My mother’s political influence has always been one of support for my beliefs and has turned into a dual education on policy and issues. Her political world has been expanded by mine, but I am reminded at how very different our 18th birthdays were-and how far we’ve come.

As part of ACORN’s ‘I Remember Mama Voting’ project BlogHers and others are weighing in this Mother’s Day.

Contributing Editor Kim Pearson writes, “But the most important political lessons were about my African legacy. She showed me South Africa, told me about apartheid, and said, ‘Always remember, we will never be free until South Africa is free.’ She introduced me to real Africans, made sure I read about the new countries emerging, and about their efforts to press their cause at the United Nations. All of this while we tracked each success and failure of the civil rights struggle, and talked about whether black women had any business getting involved in feminism.”

Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman says, “My mom is not as involved in political causes as I am, but my family has always been Democrats surrounded by a Republican community. I just always knew that Republicans were not for us, although when I was older, I remember overhearing my father telling our neighbor a bizarre joke about my mom voting for Ronald Reagan because she thought Jimmy Carter had bad legs. I was utterly horrified at the thought. How could my mom vote for a Republican?!?! Fortunately, when I asked her about it, she had no idea what I was talking about, but it was my first exposure to the stereotypical notion that women don’t vote on the issues, but rather on a candidate’s attractiveness. I thought that was the dumbest thing any woman could do, and swore I would follow my mom’s example and always vote for the candidate who would help ‘the people.’ Thanks, Mom!”

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan writes, “I remember the first political discussion I ever had with my mother. We had been in a waiting room with many magazines, and I was too young to read any of them, but I did notice covers with horribly graphic photos of men at war. It happened to be towards the end of the Vietnam War, and I asked my mother, ‘Why is there war?’ She told me that people don’t want to be at war, the leaders of the countries make the wars. That was when I realized women were not in positions of political power. Then I said, ‘We should make women the leaders of all the countries in the world, and then there would never be any wars.’ My mother told me that sounded like a good idea, but it probably would never happen. My response was, ‘Then those men leaders who want a war, should fight it themselves.’ I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand today, how war solves any problems, neither does my mother.”

Rontun writes, “No, I don’t have any photographic evidence to prove that Satan’s inferno suddenly has been transformed into a winter wonderland, nor am I meaning to suggest that the threat of global warming has abated. But it’s evident to me that there has been a climate shift of cosmic proportions.

Let me explain. My mother, an octogenarian who’s voted Republican her entire life except in 1960 when she elected to support JFK because he shared her Roman Catholic faith, revealed to me on the telephone yesterday that she’s voting in Kentucky’s upcoming primary for Barack Obama!

This is no minor transformation, and it began as a direct consequence of the Bush administration’s war policies combined with the emergence in power of the evangelical community.”

L.K. Campbell says, “One of the biggest political arguments that I remember between Mama and Daddy happened during the 1972 presidential campaign. Daddy never voted for a Republican. If our German shepherd dog ran against the Republican incumbent, Lady would’ve gotten Daddy’s vote.
When he announced his intention to vote for George McGovern, Mama couldn’t believe it. Even though she was a registered Democrat, she was way too conservative to vote for McGovern.
‘You mean to tell me that you’re going to vote for that hippie-loving radical?’ she asked.”

READ ERIN’S FULL POST HERE

I’ve had a crazy week, but I still wanted to pull a quick Election Blog Roundup together. Let’s start with an interview with John Edwards on the Today Show, and then look at what what bloggers are talking about.

From Tennessee Guerilla Women…

The only question about West Virginia is how bitterly is Obama going to get stomped? American Research Group calls it for Hillary at 66-23. Heh. Big Tent Dem has details. Kentucky? Rasmussen Reports (May 5) has Hillary stomping Obama 56-31.

Hillary Rodham Clinton can still win the nomination and be Madame President as long as no one takes the Obama News Network seriously. That shouldn’t be too hard.

Read all about it at Corrente…

From Talking Points Memo…

Rep. Tim Mahoney, an uncommitted super-del, is getting aggressively courted by both Hillary and Obama, but to no avail, it turns out.

Mahoney met privately with Hillary yesterday, and today with Obama.

But whatever charm was exercised on him by these two candidates behind closed doors apparently didn’t sway him. Mahoney’s spokesperson, Leslie Pollner, told me a few moments ago:

“He intends to remain uncommitted.”

(more…)

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

It’s not quite a draft or conscription but the Pentagon’s “stop-loss” policy comes awfully close.

In today’s LA Times, Staff Writer Julian E Barnes reported:

The number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army involuntarily under the military’s controversial “stop-loss” program has risen sharply since the Pentagon extended combat tours last year, officials said Thursday. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was briefed about the program by Army officials who said that thousands of new stop-loss orders were issued to keep soldiers from leaving the service after Gates ordered combat tours extended from 12 to 15 months last spring.

The Army has resorted to involuntary extensions of soldiers’ enlistment terms to prevent them from leaving immediately before a combat tour or in the middle of a deployment.

Army officials have argued that the policy is necessary to ensure that they are not forced to send inadequately trained soldiers and unprepared units into war.

However, many soldiers subjected to the stop-loss policy consider it a backdoor draft. Critics argue that once soldiers have completed the enlistment period they agreed to, they should be allowed to return home. The involuntary retention program is so unpopular that it helped inspire a recent movie called “Stop-Loss.”

The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.

So essentially this past March, over 12,000 US military servicemen and women, many of whom had already served multiple tours of duty, were forced to remain in the Army after the completion of their current tour. Yet, the phrase “all-volunteer” military is still used whenever there are discussions about funding the wars or withdrawing the troops.

I can’t recall hearing one question about the stop-loss practice during any of the 2008 presidential primary debates. (Please correct me if I’m wrong because I certainly may have missed it.)

Is everyone OK with this?

In March Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) marched on the Senate offices to deliver stop loss orders requiring congress to continue working until the war is ended and the troops are returned home.

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

I am and have always been a believer that our right to vote as an [eligible to vote] American citizen is something that should never be tampered with on a state or federal level.

From day one of the DNC’s [and GOP’s] decision to strip the voters of Michigan and/or Florida of their right to have their vote count, I have actively voiced my opposition.

Good for those voters who went to the polls in the MILLIONS and voted anyway!! Good for you!!

This debacle with Michigan and Florida is a lesson to be learned…on many levels.

When leadership of a political party has the power to strip eligible American citizens of their right to have their vote count in an election — through absolutely no fault of the voters — then those leaders have WAAAAY to much power and the rules need to be changed.

Through the passed few months, we have witnessed the irresponsible and reprehensible power playing by certain members of the elected Democratic and Republican leadership in their call for presidential candidates to drop out of the race. According to these “leaders” in their infinite wisdom, more than one candidate in a race is bad for their respective party.

I’ve heard on more than one occasion by members of both the Democratic and Republican parties that the candidates with the lesser number of delegates should drop out of the presidential race for the good of their respective party.

REALLY???

When did becoming an elected official be about what’s good for the party OVER what’s good for the country?

When did striping eligible American citizens of their right to have their vote count become something good for our country?

Shame, shame, shame on the elected officials pushing to have the votes of eligible American citizens disenfranchised, voided, and meaningless.

And

Shame, shame, shame on the elected officials remaining silent on this issue.

The following is a letter from Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama I received yesterday via email:

(more…)

Does it make sense that a group dedicated to registering women voters would purposely seek to disenfranchise them and keep them from the polls?

That seems a bit Orwellian to me. But that’s the allegation that the group Women’s Voices, Women Vote found itself confronted with in the weeks leading up to the recent North Carolina Democratic primary. For many months, Women’s Voices, Women Vote has been working on a campaign called “20 Million Reasons” — an effort to register 20 million single women who are eligible to vote, but not registered, because they are seen as a key demographic to winning the 2008 presidential race.

But some bad planning and a loose connection to the Clintons have cast a bad light on what ought to be seen as a great effort.

READ FULL POST at BlogHer

—–

More Political Voices of Women…

We now have over 400 women political bloggers on our list, here are the Q’s (well, we only have one Q - but it’s a good one) and the R’s…

(more…)

Also See:

Do We Need A Gas Tax Holiday?

The Miniature Earth Video

Skyrocketing Gas Prices. What does our future hold?

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

What does Barack Obama think of comments by McCain?

From The Associated Press…

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republican John McCain tried to smear him and was “losing his bearings” for suggesting that Hamas preferred Obama for president.

“This is offensive, and I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, ‘Well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics.’ And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his,” Obama told CNN in an interview Thursday.

The Illinois senator added: “For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name-calling in this debate.”

McCain has raised questions about a Hamas adviser, Ahmed Yousef, saying in an interview: “We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.” The United States has labeled the Palestinian organization a terrorist group.

“It’s indicative of how some of our enemies view America,” McCain said Wednesday on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” “And I guarantee you, they’re not going to endorse me.”

So, if it comes down to John McCain and Barack Obama…Who will win? Who will you vote for? Would the Democratic ticket be stronger with Hillary in the V.P. position?

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

1. My support for Hillary Clinton has zero to do with her gender, and everything to do with her policies. Her policies are significantly more liberal than her primary opponent’s weak centrist positions are, and thus are closer to my own. (She’s still to the right of me, but is well to the left of her opponent).

2. My unhappiness with Senator Obama’s campaign is of relatively recent vintage. In December, I felt pretty much that any Democratic candidate would do. I no longer think that.

3. My unhappiness with the unbelievably sexist attitude of members of my own (or so I thought) party is what is driving me to get away from it just as far and as fast as I can. (There are some other factors in play as well — for example, the Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite demonization of All Things Clinton. Hunh? Peace and prosperity for 8 years was so bad, Mickey Moore?)

Which brings us to our Leftist Sexist Du Jour.

This morning’s insulting, sniggering, disparaging delectation is from Nicholas D. Kristof, writing his most recent version of “Why Don’t You Just Shut Up And Die, Bitch,” as part of the ongoing Hillary DeathWatch.

In this charming NYT column, “The Too-Long Good-bye,” Kristof tries to Swiftboat Senator Clinton by comparing her to Katie Couric.

Yes, yes, you heard it right.

He really says that. No, really, he does.

Hillary = Katie. Katie = Loser = Hillary = Loser.

(Katie/ Hillary want a “man’s job.” Uppity bitches. Why don’t they just shut up and die?)

What, you think I’m making all this up? You think this is just me, getting, oh I dunno, all periodically emotional, as The Man Who Would Be [Prom] King once said?

No, no. Let me find the link. Ah. Here.

“One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

It’s interesting that two strong women — Katie Couric as well as Mrs. Clinton — have foundered this year in roles that are stereotypically male. Granted, the presidency is very different from the job of an evening news anchor, but some psychology experiments suggests that one factor in each case may be public resistance to a woman in a position in which we are accustomed to seeing a man. . . . . So Mrs. Clinton’s frustration is understandable.”

So, boys, and girls, let’s deconstruct.

(more…)

I took a stroll down my list of over 400 women political bloggers to find reaction to yesterday’s primary in North Carolina and Indiana. There is no shortage of bloggers blogging on this topic, so I’ve randomly picked ten. Enjoy…and let me know what you think in comments.

(more…)

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

Politics befuddle me.

A friend of mine recently went through a rigorous series of 5 interviews just to sell online advertising and then she didn’t get the job. Someone from the competing publication with “more” experience got the job.

Another friend of mine recently said that he would NEVER hire a person with television editing experience ONLY to edit a feature film because that person just wouldn’t have enough knowledge of how films work.

In researching for this blog, I visited a number of sites listing job openings. In every “professional” job posting, a minimum number of YEARS in the respective field is required of each applicant.

How is it that we require — no demand — a person have years of experience to perform sales, secretarial, research, journalism, accounting, managerial, etc., type jobs, but when it comes to electing a president of the United States of America we don’t care that they don’t have any experience, we just want them to either look like us, tell us what we want to hear, or make us feel good.

I’m fascinated by employers who require a minimum number of years of experience in a particular field from prospective employees before they will even consider them for a job that is insignificant in the big world picture, yet will vote for someone who will potentially have the greatest impact on the world and yet has virtually no experience at all on world matters.

This double standard mentality of hiring practices in our country is a curious phenomenon to me.

Is it about control?

Is it that if we feel we, personally, can’t control something, then we just want someone to tell us what we want to hear?

And

In that way, we feel like we are in control?

Or

Is it that we feel our country is so absolutely out of control that we just simply want the person who appears to have come from out of nowhere believing that person surely must represent something different than what we have?

How is it that we choose the leaders of our nation so much differently than we choose who will be our next salesperson or department head or receptionist or accountant or event planner or fill in the blank job?

How is it that we require less “on the job” experience from the leaders of our nation than we do the person we are hiring to head a wait staff at a restaurant?

Politics befuddle me.

How is it that EVERY eligible citizen of the United States of America gets an equal vote for the contestants of American Idol and Dancing With The Stars, but NOT for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

When did voting for who will become our next democratic candidate for president of the United States of America become the sole privilege of a select number of states and not all of the states?

Politics befuddle me.

When people are turning out in record numbers to vote why would political leaders [and the news media] be so determined to stop this process?

Politics befuddle me.

—–

More Political Voices of Women…

We now have over 400 women political bloggers on our list, here are the O’s…

(more…)