Heidi Li's Potpourri

Time out for Terry McAuliffe

Over in the lefthand sidebar, you will see a photo of Terry McAuliffe, who has set up an exploratory committee  (clicking on the photo takes you to the committee's homepage) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of Terry running for Governor of Virginia. As a DC resident, I always take an interest in the state politics of Maryland and Virginia, because of the interdependence between the parts of Maryland and Virginia that, along with D.C., make up the metro area. Terry's site says he'll announce his decision about whether to run or not on January 7.

• I haven't the slightest idea of which way he is leaning.
• I know Terry, but just barely.
• I'm not entirely sure he would welcome my support. Terry is extraordinarily devoted to the idea of Democratic Party loyalty, and I chose to conscientiously abstain from voting at the top of the ticket this year as a protest against the DNC's conduct of the primary season and then, especially, its nominating convention.

So why a link to his "Conversation with Virginians" in the sidebar? Because I learned a great deal of great value from Terry McAuliffe in the course of Senator Clinton's campaign. If I could learn so much about people, politics, and money in my few interactions with Terry, I know I want him to lead a state that neighbors my non-state and impacts it tremendously.

From Terry I learned that you can have an over-the-top personality and put it to work for you - you won't win over everybody but you will be comfortable in your skin and have tremendous fun along the way.

I learned the crucial importance of having fun while engaging in political activity. Politics is tough with plenty of nastiness and maneuvering and operating going on - things I can't enjoy in the way that born politicians can. But politics is also about thinking about how to make the world a better place, which is fun. It is about connecting with people and learning about them, which is fun. It is about the intersection of ideas and action, a fun spot.  Terry's indomitable enthusiasm never struck me as hokey or foolish. Rather it seemed like fuel to keep himself and others working hard for what they believed in.

I learned from Terry the importance of generosity of spirit. His public thank you's to his staff were a constant at the events I attended. His kind welcome of me and my ideas at sometimes rather stuffy campaign meetings made a welcome contrast to some of the more established or conventional folks who had little tolerance for newcomers or people who did not conform to their mores.

Terry taught me to be brave about asking people to contribute whatever they can to causes and candidates I honestly back.

And, yes, I learned from Terry lessons about loyalty and lessons about what makes the Democratic Party worth fighting for - even if he would not approve of my choice not to condone conduct I found unacceptable in a Party that has so often laid claim to a form of fairness that requires intense respect for the franchise. Terry's loyalty to Senator Clinton and President Clinton never wavered, not once, not at all.

Certainly, nobody worked harder to put a woman in the White House. Notably it became clear that in the course of chairing Senator Clinton's National Campaign Committee, Terry came to know and respect Senator Clinton better and differently than he ever had before. And he was willing to talk about that. He was never sappy about Senator Clinton. He just made it clear that he thought she was a good campaigner and candidate from the outset and a great one by the end of the season.

As an educator, I respect people who can educate others, particularly by motivating them to excel, to exceed their own expectations. That's the sort of person I found Terry McAuliffe to be. It is the sort of person I aspire to be and the sort of person we need if we are to fix the problems in our states (or in my case, non-state), cities, towns, and country as a whole; and to do something about what is wrong with the current incarnation of the Democratic Party.

You can easily find news stories about Terry or read his book or just go to his website to learn about what he has accomplished (and what he's tried to accomplish). This time out for Terry McAuliffe is not meant to substitute for that sort of information. It is meant to honor the things Terry taught me in 2008, a great many things all of great value.

"Don't agonize. Organize." - Send a Woman to the White House

'Don’t agonize. Organize.'
- Florynce Kennedy

Right now, many people believe that they will not see a woman elected president of this country in their lifetimes. The estimable Marie Cocco sums the situation up once again. One of my favorite blog writers, Ani, gives us her take.

One can hardly blame people for feeling this way. But, I think it is too early to conclude that we will not see a woman elected president in the next 24 years. So, if you think you have another quarter century in you, not only might you see a woman elected president, you can help make it happen. It won't happen because it will be easy to accomplish. And it It won't happen because of hope. It will happen because of hard work in the face of long odds.

It will happen because we challenge ourselves to make it happen' to make it a national priority. We must recognize that electing a woman to the Presidency of the United States of America is a way of affirming the 51 per cent of the American population consisting of women, a way of affirming that Americans can understand human rights well enough to appreciate that women's rights are human rights, a way of affirming the great American heritage in promoting the rights of all persons based on ever more inclusive ideas of who counts as a rights-bearing person.

Before you stop reading because you decide this is just going to be a bit of cockeyed optimism or mere exhortation, I will name two concrete ways Americans can challenge themselves to make a woman President within the next 25 years.

I. First, learn about The White House Project. Don't be put off by the bit on the home page congratulating Obama-Biden. There will be some ideas and aspects of the site you will like more than others, but spend some time at The White House Project, and you will  see that this group understands that to put a woman in the White House we, as a nation, are going to have to face down the pervasive misogyny and sexism rampant in the culture and never more in evidence than right now. (In May, Marie Cocco wrote about the phenomenon; now with the talk of Senator Clinton becoming Secretary of State, the public face of misogyny has surged to the forefront again.) Some great pages from the website are here (this page shows that The White House Project understands exactly what we are up against), as does this one. Want to think about leading a political life?  Look here. After you investigate, sign up to participate in the group - costs nothing but keeps you involved. Then, use the group's form to get some friends to sign up.

II. Second, set up your own support/action group, dedicated to challenging yourself and other people to put a woman in the Oval Office by 2034. I think of such a group as a "Send a Woman to the White House" [SWWH] club or partnership. It might start with you and just one other person. But as with exercise, it is easier to stay motivated toward a goal if you do so with some friends and companions. Here are some things SWWH clubs can do:

• meet once a week for at least an hour; use the hour to focus on political actions you are taking or want to take; then use the next hour to see how progress is going.
• create an investment fund - decide with other members what you can raise per month, and how you can raise it, and pick an organization that is dedicated to women's rights and particularly their representation as President of the United States of America.
• think of fun and social ways to educate yourself (book group on women's history or building presidential campaigns); walk-a-thons to raise money to donate to women's rights/interest groups.
• let other people know you have set up an SWWH group - and stay in communication with other groups.
• take small but direct actions: if you see misogynistic or sexist advertising, boycott the product or service and write the company in question; if your local bookstore or library does not have an extensive collection of nonfiction about women in politics or women's history, speak to the manager and ask for a better selection; when somebody uses misogynistic or sexist language, tell him or her that you object.
• invite a woman you would like to know better or whose work you would to know more about to come meet with your SWWH; she does not have to be famous and the event does not have to be fancy; it can be a coffee for three or an open house for 30.

Yesterday was the anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. This sorry date did not cause me to dwell on the horror and sadness of life cut too short. Instead, it put me in mind of one of the most admirable things President Kennedy did for this country. He challenged Americans to meet a seemingly impossible challenge: they did. In 1961, President Kennedy addressed the United States Congress urging long-term and continuous funding and commitment to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. President Kennedy did not live to see that goal met in 1969, but the goal would not have been met if he had not issued the Congress and, in another famous address well worth reading and hearing, the American people to invest resources and energy in hitting the mark. So we know that we as a country can attain goals that, when first presented, seem outrageously unreachable.

We may not have a President who will challenge us to put a woman in the Oval Office by 2034, but as American citizens we can issue the challenge to ourselves and to one another. If enough of us start now, we Americans can put a woman in the Oval Office by 2034, just as 40 years ago Americans put a man on the moon.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

-John F. Kennedy, Rice University, 1963

My own ambition and commitment: to start an SWWH group and to help anybody else who would like to start one. You can reach me through this blog for ideas about books to read, groups that might be worth supporting, specific projects you might want to try.

The U.S. Senate Boys Club

Despite what has been reported, I doubt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could now create a genuine option for Senator Clinton to remain in the Senate with an enhanced official position and concomitant opportunities for power and influence.  If this were a viable option, why would a new extra spot have been needed in the first place?

No, the extra spot is needed because none of the Democratic men in the Senate would give up a position or power to make it possible to empower a colleague who 18 million voters wanted as their President. The gentlemen of the club like the titles and privileges they have and, as I have been saying, it is not typical of politicians to put Party, principle, or country ahead of their own particular ambitions. They might do it for one of the guys (e.g. Joe Leiberman), but not for a gal who already outshines them.

So, the "head boy", Senator Reid, has floated the idea of giving a "girl" a special spot of her own. Possibly Senator Reid finally realized that the Democratically controlled Senate was about to look completely ridiculous by relying on club traditions, however hallowed the club's traditions might be. But talk about too little, too late. After joining the effort to hound Senator Clinton out of the primaries and then doing nothing to ensure that she would  have the equal opportunity to become the nominee that the Democratic Party nominating rules required, now Senator Reid wants to empower Senator Clinton. Talk about tokenism. Imagine if this had played out with Clinton's and Obama's positions reversed - and Senator Reid turned around and made a "special" post just for Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton's yeoman effort on behalf of President-elect Obama in the general election were something of an exception to rule that politicians always seek immediate power at the expense of larger considerations. So is President-elect Obama's apparent (but not yet official) decision to offer Senator Clinton the Secretary of State position is too. I am not suggesting super-selflessness on the part of either Clinton or Obama: their respective decisions have advantages for their respective political ambitions. One good thing about making Senator Clinton Secretary of State is that it is a real position with historical pedigree and some degree of power. Credit to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama if they decide they can work together and make each other better than either would be working separately, in different branches of the federal government.

But if Senator Clinton decides she would rather exercise fuller autonomy and serve as Senator from New York rather than as Secretary of State, I sincerely hope she holds firm on insisting that she play a role defined by the club's traditions, and does not accept an ad hoc token platform. Anything short of a serious traditional Senate post will be yet another snow job, meant to make the American public  believe that the Democratic Senators actually get what millions of Americans have known all along: that Senator Clinton is a exceptional and talented human being, policy thinker, advocate, and politician, and that the country needs that sort of talent channeled into the most official places in our government.

Please note, I am not arguing for Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State; I am arguing that at least that position is a traditional power spot (although subordinate within the executive branch to the chief executive, as one would expect); not a gerry-rigged add on to a roster that has plenty of room for better people in its usual starting line-up.

Three postscripts

1) I am refraining from suggesting that people donate further to retire Senator Clinton's primary debt, pending what happens with regard to the Secretary of State position: one would hope that if President-elect Obama and Senator Clinton decide to work together so closely, President-elect Obama will be able to motivate his donors to knock off the last bit of debt. 2) For news coverage about the intricacies of the situation surrounding Senator Clinton as Secretary of State, go here. Also, Bonnie Erbe has an interesting opinion piece here. 3) The absurdity of what appears to happened with regard to Senator Clinton and the U.S. Senate Boys Club highlights yet again the importance of a Presidential Commission on Women, to be instituted in the first hundred days.

Debunking the spin on Senator Clinton's role in 2009

Bill Clinton's foundation work will not be what prevents Senator Clinton from being offered a position in President-elect Obama's cabinet, although that may be a publicly given excuse. For all the fuss over the Obama administration's hyper-cautious, hyper-intrusive vetting, one need only look at the appointments to date to realize that if President-elect Obama wants to include somebody in his administration and he can, he does. His administration may even continue to have an Office of Political Affairs.

I assure you that David Axelrod's emails, client list, and fees raise issues that could "embarrass" the Obama administration. And President Clinton has made it clear that he would cooperate fully in conducting his affairs so as not to cause "national security" problems.

If Senator Clinton is not offered a Cabinet position it will either be because at the end of the day the President-elect does not want her to have one or because she does not want one.

As for Senator Kennedy now creating "working groups" and inviting Senator Clinton (along with Senators Harkin and Mikulski) to head one, here's my most cynical view: Senator Kennedy is providing cover for President-elect Obama should he choose not to invite Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State. The Democratic Party is realizing, rather late in the day, that in any number of ways they botched their approach to Senator Clinton and her supporters.  Now the public is souring on the Democrats even before the inauguration. With the understandable exception of those whose livelihoods may be reduced or eliminated, not too many people are keen on the Pelosi-Reid- Barney Frank plan to give billions to GM if it does not even have the cash to make it to January - if the situation is that tight, GM already IS functionally bankrupt, and should use proper legal means (e.g. submit a Chapter 11 plan to the relevant court for consideration) to handle its affairs responsibly in light of that fact. But, I digress...

My key point is that whatever Senator Clinton decides to do in the coming year, and whatever position she is or is not offered, the Democratic Party begins 2009 with a tremendous internal problem.

The trouble  began to brew when the Democratic Party  hounded Senator Clinton to get out of the primary race; and then refused to allow its own rules and procedures to determine the nominee. Even if the superdelegates had, in an unforced manner, cast their ballots and voted then-Senator Obama the nomination, Senator Clinton's supporters would not have felt shortchanged, as many of them do now. And if the superdelegates had gone the other way, I would think then-Senator Obama's supporters would not have felt shortchanged either. There is a difference between winning fair and square and being pre-selected. Furthermore, had the process been conducted impartially, it would have been natural and relatively easy for the winner to have asked the other to join the ticket in a show of genuine unity. There may have been downsides for either in assuming the vice-presidency but depending upon whether the two were savvy they could have designed a role for whichever was the vice-president that would have suited his or her strengths and showcased them.

None of the poor decisions that have brought us to this point can be undone. I have reminded readers of them because they illuminate the current difficulty. There is no public, impartial procedure left for allocating Senator Clinton the position of power many Democrats, including many who preferred Barack Obama for president, would like her to have. The closest approximation is a position that Senator Clinton may not be interested in, although I think she'd be quite good at it: Senate Majority Leader. But that would require the Democratic Senators themselves to elect her to the post, abandoning their deference to pecking order or, if they are in the pecking order, to graciously step aside.

Heading a working group under Senator Kennedy or serving as Secretary of State puts Senator Clinton in a subordinate position, in both instances to people who her supporters believe treated her and them disrespectfully. While Senator Clinton might decide to accept either post - and I fully respect her right to decide to do so, as she is ultimately the one who runs her career - I think it will be very difficult for the Democratic Party to convince those who it has alienated by its refusal to address the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and many of her women supporters that either of these positions addresses the problem the Party seems unable to grasp. Millions of women - and men with a real appreciation for how the world is for women - will view either of these appointments as typical of the dynamic where, instead of having a woman in a power position of her own, men rely on the talents of a woman to burnish their own power - or to be the scapegoat should things go south.

I do not have a view as to whether Senator Clinton should accept a cabinet position if offered; nor whether she should accept the task of heading a working group on insurance coverage. With regard to Secretary of State, much would depend on how much autonomy President-elect Obama would give Senator Clinton, and frankly, in modern-day cabinets, Cabinet Secretaries are not autonomous. Their job is to execute the policies of the administration in which they serve. They can advise as to what those policies should be, but they cannot publicly deviate from those decided on by the President. If they cannot stomach the policies, they depart. If they free-lance, they depart.

My point is this: it is not Senator Clinton's problem that many in the electorate mistrust the Democratic Party's treatment of women, and it is not clear to me that her occupying either of the positions now being bandied about would do a thing to repair the mistrust. The Democratic Party, and its new leader, President-elect Obama face a real challenge: they need to win back those who have lost all confidence in their commitment to gender equity not only in electoral political participation but in every area.

Why Bill Clinton - or Barack Obama for that matter - cannot simply pay off Senator Clinton's primary debt

The Federal Election Commission has well-defined rules limiting how much any given individual or PAC may contribute to a federal candidate's campaign. Some entities, such as corporations, are forbidden from donating at all. The chart below is from the FEC web pages relevant to the issue.
With regard to paying down Senator Clinton's primary campaign debt, the key take-away points from the chart are that a campaign acting honestly cannot accept more than $2300 per individual, even if the individual is one's wealthy spouse - indeed considering the media scrutiny of FEC reports, I would say ESPECIALLY from one's wealthy spouse. One candidate's committee may give another's up to $2000. So, Barack Obama and Michele Obama can (and have) jointly contribute $4600 to Senator Clinton's primary campaign and Barack Obama's primary and general election committees could each donate $2000 to Senator Clinton's primary campaign (I do not know whether Obama's authorized campaign committees have made these contributions. Note too that Joe and Jill Biden can give $4600 and Joe Biden's authorized campaign committees can give $2000 per committee.

What is most striking about this chart, however, is that there is NO LIMIT on how much an authorized candidate committee can give to a national political party or state or local parties per year. So President-elect Obama's authorized campaign committee could simply pay off the DNC's debt and urge individuals to pay down Senator Clinton's primary debt rather than urge them to pay off the DNC's debt. Senator Obama could also organize a PAC or several PACs, each of which could give $2300 to Senator Clinton, much as Hillpac raised money for a variety of Democrats and donated to their campaigns (as a multicandidate PAC, Hillpac was permitted to contribute up to $5000 to any other candidate running).

Now, I have no doubt that there are ways to skirt these rules and regulations but not to the extent where Bill Clinton or Barack Obama can simply write a check to Hillary Clinton For President (Senator Clinton's primary campaign committee) for 8 million dollars. Also, while a candidate can loan or contribute any amount of money to her own campaign, nobody may contribute "through another", so Bill Clinton cannot simply transfer money in his name to Senator Clinton which she can then turn around use to pay the primary debt. I do not know whether funds held jointly by the Clintons, if indeed they do hold funds jointly could be used to do this, although my intuition would be no.

Now, none of this means that any rank and file voter in this country is obligated to contribute or contribute again to pay down Senator Clinton's primary debt. I understand that in an ever worsening economy people are certainly disinclined to do so, and that various people have other objections to doing so.

The interesting question is whether, if Senator Clinton is debating whether to accept a position in an Obama administration, she will - to the extent legally permissible - condition her acceptance on firm guarantees of fundraising assistance from President-elect Obama's top donors. We will certainly never know if this issue is part of the discussions between Senator Clinton and President-elect Obama but I would certainly hope so.

My own position continues to be that if you can spare a contribution to pay off the debt, it is worth doing so as an act of camaraderie not so much with Senator Clinton but with all the millions of Americans who object to the way the DNC treated her candidacy, her supporters, her delegates, and the nominating convention in Denver. A simple donation of $5.51 (the 51 cents standing for the percentage of women in the American population) would serve that purpose.  And the elimination of Senator Clinton's debt before the elimination of the DNC's  serves the further purpose of making it clear that while you may care for certain Democrats you have decided you will not let the Democratic Party take you for granted. In short, for $5.51 you can gain a sense of self-affirmation and do something proactive at a time when the the Democratic Party as an institution seems oblivious to the fact that in winning the Presidency they lost the confidence and trust of large parts of their traditional constituencies. If you are so inclined, you can make this statement by contributing for the express purpose of retiring Senator Clinton's primary debt right here.

John F. Kennedy really should be a lesson for President-elect Obama

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.

-John F. Kennedy, 1963 Civil Rights Address

John F. Kennedy really should be a lesson for President-elect Obama.

Kennedy did not arrive in office with a track record of support for black Americans' social and civic equality. In fact, he voted against the first Civil Rights Act introduced in modern times, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, introduced by President Eisenhower, a bill that was a predecessor to the more sweeping Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. But in 1963, after events made it clear that the nation faced serious social unrest and the federal government serious opposition to its Constitutional authority, Kennedy delivered his famous address on Civil Rights, breaking with his "prior and lukewarm position on civil rights." It is impossible to know whether JFK would have evolved into a wholehearted supporter of black civil rights or whether he would have been driven less by a moral imperative and more by political considerations. But it does not matter. A President should receive credit for her or his good acts, regardless of her or his intentions. Whether driven by political pragmatism or a moral change of heart, President Kennedy eventually showed leadership on the question of black civil rights.

People I respect consider President-elect Obama to be both extremely savvy and intelligent. President-elect Obama makes much of his interest in learning from the history of past presidential administrations.

President-elect Obama ought to seize a historic opportunity he really does have. Rather than be seen as grudgingly coming around to a recognition of the need to address the interests of women in our society, he could be seen as the president who tackled this issue head on, in front of the curve. I don't care whether he does this out of political savvy or a pure commitment to gender equity or both.

Appointing Senator Clinton Secretary of State (should that come to pass) has relatively little to do with what I am talking about. Bill Clinton broke the gender barrier with regard to that position when he appointed Madeline Albright to it in 1997. FDR broke the gender barrier with regard to women heading Cabinent departments back in 1933 with the appointment of Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor.

Now, a Cabinet whose members reflected the proportion of women in the country (so that just over half the Cabinet heads would be women) would go beyond measures like these. But I do not see President-elect Obama moving toward that goal. But that doesn't mean there is a shortage of measures Mr. Obama could take if he wanted to be ahead of the curve on gender equity. A non-exhaustive list:

• appoint a gold-ribbon Presidential Commission on Women, charged specifically with recommending legislation the President could send to Congress that would work the same sort of dramatic changes for women that the Civil Rights Acts of the twentieth centure worked for black Americans

• seriously consider sending for passage by Congress the Equal Rights Amendment, which would serve to guarantee to women the same Constitutional protection against gender discrimination that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments have - admittedly over a long time - come to protect black Americans from racial discrimination

• use his office as a bully pulpit to acknowledge and condemn specific acts of misogyny and sexism, and to consistently and continually object to the attitudes reflected by these acts

• get behind the National Women's History Museum, making sure it gets a permanent and prominent home in Washington, D.C.

• commit to making every reasonable effort to transform the Supreme Court so that its composition reflects the proportion of women to men in this country

I could continue this list. But note that almost none of the items on it commit President-elect Obama to additional spending or would cut against measures aimed at addressing other problems we all agree need work - worldwide terrorism, economic crisis, etc.

Just as Lyndon Johnson, a white president, picked up the banner of black civil rights even as he contended with the Vietnam War, Barack Obama, could be a male president who picks up the banner of women's rights.

Women's rights are human rights. Practically speaking, probably nobody will fight as hard for them as women themselves. But there's no reason in the world that men, particularly one of the most powerful men in the world, the incoming President of the United States of America should not put human rights, and therefore women's rights, at the very top of his agenda.

Seven to one: not so promising

 So far the Obama administration has announced eight high level appointments to the executive branch (John Podesta, serving as co-chair of the transition team says he will not hold a position in the new administration). Of these seven are men and one is a woman. President-elect Obama has held a meeting with John McCain, and the two announced a hope "to work together to together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation's security."

I certainly agree that these issues are pressing. But a disturbing pattern is emerging. Neither by virtue of his appointments nor his statements is President-elect Obama indicating that he is taking heed of the concerns of millions of people that this election cycle exposed just how much misogyny and sexism pervades this country. And putting that issue on the back burner is not warranted just because there are other important issues facing the country.

Other presidents, including at least one President-elect Obama has taken as a role model, have neglected to attend to the civil rights of certain groups claiming that other issues take priority. John F. Kennedy, for example, largely ignored the issue of black civil rights for the first two years of his administration, preferring to focus on the problems of the Cold War. What finally forced President Kennedy's hand was the increasing intensity of the nonviolent but direct actions led Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots. Although black Americans had been demanding full civil and social equality since at least the end of World War II and King's movement had begun in the 1950s, it was not until 1963, after outbreaks of serious violence by officials against nonviolent protestors, that President Kennedy gave an address on the issue of black civil rights and introduced legislation that was enacted after his death, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (source)

JImagine if President-elect Obama were to learn from President Kennedy's strategy of delay by showing right now an immediate responsiveness to an issue that may not have figured much in his campaign promises but figures large in the social consciousness. Imagine if his first eight appointments had been seven women and one man. What a powerful message that would have sent.

I have discussed the important of the petition drive being sponsored by WomenCount, seeking the appointment of a Presidential Commission on Women.

From WomenCount:

SOMETIMES THERE IS A WATERSHED MOMENT IN HISTORY WHEN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THINGS MUST CHANGE AND LEADERS MUST ACT. THAT MOMENT IS NOW FOR THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY.

THE LESSONS OF THIS CAMPAIGN WERE ABUNDANT:

• As the economy became the single most critical issue in the election, the role that women play in our economic structure has never been clearer. Women are the backbone of the nation’s workforce and control 70 percent of its buying power.

• The candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, while inspiring women and girls around the country to imagine what can be, exposed extreme gender bias in the media and throughout our culture.

• Women, who make up 56 percent of the voting population, were targeted as never before as the critical bloc that would determine the outcome of the election.

Interestingly, the Commission sought by WomenCount is modeled after one created by President Kennedy in 1961. Below is a partial outline of the proposed Commission; the full version appears here.

• The 2008 election has been historic.  Women’s roles in the election, as candidates for president and vice president and as voters, have never been greater. In our 232-year history, Hillary Clinton is the first woman to have ever won statewide in a presidential primary and has won more votes in a presidential primary than any other candidate.  Sarah Palin is only the second woman ever nominated as a vice presidential candidate.
• This election has exposed extreme gender bias in the media, in politics, and throughout our culture.  This has demonstrated that although women in the United States have come a long way since the last Presidential Commission on the Status of Women in 1961, we still have far to go.
•  The current economic crisis highlights the increasing impact on single parents (one income households – mostly women), working couples (almost a necessity in lower, middle and upper middle income households), and minimum wage workers (mostly women).
• Women have been at the forefront of this campaign and our political discourse. WomenCount is committed to making sure that once this election is over, women stay there.
• We believe that now is the time for our country to have a national conversation to address the issues and discriminatory attitudes that women face, and to ensure a better future with respect and full human rights extended to all women.

[...]

•  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies published, books written, and organizations established that are directed at issues and barriers that women face in their lives, with numerous recommendations to improve the lives of women in our nation.
•  We need a vehicle to discuss and implement all of these thoughts, ideas and recommendations at the national level. (emphasis added)
•  We need to bring together the efforts of the many organizations devoted to women’s issues and causes, and create a common movement to benefit the future of all women.
•  We believe that it is time for a Presidential Commission on Women to serve as that vehicle.
•   A new generation can be positively influenced by the actions of such a Commission.
  

[...]

•     The commission will be composed of a bipartisan, diverse group of experts, policymakers, opinion leaders, members of the media, corporate leaders, and women of all walks of life who represent mainstream issues.
•     The commission members will address the overall attitudes about women in this country, as well as specific issues.
•     The commission will develop the substance and scope of its work.
•     The commission will hold hearings and issue a list of recommendations, and will also ensure that its recommendations are carried out.

My own view is that passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would be the most effective step to ensuring gender equality in this country. I might be wrong but the entire point of a Presidential Commission on Women would be to assess this issue, among others, and make recommendations to the President.

Thousands of women are willing to participate in nonviolent protest to draw attention to women's issues. As the black American civil rights movement taught us, however, even nonviolent protest can provoke brutality and backlash. Making women's wellbeing and equality an immediate cornerstone of the new administration could save resources, bloodshed, and even lives. Surely doing that is of signal importance to our country. Sign the petition.

Under no circumstances are death threats acceptable

Whether one agrees with President-elect Obama's positions or not, whether one agrees with his political methods or not, nothing - absolutely nothing - justifies threats on his life. The same goes for any other person in a civilized society. Death threats are unequivocally evil.

These press reports - here, here, and here - must make us mindful that the horrid hatefulness directed against women and gays is the same sort of hatefulness that is being directed against the President-elect. Whatever else we as Americans agree or disagree about, we must categorically condemn and reject these threats.

A worthwhile analysis of some - but not all - of the variables involved in any decision Senator Clinton might make with regard to joining an Obama administration - assuming she's actually being asked to do so

Ultimately, there are numerous variables that go into a President's decision to offer somebody a post in her or his administration and there are numerous variables that go into a decision to accept or decline. Some are totally unknown to the public. Others are publicly available but not highlighted. For example, if any given senator accepts a position in the Obama administration that affects not only the who will be the next senator from the relevant state - something that depends, for the most part, on who the governor of that state would appoint, which in turn depends on any number of variables not generally analyzed in the national or international press. Furthermore, decisions about departing the senate affect who ends up chairing what committees there - as do decisions about when to resign one's senate seat if one is about to assume another elected office. For example, by resigning his senate seat effective today, Senator Obama opens the door for the Governor of Illinois to appoint a replacement before the six newly elected senators from November 4 are sworn in in January, thereby giving that appointee seniority over all of them. And because seniority plays an extremely prominent role in who gets what position in Senate committees this sort of fact matters.

When it comes to Senator Clinton remaining in the Senate or joining the Obama administration, it really does seem impossible for commentators to weigh up all the variables and offer anything other than educated guesses about what would be good for Senator Clinton's political power, what would be good for New Yorkers, and what would be good for the Senate. That said, this analysis, from the Financial Times, is the best I have seen in the mainstream media so far. It is not perfect, but it hits some new notes, including reporting the possibility that Obama is considering Clinton for "Pentagon chief" - by which the reporter means...I'm not sure...Secretary of Defense?

For some idea of the free for all that can be unleashed by a person's decision to leave the Congress to work for the administration, check out this story from Chicago.

On the current crucial importance of retiring Senator Clinton's debt; and how maxxed out donors can help

UPDATED WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE LATEST REPORTED DEBT - go to the end of post for data on figures.

To date I have been stressing the message it would send the DNC were we to retire Senator Clinton's primary debt rapidly, and long before the DNC retires its own debt. Some readers have made the point that retiring Senator Clinton's debt is not going to reform an organization that ignored 18 million voters. I agree that retiring Senator Clinton's debt is not going to produce instant reform.

But nothing is going to produce instant reform. And I do not mean instant reform only of the DNC, but change in the business of "politics as usual" which is really going to require a long hard slog toward changing cultural attitudes about what is acceptable in politics (sexism, misogyny, and homophobia have to become as socially unacceptable as other forms of bigotry and chauvinism). As I keep saying, politicians care most about their own political power. To keep it they need two things: money and votes (and as President-elect Obama demonstrated, the first plays a big role with regard to the second). Politicians and political organizations are ever more exquisitely attuned to which way and where money is flowing - and where it is not.

This is why I will continue to encourage people to donate to retire Senator Clinton's debt. Politicians of both parties need to see where people will put their political donations (if they will or can make any in these tough times) and where they won't. I appreciate the worries that those mistrustful of President-elect Obama have about Senator Clinton being co-opted into his administration.

But that's besides my point. At the moment, retiring Senator Clinton's debt rapidly is one of the clearest ways to let politicians at every level know that even those who cast a ballot for Senator Obama in the general election, as well as those who decided not to, are not simply folding up their tents and going away. The point is not to reward Senator Clinton. The point is to protest the feebleness of the efforts so far by the Obama administration and the DNC to say or do the slightest things about the problems with the Democratic primary and caucuses process; to  speak out about the despicable misogyny and sexism that ran rampant in both the primary and the general election seasons, and is still running rampant; and the non-existent to tepid indications that gender parity in political representation matters to the incoming Obama administration (for more on that read this).

There is no perfect way to communicate to the professional political class our discontent with their performance on these issues. But one very bold, very clear way to make a statement would be to erase Senator Clinton's primary debt - not for her sake, but for the sake of beginning to take concrete steps toward demonstrating that the election cycle of 2008 has brought about a number of major changes in American politics, including the formation of a serious and large voting bloc that will not simply support a Democratic or a Republican (or any other party candidate) simply because of party affiliation.

Practical matters

A number of people who have maxxed out to Senator Clinton in the primary have written to me wondering how to help in this new effort to eliminate Senator Clinton's primary debt. One person who is ineligible to contribute to the primary debt relief wrote in with the answer. This person, who I am going to nickname "Olive", is willing to sponsor a match: she will donate $50 dollars per month for the next twelve months to a feminist organization (yet to be decided) for every $50 dollars I can reasonably document has been contributed to retire Senator Clinton's debt because of the arguments made here.

If you are maxxed out to the primary and want to be part this sort of matching program, drop me a comment or an email, and tell me what cause you are willing to match to or whether you are willing to join in contributing to the feminist organization to be decided upon with regard to Olive's offer.

We are going to have to depend a bit on trust to do this because Senator Clinton's fundraising apparatus no longer records donations through a Hillraiser link. In order for me to provide updates on what is raised for Senator Clinton, and therefore to alert matchers as to when they should make good on their pledges, people will have to send me or post in comments the receipt they receive from making a donation at the Hillaryclinton.com site dedicated to retiring the primary debt.

One way to indicate that your donation is meant to register your continuing presence as a person who will not tolerate the corruption or silence on misogyny displayed by the DNC and, so far, by President-elect Obama and as someone who is committed to gender parity in American politics would be to add .51 to your donation to retiring the debt, symbolizing the 51 per cent of the American population that is female.

I am willing to keep a tally on this blog and coordinate our efforts. (I know some people have already made donations in response to what I have been suggesting, and if they send me their receipt I will start the tally right away.) A word about why I am willing to do this: Rest assured that it is not because I anticipate access to Senator Clinton or the current administration. I was a conscientious abstainer in this election and, that along with many other reasons, means that neither the Obama administration nor Senator Clinton will be seeking my input any time soon. But I did not get involved in the 2008 electoral cycle because I wanted access to politicians. I got involved because I wanted better government. I know that many people believe that better government simply cannot be had. I myself am no utopian: politics drives government and politics is never going to be a mecca of principled conduct. But I do believe we can improve both politics and government, sometimes in very small steps. I want to act on this belief, even if it means hard work and tolerating slurs. I do not know now whether my current proposal - that we knock out Senator Clinton's primary debt as soon as we possibly can - will catch on.

I learned throughout the past 12 months that there are hundreds and thousands of people of good faith and decency who want to work together to improve upon the status quo. I refuse to succumb to cynicism or despair. I sometimes have those feelings but I simply refuse to let them silence my voice or thwart my efforts.

The best information on the remaining amount of debt to retire

The most recent publicly available information comes from the most recent monthly filing statement the Hillary Clinton For President campaign had to submit to the Federal Election Commission, available here. The figures on that report are current only through 9/30/08 because that is the cut-off for the most recent reporting period specified by the FEC. As you can for yourself, as of that date the campaign reports $21,097,714 in debt. Of that, $13,175,000 is money Senator Clinton lent her own campaign and for which which she is not seeking funds. The rest is arithmetic: $21,097,714 less $21,097,714 equals $7,922,714 - approximately 8 million dollars. (Note that the Hillary Clinton For President Campaign has made enormous strides in reducing the debt, which was at 22.5 million at the end of June (source). Many people who will see this post played a role in knocking down that number to where it is now; which is why I firmly believe that it is worth polishing off the job.