The Political Voices of Women

Here is a guest post by community member Zatfig Redhead from The Zatfig Redhead’s Blog

(If you would like to be a guest blogger on this site, please join our community)

Barack Obama has just had a particularly good week with the ladies. In fact, it was a noticeably big week for women’s endorsements for the Obama campaign. Can you say “gender gap?” I knew you could. In a week that saw Republican VEEP candidate Sarah Palin’s approval rating drop precipitously, these activities aimed at women voters well timed.

First, a group of women’s organizations — those few that have PACs and thus can endorse without jeopardizing their precious non-profit status — endorsed the junior senator from Illinois. Prominently featured was the still-not-as-happy-as-they-could-be NOW, who joined their shero Hillary Clinton in saying “no way, no how, no McCain.” Other groups included the Feminist Majority with the ever colorful Ellie Smeal, the Business & Professional Women/USA, the National Congress of Black Women, and the National Association of Social Workers. Watch portions of the press event here:

But the real coup de grace in my mind was this week’s Obama endorsement from Lilly Ledbetter. The plaintiff of Ledbetter v. Goodyear fame headlined the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and on September 18 made it official — she’s for Obama, in a big way. Ledbetter made the announcement at a series of events in the critical state of Virginia, and was treated like a rock star by adoring crowds. The New York Times has referred to Ledbetter as “the Democrats secret weapon,” and they may be right.

Take a look at this ad featuring Ledbetter, below, just released this past week — she’s a humble grandmother from Alabama who packs a punch, and women nationwide are cheering her on. Why? Because her experiences are so familiar, so universal to us all, and she’s speaking up and trying to change things for future generations — despite the fact that her own case is closed. Now, the Democratic Senate needs to do the right thing by Ledbetter’s vocal support and national advocacy and pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The House has already passed this critical bill that would right the Supreme Court’s FUBAR handling of the Ledbetter case. However, the legislation is currently stuck in a defacto Senate filibuster on the more pompous, ponderous side of the Hill. But if we can get more Dems elected to the Senate — and inch our way closer to that magic number of 60 — I predict the Ledbetter bill will be one of the first bills signed by an Obama Administration.

Read more »

As reported on US News & World Report, The Huffington Post and Feministe, the Wasilla police department changed their policy under the Sarah Palin mayoral administration to charge rape victims for the cost of their rape kits. Police Chief Charlie Fannon, who replaced the former chief of police when Palin fired him for not supporting her, decided to eliminate rape kits from the budget. Chief Fannon felt that the good people of Wasilla already had too high a tax burden, and forcing rape victims to pay for their own evidence gathering would save the town between $5,000 and $14,000 per year.

Of course, this makes perfect sense if you believe that rape victims asked for it. I mean, if women are going to go out wearing short skirts or tight pants, what do they expect? Or if they go out alone at all. Or if they stay home alone and someone breaks in. Thank goodness Palin hired a person who cares so much about the community.

The upshot of this policy is that the state of Alaska passed a law barring local law enforcement from charging rape victims for their rape kits. How many towns had this policy in place? One. That would be Wasilla, under the “leadership” of Sarah Palin. Who objected to the new law? Chief Charlie Fannon, complaining that the town would need to increase its budget to cover the cost of these routine law enforment procedures. Yes, that Palin sure has women’s best interests in mind.

[Contributor Suzanne Reisman is also at CUSS and other Rants, and BlogHer Feminism and Gender]

Here is a post by community member Lindsay Ross from Young, Political & Fabulous.

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

One of the many blatant hypocrisies that has stood out for me during this election is the fact that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters, who are so quick to cry sexism, remain silent when seemingly sexist connotations are assigned to Michelle Obama.

Most recently, Bill O’Reilly stated, “Now, I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there’s some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman.” I wouldn’t be surprised that if such a description was attributed to Clinton or Palin, supporters would assert that there’s a double standard that women who are smart, serious and professional are considered “angry.” Not to mention that such a statement seems completely untrue. At most appearances, Michelle is either smiling or serious – and certainly does not come off as an “angry woman.” What’s more, the Fox News’ characterization of Michelle Obama as “Obama Baby Mama” in June was also met with radio silence from the feminist community. But why?

Could it be that the intersection of race and gender just gets too hairy and so the battle is best left alone? The “Obama Baby Mama” comment is soaked in both sexist and racist connotations and perhaps many supporters of Clinton and Palin would rather avoid a subject where racism plays a role. It is clear that some republicans are trying to associate Michelle with pejorative images that are specific to African-American females. They would like to perpetuate the image of the “angry black woman” to instill hatred and fear in small-minded people – much like Ronald Reagan tried to do with the image of the “welfare queen” during his presidential campaign.

Or are we dealing with that aged-old taboo question from the Suffragist Movement that Women’s Rights has always been an exclusively white middle class woman phenomenon and black women are rarely invited to the dinner table? Such a question reemerged during the primary election, when Geraldine Ferraro asserted that; “Gender is the most restricting force in American life.” It is a zero-sum game to try to quantify sexism, racism or any other “ism” for that matter, but many women of color shuttered when they heard this comment. It brought back the fears that women of color and black women in particular have always been on the sidelines when it comes to fighting for equal rights for women and that they are virtually ignored when sexist comments are hurled their way.

Will John McCain’s Health Care Plan Help or Hurt You?  With the economy spiraling out of control, it’s important that we can all be secure in the availability, and quality of our health care.  If you have a pre-existing condition, are receiving your health care through your employer, or are a woman…You may be in trouble with a McCain Health Care Plan.  Here is some of the latest information, let me know what you think in comments.

Journal Disputes McCain’s Health Care Claims

Senator John McCain’s top domestic policy adviser, former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, recently said in a conference call with reporters that Mr. McCain’s health care proposal would “put 25 to 30 million individuals out of the ranks of the uninsured, into the ranks of the insured.” In an article released Tuesday, a panel of prominent health economists concludes that Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s projection is off by, well, 25 to 30 million.

The article, published in the journal Health Affairs, argues that “initially there would be no real change in the number of people covered as a result of the McCain plan.” After a short-term reduction of 1 million in the number of people without coverage, the number of uninsured would increase by 5 million after five years, the authors predict. There are currently 45 million people without insurance, or 15 percent of the population, according to the Census Bureau.

On Obama’s Health Care Plan…

By comparison, Senator Barack Obama’s plan, which would provide heavy government subsidies for insurance for low-income workers, would reduce the number of uninsured by 18 million in 2009 and by 34 million in 2018, according to the Urban Institute/Brookings Institution report. That would still leave Mr. Obama well shy of his goal of achieving universal coverage.

[read full article at the caucus]

Think You Know John McCain?   His Health Care Plan Will Penalize Women…

Presidential candidate John McCain’s health care reform plan would have a devastating impact on women, according to a new analysis.

“Tens of millions of women would be at risk of losing their current insurance coverage even though they use health care services more frequently than men, suffer chronic illness more often than men, and require maternity care and other reproductive health services,” concludes a report by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The aim of McCain’s health care plan is to break up the existing employer based health care coverage system and replace it with a market-oriented system funded in part by the government.

Employers that currently offer health care coverage would find fewer incentives to continue doing so under the McCain plan. Instead, individuals would be given a tax credit of $2,500 (families would receive $5,000) so that they could shop around on the open market for the best plan for them, whether that insurer is based in the same state or not. The catch, though, is that the private insurance market doesn’t treat women that well.

The study reports that if McCain’s plan is implemented, “more than 30 million women with employer-sponsored health insurance who suffer from a chronic condition could lose their coverage, find it harder to obtain coverage, or have to purchase supplemental insurance to cover their chronic condition.”

Read more »

 Here is a guest post by community member Deb Della Piana from Turn Left.

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

Although the story I’m about to tell you is personal and happened to me and my family, it’s not just my story. It still happens everywhere, everyday. It’s a story of what it’s truly like to be gay in America. I don’t speak much about this these days, but I’m telling it to you today because I fear the country we face under John McCain and Sarah Palin. Under their virulently right-wing rule, this type of disenfranchisement and gutter treatment could spread exponentially throughout this nation.

I once worked for what I believed was one of the best Fortune 500 companies, a company that I had been loyal to since joining them in 1974 and I expected some type of loyalty in return. I was naïve back then. What I have learned is that companies expect loyalty, but they absolutely do not return it at the same level. No company name will be given, but let’s just say that with the advent of some new management came some discrimination. In this case, it was based on my sexual orientation (which, by the way, had not been an issue prior to management change). In 1997, after several ugly encounters between myself and my boss, I was roundly fired.

The circumstances are not important. The fact is that I signed an agreement not to sue (I was stupid, in retrospect) in exchange for a severance package. At the time, I had a small child under a year and a very sick partner, who had contracted pre-eclampsia during the final twenty weeks of the pregnancy and was saddled with a diagnosis of perinatal cardiomyopathy post-pregnancy. I saw no other way to survive and keep them both healthy and safe. One decision I had made, however, was that I would never again give my all to a corporation.

Read more »

Here is a guest post from community member Marcia G. Yerman, who also blogs at The Huffington Post.

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

Washington – Top leaders from women’s rights groups gathered to announce their support of the Barack Obama – Joe Biden ticket at an emotionally charged press conference on Tuesday, September 16th. Qualifying that it was an unusual move for her organization to make an endorsement, Kim Gandy, chair of the NOW PAC (National Organization for Women Political Action Committee) stated, “This is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country.”

Gandy, who has spoken at length with Obama about his “commitment to women’s equality,” went on to present what she characterized as Obama’s record of saying “yes” to women’s rights. She focused on four primary categories: pay equity; reproductive rights; violence against women; the Supreme Court.

Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act – legislation designed to end wage discrimination against women. He has made it clear that he not only supports Roe v. Wade, but would also oppose any efforts to overturn it. Understanding that a component of the total picture is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, Obama signed on as a co-sponsor of The Prevention First Act, which would strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care.

Obama backs the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (Joe Biden – Chief Sponsor). He stands behind the…(SAFE) – which would provide medical, legal, and financial support to domestic violence victims. Obama has opposed George Bush’s selection of candidates for the Supreme Court, who espoused an “anti-choice” agenda.

Gandy completed her opening remarks referencing NOW’s support of Hillary Clinton in the primary, and said, “We proudly stand with her [Clinton] to support Barack Obama and our longtime friend and ally, Joe Biden.”

The Feminist Majority PAC chair, Eleanor Smeal, took her turn at the podium. “Hundreds of women’s groups are coming out,” she said. “McCain has a 26 year record of voting against women’s rights.” As an example, she pointed to a $214 million breast cancer research-funding bill that McCain had voted against. Smeal reiterated that Obama and Biden wanted to expand opportunities for women, which would close the pay gap. “This is a ticket that we know. They are standing on the strongest platform.”

Betsy Clark, Executive Director of NASW-PACE, which has 150,000 social worker members (81% are women), spoke about the “strength and power of women in this country.” Talking about her profession (600,000 practitioners nationwide) she explained, “We advocate; we promote social justice; we are committed to supporting children and families.” There are 13 million children who live below the poverty line, and Clark characterized Obama and Biden as those who “will do the most” for them. She ended her comments with, “The best hope for America is Barack Obama.”

CEO of Business and Professional Women/PAC, Deborah Frett, discussed her personal meetings with Obama and observed, “The return of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) to the Democratic Platform wouldn’t be there without Barack Obama’s support.” Having contacted both candidates with questions about their positions —including expanding sick leave, flexible work hours, and equity for women in the workplace — Frett mentioned that there had been no response from McCain. Another area of concern for Frett came out of her organization’s research on women veterans (numbering 200 million), which exposed their specific needs. She stressed Barack Obama’s election as essential for working women. “We need to ensure that our voices are heard loud and clear.”

Injecting a bit of humor into the proceedings, E. Faye Williams, National Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, said, “We know the difference between a zero and a hero.” “Obama,” she said, “is willing to listen to us. He has met with us, and he will support equal pay for equal work.” Emphatic about her vision of women she asserted, “We women — we stand ready, willing, and able to turn this country right side up again.”

Inevitably, during the Q & A, inquiries were posed about the latest polls and the Sarah Palin factor. Gandy replied that “polls will shift” when people find out more about Palin’s record. On an ironic note, Gandy opined, “I love it that the Republicans have discovered sexism. Before that…it was whining.” For her, the key to supporting Obama-Biden is that “they both stand up for women.”

Smeal spoke about “where people stand on issues, not gender.” Directly addressing the Palin query she maintained, “We are not against a women being on a ticket. Her [Palin] personal positions are extremely negative.” Discussing the top of the ticket, Smeal said, “Naral and Planned Parenthood gave zero to McCain on his voting record.”

There was definitely an air of urgency in the proffered comments. Smeal admitted, “We are worried to death,” alluding to the possibility of “losing the Supreme Court.” With an air of finality she concluded, “If you care about the rights of women, there is only one place to stand.”

Here is a guest post from community member Marcia G. Yerman, who also blogs at The Huffington Post.

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

I knew something was up when I turned on my computer and saw a number of e-mails that had similar subject titles. The two standouts were, “Please Respond and Forward” and “Women Say No to Palin.”
As I opened them, each featured the same text in the body, with different introductory clauses.
“We must do something;” ”Please sign this;” “I am outraged by McCain’s choice.”
I was beginning to get the concept.

The letter began:

“Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters,
We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement
of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party.”

The note raised the issues of Palin’s stated beliefs and record, and questioned her preparedness to
“become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.” It featured a sentence that clearly
articulated, “We are not against Sarah Palin as a women or a mother,” making a point to take theconversation out of the personal realm, where much of the discourse has recently been.

It went on to say:

“First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold
our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.

Therefore, we invite you to reply here with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation.”

The site, Women Against Sarah Palin, is housed at blogspot. It has a clean design and features quotes from “American feminist role models,” photos, information and activist links (including a “Register to Vote!”), in addition to the blog archive. One of the letters is from Margaret Sanger’s 30-year old great great niece.

I spoke to Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston, the originators of the letter. Both women hail from California, and are associate editors at Modern Painters magazine. They were taking their daily work break, with a walk around Chelsea, discussing the choice of Palin as Vice-President. Latimer came up with the idea that they “had to do something.” She clearly emphasized that they were “not in the habit of calling out women.” However, they did feel that they needed “to come out as women because she [Palin} doesn’t represent our interests.” Kilston said, “McCain is the one to blame,” and stressed that that she opposed Palin on the basis of “her lack of experience and her positions.”

Read more »

Here is the ABC Charlie Gibson Interview with Sarah Palin. There is also some fact-checking of this interview by ABC, as well as some pundit reaction. Let me know what you thought about the interview in comments. Do you think Sarah Palin is ready to be V.P. or possibly the president of our country? Are you more or less likely to vote for John McCain with Sarah Palin on the ticket?

Sarah Palin Interview with Charlie Gibson (part one)

Read more »

Here is a guest post by community member Moi, she also blogs at Bloggg.

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

Ooh That Smell…

Obama is getting my Hold The Nose vote. I’m sure he won’t care if I’m holding my nose or not. And it’s not because I drank the Kool Aid – I just feel the gun at my head.

Many people I know are mad at me. Oh, well, they will have more stress than I will. Lambert at Corrente says I can still be a PUMA anyway, lol. YES, I know how much vile BS Obama spewed during the primary. The media treatment was just as abhorrent to me as it was to them. I used to really like Olbermann; now I can’t stand the sight of him. The sexism has really sunk in, and the men did it to themselves. In the end, however, there are more reasons Not to vote Republican than Not to vote Democrat, or not to vote at all. And no, I won’t include the SCOTUS or Roe v. Wade, because I think they should not be part of it, either.

If you are a Dem, and vote for McCain, then maybe I could say You have fallen for the Republican Kool Aid. It has always made me wonder, the people who started this movement, are they really Republicans in stealth, who have set out to do this ON PURPOSE to split up the Democratic Party? And not just for PUMA itself, but for a lot of the bloggers that banded together early with PUMA? If that’s true, then the Republicans have succeeded. So far. Meaning we ALL drank the Kool Aid.

Read more »

Here is a post from our newest community member Anita S. Lane.  You can read more from Anita at her blog Unconventional Politics.

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

Is it possible to be a good, well-meaning individual and say something stupid? Of course it is.

I was recently talking with a relative whose brother in-law was a soldier who had been killed in Iraq. In the course of the conversation I made the remark, “So, does that make it any easier to decide who you’re going to vote for?”

My relative kindly informed me that it’s really not wise to mix the death of a beloved soldier with politics. Point well-taken. I guess that was kind of stupid. But I was uninformed and insensitive.

Yesterday, Senator Joe Biden found himself in a similar position. While out on the campaign trail, he mixed a very delicate real-life situation with a hot-button political issue. . He stated that “If you care about it [issues surrounding children with disabilities] why don’t you support stem-cell research?”

Yes, Senator Biden’s remark was stupid. Or to put it in a more politically correct form—his remark was uninformed and insensitive. The reality is that the type of individual who would knowingly carry to term a baby with a disorder or birth defect is exactly the type of individual who values human life in any form, and may not be inclined to support using human embryos for scientific research.

To date, to my knowledge there has been no scientific breakthrough using embryonic stem cells—not to say that there won’t be in the future. However there have been significant breakthroughs using adult stem cells. Most Americans support stem cell research—it’s only over embryonic stem cell research that we’re having this huge, overblown debate.

So, when Senator Biden stands up and says, “If you care about it [children with disabilities], why don’t you support stem cell research?” he is speaking from an insensitive, uninformed position— a position I don’t think Obama himself would have asserted.

As a mother of a developmentally disabled child, I was offended by Biden’s comment and the insensitive tone in which he made it. I love my child. In fact, I love my child just the way he is and would never, ever trade him in for a “normal” child—even if I could. However, if stem cell research is able to correct the chromosomal condition that causes Down syndrome for future children, fine.

But Biden needs to be sensitized and informed—just as I was— to know that it’s just not wise to mix one’s intense and passionate love for their child (who happens to be disabled) with the current hot-button political issue of the day. Not only is his argument flawed, but the two just don’t mix.

Also see a related post by Anita – Passing Up on Down Syndrome