Cameras will be following the president-elect and his family every step of the way during the day — and you’ll be able to watch it live streaming on MTV.com. Here’s a look at where they’ll be for the ceremony, the parades — and of course the Youth Inaugural Ball and other balls throughout the evening.

» 8:25 a.m.: Obamas leave Blair House for prayer service at St. John’s Episcopal Church

» 8:35 a.m.: Prayer service

» 9:45 a.m.: Church service ends; Obamas depart for the White House

» 10:05 a.m.: Obamas arrive at White House for coffee with the Bushes

» 11 a.m.: Motorcade departs for the Capitol

» 11:30 a.m.: Bushes and Obamas proceed to platform on the West Front; California Senator Dianne Feinstein will issue the call to order and deliver brief welcoming remarks, followed by an invocation from Dr. Rick Warren and a performance from Aretha Franklin (who also sang at Bill Clinton’s first inauguration)

» 11:50 a.m.: Joe Biden is sworn in as vice president by Supreme Court Justice John Stevens

» 12 p.m.: Barack Obama is sworn in as president by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Obama, with his hand on Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural Bible, will recite the same oath as his predecessors: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Musical performance from John Williams, Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero and Anthony McGill, followed by “Hail to the Chief” and a 21-gun salute

» 12:05 p.m.: Inaugural address, followed by a poem written and recited by Elizabeth Alexander and a benediction from Dr. Joseph Lowery. The national anthem will be performed by the U.S. Navy Band Sea Chanters

» 12:30 p.m.: Ceremony concludes

» 12:35 p.m.: Bush departs via helicopter; Cheney departs by limo

» 12:45 p.m.: Obama signs inauguration papers in the President’s Room

» 1:00 p.m.: Obama attends congressional luncheon

» 2:15 p.m.: Obama and Biden review troops at Capitol

» 2:30 p.m.: President Obama leads the parade from the Capitol along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House

» 3:15 p.m.: Arrival at the White House

» 3:45 p.m.: Obamas and Bidens proceed to the reviewing stand; inaugural parade continues until 6 p.m.

» 7 p.m.: The official inaugural balls begin with the Neighborhood Ball at the Washington Convention Center, with performers scheduled to include Beyoncé. Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey, Faith Hill, Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, Shakira, Stevie Wonder and others. Nick Cannon will DJ.

The event, expected to include the president and first lady’s first dance of the night, will be broadcast on ABC beginning at 8 p.m. From there, it’s on to other celebrations, including MTV’s Youth Ball.

What do you think? Let me know in comments.

Dr. Biden spoke at length about how much women juggle taking care of children, ailing parents, working, and helping other families. She spoke about how we need equal pay for equal work, and she noted that women bear an “even greater burden than ever before” in terms of supporting our families. She answered questions about how teachers are being overexerted in their jobs and she emphasized the need to help teachers reduce their load and allow them to be trained and to be able to mentor other teachers as well.

The call began with an introduction by Dana Singiser of the Obama campaign and then Dr. Biden spoke briefly about how she’s worked as an educator for many years, teaching them to read and write. She was kind and humble in what she said, reading off a prepared statement, and she said that when she’s in the classroom, they don’t talk about politics, but “this election is about them.”

Through an extended question and answer session, we discussed issues around special needs children and she emphasized how important it is that those programs get funding. We talked a lot about community colleges and affordable college education and she made the point that one of the things most people don’t realize right now with this economic crisis and loans drying up is that college loans are included in that process, making it tougher for students to afford to be educated. We talked about the failure of the No Child Left Behind program and how to change and improve that. Attendance in school was something that’s a major issue as well and Dr. Biden recommended a mentorship program to help with that. And one question was about technology use in education. Dr. Biden’s reply was perfect: “technology is supposed to enhance education, not be education.” Absolutely right on.

Glennia Campbell posted a comprehensive transcript on the MOMocrats site and I encourage anyone who hasn’t read it yet to view the issue statements posted on the campaign web site.

What do you think? Are you influenced by Colin Powell’s endorsement? Do you think this endorsement will have an effect on the outcome of Election? Let me know what you think in comments.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Last November 26 as the race for nomination began in earnest I posted an Open Letter to the Candidates. I think it relevant that I now post it again with a few additions highlighted in bold.

Well, since it is here and easy to step onto, I am pulling out the soapbox this morning. This is an open letter to all the presidential candidates about what I want from my next president. Here it is not in priority order since I don’t want to make this too hard:

1. I want you to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within the first 100 days of office and to provide medical care for the wounded and support for the reserve military to return to their civilian lives.
2. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have medical care !
3. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have affordable medications.
4. I want you to find a way for every young person to have access to higher education.
5. I want you to improve our schools and get our teachers better prepared and better paid.
6. I want you to find a way to ensure that the people who have entered a tacit agreement to turn over some of their earnings with the understanding that they would have a return as social security annuities will in fact get that return on investment.
7. I want you to behave as a Global CITIZEN rather than as the AUTOCRATIC PATRIARCH telling your global brothers and sisters how to run their countries.
8. I want you to strengthen our relationships with other countries and to broker agreements that will improve our security and our economy and that will reduce barriers and build alliances.
9. I want you to use more diplomacy in dealing with world issues and NOT rush to invade, conquer and quash.
10. I want you to be as concerned about what is happening in Burma and Darfur as Iraq and Iran.
11. I want you to refuse to build a WALL across our border and to develop a considered approach to immigration issues that is not fueled by fear, prejudice and narrow vision.
12. I want you to ensure that religious thought does not dictate decisions such as who may or may not enter into the civil contract of marriage. Such issues are for (of-age) individuals to decide not government.
13. I want you to reduce the availability of automatic weapons.
14. I want you to ensure our environment is protected.
15. I want you to use passion, vision and focus to develop and deploy real alternatives to fossil fuels as energy in this country. Kennedy took us to the moon in a decade … we can do the same to solve our energy problems.
16. I want you to sign the Kyoto agreement and to work diligently to reduce global warming.
17. I want you to immediately take appropriate action to improve our economy for the small towns, the working people and the small business owners of this country not simply for the big cities, the moguls and the financial houses.
18. I want you to be a person of integrity and intelligence and to surround yourself with passionate, dedicated people of equal intelligence and integrity.
19. I want you to do what you said you’d do while trying to get me to vote for you and to not use clever ways of speaking to avoid telling the truth about what you’re doing. (thanks Mary Ann of DSS)
20. I want you to lead us, inspire us, unite us, redefine us.
21. I want you to understand the need for and the way to build consensus when leading change.
22. I want you to promote harmony, to inspire pride and confidence, and to unite us.
23. I want you to protect the constitution and not erode the rights protected by the constitution!
24. I want some sane and reasonable regulations or restrictions on the financial community (or some creative and realistic solution) to restrain the overwhelming greed and corruption that brought us to our current dismal financial situation. I don’t have the answer but creative problem solving that does not simply put a band-aid on a headache can certainly be developed over the next four years. And while you are looking into that, how about reconsidering the federal stance on usury.
25. It is absolutely reprehensible that we as a nation continue to employ land mines in our warfare strategies.We need to change that! See references below.

The Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty, formally the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, bans completely all anti-personnel landmines (AP-mines). As of 2007, it has been signed/accessioned by 158 countries. Thirty-seven states, including the People’s Republic of China, India, Russia and the United States, are not party to the Convention. (Wikipedia)

Arms Control AssociationI KNOW. These are big expectations, but not unreasonable and they are the goals and expectations that will allow us to be a truly great and powerful nation.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Have you heard the latest phrase from the McCain-Palin stomp speech? It consists of two very powerful words. “I’m angry.” To place the statement in context, Palin has said, “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” McCain has himself said, “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid McCain actually loses the election— then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”

McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.

I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.

Instead of pulling back on the rhetoric that solicited very troubling outbursts at their rallies last week, McCain and Palin decided to step-up the intensity this week by launching a new “You’re angry and I’m angry too” campaign slogan. It’s an interesting approach, but is it the right approach?

I believe that how individuals conduct their campaign is an indication of how they’ll conduct their presidency. Since its inception, the tone and tenor of the Obama campaign has consistently been one of hope and inclusion—focusing on what unites us, not divides us. Yes, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the McCain attacks with attacks of their own. However, within the last few weeks, the entire tone and tenor of the McCain campaign has grown increasingly cynical and mean-spirited—even inciting the “angry mob” effect at its rallies.

Maybe McCain hopes history won’t repeat itself in his case—or perhaps he just doesn’t know— but historical precedence demonstrates that the “angry” candidate doesn’t win.

Six months ago, Obama referred to some small town Americans as “bitter.” As a result, he was lambasted, labeled an elitist and suffered a dip in the polls as a result. Now, McCain and Sarah Palin are stirring up their crowds by proudly proclaiming “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

Hey, I understand. We all get angry. Judeo-Christian teaching instructs us to “be angry but sin not.” So fine—McCain, Palin and their audiences have every right to be angry—that’s fine. It’s the “sin not” part of the equation that worries me.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Like everyone else in America, I was waiting to see how the match up between Palin and Biden would transpire. Beyond the giddy atmosphere that was building (somewhat between a sporting event and a game show), was a deeper, darker space. It was a low, wide valley occupied by symbols and ambiguities of murky distinctions — the roles of gender and race in the 2008 election.

Those specific issues were discussed and debated at a two-day symposium at St. John’s University. As
I sat down to watch the two Vice-Presidential contenders, the presentations of the conference’s speakers reverberated in my head.

Presented by the university’s law school, there was a heavy representation of scholars focusing on media and law, election law, and legal theory. In addition to those emanating from the academic world, there was a cross section of journalists and activists.

Perspectives on Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Role of the Media in Shaping Perceptions of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Intersectionality of Race, Gender, Media, and the Political Process; A Dialogue on Legal Constructions of Race, Gender, and Identity in the 2008 Elections, were some of the panels which I attended.

The concerns that had been come up earlier in the election season got turned on their heads once again with the placement of Sarah Palin onto the McCain ticket. Charges of sexism, reverse sexism, populist feminism, anti-feminism — and permutations on the theme — were doled out in abundance. Prominent in the mix was the role of the media, both amplifying and exacerbating misconceptions to the public.

Several themes coalesced over the two-day period. A prominent one was the oft repeated, “Did race trump gender?” Dr. Cynthia Neal-Spence, Associate Professor of Sociology at Spelman College, spoke about the dilemma of the black female. Asking, “Are we as a group more gender conscious or race conscious?” she then suggested “the media coverage had helped black women to choose sides.” Despite Obama offering a post-racial approach, she sensed the same “tensions resurfacing that were in place during the suffragette movement.” She also saw the media’s analyzation as being “racialized.”

Valorie K. Vojdik, Professor at the West Virginia University College of Law, acknowledged that with women as the minority of politically elected representatives, exclusion of women from political power was still in play. She spoke of Hillary Clinton as having challenged and transcended gender when she won her seat in the Senate. Having left the White House and the female sphere of “home,” Clinton entered the realm of competence (male driven) with her inclusion in the Senate. She “cracked the ceiling and the gender structure of power.”

However, Vojdik said, “Those in the media insisted on gendering her candidacy, taking her from the public sphere to the private construction of her identity as a wife and a mother.” This was often accomplished through the use of specific language. She gave as examples the terms, “shrill, emasculating, castrating,” with oft used analogies of Hillary as “the hectoring mother,” or “the wife as ball-buster.” Hillary was not male, but she “had failed as a female.”

On the other hand, Vojdik saw Sarah Palin as seeking to be elected because she was a woman in the “good wife and mother” mode. Projecting herself as stereotypically feminine, albeit a “pit bull with lipstick,” she “appeals to the 80′s concept of the superwoman.” “But,” Vojdik asked, “where are the supports for ordinary women?”

Her masculine hobbies don’t appear “gender bending,” instead they conjure up an image of her as a frontier woman. By that token, it is ironic that when you place Palin’s gun in the hands of Michele Obama (as on the cover of the New Yorker magazine), you have a totally different image. Donna Rouner, Professor at Colorado State University School of Journalism, pointed to the masculinization of Michele Obama as too strong, angry, scary, and the militant who used the “whitey” epithet. Neal-Spence concluded that the sexism toward Hillary Clinton had been “more palatable for some, because she was white.”

With Sarah Palin dealing the “motherhood card,” but only wanting to play it her way, she created a dichotomous situation. While claiming the right to trot out her family, she stepped away from discussing work/family issues. Enabled by her own specific circumstances, her connection to struggling mothers who are faced with untenable survival choices, was strictly superficial. As moderator Rosemary C. Salomone, Professor of Law at St. John’s University observed, “If we talk about it [working women's issues], we would have to do something about it in social policy.

Carolyn M. Byerly, Associate Professor at Howard University, questioned if the press was “meeting its social responsibility” to provide coverage of issues and events that affect women’s status. She emphasized, “You can’t underestimate the invisibility of women.” It was clear that she didn’t believe women’s concerns were being explored, and backed that up with citations on the lack of story lines about women’s economic concerns (i.e. 1 in 8 women lack the money to take a sick child to the doctor.).

There was a strong consensus of displeasure on how female candidates were observed. Elizabeth A. Skewes, Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado’s School of Journalism, characterized the coverage as “hair, hemlines, and husband headlines,” with a spotlight on personal traits.

Jennifer L. Pozner, Director of Women in Media and News, showed visuals of gender bias in the media. My favorite example of what Pozner qualified as “passing for public debate” was the clip of Donny Deutsch exclaiming about Palin, “I want her laying next to me in bed.”

That thread was picked up in the ecstatic reaction to Palin’s presentation of self in the debate by National Review‘s Rich Lowry who gushed, “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’”

Although feminine for Sarah Palin is an asset, “feminine” attributes in general are considered a negative. “The process of gender,” as phrased by Vojdik, is a methodology employed by the Republicans where they “feminize” a male candidate — to his detriment.

Like Hillary Clinton, Obama also faced challenges. Meta G. Carstarphen, Professor at the University of Oklahoma Gaylord College of Journalism, stated that race has “always been a element, even as a subtext.” Bryan L. Adamson, Associate Professor at Seattle University School of Law, talked about the use of Obama’s religion (Is he a Christian?) as a race proxy. It was a natural stepping-stone to the coded language of outsider and otherness.

Frank Rudy Cooper, Associate Professor of Law at Suffolk University, spelled out that “Obama had to deal with the media representation of black masculinity.” He posited that Obama had to be “a unisex president.” Despite trying to run a “post-racial campaign, Obama had to be careful avoid “the angry black male” stereotype by not being too aggressive. Cooper explained that in pitting McCain against Obama, the masculine vs. feminine style is emphasized. Obama’s empathetic style has been criticized, and as “feminization is a slur,” he is forced into a precarious balancing act.

The “other” category was not a hurdle for Obama alone. Nancy Wang Yuen, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Biola University, spoke to the “media pattern of racialization.” She asked, in reference to an article in Time (2/17/08) entitled, “Does Obama Have an Asian Problem?” why the media was “not likely to racialize why a white candidate wins.”

Laura E. Gómez, Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico, lamented the paucity of coverage in the national media about Latino voters. She expressed concern about the “lack of depth and context about the Latino population,” citing that in the future, 30% of the American population will be Latino. Gómez also characterized the media’s concentration on a black/brown divide as “race baiting.” She named it as a “structural racism,” where the emphasis is put on, “Oh, they [Latinos] are racist too.”

Yet new technology and new media may be transforming the game. Carolyn M. Byerly’s opinion is that “technology is changing” with a huge shift in how people seek information. In her view “the structures of the media are anachronistic” and “alternative media matters.”

That concept was illuminated by Anthony E. Varona, Associate Professor of Law at American University. He pointed out why the 2004 Karl Rove election strategy based on the “unease felt by religious and social conservatives” wasn’t going to work in 2008. Plainly put, “Things have changed. New media and the blogosphere have made it impossible.” Varona discussed the prior use of fear and enmity toward gays “to mobilize voters.” He said, “Trumpeting anti-gay rhetoric” flies in the face of the fact that “McCain has senior people, both open and closeted gays” on his team. Or as Varona succinctly put it, “The Internet has pulled the curtain on homosexuality and the appalling hypocrisy of the Republicans.”

UCLA law professors Devon W. Carbado and Cheryl Harris brought up the question, “Who gets to invoke identity, and what does it mean?” Discussing identity and politics replacement strategy, they presented construct examples such as: “Sarah Palin is to Hillary Clinton as Clarence Thomas is to Thurgood Marshall.” The audience immediately got it.

A particular exchange during the Vice-Presidential debate put the issue of identity on the table when Sarah Palin spoke about how her role as a mother has given her “special insights.” Biden, in his visceral response, challenged Palin’s claim. Speaking emotionally about the car accident that changed his life he said:

“Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent…When my wife
and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured – I understand
what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to
make it.”

He went on to say:

“But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s
like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child
you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.”

Throwing off the mantle of constrictive masculinity to create his own paradigm, Biden created a 2008 perspective on gender that was worth noting.

Clinton Stumps for Obama…

President Clinton campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in Roanoke on Sunday evening, exciting a crowd of thousands with his praise for Obama’s commitment to policy change.

At the outdoor rally at the City Market in downtown Roanoke, Clinton said that Obama had the instincts to be president, citing his plans for financial recovery and proposals for health care reform.

“Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to win here on Election Day with your help,” Clinton said. “For the first time in 40 years, Virginia will be a Democratic state. We have a chance to fundamentally change the direction of the country.”

Hillary Clinton in Scranton with Joe Biden…

I’ve had a crazy-making fortnight with a lot of stuff going on both at work and home, so I haven’t been posting as much. I wish I had written the post that was swirling around my head over the last week, so that this morning I could look like a wise and prescient cyberpundit. I knew that Sarah Palin would perform better than her Couric and Gibson interviews would suggest. I knew Joe Biden was unlikely to make one of his trademark gaffes. I guessed that Palin would appeal to those who like bright, shiny and pretty–packaged lines and zingers and “personal connection,” not wonkiness. I thought that Biden might look a little old and dusty next to the Republican’s “breath of fresh air” candidate, but I knew that once he demonstrated his vast knowlege of foreign policy and the economy, most viewers would remember that new ain’t better if there is no “there” there. So, last night’s debate turned out just like I thought. The veep candidates’ performances likely cemented opinions on both side. Joe Biden won, but the game remains unchanged.

About Sarah

Sorry, Joe, but no one was tuning in to see you last night. We’ve seen you debate like a gazillion times. Last night’s vice presidential debate was all about Sarah. Would her performance confirm fears about readiness stoked by refusals to talk to the press, and horrific stumbles during a handful of media outings? If you were really watching last night, you would say “yes.” But it seems even though conventional wisdom says Biden won, it also says Palin performed well.

Look, folks were never going to see the debate train wreck they hoped for. You don’t get to be a mayor or governor without political acumen and the ability to discuss issues. To believe that what we saw in the Couric and Gibson interviews is all there is to Sarah Palin is to believe that either the people of Alaska or Sarah Palin are nitwits. And that’s not the case. The problem with the Republican candidate for vice president, who likely acquits herself on local and state issues perfectly well, is that she is someone with no interest, knowledge or experience with national or international issues and her handlers are trying to stuff her full of talking points and factoids to disguise that fact. Last night, Sarah Palin appeared well media trained, but still unable to discuss the details behind the talking points.

Palin also appeared too cutesy by half. If you watched any of her Alaskan debates online, where she appeared sober and adult, then last night’s winking and “gosh darn it, Joe” was revealed for what it was–an attempt to win on moxie and charm, not substance. The superficiality of this act was never more clear than when Joe Biden choked up when referencing the accident that claimed his first wife and one child. It was a wrenching moment that left a lump in my throat. But Palin’s response was a chipper canned talking point about the McCain/Palin ticket’s maverickiness. Media training shouldn’t override natural instincts or voice. In that moment of the debate, talking points obscured Palin’s humanity and that’s not good.

Whose fault is it?

Sarah Palin’s public performances say less about her than they do about John McCain, who at a time of several national crises chose a running mate who has to cram for the role vice president like a college sophomore. It was the most cynical of moves: using a Republican woman (and not one of the many qualified ones) to attract disaffected Democratic women, who McCain reckons won’t notice his running mate’s beliefs, policies and lack of national and international knowledge, if she is folksy, charming and drives her kids to hockey practice just like them. McCain would put a vice president who is out of her depth a hair’s breadth from the presidency to win. Country first? Looks more like “me first.”

Just like I thought.