Obama Begins Process of Courting the Women's Community -- With Mixed Results

The Obama campaign sent someone from their Women for Obama operation to Washington, DC last week, and invited some leaders from the women's movement to the DNC for a pow wow. This was a smart thing to do -- and it was smart for them to do it so quickly after Sen. Clinton suspended her campaign. This good timing is the cup half full aspect of the meeting.

Despite NARAL's late-in-the-game endorsement and the dueling letters from various factions in the women's community throughout the primary, the Obama Campaign is well aware of the fact that most of the organized women's movement that can dabble in electoral politics -- without pissing off the IRS, that is -- was firmly in the Hillary camp. As I said, breaking bread with these groups quickly was a smart move. It should be noted that, despite all McCain's obvious and cynically calculated overtures to Clinton supporters, my sources say he has issued no such invitation for a similar meeting. Of course, it comes as no surprise to me that McCain's courtship of women voters is all insincere flash and rather thin on substance.

The cup half empty report from the Obama meeting begins with a sidebar rant that goes something like this: why do politicians always assume that anyone with the requisite "xx" chromosomes is automatically equipped to handle the responsibilities of a "women for [your candidate's name here]" operation? Wouldn't it be smart, given that women make up such a key block of voters, to actually chose people well versed in women's issues and also, perhaps, women who might even be known to folks in the women's community?? Call me crazy. But, well, this is politics, so typically such posts goes to a favorite hometown gal, regardless of her expertise or connections -- and no offense to those well-meaning, perfectly capable hometown gals, but it serves neither the campaign or women well.

The woman the Obama Campaign sent for the meeting was a Chicagoan -- no surprise -- but a completely unknown commodity to the leaders of the national women's community. In all fairness, it's my understanding she's done some state-level women's community work in the Land of Lincoln -- but this was a national level meeting, and the campaign should have sent their A Game. This is all the more puzzling because of who the campaign could have sent for this first, all important meeting.

The Obama Campaign chose to send this quite nice, very sincere, but-didn't-know-a-person-in-the-room, have no-idea-who-the-players-are woman instead of Betsy Myers, former COO of the campaign and national chair of Women for Obama and -- oh yeah -- the former director of the White House Office on Women's Initiatives in the Clinton Administration. Myers, someone the women's community knows, someone the community has an established record with, someone with whom trust could have immediately been established.

But, no. The Obama Campaign sent an unknown if competent second stringer, and as a result most of the women's groups didn't send their principles either -- and thus the peace talks have not really begun in earnest. Time's a wastin', folks. Apparently the women's community did ask for a face-to-face, sit down meeting with the man himself. And Obama should do it. He should look these women leaders in the eye and ask for their support, not just assume he has it. While the polls show most Clinton supporters -- including women -- have already made the transition to Obama supporters, despite the much-hyped but mythical collective hissy fit Clinton women were supposedly having over the suspension of her campaign, Obama should not take women voters for granted. And while all women voters aren't necessarily guided by the national women's community, their leadership and these organizations are nonetheless an influential group that deserves his respect.

Women are a key base Obama needs to win -- he needs our votes, our money, and our volunteer time. This is not news. So it's not too much to ask to have a dignified sit down between the Democratic Party's nominee and the women's movement's leaders, rather than simply taking that key constituency for granted. John Kerry made that mistake, and he paid dearly for it when the white women's vote -- along with the 2004 election -- went to George Bush.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Arizona Voter ID Law Nabs Grandma: Former Teacher has Voted in Every Presidential Election Since 1932

Anti-immigrant sentiment is so strong that many states have passed voter ID laws, requiring people to show picture IDs before they pull the lever, punch their card, mark their ballot, etc. Of course, these laws are nothing more than voter suppression laws in disguise -- that is their true intent and design.

Let's be clear. Illegal immigrants don't go anywhere near the polls -- are you kidding me? They don't want to be anyplace that has even a whiff of official government activity. No, what these Republican-sponsored laws tend to do is prevent the elderly, minorities, and the poor -- typically key Democratic voting blocks -- from voting. You see, if you don't drive -- so no driver's license -- or you don't have the funds to buy a state ID or to pay for a copy of your birth certificate --or no one can find your birth certificate -- too bad. No ballot for you!

Arizona's voter ID law has nabbed one such suspicious person -- and she is being punished accordingly. Shirley Preiss was born in Kentucky in 1910, before suffrage rights were even granted to American women. Shirley has actually been quite the conscientious voter, casting her ballot in every presidential election since 1932. But, all that's about to change. As Art Levine reported in the Huffington Post, Shirley effectively lost her right to vote when she moved to Arizona.

After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she’s a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona’s bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Arizona's voter ID law requires voters to produce ID at the polling place and to provide proof of citizenship in order to register. But birth certificates weren’t provided in 1910 in Clinton, KY, where Shirley was born. To top it off, her elementary school no longer exists. And since no one who witnessed her birth is alive to attest to the fact that Shirley was, indeed, actually born -- a way to get a delayed birth certificate -- Shirley is shit outta luck. And there is absolutely no provision in the Arizona law to get a waiver. So Shirley, after being a good citizen for decades, sat out the spring primary and gets to sit home again on November 4th -- watching democracy pass her by.

The scary thing is that the US Supreme Court recently upheld a similar Indiana voter ID law, saying that it didn't seem to impose an undue burden on citizens. Levine further reported about a similar situation in Missouri, a state that is also rushing headlong into passing an ill-conceived, draconian voter ID law. When you hear what these nuns -- yes, nuns -- have to say, you see just how big of a burden these laws can be:

At a fair-election coalition press conference at the League of Women Voters' headquarters in Jefferson City, a few nuns came forward to express their concerns that the Catholic sisters in their convents lack the required ID. In fact, before the news conference, Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis reported the results of an informal survey of nuns in her order."Fifteen [of 35 voters] did not have state-issued photo IDs," she observed. "This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

The strict documentary requirements can be hard for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens, even married women of all ages, in obtaining their birth certificates. A survey by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that 52 percent of married woman don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to any citizenship documents.

If you thought Florida in 2000 was bad, wait until you hear the stories of disenfranchisement that will come out of this election as a result of these ill-conceived voter ID laws. And it will be all the more ironic -- not to mention sad, disheartening and infuriating -- coming in a year that has seen record voter turn out this primary season.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Democrats Attempt to Put Lipstick on this Pig of a Process, and No One's Happy -- Least of All the Pig

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) summed it up accurately if rather blandly, "We've got a totally irrational system of nominating our president." It happened to be one of the more family-friendly statements that came out of the DNC pow-wow held in Washington, DC the last Saturday in May.

The billing of this long-awaited come-to-Jesus was that it would decide the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegates, and in so doing, possibly the fates of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and thus the outcome the seemingly never-ending Democratic Primary, too. And the deciders in this case? The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. And what did the deciders decide? Well, it seemed somewhat arbitrary, actually, given what was at stake, and both the Clinton and Obama camps have reason to be unhappy -- perhaps that's a sign they got it about right.

In fact, Harold Ickes, the longtime Clinton Campaign id and member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, said during the meeting that he had already been empowered to let the gathering know that Clinton was prepared to take an unfavorable outcome all the way to the Credentials Committee at the convention. Oh, joy.

So anyway, here's the scoop: the deciders will give Florida and Michigan half of their voting rights -- in other words, each delegate from those states will have half a vote at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

For my part, I don't get treating Michigan and Florida the same. I mean, Michigan absolutely, positively flouted the party's rules. I'm not saying I liked said rules and that I don't agree with Michigan's fundamental premise that larger states should have more of a say in the primary process and -- most importantly -- that Iowa and New Hampshire should not continue to rule the world. I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party didn't mishandle the situation from the get-go, but nonetheless the fact is that Michigan did knowingly and willingly give the finger to the DNC.

Florida, however, was at the mercy of a Republican state legislature and a Republican governor who passed legislation changing the state's primary even though -- because? -- it would screw over the state Democrats and likely cause problems for the Democratic candidate in a swing state. Now, I'm not sure Florida Dems at the time raised the holy hell they could have, but nonetheless there was not a lot they could've done to change the date of their primary to satisfy the rules of the DNC. So, as I said, treating the two states the same seems off kilter to me -- but I bet the folks in Michigan wouldn't make that distinction.

The deciders also voted to award Obama 59 Michigan delegates, each with half a vote, even though his name wasn't on the ballot. This essentially takes away delegates Clinton would've had if they'd been passed out based out on the actual vote -- then again, the process in Michigan was undeniably flawed, so there was no easy answer. No one campaigned there, Clinton was on the ballot but Obama and Edwards followed party protocol and took their names off the ballot. So what to do? The deciders ended up using a complicated formula based on the vote itself, exit polls, and other data. Hey, Clinton can bitch if she wants, but the fact is she should've taken her name off the ballot, too.

"We are strong enough to struggle and disagree and to even be angry and disappointed and still come together at the end of the day and be united," Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said, ever the optimist. But, we still have a few more primaries and the convention to get through -- in one piece. Truthfully, it's time for the donkeys to get a good swift kick in the ass and get their shit together -- it's long overdue, and the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are at stake.

It's not too late to salvage this thing, and come back together as a party when the dust has settled. But if the contenders and their camps keep up this circular firing squad, the damage might well be beyond repair -- although its certainly already done some damage. There are no choir boys -- or choir girls -- here. Everyone is slinging mud of questionable origins and validity. The problem is, mud sticks to everyone eventually -- and true or not, fair or not, at the end of the day the voters will see only the dirt. There's nothing the deciders can do about that.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Why Don't Women Run for Elected Office? Ambition Gap or Responsiblity Overload?

The latest report from the Brookings Institution's Issues in Governance Studies series underscores what many of us have known for a good long time: more women aren't running for elected office because the daily circumstances of their lives just don't make room for it. In short, the traditional social supports that encourage men's political ambitions have not yet been extended to women in quite the same way.

Things aren't all bad. As illustrated by Hillary Clinton, the country in many ways has generally accepted the notion of voting for women as candidates and politicians, and when women run they generally do pretty much as well as their male counterparts. Yes, there is still sexism -- the coverage of Hillary clearly shows that -- but this study shows that the acceptance levels of women politicians is supposedly better than we thought -- to the extent this is true, this is the good news.

Women's underrepresentation, say authors and political scientists Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox, "is not because of discrimination against women candidates. In fact, women perform as well as men when they do run for office. In terms of fundraising and vote totals, the consensus among researchers is the complete absence of overt gender bias." I'm not sure I buy the idea of a complete absence of gender bias -- I suppose the key word here is overt. Plus, I'll keep in mind that this survey was done in 2001, prior to this seemingly endless primary campaign.

The researchers did find something interesting in terms of women's political candidacy: something they're calling an ambition gap. Specifically, the researchers believe that the "fundamental reason for women's underrepresentation is that they do not run for office. There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don't." Huh.

The researchers came to this rather interesting conclusion based on a survey conducted with thousands of educators, business leaders, and political types. They found "compelling evidence that women, even those in the highest tiers of professional accomplishment, are substantially less likely than men to demonstrate ambition to seek elected office." Apparently these outcomes were consistent regardless of age, income, partisan affiliation and occupation.

The number of women seeking political office grew steadily during the 1980s, surged in the early 1990s courtesy of the Year of the Woman, and has since leveled off. Today, women account for fewer than a quarter of elected statewide officials, one in six members of Congress, and most relevant to the road to White House -- eight of 50 governors. So, this ambition gap has apparently not changed much over the years, despite women's expanded opportunities.

I have a completely different take on the situation than the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, who penned an op-ed on the study and seemed to think that women were our own worst enemies. "Sometimes the hardest glass ceilings are the ones women impose, whether knowingly or unconsciously, on ourselves," wrote Marcus.

Whoa. Hold on, there, Ruth. Your own op-ed and the study itself lays out quite nicely the tangible reasons why women have fewer political ambitions than men -- and they certainly don't seem to be about self-imposed barriers to me. Let's consider the issues the study raised that seem to impede women from harboring political ambitions.

According to Lawless and Fox, women are:

1. Less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career. In other words, traditional family dynamics persist -- so a woman my dream of running for office, but dollars to donuts she's going to raise her family first. That's just the reality. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a great example of this phenomenon -- she didn't run until her kids were all in high school or older. Interestingly, the career women in the Brookings' survey were much less likely to be married or have children than the men, and those that did were responsible for the majority of child care: 60 percent of the women, compared with just 4 percent of the men. Given that arrangement, which person in those marriages do you think had the time to seek elected office?
   
2. Less likely than men to be willing to endure the rigors of a political campaign. Gee, do you think that has anything to do with number 1, above? I don't read this reluctance as being anything about physical limitations, but rather about concerns related to being apart from family, as well as the infringement on privacy that comes along with today's campaigns.
   
3. Less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. Also related to number 1. Think about the PR challenges of running a woman candidate with small kids at home, and the questions she would get -- "who's taking care of your kids?" -- that a similarly situated man never has to field. Everyone would just assume his wife was minding the homefront. A woman candidate doesn't have that luxury.
   
4. Less likely than men to think they're 'qualified' to run for office. Now this is fascinating but not at all a surprise -- the cockiness gap has been documented, ladies. According to the study, about one-third of men but just one in five women rated themselves as "very qualified" to hold elected office, while twice as many women (12 percent) as their male counterparts (6 percent) considered themselves "not at all qualified." Men were more likely to try for federal office, women for the local school board (hmmm...perhaps because it keeps them close to home and the campaigns are more manageable?). Now, women do need to own our part for this particular one, if self-esteem is getting in the way of our running for political office -- but truthfully, I think number 1-3 are much bigger barriers than this one.

So where does this leave us? For those of us lucky to have made it close to the roof, it seems like we're in much the same place knocking on whatever glass or marble ceiling we may be contemplating. No matter how far women have come, these fundamental truths remain self-evident and inescapable: women are the caretakers -- of our children, our partners, our parents, our communities. And despite the personal satisfaction we may take in these roles, despite the economic necessity of our performing these roles, women are consistently penalized rather than rewarded because of these roles. We are penalized in our professional lives in a society that has yet to adapt its corporate culture to value caretaking and support families, or evolved gender roles to allow women to relinquish a substantial portion (half!) of our caretaker responsibilities to the men in our lives -- many of whom would be happy to take on some of the caretaking if only they, too, would not be punished for doing so.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

McClellan's "Revelations" Just the Tip of the Unsavory Iceberg

Republican swift boats are armed and already firing at former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose tell-all book -- What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception -- isn't scheduled for release until June 2 but is already making the scandal rounds in our nation's capital. Given that Congress is out enjoying its Memorial Day Recess, this has definitely been the talk of the town.

McClellan, who resigned just two years ago after an Administration shake up, has written a book that by all reports is likely an early and -- my guess -- fairly tame precursor to the nasty offal that will be uncovered about this most destructive of Administrations; the tip of the unsavory, unconstitutional iceberg yet to come as investigations come to light and other former employees step forward with diarrhea of the mouth.

While there does not appear to be a whole lot of new "news" here -- the Bush Administration shaded the truth about Iraq prior to the invasion? Duh. The West Wing ran an all-out, Iraq War PR campaign aided by a complicit White House Press Corps? Gee, ya think? Cheney's a devious mastermind who manages to cover his tracks by polluting the Constitution at every turn? Um, yeah, we got that -- he's Darth Vader, except there's no good left in him whatsoever. Karl Rove lied about outting Valerie Plame to the planet? That news is older than John McCain. Bush is an out of touch leader incapable of admitting he's made a mistake? Holy smokes, Batman -- McClellan's on fire.

To me, it is the fact that this not-so-new news is being bandied about by a former Bush Administration insider, someone who was part of the circle for more than a decade, that is so striking. And it is the fact that McClellan did not wait until after his former boss had left office to write such a critical tell-all piece -- as is customary -- that is so notable. Bush prizes loyalty above just about everything, and McClellan just gave him the finger. Interesting. It makes me wonder just how many other Bush insiders are also disgusted by the excesses of this Administration and are chafing at the bit for the right opportunity to reveal juicier secrets and share their own unflattering opinions.

"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," McClellan reportedly writes in the book. Boy Howdy, Scott. You do have a gift for understatement. But don't think this let's you off the hook. Don't think this book somehow absolves you. You are still complicit. While it took some stones to write this book when you did, it would have been infinitely better if you'd grown a pair and and actually spoken up at the time.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Nation's Capital Suffers a Blow to the Heart: Liberal Lion has Cancer

Last weekend, one of the true fixtures of Capitol Hill -- and indisputably the best legislator of his generation -- reminded us all that even the Liberal Lion is, well, mortal. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), the senior-most member of the Senate second only to the perpetual Robert Byrd (D-WV), had a seizure -- and the most powerful city in the world paused.

The denizens of the nation's capital, Republican and Democrat alike -- indeed, people across the nation -- waited anxiously for word, knowing that Teddy's 76 now and it was likely to be more serious than not. And we were right -- a malignant brain tumor in the area of the brain that controls speech. Imagine, Ted Kennedy without a voice. Heartbreaking. Imagine, the Senate and the American people without Ted Kennedy speaking out for the common man, for the people who cannot speak for themselves -- simply unthinkable. Yet suddenly, the idea that Kennedy -- baby brother to Jack and Bobby -- might be silenced sooner rather than later, was forced upon us.

"JFK brought charm and wit to government," said Ronald Steel, a historian and author of a book on Robert Kennedy, "and Bobby is remembered for what might have been, but Ted should be thought of as someone who showed how government could be made to serve the people." Damn straight. Let me just count the laws...well, there is not enough room here, but suffice it to say that every major civil rights, health care, women's rights and education measure of the last four decades has had his fingerprints.

By all reports, Sen. Kennedy is in good spirits. He's a fighter, known for thundering away from his desk -- his brother's desk that he's made all his own -- in the back row of the Senate. He says he'll be back to Capitol Hill soon despite possible radiation and chemotherapy treatments in his future. DC literally held its collective breath this week when the diagnosis came over the wire, and there were honest tears from the crustiest, most conservative men in the Senate. It's not just that action on some critical issues has ground to a stop with his absence -- it's that his very presence reassures the entire institution that compromise and progress is possible.

Compromise, you say? Teddy Kennedy, Mr. Liberal himself? You betcha. If you want a guy to figure it out, to come to a resolution, everyone knows you go to Kennedy. He not only has the agile mind and the brilliant staff to figure out solutions, but he has the political acumen to bring people of all stripes together and do the right thing.

"On numerous occasions," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), "I have described Ted Kennedy as the last lion in the Senate . . . because he remains the single most effective member . . . if you want to get results."

I'm not exaggerating when I say that reports of his illness caused the world to tilt on its axis for many of us in DC, and I fear the tilt is permanent. The rose-colored blinders are off. I expect him to fight this cancer with his usual tenacity, and I expect him to continue to put his indelible mark on the battles to maintain and advance the civil rights that make this nation great for as long as he is able. But there's no escaping the fact that I've now been forcibly reminded that Ted Kennedy can't be the Liberal Lion forever. And I'm shaken, too, by the realization that while his shoes could never be filled, I don't see anyone even close to Ted Kennedy's measure trailing along behind in his wake.



Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Please Stick a Fork in Lieberman: Isn't He Done Yet?

President Truman's old adage that there are no friends in politics has been put on vivid display this election season. Even in CampClinton, long time allegiances don't seem to hold water anymore. And, just as we did four years ago, we had the Democratic presidential nominee (John Kerry, for those of you who've blocked it out) diss his former running mate (my guy, John Edwards) and endorse someone else -- the junior senator from Illinois.

Which, of course, brings to mind my personal fav, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who turned his back on Democrats (again) when he endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president. Never mind that Independent Joe caucuses with the Democrats or that it's our majority which provides him with the committee chairmanship (aka, bully pulpit) that he loves so much. It seems sadly appropriate that Joe gave the Dems the cold shoulder from the frozen tundra of New Hampshire.

Joe's really a piece of work when you think about it. Let's not forget that good ol' Joe lent his weighty support to McCain instead of home state Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), as is traditional -- yeah, remember, Joe, when Dodd was the only senator who endorsed your wannabe, also-ran candidacy back in 2004, when you had your own delusions of grandeur about the Oval Office having your name on it?

Now, I know Dodd endorsed Ned LaMont, Joe, after he beat you in Connecticut's Democratic primary -- as did the rest of the Democratic party. You lost the party's nomination fair and square and for good reason, Joe. Dodd was just playing by the rules. But paybacks are hell, huh? I guess you learned about that when your former running mate Al Gore endorsed Gov. Howard Dean over your two-faced self four years ago. Bet that stung.

What's next, Joe? A McCain-Lieberman ticket? Hmmm.... well, you share bylines, write legislation in tandem, why not crisscross the country together in a vain attempt to show your mutual obsession with a failed war policy really ain't so bad after all? While you say you have no ambitions to be VP (sure, Joe, 'cause your politics over the past few years haven't demonstrated an ounce of personal ambition), Sen. McCain credits good ol' Joe's endorsement with helping him out in New Hampshire, putting the wheels back on the Straight Talk Express.

So, he owes you, right Joe? Especially if you keep honing your skills at playing the gratuitous hitman role against the Dem's presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. The lastest bit about Obama being Hamas' candidate of choice was inspired -- and you even said it with a straight face. Way to memorize those talking points, Joe. I mean, hey, if you can show the Maverick up front that you're willing to be his lap, um, I mean, attack dog, he'll have to move you to the top of his Veep list, right?

Well, don't bet on it, Joe...there are no friends in politics, as you've amply demonstrated. Don't count on being rewarded for this latest sucker punch, Joe. I wasn't shocked by your endorsement/defection to Team McCain. And I wasn't shocked when you lumped your former party's frontrunner in with militant extremists. In fact, you're becoming depressingly consistent. It's no wonder you endorsed John McCain -- none of the other Democratic candidates asked for your support, and who could blame them?

I just wish Majority Leader Harry Reid would get a clue, and boot you out of the Democratic caucus once and for all. Becasue for you, Joe, I really hope that what goes around really does come back 'round again -- and slaps you upside the head. At the very least, Reid should take your chairmanship away and give it to a senator who will actually vote Blue in November, as he recently hinted.

But the sad fact is, for now, we still need your sorry ass to keep the Dems in power. But that won't be the case next year, Joe. The Democrats are looking good to take back some prime Senate seats, and hopefully that means your double agent days are numbered. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Schlafly and Washington University: Academic Freedom or Insult to Women?

Most of you have probably heard by now that Washington University of St. Louis has decided to honor Phyllis Schlafly, a native St. Louisan and two-time Wash U. graduate, with an honorary doctorate of humane letters. This unanimous decision by the university's Board of Trustees has caused a furor, and rightly so.

Over the years, Schlafly has done it all. She's well known for her successful efforts to defeat the ERA because it was "dangerous." Folks can argue the relative merits of the ERA, but really -- it's anything but dangerous. Schlafly, a lawyer by training, also said there should be bans on women holding certain non-traditional jobs -- like firefighting or construction. And, in controversial statements that have been recirculated since the Wash U. story broke, Schlafly has apparently even doubted whether a wife could really be raped by her husband. Worthy of an honorary degree? Um, not so much.

The school's web site calls Schlafly "a national leader of the conservative movement." A true statement, and in and of itself not a disqualifier for an honorary degree. I wish they had also mentioned, though, that she is the leading anti-feminist of the second wave of the women's movement, who continues to put forward opinions that are anti-theticial to the very lives the women graduates of Wash U. aspire to lead. I don't know about you, but I always thought it was the height of hypocrisy that Schlafly has always been a vocal advocate of the full-time housewife -- while she herself was traveling the country, making speeches, founding and running the Eagle Forum, writing more than 20 books, doing radio and newspaper commentaries, etc. Who was home raising HER children, I wonder??

Not surprisingly, the Wash U. community is fighting back, and the Internet has proven fertile ground to voice their protests. Students have set up a Facebook group, "No Honorary Doctorate for Anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly." At last count, the group has attracted close to 2000 members since the controversy hit the airwaves. Interestingly, parents, students and alumni alike are threatening to hit the university where it hurts -- its pocketbook -- and withhold those sought-after alumni donations in response to the Board's poor judgement. Professors apparently aren't much happier than the alumni and students -- and seriously, there's not a whole lot of things scarier in academia than a pissed off tenured professor.

I think Mary Ann Dzuback, the director of women's and gender studies at Wash U. as well as an associate professor of education and history, hit the nail on the head when she made it clear that she wouldn't be against Schlafly being invited to lecture at the school -- I wouldn't be either. To me, that represents the best in academic freedom, in discourse and debate and differing opinions. But, as Dzuback says, recognizing Schlafly with something as important as an honorary degree is something quite different:

"This tells the world that this administration thinks so highly of the honoree that they give her the highest degrees the university can give, the highest degree of respect. And that is deeply troubling...This is a woman who has spent her whole career arguing against full rights for women."

It certainly seems an odd commencement message to send the women -- and men -- of Wash U. off into the world with -- new graduates, full of hope and excitement, whose choices would be immediately curtailed by a woman who believes that women don't deserve the same opportunities and rights as men, and that the men don't deserve full, accomplished partners who've pursued the full lives they've dreamed of -- whether that is to stay home and raise kids or climb the career ladder or some some combination in between.

The key here, the point here, is that feminism has always been about choices -- opening doors and breaking down barriers so that people can make the choices that are best for them, freely and without restrictions based on their gender. Schlafly would unilaterally take fundamental choices away from women -- and that is not honorable. It is disturbing that Washington University of St. Louis has not only forgotten this history, but that it is also willing to so dishonor the futures of its graduates that it would bestow an honorary degree on Phyllis Schlafly.

Feeling feisty? Send the Chancellor of Wash U. an email or personal note, or heck, give him a call -- the more people he hears from, the better.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

McCainCare: Bad Medicine for Consumers and an Ailing Economy

Last week was "Cover the Uninsured Week." Ironically enough, presidential wannabe John McCain spent the week pushing his new health care plan -- a plan that would actually make it harder to get health insurance. Go, Maverick!

Enjoy this guest blog on the topic, written by my learned friend Hygeia, the Goddess of Health.

McCain’s health care plan is a disaster waiting to happen. It would not only hurt America’s working families, but also would lead to huge cuts in critical employer-based health benefits -- benefits workers have earned and count on to make ends meet. McCainCare is a lethal combination of bad policies and poor judgment, highlighting a stunning lack of comprehension about how to solve our nation’s health care crisis. This is truly alarming coming from a man who wants the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Right out of the box, McCainCare fails the litmus test for any serious health care reform proposal: a central focus on strategies that improve the health of the American people -- not just shortsighted strategies aimed at only cutting costs. Let’s look at why this matters.

Chronic diseases -- such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and arthritis -- affect the quality of life for 133 million Americans. These chronic diseases are responsible for seven out of every ten deaths in the U.S., killing more than 1.7 million Americans every year. Chronic diseases are also the primary driver of our nation’s health care costs, accounting for more than 75 cents of every health care dollar (as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005); this amounted to a staggering $1.5 trillion of the $2 trillion spent on health care. The good news is that these diseases are also among the most preventable.

It is important to realize that improving health requires a broad perspective that also includes the environments in which people work, live and play. A person’s health is a result of both individual actions and the context or environment within which those actions are taken. Adopting healthy behaviors such as eating nutritious foods, being physically active, achieving optimal weight, and avoiding tobacco use can reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases. We also can avoid or reduce the costs associated with these preventable conditions by offering coverage for—and promoting the use of—clinical preventive services including immunizations, screening for chronic diseases, and providing behavioral counseling. These services can help the public prevent and detect diseases when they are the most treatable and least expensive.

However, McCain’s plan overemphasizes actions that individuals can take -- also known as “personal responsibility.” While Americans should be personally responsible for the choices they make, policy makers also must support prevention programs that foster healthy behaviors. For instance, people can’t eat nutritious foods if they don’t have access to grocery stores that offer fresh fruits and vegetables; and people won’t exercise if the communities in which they live aren’t safe or don’t have connecting streets and sidewalks.

What’s also at issue in McCain’s plan is who’s paying for health care in this country. Under his plan --We the People – are going to be paying even more for our health care. According to a recent report from the Commonwealth Foundation, U.S. consumers already spend $45 billion a year on health care and insurance. We are increasingly footing the bill for health care because employers are failing to provide full-time workers with health insurance.

McCainCare would all but ensure the further erosion of employer-sponsored health coverage by offering consumers ridiculously small tax credits ($2500 for individuals and $5000 for families) to off-set the cost of buying health insurance. These tax credits don’t come close to matching the $11,000 year (average cost) most employers spend on an employee’s health insurance policy. Employers have been trying to find a way out of paying for employee health care expenses, and McCain just gave them a great exit strategy. Most experts agree that employers will use the tax credits provided to working families as an excuse to drop worker health insurance coverage altogether – and it’s workers who will pay.

It doesn’t take much of an imagination to understand what this mockery of a health care plan will do to our country. As employer-sponsored health insurance becomes a distant memory, corporate America will get rich and the cost burden will increase on taxpayers, public health insurance programs, and workers themselves. As far as I’m concerned, McCain’s already failed a critical test of any presidential candidate – caring more for the nation’s people than for business’s bottom line.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Another Tuesday, Another Primary: Election Fatigue Sets In

Another Tuesday, another election. The never-ending Democratic primary rolls on, seemingly without resolution or an end in sight. Oh, I know, if worse comes to worse, it will all get settled with a showdown in Denver. But damn, I'm tired -- and I love politics. I really do. But get on with it already! And really, this is not to diss West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, or South Dakota, or any of the other few remaining primary states and territories -- I know you want to vote as well. But really, this needs to be decided once and for all. For pity's sake!

So now what? Well, it seems that it's all up to Hillary. For someone who is not actually leading the race, she sure seems to be in the driver's seat at the moment. So far, Clinton appears to be impervious to any calls to back out of the race -- hell, such calls seem to make her more determined to stubbornly press on than ever (not a bad trait, I'll give you that -- would be very useful in a Senate Majority Leader, don't ya think?).

And, that much desired cabal of party elders has not emerged to wrestle the race back onto the rails and get the party unified behind one banner. It's just ugly, getting uglier, and -- to use a term my mom won't like, but my brother taught me -- it's verging on a clusterfuck. It's really not looking like the end is near, because in her speech after the Indiana primary on Tuesday, Clinton said: "I need your help to continue our journey." And then urged people to go contribute at her website. MSNBC's Chris Matthews called her address "charming."

The pundits have said all that can be said, ad nauseum, and employed just about every canned phrase more times that I can count -- though I gotta give it to Matthews, that was the first time I'd heard "charming." We've had distractions, distortions, and missteps. We've had smear tactics and empty rhetoric and outright pandering. We've had must-win, do or die contests, and unsuspecting superdelegates that have been stalked within an inch of their lives. Unfortunately, we've not had so much emphasis on actual issues and policy solutions. I have missed that -- call me crazy.

So, I guess we keep grinding along. Or do we? But I am tired, fatigued. I want closure, resolution, before primary-related PTSD sets in. I want to be clearheaded enough to focus on the real adversary -- the Maverick and his DoubleTalk Express. And I'd like it to happen without ripping apart the Democratic Party -- and our eventual nominee -- in the process.



Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

McCain's Still Stuck in a Primary Campaign

Much has been made of the possible damage that the ongoing intraparty slugfest has or has not done to the Democratic Party in general and the candidates in particular. That debate rages on, endlessly -- apropos given the topic. But, we likely won't know the actual extent of the damage or even the possible benefits of the extended primary until the Dems -- and voters -- can focus on one nominee, and truly take stock of that candidate in a matchup against Sen. John McCain.

The flip side of the damage/benefit argument is that -- because the Dems are so busy merrily lobbing grenades at each other -- the Maverick is either (a) getting a free pass to regroup and refill his campaign war chest, (b) is free to get a head start on a general campaign against the Democratic Party generally, (c) letting the Democratic candidates do the dirty work for him, or (d) all of the above. If he's both smart and lucky, it's the last option.

But is the senior senator from Arizona truly so well positioned to take the best advantage of the golden opportunity the Democrats have so generously handed him? I really don't think so. In fact, I think McCain is still engaged in his own primary campaign of sorts -- not only against Internet celebrity Rep. Ron Paul -- but against himself as well. Why? Because the Straight Talk Express has yet to find its way into the hearts and minds of the Republican base, and the Maverick doesn't strike me as the type of guy to stop and ask for directions.

As a result, while the Dems rock and roll towards Denver, McCain is actually still trying to solidify an evangelical base that is not at all enamored of him, his candidacy, or the idea of a McCain presidency. Their lack of enthusiasm at the polls and in the polls has been palpable. Meanwhile, McCain's also got the Ron Paul Revolutionaries to contend with -- an intractable contingent who are clearly not doing cartwheels at the thought of John and Cindy's Excellent White House Adventure, either.

McCain's challenge is to generate enough enthusiasm to keep these disparate factions interested enough to go to the polls and voting for him on Nov. 4th. The evangelicals may abstain all together -- unless the idea of the lesser of two evils provides electoral inspiration. As for Paul's people, well, most are up in arms about the Iraq War, and know just what a McCain presidency would bring on that score; they're more likely write-in Paul's name or may even vote for the Democratic alternative come November. But that doesn't mean Ron's Rebels can't make plenty of interesting mischief in the remaining Republican primaries if they're of a mind to.

McCain ignores the Ron Paul Factor at his peril. Pennsylvania saw the Texan representative getting his best primary finish ever at 16% of the vote -- and he made only a handful of stops in the keystone state in April. "Americans are hungry for leadership that will protect the traditions that made our country so great," according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. "Dr. Paul's grassroots supporters in Pennsylvania and across the country are doing a tremendous job spreading our message, winning votes and laying a strong foundation for the future."

While the mainstream media seems to have largely missed Paul's Pennsylvania finish, 16% is nothing to sneeze at -- especially in a closed primary where the party' nominee has already been selected. It's also a good illustration of the fact that various factions of the Republican base still are not so keen on the McCain candidacy.

But McCain's isn't likely to want to spend any of his small bank account to turn out voters in primaries that are no more than a formality -- and the job would be a heavy lift, anyway. Strangely enough, then, the Maverick is somewhat at the mercy of Paul's supporters, who have every reason to turn out en mass and continue to get their guy ink and money at McCain's expense. Indeed, Paul's campaign says that he "... is continuing his bid for the Republican nomination to spread the message of constitutional government and personal freedom, build the GOP back to its traditional roots and continue the grassroots activism his candidacy inspired." And in another stroke of not so great timing for McCain, Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, is set for release April 30th.

So, the Ron Paul Revolution moves on to North Carolina and Indiana, and if he makes it into the 20% range -- which is certainly within striking distance -- McCain is not going to be a happy camper. And the press might actually perk up a bit and start asking questions about a nominee whose party appears to be having second thoughts -- or at the very least is deeply conflicted.

This, and the lingering concerns of the religious right, mean that McCain is still running his own primary of sorts -- to convince a party that has already selected him that he really is the right man for the job.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Ledbetter Update: Test Vote Fails But More Votes to Come

So, once again, the Senate is the place where all good bills go to die -- for now. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act faced a tough cloture vote tonight, which fell just shy of the needed 60 votes to move on to final passage. The final vote was 56-42. All the Democrats stayed in line, which needless to say is a pleasant change of pace.

Some Republicans also saw the light: the enlightened included the two original co-sponsors, Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Arlen Specter (PA), as well as a few folks in tough re-election races -- Susan Collins (ME), Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN) and the biggest surprise of the night, John Sununu (NH). These senators received the full court press from both advocates back home as well as DC-based lobbyists, and it paid off.

Of course, the business interests pushed just as hard, and were able to get enough Republicans to toe the line to block the measure. Aside from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), only one other senator didn't bother to vote at all: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was apparently in the bathroom -- or somehow otherwise occupied -- when the critical civil rights bill came to the floor.

Both Democratic presidential candidates came to town for the vote, and spoke on the floor -- in fact, the vote was moved from Tuesday to Wednesday in order to get them back to DC and improve the chances for passage. Both Clinton and Obama also had photo ops with Lilly Ledbetter herself (above), who spent the evening in the Senate gallery and the Senate reception area, pigeon-holing senators as they walked in to vote. Trust me, it's hard to look this woman in the eye, hear her story, and not be moved.

McCain did not bother to come back to town for the vote, though his front desk staff was helpful enough to tell constituent callers that A) not only would he not be present for the vote, but B) he would not vote for it even if he was. Gee, thanks, Maverick. Reporters asked McCain about the legislation on the campaign trail, and AP wrote stories with headlines like "McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in the Senate" and "Senate Republicans Kill Pay Disparity Bill." This coverage is good for Big Blue, especially since recent polls show women -- especially young women -- really care about pay equity this election season. With the economy tanking and gas prices soaring, it's no wonder fair wages are on women's minds.

It should be noted that the pure vote on the cloture motion was 57-41, but in a procedural move Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to "no." This allows him to bring up the vote again at a later date. And Reid, as well as lead sponsor Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and women's and civil rights advocates, have vowed that they will bring this vote up again.

It's not over. The pay equity issue is too important, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case was just too damn dumb to let stand. And, oh yeah, it's an election year -- so this issue is another good way to hold elected officials' feet to the fire come November. No doubt that the Ledbetter vote will be showing up in a lot of congressional voting records very soon -- on both the right and left.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Something Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) Can Agree On: Fair Pay

In an unusual show of good timing, this week -- the week of Equal Pay Day -- the Senate takes up the House-passed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). It's only been sitting at the desk since July 2007, but better late than never. They'll debate the bipartisan bill, and the make-or-break cloture vote is scheduled for Wednesday (4/23) afternoon -- hopefully at a time when both Clinton and Obama, both original sponsors of the legislation, can get back to town for the critical vote. This civil rights legislation corrects one of the latest missteps of the Roberts Supreme Court – this one coming last May via their controversial split decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

Color me surprised – the Court’s new majority got it wrong? You mean, they took the first available opportunity to turn a decades old civil rights law on its head? Gee, whoda thunk? (Sorry, I’m still a bit bitter after fighting so hard against the Bush nominees -- only to see the Senate Dems roll over and play dead.) Now, we all get to reap what President Bush and the Senate Democrats have sown by putting Roberts and Alito on the bench for life -- and we're faced with the cheery prospect of cleaning up the mess, decision by decision.

But I digress. Here’s the gist about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For more than 40 years, the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have followed the same precedents and policies when interpreting the statute of limitations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This practice became known as the paycheck accrual rule, and is the simple principle that each paycheck – itself tainted by a prior discriminatory pay decision – is in and of itself another discriminatory act. Thus, a tainted paycheck can restart Title VII’s 180 day clock.

But last spring, the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision turned decades of legal precedent on its head and created a new standard: if an employee doesn’t know they’re being discriminated against in the first 180 days, and doesn’t file a pay discrimination claim in that period, then they’re shit outta luck – and the employer is forever immunized from any responsibility for that discriminatory pay decision. Yes, you read that right. The employer can then knowingly – even openly -- continue to pay the employer a less than fair wage, because the 180-day charge period has passed without the employee finding out and filing a charge about the inequitable pay decision. Welcome to civil rights on the Roberts Court.

This new, impractical standard makes it almost impossible for workers to seek justice for pay discrimination. Why? Think about it. The first six months on the job, most folks don’t exactly hang around the water cooler asking their co-workers the intimate details of their pay stubs. It often takes time for this kind of insidious discrimination to make itself known – particularly since so many employers still tell employees they're not allowed to discuss wage issues at work.

That’s exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. She worked for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama, as a shift supervisor. Not long before she retired, Lilly discovered that all the other shift supervisors – all male, most of whom hadn’t worked there nearly as long as she had – were making a lot more money than she was. Her bosses wouldn’t talk to her about it, so on her first day off she went to the nearest EEOC office in Montgomery, and filed a claim. It progressed painfully from there – such lawsuits are never a cakewalk – but the system as it was then worked for Lilly. A jury of her peers in that company town decided Lilly had been discriminated against, and awarded her two years back pay (the limit under the statute) and a large punitive award, which was immediately reduced to $300,000 – the statutory cap for sex-based discrimination under Title VII. Lilly was vindicated.

But wait. Goodyear decided to appeal – oh, not based on the facts of the case. They admitted the discrimination – 20 years worth. Goodyear simply said Lilly Ledbetter had filed her claim too late, and thus had no recourse whatsoever -- tough luck. No matter that Goodyear forbade Lilly and the rest of its employees to talk about their salaries. No matter that Lilly worked for over 20 years before she first discovered the inequities that had begun decades before -- via an anonymous note in her mailbox, of all things.

The purpose of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is to correct the Supreme Court’s blunder in Ledbetter, and return to the earlier, long established practices in employment law. This is, in fact, what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked Congress to do in her stinging dissent in Ledbetter -- a dissent she felt compelled to read from the bench to the Court, an unusual action that is a telling barometer of her ire. Critics such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business are throwing around all kinds of distortions, and lobby hard to block the bill. This despite the fact that the paycheck accrual rule wasn't something business groups were clamoring to change prior to Ledbetter. In fact, the issue wasn't even on their radar screen -- the precedent was that established -- but now they don't want to let this unexpectedly juicy plum go.

But don’t let anyone fool you. This bill is a reasonable, narrow fix. Truthfully, advocates could have gone after a bigger bite of the apple – we could have asked for language to increase the 2-year limit on back pay, for example, or to lift the caps on punitive damages. But when you're working in an environment where the Senate has become the place where all good bills go to die -- where it's 60 or bust -- advocates chose to literally just go after a bill that simply turns back the clock. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a time warp of sorts, taking us back to the practices and precedents as they were the day before the Ledbetter decision – no more, no less.

The vote also provides a good gauge of a legislator's position on pay equity issues this election year -- a year when several moderates are running scared of being scored on such votes. A year when pay equity is a top priority for women voters. This issue also is yet another illustration of the importance of judicial nominations and getting a Democrat into the White House. Advocates and Democrats are pretty close to getting the 60 votes we need to move to a final vote on the bill -- close enough to make the Republicans sweat. But it's touch and go, and several moderate and independent-minded Republicans are up for grabs. Also, more conservative Democrats always need shoring up.

What can you do? Take a moment and call your senators. Urge them to vote yes on the Ledbetter cloture vote, and yes on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). Call this toll-free number (866-338-1015) to get the Capitol Hill operator, and you can ask for a senator's office. And then, speak your mind for pay equity – it’s Equal Pay Day (4/22), and there's no better day to do it.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

This is Your Brain. This is Your Brain After an ABC Debate.

Philadelphia, PA (April 17, 2008) -- New research has provided scientific evidence regarding the damaging effects of non-substantive debates on the American viewing public.

According to a study released today by the Wonk's Television Forum (WTF), this week's ABC News debate between Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama temporarily lowered the IQs of the majority of viewers. WTF’s research also showed that the IQ damage was actually more acute for those debate watchers who were registered Democrats.

Conversely, registered Republicans experienced a slight increase in their IQs the longer they watched the debate; however, the data showed this anomaly was quickly mitigated when these same viewers were exposed to Fox News.

WTF study participants who were forced to watch the entire debate may have suffered a more lasting drop in IQ, although further analysis will be required to determine the full effects. Researchers would not comment on any unanticipated emotional damage the experience may have inflicted on study participants.

WTF's study director noted, however, that the IQs of most viewers who escaped during the first 15 minutes showed a quick recovery once their exposure to the ABC News debate was terminated.

Lastly, researchers also found that registered Independent voters who ceased watching the debate during the first 15 minutes and instead read talkingpointsmemo.com experienced a marked increase in their IQ; whether these effects are permanent, however, will not be known until November 4th.

While study participants were not paid for their time, each did receive a commemorative flag pin.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.