Keynoting BlogHer White House Project
Aug
24
Nope, No Media Bias in NYT Can-Women-in-Expensive-High-Heels-Really-Be-Taken-As-Serious-Politicians Article
Filed Under Campaigning, Gender, Media, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Women, democracy, leadership | Leave a Comment
I’ve written before about how exactly do women use whatever positive attributes, as women, we have on the campaign trail, especially given that there are three or four generations of women around to vote and they definitely don’t all view female politicians and campaigning as a woman in the same way. But now the New York Times has really conflated the coverage of women politicians and still somehow managed to ignore what does matter in a political competition in, “Blazing Campaign Trails in a Certain 3-Inch Heel.”
Folks: Women politicians can be covered for fashion – in the fashion section and at the same rate that men politicians are covered for fashion. I would never deny that fashion is something no one candidates – male or female – thinks about.
But women politicians should be covered by the media for their issues and character and leadership abilities, based on their experiences, accomplishments and vision for how they’ll fulfill expectations in public office should they win. Exactly as men politicians.
It’s beyond the pale now: there is NO QUESTION that the NYT did this story to get up hackles and in the end, throw serious political reportage of women candidates under the bus. It’s an inexcusable dog and pony show for readers and frankly, if I were that candidate, I would have demanded a different article.
Now – lest I be picked on for saying that a woman politician should be able to choose being portrayed anyway she wants, fine.
BUT I would then ask: WAS SHE GIVEN A CHOICE? Did the Times say to her: we can either do a fashion piece on you and connect shoes to women running for office, or we can do a piece on how you and Maloney differ and what you bring to the table that she doesn’t. Which would you like? Read more
Aug
17
[UPDATE] ODB Unpacks Concern Over PD Endorsement Gender Bias
Filed Under CuyahogaCounty, Gender, Media, Ohio, Politics, Sexism, Voting, Women, leadership | 1 Comment
Anastasia does a great job in Ohio Daily Blog’s A Disturbing Pattern with this subject and honestly, I feel as bothered if not more so (probably not possible though given how passionate we both are about this).
What is going on? Please read her post and comment here or there.
And remember, just because there is no intention does not mean that there is no bias. It should be revealed and filtered out or otherwise acknowledged and/or controlled for.
17 primary endorsements total from the PD
11 in Democratic primaries: 10 men, 1 woman
6 in Republican primaries (no Republican primary in the other five districts): 5 men, 1 woman
For County Executive:
2 endorsements total (one per party)
4 Democratic candidates (2 men, 2 women): PD endorses Ed Fitzgerald
3 Democratic candidates: (3 men): PD endorses Matt Dolan
So, if Cuyahoga County voters went with all of the primary PD’s endorsed candidates, the gender composition of the brand new Cuyahoga County government, with 12 elected officials, would be either 10 men and two women (or less than 20% female composition) or 11 men and one woman – less than 10% female composition.
With less than 25% women even in these races, we’ve not given ourselves very good odds. But that does not excuse the PD from needing to unpack what’s going on with their endorsements, including the difference in the decisive value between managing tempests with aplomb versus being polished.
Oh – and just for the fun of it? Cuyahoga County, as of the Census data for 2009, was composed of 52.6% women – not less than 20%. Just in case, you know, representative government has you confused.
Guess they’re all worried about the end of men – which certainly doesn’t seem to be in sight here in Cuyahoga County, if these PD endorsements reign.
Last but not least, why having more than one matters so damn much. I cannot say it any better than Swanee Hunt and Kerry Healey earlier this year:
…we share the conviction that a “critical mass’’ of women will lead to better public policies.
What’s a critical mass? Research shows that when about 30 percent of a group is made up women, the discourse, values, and working style of the entire organization changes.
Women collectively bring a broader perspective to the political debate, based on their different social roles and life experiences. That breadth is crucial in order to solve the many challenges society faces, including the current economic crisis, national security issues, and health care reform.
While no stereotype is true for all men or all women, social science research says women tend to be more inclusive, more easily build bridges across ideological divides, and are more in touch with their local communities – all necessary traits for the kind of leadership needed in this deeply divided country.
But it will take a big effort to get women to imagine themselves in the political ring. Unfortunately, women candidates are often held to a different standard by power brokers and opinion-makers, including party leaders, donors, and the media. Sometimes other women are a female candidate’s harshest critics – so the obstacles to women participating in electoral office are not placed there by men alone. When a mother runs, voters of both genders often wonder, “Who will care for the children while she campaigns?’’ – a question for Pauline but not Paul. And typically, those controlling the party’s purse strings demand proof that the candidate has raised a substantial portion of her projected budget before even discussing how they can help her win her race.
This observation about what’s happening with our brand new county government and the media’s role in endorsements for 12 new elected offices is an opportunity to lead, not to be defensive.
Jul
29
Beyond Contrition: Enough With Apologies, Show Me the Action
Filed Under Culture, Ethics, Media, Results, Scandal, Social Issues, leadership | Leave a Comment
The media’s focus has been on the symbolism of saying the words “I’m sorry,” as if that single utterance means everything and is the only thing. In today’s soundbite world that clamors to satisfy the hunger of news consumers, the media pushes the meme that the words “I’m sorry” alone are the end of the story. Some examples:
Lisa Belkin in articles on both her Motherlode blog and in the New York Times Magazine focuses on how to apologize and explores “how well” someone apologizes.
This post by Lauren Frayer is about a BP gaffe that was made during an apology for the oil spill. The BP executive then had to apologize for the blown apology about being sorry … for the oil spill. Again — what was the focus? It was on just spitting out the apology.
And even with sincere, appreciated words of contrition, such as UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s words about Bloody Sunday, the obsession is with how to say an apology and that not enough people give apologies.
I’m going to be a complete contrarian here: we have to stop focusing on who is asking for apologies and who is giving (or not giving) apologies. Instead, we need to focus on what people are doing after they give their apology. Because it is that behavior that matters. Period. Read more
Mar
23
[updated] Lock, stock & ambushed: O’Reilly’s people try to intimidate Think Progress’ Amanda Terkel
Filed Under Crime, Ethics, Media, Politics, Scandal, Sexism, Social Issues, Women, intolerance | Leave a Comment
As much as I’d love to be surprised by the news about Amanda Terkel’s extremely disturbing and undeserved experience over the weekend, arranged for by Bill O’Reilly’s producer, Jesse Watters and Watters’ cameraman, the fact is, this kind of intimidation of critics typifies O’Reilly and the bizarro world he inhabits where calling Helen Thomas a witch and imitating her voice is only about being funny and calling a 18 year old who is raped and murdered a “moronic girl” because of what she wore and was drinking the night she was violated and killed.
According to Think Progress, the tape from Watters’ ambush is to be aired tonight, but here are some links of what others have been saying all day about the outrageous extent to which O’Reilly will go to intimidate critics:
Politico: ThinkProgress’ Terkel: O’Reilly producer ambushed me
PunditMom: Can Bill O’Reilly say “civil assault”?
Feministe: Standing With Amanda Terkel
black girl blogging: Bill O’Reilley’s Producer is an Unprofessional Hack
Majikthise: Bill O’Reilly sics producer on female blogger who criticized host’s record on rape
Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Shakesville and others have also written about the incident.
For those interested, visit and consider joining “We Stand With Amanda Terkel” Facebook group.
I’ll update this post as it develops.
UPDATE: Amanda posts about the O’Reilly segment from this evening here. Honestly, his audience has got to have topped out the same way Rush Limbaugh’s has. And none of it is news, that’s for sure.
Mar
17
Daily Exclamations, March 17, 2009: Women, banks & nudity
Filed Under Barack Obama, Business, Cleveland+, Daily Exclamations, Economy, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Resources, Sexism, Social Issues, Voting, Whitehouse09, Women, leadership | 1 Comment
First, Happy St. Patrick’s Day to everyone who is celebrating. I didn’t even remember that today was St. Patty’s day until I opened a St. Patty’s day e-card someone had sent me. I was an honorary celebrant during my college years at a 70% Catholic university. But it was interesting to understand that the non-Irish Catholics were almost as blasé about the holiday as I was. On campus, it was just a good excuse to have a party and where green.
1. New Ohio-specific foreclosure information is out from Policy Matters. It analyzes the filings by county. Bill Cohen of the Statehouse News Bureau did a good piece on it this morning and I’m trying to track down the audio for it. From the press release:
Sixty two of Ohio’s 88 counties saw an increase in foreclosure filings last year, and in 27 counties, filings grew by double-digit rates. While urban counties continue to lead the state in foreclosure filings, smaller counties are experiencing larger growth.
…The latest numbers indicate that there was one foreclosure filing for every 60 housing units in the state last year.
…All but ten Ohio counties have seen at least a quadrupling in the number of foreclosure filings since 1995. Statewide, filings have more than quintupled since then. “The number of foreclosures in the state has been and remains at crisis levels,” said David Rothstein, Policy Matters researcher and co-author of the report.
Cuyahoga County led the state once again in foreclosure filings per person, followed this year by Lucas, Montgomery, and Allen counties. Seven of the top ten counties with the highest rates were on the same list a year earlier. Allen County led the state in foreclosure-filing growth between 2007 and 2008, with a 39 percent increase. All of the top 10 counties in foreclosure-filing growth – each of which saw at least a 20 percent increase last year – were in the Northwest and Appalachian regions of the state.
Foreclosure filings continue to be most heavily concentrated in the state’s urban counties, accounting for 62 percent of filings. However, non-urban counties continue to experience large foreclosure growth. The report chronicles that counties with populations less than 200,000 had higher foreclosure growth rates than the state average. For instance, counties with populations of 50,000 or below saw an overall foreclosure filing growth of 4.9 percent in 2008.
…
The report recommends that the Ohio legislature pass reasonable reforms to encourage real loan modifications and reduce the foreclosure filing rate.
Emphasis mine. The full report can be read here.
2. You’d think with the Seattle P-I going digital-only, the New York Times would realize that a story on nude hikers in the Swiss Alps is a waste of paper and ink. Local, NYT, local. That photo is meant to be blogged about, but in the NYT? Whatev.
3. I got into a discussion about kids and health care yesterday and went to one of my favorite outlets, the Casey Journalist Center on Children & Families to see what they have on the subject. The issue we were discussing was how expansion of sCHIP is being funded by an increase in the federal cigarette tax. In our discussion, we didn’t disagree about the coverage needed for kids but focused on whether sCHIP and this funding mechanism are the best means to that end. The Casey Center has three good resources for further investigating the need and how to meet it:
Insure Kids Now
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
The Web site provides an interactive map of the United States that links to each state’s children’s health insurance program. It’s part of a campaign to link uninsured children – from birth to age 18 – to free and low-cost health insurance. It’s sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration, an HHS agency.
“The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Economic Impact of Recession-Induced Child Poverty” 2008
First Focus
First Focus’ report, “The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Economic Impact of Recession-Induced Child Poverty” finds the United States will suffer a future economic loss of over $1.7 trillion if the current recession drives an additional 3 million children into poverty, as has been predicted. First Focus examines the long term economic cost of persistent poverty.
Statehealthfacts.org
Kaiser Family Foundation
Statehealthfacts.org provides health and health policy data on all 50 states. It includes data on more than 450 health topics including Medicaid, Medicare, health insurance coverage, health costs and budgets, providers, minority health, women’s health and HIV/AIDS.
4. Women’s eNews’ article this morning examines the Obama administrations efforts vis a vis appointing and placing women in key roles. The stats:
Women comprise less than a third of Obama’s Cabinet, named to 4 of the 15 slots. In addition to Clinton at the State Department, former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano now oversees the Homeland Security Department and former Rep. Hilda Solis heads up the Department of Labor. Sebelius has yet to win Senate confirmation to her assigned post.
Women hold three more Cabinet-level positions: Christina Romer chairs the Council of Economic Advisers, Lisa Jackson is chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Susan Rice serves as ambassador to the United Nations.
Overall, women were named to seven of the 21 Cabinet-level posts, fewer than some women’s rights advocates had hoped for, given the role women played in the November election.
On Election Day, 56 percent of women cast their ballots for Obama versus 49 percent of men, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick.
The analysis:
Obama did not break new ground in gender diversity in his Cabinet. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton named four women to their Cabinets in 2001 and 1993. Obama’s Cabinet also includes four African Americans, three Latinos and two Asians.
…
Clinton set the standing record, tapping 10 women to Cabinet-level positions during two terms in office. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Attorney General Janet Reno held two of what are regarded as the Cabinet’s four most important posts: the department heads of State, Justice, Defense and Treasury.
President George W. Bush asked eight women to serve in his Cabinet, including Condoleezza Rice, the first African American woman to serve as secretary of state.
Clinton also holds the record for lower-level appointments, naming women to 27 percent of positions confirmed by the Senate. Data for President Bush were not available.
On the other hand:
Overall, women’s rights groups are pleased with Obama’s performance and cite as evidence of his commitment to improving the lives of women the first bill he signed into law: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, reversing a Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to sue for wage bias.
Since then, he has reversed the so-called global gag rule, banning foreign aid for international groups that provide abortions or abortion counseling; moved to rescind another executive order giving health care providers permission to refuse to provide abortion, birth control or other services because of religious objections; and signed legislation that will reduce the cost of contraceptives at family planning clinics serving college and low-income women.
How do you think Obama is doing with women?
5. Investigative Reporting Workshop’s Bank Tracker seems like a great resource. But, as Paul Roetzer points out in his tweet that directed me to the source, can any of us, how many of us, really understand what the information means? The original article,with some lay-term analysis, comes from MSNBC.
Mar
11
Obama creates Council on Women and Girls, Valerie Jarrett to lead
Filed Under Announcements, Barack Obama, Gender, Government, Whitehouse09, Women | 1 Comment
I’ve been getting word of this announcement since yesterday afternoon, so it’s almost a bit anti-climactic. However, don’t let my blasé “it takes a lot to impress me” attitude dissuade you from recognizing what a big deal this actually is. You can read the full announcement from the White House after the jump.
While I hear and fully expect that nearly all women’s groups will be happy about the council’s creation, there is a cautiousness and a curiosity about “what it all means” to be found in several reactions:
New York Times writer and blogger, Lisa Belkin at Motherlode:
There is no one more vocal than I about the fact that women and men experience the realms of family and work differently (you can find some examples of my thoughts here and here.) But I think that too many of the problems women and girls have in the world stem from the fact that the problems are considered “their” problems — “women’s problems” — rather than problems that both genders share.
…
What women need is a system that allows stepping out and stepping back in without penalty. And for those of us who can’t afford to leave — and that means most of us — we need a system that allows for flexibility and control over our lives. That system must factor in periods of great ambition and achievement, mixed with periods of slow but steady work, all with the understanding that ups and downs make a career, and don’t automatically knock you off the track.
While women have had the more visible juggling act in the past few decades, and have led the demands for change, all they are really asking is to be able to earn a living and care for their children in a ratio that isn’t perfect, but is less lopsided than the status quo. Giving them that means giving it to girls AND boys, too — and to the women AND men they will grow up to be. And a system like that will change men’s lives as well.
I’m cautiously excited about this…I really want to know more.
Now I know the reactions here will be mixed. Those of us who voted for President Obama will think this is a fabulous choice. Those of us who were fans of SOS Clinton when she ran will view a certain irony that Jarrett is given a top spot in the area of promoting women’s issues. Those of us who voted for Sen McCain will likely fall into the latter category.
But I personally view this as a positive development. I say, let’s give Valerie Jarrett a chance to do some good. This is, after all, what we have been asking for in a sense — even if Jarrett is not everybody’s first choice (and who would be).
Of course, no surprise, the very first sign of cynicism came from the media: The Fix’s Chris Cillizza who wrote:
Obama has both personal — his wife and two daughters — and political reasons to make this sort of high profile move to ensure that women’s needs are being addressed by his administration.
In 2008, 53 percent of the electorate was female and Obama carried that group 56 percent to 44 percent over Arizona Sen. John McCain. That is a significant improvement from Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) performance in 2004 when women made up 54 percent of the electorate and the Democrat won them by only three points.
Obama and his team know that if he can maintain his 2008 margin among women in his reelection race in three years time, he will be sitting pretty. Expect then more symbolic moves like the establishment of the Council to demonstrate Obama’s commitment to women and women’s issues.
I like Chris’s writing very much, but I think he went overboard here on the analysis that concludes with describing the council’s creation as a symbolic move. For example, Jen Nedeau at Change.org’s Women’s Right site, makes the case for how the Council can be more than just a symbol:
I certainly hope the Council is more than just a tool to get Obama re-elected. Or a symbol without any real political capital. After all, women didn’t earn the right to vote to just sit around and look pretty, now did they?
Personally, I would like to see the Council be able to address issues such as:
- Confirm more female federal judges to the bench (particularly with SCOTUS if we lose Ruth Bader Ginsberg).
- Fight the battle over women’s access to contraception and abortion, which are often too close to being jeopardized as written about by Jessica Arons this week.
- Push for the passage of the Global Democracy Promotion Act within Congress to defuse the Global Gag Rule from being used as a political football in future administrations.
This decision comes at the heels of an announcement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to nominate a new post of ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. It has been reported that Obama intends to nominate Melanne Verveer, CEO of an international nonprofit, to the job. For the most part, I think that all of these movements are VERY positive and indicate that there will be a greater consideration for women within the White House.
Another thought to remember is that there’s a call for a Presidential Commission on Women. That entity would be one that gathers ideas and opinions from thinkers external to the White House and the beltway. Working with the council, some progress might truly be able to be accomplished, especially if Obama’s success at communicating with and appearing to listen to all stakeholders, as during his campaign, can be duplicated.
Feb
26
Rush’s Greatest Sexist Hits & more poll info on weak performance w/women
Filed Under Barack Obama, Elections, Gender, Media, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Women, conservatives | 4 Comments
Just the messenger.
Someone asked me yesterday if it was possible the gender gap was simply a product of it being more likely that women are Democrats and men are Republicans, so I ran the numbers this morning by gender and party and here’s what we got
Democrats: Women 14/73 (-59), Men 22/73 (-51) GENDER GAP: 8
Republicans: Women 75/19 (+65), Men (84/13 (+71) GENDER GAP: 6
Independents: Women 30/56 (-26), Men 55/32 (+23) GENDER GAP: 49
So there is a gender gap within both the Democratic and Republican respondents to the poll, but the really huge one is among independents.
The Republican ladies love you Rush, and I don’t think you have much chance with the Democratic ones. But you really need to appeal to those moderate women if you want to get that approval up over 50%.
Thanks to everyone who has been linking here. One of my favorite posts about Rush Limbaugh and his Female Summit is from Tennesee Guerilla Women and includes this greatest hits of d’ohs re: why women might not be listen to him, ever:
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. … Men will know what I mean by this.”
“Mrs Clinton Testicle Lockbox is big enough for the entire democratic heirarchy.”
“Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
“I don’t know why the B-I-itch is staying in.”
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Nancy Pelosi:
“[If Pelosi] wants fewer births, I have the way to do this and it won’t require any contraception: You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi … in every cheap motel room. … That will keep birthrates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down.”
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Elizabeth Edwards:
“Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.”
More sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh:
“Some of these babes, I’m telling you, like the sexual harassment crowd. They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”
“If I were Bob Woodward, I would be on a lookout for Mrs. Clinton and her testicle lockbox.”
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress has more sexist comments from Rush — including this gem:
“She’s actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn’t have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat’s taught me more about women, than anything in my whole life.”
It’s amazing to read these statements by Limbaugh and juxtapose them with his rant yesterday about people needing to leave Bobby Jindal alone. Talk about dishing it out but not being able to take it, wow.
Echidne of the Snakes offers up some greatest hits too, including this oldie but goodie:
Limbaugh’s views on women are crystallized in this ‘Rushbite’:
One of my fabulous routines concerns a San Francisco men’s club which lost its battle to exclude women from membership. The courts ruled that they had to admit women on the basis that businesswomen were being unfairly denied opportunities to do business. This is specious. How much business did women think they were going to get as a result of forcing their way in?
Anyway, after one year, the female members demanded their own exercise room. They were probably tired of being ogled by a bunch of slobbering men while they pumped iron in leotards and spandex. The men offered to install the first three exercise machines in the women’s new workout room. The ladies were thrilled. When they arrived on that first exciting day they found, to their stunned amazement, a washing machine, an ironing board, and a vacuum cleaner. Heh, heh, heh. (The Way Things Ought To Be, p.142-45 Jul 2, 1992)
Now, if they’d thrown in a Belgian waffle-maker, maybe, maybe…
Naw.
Feb
12
Pelosi Fact Sheet on what’s in stimulus conference bill
Filed Under Congress, Economy, Government, Media, Politics, Whitehouse09, democracy, leadership | Leave a Comment
Thank you to ScienceDebate08 which continues to be active and is monitoring the Obama administration and Congress in regard to all matters related to science. They forwarded a fact sheet from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and it’s very comprehensive. I’ve republished it in its entirety here but most of it is after the jump:
Conference Report on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Preliminary Overview
Just over three weeks since the Inauguration of President Obama, Congress will consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to save and create jobs, get our economy moving again, and transform it for long-term growth and stability. The landmark legislation is the first dramatic new investment in the future since the creation of the interstate highway system a half century ago.
A staggering 3.6 million American jobs have been lost since this recession began in December 2007 – the culmination of the failed economic approach of the Bush Administration – one that also doubled our national debt in eight short years. We need a New Direction.
The conference report on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act currently being drafted will:
• Create and save 3.5 million jobs, rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive and energy independent, and transforming our economy.
• Give 95 percent of American workers an immediate tax cut.
• Invest in roads, bridges, mass transit, energy efficient buildings, flood control, clean water projects, and other infrastructure projects.
• Restore science and innovation as the keys to new American-made technology, preventing and treating disease, and tackling urgent national challenges like climate change and dependence on foreign oil.
• Invest quickly into the economy.
Many details after the jump: Read more
Feb
8
NOW’s Gandy top option for DOL’s Women’s Bureau director
Filed Under Barack Obama, Gender, Government, Politics, TMV, Whitehouse09, Women, employment, leadership | Leave a Comment
With the Lilly Ledbetter Act now law, and the first piece of congressional legislation signed by President Barack Obama at that, it’s time to consider who will lead the U.S. Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau in its fulfillment of its mission:
Mission Statement
To improve the status of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.
Vision Statement
The Women’s Bureau promotes 21st Century solutions to improve the status of working women and their families. Better Jobs! Better Earnings! Better Living!
Let’s take a look at history before looking at the possible choices President Obama could select.
This history, prepared when the Bureau turned 70, in 1990 (yes, it was created the same year women got the vote – but the DOL wasn’t even created until 1913), isn’t that easy to read only because it is so plain, compared to what we’re used to reading on the Internet now. However, it’s got all the information about the Bureau, up through 1990. And all of it is fascinating, including significant passages about each of the directors during those 70 years.
Here is the U.S. Code, as of 2007, that details the duties and responsibilities of the Bureau:
It shall be the duty of the Women’s Bureau to formulate standards and policies which shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The said bureau shall have authority to investigate and report to the Department of Labor upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of women in industry. The director of said bureau may from time to time publish the results of these investigations in such a manner and to such extent as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.
You can see how the Ledbetter law figures into the bureau’s role.
What kind of women have served as director in the past?
The Bureau’s website offers this gallery, with photos, dates and information, on all past directors. There have been several women of color – I remember the first, Alexis Herman, very well, even though I was only a teenager at the time. From her Wikipedia entry:
Jimmy Carter met the young Herman while campaigning in Atlanta, Georgia and, after winning the White House in 1977, tapped her to be Director of the Labor Department’s Women’s Bureau. At age 29, she was the youngest person to ever serve in that position.
Wow – age 29. She went on to be the Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton in his second term, the first African-American nominated to that post and the fifth woman appointed to it.
So what might Obama’s list of possible candidates look like? According to at least a few blog mentions, Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization of Women (NOW) should make anyone’s short list. From PunditMom:
To say that Gandy would be the perfect person for the slot is an understatement (and I’m not just saying that because I hear she’s read my blog every now and then!)
…
Gandy has devoted her life to fighting for the rights of women. It started for Kim when, according to her Wikipedia entry, she had to get her husband’s permission for employee benefits when she worked for AT&T after getting out of college. Yeah. His permission. That would have inspired me to do something, too.Seriously, Gandy has worked tirelessly for women ever since…
Since 2001, Gandy has led NOW’s campaigns on issues ranging from Supreme Court nominations to the rights of mothers and caregivers, from Social Security reform to ending the war in Iraq. Through grassroots political action, Gandy helped increase the women’s vote and change the face of Congress in 2006 and is leading the organization’s efforts around the pivotal 2008 elections.
That’s exactly the kind of person I want in charge of women’s issues at the Labor Department, especially now as the administration contemplates how more women will be able to employed in the jobs creation aspect of the stimulus package. Gandy has been a champion for women’s rights her whole life, and that’s who I want working hard to make sure women get an equal slice of the job creation pie.
Other posts speaking positively of Gandy include long-time political insider and women’s rights advocate, Cynthia Samuels and assistant director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Veronica Arreola, who wrote this post at Viva La Feminista.
PunditMom’s post notes that a few blogs – some that may be familiar because they sounded the PUMA and “no Obama no way” arguments during the 2008 elections – disagree with the idea of Gandy. At least one blog suggests other leaders who should be considered including Ellen Bravo, who is well-known for her connection to working women via 9to5. Her colleague, Karen Nussbaum, is in fact one of the past directors of the Bureau.
While we should be so lucky to have multiple, excellent choices, I would caution, almost always, against using retaliation as a basis for who you support or don’t support (Gandy and NOW endured a lot of heat for eventually endorsing Obama, though they’d been supporters of Clinton early on). Retaliation, as a method of persuasion, is very ineffective when it comes to offering advice because it has no objective basis, but reeks of personal anger. And it certainly doesn’t promote the idea that any entity that says it’s about women first and ideology second (like the PUMA-oriented collectives) is in fact about women first and ideology second.
Regardless, Gandy’s is a name that appears to be most in play and it’s easy to understand why. Luckily, there is a deputy director position. That arrangement is precisely conducive to the kind of unity and diversity of voices Obama has said he wants in his administration, if Obama chooses wisely.
NB: One chore that needs to be accomplished ASAP? Updating the Bureau’s Wikipedia entry. Paltry, but given what we’ve been hearing about the technology left by the Bush administration, not surprising. Here’s to hoping that the Obama administration’s emphasis on upgrading new media will do this step without being asked once a director is in place.
Cross-posted at The Moderate Voice.
Feb
5
“Womb is a tomb”: Just how many kids, how much sex is okay?
Filed Under Abortion, Civil Rights, Ethics, Government, Media, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Women | 4 Comments
I don’t know much about Bill Cunningham, but any human who would say that a woman’s womb is a tomb is not going to be someone I’m going to like.
And no, former congressman and Republican Dick my first name says it all Armey still hasn’t apologized to Joan Walsh.
Feb
4
[poll] OH US Senate race: The win, the women & the apportionment board
Filed Under Congress, Democrats, Elections, Government, Jennifer Brunner, Mary Taylor, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, Republicans, Sherrod Brown, Statehouse, Ted Strickland, Tim Ryan, Women, lee fisher | Leave a Comment
Other than my extreme distaste for Mark Naymik’s use of the word “delicious” in this Plain Dealer column about Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Democratic options for filling retiring U.S. Senator and Republican George Voinovich’s seat, it does a decent job outlining the reality that, when you say yes to one thing, you are pretty much saying no to something else – implicitly. That’s a tactic Strickland often uses: to say “yes” and “no” in such a way that you don’t really think about how that’s actually happened – his position on casinos and gambling is probably the best example of this.
In this instance, Strickland gives a “yes” to Fisher’s candidacy, as noted in the Dayton Daily News last night:
Gov. Ted Strickland said Tuesday afternoon that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher is the “best qualified” Democrat among those considering a run for U.S. Senate in 2010.
Although Strickland says he’s been upfront about this with Brunner, this statement is still a “no” to Brunner, no matter how you slice it. It should be noted, however, that it’s also a “no” from Strickland to everyone else in the Dem field, until and unless Fisher chooses not to run.
The strength of Naymik’s column is in its fleshing out of at least two deeper battles: first, the one that has to do with whose word is stronger, whose name, whose endorsement? Strickland for Fisher, or, if Brunner were to procure an endorsement from current junior Ohio U.S. Senator and fellow Democrat Sherrod Brown, would it hold more sway statewide?
This is where Naymik uses “delicious” regarding how he feels when contemplating this duel for the voters’ confidence vis a vis the power of an endorsement:
Brunner won’t publicly discuss her thinking just yet and didn’t respond to a call Monday. She is seeking the support of her close friend and political mentor, Sen. Sherrod Brown. Their relationship makes the whole scenario more delicious because Brown is also a close friend of Strickland’s. Strickland said he had talked only briefly to Brown about the upcoming Senate opening.
I do not have an answer as to whose endorsement would do more, for either candidate. I think it’s a real toss up. Much depends on who, if either, are able to do better for their constituents: Brown in Congress or Strickland in running the state. Read more
Feb
1
Davos havos no femalos: an economic summit without women is like…dumb?
Filed Under Business, Economy, Gender, Politics, Sexism, Women, leadership | 3 Comments
The World Economic Forum holds an annual event in Davos, Switzerland. This article from Spiegel Online explains why the lack of women at the event dilutes its value on multiple levels:
On Jan. 28, several thousand of the world’s leaders will meet at Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s annual meeting. This year it is entitled “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.” While the organization calls on ordinary people to make contributions via YouTube videos, the event is restricted to invitees only, an elitist process based on the perceived importance of the individual.
…
There are only 4 women out of 22 on the foundation board (18 percent) and no women at all on the managing board, which is responsible for the operations and running of the WEF. There are 2 women among the 10 senior directors (20 percent), people responsible for subject areas within WEF. It is only lower down the management chain where you find the gender balance becomes healthier — 52 percent of the directors are women. These people cover subject areas (e.g. security issues) and head functional areas such as accounting.
…
This dearth of women — and the talent and different perspectives they could bring — is reflected in the Davos event itself. The WEF has posted on its Web site an “abridged” list of business leaders who will attend this year. One has to assume it is a reasonably representative sample of the full list. Out of 81 people listed, only 4 are women — under 5 percent[sic]
The article then discusses why this matters:
First, economies would benefit from a much better utilization of women’s skills (now they are the majority of the most highly educated people). Since 2000, women filled 6 million of the 8 million new jobs created within the EU and represented 59 percent of the graduates. A British report in 2006 produced by the Women & Work Commission estimated that the country could generate wealth to the tune of £23 billion (2 percent of gross domestic product) by better use of women’s skills.
The second point is that several compelling pieces of research have indicated that companies with higher numbers of women represented on their boards outperform companies that have a relatively low number of women in senior management positions. One study by Catalyst in 2007 of companies in the Fortune 500 concluded that companies with three or more women on their boards had an 83 percent greater return on equity than companies with the lowest representation of women. Such companies had a 73 percent better return on their sales and a staggering 112 percent higher return on invested capital.
Last, but certainly not least, companies generally are failing to tap into the growing influence women have as consumers. In the U.S., for example, women make 80 percent of the consumer purchasing decisions. There are many small marketing agencies that have sprung up — run usually by enterprising women — to help companies (usually run by men) to market and brand their products and services more effectively to women consumers. Those that do so reap the benefits of higher sales, for little extra cost. It is a “blue ocean” waiting to be discovered.
None of this is news, by the way. In the United States, we’re making noise over the need for President Obama’s economic recovery plans to include steps that impact women, not just men, particularly in the area of jobs.
Here is some information from the WEF on its Women Leaders Programme. Here’s Davos coverage from the BBC. The Next Women mentions specifically which women were at Davos this year:
Foundation board members:
- Susan Hockfield ( President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum)
- Christine Lagarde (Minister of Economy, Industry and Employment of France; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum)
- H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
- Orit Gadiesh (Chairman, Bain & Company, USA; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum).
There are no women at all on the Managing Board. Directors are:
- Cristina Falcone ( Director Media Industries. Formerly Global Advocacy Campaigns and Audiovisual Productions, International Labour Organization)
- Sarita Nayyar (Consumer Industries. Formerly SVP & GM at Kraft Foods)
Of the seven conference’s chairs, one is a woman: Maria Ramos, the Chief Executive of the South African freight rail and pipelines company Transnet. She recently resigned from the company to explore other opportunities).[sic]
According to the Spiegel Online piece and a response to it (which you can read here) from Saadia Zahidi, Head of Constituents at the World Economic Forum, that includes detailed information about WEF, women and Davos, 8.5% of attendees this year, out of 2500, were women (see the chart here).
FYI, according to this article, “Leaders urge women’s participation to be stepped up at the Forum,” Davos has 3000 attendees in 2002, of which only 10% reportedly were women.
Now if your company had such little progress in seven years, should it still be functioning?
Major hattip to NE Ohio’s own Women’s Enterprise Forum.
Jan
28
From the Couldn’t Agree More Dept: “It’s time old goats like Hardball host Chris Matthews were put out to pasture”
Filed Under Gender, Media, Sexism | 4 Comments
Melissa McEwan nails the ongoing subtle and overt sexism in the media that can be traced not only to the failure for some men to evolve, but the failure of the media hierarchy to incorporate more diverse voices at the upper echelons:
Chris Matthews is a repeat offender, failing on many days to get through an entire hour of his show without making an ignorant or overtly prejudiced comment about women. He leers at his colleagues, gropes other talkshow hosts, debates whether Ann Coulter is hot, makes tired castrating feminist jokes, refuses to confront sexism on his own show, and has been routinely disrespectful or overtly hostile to Hillary Clinton and other women in politics. Eric Boehlert has documented that misogyny is, in fact, a pretty sweet business for Matthews.
Yesterday’s show was no exception, as Matthews discussed the stimulus package (or, as he calls it here, Obama’s “big package”) with Robert Wexler, a Democratic congressman from Florida, complaining that the money allocated for family planning is just a bunch of “odds and ends and cats and dogs”.
…
There is an inherent conflict in someone presenting the news (root word: new!) and clinging defiantly and pathetically to opinions of women that were already old when I was born nearly 35 years ago. Put him out to pasture already, MSNBC.
Hattip to Linda Hirshman.
Jan
14
Bus the Bloggers: An Ohio Odyssey to the Inauguration
Filed Under Barack Obama, Blogging, Media, Ohio, Politics, Writing, activism | 2 Comments
Although I’m unable to attend or cover the inauguration from Washington, DC, I’m trying to take my most influential person of Pepper Pike moniker (just humor me on that) and help another group of movers and shakers who hope to cover the inauguration for Ohioans in unique fashion.
A group of NE Ohio bloggers, many of whom I know personally, have, as bloggers so often do, taken matters into their own hands. Tim and Gloria Ferris are spearheading an effort to cover the inauguration of Barack Obama in a completely unique and Ohio-centric way.
A few days ago, on the 7th [of January], a friend in Cincinnati proposed sending out a blogger call for a road trip in conjunction with the inauguration. The response was pretty positive. Today, we have the resources lined up and the plan partially fleshed out. Tomorrow, we start pounding the phones for money.
To this point, we have a bus reserved for 4 days. It carries 55 and has two drivers. It will start in Cleveland late on the 18th, stop in Akron, and hit Columbus at midnight. From there, it will proceed to Cincinnati, where there is an event at 3 PM, after which it will go on to DC, where it will arrive sometime early in the morning of the 20th and disgorge its load at the end of a T1 line, where the load will proceed to live blog and tweet and stuff for the entire day. We have made arrangements for clearance papers–I guess it involves the metropolitan police and the Secret Service. Then, on the 21st, it’s back home. Coming and going, there will be photo ops and other media events.
We have lodging arranged for the only night when a bed will be possible, between the 20th and the 21st. A few other people and I are getting the money together for the bus, for food and lodging, and for a modest amount of walking-around money for each participant. Gloria and I can’t go due to her recent retrofit, but we can certainly get vicarious. The bus will populate itself, we think, with three generations–it’s a great opportunity for recording oral histories and the varied perspectives of the past 50 years.
Tomorrow, in addition to sponsorship, we’ll be trying to get in-kind participation, as in air cards and wireless services. If we could blog and tweet all the way from Cleveland to Akron to Columbus to Cincinnati to DC and back, wouldn’t that be a marvelous advertisement for a new wired America? The bus trip is a story in itself, and there are lots of other stories within that story.
If this sounds like something you think is cool and deserves more attention (or support, or money), please feel free to link to this post or blog about it yourself. Tim blogged about it here. Also, Tim created a Facebook cause for Bus the Bloggers and it’s getting bigger and bigger – please take a look and consider joining.
I would be going but I am speaking at a previously scheduled event in Akron on Tuesday, inauguration day, that involves interests and causes close to my heart (media, social work and children and family services). But I will be eagerly and excitedly following the NE Ohio bloggers.
Jan
5
Remains of the Day, 1/5/09: Gaza and Israel
Filed Under Foreign Affairs, Gaza, Israel, Law | 10 Comments
Here’s an update of what I’ve been reading most recently (you can see them as a comment at my lengthy BlogHer post where I spell out a lot of my thoughts on the situation):
First, Jack at Random Thoughts continues to provide daily and sometimes 2x/day roundups with excellent links from both the MSM and blogs, from across the spectrum. Here is his update 9.5 (and that link includes links to all the other updates).
His roundup includes this post from a blogger in Bahrain but I would really urge you to look around that particular blog. I think that gentleman represents what it means to be Muslim and be secular and it’s in his presentation that I see hope – if it can get into action, into leadership. I could be wrong about the blogger, but that’s the sense I got.
Here is an interesting Newsweek column to which I can relate, Israel’s Arabs Are the Answer. If you’ve read some of what I’ve written regarding the time I spent in Israel in August 2008, then the sentiments expressed in the column will sound familiar: the wisdom of integrating, incorporating the Israeli Arab population 100%, on all levels.
If you need to be reminded as to why extremists such as Hamas, NOT the Gazan population in general or the Arab population in general, but groups which seek to impose particularly rigid codes of conduct often based on religious tenets on people who do not desire it, read this article about how a female Bangladeshi author fled to Paris. For people familiar with my blog, you know I have almost never used the word “Islamist” – I don’t really approve of it or even know so much what it means. But I can tell you when I read about what is not acceptable treatment under a government and what is extreme to me. And that story about the author is one example. Having spent time in Israel, learning about the different Arab populations in the region, I am confident that there are far fewer interested in such rigid lifestyles than there are interested in a stable, secular existence. The current conflict is completely conflating all that.
There are many photos and videos, from all perspectives, going around – if you google what you want to see, you can pretty much find it – pro-this, anti-that. Whatever.
Here is a Huffington Post item with photos that I received early this morning and here is a video called, Let’s Play Pretend, which many people find very provocative. Here’s a video showing where Gazans have hidden munitions. Here’s a video in which Annie Lennox calls for an end.
The Muqata and Israellycool continue to liveblog the war. People are calling it warblogging. Sigh. But I guess that’s what it is.
Today, there were some cyberwar tactics going on – hacking Facebook, hacking other stuff. Frankly, this crap is all foreplay. Some parties want one-state, that’s all. Other parties are willing to go for two-states if they can peacefully co-exist. Some people want a binational single, secular country. I don’t think it even matters if there are borders or not – either these people are going to learn to live with each other, or they are not. It is entirely within their ability.
Part of the enduring problem is the failure for war itself to settle anything – ever, since the creation of the state of Israel. The claim that the entire land mass has been occupied by people who call themselves Israelis (all religions and ethinicities) for the last 60 years requires that people ignore the 1948 war and armistice in 1949. You can do that if you want to – but it really results in some serious problems in figuring out what to do with millions of people in 2009.
On the other hand, if you accept that war does lead to certain agreements once ended, then all the incursions since then, and their results, need to be accepted. We can’t pick and choose which ones are legitimate and which ones aren’t.
And so this kind of lawlessness or abiding by law tug of war continues – because there isn’t even a common understanding – willfull or not – as to who possesses what, lawfully and that will be respected.
The problem I have with all of that is that we cannot turn back the clock. We can make amends, we can make reparations, we can alter things now. But enough with all the past stuff – which is all that’s being fought over in the social media, by the way. The humanitarian concerns are all real, but those can be addressed if the populations decide that they want to resolve their situations.
But, again, if there’s no common sense of the ground rules for working it all out, then these people will in fact annihilate one another.
On a different note, I’m hoping to get some peaceblogging going in the form of a Wiki for Peace project. I’ll let you know when I get a little further along.
Dec
31
Gaza Israel, II
Filed Under Gaza, Israel, Media | 13 Comments
I can’t link to everything I’ve been reading but here’s a partial list that includes some link-bundling of interest:
Editing in belatedly: Poynter Institute’s coverage, “Gaza Battles on Twitter, Blogs.”
Random Thoughts, Fourth round-up – has links to round ups 1, 2, 3, 3.5 also
Feministing has a good round-up of feminist voices on the violence and the hoped for peace
For all the folks who love to push the criticism that Americans who love Israel will never and never do speak out against its government, read Will Obama, lawmakers listen to liberal pro-Israel groups’ criticism of the operation in Gaza? Sure, sometimes it’s like being the mayor of Whoville shouting, We are here! We are here! We are here! But people like Glenn Greenwald puffing themselves up by saying no one but him denounces Israel while still supporting it don’t help matters.
Daled Amos on a conference call held yesterday and “…sponsored by America’s Voices In Israel, in conjunction with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israeli Consulate of New York.”
Responses from the Israel Consulate to questions asked during a two-hour Twitter press conference can be found here, here, here and here.
Twitter hashtags to follow (go here to insert as a search term) include #gaza and #askisrael but also #gazawarofwords for media bias.
Twitterers I’m following include (and are all across the spectrum):
AJGaza which is Al Jazeera’s special Twitter feed for this conflict
A column by Alan Dershowitz that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor today called “Israel, Hamas and moral idiocy.”
Finally, Kim Pearson tweeted links to video from Gaza and video from the IDF and I’ve updated the links in her tweet:
The Gaza conflict as seen on YouTube. IDF video of attacks: http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk vs. Al Jazeera reports: http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish
If you want to add a link to a resource you’re following, feel free to add them to the comments.
In addition to the local blogs to which I’ve already linked, here’s what a search on BlogNetNews/Ohio on “gaza” and on “israel” turns up (they are not all the same).
One trend I see as the conflict goes on longer and Westerners in particular explore its causes is the unmasking of the belief held, and hidden, by some people that Israel does not in fact have a right to exist. This trend looks like this: a focus on the horrors inflicted on the residents of Gaza, deflection of blame directed toward Hamas or the Arab League for that matter, and talk about how it is the decades through which the Palestinians have been living in Gaza and the West Bank that is the root of their problems.
And it stops there. I’ve yet to read any one of those writers actually write that they believe Israel should in fact cease to exist, cede their land to the Palestinians and be done with it.
If this is what a person believes, then why not just say it? If you’re willing to ignore the duress under which Israelis – Jews, Muslims and Christians – live under, why ignore what your arguments imply? Do you want a two-state or a one-state solution?
Then, of course, you’ll need to explain how and why it is that Israel would become the only country to have fought and won a war, but not actually have a right to that which it won. That is, no one who writes about the decades of suffering in Gaza and the West Bank go back to writing about how those areas came to exist in the first place, or the Egyptians outright refusal to invite Palestinians into their land – the Sinai now included, since 1985. Isn’t the Sinai Holy Land too? Why is that not a piece of property in which Palestinians could make a state?
Anyway, this group of people should get together with the group that says that there are no American Jews who will write about their love for Israel but their dislike and disagreement with the government and military’s actions and see what else they can come up with.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what it is that Hamas actually wants. Or the Gazans. What do they want?
Nov
26
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women
Filed Under Gender, Law, Politics, Resources, Sexism, Social Issues, Tools, Women, Youth, activism, intolerance, leadership | 1 Comment
I could, and I will, provide links and excerpts of what the day is about and why it exists (it was yesterday and is November 25 every year), but this story from the AP about how Taliban in Pakistan threw acid on school girls pretty much does the trick.
Men riding motorbikes squirted acid from water bottles onto three groups of students and teachers walking to school. Several girls suffered burned faces and were hospitalized. One teenager couldn’t open her eyes for days after the attack, which sparked condemnation around the world.
Afghanistan’s government called the attack “un-Islamic,” while the United Nations labeled it “a hideous crime.” First lady Laura Bush decried the attackers as cowardly.
Today, the government said that 10 alleged Taliban militants have been arrested in connection with the incident and that some have confessed for participating.
Why would anyone do this? Read more
Nov
14
Remains of the Day, Safari: Women, politics & the elections
Filed Under Barack Obama, Elections, Gender, Politics, PostWH2008, Sarah Palin, Women | 2 Comments
Okey dokey – here are the ones on these topics from my Safari tabs. What’s the difference? I generally work in Firefox – do my reading and research there. But I open Safari to read my gmail and twitter. Don’t ask me why – I just do – it became habit. So, what happens is, when I don’t feel like going back to my writing or researching on Firefox, and I’ve already started to explore links from tweets other people include, those get opened in Safari. Sometimes I do research in Safari, but the bulk is done in Firefox.
1. One of my fave female political bloggers, PunditMom: The Post Where PunditMom Defends Sarah Palin:
Palin has won the political profile lottery in a way few politicians ever do, no matter where they are from or how long they’ve been on the scene. Skilled politicos know how to seize the moment and move forward when others say their success is unlikely — can you say “Barack Obama.”
…
What Palin does have is a sense of opportunity, something that doesn’t generally come to girls or women naturally in our society. She’s got some serious chutzpah, something I wish I had more of. For better or worse, without a dose of that even qualified women have a tough time getting ahead in any career, especially politics.
Palin has taken charge of this moment that is unlikely to come again and she’s making the most the notoriety that was offered her.
I have to say, if I were in her shoes, I’d do the same thing. When it comes to promotion of women in high profile situations, whether it’s corporate or national politics, none of the men who are still running the show are going to do it for us. Women have to do it for themselves.
2. Helen Thomas returns to “finish off” Dana Perino (that’s what Wonkette declares). Great video but I have to say, Thomas did not look that frail at all when I met her last March. Godspeed to her.
3. From John Farrell at U.S. News & World Report: In Defense of Sarah Palin: Read more
Nov
10
[update] Rahm puts the screws to his dad
Filed Under Barack Obama, Democrats, Israel, Jewish, Judaism, Politics, PostWH2008, Religion, Social Issues | 4 Comments
This is priceless, especially if you know Israelis:
The Arab and pro-Arab media have made much of the fact that [Barack Obama's chief of staff pick, Congressman from Illinois, Rahm] Emanuel’s father is Israeli, and Benjamin Emanuel didn’t improve matters in an interview with Ma’ariv.
“Obviously,” the senior Emanuel told the Israeli daily, “he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”
By the time JTA reached the elder Emanuel, a physician, it was clear his son had asked him to keep away from reporters. Picking up the phone, he said, “This is Benjamin Emanuel, the plumber,” and asked a reporter to call back in a week, after he’d spoken in person to Rahm – “if I’m still alive then.”
I’m still laughing out loud every time I read his father’s last line. So so real. Love it.
For readers who’ve ever struggled to understand how I can say both, I love Israel and Israel is and can be wrong, read that article. The way in which it describes Emanuel’s affection for being Jewish and for Israel, and how it translates into his political work is identical to that of many Jews who consider themselves Democrats or at least left of center.
Hattip Holly in Cincinnati.
UPDATE: Rahm Emanuel has issued an apology to Ohio’s own Mary Rose Oakar because of the statement of his father:
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent a letter to Emanuel calling on him to distance himself from remarks made by the elder Emanuel in an interview with an Israeli newspaper following his son’s appointment last week.
…
“Today, Rep. Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, apologized on behalf of his family and offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future,” a statement from his office said.
The committee, in a statement on its website, said Emanuel told Oakar it was unacceptable to make such remarks against any ethnic or religious group.
“From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family,” the group quoted him as saying.
Oakar welcomed the apology, saying: “We cannot allow Arabs and Muslims to be portrayed in these unacceptable terms.”
Oct
20
[update] Remains of the Day, Election 2008 Edition, 10/19/08
Filed Under Barack Obama, Blogging, Campaigning, Elections, John McCain, Media, Ohio, Politics, Race, Sarah Palin, Sexism, Social Issues, Voting, WH2008, Women | 4 Comments
1. Update on this post, from the Los Angeles Times:
The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario late last night on suspicion of voter registration fraud.
State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California.
Jacoby’s arrest by state investigators and the Ontario Police Department comes after dozens of voters said they were duped into registering as Republicans by his firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM. The voters said YPM tricked them by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters. The firm was paid $7 to $12 for every Californian it registered as a member of the GOP.
2. If you want to follow good, varied and multi-media news as it happens from Ohio, try Marc Kovic’s Capital Blog. He’s with the Dix news corp but does a really good job of posting video and primary source documents for everyone to read and follow.
3. A local Ohio clothing store in an upscale suburb is offering 15% off your purchase if you cast a straw ballot for Obama, McCain or undecided. This is legal, yes? I wonder what they’ll do with the ballots – should we mess with them, just for fun? And if I print out a whole bunch, could I get 15% off more than once, in addition to stuffing the ballot box?
4. For readers who are familiar with my claims that a McCain/Palin ticket engenders what it means to remain insular, the Salt Lake Tribune agrees with me:
The Salt Lake paper complained that “out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain’s bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.
5. Ohioans’ views of the Plain Dealer endorsement of Obama: Have Coffee Will Write, Ohio Daily Blog, Blogger Interrupted.
6. Scott Piepho, a law professor, blogger and former prosecutor did a nice round-up of the court cases that have involved Ohio’s Secretary of State Brunner. He includes a link to an article written just four months ago by an OSU law expert who predicted the very kind of wrangling we’re now witnessing, What Happens When Voters Don’t Match.
7. The Columbus Dispatch offers this simple (maybe overly simple?) Q&A called, “Q&A Voting Fraud.”
8. Just for fun, because I can’t be bothered with trying to count such lists at the end of a…well, you know, nothing ever seems to really end, lately. Anyway – here’s a list of all endorsements for John McCain and here’s one for all endorsements of Barack Obama. Obsess away.
9. Ohio – come on, for those of you who have never visited or lived here, what do you really think? Don’t answer that. Regardless, here’s a heartwarming blog entry about Perrysburg, Ohio which is a town that apparently could have been voted Town Least Likely To…have an Obama office, but as the photos demonstrate, not only do they have an Obama office, but it has…drum roll please: WHITE PEOPLE IN IT! Imagine that! In Ohio! (Sarcasm alert) Yes, Virginia, even though there is definitely racism in Ohio? There are also are an awful lot of people who could careless what the color of someone’s skin is when deciding whom to vote for.
Bonus note on Perrysburg: John McCain rallied not too far from there today, but seems as though they had a little trouble counting how many arrived. This headline hyperlink looked like this:
but leads to an error page:
But if you go to the actual website, you’ll see that the number of attendees has been scaled back by 3,000:
No, I don’t usually go looking for anything like that but when I saw the first hyperlink and got to an error page, I just by habit went to the source and there I found an article about the rally with 7K people.
10. This actually feels a little dated given how quickly election narratives seem to move, but it’s only five days old: former Mayor of Cleveland Jane Campbell (a Democrat and Obama supporter) writes about how women don’t vote on gender.
11. Slipping in this tiny tribute to Media Bloggers Association founder Robert Cox – his On the Media appearance a couple of weeks ago.
12. An article about a report that says children are aware of white male monopoly in the White House.
13. Steve Schmidt just really creeps me out – I don’t know how else to say it.
14. A column on When Hate Wins.
15. If you’ve been assuaging concern about Sarah Palin’s far-right views, particularly on personal matters, by believing that those views might control what she’d do, but she would never inflict them on a nation of 300 million people who aren’t much like Alaskans? Think again:
Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment , are, are you for something like that?
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.
16. “A cold calculated political decision” – Those are John McCain’s first words this morning describing how he feels about his selection of Sarah Palin for his VP.
17. I am not an American. Be sure to read the comments and read Dave Winer’s piece (which came first).
18. Are Palin supporters sexist? Or have we crossed some line that, since it’s really what the McCain/Palin campaign want, since it engenders voter support, then we are, in some odd way, condoning sexism?
19. West Virginia white men saying they vote for the person without regard to color, and tales from North Carolina where some white post-church lunchgoers show less than a southern friendliness to Obama.
All for tonight.
UPDATE on #15: I knew this was coming because in the back of my fatigue-addled mind, I could have sworn that Palin’s now-stated position on a federal gay marriage ban was opposite John McCain’s stance. If anyone comes across a tally of how many issues they disagree on and how many Biden and Obama disagree on, I’d love to see that. Also, Palin clearly pushes the “I’ll have to talk to him about that I can change their minds” thing far more than I’ve ever heard Biden even suggest such a thing. This New Yorker piece on how Palin got to where she is highlights her ambition and I read it as supporting her approach in thinking that she will just change McCain’s mind. But that’s me.
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
