PunditMom's blog

BREAKING NEWS: Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska Governor

2009-07-03T17:38:36-05:00

Just when we thought the Fourth of July weekend was going to be dominated by continuing coverage of Michael Jackson's death, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stepped in to give us something else to talk about -- her sudden and unexpected announcement that she will resign before the end of the month.

At least one journo is wondering if Palin is resigning because she is pregnant! You can watch the full speech (see video below) which was a little on the bizarre side, especially the part about only dead fish going with the flow.

She said she's not wired like a normal politician and doesn't want to advocate for Alaska in the usual manner and so is starting down this new path for Alaska? Palin compares herself with a point guard in her decision? She sure seemed like an overly caffeinated point guard to me and the people of Alaska have to be asking themselves, "What were we thinking when we elected her governor?"

These are some really concerning ramblings by a woman who came awfully close to being the Vice President of the United States. And after reading the Vanity Fair article about her just today, I have to believe she still has political aspirations -- but if so, her actions make absolutely no sense. Maybe in her mind she is carving out a new path to political fame, but it seems like it will be a winding and unlikely path.

Palin says this decision has been in the works for a while, partly because some have mocked her son Trig? Really? I haven't heard any of that.

To be honest, her ramblings made no sense and really made me question what is really going on here. And, if she had become vice president, would she be resigning that office today? Or is there some oddly crafted plan to run for the Senate in 2010 or the White House in 2012? And why would anyone vote for her again if she can't even last four years in the Governor's office of a sparsely populated state?

There's sure to be a lot of speculation and analysis over the coming days and I, along with many others, definitely want to be there to see how this unfolds. My biggest hope is that the very strange tale of Sarah Palin doesn't dissuade other mothers of small children from running for office. There's something to be said for having that perspective in state houses, governor's offices and in Washington, D.C.

I hope the strange path that Sarah Palin seems to be on doesn't keep other moms away from the political world. I think there's more to explore and examine on this story and I am looking forward to writing about it in the coming days!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about politics at her place, PunditMom.

Supreme Court Says School Strip Search Unconstitutional, But Where are the Consequences?

2009-06-26T09:56:43-05:00

Six years ago, 13-year-old Savana Redding was called to the principal's office because another girl claimed she had given her prescription strength ibuprofen in violation of the school's strict "zero tolerance" drug policy. When school officials didn't find anything in Redding's backpack or other belongings, they ordered her to strip to her underwear and pull her bra and undies to the side, exposing herself, so they could make sure she wasn't hiding any pain relievers under her clothes.

I can't even begin to imagine how humiliated and violated I would have felt as a young teen if that had happened to me. We're taught pretty early in school that as Americans we have certain protections and rights. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that Redding's Fourth Amendment constitutional rights were violated when school officials made that extremely questionable decision to ask a young high school girl to strip in the name of "zero tolerance."

In an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas being the lone dissenter, the Supreme Court ruled that the search that was performed on Redding went beyond what was called for in that situation and that, as a result, her constitutional rights had been violated.

After reading the accounts of the oral arguments, I was pretty sure the court would rule against Redding, opening the door to increasing numbers of overly intrusive searches of students. The male justices jokingly talked on the bench about how high school boys are comfortable with being naked in the locker room and snapping each other with towels, and seemed untroubled by the clear difference between locker room antics and being forced to strip in front of your assistant principal.

At the time, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate recounted:

This leads Justice Stephen Breyer to query whether this is all that different from asking Redding to "change into a swimming suit or your gym clothes," because, "why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?"
This leads [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg to sputter—in what I have come to think of as her Lilly Ledbetter voice—"what was done in the case … it wasn't just that they were stripped to their underwear! They were asked to shake their bra out, to stretch the top of their pants and shake that out!" Nobody but Ginsburg seems to comprehend that the only locker rooms in which teenage girls strut around, bored but fabulous in their underwear, are to be found in porno movies. For the rest of us, the middle-school locker room was a place for hastily removing our bras without taking off our T-shirts.

Lithwick also reported that the justice who laughed the hardest and loudest at the idea of high school kids in their underwear was Clarence Thomas. Maybe he was just remembering his own youthful Tom Cruise moment.

After the argument, Justice Ginsburg lamented, seemingly out of frustration, "They have never been a 13-year-old girl. .... It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

Some of my faith has been restored that a little common sense remains at the Supreme Court, but the justices still missed an opportunity to tell parents across the country that there will be consequences to school officials who cross this line -- the justices refused to allow Redding's case for damages against the assistant principal to move forward. So, while we can feel better about the fact that schools should not be strip searching our kids for pain relievers, if they do, there's really no recourse.

Another thing that occurred to me is that given the kinds of questions (and jokes) raised at the oral argument, something must have happened between then and the decision's announcement, because while SCOTUS questions don't always reveal which way the justices are going to rule, they can be a reliable indicator.

But I have to wonder, in light of the apparent change between oral arguments and the decision, what happened to help produce this major shift in thinking?

I'd like to imagine that maybe Ginsburg had had just a little too much of her colleague's callous remarks, that she marched herself into their chambers and had a little "talk" with all of them. I know that's not really how the Supreme Court works, but I love the visual image of Ginsburg reminding her male peers of the teen years of their sisters or daughters or friends, and that she made them reach back into their own memories of childhood and apply some common sense to this one. I want to hold on to my fantasy mental imagine that Ginsburg turned the ship on this one by asking Chief Justice John Roberts to think about this case and imagine it was his own daughter in Redding's position. If she was able to do that, maybe the Supreme Court has taken a slight turn in women's favor.

A girl can dream, can't she? After all, Ginsburg is carrying a big load for all women and girls until we get another woman on the Supreme Court.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is a "recovering" attorney and avid Supreme Court watcher (as well as a member of the Supreme Court bar!) When she's done reading through the full opinion in the Redding case, you can also find her musings at her blog, PunditMom, as well as at The Huffington Post, DC Metro Moms and MOMcrats.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Letterman vs. Palin -- More Media Sexism or Just Tasteless Humor?

2009-06-19T06:56:41-05:00

I'm not the only one who thinks that David Letterman owes us all an apology. But it seems like there are only a few of us.

It's probably no secret to some of you that one of my hot button topics lately has been the free ride the media often get when sexism tries to disguise itself as humor. Lots of people disagreed with my objection to the Spongebob Square butt commercial as inappropriately sexist and aimed at children. Now, just when I've cooled down over that one, I've got the whole David Letterman/Sarah Palin smack down to think about.

A few think I've lost my sense of humor and others have accused me of being a closet Republican because I believe that Letterman calling Palin's clothes slutty and joking about her daughter's sex life (I don't think it matters which daughter he was talking about) were sexist, not harmless humor.

I can promise you I have not crossed over to the GOP and my sense of humor is intact.

My gut says that there's not going to be much agreement between the humor vs. sexism camps on this one, but hear me out on why I think it's important to object to what Letterman said, even for those of us who disagree with Palin's politics. When a powerful entertainer with the media platform of David Letterman suggests that a woman governor is a slut and jokes about the sex life of one of her daughters, that sends a message to our children, especially our daughters, that it's accepted in our society for men to make women's appearances and their sexuality the brunt of their jokes. What's worse is that it also says they get rewarded for it, big time.

Some on the political right have claimed that the lack of protest by progressives about the Letterman/Palin saga proves that conservative women bear the brunt of this type of treatment more than their liberal sisters. To prove the error in that argument, I only need two words -- Hillary. Clinton. Not to mention the latest video from the Republican party that not-so-subtly compares Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with that infamous James Bond character Pussy Galore.

It doesn't matter who the political woman of the minute is -- comedians and talking heads alike will continue to use sexist terms in their jokes and "analysis" because it gets attention and attention makes them money. The fact that we're still talking about all this is proof of that. But if we don't call them on it every time -- even if the target is someone of the opposite political persuasion -- they'll keep doing it and the next generation of celebrities and TV personalities will continue that tradition when our children are having children.

Some seem to think that Letterman's remarks were fair game because Palin somehow brought this on herself because she injected her sexuality and her views on abstinence only education into her political persona. But don't we just perpetuate that sexism by adopting that view? Just because Palin made the mistake of trying to use her daughter Bristol as the poster child for her own political agenda, doesn't justify the subsequent sexist jokes of Letterman, which impact all of us, not just the Palin family.

It just seems to me that it's a societal slippery slope if we say that, in the name of humor, it's OK for our kids to see shaking booties selling burgers and high profile comedians mocking women politicians for the way they dress and saying that it's just all in good fun.

My nine-year-old daughter is already starting to doubt herself on a whole host of issues. I've spent plenty of time dealing with some of the Disney demons, so I don't need any help from other entertainment sources when it comes to convincing her that news and entertainment outlets really do respect girls and women.

That's why I feel so strongly that it's important, regardless of our political persuasion, to step up and speak out when this type of sexism continues. We have plenty to debate when it comes to the views and politics of progressive and conservative women; their physical appearance and sex lives should be left out of it. And while we're at it, we can ditch the sexist code words so many use as default, as well.

When BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger isn't tearing her hair out about the insidious nature of sexism and how it's already impacting her soon-to-be fourth-grader, you can find her writing about lots of other political goodness at her place, , as well as at The Huffington Post and MOMocrats.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Maybe Republicans Just Don't Like Girls

2009-06-12T07:05:57-05:00

Sarah Palin got dissed by fellow Republicans at a recent RNC fundraiser. Meghan McCain takes heat for not toeing the GOP party line on gay marriage and for criticizing Ann Coulter. And while Sonia Sotomayor isn't a Republican, she's hardly the most liberal judge out there and is being attacked as if she was the next incarnation of Jerry Brown. With all these women on the short end of the conservative's stick these days, I'm beginning to wonder if the GOP likes girls.

Sure, they have a big love-fest with Ann Coulter and Liz Cheney, two women who are adept at channeling the darkest side of Republican politics, but it seems like the GOP increasingly has a problem with women unless they agree that our country is "importing terrorists" or unless they're willing to be mean to small children. In addition to questioning people's political bona fides, I sense a sudden surge in resorting to petty juvenile ugliness if political women don't agree with what are becoming lockstep GOP positions.

Conservative darling Laura Ingraham (one woman the GOP does seem to like) took her disdain of Meghan McCain to the mean girl level of suggesting that her views should be discounted because Ingraham thinks McCain is fat and talks funny. To her spunky credit, McCain finally announced that anyone who wants to mock her size can kiss her fat a$$!

Sarah Palin was the next big thing for the GOP when she was John McCain's running mate, but today the not-so-subtle inferences that she's incapable of anything other than advocating for abstinence only sex education are hard to escape. There seems to be a purposeful blind spot when it comes to processing anyone, especially women, who doesn't gratefully accept the GOP wisdom that men have laid down before them and who decide that perhaps they can -- *GASP* -- think for themselves.

Sure, it could just be that right-wingers don't like these three women -- but there's a pattern that's becoming disturbingly common in how some Republicans talk about women they disagree with. There is a marked increase in resorting to personal insults, mockery and language my third-grade daughter and her classmates know better than to use.

Sotomayor is too judicial to say what she'd probably like to about Republican (and media) attacks that her temperament is suspect because she criticizes lawyers who've come before her if they were ill-prepared or disorganized when they were in her courtroom! I hate to break it to the GOP leadership, but if that's a disqualifier, then every judge I've ever practiced before would be out on their bums!!

Seriously, isn't it clear? Lots of men and some women in the GOP seem to be afraid of those who deviate from the approved party line. It's sort of like the political equivalent of the old Saturday Night Live skit where every theater-goer describes the bad magic show in the same words --"It was as good as Cats. I could see it again and again." Wander from the Rush Limbaugh-approved script and you're smacked down as a critical, short-tempered, unqualified, plus-size diva.

Maybe I shouldn't raise the issue. If the Republican party isn't careful with its continued slams against women who think outside the small conservative party box, it will find itself with no women other than the current handful who seem to enjoy playing the inflammatory games of Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. As a Democrat, that's OK with me -- but I know there are plenty of moderate Republican women who are looking for a reason to stay in the party and feel like that's becoming more difficult. If the way the party is set up now doesn't change, all those bullies will find themselves without women voters.

The good old boys are going to need those votes -- unless they're planning on cloning themselves in time for November 2012.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about the intersection of politics and motherhood at her place, PunditMom. When she's not having apoplexy about how the right treats people who don't follow in lockstep, you can also find her at The Huffington Post, MomsRising and on Twitter!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Sonia Sotomayor and the Code of Sexism

2009-05-29T13:23:38-05:00

Testy. Difficult. Nasty. Sharp-tongued. Those are just a few of the words being used by Republicans and the media to describe Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. If they ring a bell, they should -- it hasn't been long since those code words of sexism were used against another intelligent, accomplished woman in the public arena.

Sotomayor is being described as short-tempered and her judicial demeanor is being questioned for interrupting attorneys who argue before her. I hate to break it to those critics, but based on what I know, and from Mr. PunditMom's personal experience in front of The Big Nine, being able to do that is practically a prerequisite to being a Supreme Court justice.

And where have we heard this sort of criticism before? I have a recent recollection of the same characters using these loaded adjectives to describe another strong, bright, experienced woman. Oh, right -- that's how Hillary Clinton was portrayed during her presidential bid! If we thought we'd left that behind after Hillary got out of the 2008 presidential race, we were mistaken.

The cable networks are just as guilty as Sotomayor's opponents when it comes to mindlessly tossing these sexist code words about, as Jack and Jill Politics blog discusses:

John King on CNN says:

“Some are saying that she is not an intellectual firebrand, someone who could compete with Antonin Scalia or Justice Alito, the conservative brains, if you will, on the Supreme Court.”

“Some“? Who are these some? CNN sadly goes on to say in another article:

But [Sotomayor] has suffered through recent stinging criticism in the media and blogs from both the left and right over perceived — some defenders say invented — concerns about her temperament and intellect.

Double eye-roll — look, Girlfriend graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, has Phi Beta Kappa on her rez, and was editor of the Yale Law Journal just like President Obama. Wanna bet the guy[s] impugning her credz couldn’t compete [themselves]?

Those sprinkling their prose with words like "testy" and "lightweight" are doing it to plant little seeds of doubt that Sotomayor is someone who can't match the intellectual heft of the eight who remain on the highest bench.

Even a headline in the print edition of the New York Times read, "Assertive Style Raises Questions on Demeanor" (they changed the headline for the online edition but the text of the article is the same). Do you think for one minute that anyone questioned the appropriateness of Antonin Scalia's demeanor and we all know how soft and cuddly he's been on the bench.

I don't like to talk in absolutes, but I'm willing to bet PunditGirl's college fund that if a man had the exact same qualifications, those words would never be uttered. A a matter of fact, Tracy Viselli at Care2 blog notes that an article at The Guardian covers that very point:

... Sotomayor is much MORE qualified than "conservative icons" William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. Rehnquist had NO judicial experience and [Clarence] Thomas had served less than two years as a judge. In fact, ... Sotomayor's qualifications mirror those of current Justice Samuel Alito.

I doubt that those who are afraid of a smart Latina sitting next to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have focused on those facts. They just want to rant in the code of sexism to make us afraid of what another woman on the Supreme Court will mean for their own personal power.

All I have to say now is that if anyone starts asking whether Sotomayor's judicial robes are designer or pondering her cleavage, those reporters will correctly be able to describe me as testy.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also likes to get her politics on at her place, PunditMom. Joanne is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and her political commentary has appeared on CNN, Fox News, BBC Radio, XM Radio POTUS '08 and more.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

The Supreme Court Needs a Mom

2009-05-22T10:03:08-05:00

Another woman on the Supreme Court of the United States would be good, but I wonder if a woman who is a mother might be even better! No, not one to make the grilled cheese sandwiches and make sure everyone remembers to wear their warm coats. But someone who can view cases through the lenses of judicial experience and the reality of working motherhood.

It shouldn't be such a stretch to expect Barack Obama to appoint a woman with his first Supreme Court nomination. After all, as Laura Stiller Rikleen pointed out at the Boston Globe:

[W]e wonder, by what possible analysis could a woman not be appointed as only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court since it first assembled in 1790?

... [E]ven with our significant numbers in the legal profession, some commentators insist on classifying women as a "special interest" that the president will need to consider. How did one-half of the population and a third of the profession come to be viewed as a special interest?

Neither women nor mothers are special interest groups -- we're the ones who spend most of the money and manage our families, be they children, spouses, parents, siblings or more.

President Obama says he wants to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who can bring real life perspectives to the bench, as well as the necessary intellectual heft. I couldn't agree more. Think about how things might have turned out differently if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadn't been the only woman (and mother) on the court when it told Lilly Ledbetter that it wouldn't do anything about the wage discrimination by her employer Goodyear and when the court suggested that there is a role for its paternalism when it comes to reproductive choice.

And if there had been other women's voices on the Court, would the outcome have been different in the Court's recent decision that employers are justified in discounting maternity leave when it comes to determining pension eligibility of female employees? One more blow to our fight for equal pay for women that Congress must address since the guys on the Court just don't get it.

It wouldn't surprise me if decisions like that make Sandra Day O'Connor wonder why she ever left the Court in the first place.

Justice Ginsburg has fought the good fight, especially with the language of her dissenting opinions, in calling out her fellow justices in their attitudes toward women, but she's only one vote. And she's 76. She needs some back-up.

I'd like to suggest that a mother who still has children at home (or isn't too far out from that experience) could provide an interesting peek into the intersection of judicial ivory towers and real life -- someone who is still living the daily reality of what it means to be the one in the family who brings home the bacon, fries it up in the pan, and makes sure the grease doesn't get poured down the sink because she'll be the one who has to take time off from work when the plumber has to come and snake the drain. Someone like that could be a powerful voice of reason when it comes to getting the remaining members of the Supreme Court to remember that there is a place for the law to intersect with real life.

The current short list of SCOTUS candidates contains many outstanding women candidates -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kim Wardlaw, Diane Wood and Jennifer Granholm -- and several of them are mothers.

Another commentator has suggested that if Obama wants to consider a qualified candidate who is a mother, he might also take a look at Caroline Kennedy, Marian Wright Edelman and Sentaor Claire McCaskill. And if law degree isn't necessary, I'd suggest that the President look around these parts of the blogosphere -- I KNOW there are some women around here who could make some good decisions for the working families of America and teach some of those other justices a thing or two about the impact of making judicial decisions in a reality vacuum.

Obviously, there are plenty of women candidates who don't have children who would make great additions to the court. But as long as we're taking life experiences and personal lenses into consideration, why not think about how another mother's view from the highest bench in the land might give us the additional ally we need when it comes to decisions that impact women's health, women's salaries and women's lives?

After all, we've got a mother and a grandmother in the White House and one as Secretary of State. It's time to beef up the presence of mothers in the court system too!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about women and politics of all kinds at her place PunditMom. You can also find her at The Huffington Post, DC Metro Moms and Twitter!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Are Michelle Obama and Corporations on the Same Page for Working Families?

2009-05-15T08:06:07-05:00

We don't need any more studies, discussions or navel-gazing about whether things need to change for working parents, especially working moms, when it comes to sick leave, flex-time or child care. Parents are struggling to manage family obligations and keep their employers happy. But corporate America still seems to think that whether and how to provide options for families need more examination. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that First Lady Michelle Obama won't let them get away with it.

Michelle Obama speaks out often about her experiences as a working mother and her personal struggle with the all-elusive work/life balance. And she's been quick to point out that even as challenging as it has been for her, she's had it easy compared to many working moms who not only try to juggle it all, but have no safety net -- meaning they get no paid sick time, and their employers don't cut them any slack if they have to leave work early to pick up a sick child or have the sitter cancel at the last minute on a work day.

So on the one hand, I was encouraged when Michelle spoke recently the annual meeting of Corporate Voices for Working Families, but I have to wonder if this organization is something that will really move working families forward or whether it's just window dressing to keep the masses quiet?

For example, in her remarks, Michelle said we need to "discuss" on-site quality childcare. But my question is this -- what's left to discuss? There's really no question that everyone would benefit from more flexible policies --families win by not having to worry about losing their jobs to care for sick kids and employers win because their employees become more productive and more loyal.

Sure, it's wonderful to have high profile and big name corporations apparently behind the efforts of CVWF. But what they are doing in their own corporate lives? Do all 50 corporate sponsors give their employees paid sick leave? On-site childcare? Flex-time for emergency school pick-ups and doctor appointments? Becky at Deep Muck Big Rake raises this tidbit in answer to that question -- Marriott and other CVWF sponsors who claim they want to be more flexible are also members of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is actively lobbying against any increases in the Family and Medical Leave Act -- changes that would significantly help working parents manage these issues. Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical; it just seems like a bit of a disconnect to me.

Even when companies offer programs aimed at making things more manageable for working families, are employees encouraged to take advantage of these benefits or are there subtle forms of discouragement?

That's really the elephant in the room, isn't it -- whether employees face unwanted consequences if they take advantage of these efforts designed to make things a little more manageable? I'm not the only on wondering. Ellen Galinsky, President of the Families and Work Institute, wrote at the Huffington Post:

At a private meeting that I attended with her following her speech, Mrs. Obama heard more about "what works" from two companies and asked us why these initiatives aren't more widespread. If family-friendly programs and policies are so good for employers and employees, she asked, then why aren't more companies providing them?

...

The people around the table suggested a number of reasons why more companies don't provide flexibility and other work life programs. They said it can be more difficult to manage employees who are working flexibly, flexibility is seen as a perk, not a business strategy, and some programs can cost money.

Then a man in finance spoke up. He said, "Show me the dollars saved by these programs." Although it wasn't mentioned, if someone assumes that "presence equals productivity," they dismiss even dollars and cents arguments.

Just because options are there, doesn't mean that unspoken consequences of taking the leave don't exist. When I was an attorney in private practice, I had plenty of paid sick leave and four weeks of vacation time each year. But even as a singleton with no child care obligations, it was made clear that there would be career and income consequences if I went on vacation for a month, let alone actually called in sick when I was under the weather.

So that's why I have to wonder if these new efforts are just window dressing? Because, really, if employers had an epiphany that it made sense to be flexible, wouldn't they just do it? We wouldn't need another study or FLOTUS Michelle and her wonderful bully pulpit.

A real work/life balance solution needs to start with making time and resources available, but there also needs to be a major shift in how employers view and treat their employees who dare to take it. I have a feeling that shift will take a little longer than Michelle's first four years in the White House.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is also known around these parts as PunditMom. Joanne's political musings can also be found at The Huffington Post, MomsRising and Twitter!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Are You More Interested In Michelle Obama's Fashion or Her Works?

2009-05-08T06:43:47-05:00

What's more important -- whether FLOTUS Michelle Obama spends time with Congressional wives at a food bank to help feed the homeless or that she decided to break out her designer sneaks for the occasion?

The media have decided the real story was all about Michelle's pricey shoes, not that she managed to get over 100 Congressional spouses to give their time to work at a food bank. Wearing something other than plain vanilla shoes while working at the Capital Area Food Bank in Washington, D.C., according to so many news reports, suggested that there was hypocrisy at work -- that it couldn't be possible to do charitable work AND have on some snazzy attire at the same time.

The shoes got all the press while the fact that the First Lady of the United States, along with other politically connected wives were spending their day getting food ready for the hungry ended up as little more than a blip in the news cycle. I had to wonder, how did that tidbit of goodwill get buried under the fashion footwear story? And why?

The media have become obsessed with the fashion of Michelle Obama and now they have begun to use it as a way to critique her as a person, regardless of what she's trying to bring attention to. In retrospect, I'm sure that Michelle is sad that she didn't wear some ratty old pair of gym shoes to the food bank, though there is no doubt in my mind that Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan would have seen fit to skewer her for that as a fashion faux pas, as well.

Even the White House pool reports are chock full of questionable fashion details, including the report for this week's event for Corporate Voices for Working Families:

FLOTUS wore a short-sleeved, floral-patterned blouse of red, purple, pink, peach and yellow with thick black trim around the shoulders and the edges of the sleeves. Underneath, she had on a soft purple camisole. The blouse was held closed by a six-inch light brown belt with gold studs. She wore black pants and black shoes. Information on designers was not immediately available.

Well, that's too bad that information was "not immediately available," because I know there are some of you who won't sleep tonight if we don't know whether Michelle Obama was wearing J. Crew or Isaac Mizrahi!

But really, isn't it time to stop focusing on Michelle Obama's fashions and spend a little more time looking at what she is doing to help the homeless and the hungry? Or have we all become a nation where Us Weekly and People magazines trump the news of actual works to help those in need?

BlogHer Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is wondering whether she should admit she regularly shops for her shoes at Payless. When she's not pondering why we're so focused on Michelle Obama's kicks, Joanne is writing about other political news at her place PunditMom, as well as at MOMocrats and The Huffington Post.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

What About the Next 100 Days of Obama's Presidency?

2009-05-01T11:24:13-05:00

Instant gratification. We are a nation of wanting the quick hit. That's one reason why so many of us have been following the coverage all week of the 100th day of Barack Obama's presidency.

As we are marking those first 100 days of the Obamas historic move to the White House, everyone is dissecting what the president has and has not accomplished, trying to divine what this cosmic snippet of time will mean for the rest of his days in Washington and whether he's started down the road of getting done what he promised he would when he was still on the campaign trail.

This week conservatives scoffed at him and progressives lauded him.

He clearly has done things that are significant and Womenstake, the blog of the National Women's Law Center, lays the general themes out quite nicely:

In this brief span of time, Congress and the new Administration prioritized the needs of women and girls throughout the federal government, supported women in the workplace, and provided much-needed assistance to low-income families. The new Administration worked to improve women’s health and education, invest in child care and early education, and guarantee equal rights for all.

Signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law was one of the first things Obama did to signal his support for working women, but we're still waiting for him to throw his support behind getting the Paycheck Fairness Act passed. The Ledbetter law only expands our rights to sue employers who have already discriminated against us. We still need the Paycheck Fairness Act to make sure our bosses do the right thing from the get-go so we don't always have to be worried about whether our male counterparts are getting paid more simply because they are men.

On the heels of that, Obama made sure that more children would have access to health insurance and health care by signing a law that would increase funding for the SCHIP program.

The president has made sure that benefits for women and children have been preserved in the Medicaid program, he's reversed the Global Gag Rule, which preventedtthe use of federal funds in overseas programs if reproductive initiatives informed women of all options. Plus, as outlined by Peggy Simpson at the Women's Media Center blog, the Obama administration has made it possible for university health centers once again to purchase and provide low cost birth control to students and funding has been restored to Head Start and other child care subsidy programs to the tune of about $4 billion.

WHEW! And it doesn' stop there! Since it's impossible to list in a blog post all the things that have gotten done in Obama's first 100 dats, check out this cool interactive map to see more. I LOVE this!

Not bad for three months work, I'd say. Sure the conservatives are trying to get you to believe that Obama is all about tax and spend, but his program is about cutting taxes for most people and making sure we have the money to fund the kinds of social programs our country should support wholeheartedly. If it weren't for SCHIP, one my of nieces would have been without health services for most of her childhood because her father, my brother, who was her primary caregiver was in the military and his insurance didn't cover her.

Yeah, that's real family friendly. But I digress.

There are many places that have dissected this in more detail, so my question is this -- What is Obama going to do in the next 100 days? And the 100 after that?

Health insurance for pretty much everyone was near the top of his agenda as a candidate. Will we see movement on that soon? And what about the economy? I'm really not thrilled with how things are going with PunditGirl's 529 college fund and I'm not getting a sense of confidence from anyone on his economic team, with the big exception of Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP funds. I have a major political crush on her for telling it like it is when it comes to our problems.

And Chrysler has announced it's mini-bankruptcy plan. Why do they get a financial bye, of sorts, but most homeowners are not? Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little bit bankrupt. I'd like some answers and actions on those issues in coming quarter, Mr. President.

Obviously the first 100 days test is no good way to judge a leader, but Obama has started to turn things around, even if we don't agree with every single thing he's done (or not done, like getting behind an investigation of the potential crimes of the Bush administration regarding torture). But it is a good exercise to remind us that things are moving ahead, even if it's not as quickly as we'd like.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger just can't get enough of political punditry. So when she's not here, you can find her at her corner of the blogosphere, PunditMom, as well as The Huffington Post, where she is a regular contributor, MOMocrats and DC Metro Moms, among others!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

White House Communications Director Ellen Moran's 100 Days

2009-04-24T08:44:59-05:00

White House Communications Director Ellen Moran is bidding farewell to her plum appointment before Barack Obama has officially been in office for 100 days. Moran is one of just a handful of women in Obama's official inner circle and is the only woman in his communications shop.

After being a political animal all her life, why is the former executive director of EMILY's list, who has been involved in many national and state level campaigns, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, stepping out of the real power circle to head over to the Commerce Department after three months?

Moran is the lone voice for women in the White House Press shop when it comes to shaping the message of the White House. Her political and Democratic credentials cannot be questioned. So, again I have to ask -- Why?

We haven't seen much of her, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the helm of the daily briefings. Was she shut out from actually having a hand in crafting the White House message? If so, it reminds me of Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton's Press Secretary who got short shrift as the only woman in his communications office and was eventually replaced, in duties if not in title, by George Stephanopoulos.

Moran's departure has been described as "sudden," though some are pointing to the fact that she has two small children and speculating that perhaps that's why she left. Even though there's no question that any White House gig is going to be tough on any parent, if you're a power player inside the beltway, you don't toss aside a stint in the Obama White House as communications director after three months unless there's something else going on.

Gibbs said Moran is leaving so she can spend more time with her husband and children. Isn't that what they always say when someone is being forced out of a position for other reasons?

And I hate to break it to Gibbs and the other boys in that circle, but being Chief of Staff to the Commerce Secretary isn't a cakewalk -- Moran is not going to be leaving the office at 5 p.m. every day. As someone who's worked in an appointed position in Washington, I can attest to the fact that your time is never your own and she'll surely be putting in very, very long hours.

I know there are plenty who are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but by allowing Moran to leave, what does that say about President's Obama's interest in hearing from a highly skilled female political operative or in hearing an opinion different from his inner sanctum? The perspective Moran brings to the table is different than that of other women who have Obama's ear, but it's an invaluable one.

One unnamed person has said that Moran is leaving the White House because having her in the role as White House Communications Director "wasn't a good fit." A good fit for whom? If Moran wasn't part of Obama's original campaign inner circle, isn't that a good thing? I thought this White House was going to be about fresh blood, new ideas and different perspectives.

When someone finally got Moran to confirm she was leaving the White House, she said, "That's all I've got for you."

One reporter says that we should not assume that Moran's departure means women aren't welcome in an Obama White House. He may be right, but for me the jury is still out on that. All I can say is no matter what women he has around him, having an accomplished political player leave before 100 days without really commenting on it is not a sign of good things to come for women being able to have the ear of the President.

Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands to think about these things and maybe Moran really does think Commerce will allow her to see her kids more than a White House gig. I really do hope that's the case. If it's not, I'm going to be really disappointed in Barack Obama.

BlogHer News & Political Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about all sorts on stuff that impact women in the world of politics at her place, PunditMom, as well as at The Huffington Post.BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Hillary Clinton is a Social Media Animal! Who Knew?

2009-04-17T10:08:44-05:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been called a lot of things in her day, some of them not so complimentary. "Social media animal," however, probably isn't a term that Hillary ever thought would be attached to her name.

She's everywhere -- Facebook, Twitter, and there's an ever-growing social media component at the State Department's website. It's not a boring old, static government site anymore --it's going interactive as well, with her blog and more!

And, she's now into digital town hall meetings, including one from the Dominican Republic where she'll answer questions that were submitted online ahead of time about the summit she and Barack Obama are attending.

She's everywhere, she's everywhere! Lots of us are, but as I often ask myself -- what's the point? A social media presence for the sake of hanging out with our virtual friends is fun and all, but there has to be something more to it for Clinton. She is a busy gal, after all. Having all of the information at our fingertips is a big step forward in government transparency, but does it really help Clinton in being Secretary of State?

I guess it's too early to figure that out. Embracing social media certainly was a big plus for President Obama in the campaign, but is there really a place for continuing social media outreach, especially from cabinet secretaries? There's a big 'cool' factor to being able to use all the internet platforms and show you've got the savvy. But what I'm really interested in is whether this kind of outreach will make Clinton better at her job or help get some international respect back in the wake of George W. Bush fallout.

In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to start hanging around all the cool new State Department social media toys. It couldn't hurt, right?

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also likes to hang out talking politics at her place PunditMom, as well as The Huffington Post, MOMocrats and MomsRising.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Political Makeovers for Women!

2009-04-10T09:28:09-05:00

Women love makeovers. We can't help it. Even the most serious-minded of us like a little change now and then. Who doesn't crave a new lip gloss or yearn for an updated hair style from time to time? (Excuse me for a moment, I hear the Bobbi Brown counter calling my name!) The same thing goes for politics. And ladies, it's more than time to give our country a political makeover!

Real political makeovers for women will happen when more of us actually run for, and are elected to, office. I know there are plenty of guys, our current president included, who are trying to make things better for issues that disproportionately impact us, but change is slow until the people who are directly affected by bad policies are in the driver's seat.

Some of us aren't cut out for the rigors of the campaign trail, but increasing numbers are finding that courage to step up and say, "Yes I Can!"

One of those is women is Jill Miller Zimon.

You may know her better from her writing here at BlogHer or her own blog, Writes Like She Talks. She is a prolific political writer and advocate in Ohio who has decided to run for a seat on her local city council. She was "outed" about her decision to run when her son found a copy of How to Win a Local Election on her nightstand!

And Jill's not the only one eyeing an increased political role.

Judy Chu wants the seat that Hilda Solis left to become Secretary of Labor.

Christine Stone wants to be on her local school board.

Annise Parker is running for Mayor of Houston.

Hillary Kwiatek is a candidate for Lehigh County (PA) Commissioner.

And April Mastroluca has already been elected to the Nevada legislature.

Obviously, this isn't a comprehensive list, but you get my drift. Women are starting to take on politics like magazines often advise us to find empowerment in our personal lives. And, as with any good makeover, there's plenty of support just waiting for us when we're ready to say, 'I need a little political updating.' Programs like She Should Run, The White House Project, and The American Center for Women & Politics are training women every day to find the passion and the right positions to help them transition from voters to candidates.

And, if we get them young and train them right, like the young women in the fabulous film What's Your Point Honey (that features someone from my own small hometown!), the numbers of women who are willing to take on the political system will snowball.

I'd like to think that will happen in my lifetime, but I'll settle for making it happen for PunditGirl. A few little constitutional things have to change to make one of her dreams a reality, but I'm confident that will happen someday, too.

In the meantime, give it some thought. We all don't have to start out running for the U.S. Senate like Hillary, but we could start like Jill Zimon. The sooner there are more women who are willing to fill public offices at all levels, the sooner real change will come for women.

Even when we want a makeover, change is still scary. But you know how you felt the last time you found a really good lip color or had your hair in just the right 'do?' You'll feel even better if you help give our country a little updating!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about the intersection of politics and motherhood at her blog, PunditMom. Joanne also likes to hang out with her fellow MOMocrats and is a regular contributor to The HuffingtonPost.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Are We Closer to "Family Friendly?"

2009-04-03T10:06:01-05:00

As the Obamas were campaigning for the White House, they were clear about their intent to make our country more "family friendly." Michelle Obama in particular was open about the fact that she would make advocating for families one of her main projects if she became First Lady.

Well, here we are with the Obamas pretty much settled in to their lives in Washington, D.C. and some things have changed -- we're a little closer to equal pay for equal work (though not as close as we'd be if the Paycheck Fairness Act had been passed along with the Lilly Ledbetter Act). And President Obama made sure there were funds in the stimulus package for increased child care grants to the states to the tune of $2 billion.

That's a nice chunk of change, but ultimately can the government really pass enough legislation to make us a more family friendly nation? I don't think so. Things like the Family and Medical Leave Act are necessary, but ultimately I worry whether we can really become a nation that's just as committed to work/life balance as we are to making a buck if there isn't an attitude shift on the part of employers. One online article describes FMLA as the "number one headache" of employers, followed by COBRA insurance. With that kind of attitude, one has to wonder how things will get better for families who need a break when employers view these programs as a burden.

We can legislate a lot of things, but we can't legislate employer attitudes. To change those, we need a major societal shift. And that's why it's important for First Lady Michelle Obama to speak out, as she said she would, to start making the case that employers will be the beneficiaries of plans to be more flexible.

As Rebecca Blank of the Brookings Institution wrote at Room for Debate blog:

Mrs. Obama can make it clear that good employers do this, perhaps by recognizing firms known for their family-friendly practices. This doesn’t mean that parents work fewer hours or work less intensively than others, just that they and other workers who face serious family needs have the ability to go to their boss and say: “Can we work out a way in which I can continue to do my job well, but can also respond to the occasional needs of my children or other family members?”

But in our current economy, others are less optimistic that such an argument can win. In a post at Women's eNews, their Washington Bureau Chief reminds us that:

Prospects for work-family legislation this congressional cycle are uncertain because of the recession, which curtails federal tax revenues and makes money for discretionary programs harder to find ...

The First Lady has an amazing bully pulpit. I know she has to pick her battles, but these issues are just as important to our economic recovery as any other. As I wrote last week, why is the focus on jobs that traditionally will go to men? We need a spotlight on other things that will help families move forward and rebuild our economy. Part of that foundation needs to be ensuring that employers understand how they benefit from worker flexibility and family-friendly policies.

Yes, as many conservatives like to remind us, we're a country founded on personal responsibility and need to put things in place to help ourselves. But that shouldn't exclude efforts to help all of us take action -- sometimes a little shame and some extra pressure from a high-profile advocate can go a long way!

Joanne Bamberger is a BlogHer Contributing Editor for News & Politics. You can find her getting all political on lots of other topics at her place, PunditMom, as well as at The Huffington Post.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Followour coverage of Politics & News.

What if "Women's Work" was Centerpiece of the Stimulus Package?

2009-03-27T12:27:22-05:00

I know you might be wondering what glue I’ve been sniffing to wonder aloud about what our economic recovery could look like if “women’s work” was valued in the way men’s always has been. I don’t mean the stereotypical world of motherhood and careers limited to nursing and teaching. I mean the work of all women in the workforce, especially mothers.

The economic stimulus package that we’re all hoping will save our financial health is based on an outdated premise. This idea of focusing on “shovel ready” jobs and professions not particularly female friendly, like helping out the guys on Wall Street, may sound like a good quick fix, but I have to ask two questions – do we really need all the shovel ready stuff and who is the stimpak really going to benefit in the years to come?

Realistically and traditionally many of those jobs will go to male workers. I have to wonder, has that entered President Obama’s mind? When all the economic policy wonks were gathered to create this supposed miracle plan, was there any discussion about how to stimulate the economy by making sure that the equally important jobs traditionally held by women – ones that are increasingly being performed on flex schedules – see some of that stimulus? Where are the tax incentives and credits to keep women, who are disproportionately responsible for family and caregiving obligations, in their jobs?

As pointed out by Joan Williams, Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at UC Hastings, the ideas behind the money going to the stimpak are straight out of the 1950s. They are based on the premise that the ideal employee is one who is always unquestioningly available to his employer, not burdened by the need to be home to care and feed children.

If Barack Obama had really wanted to do something significant for those of us who put him in office, he would focus more on how to help women workers in the stimulus package. The Council on Women and Girls is a nice start, but we need more.

This IS the future. We don’t have the time to have a people sit around and ponder the intellectual. We need the practical. Now.

As Williams reminds us in her post at MomsRising, 46% of the American workforce is women and 81% of women have children by the time they are 44. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if the economy is really going to be saved, the answer is not going to come from throwing money at construction projects, no matter how much our infrastructure needs them. It’s going to take more – we need a real commitment to finding ways to make things work for women in the workforce.

It's just not happening at the moment. The Washington Post reported recently that women – read: mothers – who have been helping to support their families and keeping their families running because they had the opportunity to work either part-time or flex-time are the ones being laid off first because employers view them as extra costs. Employers are cutting “perks” like telecommuting because it’s perceived by those still stuck in the generation of June Cleaver that a real employee comes to an office and sits in that space for a certain period of time, being monitored for face time and not just productivity.

One small piece of good news is that the stimpak will help women in terms of how unemployment benefits are doled out, but that's only temporary help. There is some help to provide additional funds to community health centers that provide services for women and children, as well as money for programs to prevent teacher layoffs, which would help women more than men. But what would a stimulus package look like if we invested in human infrastructure in the way we do with roads and bridges?

In reality, if more was invested in creating and supporting these programs, money would be saved and employees would be more productive – less time and money would be spent commuting and would provide more flexibility to juggle work and family obligations, keeping people employed and productive.

So how do we get President Obama to shift focus? I say it’s time to enlist Michelle Obama on this one! I know she’s busy with the mom-in-chief thing and getting the victory garden ready, but she said working families would be one of her projects and now is the time for her to weigh in. I know the GOP is getting itself all riled up because they fear Michelle becoming the next Hillary, but we need a voice in the White House and the administration who knows what it’s like to do the work/life balancing act.

I worry that even though this seems plain, that nothing will change from an institutional standpoint until those who are old enough to remember Wally and the Beaver (and those who are afraid of challenging them) are out.

Isn’t it long past due for our view of what jobs are worthy of national stimulus should change? My
nine-year-old already equates work with getting in a car, going to the
office and not getting home until dinner as the one that is deserving
of her patience. If some more attention was paid to my work world
--from the home computer, crafted carefully around a third-grader's
school and activity calendar so I can work and not have to pay a nanny
– and it was considered by the stimpak gurus as worthy of investment, there could be some real economic stimulus on the horizon.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is the founder and editor-in-chief of PunditMom, her blog about the intersection of motherhood and politics. Joanne is currently at work on her own economic stimulus package that doesn’t involve anything with the phrase “shovel ready!”

When it Comes to Ruth Madoff, Whose Money is it Anyway?

2009-03-20T09:14:09-05:00

Ruth Madoff and I have something in common. No, Mr. PunditMom hasn't been running his own multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme and I can guarantee you we don't have a chateau in France or a getaway home in Florida. But I think Ruth and I are both going to be getting back to clipping coupons, scanning the sale fliers and spending more time at the 99 cent store in coming months, but for slightly different reasons.

Now that her husband Bernie Madoff is in jail waiting to find out how many more years he'll spend there (not the minimum security, country club kind, I hope), the focus is now on how much money the feds will ever be able to get back for the victims of his massive fraud. The most logical place to start is with the obvious assets -- those that Bernie claims should be left in the hands of his wife, Ruth.

There's been a lot of speculation about whether Ruth Madoff did or didn't know what a big crook her husband was. And I'm sure the SEC and criminal prosecutors are trying to figure out if she had enough of a role in his scheme that she ought to be modeling the classy orange jumpsuit, as well.

But that question almost doesn't matter for investors at this point. The bigger concern is whether the $70 million in cash and assets she's sitting on is legitimately hers or whether there was a fraudulent transfer of assets from Bernie. (I just love when I still get to talk all SEC legal like!)

Ruth was employed by Bernie's company, so she probably got some salary, though odds are that was from stolen money, and she did write a cookbook a few years back (or did she?). But would that give her a nest egg big enough to have four homes, millions in jewels and a bank account hefty enough to do some serious damage at Barney's for years to come?

Doubtful.

The only question that's really important now is whether the things she claims are hers and hers alone were purchased with money from the fraud, making them fair game to be disgorged (yeah, I'm going all SEC again) to give at least a little back to Madoff's victims. Ruth did look a tad guilty when she was caught sending some of that jewelry and a few expensive watches out of the country right before her hubby was arrested. Can you say trying to hide the assets long enough to sell them and hide the cash?

So it's pretty likely she's going to need some tips to get along in this new economy. My guess is that she hasn't had to think about economizing for a couple of decades, but the time for her to get in that mode is approaching fast.

I've been thinking it's time for me to go back to my economizing ways -- I'm a coupon clipper and dollar store shopper from way back, but I had let those more frugal ways slip in recent years as I was feeling more flush. Now, with the state of today's economy, I have to flush those ways and go back to what I learned at my mother's knee. I'm happy to share a few of those tips with Ruth Madoff if she wants because unless she's got a stash in a cookie jar, she's going to need a little pin money. Soon.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about the intersection of women and politics at her place, PunditMom. Until she cures her political blogging addiction, you can also find her at MOMocrats, The Huffington Post and DC Metro Moms.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.