, and the sheer numbers involved, are unusual, this story raises questions about other communities around the country where factories have closed and jobs have gone overseas. Girls are raised without career aspirations because there are no careers to be had. College and skills training are only helpful if there are jobs available. The only dream left to them is to create a family of their very own, even if they can't really afford it.

Without resorting to protectionism, how do we create more opportunities in this country, especially in rural areas? Removing the corporate tax incentives for offshoring is a good start, but more must be done. Education for entrepreneurship, investment in rural communities, and incentives for new businesses to repurpose the abandoned facilities of old businesses are all initiatives worth investigation.

Accidents do happen, but girls with career aspirations typically don't want to get pregnant in high school. While many of the girls will inevitably hope for a better life for the children they are expecting, its hard to have hope without opportunity.

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.

Coffee Ad to Awaken Sleeper Cell?

Noted Right-Wing Malcontent Unhinged by Scarf

Ultra-conservative FAUX News commentator Michelle Malkin, yesterday, accused popular faux-chef Rachel Ray of inciting "murderous jihad" in her new ad for Dunkin Donuts. Malkin was apparently upset, not by anything Ray said in the ad, but what she was wearing. Wrote Malkin, "The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men ...a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

However, Ray's fashion statement is Malkin's misstatement, as the paisley design showing on the corner of the scarf clearly differentiates it from a keffiyeh which is checkered from end to end. Said a Dunkin Donuts spokesperson, "The scarf Rachel is wearing is actually black and white, rather than the blue and white checkered keffiyeh once available from knockoff vendors on the streets of every major city. Besides, the keffiyeh as a fashion accessory is so last century."

Reached for comment, Ray said only "Altiab!" (apparently Arabic for "delish!") before shoving a munchkin in her mouth and dashing off to a cookbook signing.

In related news, Dunkin Donuts denied plans to add grilled falafel sandwiches to their new lunch menu.

Suspected Secret Paisley Code

_________________________________________________________________

Yes, it's satire. It's about as manufactured as this particular brand of outrage. The quote from Malkin however, as well as her objections to the original ad, are real. I couldn't have made that up.

The photo is originally from Boston.com and a hat tip goes to Momocrats.

I'm sorry too.

Where have all the good guys gone?

By now you've heard that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer issued an apology yesterday for behavior that "does not meet my or any standards of right and wrong."

I suppose we should be used to this. Getting caught in a sex scandal is becoming a rite of passage for the self-righteous. Somehow though, we believed that this guy was different. He presented himself as a crusader of sorts, pursuing Truth, Justice and the American Way. You know the drill. His manner, and of course his name, so invited comparisons with Elliot Ness that you could almost see the fedora.

It's not so much the sex, as it is the alleged hiding of money, disguising of transactions, and engaging in something he was prosecuting others for. It was the fact that this was so calculated. The irony is punishing. I'm not just disappointed, I feel like someone has died.

Having lived in both New Jersey and the Boston area, I'm no stranger to political corruption. I sort of accepted it as a way of life. Big Business would continue to have too much influence over our government and would continue to ride roughshod over its employees, its shareholders and in the case of the defense industry, a balanced budget. Writers like me would continue to point this out, try to effect some small change here and there, but that this was the way the world worked. Period.

Elliot Spitzer made me believe that it didn't have to be that way; that someone was really watching out for the little guy in a way that didn't involve protectionism, or socialism, or anything more drastic than enforcing existing laws. This was apparently too much for Big Business. It speaks volumes that a cheer went up on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the news of Spitzer's troubles.

But while Spitzer was making enemies, I was entertaining hopes that he might run for President someday; that there was still a good guy who could be a leader on the national stage. That there was someone to believe in.

I've been watching and participating in politics for a long time now, and I'm used to supporting and voting for flawed, multi-dimensional, candidates. I should have known that these expectations were too much to place on one man's shoulders. Yet, I hoped, until of course, it turned out to be too good to be true.

Just as Elliot Spitzer's public career has more than likely come to an end, so has my belief in good guys going into politics.

And that makes me very sorry.