Connie Schultz: Women Can Have Major Influence on Politics

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/06/06/07/schultz.html

Schultz, who has taken a leave of absence from her job during her husband's campaign, kept nearly 75 Democratic women laughing, listening and thinking as she regaled them with stories about politics, women's voting rights, writing and her life growing up the daughter of a staunch union worker.

...Schultz explained her background, telling the members how she introduced herself as a columnist -- as the daughter of a union man who brought his lunchbox to work every day. She also kept the audience in stitches with stories of her and her husband, Sherrod Brown, buying what turned out to be a $9 red, white and blue donkey for $75 at an auction in Adams County, and about the power of women speaking up.

...Schultz also encouraged the women to find five people who are undecided about who to vote for and take them under their wing, encouraging them to vote Democrat, but mainly to vote.

"All we need this time is to be truthful. We are ready this time and are not afraid," Schultz said. "If you join us, and we're not taking any voter for granted -- if you do this, there are two headlines that I predict will be written in all the papers. One, Democrats take back the House and Senate. And, two, Ohio turns blue.

it effectively.

We need to address the gender gap in politics. More than half of the population is female. More than half of our representatives should be female. Connie is available to talk to groups of women. Take advantage of her offer.

Every bit good as her writing. I'll also be glad when she returns to writing her PD column.

Period.

That's the only major block that fluctuates. When they moved 3 points toward the GOP post 9/11 due to national security concerns, it crippled our chances. If they return to our side in '06 and '08, we win.

There should be maybe 50 times as much focus on that on DU, but we'd rather Diebold.

Women were 54% of the total voters in '04.

Though I am very skeptical of electronic voting, I believe that we lose when we focus on Diebold. We need to convince the women that we are on their side. That should not be hard to do, because that is the truth. It's time to invite a few friends over for coffee and discuss the forbidden subject - politics.

Its one of those glaring facts about the Dem party that everyone chooses to ignore - the women's vote.

that they would prefer phony machismo (flight suit prance) from an effeminate poseur like Smirk to actual combat experience and a REAL security plan from Kerry makes their vote, as a bloc, as capricious as it is important. FWIW, * is also a disaster as a husband and father - another contrast between him and Kerry. You'd think this would be as important to the "soccer moms" as a phony bullhorn speech at Ground Zero after three days of hiding.

Most women, particularly moms, don't have a lot of time to do a great deal of research on presidential candidates. Others don't always have the confidence to take a position different from the men in their lives (husband, boss, father, etc.). This is an area where it pays for Dems to better define their candidates and their vision, especially in a frame that reflects the values of women voters.

None of this would be particularly difficult for Dems - the problem is in recent years,they've never really put a great deal of thought or effort into it.

have known for a couple of decades now. See my sig for some of the frustration we've expressed over the years about not being able to get women interested in politics.

At some point in time, the leaders of the Democratic party had better start returning "women's issues" into the mainstream of the party and stop trying to marginalize and degrade "women's issues" as petty or self-aggrandizing. The repubs have done a good job of terrifying and mobilizing the female members of their base to get them to the polls in fear for their "god given" right to make-over all women in "their" scary image (misery loves company, I guess). Look at the female pundits from the right getting so much attention for their vitriolic spew.

"Women's issues" for those who can't quite place 'em include:

reproductive health and options and availability

workers rights and the impact on all family members

family survival, definition and rights

to name just a couple. I sure hope I don't have to take the time to explain how these "women's issues" are tantamount to our way of living nor do I wish to try to make the case that it impacts all who are reading this because if it impacts "just" women it's not important enough.

Now that many boomer women are in middle age we need to include all women's health issues, not just reproductive rights. A lot of women are being shafted because the women's health care agend has been too narrowly defined for too long.

We also need to stop using child rearing as the benchmark for women's issues and stop defining ourselves only in terms of parenting. Public policy-wise, women get throw on the ash heap once their kids have grown.

How about adding women's POV to diplomatic, foreign relations and defense issues? Women tend to see those issues very differently than men.

of what actually comprises women's issues as women's health issues in toto<\i> have always been part of the "women's rights agenda." It's just that we've rarely been in a position to get our issues taken seriously or included in the "grander scheme of things." Our opposition (and many of our "allies") have effectively obscured the broader picture.

I totally agree with your statement about child rearing being a "benchmark for women's issues." As do many others who have "fought" the long fight of women's rights.

Great places to see a more comprehensive listings (rather than my short, hardly all inclusive list) of "women's issues" are at women's rights activist websites. One would be the National Organization for Women another would be The Feminist Majority. I believe the NOW site also includes some of the history of the women's rights movement so you can see how our message and our issues have been diluted and obscured.

A common theme in women's rights groups is to get women into positions of power within our power structure which of course includes diplomatic, foreign relations and defense. Apparently we have a long way to go as there are still many women who would not vote for a woman for president. That is one barometer of our potential to "legitimize" "women's issues."

In short, I agree with you about the issues. However, we don't have to re-invent the wheel, yet again, as there are many organizations out there who have been and continue to put forth the importance of many issues which include my short list and yours.

in 2000 even with election fraud?


or perhaps in 2004?



Hmm, looks suspiciously as though "we" might want to begin to address some of them thar pesky "women's issues." Ya think?

by roll purges or inadequate facilites. They have no voice, and little hope of ever getting one.

Or perhaps we can take our butts down to polling places and volunteer as poll workers and help monitor the vote. Or we could even sign up as voter registrars and get all the women and men we know registered, and maybe even register a few we don't know. Or we could talk with our friends and family about the importance of voting, especially if they're the ones who think their vote won't count or will be purged. We could even go in groups, together as each others witness, to vote. You know, strength in numbers kind of thing. Or maybe...well, I'm sure you get the idea.

Hell, I guess they should just give up then. :sarcasm:

Single moms do have a voice and there is hope. We just need more of them to become educated voters who exercise that right.