Jilted by John Edwards

I've been stewing about the John Edwards fiasco. Stewing, fuming, bitching. Many of you know I was an Edwards Girl. I fell for his shtick -- hook, line and sinker. And this blog may seem oddly timed, given the fact that the country seems to be on collective pins and needles waiting for news about Barack Obama's running mate. But really, it's those circumstances combined with the looming Denver convention that crystallized things for me. While I didn't really think Edwards was up for another VP dash, I did think he might have an opportunity to play a meaningful role in an Obama Administration. Yeah, not so much.

John Edwards has been revealed to be like so many other powerful men -- he couldn't or wouldn't keep it zipped when temptation crossed his path. Yeah, yeah, there are no choir boys in politics -- and there's clearly no shortage of powerful men of all political stripes who are congenitally unable to resist a pretty face.

As I've said before, it almost seems like some kind of rite of passage -- a macho power trip to prove to themselves they're such hot shit that the regular rules no longer apply. Edwards himself confirmed this hubris, saying part of the reason for his horrible, disappointing lapse was -- well, cuz he could. Because running for president put him on such a nifty ego trip, it warped his perspective. Wow. That's great. Wonderful. And he was a serious candidate for president? I feel betrayed, and I'm not even his wife.

It's amazing to me that Edwards apparently had not figured out the fundamental axiom of modern politics: once you run, you can't hide. Despite all the clear lessons that had come before him -- Edwards thought he was different, that he wouldn't get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Hypocrites just plain piss me off. Especially self-righteous hypocrites. But with Edwards, it goes one step further -- I feel jilted.

Why, you might ask? It's not simply that I was an Edwards fan. Or that I have enormous respect for his wife, his terminally-ill wife, who sure as hell deserves better. It's that the real John Edwards has been at last been revealed -- and shown to be a man who didn't just cheat on his wife, but who also has proven himself more than willing to throw us all to the wolves.

Imagine this scenario if you will: say Edwards had won the nomination. Clearly he ran for the presidency again, knowing he had this kind of campaign-choking skeleton in his closet. Edwards didn't come clean to start his second campaign with a clean slate -- nope, he decided to hide his bad behavior and lack of judgement. And in making that conscious decision to keep living a lie rather than make his mea culpa, Edwards was willing to take a serious risk -- not just with his own political ambitions but with the future of the entire country -- on the fact that the emperor's new clothes would not be revealed until after he was in the White House. At that point, I guess he thought he would simply work to rehabilitate himself -- a la Bill Clinton.

What a breathtaking gamble. If Edwards had come out on top in this extraordinary primary year, and things had played out on the same timeline, Democrats would have had the earth fall from under their feet just a few weeks before their convention. Edwards was willing to risk four or even eight more years of Republican destruction in order to pursue his own single-minded goal.

The scope of his hubris is amazing. With all that was at stake -- with an economy on the brink, an ill-conceived war draining our coffers and our spirits, with decades of progress on civil and women's rights at risk, with an environment literally gasping for help -- Edwards was willing to sacrifice us all on the alter of his vanity. Aside from the clear moral deficiencies Edwards exhibited in terms of his personal relationships, it is this grand selfishness and lack of vision that I find most disappointing -- and most unsettling in someone I had wanted to see in the White House.

So as the excitment swirls around the Obama Veep-stakes, for me, there is definitely a bittersweet tinge of what might have been -- and what's been irrevocably lost in a man who used to be a hero to so many.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Latest Republican Scare Tactic: Register to Vote and Put Yourself at Risk for Identity Theft!

Virgina is sure to be a battleground state this fall, with the Obama candidacy putting the state in play for the first time in recent memory. Not to mention the fact that it looks like former Gov. Mark Warner (D) is going to walk away with the state's open Senate seat, which is being vacated by statesman Sen. John Warner (R, no relation). Mark Warner would join Virginia's up and coming Sen. Jim Webb (D) in Congress, representing a state that already has a popular Democratic governor in Tim Kane -- an early Obama supporter and someone whose national stature has risen as his name has occasionally been bandied about in the Veep Sweeps.

Needless to say, all this blue, donkey-shaped confetti floating around the used-to-be-reliably-red state of Virginia has got the state Republican party in a tizzy -- even Virgina Rep. Eric Cantor's name being included on the Maverick's Veep short list hasn't cheered them up. Enter Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Frederick, also a member of the state's general assembly, with the latest Republican scare tactic, er -- plan -- to make things go a little more smoothly in the fall.

It all started when three people in Hampton, VA were recently charged with voter fraud. The folks in question -- two 18 year olds and a 22 year old -- worked for Community Voters Project (CVP). As part of the job, they had to meet a daily quota of new registrations. According to the Associated Press, the group is affiliated with the Fund for the Public Interest, which promotes progressive and environmentalist efforts but has no direct ties to the Democratic Party or the Obama campaign. Also important to note, it was the CVP that first discovered the problems and alerted the authorities. According to not only election officials but the police and prosecutors as well, greed was the motivation, not a desire to influence elections.

Note that, while of course innocent until proven guilty, apparently suspicious behavior was noted, investigated and charges were eventually filed -- the system worked. I suspect the real problem is not really about this particular case, but rather about the 140,000 new voters registered in Virginia this year -- most of them Democratic. If they were mostly new red voters, I sincerely doubt Mr. Frederick would be calling for a statewide -- yes, statewide -- investigation.

"If we can't tell the voters that their will is being executed on Election Day, then why do we even have a democracy?" Frederick whined. Yeah, where were you when the victims of the butterfly ballot needed help in Florida, pal? How about their will?

Local registrars are in Richmond, the state capital, for their annual training this week, and they were clear about safeguards that are already in place to make sure fraud is caught -- and the Hampton example seems to support that. It's also a great example of the self-regulating done by third party groups. "I can guarantee you one thing, whoever wins November 4 will win fair and square in Virginia," State Board of Elections Secretary Nancy Rodrigues said.

But wait -- here's the kicker. The coup de grace. The icing on the cake. Apparently Mr. Frederick is not just worried about voter fraud. Nope, this concerned citizen did not stop there. He used his press conference as a bully pulpit to also share his concerns about third party groups registering voters, and what he believes is the dangerous possibility of identity theft since the registration form asks for social security numbers. Not at all coincidentally, the Obama camp is currently engaged in a huge registration drive in Virginia. I sincerely doubt the timing of the Republican Party of Virginia's press conference was a coincidence.

"If you're not comfortable in giving your social security number, don't do that," said Rodrigues. "The general registrars will follow up with you." Maybe they are supposed to -- heck, maybe they mean to, but do you really think that's what will happen? With all the new registrations they have to process, new voting machines to deploy, and the huge election to prepare for? Or will registrars simply toss your registration form as incomplete, leaving you standing there on Election Day, being told by a poll worker that your name's not on the list -- sorry, come back next time.

I gotta tell you, this latest ploy is ingenious. Scare people away from voter registration drives by telling them it's a sure path to identity theft. Brilliant. Diabolical, but brilliant. Despicable, but brilliant. As far as I'm concerned, there is a special place in hell for people who intentionally try to disenfranchise others simply because they don't like how they'll cast their ballots. This nation is better than that. And this nation is certainly better than Jeff Frederick and his cheap, transparent scare tactics. I can think of no better way to repay him and his state party than for Democrats to run the table in Virginia on Nov. 4.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

What Kinda Kool-Aid are They Drinking?

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 13 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. Thirteen percent. Aside from the fact that it's appalling that 87 percent of Americans believe the country is going down the tubes -- I'll get to that in a moment -- does anyone else wonder what the hell kinda Kool-Aid that 13 percent must be drinking to actually believe that things are hunky-dory?

Appropriately enough, that unlucky 13 percent is the worst result on the infamous "right way/wrong way" question in the history of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The last time Americans were even close to this pessimistic was July 1992 — the year a sax-playing southern governor with a zipper problem beat the proud father of our current presidential disaster. At that point, only 14 percent of the country thought we were on the right track -- giving Hillary the go-ahead to start shopping for that perfect inaugural ball dress and a big fat hint to incumbents George and Dan to go ahead and schedule the moving vans for Jan. 20, 1993.

Not surprisingly, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, released today, also finds that the lagging economy continues to be uppermost in voters' minds, and -- news flash, campers -- it’s an issue that the electorate expects both Obama and McCain to tackle with their vice-presidential picks. Poll respondents especially think that McCain needs to find a new BFF who’s an expert on the economy, considering that the Maverick has admitted he's a novice himself. Hmmm... wonder if Mitt Romney funded this poll? It seems to be making his argument that a McCain/Romney ticket would be a good idea -- and hey, from a progressive perspective maybe it would, considering these two guys together have about as much chemistry and charisma as a couple of 2 x 4's.

Voters want Obama to select a sidekick who's a military or foreign affairs expert — but an economic expert runs a close second. Ironically enough -- or perhaps given the general pessimism among voters when it comes to the economy, it makes sense -- the poll also shows that voters actually don’t have much confidence in either candidate's ability to get the economy back on track. Voters have the right of it there, since there is typically very little that a president can unilaterally do to improve the economy.

Americans are clearly looking to Washington as well as their own state capitals for action on the bread and butter, kitchen table issues that are draining our wallets and keeping us up at night. It's often said that people vote their pocketbooks, and they often do. But clever political spin doctors have figured out how to distort divisive social issues, the so-called wedge issues, to induce people to vote against their own best economic interests -- that's another flavor of Kool-Aid. Reagan Democrats are a perfect example -- seduced into voting Republican and hoping for trickle down economics that never quite trickled down to them. I think of people obsessing about a flag pin in this election and I get nervous, as well. While it looks like voters are focused squarely on the economy, and that's clearly a plus for the Democrats, it's a long way until November and the swift boats have yet to come out in force.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Redheads Can Whine, Too

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain couldn't stiff arm former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) fast enough after the McCain economic adviser provided a little of his own brand of straight talk, dubbing the United States "a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession."

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," Gramm said in a Washington Times editorial board meeting. He went on to say that "We have sort of become a nation of whiners... You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline..."

Gramm later said that he meant the nation's leaders were whiners, not its citizens. (That's ever so much better, isn't it?) But after that helpful clarification, the former presidential wannabe went on to illustrate why his own ill-fated campaign sputtered right out of the gate by repeating his assertion and stating, "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true."

So, I thought I might take ol' Phil's suggestion -- or at the least make this a self-fulfilling prophecy -- because, when I really got to thinking, I realized I had some things to whine about. Here's just a few.

• I'm going to whine about Democrats in the House and Senate who have yet to figure out that, yes, Virginia, they are in charge. They don't need to check with the Republicans before taking a bathroom break. Here's hoping that if we whine enough, they'll actually act like the Majority party.


• I'm going to whine about cynical Senate Republicans, who've introduced impostor Ledbetter bills in an attempt to evade the grassroots pressure they've been feeling to fix the Supreme Court's dumbass decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. As one Republican staffer's email went, the bill was introduced at least in part because "many of our members took some heat," and the bill was dropped just before the July 4th recess so Senators would have an opportunity to brag about their co-sponsorship to constituents over the holiday. (Read: CYA)

• I'm going to whine about the Democrats who abrogated their stewardship of our civil rights and liberties in favor of CYA on FISA. (CYA activity does not favor one party or the other, it seems.) Yes, I'm going to whine about Barack Obama's FISA vote, and write a check to the ACLU for their lawsuit against Uncle Sam.
  


• I'm going to whine about a President who thinks it's a good idea to consider new regulations, six months before he leaves office, that pervert federal funding designed to prevent unintended pregnancies by redirecting it instead to providers who refuse to offer comprehensive birth control and reproductive health care services. And oh yeah, the proposed rule just happens to redefine abortion to so that it includes some of the most common methods of birth control. I'm guessing this is not a coincidence.
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill is stuck in a seemingly never ending conference loop. The House bill is much better, but Senate Democrats have pretty much refused to agree to anything that wasn't their idea first. Meanwhile, the conferenced bill won't be as good as the House version, and it still isn't done. Hmmm... wouldn't that be a nice achievement for the fall elections??
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that, after the nation's capital put up $611 million in public money to build their stadium, the Washington Nationals baseball team is now refusing to pay their measly $3.5 million rental bill. They say the stadium is not yet complete -- funny, though, they have been holding games and charging full price for tickets.
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that I've not had time to blog for a month. Life got in the way. That sucks. I've missed it, and hopefully you missed me too. I'm also going to whine about the fact that it's mid-July and I've still not been to the beach -- that's just wrong.
  

Wow. That was cathartic. I feel better already. Never underestimate the power of a little whining. Thanks, Phil.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

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.