Posts Tagged ‘ connie saltonstall ’

Six Things We Need to Do to Send a Woman to the White House

July 9, 2010
By


Last week I posted a question at SkinnyScoop: Do you think a woman will be elected president in your lifetime? Most of the respondents (81 percent) said yes. No one answered definitely not. I sure hope the respondents are right, but getting there won’t be easy.

One respondent at SkinnyScoop wrote, “We are ready and there are more of us than them, we just need to get out and vote ladies.” It seems simple. But it’s not. The sad truth is we haven’t moved past the misogyny and sexism we witnessed during Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Senate hopeful Martha Coakley didn’t do herself any favors when she made some bad campaign decisions last winter but the press didn’t do her many favors either. And the Republicans don’t seem to treat their women much better, as Newsweek recently pointed out.

I remember during Clinton’s presidential run people groaning about the word misogyny. “I’m so sick of feminists talking about misogyny,” friends and coworkers would tell me when I was discussing things Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann had said on television the night before. I challenge those same people to come up with a better explanation for Playboy’s recent article (which has been removed from its site) “The Top 10 Conservative Women We Love to Hate” complete with hatef**k ratings for each woman.

The fact is the media can be a brutal place for women in politics and we are far from achieving any kind of critical mass. Women make up only 17 percent of Congress today and only six states have women serving as governor. So, if we are going to put a woman in the White House ladies, we have work to do. Here are six things you can do to make it happen.

1. Contribute. It takes a lot of money to get elected. Just recently, two promising women candidates ended races citing lack of support from their party, the Democrats. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner lost the primary to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Connie Saltonstall quit the race to replace Michigan’s Congressman Bart Stupak. Saltonstall said she didn’t think she could raise the necessary funds to run without her party’s support.

2. Volunteer. It also takes a lot of people power to run a campaign. Get involved. Too often I hear mother’s in my community tell me they just don’t have the time to get involved because their children need them at home. I tell them my children need me out fighting for the things I believe will secure their future. Your kids will be fine if you spend a few hours at the phone bank. Trust me.

3. Support qualified women candidates. Period. As Gloria Feldt says, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50% share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.”

4. Start local. Get involved in your local politics and help groom future women leaders.

5. Run. Better yet, why don’t you run for office? Check out She Should Run or attend a Whitehouse Project event for more information and access to support.

6. Vote.

 

And in other news, congratulations to Mary Jo McMenamin who won a Yogi Max from Yogibo for answering our question at The SkinnyScoop.

Connie Saltonstall and the MDP’s Big But

May 11, 2010
By

Yesterday  Connie Saltonstall announced she was withdrawing from the Democratic Primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District, and blamed  a lack of support from the state’s Democratic Party for her decision. She had been hoping to replace Rep. Bart Stupak, an Ignorant Male Legislator recipient.

In a statement, Saltonstall said, “I am forced to do this because it has become apparent to my campaign that the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party has preemptively anointed Gary McDowell as their Democratic candidate. … While I think Gary MacDowell is a very nice person, I cannot support his anti-choice politics, and I cannot support a party that endorses candidates who vote to restrict women’s legal rights and access to healthcare.”

State Representative McDowell voted against an amendment that would allow late-term abortions if a physician determined the procedure was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. Some have even referred to McDowell as Bart Stupak’s hand-picked successor.

After reading Saltonstall’s comments about the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP), I visited their website to get a better understanding of the group’s mission and values. What I discovered: the MDP has a big but problem.

There is a document on the website called Party Platform. It starts with this encouraging sentence, “The Michigan Democratic Party believes that government must be open, honest, responsive, and accountable to the people it serves,” and goes on to say, “… Democrats in this state are seeking the Common Good – the best life for each person of this state. The orphan. The family. The sick. The healthy. The wealthy. The poor. The citizen. The stranger. The first. The last.”

However, deeper into the document, I discovered a big but.

We pledge our support for reproductive freedom, BUT we respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue.”

Perhaps that “but” (emphasis mine) doesn’t seem that outrageous to you. But what if it was applied to other statements in the party platform? For example,

“We will champion the cause of Civil Rights for all citizens, working to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and nurturing more than tolerance… ”

Now add a but.

We will champion the cause of Civil Rights for all citizens, BUT we respect that some individuals feel the need to discriminate.

Or,

We oppose the insurance industry’s unfair practice of redlining when setting insurance premiums BUT sometimes it’s okay.

We will vigorously promote measures that ensure the full civil rights of Michigan’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens BUT we will not pass legislation to protect those rights.

We will insist on ending the insidious practices of racial profiling and unlawful targeting of African-Americans, Arab-Americans and LGBT citizens (among others) but…

We will fight age discrimination in all its forms but…

We continue our commitment to Native American tribes and their sovereignty, self-governance, but…

But what? It’s not okay to compromise on the rights of any group, and that includes women. No if, and or buts about it.

Saltonstall’s campaign is a tough reminder that women face an uphill battle in getting elected. The hill is even steeper when they run on a platform of protecting women’s rights. BUT if we work together, we can make it happen.

Gloria Feldt reminds us how, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50% share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.”

To learn about and support qualified women candidates visit the Women’s Campaign Forum.

Breaking: Connie Saltonstall Out

May 10, 2010
By

Connie Saltonstall, the would be successor to Rep. Bart Stupak, has withdrawn from the Democratic Primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District citing lack of support from the state’s Democratic Party.

We will write more on this tomorrow. For now, here is the press release.

“I regretfully announce that I am withdrawing from the Democratic primary for U.S. Representative in Michigan’s First Congressional District.

I am forced to do this because it has become apparent to my campaign that the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party has preemptively anointed Gary McDowell as their Democratic candidate. They are replacing Bart Stupak with another Upper Peninsula, Anti-Choice, Anti- Women’s healthcare rights candidate.  From past experience I realize that with the Michigan Democratic Party actively opposing me, I will not be able to raise the money necessary to conduct a winning campaign. I am not the only candidate that has been the target of this kind of manipulation. I hope that in the future the Party will reject this interference and insist on an open primary allowing voters to choose the candidate who represents their values.

I challenged Bart Stupak because he was threatening to take down the healthcare bill. His amendment threatened access for women to get health insurance even with private funds. There is an aggressive movement across the country to pass laws to restrict women from making responsible healthcare choices to protect their health, and furthermore, to criminalize their actions. The same people who think government should stay out of their lives, are legislating government into the doctor’s office. Individuals, families, and physicians  are the ones who should be making the complicated and difficult decisions we all face regarding reproductive healthcare and life issues.

While I think Gary MacDowell is a very nice person, I cannot support his anti-choice politics, and I cannot support a party that endorses candidates who vote to restrict women’s legal rights and access to healthcare. It is time for Democrats to stop compromising on this issue. I am proud that my campaign has raised the dialogue on healthcare and choice, and I will continue my leadership role concerning these issues.

I want to thank all of my supporters in the First District and across the nation who contributed their time, money, endorsements, and good wishes for my campaign. We were first in the race, raised more money than any other Democratic candidate to date, collected  over 1500 petition signatures, put together a professional campaign team and a path to victory. Without the interference of the democratic leadership, we might just have won the election!”

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes