My Campaign Coach

Blocking out the noise

2010-04-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

I'm learning it's a balance to tune in to tweets and follow the political maestros, on both sides, but golly, some days it's hard to listen to the cachophony, from both sides. I get a little wierded out watching an interplay between good friends that suck up my all friends column on my tweet deck too. Yet I still encourage my students to log in and follow twitterers (tweeters?) because there is definitely a tone, even if you only pick a handful of peeps to tweet and follow.

What I"m looking for is the Party that is FOR something. Many of the political experts can tell me everything that is wrong with the other side. Dissecting every little sentence and taking comments out of context to make their point. That's the work that gives the PR/public affairs industry such a bad name. Frankly, I'm done with that. I'd rather see civility. I have friends across the political spectrum, Dems, GOP, libertarians, non-partisan, non-participant. There are some good ideas (when you get past the rhetoric) from many points of view. No one Party owns the ideas. But geez, get passed the BS and start finding common ground. We need to start as citizens and create a harmony in tone. Otherwise we keep polarizing and keep the stridency playing.

Rising Above Cancer on Easter Sunday

2010-04-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

Today, Easter Sunday, I saw a Facebook post from a kid I used to make out with. (Yes, just 'cause we are pushing 50 doesn't mean we aren't still kids in our minds). He posted: "In loving memory of every cancer patient, family and friends who have lost the battle of cancer and the ones who continue to conquer it! Put this on your page if you know someone who has or had cancer. Dear God, I pray for the cure of cancer. Amen. 93% won't copy and paste this. I did, but will you??"

I liked the thought of sharing, but the "I'm better than you cause I'm one of the 7% that will do this" kind of irritates me. I'm not sure who started this on facebook, it shows up on a lot of causes, not just cancer. Anyway I tried to convey that, just wanting people to remember their loved ones without the dare and changed it:
In loving memory of every cancer patient, family/friends who lost the cancer battle and the ones who continue to conquer it! Put this on your page if you know someone who has or had cancer. Praying to goddess for the cure of cancer. Blessed be. There's a throw down about 93% won't copy and paste this, which irritates me. If you're moved today cuz of cancer, say so--or just remember that cancer patient at home.

Unfortunately this rubbed a dear friend the wrong way--she recently lost a family member to cancer and then one of her closest friends just learned she needs to battle it. Probably should have just taken out the repost 93% thing. In any case, I thought I'd talk about just how impacted my life has been from cancer.

Cancer robbed me of both my grandfathers--one to skin cancer (he painted houses with lead paint for a living) before I was born and the other to colon cancer when I lived too far away to say goodbye. Colon cancer tried to steal my favorite aunt once. It waited 12 years to recur to wrest her from us; and I watched her shrivel to nothing. Her daughter, my cousin, had already fought the cancer demon leukemia when her son was three. He thought he survived but relapsed and needed a bone marrow transplant--I think he was 10. I don't remember how many surgeries or treatments he had. At 23 he just had surgery to straighten his wrists from the crippling effects of cancer survival that kept his hands bent in submission.

My boss battled cancer; and as a warrior she had her 2nd breast removed to give cancer nothing to latch on to. A former staffer beat cancer when she was in her 20's, but she must remain vigilant. A second former staffer had to beat that damn colon cancer--I learned more than I wanted to about intestines from her. Two co-workers are CURRENTLY fighting cancer: one is battling that freakin' colon cancer at stage 4--and winning. Another young woman in her 30's just went bald for cancer yet kept battling for health care reform so others could have health insurance.

One of my former students pulverizes her cancer with her wit. In November she was told she had 90 days to live. Just over four months later she celebrated her 28th birthday. Her blog is wicked funny (http://wickedcaseofcancer.tumblr.com/) even though her cancer is not.

Many former and current students are working on the American Cancer Society Relay for Life. Two friends have advocated for that; another works with the Leukemia Society. A coworker was trying to raise funds for a friend who is battling leukemia--I gave a small gift thinking of my cousin's son's battle and we connected, briefly.

And I advocate for youth to prevent STDs so they don't expose themselves to cervical cancer (for girls) or brain/oral cancer (for boys). Sex isn't worth dying from cancer. It's the body's cells gone out of control--your body is killing itself. And the treatment will nearly kill you if you aren't strong enough to survive. And many don't.

So I remembered the people I love who I have lost to cancer, who I pray will beat cancer and who are working to erradicate cancer from our medical vocubulary.

A little more face time, a little tech time

2010-03-29T22:59:00.000-07:00

Some people love to write and any excuse, like blogging, will do. I don't love to write. I'm good at it, but I don't love it. So I need another excuse. Being opinionated often seems to be a reason to blog, but (I know my friends will find this hard to believe) but I don't like just pushing an opinion. Really, I don't. Channeling Virginia Wolfe with stream of conscience is way harder than it looks. I struggle with the challenge of doing it all: tweet, social media sites, blog. Read things, stay on top of all the jobs I have. I go 90 miles an hour already, and find it hard to bring consistency to all of that. And find balance. Because sure, it's late tonight so I'm up and writing. But often I'm sleeping. I make time for exercise--walking with my girlfriend, pilates and dancing. I am no longer the svelte size four I was in my 20s. Ain't ever going to be that again so I must exercise, still eating like I'm a svelte 4. Dancing, I do for me. And I don't try to do it all in one day--getting laundry done now, will get to grading papers tomorrow--after a really long day. I asked one of my favorite blogHers how she does it. Incessantly. I can barely track her tweets, let alone her blog. She says just do it whenever. Well, my blog takes a haitus when I do that. Can't.

So I went to a conference hosted by the American Association of Political Consultants. Some real talent there. An affirmation that what I offer is needed. It may not be unique, but there's plenty of room out there to train volunteers trying to help their friend or sister or mom get into local office. And not all of that--running for local office--needs to be high tech. Tech is a part of the strategy. But winning votes still takes one on one when you run for local office.

So I'll blog some. Try to stay on top of it. And if you don't see me, I'm just doing a litte more face time than tech time.

Where have all the political journalists gone?

2010-03-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

In her Gawker piece, Ravi Somaiya says journalists' "Fawning Political Interviews Have Ruined American Politics". I think the author's right. When I'm not reproductive freedom fighting or motivating candidates, I teach a course at the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada. Public Relations. We can have the argument that PR isn't journalism for another day. My short answer to that is: Journalists who are PR trained bring integrity to the image making process and if done correctly will provide good stories or at least good story leads. But I digress.

Ravi cited a great example "Take, for example, Palin's 2008 claim to ABC's Charlie Gibson that because she could "actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," she had foreign policy experience. [Rmeember Tina Fey riffing on Palin is the one who said she could see Russia from her backyard.] Imagine if he'd thrown it directly back to her with follow-up questions. What bearing does this have on your ability to make policy? Are you seriously telling us that your qualifications are based on proximity?"

We need to train journalists to ask the hard questions, to think fast enough and to not be elitist and assume that everyone can just see what a stupid statement that is, because they can't.

I'm in the industry of making sure a candidate is "on message". But it's shameful when politicians use a bridge to get to where they want to go in the questioning without answering the question. All candidates should answer the questions. They should be prepared to address serious issues, redress errors or mistatements or even faux pas and should be held accntable to truthfulness. It's amazing to me that prevarication is the norm--and no one is calling them on their stuff. At least at the national level.

Many local reporters do better. My hats off to Anjeannette Damon, Reno Gazette Journal reporter, David McGrath Schwartz, Las Vegas Sun and Jon Ralston, LVS and pundit. They often do ask the hard questions, or at least investigate statements. We need to train more journalists like them, even from the PR side.

It's my Party and I'll shout if I want to

2010-03-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

The anti-choice Democrats need to get out of my Party. Their obsession with controling women's wombs is holding health care hostage. As soon as a woman gets pregnant in their ideology she apparently has no value, certainly no moral compass and must be shamed with a scarlet letter. What the hell kind of Democratic Party value is that? It's not. So get out of my party. No woman plans for an abortion, she's certainly not going to pay an extra check for insurance on this "just in case". No one likes abortions and hopes to have one. But very few Americans think the government has a role in the family conversation of whether a woman chooses to parent or spaces her family size. Your religious ideology, Members Stupak and Nelson, are not mine, they are certainly not Democratic. Democratic values leave room for all religious beliefs, without imposition on others'. Senator Reid once asked Planned Parenthood to stop hounding him about his recruitment of Dems on this women's issue; well it's biting him in the arse now. This Senator, is why we reproductive freedom fighters take where a candidate stands on reproductive rights so seriously and why it's not acceptable to keep letting them get into office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15mon1.html?hp

Minced fish

2010-03-13T19:36:00.000-08:00

Have you seen Van de Kamp's commercial where the young girl who's four or five demands that she get a better dinner. She comes in holding a box saying "Minced fish? You're serving me minced fish? Have you ever CAUGHT a minced fish?" And of course the mom runs off to purchase the flaky, whole fish fishstiks which the young girl approves of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx2yNmHdgA

What I love about this commercial is her demand for the best, for the whole product and not something piecemeal (pardon the pun). What I hope is that all young girls like Van De Kamps STAY this assertive, but they won't. I watch my university students stop negotiating. They think they are strong and able to do anything, yet they don't assert their value for a salary, an internship, even feeling vulnerable when they do presentations. Somewhere our girls lose the veriloquent voice--they can't speka their own truth. It happens in our education environment, not so much the curricula they are taught, but their contextual backdrop. It's learned. We need to help them unlearn it, better not learn it in the first place. May they all despise minced fish.

Women gotta be asked, so ask

2010-02-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

Reading the "Poised to Run, Women's Pathways to State Legislatures" researched by The Center for American Women and Politics part of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, New Jersey. The research was funded by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, she of Congress and the lone vote against the Iraq war back in 2001.

The study's findings indicate 5 key elements about adjusting the 54/24 disparity. Women comprise 54% of the voting bloc but only make up 24% of state legislative elected officials. Granted that's an average across states; mine happens to have a high ratio, but I think that's because the pay is atrocious and generally only women work for those kinds of wages. I really believe our governments would run more efficiently and compassionately if women served in equal representation. But I digress.

The five findings are these: 1-Women need to be asked to run, because they don't think of it themselves. 2-Political parties, on both sides, have huge influence on a candidate's success at the legislative level. 3-Women's organizations help recruitment, but aren't the top resource and could do better in asking women to run. 4-There is a vast, untapped pool of qualified women candidates and they don't need to follow a path of school board, then municipal, then legislature stepping stones. 5-Women need more funding and training, not because they can't do it--they don't know that they CAN do it.

These 5 reasons are exactly why I serve on the board of Emerge Nevada and why I am training campaign managers and candidates' kitchen cabinets.

Women must be punished: weapons are disabled children or criminalization

2010-02-22T18:24:00.000-08:00

Yep, according to state legislator Bob Marshall in Virginia, disabled children are god's punishment for women who had abortions. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/22/113851/800. This presumes every woman with a disabled child had an abortion--has he talked to Sarah Palin? An abortion is 11 times safer than giving birth. Marshall mouths off about all kinds of things related to incest being voluntary (WTF?!) and contraception is a chemical love canal for frat boys. The thing is, he's not the only one like this in office. In Utah the state legislature criminalized MISCARRIAGE for pregnant women. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage. There are 35 states with anti-choice legislators passing bills to prevent women from self determination and working towards mandated childbirth. Tell me where a candidate stands on pro-choice, the right to privacy and choices about pregnancy free from governmental interference isn't important. Damn straight it is.

Toddlers and Tiaras Disturbing

2010-02-07T10:42:00.000-08:00

I love the Learning Channel, but I cannot fathom why they allow, let alone promote, the show toddlers and tiaras. Four year olds sizzling their behind as sex kittens is just obscene. While I know editing occurs to show only the "drama" of these girls being miserable, the fact is they often are miserable. Teh parents are living vicariously through THEIR CHILDREN, exploiting them and covering them in make up and sexy outfits more appropriate for 20 somethings. So what message are we sending by even allowing these pageants, let alone TLC airing it? Dove is countering negative body image for all American women because we hate our bodies, we hate our looks, we get caught up in the image issue. I'm slightly built. I've been that way all my life. I gained 20lbs in my 40s--still a single digit size, and I too get caought up in image, even when I know I'm a hot 48 year old. In the DOVE add you see the young girl close down, trapped by all these images of sexy women--and T&T is copping to that by exploiting these very young girls. It won't build their confidence--these girls will either be caught up in sexual abuse, or become rancid primadonas. Neither is a healthy option.

Let's give them somthing to talk about

2010-01-28T09:35:00.000-08:00

As Bonnie Rait would sing. I took a mini haitus from the blogging because I just didn't want to rant about reproductive rights all the time. I COULD. Lots to rant about but who the hell wants to read that all the time?

I'm still digesting the President's State of the Union speech. He's a helluva speaker. I'll give him that. Throughout the 2007 Caucus/2008 Campaign he brought me to tears every time I heard him; so much hope. And I understood and agreed just over a year ago when he took office that memorable, historic day when he said "I cannot do this alone" and that there was SOOOOOO much to do: GITMO, two war fronts and hundreds of thousands of troops deployed, financial industry collapse, jobs, housing market collapse, education, health care...and whatever else. I get it. But dammit, quit being a centrist. Either figure out how to truly break the partisanship (not sure how to do that, but then I'm not POTUS) or do it without. But BE BOLD and do something big. Do it now and don't sell us short.

What a new decade in politics could bring

2009-12-31T09:56:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the New Year, everyone and their uncle is either regurgitating what they think are the most telling moments in the last decade (9/11, the Bush Administration, Hurricane Katrina and the near death of New Orleans, the first African American president, the death of icon Michael Jackson, the rise of social media) OR they are prognosticating how the coming decade will turn out. On a Blue Moon New Year's I'll indulge in hopeful thinking for politics in the new decade.

1. Reproductive rights becomes a non-issue because misogynistic religious zealots quit running for office, replacing policy with ideology.
2. Voter apathy dissolves, especially in primaries, so better candidates are put forth for the general elections rather than just those who can pander to extremists in the party. We could just abolish primaries.
3. National campaigns won't need to raise obscene amounts of money because all candidates will get equal, limited free air time and the FEC will abolish the purchase of TV ads for political campaigns.
4. Once elected politicians will work in a bipartisan manner, remembering that AMERICAN values are contained in both major political parties, but hate is not one of those values.
5. Every level of government is as diversly represented by women, people of color, LGBTQ, youth and whoever else is voiceless as the community we live in.
6. Politicians stop cheating on their spouses--note that those caught in dalliances are men; perhaps we just need to elect women instead.
7. Political consultants adopt non-negative, non-exaggerated taken-out-of-context campaigning techniques. Pointing out votes or opinions and differentiating is not the same as fear tactics, name calling, lies or misinformation.
8. Campaign promises aren't empty.
9. Change in government is possible.
10. Politician isn't a dirty word.

Well a girl can dream can't she?

All I want for Christmas

2009-12-23T10:09:00.000-08:00

are my reproductive rights. That's not asking for much. So while I can appreciate Senator Reid's manuevering to get 60 votes and his efforts to table Senator Ben Nelson's anti-woman, ban abortions, amendment, the fact that Nelson gets to hold health care reform hostage while he gets to be grinch ruins my Christmas. Nelson's constituents certainly are going to need the extra Medicaid funding he got for his state--they're going to need it, because when poor women can't control their reproductive lives (and now with Nelson's amendment even middle class women who once had insurance coverage can't control their reproduction without his approval) more Medicaid is needed to cover costs for health care. Not to mention the educational needs. Nelson stole my Christmas and gave it to Omaha Insurance. Nice.

how to get the youth vote, still a mystery

2009-11-29T09:24:00.000-08:00

On the MSNBC dose of reality, the question was whether Democrats were wooing younger voters with health care reform. As of today, 38% of the readers believe that to be true, compared to the nearly equal who think it's fiction or a little of both. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32462685/ns/health-health_care. The RX comes up with unclear. But it's just goofy. Seniors will fair better than young people, who will be relied upon to even the odds in health care. Those who are fit need to pay into the system to offset those who need health care, always been teh case. Whether the house version or senate version, some number of young adults will be required to buy into the system. That's not how you get voters.

But the old rule of thumb that seniors vote more than the 18-25 year olds, holds true, even in the 2008 election. Ask your average college student what the debate is on health care reform and they likely won't even know there's debate. Even the journalism students who are supposed to be paying attention to the news. I know, I teach them. My take would be no, the Dems aren't reaching out trying to get younger voters through health care reform. They are focusing on the seniors, who do vote, sort of. Ultimately having passed health care reform will be on the checklist of accomplishments for congress and the president, unless the conversatives are successful in derailing any successes for the sake of orneriness. Seniors will want to know there is an accomplishment. None of what's being suggested will start till 2014, conveniently after the 2012 presidential election, so the effect won't be known for any voter until then. So it's just rhetoric. The conversative will play to their voters and the Dems will play to theirs. And many of today's non voting youth, will move to another camp and no longer qualify as youth vote by the time the legislation goes into effect. Gotta know your voters and when they vote.

Congress to carve out medical procedure exclusive to men

2009-11-21T16:44:00.000-08:00

Reading Connie Schultz's opinion in Truthout, http://www.truthout.org/1121095, she points out exactly the problem in health care reform bill being passed on the wombs of American poor women. She's asks "When has a medical procedure exclusive to men ever been held to a vote on a floor of the United States Congress?
Oh, wait, just remembered: Never." So let's start. Let's exclude prostrate or testicular cancer from the health care reform. Maybe we should also exclude penile implants. Maybe we'll just exclude coverage to Catholics--after all there should be separation of church and state and since the Catholic Bishops can't seem to keep their lobbying limits within the confines of church exemption, maybe we should just exempt them from health care access in this country. Maybe just maybe then they'll learn to keep their rosaries off my ovaries.

Yes We Can--Change our leaders

2009-11-05T08:41:00.000-08:00

The elections this week meant change over for both Dems (Virginia and New Jersey) and GOP (New York). The blush of Obama's change isn't gone for the consistent citizen who has always voted. Those voters wanted change and made it happen. Voters clearly are upset (to put it mildly) with the economy and that's their issue--no matter who is in office. And they still want change. They want politicians to live up to their promises, not bankrupt the country or their state or their county. They want them to make the hard decisions to cut services where individuals are enabled: "teach them to fish, not feed them" philosophy, whether or not they are Christians. And its still the independent voter who swings the decision--has been for at least a decade, if not longer. When training candidates it's always go for the middle voter: Each side with abid followers will voter regardless. It's teh independents and teh occasion voter on each side who swing elections.

So you see, they are fed up with party politics. They can see the features and benefits from both parties' values. They don't want government run like business--where only the CEOS make enormous salaries and the frontline barely have wages or benefits. They want government to run like families: be personally responsible and take care of your own, don't interfere with others way of life. So incumbents at all levels need to talk economy and solutions. No other issue is relevant; dogma (whether liberal or conservative) won't even turn out voters. We still have yes we can change our leaders--always have had with the voters.

2% isn't worth the orgy of lobbying

2009-11-01T11:20:00.000-08:00

Did you know that the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan economic analyist for Congress, estimated that only 2% of people who would be eligible for the public option in health care insurance reform would take us up on the offer. And 65% of Americans support the public option. Two percent is hardly going to deprive private insurance from teh smorgasbord of profits. Although personally I wouldn't mind. Insurance is just enforced gambling--requiring the healthy to subsidize the cost of the sick and creating an unhealthy bureacracy to negotiate through to get health care and obesely high profits for gluttonous investors. The public option is designed for those people currently uninsured--employees of small business owners unable to offer this benefit because of cost or others "uninsurable". You know, those people such as pregnant women or cancer survivors, they are likely to "get sick" again, making them uninsurable. Even the First Lady Michelle Obama talks about how women are impacted by the insurance industry gorging on profit margin, forcing cancer patients into bankruptcy and forgoing annual screenings. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/why-health-insurance-reform-matters-women
And yet the insurance industry has spent millions (7.5mil in Massachusetts), probably closer to billions to defeat health care reform. If they just taxed themselves instead of wining and dining Congressmen, they'd have paid for health insurance for that 2% of the population they were trying to stop from getting insurance.

Voting tantrum not pragmatic, get active

2009-10-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

In a Ganette News Service, reporter Erin Kelly cites the rock and a hard place Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself. He's committed to finding a public option for health insurance in the health care reform, can't get the GOP and apparently the Obama Administration to back that up. So he's struggling between his Party and his constiuency. The public option would essentially provide the uninsured with a way to get the benefits of group coverage, without using their employer's (since 13% of the country now doesn't have an employer or the one they have doesn't cover their health care needs. Think religiously affiliated insurance companies, which should be an oxymoron, not providing reproductive health care-75% of what women seek in health care services.) In her piece Kelly points out that Nevada Democrats are threatening to not vote for the Sente Majority Leader if he doesn't pull this public option off. A non vote is just as effective as voting for the GOP canddiate, whoever the winner of that slugfest will be. The GOP haven't offered any solution only fear tactics and mis-inforamtion, yet Democratic voters want to stomp their feet and throw a voting tantrum? The opponents to health care reform continue to out contact Congress sharing their opposition. Where are the grassroots calls for supporting public option or other elements of health care reform? Yep, calls have been made. But you have to call again and again. Then get your family to call. Then get your friends to call. Then get them to call again. Then all of you need to call the other Nevada Senator--he shouldn't be off the hook trying to make a pecadillo of his ethical and moral turpitude. While Senator Ensign should be reforming his ways he should be reforming health care too. So fellow Dems, don't threaten a voting tantrum; get on the phone and do your part.

Wishing Ruth Bader Ginsburg a speedy recovery

2009-10-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took another trip to the hospital instead of to London as planned, when she fell from her seat while waiting for the plane to take off. She did another hospital overnight about three weeks ago with dizziness. The justice battled pancreatic cancer and dealt with chemotherapy early in the year. I hope she recovers her health. The 76 year old is one of only four liberals on the nine seat Supreme Court. She's been a strong voice for the women's perspective for 16 years and watched the tenants of Roe Vs Wade deteriorate. During a 90 minute interview with the New York Times Magazine in July this year, she discussed her concerns about abortion being only accessible to women of wealth. Advocates on both sides of the abortion rights debate stirred up the issues when a comment she made was taken out of context. According to CNN reports and the Times article she said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” I think she was right. She went on to say “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out,” Ginsburg said. “There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe (to make abortion legal) are not going to change back. So we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”

Also in the article Ginsburg discussed her surprise at the outcome of Harris v. McRae, a 1980 decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of Medicaid and other federal funds for abortions.
Today's Health Care Reform is nearly being held hostage by the anti-choice zealots who are not only using abortion rights as a wedge issue to reform health insurance for the non-insured, they are going after access for women who are insured, despite 86% of insurances already covering this medical procedure. The anti-choice hardliners don't want one iota of tax payer dollars spent on abortion--not insurance, the the procedure or the medication version. But they also don't want money spent on sex education, access to birth control or other preventative measures. They don't want to spend resources on all the unintended children that come from their legislative consequences. But we all do. WE should let poor people manage their family size with all options. And may Ruth Bader Ginsburg stay on the Court.

Give Peace Prize a Chance

2009-10-11T11:29:00.000-07:00

Really? Inspiring a nation that lost its way to feel hope again? Transpiring across the globe to give the WORLD hope and find faith in Americans again? That's not enough to have "earned" the Nobel Peace Prize? The Nobel Peace Prize isn't the lifetime achievement award given to the longest living person who has accomplished the most towards peace. If that were true then Desmond Tutu wouldn't have won, apartheid didn't end till 10 years after he won. Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin should give theirs back--peace still is non-existent in the Middle East. Kim Dae-jung didn't unite Korea. It is given to the person who embodies peace and brings the hope of peace among nations. The President of the United States of America was recognized for the power and passion he brought to the election and to people across the globe. Has he accomplished everything he set out to do? Of course not; he's only been in office for 9 months. He took charge when America faced its worst challenge in 80 years. We should all be proud of our President; we don't have to like his politics and we can be disappointed in the fruition of his promises, but we cannot not be ashamed that our President was honored. President Obama acknowledges he has not done enough and chooses to see this honor as a call to action to invoke peace. Perhaps we can all put peace in our rhetoric; better let's put peace into our own actions at home, at the office and in our communities. Let's assume good intentions and give the Peace Prize winner a chance.

Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL) has a point

2009-10-08T07:58:00.000-07:00

Recently there's been hubbub about the Democratic Congressman from Florida who said essentially that the Republican health care reform policy is "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly". Congressman Alan Grayson said it late at night on the House of Representatives floor last week. I'm not going to debate whether it was polite or politic--probably wasn't. It was a blunt, direct comment about why health care in this country needs to be reformed in the first place: no one can afford to get sick. We are at the mercy of insurance people dictating courses of action to receive health care, not medical pratitioners. And that's assuming you have health insurance. I have health insurance, yet have spent tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket recently to deal with my immune system having been shot from living with mold. Insurance doesn't cover that treatment.

If you don't have health insurance, you really can't afford to get sick--so we have county health departments across the country teaching citizens how to cough into their elbow and wash their hands so we don't have an epidemic of H1N1 flu. We do that because working America can't afford to take time off when they are sick, so we get everyone else sick in the the cubicle, the restaurant, the store, the warehouse. But saying just don't get sick works as well as say no to drugs or telling teens say no to sex, life just doesn't work that way.

It costs more to be a healthy female

2009-10-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

Just spent 4 hours standing in the cold handing out cancer screening, STD and advocacy info to women, men and girls attending the northern Nevada Komen Race for the Cure. And we all have to unite together, not just for women's breast health, but for the whole health of women. Because it costs us more for our health. According to the National Women's Law Center study, uninsured women with breast cancer are more likely to be diagnozed with advanced stage of breast cancer than women with the disease who are insured. More than 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs; women are more significantly likely to file medical bankruptcy. More than half of all women have problems accessing health care because of cost, whether it's filling a prescription or skipping tests or treatment compared to 39% of men. Slightly more than a third of native American women and a nearly 40% of Latina women don't have health insurance. http://www.nwlc.org/reformmatters/facts.html. Women can't afford to get sick, because they can't afford to take care of themselves.

Women's wombs as political footballs

2009-10-01T08:32:00.001-07:00

No other body part gets so much political attention. Health Care and Insurance Reform nearly came to a halt because of abortion. Anti-choice hardliners aren't merely trying to prevent abortion from being a provision in the insurance exchange; they are using the need for health care reform to limit access to abortion for women who are already insured (86% of all private insurance already covers abortion care). Yet four in ten of American women will have an abortion. At least half of women will have an unintended pregnancy and a third of them will terminate that pregnancy. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html. So it's not teenagers getting abortions (only 17%)--they actually give birth more often when they are pregnant. Nor is it irresponsible women--more than half of women who have abortions had been using a contraceptive method. And you know what else: sixty percent of women getting abortions already have a child. So guess who is bearing the burden the most? Poor women. Women under the poverty level are four times as likely to have an abortion as women who aren't poor. They can't afford one more mouth the feed. They can't take care of the parents/children they have. Half of the women who have abortions are having problems with their partner. One in six women who are abused indicate that abuse started with her pregnancy (http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/dv/pregnancy.php). And yet anti-choice politicians think they know better. It's just an abuse of power for politicians to legislate women's wombs; who has control over them and what happens to them. When will women's wombs stop being political footballs?

Political Parties Shouldn't Endorse Candidates

2009-09-30T08:48:00.000-07:00

Recently I read in the Jon Ralston Flash report that GOP leaders endorsed Republican candidates for state offices in the primaries, and I'm just appalled. If the political Party is not supportive of the candidates, who will be. It's to the Democrat advantage that the GOP Party chose sides. It doesn't say much when the non-chosen opponent's Party thinks they're incompetent. What happens if the non-chosen candidate wins the primary? I'm sure the response is "it's just politics". But this is why so many people can't stand politics--win at all costs loses soul.

I know some Democratic Party leaders have considered endorsing candidates within the party; the actions by the GOP should caution them not to take the same path. It's one thing for the PACs to hone in on talent they want to invest their resources in to assure a win; it's quite another when the Party takes on the role of a political action committee. What the Party should be doing is monitoring prospective candidates, working with the committed activists willing to run and limiting the number of contested primary races. It's very difficult to have two talented individuals seek the same office--it splits the party and wastes valuable resources while other offices go uncontested. The Party must concentrate its effort to assure recruitment and development of quality candidates for all races, guiding those committed activists and leaders willing to be public servants. The process should be in the front end of the process, not the back end. Hopefully, Democrats will continue to invest in all their activists and prepare better recruitment strategies.

Women run and win with social justice

2009-09-24T08:32:00.000-07:00

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with eleven women from Africa: Congo, Chad, Senegal. These women were political leaders elected to office or serving as directors of ministry for their country. They came to learn how American women participate in the political process--especially as elected leaders. Three friends also in attendance who are running for office described their challenges: running in contested primaries, not getting support from the political party, how and why they chose the colors to represent them. And they talked about why they want to run: to bring wisdome, to bring freedom, to bring spiritual guidance into the values of policy. The women of Africa wanted to know why American women ran on the issues of social justice--and we all explained that without social justice, we have no economy. Without healthy, educated children we have no future. Without quality care for our seniors, we have no respect. Without equality for women, we have no power as a nation. Without equality for all people, regardless of color we have no dignity as a nation. And across the language barrier, across the cultural differences all 17 women in the room agreed that unless we get more involved, and reach across our differences, whether in a county, a country, a continent, we will never succeed.

When will women being leaders stop being news?

2009-09-20T20:34:00.000-07:00

Last week Politico's Erika Lovley wrote an article highlighting a study that concludes women make better political leaders than men (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html). She writes that the study was conducted over a 20 year period by Standford and University of Chicago. It's interesting insight and well done--I have no beef with Ms. Lovley. It just saddened me my email-box was full of this story: from The White House Project, from a few other women's organizations committed to women in office and a friend on facebook. My point is--when will this stop being news? We need to get more women in office--nothing against my mail readers. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, only 90 women serve in Congress (17 in the Senate 73 in the House). Only 72 serve in executive posts in the 50 states (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/index.php). It's not enough. There are dozens of organizations trying to get women to run, when they have to turn women away, we'll know we've recruited enough, then elected enough. Then no one should be surprised when women run, win and lead.

2009-09-06T08:21:00.000-07:00

Running for office is rather like becoming a movie star, certainly at varying levels. For candidates running for federal office or at least statewide, the PACS and the Parties become much like the paparazzi, watching your every move and putting your actions (past or present) on display. The voters become the tabloid readers and believe the most outlandish things, depending on what gets their checkstand attention. Whereas running for municipal offices or obscure offices such as the County Clerk, the attention is likely what D list stars get..you know it's that guy, or "that office". Unless of course as a candidate you can pull a Kathy Griffin and get A-list attention from pointing out your D-list star status and getting a fan following. Or unless you pull an Elliot Spitzer, fall from the A-list to the D-list. Primary races are about turning out the fan clubs. The show goers only come out for the General, and then it depends whether it's a mega star presidential year, interesting cast of characters in the non-presidential election year or if it's the odd year election cycle with an off season special. In any case, candidates don't have to be stars to run, they can become a star, especially if they run like their on the A-list. So if you are running, make sure your actions bore the paparazzi.

raising barns for women running for office

2009-08-30T17:40:00.000-07:00

When determining whether or not to make a run for elected office, likely first and foremost is asking how a campaign run impacts family, maybe a career. To paraphrase a prominent state politician I know, if you ask a man to run for office he wants to know what the gig pays; if you ask a woman, she asks whether or not she’s qualified. Many considerations go into that. Wanting to be qualified is a fantastic idea—don’t we want qualified leaders setting public policy? Women are more ready than they think they are.
There's a book I want to read: It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office, by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox. The gist of Ms. Lawless’ study is that all things considered, women can run and win just as often as men do. What they lack is a wife, someone who manages the household while they run for office.
As a society and for those in political consulting, we need to rethink what supporting candidates means. There are many fine organizations helping candidates, Emily’s List http://emilyslist.org/programs/pop/, Emerge America http://www.emergeamerica.org/, Women’s Campaign Forum http://www.wcfonline.org/sn/how_we_work. I’m sure there are others. Full disclosure, I’m on the board of Emerge Nevada and we offer a great program, the networking alone is worth the cost of admission. But even these fine organizations aren’t helping women sort through all the responsibilities their juggling to make running easier.
Not sure how to solve that problem. Maybe instead of duplicating efforts by training candidates or training volunteers some groups, political party organizations can focus on the candidate's needs, like we once did with barn raising.

Honoring Women's Suffrage

2009-08-26T09:09:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 89th anniversary of women securing the right to vote in this country. One of my personal heros, Congresswoman Bella Abzug commeroated this day by instituting Women's Equlity Day in 1971. The Women's suffrage movement started in 1848 and culminated in the right to vote in 1920. Yet in the 2000 election, 22 million single women didn't exercise that right; 50 million women didn't even register to vote let alone avoid going to the polls. According to the US Census bureau, in 2008 women had a higher turn out rate (66%) than men (62%), but it wasn't statistically more than 2004. It's shameful that only two thirds of us voted.

We need to change that. And many great organizations are dedicated to that. Project Vote Smart, Women's Voices, Women's Vote and the White House Project are teaching women the importance of voting. One solution is ballot parties: if those of u who pay attention to the election and teh ballots that are on them host a party for our friends who call us up and say "who should I vote for judge" or "which way should I vote on this question/ballot/measure/proposition" then we might have more voters and maybe even more boxes checked on the ballots.