When it comes to political women, does it get any better than Gloria Steinem?

Whether you agree with her politics or not, I’m assuming that most of us would agree that her voice had a major impact on how women can choose to live their lives today. And at the age of 73, she’s still not shying away from feminist controversy.

Knowing that Steinem, and others like her, were out there in the world as I was coming of age was a beacon for me. I knew that I would have way more choices about my destiny — both professional and otherwise — because of what she, and others like her, fought for. Read the rest of this entry »

On a flight last year to Los Angeles, I watched six straight episodes of America’s Next Top Model on the DirectTV screen in front of me.

I know … I’m weak. Without any Project Runway to keep me occupied, I settled for a lesser reality show.

But apparently for Hillary Clinton, America’s Next Top Model is the bomb! I suppose if you’re a guest on Tyra Banks’ talk show, you kind of have to say that. And Hillary is going to be on Tyra’s show this Friday!

Read the rest of this entry »

Women voters are the key to winning the next presidential election. 

Women with blogs reach a lot of other women.  No, most of us don’t have the Technorati rating of Arianna Huffington, but thousands upon thousands of women read and write blogs every day.  Not the yelling and screaming politico stuff, but a variety of thoughtful, funny and interesting accounts of what’s going on in our lives.  If we turned that into voter outreach, think about what we could do to change things in our country, regardless of where we fall on the blue-to-red political spectrum.

Apparently the candidates aren’t math geniuses or they would have figured out that reaching out to those of us who write (and read) blogs could help them out a bit in those battleground states.  That’s why I ‘heart’ Elizabeth Edwards.  Read the rest of this entry »

Even though I’m a ”recovering lawyer” and try to steer clear of things like Court TV and Judge Judy,  I still try to keep up on some of the legal publications that come home in Mr. PunditMom’s briefcase.    In the September issue of The American Lawyer, Editor in Chief Aric Press announced his plan for reforming the legal system that I think would translate beautifully to the presidential campaign.

It’s genius!  So much so, that I think we should steal it and apply it to the presidential campaign, as well!

His tongue-in-cheek brain child?  Mothers in Law, LLP.  In a nutshell, if you can’t convince your mother that an idea is a good one, then don’t do it.

Have a crazy legal theory or business idea?  Just imagine that you have to sell it to a panel of moms.  If it doesn’t get past their maternal sensibilities, then it’s a no go.  One example?

“Ma, I got this really cool new job.  I’m going to be the boss at the same place where my girlfriend works.  And Ma, I’m going to get her a promotion and more money, too.  And no one will object!  Do you see anything wrong with this?”

Press says we should use this model for White House occupants, as well.  But I say why wait until the new president is ensconced in his or hew new digs on Pennsylvania Avenue until 2012?  Why not put this to work now for the remaining 3,457 (or so)  ”debates” that are headed our way?

Forget the panel of journalists posing questions and no more spouting prepared soundbite responses.  Let’s line up some moms and make the candidates explain the specifics their proposals (no general statements, that’s cheating) on getting out of Iraq, health care, education, the Supreme Court, you name it. 

If the idea sounds too ridiculous, we send in Heidi Klum (come on, she’s a mom, too!) to give them the Project Runway ‘auf wiedersehen.’

I know the contenders would never go for it, but the kernel of truth is there – if a candidate can’t pass the explain-it-to-your-mother straight face test, they get the boot until the next campaign cycle when they can come back with some real plans for how to fix this country!

I received the following YouTube video from the John Edwards campaign this week on my E-mail.  I usually don’t watch these, but for some reason I clicked on it.

 It made me shudder. 

A breast cancer victim is 30 to 50 percent more likely to die if she doesn’t have health insurance? 

And how many women in this country don’t have health insurance?  A quick, and, yes, unscientific, search on the web suggests it’s somewhere between 20 and 25 million women.

The woman who shared her story in the video touched me.  I can’t even begin to imagine being in her situation.  We’re lucky here at Chez PunditMom — we’ve got a good health insurance policy and only one child left who we need a college savings account for.

But I was even more floored by Edwards’ response — yes, he assured her, he would work hard to change the way health care and insurance coverage are doled out in this country, but he also added that while he would fight for that he couldn’t promise what would ultimately get done. 

A politician who could have made an expedient but empty promise who didn’t.  Pretty amazing.

But it is the truth.  No presidential candidate can promise us anything, because there’s the little matter of the legislative branch of government.  They all have to find a way to play nicely together to accomplish anything in Washington, D.C., and as we know that doesn’t happen often.

That’s what I find refreshing about John Edwards’ campaign.  At least in that moment, he was honest — honest about his hopes and plans, and honest about the realities of the political process.

Attention all other presidential candidates — if you want us to listen to your message, please add a dose of that kind of honesty to your stump messages, as well.  Believe it or not, we are paying attention and after the last seven years, we’re more than ready for some real straight talk from the White House wannabes.

“The Claws Come Out,” was the Fox News headline that appeared last week when Michelle Obama’s comments about candidates on the campaign trail were taken out of context.  But, hey, when does Fox News let a little thing like accuracy stand in the way of a good story?

The uber-conservative “noise channel” (as it’s routinely described by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann) took Michelle Obama’s comment about “running the house” as the beginning of a Democratic cat-fight between her and Hillary Clinton. 

That coverage made me wonder why the press is often so happy to categorize comments by women about other women in that way?  If the scenario was changed and the comment had been made by Mitt Romney about John Edwards, the comment most likely would never have seen the light of the broadcast day.

The whole dust-up, from my perspective, is just another way the right-wingers are slyly trying to make the Democrats look like a bunch of pansies who can’t control their uppity, liberal wimmins.  Especially when you compare it to the coverage the GOP wives are getting.

No need to talk about the issues or ask the Republican wives why they think their husbands should be in the Oval Office.  They’re a little busy showing off the new condo or talking about movie preferences (Judith Giuliani says she and Rudy love to watch Sleepless in Seattle).

While I’m a confirmed Democrat from way back, I would really love to hear the wives of the GOP presidential candidates talk about the issues that are important to them.  I have a feeling that they probably wouldn’t be all that different from the ones I’m concerned about — health care (especially for poor children), ending the war, ending poverty in this country and a whole host of other ones. 

Think maybe that’s why they’re being limited to comments about hearth and home?

As I’ve been mulling over my thoughts on the field of Democratic presidential candidates, I’ve been wondering what those who usually vote Republican really think of their field of 2008 contenders.  I certainly have my opinions, which should be no surprise to anyone — I’m not really fond of any of them.  Unless you could come up with someone like a Howard Baker, there’s little hope that I would vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the rest of my lifetime.

I had a chance this week to talk with one of my long-time, best friends as we kept an eye on our daughters who were diving and splashing in the neighborhood swimming pool.  Politics is one thing I generally don’t discuss with this friend — we love each other dearly, but know that we part ways when it comes to political parties.

Turns out, we’re closer this election cycle to meeting in the middle than in prior elections.  She was curious how I felt about Hillary Clinton and who I was favoring at the moment.  I surprised her with my thoughts that, at least at the moment, I was leaning toward John Edwards.  We both lamented that we’ve waited for a viable woman candidate for president, but aren’t sure Hillary can pull it off.

Then, she surprised me with her thoughts on the GOP hopefuls – we both agreed that John McCain is “so done,” and she expressed her vehement opposition to Rudy Giuliani.  If the choice for her comes down to a Democrat vs. Giuliani, she’s going with the Democrat.

And even more interesting is this — her husband, who at the moment, favors Barack Obama, would change course in a heartbeat and lend support to Al Gore if he would just get in the race.

You think you know people.  After a friendship of almost 20 years, I would never have guessed that such opinions would come from her and her family.  So that makes me wonder what other surprises are out there?  Polls are tracking voter support, but are they giving us the real picture about what people are thinking?

All I know is this — it is NO ONE’S race yet and won’t be for a while.  I thought for many, there would never be a meeting of the political minds.  But given the current state of 2008, this could be one for the history books in terms of cross-over voters.

What about you?  Are you looking at the candidates in a way you never have before and surprising yourself about who you like and don’t like in the current field of wanna-be presidents?

This weekend I discovered the answer to all of our problems!

OK, not ALL of our problems, but maybe a few.  Banding together instead of lamenting alone in the privacy of our computer rooms is the way to get some real political change happening in this country.

I attended the BlogHer Conference in Chicago this past weekend and spent hours upon hours not only in the seminars about blogging, but also networking and meeting with a good segment of the 800+ women who attended.  You heard me — over 800 women (and a few brave men!) who wanted to meet and learn more about harnessing the power of their blogs.

So I started thinking — there must be tens of thousands of women with blogs, probably more.  How powerful would it be if we could tap into that to transform the discussion of issues for the 2008 Presidential election? 

Face it — we’re a powerful demographic, or at least we should be.  If the presence of major advertisers at the conference is any indication, I’d say the presidential hopefuls should be beating a path to our doors to see what we’re thinking about the issues.  After all, in the last two elections, women were over half of the voters who turned out.  That means we’re in the majority ladies!  How can we make our majority status a voice to be heard?

Having said all that, I was disappointed that the political track discussions were not very well attended at the conference.  Out of 800, only about two dozen showed up to hear NOW President Kim Gandy talk about getting our voices heard in 2008.  Why is that?  I know that for many, politics with a capital “P” isn’t “their bag, baby.”

Even if politics isn’t everyone’s bag, if we could convince a few more to make it a little pouch, maybe our voices would be a little louder than that of a Who at election time.

It’s a pretty simple question, really.

That’s what I want each candidate running for President to answer.  Really answer.  Not the canned soundbites they all could recite in their sleep by rote (and probably do).

What we need is a televised event (you know, they’re not really debates), where each candidate is grilled on that one question they ought to have an aswer for:

“Why do you want to be President of the United States?”

Then, I want lawyers who are really good at depositions to ask the follow-up questions.  Sure, some journalists do better than others , but what we need are some questioners who’ve been trained to put people on the hot seat, under oath — people who have been trained to really listen to an answer that someone gives and then follow up on each aspect until there are no further paths to follow.

Oh, that would be me!

My career is pretty evenly split in two — the years I’ve spent as a journalist that wrap around the years that I spent as an attorney.  In a deposition, you don’t just ask a list of prepared questions — you listen really hard.  And each time there is something in an answer that looks like it might take you down a new path, you follow it, and, when necessary, keep asking, “Why?” 

I’d love the chance to just ask each candidate the simple “Why?” question, but with unlimited follow-ups to what he or she says.  Who knows what we’d find out!

Yes, all the other answers the candidates give are important to the extent that we can believe them and that they really reflect the views and goals they’re really going to pursue.

Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the next POTUS-to-be if we could get to the bottom of that question?  Maybe all we’d get would be a speech about public service and moving the country forward. 

But we might get more — wouldn’t it be worth a shot?

I’m midway through an interesting book called If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear. 

Melinda Henneberger, a contributing writer at The Huffington Post, traveled around the country interviewing a variety of women to get their input on what’s important to them politically.

For political junkie like me, it’s a great and inspiring read.  I often get frustrated, wondering where all the women voters are and why so many of us stay home at election time.  Do we care what’s going on in the political world?  Or are we simply frustrated that the system just doesn’t work for us.

The question I’d really like to have answered on this topic is , “Why?”

If “they” only listened to us, it would be great.  But isn’t the bigger question, “Why don’t they listen to us?”

Those volunteers slaving to make things better in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.  Women activists who have turned away from their political parties because they feel that no one is listening.  Wives and mothers who are tuned into politics, but are increasingly put off by the failure of the system to benefit those who need it the most.

I think the answer is simple — we’re not the ones opening our wallets to the candidates. 

If abortion rights or providing relief for those hit by natural disasters were high on the priority list for Halliburton or the big pharmaceutical companies, you can bet there would be a lot more action on Capitol Hill than there is now on those issues.

So, should we open up our wallets for candidates or issues we believe in, regardless of whether we live in a red state or a blue state?  Chip in a few dollars for those who share our vision, regardless of what party we’re registered with?

I made a small donation to a Senate candidate this week who isn’t even from my state because he shares a world view that makes my political heart skip a beat.  It certainly wasn’t enough to cause a blip on the fundraising radar, but I figure it’s a start.