PunditMom

The Politics of BlogHer

2008-07-19T22:58:00.007Z

BlogHer '08. From what I've been reading, people either love it or hate it. Love the networking and camaraderie opportunities. Hate it if they feel left out or if there's a sense that a conference is more important than the drama of real life.

I get the yin and yang of that. After all, I survived high school! ;)

But there is a significant energy here, and not just because of the high estrogen content in the conference rooms.

Fresh ideas and possibilities and opportunities abound. A change of scenery and a time out from the obligations of daily motherhood and punditry can be inspiring, and for me that's what it's been.

I've got some fresh ideas, am energized by the opportunities and a little scared of the amount of work that lies ahead for some of the projects I have percolating in my head. Plus, I'm excited about the meeting one of my favorite celebrities of all time!

Not to mention how much work the MOMocrats have to do between now and the end of August to get ready for the Democratic National Convention.

I realize this is just a bunch of vague ramblings, but that's all I've got at the moment. I do want to tell you about the session with the representatives of the McCain and Obama campaigns, but I want to write something that reflects something more than reiterating their talking points.

After all, that's what a PunditMom does, right??

PunditMom Online Today!!

2008-07-18T15:10:00.003Z

So, I made it to San Fran and survived the night before parties at BlogHer 'o8!

Now, down to business. I'm going to be on a panel today with Queen of Spain, Diane from Big Green Purse AND several speakers from Netroots Nation!! Through the miracle of technology, we're going to have a huge discussion about the political blogosphere and why and how people participate.

I should be a lively discussion, so come on over the BlogHer later today for the link!!

John McCain and His So-Called Family Values

2008-07-18T14:21:00.003Z

Most people who know me realize that, notwithstanding my recent crisis of political faith, I will not be voting for John McCain in November. But as an adoptive mother I have a soft spot in my heart for the McCain family since they are an adoptive family, too.

That soft spot hardened up a bit when Karl Rove and his henchmen (allegedly) started some push-polling in 2000 about what voters would think if they found out that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. They were talking about Bridget McCain who was adopted by the McCains from Bangladesh.

Why am I mad at McCain for what Rove did?? Well, you see, McCain never spoke out to set the record straight -- he said nothing to stand up for his youngest daughter. Not only that, but the McCains never told Bridget. She only found out recently after Googling her name. She was reported to have have asked, "Why does George Bush hate me?"

My heart hardened even further after McCain's announcement that he was against gay adoption. For me, that's just a different way of saying that children are better off in orphanages or being shuffled around in foster care than being with loving and caring parents. When the you-know-what hit the fan on that one, McCain back-pedaled, claiming that what he really meant to say was that adoption shouldn't be regulated by the federal government and that it should be a state issue -- nice punt.

According to Wonkette:

McCain expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.

blondiewrites at Gay and Lesbian Lifestyles blog is scratching her head over that comment.

Well, how mighty of him to say that children with no chance of being adopted by straight couples can have gay parents then. That is like saying if the pizza comes out burnt, then you can have steak.

And the problem with McCain's state regulation argument is that, as the McCains and the PunditMom family well know, for international adoptions like ours, there's plenty of federal involvement and screening, including federal fingerprinting and background checks. And there are lots of gay couples who want to adopt internationally. So what about them, John?

Amy at The Masson Family blog focuses on a special irony:

What bothers me ... is that this man is assuming that any person is a better parent if he or she is heterosexual, just by virtue of liking the opposite sex. It doesn’t matter if they get divorced, beat their kids, or just move across to DC for a career and leave their family in Arizona. Apparently a man who is not actively involved in the raising of children is a better parent than two committed parents who happen to be of the same gender.
...
Families can be successful or unsuccessful based on a number of things, but I think odds are better when you have two loving, devoted, present parents - regardless of their gender.

If my partner was a woman instead of a man, I be a worse mother to my child? I don't think so John, but I guess you do. You're not losing my vote, since you didn't have it in the first place. But when you're putting yourself out there as a family values kind of guy, maybe spending a little more time thinking about children who really need families would be a good first step.

Mothers of Intention -- Are My Progressive Values Full of Hate? By Viva La Feminista

2008-07-16T13:49:00.006Z

Welcome one and all! As I am trying to finish packing and leaving instructions for Mr. PunditMom (don't forget to pack PunditGirl's lunch for camp!) before I head out for the BlogHer conference, it's time for this week's edition of Mothers of Intention! Please welcome my good bloggy friend Veronica from Viva La Feminista and her take on being a progressive mother.

*****************************************************************
Brain, Child asked if we should raise our children with our political views. I responded with a simple "of course." A recent commenter went off about us teaching hate - "you don't think your kids see your hatred and anger toward this country?"

Let me set the record straight...at least for my family.

Any hatred I have is about how our country is being run and it's more frustration than hatred, even if I do swear about the government a lot. Rather than teaching hatred for this country, I teach my daughter about respect. Respect for us, her teachers, family and friends. We also try, it's hard, to model respect for different tastes and views. Throughout the primary season we talked to her about who was running and why we were voting the way we did. Never once, despite our loathing, did we disparage Bush. I simply explained to her that in January Bush's turn was over and kept my "Thank Gawd!" in my head.

Love is another idea we talk about. We extend our love far outside our blood family. We have celebrated holidays with friends and members of our chosen family. I take my daughter to organizing events and meetings to show her how much love goes into the work I do. She has been to anti-war and equal marriage rallies and it is explained to her in terms of simple love and respect.

Which is why I can't understand people who, in general not just the one anonymous commenter, believe in forbidding two loving people to marry, in racism (not just blatant, but subtle/institutional), and that their religion is better than any other, can even suggest that progressives preach hate or brain wash our children. If teaching my daughter to respect and love all who share our planet is brainwashing, then I am guilty. If teaching her that those who don't are still to be respected (I'm still working on this one!) is hateful then I am guilty.

Instilling values in children is what parents do. That is your intention and my intention from the start. If we let them make all their own decisions, they would be lost. I don't tell her, unlike a dear friend of mine, that supporters of a certain U.S. Congressman don't get candy while at a parade. But I do tell her I like Senator Obama because we both "like the same things."

It's simplistic, but hey, she's five.

Thanks Veronica for hanging out here at Mothers of Intention! When she's not teaching her daughter the basics of electoral politics she's blogging at Viva La Feminista, Moms on Issues, and other funtastic places.

Stay tuned. I'm hoping to sign up lots of new Mothers of Intention in San Francisco! While I'm there, don't forget to take me up on my revolution challenge!! It comes with bling! ;)

When Does Political Satire Cross the Line?

2008-07-15T14:53:00.013Z

We can make fun of whether Cindy McCain is a trophy wife, John McCain's age, Hillary's pantsuits or cleavage, Bill's love of women, George's mental prowess and big ears and Al Gore's stiffness. Everyone seems to laugh at those jokes, no problem.

But apparently we can't make fun of those who think Obama is a Muslim and that a fist bump is a terrorist greeting.

The uproar over this New Yorker cover entitled The Politics of Fear has been deafening.

Should we laugh because the cover suggests that it's just silly to think of the Obamas as political and religious extremists? Or should we be offended that a major magazine would depict them like this, even in jest? Clearly, no one was suggesting that the Obamas are what is shown in the cartoon, and the point was to poke fun at those who still harbor concerns about their backgrounds as Americans.

Is our collective sense of humor so small that we can't handle this?

It's a fair conversation to have, but it makes me wonder why there hasn't been more outcry in the past when the media has mocked other politicians. Is it because race and religion are off limits to satire? Or have we all become so thin-skinned that we can't handle discomfort with a cartoon so close to the line?

I didn't hear this kind of outcry over Hillary the Nutcracker, calling Hillary a man, or satiric suggestions that Hillary was too hormonal to be president.

I'm not saying the New Yorker cover was the best attempt at satire ever. But I have to wonder, are there going to be certain areas that are off limits as our pool of candidates for national office finally expands beyond white men?

Would the uproar be the same if the cover had shown an elderly John McCain marrying Cindy, as a true child bride? If Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate and there was a cartoon depicting her pretending not to notice if Bill was paying attention to much younger women or that Hillary was really a man in sheep's clothing, would we be as upset? I'm betting the answer is no.

I realize I've raised a bunch of questions instead of writing down some actual thoughts. But those really are my thoughts on this one. Even if the New Yorker cover is in bad humor, are we on the verge of over-censoring ourselves?

The best thing that could happen to diffuse all of this probably won't -- if Barack and Michelle Obama talked about the magazine cover and the role of satire in our political process.

Not all satiric efforts are going to hit the mark. But I'd hate to see any topic off limits, especially if we're going to embrace being the nation of free speech.

Postscript: Barack Obama agrees with PunditMom on the New Yorker cartoon:

Ms. POTUS 2036 ??

2008-07-14T15:41:00.010Z

I thought it was pretty clear cut in eighth grade civics class -- to be President of the United States, you have to born in one of the 50 states. Period. A "natural born citizen."

Friends have often commented that PunditGirl, being the opinionated daughter that she is (you're REALLY surprised, right?!), should run for President when she grows up. During this campaign, she's embraced that idea.

"Mommy, I make good decisions. Maybe I should be President some day."

My usual reply is to tell her that she would make a great President. But unless we get an Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm amendment to the Constitution, she'll never be allowed to run because she was born in China.

Even though she became an American citizen the moment our flight from Beijing landed in the United States on that frigid winter afternoon in January 2001, President of the United States is the one job she can never have since she is not a "natural born citizen." Maybe Her Bad Mother can put in a good word and PunditGirl could be Prime Minister of Canada, instead!

Our British friends have a daughter who was born in the United States -- SHE could be President someday even though she will most likely live most of her life in London. But unless there are some significant Constitutional changes in the coming decades, PunditGirl will never be able to put her art on the big desk in the Oval Office or invite me to have tea in the Rose Garden.

At the moment, I don't have the heart to tell her any of that. I figure she'll learn soon enough and by then she'll be over her desire to let me live with her in the White House. But I DO have the heart to tell John McCain that he shouldn't be eligible to be elected POTUS for the exact same reason -- he isn't a natural born U.S. citizen.

There have been a few passing reports about the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. McCain and others claim that's good enough. To aid his cause, Congress passed a resolution saying just that, allowing McCain to pass 'Go' and collect his presidential campaign contributions.

While it's been a few years since I practiced law, I'm pretty sure that a Congressional resolution doesn't trump the Constitution which plainly says:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...

"Natural born" means a citizen at birth. And the authors of a recent article seem convinced that John McCain is not covered. The Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory at the time of his birth. Even though Congress passed a law not long after little John was born to bestow citizenship on those born in the Canal Zone, it doesn't make him natural born.

Of course, some legal minds -- Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe (a Barack Obama supporter) -- claim there is nothing for McCain to worry about.

In reality, I don't have a really strong opinion about whether someone born to American parents on a military base at the Panama Canal should be prevented from running for President of the United States (though it would be a handy loophole this year to cause more havoc for the Republicans!).

But if that loophole is good enough for McCain, then it's time to re-examine whether, in a country of immigrants, we should hang on to this requirement. Of course it was important to the Founding Fathers -- they didn't want any of the King's subjects sneaking in and taking over their new country. But things have changed and it's time to challenge whether it's really important for an American citizen to have been born on American soil as a qualification to be President.

You know if the facts were the same, but the name was changed to the Democratic candidate, the Supreme Court would come back into a summer session faster than they could say, "President John McCain" to ensure that such a candidate didn't make it on the ballot in November.

So while I wouldn't mind if a technicality worked to the Democrats' benefit in 2008, what I'd really like to see is a bipartisan effort to amend the Constitution so that if she wanted to, PunditGirl really could run for President some day. After all, I've already got some decorating plans in mind for the Lincoln Bedroom!

You can also find PunditMom getting all political and wonky at BlogHer, where she is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News, as well as MOMocrats and D.C. Metro Moms.

No BlogTalk Radio Today ;(

2008-07-13T16:01:00.002Z

I had planned on hosting a MOMocrats BlogTalk Radio session today on Arianna Huffington's new book The Right is Wrong. But my internet service keeps crapping out on me, so we're rescheduling SOON!

Until the Comcast gods fix whatever is wrong, I thought I'd try to scare the internet demons away with this:

Keeping my fingers crossed for restored full service tomorrow.

Cat-o-snaz-rex by PunditGirl.

Why Barack Obama & John McCain Should Be Coming to BlogHer '08

2008-07-11T13:53:00.002Z

Last year, after attending my first BlogHer conference, I was a little put out when I discovered that most of the Democratic presidential candidates were making appearances at The Yearly Kos conference just one week later (now called Netroots Nation) and not BlogHer.

Having heard more times than I care to count that women voters are the key demographic to winning elections -- especially this election -- it just didn't make sense. Of course, I was thrilled that Elizabeth Edwards was hanging out with us BlogHer chicks, but it's a different message to send a spouse rather than the candidate him- or herself.

I hoped that would change this year, especially with the general election just four months away.

But I haven't heard anything about either Barack Obama or John McCain speaking to us "powerful blogger ladies" at next week's BlogHer conference. I suppose it's possible they could make a surprise appearance, but I'm guessing their calendars for next week are pretty much set and I haven't heard that either one of them will have time for the women who have been named the Number One most influential women bloggers in America.

Can you say short-sighted?

So here are a few reasons I think the candidates should consider whether they can make a quick stop in San Francisco next week -- hey, we'll be there for a few days, so we're flexible:

1. Your women's agendas. Barack, come on -- we're about a thousand women with blogs all in one place and we're not afraid to use them. Didn't you hear Katie Couric talking about how many others are out there? 36 million?? Dude, that's a lot of free publicity you're turning your back on. You're supposedly the 'new media' candidate, so come on by next week -- we'll fit you into the schedule.

John, you're a little light on women's content at your place. I know you've got Carly Fiorina out there on the stump for you -- and she was pretty straightforward about talking with insurance companies covering birth control pills as well as Viagra, but you seemed pretty uncomfortable with that one, so maybe you can just chat with us about that.

2. Women who aren't yet convinced. I'm sad to say I'm one of them. I'd love for Obama to swing by San Fran and convince those of us (and I know there will be others there who are in the same boat I am) to seal the deal with us. After all, we are "powerful blogger ladies" ... at least according to WE TV. And I know that while I'm not the kind of girl to consider voting for McCain, there are plenty of BlogHer attendees who would and McCain could probably use some shoring up of his women's support.

3. Do it for Malia and Sasha. I know you have said you regret letting your daughters have a few minutes of air time on a recent interview (for the record, I think you are mistaken and that it was a fabulous opportunity). But wouldn't it be a good thing to let them know that you think a women's conference is a good place to spend your time looking for votes? I know that PunditGirl would think it was a good use of your campaign time, and she's a shrewd one.

4. Do it for Meghan and Bridget. McCain, you've got daughters, too. and while they're older than Malia and Sasha, I'm sure they'd love to see you reaching out to women with blogs. Hey -- Meghan has one, so I know you can relate.

5. We are the majority. It's not like women voters are a special interest group. Women make up the majority of America. Really. I have this on very good authority. And in this day and age of $4.50 a gallon gas, global warming and food crises, there is no group that is more political than mothers. Just ask your wives -- they'll vouch for that.

So Barack and John, I know I'm not one of your paid consultants. But if I was, I would tell you to do some schedule juggling and make a stop at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco next Friday or Saturday and mingle with the women bloggers.

I guarantee you it will be the best investment in your campaign to date.

Cross-posted from BlogHer, where PunditMom is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.

Europeans vs. Americans

2008-07-10T02:07:00.002Z

Yeah, they LOVE us in Italy.

Think George W. had anything to do with this??

Mothers of Intention -- I Never Thought I'd Thank George W. Bush, But I Might Have To

2008-07-09T13:24:00.006Z

Welcome back to Mothers of Intention, the place for moms who don't usually get all political to talk about politics and issues, after last week's vacation hiatus! This week, please welcome my guest Mother of Intention Christina from A Mommy Story!

******************************************************************

I've always been a good little voter. Ever since I turned 18 and had the chance, I've participated in most of the elections I was eligible to vote in. But the truth is, I wasn't exactly a well-informed voter. Sure, I'd read the issues, learn a little about candidates, but generally I voted on what side of an issue sounded the best to me in the brief blurb, and for candidates I would either vote for the democrat, the woman, or if I knew nothing about a person (such as voting for a judge), I'd vote for the Irish last name. I cared about what was going on in my government, but I didn't care enough to spend the time investigating my options.

However, I realized the other day that something has changed in me over the last eight years. I'm not the unconcerned voter I was before. Now I'm nearly rabid in my searching for information on candidates and issues. I want to know all sides to the stories, and I want to see how candidates stand on issues ranging from war to the environment to fiscal responsibility to hey, can you help with this expensive gas? problem. I read political opinion editorials - something I never would have done ten years ago. I fact check when I hear numbers and statistics thrown around in a debate. And perhaps most spectacularly, I will actually campaign for a candidate if they prove themselves worthy of my vote.

I'm not sure how I ended up as this person. Politics has always bored me to tears, because it's not like the government ever gets much done, right? Big ship, small rudder. So what could have caused me to suddenly take an interest and help grab that wheel to turn the ship?

Part of it could be that I'm a mom now. Having a child brings the world view more clearly into focus. Now it's not just me and my interests, but the interests and future of my daughters. And suddenly those crazy extremists around the world have new importance to me. People who threaten to build nuclear weapons matter to me. Those who misspend my government's money and sink the country into debt matter more to me. And those who ignore the warnings and continue to pollute the earth, further hastening global warming and destroying the environment are not only mildly affecting me, but now they're taking away some of the inheritance of my daughters and their generation.

But what I think is the biggest factor in my new-found political junkie nature is the current administration. George W. Bush and his political friends have given me a clear picture of what happens when the nation as a whole gives a big sigh of disinterest and votes on the guy who seems most like one of them (could you have a beer with this man?) instead of really looking at what he stands for. In the past few years, I've watched environmental protection policies be trashed, necessary programs like national paid maternity leave be dismissed as unnecessary, funding for further children's health insurance go ignored, and women's rights slowly chipped away. I've seen the needs of the people be put aside in favor of corporate gain, and I've watched our nation's current and future wealth drained away on an expensive war that we shouldn't have started in the first place.

You can count me as one of the 74% of the population who is unhappy with the direction the country is going, and it's that unhappiness that has spurred me to action. When everything is going well in the world, you're less likely to question authority. Seeing how my husband was recently laid off, we'll soon be losing our employer sponsored health insurance, our home has lost value so we can't even move to a cheaper home, and food and gas are rising so fast that we can barely afford them, you can be sure I'm doing a lot of questioning lately. In April, I told the presidential candidates exactly what was important to me, and those still hold true. I'm holding each candidate up to a hefty ideal, searching out their records on each topic, and going beyond myself to consider what is best for the nation as a whole, not just me.

I don't think I'm the only one, either. Quite a few of those who disapprove of the current administration are finding themselves asking questions and educating themselves about politics. I'm seeing more of my friends - people who also never thought they'd put so much mental effort into politics - taking up the cause to determine who really is the best choice to lead this country. So in some strange way, I think I have to thank George W. Bush and his buddies - without their mishandling of this country over the last eight years, I might never have understood the true importance of my vote, as well as the need to look beyond myself to consider the impact policies made today will have on others and on future generations. Bush will never go down in history as a great president (probably only slightly better than Andrew Johnson), but he may just have a small historical footnote of being the president who screwed up enough to make the people of the United States take an active role in their government once again.

In addition to finding Christina at A Mommy Story, you can also find her at Being Savvy.
Thanks for joining me here are Mothers of Intention!

Next week, my guest Mother of Intention will be Veronica from Viva La Feminista!

John McCain and the "Summer of Love"

2008-07-08T23:51:00.003Z

It's hardly even started, and John McCain can't resist the chance to make us think things that just aren't true.

His new ad is a compare/contrast about 1969 -- McCain's faulty reference to the "summer of love." Aside from his chronological error, see if you can guess what's wrong with this ad ...

Makes you wonder what Barack Obama was doing in 1969, right? Probably some sort of hippie thing? Protesting the war while McCain was in that POW camp? I guess those things are possible, but highly unlikely -- Obama was only eight-years-old in 1969.

Now, as the mother of an eight-year-old, I know PunditGirl has a lot of strong opinions, even about politics. But I also know she's WAY more focused on how much TV she can watch on any given day and whether I've lined up a play date for her so she doesn't have to hang out with her boring old mom.

If I have to watch these McCain ads, the grain of salt I'm going to need is going to be as big as a salt lick.

When PunditMom isn't shaking her head over political smear tactics, you can also find her at MOMocrats, The Huffington Post and BlogHer, where she is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.

For the First Time in My Life, I Might Not Vote

2008-07-08T09:41:00.013Z

I was sad that my big "debut" interview with Good Morning, America didn't run (breaking news over the course of several days bumped it and made it "old" news).

The topic was whether Hillary Clinton supporters would really cross-over and vote for John McCain. The reporter asked me, "So do you think all the talk on the Internet about Clinton supporters refusing to vote for Obama and joining the McCain camp is just urban myth?"

I gave her a resounding and forceful, "Yes." A few weeks ago I really believed that as those of us who supported one or more of the other Democratic candidates got past the grieving process, we would come together in Democratic party unity to work to defeat the GOP in the fall.

I think I may have been wrong.

I've gotten many comments and E-mails from women I know and respect saying they either will not vote at all in November or will vote for McCain because they are unhappy with Barack Obama.

I was still surprised and thought it was just a matter of time, especially with the alternative. Then, I started reading reports while I was enjoying the wines of Tuscany about some things that I hoped had been said by Obama's secret evil twin, and not by Obama himself.

For a while, I've had a bad feeling in my gut that a President Barack Obama would not be a friend on women's issues. Yes, he has a nice page up on his website about lofty proposals he says he will work toward to benefit women, but his remarks about women's emotions and abortion have RED ALERT written all over them:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

After the shape-shifting that Obama has been doing over the last few weeks on FISA, government funds for faith-based community efforts and his recent comments on late-term abortions, my firm response on the urban myth question is on shaky ground.

As a woman and a mother, the thought of anyone having to consider the necessity of a late-term abortion is hard to fathom, but there are circumstances where it could be necessary. For any male political candidate to be so blatantly dismissive of a woman's state of mind -- especially someone with daughters -- is callously ignoring reality. Mental health is already an established criterion under the law and Supreme Court precedent when it comes to late-term abortions.

And that's when the thought came into my head as I was reading the article about Obama's comments in the International Herald Tribune, poolside in Florence:

I can't vote for Obama.

This is a serious thing for me.

I'm the geek who couldn't wait to vote, who embraced the mock political conventions, who stayed in to watch the Watergate hearings instead of going to the pool. Voting is sacrosanct for me. I have not missed voting in an election in more years than I care to count. But I can't remember the last time I saw a Democrat list so far to the right that their actions made them look like a Republican in Democratic-sheep's clothing.

It's become clear that there will be no wooing going on by the Obama campaign. And unless something changes, it feels like Obama is actually thumbing his political nose at his supporters, early adopters or not.

So, can I really in good conscience cast a vote for someone who, for all appearances, seems to be turning his back on important issues? Can I trust that the former constitutional law teacher isn't really abandoning what he claimed to stand for and that he will come around after the swearing in ceremony in January?

I want a Democrat to appoint the next Supreme Court justices. But Obama is walking a dangerous road -- especially with women Democratic voters -- by saying things that make him look more Republican than John McCain.

Obama has made a dangerous calculation. I hope he can live with the consequences.

While she's trying to make sense of Obama's political about-faces, you can also find PunditMom at MOMocrats and BlogHer, where she is a Contributing Editor for Politics and News.

Dear PunditMom, This is Reality Calling. Time to Come Home.

2008-07-07T18:42:00.007Z

Just when you're getting good and relaxed toward the end of vacation, reality beckons, the real world encroaches and other people do things to remind me that there are too many people in this world who are pigs.

I don't say that to insult pigs. Heck, I grew up on a hog farm, so pigs are my friends. But all you have to do is get off of a plane after an eight-and-a-half hour transcontinental flight to know that the more you pay for that airline ticket, the more you feel you have a right to throw trash all over the floor of the Boeing 777 while suspending the rules of common human decency.

Personal space? Well, that's just not even an option as anyone who has flown knows, but do people have to do things to make it worse? You know the ones -- they recline their seats for the duration, kick the back of your chair until turbulence becomes a welcome diversion and then reach over you and smack you in the face to get their bags out of the overhead bin without even trying to squeak out a little "excuse me."

Don't get me wrong -- the PunditMom family had a lovely vacation and I have several extra pounds from the food and the wine to prove it. But all that time in close quarters with a few hundred strangers made me realize that whether I continue to travel will be less impacted by ridiculous gas prices, the cost of airline tickets and all the new fees and will be more directly related to the lack of civility at 30,000 feet.

So is calling the traveling public a group of pigs a bit harsh? Probably. But maybe it will get some people's attention. Or I could just be delusional. I'll let you know when I get on the airplane for BlogHer next week.

And for the lady who was on my flight yesterday who doesn't know that airplane etiquette requires that if you hit someone in the face you have to at least pretend to be sorry, I'll be preparing a special revenge for the next time we share a plane.

And Then There Was Vacation

2008-06-28T01:44:00.005Z

So the Democrats seem to have the whole "unity" thing under control.

John McCain is apparently going to be spending some time learning about the interwebs.

So, as things slow down a bit politically, that's a good cue for me to take a much needed respite. It's hard to keep myself from going all pundit-y. It's in my blood. I can't help it.

But now that summer is officially upon us, the whole extended PunditFamily is headed out for some much needed down time.

You know I will come back "tanned, rested and ready." But in the meantime, poke around some of my archives. Spend some time with the other MOMocrats. And if you could do one more thing.

Don't forget about my $27 Political Revolution. While I'm hanging out with my family, send me an E-mail or post a comment about where you're going to contribute to make your 2008 political statement, and I'll send you some lovely blog bling!

See you when I get back!

Oh No, He Di'int!

2008-06-27T18:57:00.004Z

Grover Norquist.

There's a right-wing name that sends shivers up my liberal spine. While I've come to take whatever he says with a big ol' salt lick, even he outdid himself today.

According to Political Punch:

Conservative activist Grover Norquist dropped by The Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau and decided a classy and appropriate way to convey his opposition to the liberal positions of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was to call the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan."

Clearly we haven't gotten past the whole race issue in this campaign. Dare I say we will see words to this effect again and again? You know the right-wingers have been working on as many ways as possible to mention the fact that Barack Obama is black -- OH MY! I hadn't noticed!! -- on the bet that somehow that will make a difference.

John McCain says he's going to run a civil and courteous campaign? I guess that doesn't stop him from using Norquist and others as the slime machine.

Unity NOW!

2008-06-27T16:22:00.009Z

When I first heard about the Unity, New Hampshire appearance of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to promote -- what else, Democratic party unity -- all I could think of was George's father on Seinfeld yelling, "SERENITY NOW!!"

You may be wondering, 'Is PunditMom out to lunch?' Well, that IS always possible, but hear me out.

George's father was trying so hard to talk himself into a state of serenity, that in order to achieve it, he had to yell it at the top of his lungs. Repeatedly.

So when I started noticing some similarities with the whole push for Democratic party unity -- Unity NOW! -- I had to wonder whether Obama and Clinton are also working just a teensy bit too hard at it. Did we REALLY need the stage backdrop to say "U N I T Y" in larger than life letters and a massive American flag? If voters don't want to have unity, no amount of stagecraft in Unity, N.H. is going to help.

As Obama and Clinton stood in front of the crowd of thousands, looking so cute in their color-coordinated outfits, I thought they spoke powerfully and eloquently about why the Democratic party needs to move forward, invoking all the right phrases, ideas and soundbites about the future, the need to create an unstoppable force and their two historic attempts at the Presidency.

For all the iconic images, there's still a long way to go. According to an account by Jill Zuckman at The Swamp, two prominent New Hampshire politicians not only missed the Unity event, but are also refusing to jump on the new unity bandwagon:

While Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are trying to rally Democrats in Unity, N.H. ..., James McConaha, a former Clinton administration official, and his wife, Valery Mitchell, a Democratic activist, are working to gather support for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

'I think in general both of us felt that this is such an important position, perhaps the most important job in the world that it requires a person who has the experience and the competence to hold it,' McConaha told my friend, Kevin Landrigan with the Nashua Telegraph. 'We just liked Senator McCain for a lot of reasons. In our minds, he is that person.'

Will other reluctant Obama supporters be moved by the Unity rally? It depends on who you ask. Diary of a Content Black Woman blog says:

As an American, I appreciate this effort by these former opponents to come together in an attempt to work out their differences for the good of the country. It sets an excellent tone of mature leadership - something our country desperately needs. Also, it shows children just how to "play nice" and be respectful and mindful of moving forward when a clear winner has emerged in a competition.

But one Clinton activist is not convinced. A Washington Post story on Friday featured Diane Mantouvalos of JustSayNoDeal.com, a Hillary fan who is working actively to promote the idea of keeping Hillary votes from Obama:

Democratic leaders insist -- and polls indicate -- that the vast majority of Clinton supporters, including women, already have flocked to Obama or eventually will. But the effectiveness of the Internet as an organizing tool for dissent is creating concern and uncertainty about the scope and intensity of those unwilling to fall in line.

...

Mantouvalos, a self-described independent who grew up in Boston and said she nearly always votes Democratic, believes party leaders are underestimating the seriousness of the opposition movement. Using various metrics -- e-mails to JustSayNoDeal.com (125,000), databases of organizations involved with the effort, registrants to and hits on selected protest Web sites -- Mantouvalos estimates the coalition of more than 100 groups represents at least 10 percent of the 18 million voters who backed Hillary Clinton during the primary battle.

So will today's event, billed as the first joint general election rally with Clinton and Obama, be enough to get the unity ball rolling? As Hillary Clinton said in her speech, "Unity is a wonderful feeling." Now she and Obama have to convince all the Democrats to feel it and not just talk about it.

Cross-posted from BlogHer, where PunditMom is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.

Unity Now?

2008-06-27T02:07:00.003Z

Friday, all political eyes will be on Unity, New Hampshire for the Unite for Change speech that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to deliver.

I understand the campaign's desire to have a little symbolism, but for me this is a tad over the too-obvious line. But I digress.

Many are wondering whether a little speech will help persuade Hillary Clinton's die-hard fans to join with Barack Obama to sing together in a spirit of harmony and peace for the good of the party in November?

Some looking in from the outside have reason to doubt that will happen. And there is evidence to suggest that, with groups posting information about organized protests before the event, the atmosphere in Unity may not be as welcoming and warm, shall we say 'uniting,' as the Obama people would like.

The question I wonder is this -- after Hillary Clinton asks her legions, again, to give their full support to Obama, will they do it? Or will they, as some polls suggest, vote for John McCain instead?

I don't even have to hear the speech to give anyone pondering this "choice" the two words that should seal the deal for voting for Obama -- Supreme. Court.

Just think what the Supreme Court of the United States would look like if a GOP president gets to appoint the next justices -- we don't need any junior Scalias or Alitos moving in. I know John Paul Stevens is hanging on, hoping that a Democrat will move into the White House in January. He's great and I hope he stays on the court for long time, but the man is 88 years old.

So, check back tomorrow for the MOMocrats take on the Unity, New Hampshire event. You know we'll have some interesting things to chat about!

Cross-posted from MOMocrats, where PunditMom hangs out in her "spare" time.

Dear Vanity Fair, Stop Asking Stupid Questions about Adoption

2008-06-26T14:07:00.006Z

Vanity Fair gets PunditMom's new "Stupidest Question of the Month" award!

I only occasionally buy Vanity Fair, but I'm stocking up on some vacation reading and thought the the July issue would be good on the airplane.

Angelina Jolie of the full lips and even fuller tummy is on the cover of July's Vanity Fair with an accompanying article about her motherhood, her children and the impending arrival of twins.

I know Angelina gets a bad rap from a lot of people about her various adoptions, but as a mother by adoption, I don't have a problem with her or her how she's chosen to create her family. She's opened her heart to children who needed families and, as far as I can tell, has done a pretty good job, even with all the celebrity stuff they have to deal with.

Until her critics have adopted a child themselves, I say keep your words to yourselves.

As for the author of the article, Rich Cohen, well, I'm hoping there's a special place in hell for him. No one who has a profile high enough to write for Vanity Fair ought to be asking this kind of question:

"I asked [Jolie whether] there is a special bond between a mother and a child she has carried as opposed to a child she has adopted."

Say WHAT!?!?

Jolie dismissed that ridiculous notion out of hand. But when people like Cohen continue to advance the stereotype so infamously put out in the media by Rebecca Walker last year -- that one cannot love an adopted child as much as one created from one's own flesh and blood -- it serves only one purpose, which is to diminish families that look different than most, families like mine.

Why is it that many people still feel that the bonds of blood are stronger and more lasting than any other? I can tell you from a lot of different experiences I've had in life, that just ain't so.

I realize that without sensational, ridiculous questions like the one Cohen asked Jolie, Vanity Fair probably wouldn't sell as many magazines. But as long as editors and publishers allow questions like his to appear in stories that feature adoptive families, the message that all our children will get is this -- creating a family by adoption is second best and love for a biological child will trump the love for adopted children any day.

PunditGirl is already struggling with the idea of whether love is permanent. I don't need anyone else, even a Vanity Fair writer, feeding that worry.

Mothers of Intention -- Summer Reading List!

2008-06-25T18:47:00.005Z

For something a little different for Mothers of Intention this week, I give you the PunditMom summer reading list!

Here are some volumes on active political women to keep you energized through the long political summer!

Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling, Eleanor Clift & Tom Brazaitis

The She Spot, Lisa Witter & Lisa Chen

Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised Our Nation, and Ladies of Liberty: The Women Who Shaped Our Nation, Cokie Roberts

Thinking Out Loud, Anna Quindlen

Lighting the Way: Nine Women Who Changed Modern America, Kareena Gore Schiff

Well, THAT should keep you busy for a while!

This Might Become My New Bedtime Favorite!

2008-06-25T17:58:00.003Z

And I know PunditGirl will like it, too!

Goodnight Bush!

Bush Says New Moms and Their Babies Cost Too Much

2008-06-24T17:33:00.009Z

When it was time to travel to China to bring home our little PunditBaby, I was working at a large government agency in a pretty senior position.

I assumed that I would be able to take paid maternity leave, though I figured I'd have to jump through a few hoops since my adoption "pregnancy" was not in utero. Too bad someone wasn't trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge or some miracle cure-all at the time, 'cause they probably could have fooled me on that, too.

See, federal employees don't get paid maternity leave. If you're having a baby, or adopting, and you want paid time off, you've got to use accumulated vacation/sick/comp time. Otherwise, you're on your own.

When I realized all that, my jaw just about hit the top of my big government-issue desk. What happened to all that family-friendly speak?? It seemed safe to assume that if you were working for Uncle Sam that paid pregnancy leave was in the package-- after all, most professionals who work for the government take a huge hit in income, but do it for the trade-off of more reasonable working hours and, usually, a nicer benefits package.

Next time, I'll pay more attention to the fine print.

Congress is mulling over a little something called the Parental Paid Leave Act, that would give federal employees a whopping four whole weeks off with pay for maternity leave. It passed the House of Representatives and is idling as it waits to head on over to the Senate.

There seems to be some support for the bill, but President Bush (haven't we kicked him off this throne yet??) says he won't sign the bill into law because it's a "costly, unnecessary, new paid leave entitlement."

Sure there's a cost to the bill, but without it there's a different kind of cost -- employees who leave or don't come back because of the current draconian family policies. Sure, there's the Family and Medical Leave Act, but that doesn't apply to federal workers and it's unpaid leave anyway.

What's even worse about Bush's position is that he, as the father of daughters, is telling all the rest of the fathers in the country that their daughters who work for him don't deserve a few weeks off with their new babies where they don't have to worry about how they're going to pay for the Pampers.

Didn't her mom deserve a few weeks of paid maternity leave?? After all, the president takes five weeks off just in the summer to clear brush.

Which is more important and which really costs the taxpayers more money??

Photos by PunditMom

We're Not Niche Voters, We're the Majority

2008-06-24T12:16:00.004Z

In keeping with my new $27 political revolution, I'm hoping to attend a book party tonight for the authors of The She Spot: Why Women are the Market for Changing the World.

I met one of the authors, Lisa Witter, a few months ago. She's not just a big wheel in the marketing and public relations world. She's putting this to the test in the political world, too!

If we put this to work, maybe "they" WILL start listening!

Five-Year-Old Ben Gives PunditGirl a Run for Her Money

2008-06-23T17:41:00.004Z

Ben also wants to push George Bush off his "throne."

Hmmmm ... Ben and PunditGirl. A match made in heaven??

Also, don't forget to check out my $27 Political Revolution! Join in, make a difference AND get a cool blog button!

The Year of Turning 50 -- Facing My Mortality After Tim Russert

2008-06-23T15:15:00.008Z

I know after reading that headline, you're probably thinking, "Well, THAT'S a tad melodramatic!"

And as a general matter, I would agree with you. But as I inch closer and closer to the next birthday, the knot in the pit of my stomach becomes larger and more insistent.

Then, Tim Russert died.

He was only 58. That's not all that far from 49. Granted, I think I'm in better physical shape than he was -- I'm not overweight (just a little mushy around the middle), I'm not on any meds and I certainly don't have the level of stress in my life that Russert probably had.

But given the fact that his age is so close to mine, it's really given me pause. Especially since we used to see him all the time.

Not, not personally, but in the neighborhood. He was a regular at the pizza place we frequent and we saw him just a couple of weeks before his death when we were out with PunditGirl at one of the spots we like to eat outside before the D.C. summer humidity makes that either impossible or masochistic.

One day here. The next day gone.

It's so easy to put distance between ourselves and our ultimate fate when we're talking about celebrities -- people we don't usually get to see up close and personal.

But there's something too close for comfort about someone dying who we consider to be a contemporary. Maybe I'm fooling myself at 49 that 58 is young, but I need to believe that to get past my own looming milestone. And having someone who seemed healthy and vibrant who is part of the same generation -- someone I would see every now and then in person -- drop dead at his desk, has thrown me.

Fortunately, having an eight-year-old helps me stay in that comfy state of denial most of the time -- I don't have the energy to think about time marching forward while I'm driving to day camp or to the pool, putting together the latest craft project or helping PunditGirl with three digit addition and subtraction.

It's just going to take me a little while to find my way back to that zone.

MOMocrats Podcast Sunday: Who's Turning From Red to Blue?

2008-06-21T14:59:00.001Z

Join host Julie Pippert and MOMocrats Donna and Stephanie this Sunday, June 22 at 6 pm Eastern/3 pm Pacific for a lively discussion of the week's news, some insight on states going from red to blue in November, and an inside view of the Virginia and Texas State Democratic conventions. Listen live and participate in our live chat by signing in over at Blog Talk Radio.

If you missed the last podcast, click on the Blog Talk Radio button on the right sidebar to hear our last show.

The Book Club Discussion podcast of Arianna Huffington's book Right is Wrong I was scheduled to host has been postponed to July 13. Stay tuned for more information on that, and start reading, if you haven't already!