Tag Archives: leveling the playing field for women in politics

Princeton Dean First Female To Head Clinton State Department’s Think Tank

: Cover via Amazon

As NJ.com reports in Princeton dean departs for Washington to work for Clinton, “Anne-Marie Slaughter has resigned as dean of the prestigious Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs to serve the first female director of the State department’s Office of Policy Planning, reporting directly to new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is very clearly building out a robust and experienced team to deal with the multi-pronged challenges the U.S. faces abroad. She immediately brought on board a successful peace negotiator, George Mitchell, to tackle the Mideast and Todd Stern, who led the US delegation to the Kyoto talks in 1997, to work toward reaching agreements to reduce global pollution. Clinton reached outside of the State Department to discuss concerns regarding the global economic downturn and issues regarding China with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. We are sure to hear more about that.

And by bringing on Slaughter, an expert on global governance and American foreign policy, who co-chairs the Princeton Project on National Security, and serves on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton is putting in place a philosophical underpinning which can guide the State Department’s actions, rather than simply “putting out whatever fire is burning brightest”. She also appears to be putting a stake in the ground about the termination of practices which erode civil rights, for any global citizen, and which undermine the core principles on which this country was founded.

Slaughter, said to be one of our country’s finest legal minds, in her most recent book “The Idea that Is America: Keeping Faith with Our Values in a Dangerous World,” explores the relation between the United State’s power and the bedrock principles upon which our country rests. She lays out a vision that, despite aggression and adversity in the world, America should fight to retain its basic values of justice and tolerance in addition to liberty, democracy and equality. In other words, no Guantanamo Bay. No torture.

This shift in policy thinking at the highest levels suggests a paradigm shift in how America will deal with the rest of the world, the values which will come into play, and the more just and tolerant approach we might expect when dealing with other countries, even those who don’t always agree with us.

I, for one, see this as a very welcome change. And one which might bring more of our distant neighbors back into that circle of collaboration and trust on which so much of the world depends for safety and progress. For me anyway, the positive steps in this direction convince me what data suggests: women do approach politics, legislation and diplomacy with a bit kinder and more nurturing touch.

Giving The Media’s Process (For Women Candidates) A Name: SOB-ing

I have to tell you I was blown away by the following blog post. It so precisely identifies what happens to women candidates who are, to use Dr. Karen Kvavik’s words, “Simplified, Objectified, and Bimbo/Bitchified …or SOB/B’ed”. This is in contrast to some male candidates who are “SOW’d….. Simplifed, Objectifed, and Worshipped”. I think Dr. Kvavik’s post offers piercing insight into the thoughtless damage done by the mainstream media with their perhaps unconscious bias, their need to find fault instead of appreciation, however tempered, for those who choose to enter public life and put themselves through this meat grinder of a process. In the need to stand out, the media often lapses into being shallow, clever and biting to gain attention. ( I will never forget a particularly insightful high school teacher of mine who told me, ” Gretchen, if you will try to be intelligent instead of clever, I will try to do the same.” That made an impression, and I’ve tried to follow that advice ever since, despite occasional lapses. I wish the press would do the same. But now we have the gift of a name, SOB-ing, to call them out on the damage they inflict, not just on women candidates, but on all of us in our desire to create more opportunity and expand the number and influence of women in office. I hope you will join us in being vigilant in protecting the women who wish to serve us, as the media tries to shove them into the meat grinder.

Now here’s Dr. Karen H. Kvavik on the subject:

“What is it about Sen. Gillibrand? What do Sen. Gillibrand, Gov. Palin, and Secretary of State Clinton have in common? Why, they’ve all been SOBed!

The press and mainstream media have Simplified, Objectified, and Bimbo/Bitchified them all: SOB. (I guess we could debate whether it is SOB or SOB/B’ed, leaving the latter term as separate words. And “Battered” could be used for our more restrained public and polite needs, when necessary.) A smart, independent, vibrant, self-made, non-deferential, and attractive woman who is forthright and ambitious ends up being called a “bitch.” She is, to coin a word, “ambitchous.” Alternatively, she may end up labeled a “bimbo.”

We need to name and label the process. It is important that we have a name for this process that happens to these women so that we can better understand it, communicate it to others, and do something about it.

The idea of trying to name the process came out of a discussion with a Co-founder of The New Agenda. She suggested that we have to put a name on what is happening, to make it visible. Then we can deal with the issue and communicate to others about it. Remember the term “borking,” for the failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court? We have to make the SOB behavior identifiable with a concise label.

We are now seeing a pattern of highly visible political women who are being systematically battered (SOBed) by the media and even by people within their own parties.

It is too simplistic to say that it is “just politics.” There is at least a tri-stage process in the SOB attacks on the woman. The stages are really a gradual morphing of the way she is characterized, like the progress of a disease. There is a repetitiveness in the labeling from news piece to news piece too. Of course, some so-called journalists leap to the final stage almost at the beginning, and we see the viciousness of 3rd-stage labeling and demeaning immediately on some website comments.

Here are the stages:

1. Simplify Stage.

Her policies are simplified into sound bites. She as a person is simplified and begins to be characterized regarding appearance, demeanor, family, and personality. This is an initial assessment stage.

2. Objectify Stage.

The objectify stage is a gradual morphing process into criticisms and attacks on her appearance, hair (very important), comments on her as a mother, her body, fashion, “womanliness,” with implications as to her femininity. Being aggressive is not a positive quality for a woman. It’s okay for a man, or he is a wimp. Her image slowly keeps morphing until finally she becomes a tabloid-type object, a stereotype, a figure of ridicule. If she flubs an interview she’s labeled “dumb.” If she hasn’t gone to a prestigious enough university, she’s “not well-educated.” On the other hand, if she’s too brilliant, then she’s an insufferable know-it-all. If she is not deferential and humble enough, if she speaks her mind, if she’s too independent, the pejorative labels will hit her.

Frank Cammuso/The Post-Standard

3. Bimbofy/Bitchify (Batter) Stage:

In this last stage she receives downright vicious attacks and may end up being Photoshopped in a bikini or even in degrading porn or sado-masochistic images. Saturday Night Live satirizes her. Both Clinton and Palin were subjected to degrading images put out on the internet and in magazines. Finally, this stage is when the most offensive labels are applied. Sen. Clinton was labeled a “bitch.” Gov. Palin was called a “bimbo,” and later a “dimbo.” Both were called “c***s.”

The media now shows few qualms about severely denigrating the woman for her appearance, style, fashion, her “womanliness,” even allusions that she might be gay or have affairs. Female members of the press participate gleefully also. If you’re a woman, you don’t want to be like her. Ms. Obama, if she isn’t careful, could end up like an “unpleasant, heavy-handed first lady”…like Hillary Clinton, according to M.K. Ham.

We do not see such egregious behaviors with male candidates, unless they have unsavory restroom activities. Certainly no one writes about the appearance of Al Franken. No one comments on Rep. Murtha’s looks, nor Sen. Schumer’s, nor Gov. Kaine’s. Vice-President Biden takes some jokes about his hair and facial “work.” He does not get a label for that. Does anybody criticize Sen. Norm Coleman’s looks?

Despite the oligarchic and dynastic implications of Caroline Kennedy’s futile bid to be senator, the obvious quid pro quo nature of putting her on the transition team, and the political influence of her family, the media still did not query her much on real issues. Rather, they first simplified and then objectified her. They went after her on her appearance, her personality, her mannerisms, her speech fillers (”you know, uh”), and her lack of experience. There were tabloidish asides about her marriage and her nanny, but, in general, it was personal and remained in the Objectify Stage. She did not reach the Bimbofy/Bitchify Stage with exposés and denigrating images. She dropped out.

The press commentary and blog articles unfavorable to Gillibrand were shallow, with focus on a very few talking points — her gun control stance, her stance on hunting (e.g., Carolyn McCarthy, the gun control advocate, was quoted in many stories as saying that Gillibrand was a “bad choice.”). We were left with “bad” in our mouths. Gillibrand’s liberal positions on many issues were barely covered. She is a securities lawyer who dared to question the bailout issues. It is not just the New York City vs. upstate Republican divisions in play. Gillibrand has made it clear that as Senator she represents the whole state, and as Representative, she represented her upstate constituency.

She is labeled as “Tracy Flick” by some. She is castigated laughingly by Rachel Maddow for not interrupting her introduction by Paterson and the press conference to take Obama’s phone call. As if Gillibrand had control over when Obama called! And the White House knows very well the exact time when it calls someone–that was a small-time power play.

Politico.com simplifies and objectifies her as unpopular among peers, as “Tracy Flick,” and says she

“has never been shy about her political ambitions — or her willingness to vault over older, more experienced politicians. That aggressiveness and self-confidence has endeared her to the powerful politicians who share her impatience to get ahead… “Nobody really likes her,” sniped one New York City-area member, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“She’s smart and capable, but she’s rubbed people the wrong the way,” said another.”

Who specifically made the comments? No sources are identified. She’s the aggressive, confident, assertive, smart, capable woman, but she has annoyed others. Is she not liked because she has these qualities? Because she speaks out? Why then so many accolades from so many people and confidence in her abilities by Sen. Schumer and the Governor?

A number of articles not only criticized Gillibrand, but then accused Governor Paterson of angering the Kennedys and not being astute politically. Even Sen. Schumer has been criticized. It sounds to me as if someone’s P.R. machine is working overtime.

The New Hillary.

Gail Collins of the New York Times says Paterson “ended up sliming Kennedy.” She herself slimes Gillibrand, by calling her “The New Hillary.” Ah, yes, we know how the Times didn’t like Hillary, so this is not a compliment. Sen. Schumer is not put in a good light, as he “believes that doing something silly is a way to reassure voters that he doesn’t think he’s better than they are. ” Collins portrays Gillibrand as someone who’d like to “march in 45 parades,” and thanking everybody “on the planet” in the introductory speech:

“We’re in for the long haul. If you’re a New Yorker with a parade or sausage-eating contest coming up, be sure to invite Senator Gillibrand.

Collin’s doesn’t go after appearance. She belittles Gillibrand’s personality as a woman of “giddy good cheer.” Are men ever called “giddy?”

Maureen Dowd is the Apex (or is it the Nadir?) of Nastiness. She calls the governor a “goofball” who spent 5 weeks “dithering,” vindictively mentions his infidelities and drug use, and claims that he and his aides trashed Caroline Kennedy.

“The 42-year-old Gillibrand, who has been in the House for only two years, is known as opportunistic and sharp-elbowed. Tracy Flick is her nickname among colleagues in the New York delegation, many of whom were M.I.A. at her Albany announcement.

Fellow Democrats were warning Harry Reid on Friday that he was going to have his hands full with the new senator because she’s ‘a pain.’ Carolyn McCarthy…said she may challenge the “N.R.A. poster child” in 2010.”

Gillibrand is the plat du jour now for the press and MSM. And she has just begun her SOB odyssey. Palin mania has died down somewhat, and Clinton so far is enjoying a honeymoon with the State Department. Who will be next?

Finally, there is no need to discuss the opposite process, SOW. I am sure the reader understands this process clearly in the making of the Obama image and how it has functioned in the media and the Democratic Party. Its acronym stands for: Simplify, Objectify, and Worship.

I hope I have simplified, objectified and clarified these processes. I hope our readers write, phone, call out, and explain these behaviors, e.g., “Don’t SOB her” or “She’s being SOBed.”

(I’d like also to thank Jenn, Violet, and Freethinker for their suggestions.)

cross posted at The New Agenda

Rising Star In Dem Party To Get The Nod For NY Senate Seat

According to CNN.com, Sources: Congresswoman to replace Clinton in Senate as well as many other sources, New York Gov. David Paterson has chosen Democratic Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Clinton as U.S. Senator from New York. Many women’s groups are extremely happy and gratified with this choice.

“Gillibrand, 42, represents New York’s traditionally Republican 20th district.

She is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of congressional Democrats who hold more conservative views than their liberal Democratic counterparts.

She is an outspoken advocate for gun rights, and she supports an extension of the Bush tax cuts. She has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

She also has a 100 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union.”

Gillibrand is a rising star in the Democratic party, having defeated an entrenched Republican incumbent in 2006, and shown her prowess as a major fund raiser. She formerly worked during the Clinton’s administration as special counsel in HUD and is said to have been Clinton’s choice for the Senate seat.

With her selection and the backing of women’s goups, Gillibrand is likely to have a very promising future ahead of her.

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand has been picked to succeed Hillary Clinton as U.S. Senator from New York, sources say.

Hello And Congratulations Madam Secretary Of State!

Clinton confirmed as secretary of state by 94-2 vote – CNN.com.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Senate approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state Wednesday by a vote of 94-2.

All we have to say is “YES!”

Hillary did it! And we are very, very proud of her.

The Tyranny Of Low Expectations: Democratic Women Politicians Celebrate

: Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I have to admit I feel intensely conflicted when I see stories like the following:

Democratic women in politics celebrated, 1/9/09, by Mackenzie Carpenter in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“WASHINGTON — They joked. They choked up. They banged shoes, they gave thanks, and delivered a warning: that despite gains for progressive female candidates in the 2008 election, there are still five men for every woman in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A lively, lengthy luncheon was hosted by feminist fundraising organization Emily’s List …. (one of the largest and most respected political action committees in the country, which during the 2007-08 election cycle, raised more than $43 million to recruit and support liberal women candidates). The headliner was Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and a parade of political superstars celebrating 2008 victories by Democratic women — and female cabinet appointments by President-elect Barack Obama.

The mostly female audience of 2,000 stomped and cheered wildly when Mrs. Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Labor secretary nominee Hilda Solis and Homeland Security secretary nominee Janet Napolitano appeared at the Washington Hilton event to deliver the same message, over and over again: Without Emily’s List, they wouldn’t be there.” Emily’s list just helped elect Senators Hagan and Shaheen and brought us feminist House members like Diana DeGette, Lynn Woolsey, Betty McCollum, Jan Schakowsky, and Stephanie Herseth and Senators Stabenow and Murray. Quite an achievement, and certainly one to be applauded.

I am all for women getting together and celebrating our victories. But then I’m immediately caught up short with the haunting question: “What exactly are our victories?”

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney wrote a book, “Rumours of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated” which pretty much sums up the problem. Maloney, described as a “gracious, intelligent, fiery and fabulous feminist” makes the point that real progress will come for women “when there is a critical mass of women in government. Once 30% of our representatives are women ( Ed. some say 50%) , women’s issues begin to be addressed. The United States is nowhere near that critical mass yet.”

We are at 16%-17% of women in Congress. So again, I have to ask…. although it may feel good at the moment, exactly what is there to celebrate?

I know most are in a celebratory mood with the coming inauguration and the historical precedent of fuller equality in political office and the life of our country. But let’s face it. Women are still looking for full equity in this society.

And the danger I see is that of the tyranny of low expectations.

We seem to be happy with the crumbs. The term used in this context was “gleeful”. We feel grateful to achieve anything, get elected to anything, It merits our celebration.

To me, 16%-17% of women in Congress should merit our outrage and our anger or at the very least our unified and coordinated resistance. I know. I know. No one likes an angry woman. It is one of the stereotypes used against us. But where would our country be without the outrage that instigated the Boston Tea Party? And where would women be without the Suffragettes’ refusal to accept the status of second class citizens without the full rights enjoyed by others and guaranteed by our Constitution? Where, in fact, would African Americans be without Rosa Parks and her refusal to stoically accept what she was dished out? Would we then be celebrating this inauguration with this incoming president. Or would be waiting another generation or two?

There are some women, brimming with frustration and disappointment over the slowness……the “pouring molasses on a February day in Vermont” slowness …..of our progress. These women may not be sanguine over the success of Emily’s List, believing there is too little accomplishment or laying the blame on women themselves, for one reason or another.

Although they certainly have a right to their opinion and can speak for themselves, I don’t agree with that. I believe we should take pride in and claim our accomplishments as was done at this luncheon and “meeting of the tribe” of those who seek to advance women. Ellen Malcolm, founder of Emily’s List, proudly touted her group’s role in the election of two Democratic women governors, two Democratic women senators and 12 new Democratic women in the House.

At the same time, Malcolm went on to challenge the group to work harder, noting that the U.S. House of Representatives remains predominantly male.

“Our work is far from over,” she said. “We are nowhere near a representative democracy that rightfully includes the full participation of half the population.”

That much is clear. I believe, like Eleanor Roosevelt said about peace: “It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” And the same applies to women’s rights and elevation to public office. As slow as progress may be we must never give up and never give in. We may take a moment to celebrate where we are. It is after all, a bit further down the road than we were before, at least in some respects. ( Remember the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.) But we must, above all else, keep working to elect women sheriff, dog catcher, city councilwoman, mayor, governor and senator. Then one day, we too, may finally get to that dream that so many of us have, of women gaining full equity in this country.

The Unsinkable Hillary Clinton, Soon To Be US Secretary of State

: Image via Wikipedia

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state.

It has been a long, sometimes very rough and very emotional journey for Senator Clinton. Many of us have followed her campaign or supported it from the beginning or even before. I myself flew in from Mexico to hear Bill Clinton speak in San Antonio, Texas when he was still governor of Arkansas. The weather had him socked in at Dallas so he didn’t make the flight down and didn’t speak, although I heard and met him many times later. The person who stepped in for him and did speak that afternoon was Hillary Clinton. And when she spoke, my friend and I looked at each other, our collective jaws dropping, and said, almost in unison: “She should be president.”

Well, she didn’t make it. This time. And maybe she won’t ever be president. But she has certainly set a shining example of grit, resolve and perseverance…. all of which women need in spades…. in addition to her extraordinary brain power and what Hemingway once called “grace under pressure.”

I, along with many others, believe she will be an outstanding secretary of state who will make us all proud, and put American back into a position of respect and collaboration abroad.

Clinton told the assembled lawmakers that the extraordinary times present an extraordinary opportunity.

“I think this could be one of the golden eras of the history of the Senate,” she said. “This could be a time when people will look back and say, you know, you never can count America out. Whenever the chips are down, we always rise to the occasion.”

And so, we’ve learned, does Hillary Clinton, soon to be Secretary of State Clinton.

Good News & A First – Chief Performance Officer Nancy Killefer

I think it should be pretty clear by now that our U.S. government could perform a lot better. To say the Barack Obama has selected Nancy Killefer to be his CPO, according to two Democratic officials. least.

And one of the things which has often kept change from happening is that “good old boys”, the entrenched and entitled, are often fond of the “status quo”, whatever that may be. It’s what has kept them in office and empowered, and, lately, digging a deeper financial hole for ourselves. A trillion dollar hole, we now are discovering, with other trillions of dollars of debt to come. Not a very good performance review.

So, when someone mentions “change”, I’m all for it. I’m particularly for it when “change” may be embodied and spear headed by a particularly capable woman.

Obama to tap new position- CNN.com.

That’s why, when I see President-elect Obama has created a new position, “chief performance officer,” to work on the federal budget and on reforming government, and is selecting a woman with credentials as long as your arm for the job, I am both relieved and glad to hear it.

The woman selected is Nancy Killefer, a senior director for McKinsey & Company,management consulting firm and former assistant secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration.

Nancy Killefer is a senior director in the Washington, D.C. office of McKinsey & Company, Inc. and a leader of of their Public Sector Practice, specializing in developing strategies and improving organizational effectiveness for government clients.

Killefer has the credentials, big time.

After receiving a B.A. with honors in economics from Vassar College and her M.B.A. from the Sloan School of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Killefer joined McKinsey in 1979. McKinsey, by the way, was once again named by Working Mother magazine as one of the “100 Best Companies” for working mothers. So, Killefer has selected an employer that offers a supportive environment for women, leading by example.

From 1997 to 2000, Killefer served as Assistant Secretary for Management, CFO, and COO at the United States Department of the Treasury. In addition to overall management responsibilities for Treasury’s 14 bureaus and 160,000 people, she led a major modernization at the Internal Revenue Service, prepared Treasury’s systems for Y2K, and reshaped management processes, including installing an asset management program across the Treasury Department.

After returning to McKinsey in 2000, she joined the IRS Oversight Board, a public-private entity akin to a corporate board that oversees the IRS. She served there from 2000 to 2005 and was its Chairperson from 2002 to 2004.

Yep. Ms. Killefer knows how to manage people and money.

Evidently, she knows how to slice through bureaucracy to do it.

We get it. She’s good. That should always be the first bar. But we can see that it often hasn’t been. Performance during the Katrina crisis and other such catastophic failures show us that selecting from “the old boy’s club” is a dicey proposition, a gamble that often does not pay off. And, when it fails, it takes us all down with it. Two wars and a recession, simultaneously, offer further evidence that this criteria for leadership is deeply flawed.

But Nancy Killefer offers a lot more than her abilities.

She brings her values.

Killeferis’ public service gives us a glimpse us into her values.

Killeferis serves on The Retirement Security Project, which released a paper recently on “Retirement Security for Women: Progress to Date and Policies for Tomorrow.” With half of all working women, due to lower wages and time off for child birth, saving an estimated $34,000 in IRA or 401(k)-style saving accounts, as compared to an estimated $70,000 for men, this paper offers an array of policy solutions aimed at closing the saving gap between men and women.

Ok. Ms. Killeferis is concerned about working women and the economic policies affecting them.

Even more convincing proof of Ms. Killeferis’ values and priorities is her service on the Board of Advisors of Catalyst. Catalyst is a premier organization which seeks to level the playing field for women by setting benchmarks and working with Fortune 500 and other companies to support them in achieving those goals.

(Catayst was founded at the beginning of the modern U.S. women’s movement and declared it was “time to fix the companies, not the women”. One of their research papers, released in 2005, for example, was Women “Take Care,” Men “Take Charge:” Stereotyping of U.S. Business Leaders Exposed )

We don’t know very much about Nancy Killeferis yet. But we like what see. And this is change we can believe in.

Latina Advocate/Change Agent, Hilda Solis, To Lead Labor Department

Want to see real change? Obama is nominating someone for a Cabinet post, Secretary of Labor, who has been about change all her life, and who has shaken up the old boy’s club doing it.

Hilda Solis, according to Harold Meyerson in the Los Angeles Times is “the Latina daughter of immigrants, a product and champion of the labor movement, a staunch environmentalist, an ardent feminist and one of the gutsiest elected officials in American politics.”

Now, that’s what we’re talking about.

“I’m very excited,” said Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. “This is an extraordinary moment for all women, but especially for the Latino community.”

One of seven siblings and daughter of Nicaraguan and Mexican parents, her father a union shop steward, Solis has been concerned all her life with the lives of the working poor. ” In 1996, as a first-term member of the California state Senate (and its first Latina member), Solis did something elected officials just don’t do: She took money out of her own campaign treasury to jump-start an initiative campaign to raise the California minimum wage. Californians passed it overwhelmingly.”

In the state senate, Solis focused on cleaning up the air and environment in factory neighborhoods and projects to improve poor communities. She stood up against domestic violence in cultures where male dominance and female submissiveness were ancient and ingrained habits and families often turned a blind eye to this type of abuse.

In 2000, in another gutsy move, Solis challenged a member of her own party for his seat in Congress and won by 69% to 31%. Her victory signaled a tidal wave of change that had been building in L.A. with the influx of immigrants and the gradual transformation of red neighborhoods to blue.

Coming from a Waspy backround, but partnered with an Hispanic, living in a vibrant city with over 50% Hispanics and imbued with Latin culture and having lived in Latin America for five years, I had long seen the handwriting on the wall. As the Latin population has grown in all of the U.S.‘s major cities, new identities, forged by the challenge of equal rights and labor struggles, education, immigration, bi-lingualism and other daunting issues, have created new power for Latinos who are seizing success in virtually every arena of life in the U.S. From cinema to restaurants, singing to salsa. Latinas are no longer on the fringes of power, but in the white hot center.

I wanted for Latinas and Latinos the same thing I seek for women in our culture: genuine equity. And, after many years of working for women’s rights, I realize that comes from two things: succeeding in pocket book issues and wining office in politics. So I was appropriately thrilled to learn of Hilda Solis’s nomination to prominent office, where she will, without a doubt, be a groundbreaker.

“It was no coincidence that shortly after Solis’s 2000 victory, virtually every Democratic elected official in Los Angeles marched alongside striking union janitors. As the janitors could (and did) attest, Solis’ victory had been theirs too.

“Known as a coalition builder in Congress, Solis has continued to focus on labor, immigration and environmental issues, “coauthoring the Green Jobs Act, providing federal funds for job training in retrofitting, solar panel installation and other environmentally friendly occupations.”

Hilda Solis is clearly a change agent. She has a proven record of change. And, once in office, we will look forward to her, with passion and her hallmark fearlessness, continuing to transform the landscape around her.

If you ask me, Hilda Solis is change we can believe in.

Your Vote Counts: You Are Our Eyes & Ears – Report Voting Problems

Call 1 866-OUR-VOTE To Report Voting Problems

( 1 866-687-8683)

Is Tina Fey Parody Helping Or Hurting Sarah Palin?

Image by Surfer Labor via Flickr

Fourteen million people watched Saturday Night Live when Sarah Palin dropped by and took over the stage and the microphone from her late night clone/imitator Tina Fey. In some circles there is no higher compliment or touchstone than to be parodied by SNL. It means you’ve arrived.

There’s little doubt Palin has energized the conservative Republican base and drawn huge, enthusiastic crowds when she speaks. Is she critiqued, marginalized and mocked by the liberal elite? Yes, many of them. Will it make a difference? Maybe not, since the liberal elite are not voting for her anyway. I did read a report from one woman, a Democrat and not a Palin fan, who said, out of curiosity, she attended a Palin rally: “Whatever they may say, Governor Palin is a star. The moment she took command of the stage I knew I hadn’t seen such star power since Bill Clinton’s personality filled the stage. So whatever happens in the election, I think Sarah Palin is going to be a huge star in the Republican party.”

Peggy Noonan, conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and Ronald Reagan speech writer, a member of her own party, does not much like Palin: “There is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.”

Even if that were true, if Palin ever does get elected to higher office, she certainly wouldn’t be the first president we could say that about. What do you think? Do you find Sarah Palin refreshing and energizing, or ready for the icy trail back to Alaska and the arctic wilderness? Let us hear from you.

AW WebBiz & Social Media Blog

Mentoring, Tools & Strategy To Succeed