Forget her accomplishments as a U.S. Senator!  Nevermind all that talk about helping women and children around the world!  Hillary is bringing back the headband!  Women in their 60s with long hair!  WOO-HOO!

OK, no headband here, but her hair rocks. Image via www.state.gov

I don’t know about you, but I’m loving the blonder, longer hair the Secretary of State is sporting these days. As a woman closer in age to Hillary than Chelsea, I may just try that myself!

Of course, Clinton had to know that, having been mocked once in her life for being an adult woman who wore a headband, that there’d be plenty of discussion of it this time, too. The funny thing, though, is she’s totally in the style moment — fashionistas LOVED the look on Michelle Williams at the Golden Globes!

But aside from the headband, why are we so fascinated with  Hillary’s hair?   She’s got a ponytail!  Now it’s in a bun! Hey, did she get a blow-out? I hate to break it to the Hillary fashion haters, but sometimes a girl’s just got to mix it up a little bit.  Maybe she can sport this little leopard number for her next news conference?

Maybe her critics are afraid if the focus on what she actually does rather than how she styles her hair, they’d have to admit she’s a woman to be taken seriously.

While her progress has been nothing short of remarkable, Giffords has announced that she will resign from her Arizona congressional seat after the President’s State of the Union address, allowing her to focus on her ongoing physical recovery.

In a video released this weekend, speaking much more clearly than in the TV interview she did with her husband Mark Kelly in November, Giffords said her decision was the best one for her and her constituents. She thanked supporters for their prayers, saying, “I have more work to do on my recovery, so [stepping down was] best for Arizona,” rather than waiting until her re-election filing deadline in May.

One of Giffords’ best friends, U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, commented on Giffords’ decision on her own congressional website:

“Gabby has had such a positive impact on our nation. Even in announcing her resignation, she reminds us that ‘we can do so much more by working together.’ We will miss Gabby’s spirit in Congress and I will miss working with my friend day-to-day, but I am confident that she will return to public service and we can all work together for America.”

Giffords did tip her hat about her future in her video, saying that she “will return.” It’s hard to know what that means, but Giffords’ best Capitol Hill friends Wasserman Schultz and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have been holding fundraisers for Giffords potential future campaigns since the shooting, giving her the option of getting back into a world where a candidate needs money, as well as voter support, to win.

Giffords’ shooting prompted lawmakers to attend last year’s State of the Union address with a “date” from the opposite political party in the spirit of bipartisanship, so it’s heartening to see that Giffords will be attending this year’s event to further promote her desire for more across the aisle efforts.  As she continues her recovery, I can only hope that at least a few members of each political party will take that bipartisan moment to heart.

The original version of this post was written for iVillage.com, where I’ll be working on 2012 election coverage through November!

Image via www.state.gov/secretary/

Poor Hillary Clinton. She never gets a break when it comes to the political rumor mill. Will she run against President Obama in 2012? Did she say she wanted to retire from being Secretary of State in a second-term Obama administration because she wants to make plans for a White House run in 2016? Maybe she has another reality-type show in the works?

The latest “will she or won’t she moment” that some are wishing for is a swap out in the current administration — move Vice President Joe Biden to the State Department and put Hillary on the ticket with the President for a new and improved 2012 race! Pundits who are suggesting that this could happen see it as a win/win/win scenario – Biden gets the job he’s supposedly really always wanted, Hillary helps Barack Obama win a second term, and Hillary has a launching pad for a 2016 White House contest.

I can almost hear the Howard Dean-like hooting and hollering of some Democrats now over that scenario!

But the problem is this. The former First Lady/U.S. Senator hasn’t given even one little inkling that she could be persuaded to sign on to that scenario. In 2010, she said, “I think I’ll serve as secretary of state as my last public position and then probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children.” And in 2011, she was even more emphatic that a presidential bid wasn’t in her future — no, no, NO!

There is only one thing certain in politics – if there’s no real news going on, prognosticators will come up with something to grab our attention. And what better way to do that as we are begging for the Republican debates to finally be over than to spend a little time wondering whether Hillary has been harboring secret presidential fantasies since 2008?

Those who are stirring the pot on this one are forgetting that even though Secretary of State Clinton is wildly popular now, she was the target of unending attacks from a wide variety of political commentators during her campaign, even some of the ones who liked her. And are our collective political memories so short that proponents of an Obama/HRC ticket can’t see that the Republicans would have a field day with political ads talking about Obamacare AND Hillary-care? If Mitt Romney is the destined GOP candidate, he’s already on the record questioning her health care ideas from the 1990s. The Republican attack ads about a “socialist” Obama/Clinton ticket would be on the air before you could say, “What time is the next bus to Chappaqua?”

Even if the President wanted to trade Joe Biden for another vice president, Obama and his advisers know that has disaster written all over it.

It’s probably a good bet that Hillary Clinton, when she retires from her job as Secretary of State, won’t be hanging out at the local yarn store looking for baby bootie patterns. She’s made it clear that she’s committed to working on issues that impact women and girls globally. How better to do that than take a page from husband’s playbook and become an international ambassador for those issues? She’s seen that Bill Clinton’s star hasn’t faded and that the role of stateswoman who doesn’t need to worry about voters or political attacks could be pretty darn appealing

Sure, seeing Hillary Clinton on a road that could lead her to the Oval Office is a fantasy I’d like to indulge. But at some point every girl has to sit back, put her feet up and do something that’s just a little easier than wrangling with Syria. One thing I would bet money on is a Hillary Clinton-run Super PAC to get more women elected. After all, I hear some people are talking about Michelle Obama running for U.S. Senate from Illinois after 2016!

A version of this post was originally written for iVillage.com, where I’ll be working on election coverage through November 2012!

Image via WhiteHouse.org/Pete Souza

Happy birthday, Michelle Obama! Turning 48?  Hey, you’re still just a youngster! You know what they say — 48 is the new 28.

If you’re even a little bit like me, though, at 48 you see can see that big 5-0 staring you pretty clearly in the face. Don’t think about that right now. Give some thought to what you’d really like for a birthday treat. That might be hard to focus on after getting so upset about that whole “angry black woman” thing, but go ahead – it’s your birthday. Indulge!

I know you have enough clothes in your wardrobe, both for your fitness routines and in the designer category. I hear you can go pretty much anywhere you like on Air Force One, and you already have a few people to help out with the cleaning and the laundry. I’m assuming with the 2012 campaign in full swing, the President probably isn’t going to be heading out to Tiffany a la Newt Gingrich to get you anything this year, but I have four ideas about how you might enjoy your day:

Plan a getaway with the girls. I don’t mean Valerie Jarrett or your Chief of Staff, though I’m sure they’re lovely women. We already know you can sneak off to undetected Target or PetSmart. So I bet you could probably do the same for a couple of days to unwind with a gal pal or two, maybe hang out around the pool with a glass of white wine? OK, so maybe I’m projecting a little bit about what would be on my birthday wish list, but what high-profile woman couldn’t use a little time away?

If you can’t get away, then do the exact opposite. Head down to the White House theater, order up some snacks from the White House chef and hunker down with a reality show marathon. I know you might not admit it, but we all have a favorite guilty pleasure when it comes to the world of reality television. I know you’ve been a guest on one yourself, but I think a little time with something with a little less social value could help you enjoy the day. If you have a hard time choosing, I can messenger over a couple of complete seasons of Project Runway from the PunditMom viewing library.

Take an online course. No one will know it’s you. You can interact with some “real” people and cultivate one of your long lost hobbies. A little imagination is all it takes to come up with a faux identity and new Gmail account. I know I’m enjoying a nice photography inspiration class at the moment. Or you could try out this one to figure out whether you really want to run for Senate in 2016.

And of course, I think you need a copy of my book, Mothers of Intention. If you’re going to have to focus on getting women on board for your husband’s re-election campaign, I think you might find some good background here. Plus, some people have said it’s a great read!

So don’t worry about the whole almost-50 thing at the moment.  Remember, your husband was the one who had the mid-life crisis, so you don’t need to to that.  And just remember that 53 is the new 33.  I speak from experience on this one.

I know that’s not really news, but it’s good to have someone do a study about this sort of thing just to remind us that the more things change (there are more women in elective office today than a couple of decades ago), the more things stay the same (the numbers haven’t changed all that much in the last decade).  There are still only 17 women in the Senate and only 17% percent of the seats on the House of Representatives are held by women.

Talk about a glass ceiling.

Yes, I know a few people who are trying to change the dynamic of political conversation.  But female political representation is actually down and fewer women are running for elective office, even though every election cycle these days gets touted as a “year of the woman.”

The just-released report that looks at the state of things for political women is called “Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics,” authored by the same academics who brought us the book,  It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office.

Here are the seven reasons contained in the report for why men still rule the political world:

1. Women are more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates,

2. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s candidacies aggravated women’s perceptions of gender bias in the electoral arena,

3. Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office,

4. Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident, and more risk averse than their male counterparts,

5. Women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns,

6. Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office – from anyone, and

7. Women are still responsible for the majority of childcare and household tasks.

Do any of these surprise you?  I certainly didn’t fall off my chair when I read them.  Now, I’m a big fan of the whole ‘women should rule the world’ idea, but I also recognize the fact that it would be nice to accomplish that without all the name-calling and family-bashing and, let’s just say it, lying that goes on in the world of politics, especially when it’s played out on the big stage.  Who can blame women, or men for that matter, for wanting the steer clear if the mean-spirited vitriol that is political standard operating procedure?

One of the main reasons I quit practicing law was because I was tired of the uncountable number of lawyers (mostly men, I must say) who refused to play nicely and by the rules, and who would try every dirty trick in the book, including personal attacks, to win their cases.  So I can’t imagine making my life worse than it was then to run for office.

Life is just to short for that crap.  And while I am a political junkie and will write about it and analyze the world of political goings-on, I will never run for office because I’d never subject my family to it.  It makes me wonder why men are OK with letting their families suffer.  There are many organizations dedicated to convincing women to step up and run for office.  I admire that and I acknowledge that we won’t be able to create a political environment we want until more women are ready to jump into the fray.  I just don’t see that happening until things are a little more civil in the political world.

My good friend Karen was recently sort of begging people to step up and do something about this.  I certainly hear what she’s saying.   But I’m not holding my breath that we’ll see more women jumping into the political arena in my lifetime.  Unless I live to be about 150, that is.

Image via Amazon.com

I wasn’t lucky enough to get an early peek at “The Obamas,” the just-released book about the First Couple and their family, how they’ve fared living inside the Washington, D.C beltway, and the impact their experiences have had on their personal lives. (I’m still waiting for my copy to arrive via my Amazon Prime account!) The advance reviews of the new book by New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor suggest that it’s a compelling read, with lots of inside information about the First Family’s struggles, both personally and professionally. But some critics are wondering how much is fact and how much is Kantor’s spin, in light of the fact that she hasn’t interviewed the Obamas themselves since 2009.

The aspect I’m looking forward to most is what this book will tell us about Michelle Obama and her behind-the-scenes influence as First Lady. Not because I’m a voyeur, but because the story of how an accomplished professional woman used to speaking her own mind and being in control of her own destiny, who suddenly finds that way of life yanked out from under her, will resonate in numerous ways with many working women. Clearly the usual “work/life” balance issues so many of us juggle pale in comparison to what Michelle Obama has had to adjust to, but it sounds like the revelations about the impact that White House living has had on her life and marriage paint a picture of a woman trying to maintain her identity and voice, while navigating the dangerous political waters of being perceived as over-stepping the traditional role of a White House wife.

As a woman who came of age at about the same time as Mrs. Obama, that’s a story I want to read.

One review written by journalist and political spouse Connie Schultz remarks that it was clear from Kantor’s reporting that, “Mrs. Obama struggled with her changed role — in the world at large but also in her family. It was impossible to take her girls to school, or sometimes even attend their soccer matches, without embarrassing them with the accompanying ruckus. She also felt new limitations in her marriage — imposed, not by the president, but by his presidency. An accomplished professional, smart and wickedly funny, she was used to being Mr. Obama’s partner. Now his day was scheduled in five-minute increments, and she was abruptly recast as his helpmate.”

It can’t be easy to go from a life where friends and family can come and go at will to one where everyone has to be vetted by the Secret Service. How many of us would be upset if we were forced to switch our routine from being a regular at our children’s schools and soccer games to one of having to forgo a major part of our kids’ lives because of the security disruptions? And then, on top of that, how would any of us fare with having to navigate the waters of being a first among first couples, as the Obamas are as the first African-American First Family?

Even before the book was released, the White House denounced many of the accounts of Michelle Obama’s policy influence and frustrations with the President’s staff as mere gossip. But Kantor told the TODAY Show that she had access to “top aides, close friends,” and Mrs. Obama’s East Wing staff, who shared many of the stories in her book. Kantor has spent years making herself an expert on the Obamas, their life together, who they are as individuals and how they relate to one another. In the world of narrative non-fiction, it’s the job of the writer to make observations and draw logical conclusions based on those facts. That’s what we expect from writers of compelling non-fiction books. Without that, their stories would nothing more than dry timelines.

Schultz says in her New York Times review — “In lesser hands ‘The Obamas’ would be an act of astonishing overreach, but Ms. Kantor … has earned the voice of authority. A meticulous reporter, Ms. Kantor is attuned to the nuance of small gestures, [and] the import of unspoken truths.” And isn’t that the kind of book we all want to read? One that gives us insight and perspective into a story that’s more than just an account on the evening news?

A version of this post was written for iVillage, where I’m helping to head up the sites 2012 election coverage.

Welcome to the latest installment of BlogHer’s series Why I’m Political. I know lots of people steer clear of the world of politics or anything that makes you think about one more televised candidate debate! But the political means a lot of different things to different people, especially women. I learned that as I was writing Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America and discovered the women writers who contributed their essays to show the world that women in general, and mothers in particular, are not only motivated by important causes and issues, but they are writing publicly about those issues and are getting involved to in various ways to make a difference.

This week, I was pleased to interview Ilina Ewens, who writes at her personal blog Dirt & Noise, and contributed to Mothers of Intention with her essay, “Purchasing Power of Women.” Ilina wrote her essay after having to explain to her two young sons the importance of President Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law — so I wasn’t surprised that Ilina had a lot of things to say about being a politically minded woman!

What motivated you to become political and/or go public with your political views? Were you ever afraid of what your /friends/family would think?

I’ve never been one to shy away from controversy, though I don’t seek it out. I am confident in what I believe and think more women should feel free to speak their minds. So many women have told me what they think politically but don’t share because it’s different than what their fathers or husbands believe. It’s a tough position to be in. My political views and values are such a large part of who I am, so it wasn’t a conscious decision to write about politics. In fact, my very first blog post was about politics. It’s called “Feeling Blue.” I wrote about why I didn’t support George Bush and how I explained that to my sons.

What are the issues you most focused on now going into the 2012 campaign season? What issue do you think is important that the candidates aren’t talking about?

Education. It’s abominable that teacher salaries are being cut and less money is spent on educating our children. We need to change our paradigm to view education as an investment, not an expense. The future of our country is on the backs of children today. We can’t leave them to fend for themselves with no skills to not just cope, but to succeed, in the high tech, global climate that awaits them.

Coupled with the lack of education focus is the lack of support for families in general. It’s an outrage to me that conservatives rest on their “family values,” when their policies harm families more than help them. Our kids can’t succeed if they are hungry, hurting, homeless, abused, latchkey, or without bare necessities and resources. The working poor need help. The middle class needs help. We need to restore a sense of security and long-term vision to the people. Providing and valuing a sound education is the only way out and up. This seems like a no-brainer to me because the whole community is lifted by an educated society.

I think one reason education is so sorely neglected and undervalued is because teaching is a profession that is largely female. As a nation we don’t put the same value on women (take our crappy maternity leave policies as an example). This palpable neglect and discrimination against women must end. That drives me crazy, and that is what no candidate is talking about.

How do you connect your political views or activism with your role as a mother? Did your views/approach to the political world change after you had children?

I’ve always been opinionated and active in politics, since I could vote. I’ve always seen the world as a place bigger than the space I occupy (literally and figuratively). When I became a mother, my perspective shifted to make me see things in a broader way. I no longer focused just on the here and now; I started focusing on the future. The concept of legacy is important to me, mostly because I have no sense of that myself. I have a fierce desire to follow the cliche to leave the world better for my sons. I also want to show them firsthand that every single person matters and that being engaged in the system is

paramount to changing the world.

I have taken my sons canvassing and have taken them with me to vote in all elections big and small. We have marched in protests against the re-segregation of our school system and watched presidential speeches on television. I openly talk to my sons about the issues that matter to me and follow up with what we can do about it. I don’t want them to feel helpless and overwhelmed. I want them to see that being informed, educated, and involved makes a big difference. And I hope they pass that on their children one day.

What motivated you to write the essay that was included in Mothers of Intention?

I think mothers’ voices have been ignored, but social media has allowed us to speak out and speak up. We are a force, politically, socially, and financially. I love the community of women who contributed to Mothers of Intention and am proud to have contributed to the book. It should serve as a wake-up call to politicians and their handlers to stop underestimating the power and value of mothers. We advocate for multiple audiences — children, our husbands, our parents, teachers, caregivers, women, teens, girls, the list goes on — so our voices are powerful and relevant.

Recently you’ve done some writing at your blog, Dirt & Noise, as well as The Broad Side, about the issues in the Penn State sexual abuse story? What prompted you to write about issues involving abuse and how we react to that socially/politically?

Though we don’t want to admit it, we live in a culture of abuse. It’s more than the Kitty Genovese Syndrome. We have come to accept that hubris and power trump human decency. Certain segments of our population, often the young and/or disenfranchised among us, are victims of abuse. Those victims have little to no recourse. Our values are simply effed up when grown men put their careers and wallets first. This mindset is not unique to Penn State. I’ve seen it in corporations, too. Abuse gets brushed under a PR machine’s rug, and the culture doesn’t change. By allowing abuse to continue and not protecting victims, we as a society are saying that it’s acceptable. We condone this kind of violence by ignoring it. It has me seething.

Would you ever run for office?

No way. Too many skeletons that I can’t bear to bare. Plus, it’s a daunting task to run for office. I have a family and my own marketing consulting business, and I can’t imagine how I would juggle it all. But most of all, I also don’t have the temperament or decorum to play political games. I’m better with the written word than playing word games with a poker face. However, I did desperately want to be president of the United States when I was in first grade. My teacher, in not such a kind manner, told me I could never be president because I wasn’t born in America. I was crushed.

Who is not running for office right now that you wish was running?

My husband. Seriously. He is extraordinarily smart and compassionate, with no ego to get in his way. He is a rare professional who operates with the ideal balance of heart and head. He hasn’t an ounce of hubris and truly wants to focus on bringing opposing sides together rather than pushing forward his own agenda. He has strong opinions and is incredibly articulate and well informed. I’d love to see him make a difference locally. I also happen to think I’d make a fine first lady.

Who do you hope will be the first woman elected president of the United States?

I’d totally vote for you, Joanne! I find it astounding that India had a woman leader before the United States (I say this as an Indian woman who was raised in the U.S.). I met [U.S. Senator from Maryland] Barbara Mikulski once many years ago. She left a lasting impression. I think she’s got some Paul Wellstone spirit in her, and American politics is missing that kind of earnest passion. I would love to see her in office. I would heartily support [U.S. Senator from New York] Kirsten Gillibrand, too. I love her commitment to social issues and her understanding of how social issues integrate within the larger scheme. I bet we have a lot in common as we navigate raising compassionate, responsible boys. And I would love for her to Skype with my six-year-old son

so he could practice his Mandarin. What a leg up she has on the global stage with that skill!

What advice do you have for women online and other bloggers about how not to fear writing about important or controversial issues?

What’s most important is the tone you take. Write confidently and passionately. Tell a story to depict your position, rather than point fingers and call names. I admittedly can be snarky, but my voice still reflects my beliefs in a heartfelt, positive manner. Write for yourself and your main audience; don’t write to please the masses. I also reiterate to my readers that I use my blog and my voice to opine, not to report. Authenticity is important so share both your joys and heartaches. Controversy is easier to digest when it’s presented in a thoughtful way that clearly reveals the writer’s opinions and values. A little vulnerability can be a good thing to open up dialogue. There’s a big difference. In the online world everything is open to controversy. I even got jeers on a post I wrote about grilled cheese! I wrote about using your voice here.

What advice do you have for women who are thinking about doing more writing at their blogs that involves issues important to them, but who are wary about dipping their toes into potentially dangerous waters?

Start with something local. Write about what’s happening in your community. Make a call to action for a food drive or shed light on an issue others might not know much about. You don’t have to tackle the pro-choice debate on your first post. Write about what you know. You could even write about a topic that you want to explore more, and present your readers with some questions to garner their opinions. You don’t have to present yourself as an expert on every topic that moves you. It’s okay to present a mix of opinions and facts, because you’re sharing your ideas and values, not presenting objective news content.

Ilina Ewen is known as “Mommy” to two sons ages eight and six, affectionately called “Bird” and “Deal.” She’s a creative spirit with business sensibilities and a love for all things culinary. Ilina is a seasoned marketer with over 20 years of experience in branding, communications, advertising, and consumer research. She believes in the power of community and spends her time advocating for causes that touch her heart or ruffle her feathers. Ilina is a lover of words and has an affinity for Audrey Hepburn, the Oxford comma, and Meyer lemons. She writes about her musings and rants at Dirt & Noise (home of the weekly feature 5:00 Fridays, where you can find a new cocktail recipe and the story that inspired it), TypeAParent, and Technorati.

Cross posted at BlogHer.

Welcome to this month’s edition of the Why I’m Political series. Don’t run off! I know the word “politics” can be scary and conjure up images of never-ending presidential debates. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about thoughtful women from both sides of the political aisle sharing what motivated them to take the leap into writing publicly about issues important to them — and what they’re focused on as we enter the 2012 election season.

Some of the women in this series are contributors to my recent book, Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America (Bright Sky Press) , which explores the rise of women’s voices online.

This month, I interviewed Jaelithe Judy from The State of Discontent and MOMocrats about her essay, “Cynthia Davis is Right: Hunger is a Motivator,” which is about her experiences with childhood hunger. She was prompted to write that essay when Davis, then a Missouri State Representative, advocated that Missouri programs to help feed hungry children in the summer should be shut down to save money, suggesting that kids could just get a job at McDonald’s where they would get free food as employees.

Not surprisingly, Jaelithe had a few things to say about that, in her always thoughtful and eloquent style. Her post is extremely moving. I read an excerpt from her essay at a recent conference where I was speaking on a panel about storytelling, and I saw at least one person crying as I read Jaelithe’s words about the difference between being hungry and going hungry.

Jaelithe, who I have the honor of knowing through our work at MOMocrats, was very gracious about taking time out of her already overloaded schedule to chat:

What motivated you to become political and/or go public with your political views? Were you afraid of what your readers would think?

I’ve been interested in politics since I was old enough to begin to understand it. I was just a freshman in high school when I won a school-wide essay contest with a piece on the value of cultural diversity in schools.

As the child of a working-class, divorced teenage mother, growing up in one of the most dangerous and economically segregated cities in the country, I had a lot of school of hard knocks lessons early in life on just how personal politics can get. I know I was incredibly lucky to rise from those circumstances to the position I enjoy today as a college-educated, middle class person, and I also know that even though I worked like hell to get myself here I could not have done it without help — from neighbors, teachers, family and my country.

So I feel a responsibility to speak up about politics. I feel compelled to speak out on behalf of other Americans who have not had the same opportunities I’ve had to make my voice heard.

Of course I was scared of how the people who read my work would react. I still get scared all the time. But it’s scary to write about anything that’s important. If I’m not scaring myself now and again as a writer, I’m not working hard enough.

What are the issues you’re most focused on now going into the 2012 campaign season? What issue do you think is important that the candidates aren’t talking about?

Obviously, if you ask random Americans off the street what the most important campaign issue is right now, the answer you’ll hear again and again is, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Which of course is true. But it drives me absolutely bonkers when politicians say, “I’m going to create two million jobs in my first year in office,” and then do not elaborate in any meaningful way as to how they plan to do such a thing.

I view our struggling economy as a symptom of a whole set of bigger systemic problems. The economy is tied up with environmental and energy policy. I live in a state that’s been hard hit lately by natural disasters fueled by climate change, and you can bet that has not helped the economy. The economy is tied up with education. Our public education system is a disgrace, and it’s failing to produce good doctors, scientists, and entrepreneurs. There are more honors students in India right now than there are students, period, in the

United States. Is it any wonder that our jobs are being shipped overseas?

But of course the biggest reason our economy crashed so dramatically in 2008 is that there just wasn’t enough government oversight of financial institutions. You know, I don’t want onerous regulations that make it hard to do business. But I do think that corporations should be required to play fairly with consumers. If I swindled one of my neighbors the way some people have been swindled by banks in the past few years, I could be prosecuted for theft or fraud. Why should a bank get away with things a citizen can’t?

How do you connect your political views or activism with your role as a mother? Did your views/approach to the political world change after you had children?

Motherhood absolutely and permanently revoked my privilege to give up on the world in despair. The future is no longer an abstract place to me. It’s a real world my son will live in someday — hopefully for a long time after I’m gone. Becoming a mother made me so much braver about speaking up for what I believe in, because I simply have to be. Come what may, one day, when my son is an adult, I want to be able to tell him truthfully that I tried to make the world a better place.

I think a solid commitment to protecting the future is something mothers across the political spectrum have in common, actually, and I hope that gives mothers a special talent for finding common political ground.

Describe your additional writing that you’d call “political” since you wrote your incredibly moving essay about politics and hunger.

Lately I’ve been writing a lot about food policy at Care2.com. The way we eat is connected to so many very important political issues. Choosing a salad over a cheeseburger can change your carbon footprint. The cocoa in your hot chocolate may have been sustainably harvested, or it may have been doused in pesticides and picked by a starving child laborer who earns 40 cents a day. What kids are served in a school lunch program can affect their standardized test scores. Food choices matter, a lot more than many people consider, and I’m trying to illuminate some of the ways that those choices matter.

How have your political views impacted your relationships with your friends and family, if at all?

I have absolutely lost friends over politics. When I started writing for MOMocrats back in 2007, there were definitely a few other bloggers who just stopped talking to me. It makes me sad because I myself appreciate diversity in thought; I like listening to other people’s points of view — as long as they are well thought out, educated points of view. So I don’t generally want to stop being friends with someone just because we think differently on a political issue.

Some of my in-laws just don’t read much of what I write, on purpose, so they won’t get annoyed with me. But my mother absolutely approves. She even wrote a guest post for MOMocrats once! She’s never explicitly said so (gee, thanks, mom) but I think she’s really proud of me for growing up to be a bit of a professional rabblerouser. I definitely learned rabblerousing from her.

Would you ever run for office? If so, which one?

I think I would make a terrible politician. I was never the popular kid in school — I’m a major nerd, on purpose — and the idea of being famous sort of terrifies me.

I would also have a really hard time toeing a party line. I’ve always been much more interested in the policy part of politics than the partisan part. I care more about outcomes than who gets something done. When I was just a kid I had this sudden revelation that a typical partisan’s support of a political party bears an uncanny resemblance to a sports’ fan’s support of a favorite team, and that just seems ridiculous to me. Politics is much too important to be treated like a sport. Every time I vote, people’s lives may literally hang in the balance.

Who do you hope will be the first woman elected president of the United States? Why?

Elizabeth Warren. Because I think she’s like me — she cares more about policy than partisanship. And because she’s smart as hell, and willing to stand

up to anyone. She wasn’t afraid to criticize the president after he appointed her. I think that’s fantastic. A good president needs advisers who are willing to say “I think you’re wrong.”

What advice do you have for women online and other bloggers about how not to fear writing about important or controversial issues?

I don’t think there’s any way to totally banish that fear. What I did, personally, is put my fear into context. Am I more afraid of possibly offending someone, or more afraid of what might happen if no one speaks out on an issue that I find to be incredibly important? And really, are political controversies that develop in the blogosphere any worse than other sorts? People will argue for days over the best way to start tomato seedlings, or the merits of cloth diapering. I think we Americans need to get over this silly idea we have that it’s not polite to talk with friends about politics. If we don’t talk rationally to one another about politics, how will we ever get anything done?

Jaelithe Judy, mother of one, is a writer, editor and search engine optimization consultant who lives in St. Louis, Missouri. Jaelithe works on SEO at Cool Mom Picks and Cool Mom Tech, writes about sustainable food for Care2.com, is a semi-regular guest on the MOMocrats MOMochat Blog Talk Radio show, and occasionally remembers to write at her personal blog, The State of Discontent. In her spare time, Jaelithe grows far too many tomatoes, writes poetry that she never shows to anyone, and volunteers one day a week as an unofficial librarian at a school for children with special needs.

Originally posted at BlogHer.

Image courtesy Angie Lynch

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain isn’t really making a name for himself as a champion for women.

With allegations from at least four women that he sexually harassed them, and possibly sexually assaulted one, you’d think he’d dial back the anti-woman rhetoric, especially in the series of never-ending debates the Republicans are having to highlight their somewhat sorry field of dreams candidates.  Not to mention that his wife Gloria has already gone out on a ledge for him and proclaimed that he’s VERY respectful of women.

But I guess it’s hard to help himself, as he demonstrated when, in attacking Nancy Pelosi in a recent GOP debate on her stand on health care legislation.  Instead of outlining their differences, Cain decided it was a red meat moment a good vote-getting tactic to refer to one of the most powerful women in Washington as “Princess Nancy.”

Oh yes.  He went there.

There are a lot of things wrong with that, not the least of which is that as someone who was Speaker of the House — the first woman Speaker of the House in American history, thank you very much –  Pelosi deserves the respect of the title of her office, even during the most heated disputes over the issues.  But Republicans have a history of not being respectful toward powerful Democratic women.  When Hillary Clinton was a Senator, her opponents frequently refused to call her “Senator,” opting for the more dismissive “Mrs. Clinton” or just rudely calling her by her first name in situations where the menfolk always got referred to by their official titles.

You know if any Democrat tried to refer to Michele Bachmann as “Princess Michele” the conservative talk radio machine would be concocting all kinds of reasons that amounted to treason.

Herman should be careful (I figure if he can call the Minority Leader and the woman who used to be third in line for the presidency a “princess,” I can call him by his first name).  Pelosi is tough.  But she’s tough in that “I was raised in the 1960s, Baltimore is a rough political town” sort of way.  When she cuts with an insult, you won’t feel it until she’s long gone.  When asked recently about Cain’s remark, Pelosi scoffed, dismissing him as “clueless.”

My friend Angie noted shortly after Cain’s snarky remark, that Pelosi would look great in a crown.  But if she chose to wear one, I don’t think it would be the Disney Princess kind.

She’d be the King.

If you’re going to be royalty, I say go for the position with all the power — just pronounce yourself King.  I know, Pelosi is a woman, so that should mean she’ d be a Queen if she actually were royalty, but everyone knows that the word “king” evokes more power, even if it shouldn’t.

So, as all good debaters, when being asked about this whole princess nonsense, Pelosi took the king-like opportunity to talk about the next big thing on her political agenda — child care.  Real, affordable child care for all American families who are just trying to make ends meet.  She knows she’s going to take major conservative heat for putting that on the agenda.  I have no doubt she’ll get called all sorts of new names, like socialist or worse.  But she doesn’t care.  She knows she has the real power by not buying into the whole princess silliness and taking this moment of attention to promote a more important agenda that she believes makes sense.

Long live the King.

Image courtesy Angie Lynch

Image via latimes.com

I hate to break it to Gloria Cain, but I think she might be in denial about her husband Herman.

For Hillary Clinton, accusations against her husband President Bill Clinton about potential sexual extra-curricular activities could only be viewed as part of an ongoing “vast right wing conspiracy.”

The late Elizabeth Edwards initially believed that her husband John Edwards’  indiscretion with Rielle Hunter was a one time event, and let us all know that she had forgiven him, so we should too.

And then the tides infamously turned on both of those stories.

Clearly, we don’t know what Gloria Cain does or doesn’t know at this point about the allegations that have been made against her husband.  But there’s a long list of political wives who’ve each given their husbands the benefit of the doubt when it came to alleged sexual improprieties, only to have those stories change later.  So it’s hard to watch when yet another political wife becomes a character witness for the defense.  Gloria Cain may be right about Herman, but we know all too well how stories like this have frequently turned out in the past.  And it’s also not so uncommon for those who’ve been harassed or abused to wait years to come forward because of how they are often portrayed in the media, so the defense that these women would have come out sooner if their allegations of harassment were true doesn’t hold a lot of water.

I think Gloria might want to have a sit-down with Herman over dinner sometime soon.  Because while we all think we know our spouses or partners well enough to know their character and what they are, or are not, capable of, sometimes we’re wrong.  And then we’re surprised and shocked that we were wrong, and that we didn’t see the signs of something bigger before the truth hit us in the face.

Gloria says Herman Cain would have to have a “split personality” for the allegations against him to be true.  Like so many political wives who’ve come before her, she’s taking the “standing by her man” approach.   But we all know that could easily change sooner rather than later.