An older man walking his dog towards us stopped, smiled, and said, "Well, Obama Osama says white dogs are ok."
I did a double take and stared at the man- and he sensed my shock and said, "see that's a joke, I was trying to make a joke."
]]>An older man walking his dog towards us stopped, smiled, and said, "Well, Obama Osama says white dogs are ok."
I did a double take and stared at the man- and he sensed my shock and said, "see that's a joke, I was trying to make a joke."
Maria Niles and others at BlogHer have written movingly on the racism stirred up by the Obama nomination. I read the stories in the news- but they usually seem to have a Southern GOP slant (not to malign southern Republicans, but from Harold Ford's ads to the recent North Carolina TV spots, state GOP parties down South have a nasty pattern). I've watched the clips of idiotic Fox News pundits making jokes about the fist bump. But I've never personally encountered a racist comment about Obama. On the contrary, most people I run into consider Obama superhuman, and worship at his altar (I live and work in a very liberal part of the Boston area). The Obama love can be a little much around here, which has probably given me a false sense of the impact of his race on many Americans.
Was this an extraordinary incident or have you encountered such "jokes"? What is the appropriate response?
]]>To test whether celebratory balloons advertised as biodegradable
actually will decompose, Ms. Robinson buried samples in a steaming
compost heap. She hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure
the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every
appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed. The Democrats hope to
pay penance for those emissions by investing in renewable energy
projects.
To police the four-day event Aug. 25-28, she's assembling (via
paperless online signup) a trash brigade. Decked out in green shirts,
900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure
delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip
into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every
bag before it is hauled away.
Of course the DNCC is going to come under fire for its efforts but I have to applaud them. They're sticking their neck out in a major way, and how often can you say this for a political unit?
Today I learned of a new trend in municipalities: a four day work week. Says one staffer in Birmingham, AL: "The move, allowing employees to work four 10-hour days, may save
500,000 to one million dollars annually in fuel costs alone for the
employees, according to April Odom, director of communications for the
mayor's office in the city of 242,000 people."
L. Brooks Patterson, the Executive of Oakland Country Michigan talked about new options for county employees. On June 12, the County approved a plan to give its more than 4,000 employees the option to work four 10-hour days per week. It would be ironic indeed if it took high gas prices to make the American workplace more flexible, but there you are.
The Oil Drum has an excellent post on reasons why the four day work week could impact oil prices for the good. The five day week is a relic of times past, argue many. Here's the math from Aaron Newton:
The math, as I see it, goes as thus (I welcome a discussion of these numbers, by the way...):
133,000,000 workers X 80% who drive alone = 106,400,000 single driver commuter cars each day.
106,400,000 X 32 miles round trip = 3,404,800,000 miles driven to work each day
3,404,800,000 / 21 mpg (average fuel efficiency) = 162,133,333 gallons of gasoline each day
Each barrel of crude oil produces, on average, 19.5 gallons of gas.
(It is important to note that other products like kerosene and asphalt
are produced from that same barrel.)162,133,333 / 19.5 = 8,314,530 barrels of oil each day.
What this shows is Reason #1; the impact a 4 day work week could have on crude oil imports.
I'm talking about a 10-20% and even perhaps a 40% reduction in the
amount of oil we need Monday through Friday simply by rearranging our
work week. No wonder this idea was utilized in the 70's.
If our government and national politicians refuse to talk about conservation, it's up to other sectors to get creative and move to problem solve. Any examples that you find notable?
]]>
Zephyr was Howard Dean's Online Organizing Director in 2004 but she's also a law professor at Duke University. Most important, she's a visionary for those who believe the Internet is not just the future of politics, but of social change. And I think it's fair to say that Zephyr won't let candidates claim true grassroots power when their major claim to online fame is soliciting lots of donations online. Obama, for example, inspired a lot of people-powered online activity; then he opted out of public financing and bam, the system doesn't change. Sometimes it feels like the system will never change.
Teachout says this is because we have an "industrial" approach: it's about numbers and scope. The huge amount of numbers behind Internet political phenomena is often the most reported and most notice. OMG, 1.2 million people watched this video on YouTube! But watching doesn't change things. Teachout says it's like the wonder men must have felt when witnessing the first steam engine: a beautiful feat of technology, but it doesn't capture the human power and capacity to change things.
What are the democratic models? She cites the classicly American model of associations, which are the foundation of social capital in this country (see Robert Putnam on this). Everything from religious assoications to trade associations: a "nation of joiners" as DeTocqueville said. In the 1950's, 5% of Americans were Presidents of their organizations! We need to get this back. The measurement of Internet people power is not how many people have contributed, she argues, but how many people organize to change something. Form a small group, perhaps, to sort out new commuting needs. A lot of the technology-driven actvism you and I do is task-oriented, but the status quo is slower to change.
She ended with these questions: "Is what is being offered fundamentally an industrial innovation? Is power being distributed, or just tasks? Is the role of an individual that of a citizen, or of a useful volunteer"?
Zephyr's talk has real resonance in the face of Obama's recent decision to opt out of public financing. Obama announced he will not accept federal funds for his general election campaign (McCain will). In a video to his supporters:
“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”
Blaming a broken system on 527's is a bit rich. Obama doesn't want to be curtailed by public fund limits because HE CAN RAISE WAY MORE ON HIS OWN. And most likely, these will be in low-dollar donations from people like you and me. As the New York Times reports, "Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million."
Obama can claim to have a person-powered campaign if it's driven by small donations from normal citizens. But the outcome is the same: billion dollar campaigns where money makes the difference, tons of TV ads, rich consultants, little systemic change. I was glad to learn of Zephyr's frame: if the over-funded American electoral system doesn't change, grassroots donations are an industrial innovation, not real social change.
As a side note: I was watching a presentation of a visual map of the blogosphere in politics and technology. "Mommybloggers," according to Matthew Hurst from Microsoft Live Labs, occupy their own dense hub of the political blogosphere, but they're not interconnected with other nodes in the blogosphere, such as DailyKos, or big tech bloggers, or just big deal bloggers like Jeff Jarvis' Buzzmachine. According to the chart, "mommybloggers" occupy a dense and busy spot on the network map of the poli-tech blogosphere. But like women's social networks in general, our networks are dense and familiar, and not as outreaching as others. We link to each other, and talk to each other a good deal. Do you think that's a fair characterization?
]]>Professor Kim Pearson, who is a real journalist and a scholar, got me thinking when she wrote an excellent post about the AP's newly announced intention to create new policies for fair use of its content by non-members (people who don't pay in to the AP collective). Bloggers have begun to boycott the AP, started a website called unassociatedpress.net, and are raising a big stink. At issue is the definition of fair use of the AP's content, which many of the nation's top news organizations pay for, but which is available widely to anyone. The AP also is responsible for providing election results for primaries and general elections. Kim writes:
One of the ironies of this entire dispute is that AP is a cooperative that
pools and shares content by members, in addition to the content it
generates for its subscribers. In other words, even though it was
created when the telegraph was the high-tech means of news
distribution, it functions in ways that are analogous
to sites such as Drudge Retort and even group blog sites such as
BlogHer. Not only that, but in the 19th century, the AP fought it's own
version of the net neutrality battle -- it had to fight Western Union
for the right to have its own telegraph wires. Now, as AP sees its
business model threatened by the rise of social media, it is flailing
to find ways of ensuring its survival.
Indeed. The AP does not want bloggers excerpting large chunks of its content. The AP's initial decision to curtail the Drudge Retort's usage concerned excerpts of 39-79 words. How many times have you, as a blogger, excerpted more than 79 words? Here's what that looks like:
And he said that he still believes that it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones.
“Cutting and pasting a lot of content into a blog is not what we want to see,” he said. “It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context.”
Even if The A.P. sets standards, bloggers could choose to use more content...
That's 83 words, lifted right off the NewYorkTimes.com. Now, I linked back to the site and gave it credit, but is that enough? I’m not chipping in to pay the reporter’s salary! One of the AP's concerns is that bloggers' excessive use of content dampens the finances of the copyright holder, in this case, the AP. Certainly, any of us who earn revenue from blogging should be mindful that when we riff off content another reporter's created, we're in essence being paid for someone else's dirty work. I don't know about you, but this is one of the things that really gives me pause as a blogger who rarely does original reporting. It doesn't seem fair to me that I get to opine, sometimes get positive feedback, sometimes even appear on TV, when someone else is doing the real work of reporting. This is a real question for bloggers. Some term it "remix culture," the essence of a media mix where everything is cross-platform, driven by eyeballs, and the professional boundaries of journalism mean less than the ability to put the right spin on a phrase. This seems to me fundamentally unfair. What I remix is the fruit of someone's hard labor. And if they work at the AP, they don't earn a lot of money, most likely. On the other hand, this is the oldest story in the book. American journalism, like a lot of blogging, started out in the 18th century as a means for people to speak truth to power. Journalism only evolved into a profession when serious money came into play, and with it the need to control entry into the field and to develop ethical guidelines to keep the big players respected, popular, and in control (for a great summary of American journalism, see this article from In These Times).
Fast forward to today: the McClatchy newspaper chain announced plans to cut 1,400 newspaper jobs (link, NYTimes again). McClatchy not only owns some of the best papers around, like the Sacramento Bee, its web operation and blogs are top notch. I rely on them every day. When reporters are losing their jobs, is it right for me to use their words as if those words are a public good? Those words are not a public good. So what sholuld I do? Rely less on excerpts, link more, atrribute authors and publications in my text? This seems like good etiquette. For good or ill, I don't make enough money from my blogging to contribute to the AP kitty!
Kim, Liza, what do you think?
]]>According to a new book, this is the best way to win over women. I don't know about you, but reading lots of stories about how I'm part of a generic pack of women voters does NOT make me happy. I'm not one of Hillary's women, though I supported her for a long time. I'm my own mind.
Let's try out the argument. Here's a quick poll: How many of you belonged to "Women for Hillary"? How many of you, as women, identified with Hillary's particular battles? I would suspect most of us answer no to the first one and yes to the second question.
In their fantastic new book the She Spot, Lisa Witter and Lisa Chen point out that women aren't a niche market, we're the market. That's why trying to reach us with lip-service only efforts like Women for Hillary, when the rest of the campaign tries to avoid any discussion of the candidate's femininity, didn't work. A soft-around-the-edges web page aimed at women won't earn our votes, but a committed effort to achieve social change will- as long you enlist our help. Hillary the candidate, when she talked of her 35 year commitment to making people's lives better, resonated. When Obama talks about his struggle to pay off student loans I'm all, "sign me up."
Why? It's reality, and it's a practical for me. Women, state Witter and Chen, want to feel empowered and in control, and this includes their political activism (this also has a generational component, with Gen Y and the Millennials also enjoying control). If we feel a candidate is out there working on the things we need, we're ready to jump in and support him. On our on terms.
Women, who manage so much at work and home, try to feel competent and in control. If we decide to champion an issue, we want to do it our way. The Clinton campaign didn't let us do this. We were on Clinton's terms, under the famously rigid message control of Hilllaryland and its glossy web pages. Now, the Obama campaign does a fantastic job of giving a sense of control back to grassroots supporters. He can make us believe we're all in this together. If he can continue to do this while resonating on the major issues of today, he'll win women's votes.
So that's one way to look at it. It makes some sense. The truth is, "Hillary's women" is a media-generated catchphrase much as "NASCAR Dad" was. The actual percentage of female, Democratic leaning swing voters, in reality, must be very small (Pollster.com, please come to my rescue and give me a number!). Last election, swing voters were less than 10% of the electorate.
PS: Here's a women's vote-getting angle I think we're just seeing the start of: I think the Obama organization has a silver bullet in the Michelle-Barack relationship dynamic, no matter what Maureen Dowd says. When I see Michelle and Obama together, I see an idealized version of who I would like to be and what I want my marriage to be like. Michelle, the Harvard Law graduate managing kids and a high-paid job, who supports her husband but stays herself. I'm excited to learn more about them. I'll be watching the View on June 18. Will you?
]]>the dominant narrative has been the angry white women who are holding back from Barack Obama. Some even suggest that John McCain can make a major play for these disaffected Clinton supporters. The problem with this narrative is that it is mostly wrong, ignoring history and failing to understand Obama's real challenge among women voters....Obama's real struggle is with white blue collar women voters -- the same group that challenged Kerry. Currently, Obama trails McCain among white women without a college education by 19 points, 37 to 56 percent.
The solution? Greenberg writes: "First, Obama needs to communicate with them about who he is, including his values and his life story. He and his family actually have more in common with these women than they know. Second, he needs to address their real economic anxieties."
Author Lisa Witter writes movingly of her personal conflict over Clinton's loss,
I know I’m not the only woman feeling incredibly disappointed about “missing out our first shot at the top job. I say “our” first shot because Hillary became a symbol for me of all our collective struggles to break glass ceilings. Watching her fight brought sweet justice to the man on an airplane a month ago who asked me if I was my boss’s secretary and to the colleague who insinuated that I got my executive job because I was a young “attractive” woman. When she lost, I felt I lost a bit. I don’t deny it.
So now the news cycle is buzzing with commentary on what Senator Obama needs to do to woo away Senator Clinton’s loyal feminist base. It’s a good question, but it can’t be separated from the discussion of where McCain stands on women and the issues that are especially important to us.
But Witter, too, comes back to this point: it's the issues that women vote for, and McCain and Obama are starkly different. Any woman who'd vote for Hillary would have to do a major policy shift to vote yes for McCain, no matter what some polls say. But in her reasons why Democratic women won't vote for McCain, Witter puts typical women's issues, like abortion rights and family planning above issues about our economic future. I think that's a mistake. Race and gender politics, I predict, will fade into the past as we now enter a discussion of two very serious issues: the poor economy (which we're all feeling now) and foreign (unfortunately, race politics will be back in a big, nasty way as we enter the fall). I've shared my views on foreign policy before, and I think Obama has a real problem there. But...
Today, the national average price for gas hit $4 a gallon. And Obama is pushing hard to frame his platform around the economy: Today he gives a speech outlining “the first part his economic vision for America -- his plan to provide opportunity to working families who are struggling and restore fairness and balance to our economy. He’ll also lay out the very clear choice in this election. It’s a choice between John McCain’s plan to continue four more years of costly Bush economic policies that have widened inequality and left our children with a mountain of debt and … Obama’s plan to provide relief to struggling homeowners, affordable health care and college for all, and a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth.”
High gas prices (environmentally appropriate as they may be) will be a powerful lever that drives this election for American women. Our mourning Clinton will be short-lived indeed if Obama presents a compelling economic vision. If Obama tells voters that getting out of Iraq will help lower gas prices, more will vote anti-war. If he tells voters his diplomatic brand of foreign policy will help lower gas prices, bingo.
The grieving for Hillary is real and the anger is raw (watch this moving video). But whether or not you believe she lost because of sexism (I do not), we need to get busy here and promote the Democratic ticket. Because five more years of Iraq, and we'll be worried about a lot more than gas prices.
]]>Wanted, Democratic VP Candidate: Requires an experienced, competent, politically savvy politician with a keen commitment to policy reform, proven ability to win votes, and high public name recognition.
Know someone who sounds like a great candidate for that job? Senator Hillary Clinton could play policy reformer to Obama's charismatic leader, be a champion of the masses to complement his comfort zones of African Americans and latte liberals. Hillary (with Bill in the Tipper Gore role) would be a huge asset on a whistle stop campaign tour post-Convention, and a tenacious wonk when hammering out policy with the new Cabinet. In terms of competency, Hillary is ideal. In terms of fitting the zeitgeist, she's a bad idea in my opinion. Surveys show the majority of hiring managers hire based on issues of personality, likeability and cultural fit, not based on competency. Clinton for VP is a case in point.
There's been a lot of talk about how Clinton deserves the VP nod, whether or not she wants to take it. She did, after all, win almost as many votes as Obama (more, depending on who you ask in Michigan or Florida). She's the most famous woman in the world and beloved by some, respected by most. She's tough talking on foreign affairs, empathetic on the economy. The problem is, while she may be more alpha male than Obama himself, Hillary will never be a veteran. Even though she's hawkish on foreign policy, she never succeeded in convincing me she cared more about Middle East policy than she did about SCHIP or health care. That's a good thing, but it leaves a giant gaping hole in the middle of the Dem ticket, because Obama is no Dwight Eisenhower, and that's what we need when going up against McCain.
Media Matters sent out a note highlighting Conservative talk show pundit Joel Babbin's comment that Democrats "don't want to have both a black man and a woman on the same ticket for one reason: They are so racist and so sexist. They'll take a risk on one; they won't take a risk on two."
I know I'm supposed to argue this point, but I can't. I think there's truth to it but not because we're so racist and sexist. It's because we have a long history of associating black and female Democrats with everything but miitary might. If Obama had the military chops of a Colin Powell, for example, a woman on the ticket would be no problem, even a bonus. But running a militarily inexperienced "new man" candidate who happens to be African American requires a macho no. 2.
Faced against John McCain, the Democrats (already gendered as the "Mommy" Party in American politics, challenged by the GOP's mystifying ownership of guns, soldiers, and warfare in the minds of most Americans), need a soldier. Or at least someone who could convincingly play one. So while many may couch the Obama-Clinton ticket in minority overtones, that's only half the point. It's not the minority status that hampers Obama-Clinton, it's the amilitary, unmacho image that ticket conveys. Even Clinton-Gore had Al Gore, a Vietnam Veteran. The Democrats will never win over the majority of Americans who seek an executive team that knows its way around a tank in this era of war and foreign instability. While our country makes this transition to a candidate like Barack Obama, no. 2, at least, needs to be built in the model of traditional presidential executive: alpha male, experience with the military, far away from the Mommy Party. I already dread having to read five more months of "Obambi" barbs from Maureen Dowd. I don't want equal emasculation from the VP candidate.
What do you think? Assuming she wanted it, would Clinton be a good strategic choice for VP? Are the many millions of women who voted for her in the Primary owed this?
More thoughts:
Joanne Bamberger
Jimmy Carter says no
MahaBlog : "pathologically selfish."
]]>Except that I find the traditional left-wing rhetoric on Iraq harder to swallow now, when I can find it (Iraq gets miniscule coverage, compared to really important news like the DNC's Rules Committee). I actually liked Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq: she spoke of beginning to withdraw troops but acknowledged the US military would have a presence in Iraq for a long time. Obama has represented the left side of the Democratic Party: always was anti-war, wants us out. His selling point, that he will withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months, represents the wish of the anti-war movement that helped ignite Howard Dean's campaign in 2003 and that has stood for progress in the Democratic Party these past five years. Even if Obama wins, I don't think they'll get their wish. America is too divided, as is Congress. And there's the question of whether we even can leave, given the beast we have created. Even Obama's aides have been careful to state that Obama will have to wait and see about fully withdrawing troops until he gets into office.
Looking back over the year, it seems foolhardy to me to think President Obama will have our troops out within 16 months or even two years, or even if that is the best way forward given the mess we are in. I think he does a disservice to the American people by engaging us in this fantasy, and leaves the door wide open for McCain to say things like McCain would be happy to "educate" Obama on the War. We have to move out of fantasy land as Democrats if we have a hope of winning in November. It might be enough to conflate Iraq and George W. Bush on the campaign trail but that's just a line. If I talk about getting out now to friends who work in national security or diplomacy, they laugh at me as if I'm the foreign policy naif I am (but I don't want to sound that way!) "Out now" anti-war rhetoric is good because it reminds us of what we should push for, but in the reality-based community, strategists need to help Democrats talk about the war in a smart, realistic way.
I recommend Lorelei Kelly's excellent column on how civilians can engage with and discuss the American military.
]]>The Clinton campaign is using the decision as a rallying cry, echoing Florida in 2000. Campaign Manager Maggie Williams sent an email saying,
I know how passionate Hillary's supporters are about the importance
of counting every vote cast in Florida and Michigan and I hope that
they continue to express their feelings with the respect and
thoughtfulness they've shown during the course of this campaign.Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:
Today’s
results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice
in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at
our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee
honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates
the delegates accordingly.We strongly object to the
Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s
delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.The
Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by
Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This
decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our
Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the
Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s
delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Hillary et al: This is not the 2000 Recount. The delegations misbehaved. They screwed the voters of MI and FL; Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and even Howard Dean did not. If you've ever spent time around delegates you can see how this would happen. Now, they had their hands slapped. I cannot see Clinton as a victim of unfair process here.
But Catherine Morgan disagrees:
Over the last few months I’ve made my feelings pretty clear on the issues of disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, a Florida recount, and my lack of love for Howard Dean.
People who don’t really know the facts, are quick to judge, and claim
that Florida and Michigan broke the rules and deserve their punishment.
However, a smart Democrat (and I’m not referring to Howard Dean, just in case there is any confusion)
would see the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is…Democrats have
a slim chance of winning the general election without Florida and
Michigan.
I just don't think for a second this will affect Democrat and Independent voter trends in November. By then, the delegates and the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC will be long forgotten. I don't believe anyone ever cared much (or knew about) the Rules and Bylaws Committee before, and they too, shall soon fade.
For me, though, Clinton's likening the current Rules situation to the Florida Recount is abhorrent. Read this piece from the New Republic for a more eloquent spin on it. I can't even bring myself to care about this issue, Catherine, I'm sorry. I'm not a Florida or Michigan voter, but to me, this is the time of the night when guests have stayed way too long, everyone's drunk and weary, and we should all just call it a night. My clunky metaphor, in case you're wondering, refers to the 2008 Democratic Primary Season. Good night.
PS: I, for one, am angry at Michigan Democrats for tail-dragging on the "Tailpipe Bill." The proposed bill will make American cars more energy efficient, but Detriot's opposed, as is the UAW. It's this kind of regressive thinking that gives Dems and Unions a bad name.
]]>
Economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett writes about a new study she co-authored that looks at women in fields of science, hi-tech, and engineering. Contrary to much popular belief, women are reaching parity in such fields- young women. Something funny happens along the way to the corner office. Hewlett writes her study:
...demonstrates that over 40% of highly qualified scientists, engineers and technologists on the lower rungs of corporate career ladders are now female. In pharmaceuticals, high tech, petro-chemicals, and aerospace, young women are making impressive strides – and garnering rave performance reviews.
This rosy picture is spoiled by one calamitous fact. A little ways down the road, more than half of these women drop out—pushed and shoved by macho work environments, serious isolation, and extreme job pressures.
This new research identifies a fight-or-flight moment (ages 35–40) when female attrition spikes dramatically. Around 35-40, women across SET experience a perfect storm. Career problems escalate and family pressures deepen at the same time. The losses are massive – fully 52% of women fall away. This is hugely painful, both for women who abandon hard-won credentials and for employers struggling with worsening labor shortages.
A new report from political scientists Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox finds that fewer women hold elected office because fewer women think about running for office. The authors found women are simply less politically ambitious than men. But the story is more complicated than that. Women are not only less likely to consider running for political office because they consider themselves less qualified, women are also more likely to consider it a "third job" and too much to tackle. Again, it's mostly professional working women in their thirties and earlier forties. Writes Ruth Marcus in today's Washington Post,
The women in the survey were far less likely to be married or have children than the men were, and those who did had their hands full: 60 percent of the women, compared with 4 percent of the men, said they were responsible for the majority of child care.
As Beloit College political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti put it, "Women may now think about running for office, but they probably think about it while they are making the bed." Chugging down the Mommy Track may leave little time for pursuing a third, often all-consuming career.
Women candidates and office holders have been getting older. The average woman who runs for Congress is about 48.4.
My own feeling is that extra ambition is simply another burden for women at certain times in our lives. Hewlett calls it the "fight or flight moment between 35-40 when attrition spikes dramatically." It's too much to fight for the big job while the pressures of one's personal life change and escalate. It's too much to work full time and raise kids and even think about running for office (women who work part-time are far more civically engaged than those who work full-time outside the home). I don't believe women are less ambitious throughout our whole life span, but maybe we become so, at least for a while.
There is a good reason Hillary Clinton, our first major female candidate, is 60 and not 40. She's well-past mommy age, and she had it bad enough. Imagine the sexism, hard choices and impossible double binds she would have faced had Chelsea still been 5 years old?
]]>Barack Obama thanked Clinton last night:
]]>No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.
No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.
I suppose, as the AP writes, "it's time to focus on candidates' legacies," and I'm hearing a lot of woman on the street pieces on TV and NPR from women who cite Hillary's "barrier breaking." Listen to this clip from NPR's Mara Liasson.
But when Hillary was viable as the Democratic nominee, or even winning, we avoided praising her "first" status. We didn't want to single her out, or even address the fact that she would be the first woman president. Now that it's time for eulogies of Hillary in 2008, her femaleness is loud and clear, praised, but in the end, certainly not enough to make her the nominee.
The nice thing is that the candidate herself is now finally talking about sexism. It may be a day late and a dollar short, but she's being pretty honest. Gone is the aggressive talk of "piling on politics," now, the tone is serious and, well, feminist:
"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said. "I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here."
Why do you think mainstream media is openly talking about gender and 2008 now that it's pretty much over for Hillary? Why are we hailing Hillary's femaleness with great acclaim? Why is it only safe now?
]]>Webb, a veteran, is a seasoned foreign policy thinker, but he is also young and from a purple state, Virginia. Webb is thoughtful and macho. He joked he has a purple heart and three tattoos. Webb says he would negotiate with foreign leaders, but he's also sponsoring a GI bill to offer educational benefits.
Webb's point is that the Democrats have lost the ability to be identified with the American military, while the Republicans, identified as the tough-guy, military party, use American service people for their own political ends while denying proper care and reparations to many of our enlisted. From Webb's new book:
"The Democrats who came of age during the Vietnam era and many others who have grown up under their tutelage, have erred greatly for many years in not understanding the positive aspects of military service. And in so doing, in the eyes of those who have served, the Democrats have become not simply the antiwar party but the antimilitary party...like a boil that must be lanced, it needs to be examined before it can be overcome."
On the other hand, the Republicans have politicized military service for their own purposes and identified with soldiers, as Webb writes, "even as it uses their sacrifices as a political shield against criticism for its failed policies." Remember the mantra when Congress tried to cut funds for the War: "Don't harm the troops." Republicans, it would seem, have a lock on the troops' wellbeing even as the GOP refuses to provide for many soldiers' wellbeing.
I encourage Webb to talk about this point, a lot. A small anecdote: My father always says he is disappointed, for mine is the first non-veteran generation in his family. Growing up in a super-liberal, wealthy area outside New York City, I barely met anyone who had served. I went to one of America's most liberal universities, where I swear ROTC had been banned. I then lived in major metropolitan areas. My naivete continued until this year, when I was lucky enough to attend grad school with some outstanding military officers and soldiers. Learning with them has completely changed my world view on the US military and it's a shame I had to wait 30 years to do it.
In truth, Webb notes, the Republicans do a disservice to our service people but get all the credit for being the party of the American military, of tough, honorable men and women in uniform. It all comes back to the image of George Bush in the flight suit, playing dress up.
But McCain is no George Bush, He doesn't have to play dress up. And for a Democrat to beat him, we'll need military chops in November.
More from:
Dylan Loewe
From Pajamadeen:
]]>From Pajamadeen:
Amidst reports that the Clintons are lending yet more money to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, MSNBC’s
Tim Russert reported that Mrs. Clinton has cancelled all of her
appearances on morning talk shows for today and, in fact, has cancelled
all appearances for the day. At 12:30 a.m., Russert said: “We now know
who the Democratic nominee is going to be.” Chuck Todd of MSNBC
crunched the numbers, calculating that Obama leads Clinton by about
710,000 in the popular vote — and still leads by about 200,000 if the
Clintons succeed in their May 31 attempt to get the DNC to count
disputed Florida and Michigan primary votes. Obama is also ahead by
about 160 Democratic convention delegates.
Although media momentum has been behind Hillary since Pennsylvania, Cenk Uygur at the Young Turks writes before her "Joementum" in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and where she stands today Clinton has LOST 53 delegates.
And yet's today's fundraising email read:
Today, in every way that I know how, I am expressing my personal determination to keep forging forward in this campaign.
I can imagine the clenched jaw and fierce determination as she her fundraising staff wrote those lines. There's been much talk that Hillary Clinton's movie doppelganger is Tracy Flick from the great movie Election and I never agree more with this idea than when I think of Hillary and sentiments like the one above.
But Hillary's media momentum didn't catch on with voters, as last night's results in North Carolina and Indiana showed, and even though the media wants this to keep going, and maybe even 60% of voters do too, it's clear the political establishment thinks it's time to bow out. As Pam Spaulding reports, Hillary met today with superdelegates at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I hope she takes tomorrow off to reflect. Too much time on auto-pilot doesn't allow one to think and reflect. And even a would-be leader of the Free World needs to do that.
PS: All of us working women, even Mrs. Clinton, need better support in terms of child care and elder care. Please take a moment to fill out this survey from Working America/AFL-CIO about what it's like to be a working woman in America right now, and how our government can help.
]]>In response to the North Carolina GOP's slimy ad, "Extreme" the petition requested that Dole ask Linda Daves of the NC Republican party to stop running the "color-aroused anti-Obama ad...which tries to draw some sort of connection between Dem gubernatorial candidates Bev Perdue and Richard Moore (both endorsed Obama) and Reverend Jeremiah Wright." The tagline: "He's just too extreme for North Carolina." Flash to NC Republican Chair Linda Daves....as prim and proper and...white as can be.
Dole didn't respond. The ad runs still. Her spokesman sent Pam a fax (fax?) explaining that Senator Dole's campaign has nothing to do with the ad, or vice versa, and Dole does not plan on "refereeing third party political advertisements." Fair enough. Weak, but ok. But then, Pam discloses that, in fear of facing similar slimy ads from the North Carolina DEMOCRATIC Party, one of Dole's consultants sent a letter to the North Carolina Democratic Party chair requesting the Dems not to run any ads against Dole, and to tell the National Party to not run third party ads against her. Dole doesn't want any Party-sponsored negative ads run against her, but when confronted with the chance to stand up against a truly abhorrent piece of GOP-race baiting in her own state and own Party, she won't budge. Pam, thanks for sharing this.
Dole does not set a great precedent, and she could, since Mrs. Dole is one of our country's few stateswomen. The state GOP is running similar ads in Louisiana, trying to link Dems to Obama and his "extreme" views. I think this portends a really bad theme should Obama make it to the general. 13% of Americans already think Obama is a Muslim. Race-baiting, Wright-hollering ads are just too easy for Republican political consultants to throw together to scare voters with. We're going to see tons of them in the fall if Obama is the nominee.
Someone has to get out there and condemn this kind of stuff. It wasn't McCain. Wasn't Hillary. Wasn't Elizabeth Dole. Anyone?
As blase as I am about the Democratic Primary right now, this ad's existence revs me up. To me it tells a scary prophecy about how the GOP will falsely create a portrait of Obama and I can't believe none of leaders will do more than condemn it. I guess I am majorly naive, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact I worked for John Kerry during the Swift Boat summer in 2004.
]]>I went on TV the other night and at the segment's end Jim Braude, the very sharp anchor of NECN's Newsnight joked, "Maybe next time you come on you'll actually say something nice about your candidate." Before we went on air, I'd noted I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. Except, I'm not sure I am. Being a supporter of a candidate seems to mean--whether you're James Carville or a no-name blogger like me--you're required to defend "your candidate" even if they do something stupid. I've been very angry at how Clinton has run aspects of her campaign, and sometimes I think she should step down. But then I get angry at Obama's tactics too, and I throw my hands up in the air. It's not my job to defend Hillary Clinton. It's her job to prove to me why I should vote for her. If criticizing her makes me less than a "supporter," so be it. I think from here on out, I'll designate myself "anyone but McCain" and see how it goes. I'll be a neutral Democrat. More boring, but with fewer string attached.
The Democratic primary has gone on so long at this point, of course candidates' are starting to look a little less rosy. Polls change everyday, Hillary and Barack are neck and neck. And all the while, a force called the GOP snickers and gains strength. I really do think Democrats need to be anti-McCain at this point, not pro-Hillary or Barack.
]]>