The Political Voices of Women

Never underestimate the power of women who feel they are targets of campaign condescension. I received an email urging me to donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name three times over the last two weeks, and that my friends, means it went viral. But just how viral? Almost $1 million dollars worth according to Ben Smith at Politico. Why does Palin inspire such a strong reaction from women who favor choice? Linda Hirschman’s editorial in the Washington Post outlines part of a future that simultaneously inspires fear and fury in women across the country. I’m sure Palin is going to enjoy receiving all of those thank you cards for donations to Planned Parenthood.

Here is a guest post from 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.]

Majority of Americans Don’t Want a Bailout and Are Willing to Suffer the Consequences!

Estimates reveal that the proposed $700 billion bailout plan will cost $2,333 for each person in America. For my family that means $13,998. Hec, I’ve got my own debt to pay down.

As it turns out, I’m not alone. Many Americans (about 1/3) are not inclined to support this bailout. Another third will consider voting for the bill only if it’s done right—and I fully understand.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and President Bush assert that if we don’t approve the bailout, and I paraphrase, “all hell will break loose.” And if it does? …

What I and most Americans want to know is whether this plan will serve as a temporary bandaid that just postpones the inevitable, or will it incorporate systemic policy changes that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future?

No New Crisis
Truthfully, many of us in America are pretty fed up and are willing to just let the whole thing burn. Most of us have already been burned. Middle and working class American families have been in a crisis for a while. Between rising gas, food and energy prices, depreciating housing values, layoffs and few raises to offset the cost of living increases, ordinary Americans have been looking for our own bailout plan, and it just doesn’t exist.

Now, the treasury and the President wants each American to dig a little deeper into our own bleak pockets and cough up $2,333 per person to rescue Wall Street—effectively increasing our record high national debt by almost an additional trillion dollars.

Treasury Secretary, I’m sorry to inform you, but we cannot afford a bailout of this magnitude. We simply don’t have it. There has to be another way. Keep thinking…

Debtor Nation
Increasing our current $10 trillion debt by another $700 billion just cannot be sound financial policy. Is it fair that a few folks on Wall Street could so detrimentally impact the masses? No. Should someone be held accountable? Sure, but the bottom line is, if we Americans are willing to take our chances and decide we aren’t willing to bailout Wall Street, then let it be our decision—you know, “we the people?…”

But what if Wall Street crumbles? Well, we’ll just have to take it and make some good ol’ American apple crumble. Americans know how to bounce back. We always do. If our paper house burns down. Little-by-little, we’ll just build it back up again. That’s old-school. That’s the American way. There simply are no short fixes and get-right-quick schemes when it comes to finances.

Sorry, King Paulson.

 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.]

A “grassroots” letter that will be presented to Sarah Palin by MomsRising is currently on their site, available for signature. To date, 20,000 women’s names have been collected. The question is asked of Palin, “Where do you stand on issues that matter to me?” After extending heartfelt congratulations to the Governor on her path from “PTA to Vice Presidential candidate,” the organization gets down to brass tacks by specifically asking what she and the Republican Party would do for mothers and families.

MomsRising was founded in 2006. It grew out of a book project undertaken by Joan Blade and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. Released on Mother’s Day of that year, The Motherhood Manifesto, “explored the struggles of the American family.” It later became a documentary film. Having reached a critical mass with their extensive research data, Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner decided to mobilize the strength behind mothers’ voices and their concerns.

A non-partisan organization, which works at the state and national level, MomsRising tackles problems that don’t get adequate recognition. Statistics that the public should be aware of are underscored. For example, you may not hear on the campaign trail that 25% of families with children under six live in poverty, single mothers make 60 cents to a man’s dollar, or that 75% of American mothers are in the labor force.

Read more »

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.]

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 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.]

I’m a firm believer that we as women can “have it all”—just not at the same time. I’ve said it often to women I know. But now I’m wondering if the emergence of Governor Sarah Palin onto the national scene has debunked that theory.

Whether you like her or not, Governor Sarah Palin is a bold example of one woman who has shown courage and fortitude. She is one woman—unlike most—who thought she could hold elected office, maintain her marriage and raise her growing family at the same time. Remarkably, she has managed to do just that.

I’ve heard the reports of Governor Palin—back at work three days after delivering her fifth baby with him nestled under her desk—or how she would campaign door-to-door with her young children in tow. This may seem inappropriate to some, but it definitely shows her determination and commitment to her role as public servant.

I know Sarah Palin is not the first political mom in the spotlight. Hillary Clinton has also inspired millions as a mom and First Lady. But Hillary Clinton wasn’t the one in the Governor’s seat in Arkansas (or the Oval Office in D.C.). Hillary waited until after Chelsea was an adult to run for elected office.

As a mother of four young children, I know that the emotional, financial and logistical challenges of managing multiple personalities, sibling conflict, meal preparation, homework, scheduling, and travel are huge. So, how Governor Palin manages her life is beyond me.

Read more »