Image via NewYorker.com

Source: NewYorker.com

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 JodiKantor.net

The just-released, best-selling book “The Obamas“  written by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor is getting a lot of push back from the White House in connection with her reporting of Mrs. Obama’s interactions with the President’s staff and her portrayal of the ups and downs of the Obama family’s adjustments to White House life.  Michelle Obama has been quite vocal about the fact that she is not too happy with how she is portrayed, saying that she’s not “an angry black woman.”

After reading the book, I’m surprised that the White House isn’t embracing this account, especially with regard to the portrayal of Mrs. Obama.  No, she’s not what we might call a traditional First Lady — it’s clear that she feels confident enough in herself as an educated, professional woman that she can express her views and concerns to her staff, as well as to the President’s.  I don’t see that as a bad thing.

Jodi Kantor’s account is an in-depth look at the Obama family’s White House evolution and the growing pains that all First Families surely must go through. Kantor’s book paints a picture of a family with a shared sense of mission coming to terms with the public dissection of what were once a private conversations and moments.  And no, Mrs. Obama does not come across as a wallflower or timid presidential spouse.  She is clearly someone comfortable with talking about how certain issues and decisions impact the goals that the Obamas have for their tenure in Washington.  For anyone to suggest that this is a new thing in the world of First Ladies is either uninformed or just plain disingenuous.

Kantor had unprecedented access to the East Wing of the White House and Mrs. Obama’s staff.  In addition to many interviews she conducted “on background” — meaning she could quote what people said, but not identify them by name — as well as the on the record conversations she had with some of Mrs. Obama’s closest confidantes, it’s hard to criticize her reporting, even though it seems like the White House is trying.

So what does the author make of all this attention – good and bad – for a book she’s worked on for years? I caught up with Kantor, who also happens to be a busy mom of a six-year-old daughter, to get her thoughts on White House marriages, the notoriety she’s received for the book, and who she was really writing it for.

Q: Why do you think we’re fascinated with the marriages of First Couples?

A: I think we’re interested in seeing transitions from a private marriage to what [inevitably] becomes something of a super-marriage. Conversations First Couples had before arriving at the White House were interactions that always remained private. Once a couple moves into the White House, all those personal, private debates become public.

Q: What made you want to write this book?

A: I was inspired to write “The Obamas” partly because many women [who were Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008] came up to me while I was covering that that campaign and said there just weren’t enough stories about women and politics that speak to us [as women.] Some of my friends have often wondered why certain stories about family life in the White House don’t make headlines. I was also inspired by the Doris Kearns Goodwin book, “No Ordinary Time” that portrayed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt as true political partners. I liked that “No Ordinary Time” gave equal time to each of their stories.

I also wanted to write a book that showed how White House families evolve and change over time. That’s difficult to do in day-to-day news coverage. But I thought it would be interesting to write a book that would illustrate how a first couple changes and transforms, showing the readers that the people they meet at the beginning of the book aren’t the same at the end. Both of the Obamas learned how to cope with certain frustrations and difficulties [of White House life]. I think those lessons of growth are very powerful.

Q: Do you think people would respond differently to some of the stories about Michelle Obama if they were about a “First Husband?”

A: First Ladyhood won’t change until we elect our first woman president. Once we have a First ‘Gent’ – a role that will come with no preconceived expectations – it will be easier for subsequent First Ladies to change what that role can be. The first First Lady we have after the first woman president will be a lucky woman!

Q: How do you feel about the criticism the book is receiving for what some see as a portrayal of Michelle Obama as an “angry black woman?”

A: I’m surprised that some people perceive an “angry back woman” undercurrent in the book. I was very careful to write the book in a way that I thought moved beyond stereotypes, which I’ve tried to do my other writing about the Obamas.

Q: When I read and heard some of the book’s reviews, I wondered why there was little about parenting in the White House. Then as I read your book, it became clear that you do address that throughout, including a whole chapter dedicated to that topic!

A: Yes, I really wanted to address that part of the Obamas’ lives and [as a mother myself] write the book for an audience that I really wanted to speak to – women and mothers. But I also wanted to write about how parenting [in a fishbowl] has impacted the lives of all their family. For example, I shared what I thought was a [relatable] parenting story in the book about the time the President was speaking about education initiatives and announced nationally that he had been disappointed that Malia had received a score of only 73 on a test. She got really mad at her dad and he apologized to her later for that.

Kantor and I agreed we could have talked for hours on the parenting aspects of the Obamas’ story, as well as what women would really like to see from other women in politics. Fingers crossed we get to have that conversation soon.

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

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.

Image via iStockPhoto/Daniel Deitschel

In just a few hours, the caucusing for both Republicans and Democrats will start in Iowa, officially kicking off the 2012 presidential primary season.  I have no doubt it’s going to be a long and bumpy road between now and November.

There’s been a lot of chatter on the talking head shows about Iowa for many weeks as the polls gauging the the frontrunners seem to change almost hourly.  For some down-to-earth perspective on things in Iowa, check out my post wondering about whether the Iowa Caucuses really deserve all the hoopla they receive.

But don’t just listen to me!  There are two excellent pieces over at my new group venture that is an online magazine of the best women’s commentary from around the web, The Broad Side: Real Women. Real Opinions.

Broad Side contributor and former syndicated columnist Marie Cocco writes about Predictable Iowa Portends Tough Obama Re-election Road.

Broad Side guest contributor Sonia Walsh reminisces about her Iowa Caucus experience four years ago, and why she thinks the process is a good one.

And Heather Barmore at Poliogue blog reminds us that there are some important things missing in Iowa that we’re not talking about in her piece, Caucus Eve.

Who else is writing about Iowa in way that resonates with you more than the usual suspects on the cable news shows?

The “new, old” Obama was on display this week in Kansas, invoking the name of another populist president, Theodore Roosevelt:

“I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them.”

He’s clearly in full rallying-the-base mode with this kind of speech and he’s going to need every last vote from that group to win in 2012.  Observers are saying this recent speech is reminiscent in tone of the one he made at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, when he was just a mere blip on the political radar as Illinois State Senator Obama:

“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of ‘anything goes.’ Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an “awesome God” in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

So as a Democrat, I should be happy and excited that the President has gotten his political groove back, right?  Sadly, while his public appearances are great, there are some other headlines that suggest that the President doesn’t know which side his political bread is buttered on.

Two announcements from the administration suggest that the President’s 2012 campaign team has started a strategy of pandering to the conservatives.  First, a recommendation by the Food and Drug Administration to allow the contraceptive Plan B to be sold over the counter to all customers was shot down by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  News reports say that’s the first time that has ever happened.  Ever.

The FDA’s recommendation would have allowed teens under 18 to have access to what’s often called the “morning after” pill without a prescription, based on the research provided to the FDA.  According to a post at RH Reality Check:

[The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step.  Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a health care provider.  [Emphasis added.]

As if that story about what seems to be a wavering commitment to reproductive rights isn’t enough to make me question what’s going on in those strategy sessions at the White House, there are now news reports that the Obama administration has launched a high profile investigation into food stamp fraud just as 2012 is upon us.    Banking fraud and Wall Street fraud that caused our economy to tank in 2008?  No investigation.  Possible wrongdoing by hungry Americans?  That’s SOOO much more important to fixing economy, isn’t it.

So in addition to populist-sounding speeches, the White House apparently has decided that the way to win re-election is to go on the attack against pregnant teens and food- stamp recipients.  Maybe polling shows those demographics don’t vote much, so the administration can ignore promises made in the past in order to woo some conservative voters who don’t like reproductive rights or Americans who need financial assistance.

So I have to ask — which Barack Obama is running for president?  The one who wants to lift all boats and make us a better nation by bringing us together and advocating policies that will benefit us all?  Or the one who seemingly is directing his administration to keep some conservatives happy?

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t want any of the Republican candidates to become president in 2012.  But President Obama should be careful about playing with policy to allay conservative fears about teen sex or poor people on food stamps.   If he’s not careful, he’ll start alienating those who fervently supported him and campaigned for him four years ago.  He’s already slipping in his support numbers from that group.  If he doesn’t want to move back to Chicago until 2016, he really can’t afford to be seen as abandoning the philosophies of his base in favor of a handful of red votes.

Image via barackobama.com

Lace as a Metaphor for Political Change from The Woman Citizen

Not Oprah’s Book Club: Sister Citizen at Feministing

Could Unmarried Women Cost Obama Re-election in 2012? at Huffington Post

Senate blocks money for teachers, firefighters at the Washington Post

W. enters my wife’s school board race at Salon, an astonishing look at how corporate money is impacting even local races

Discuss!

Image via Joanne Bamberger.  All rights reserved.

Where were all these Hillary Clinton lovers in 2008?  Oh, wait, they were around, but they were the Hillary Clinton haters back then.  If you haven’t noticed, in the weeks since the whole debt ceiling ‘our fighting toddlers get along better than Washington politicians’ debacle, media stories have been popping up wondering whether things would be different in America today if Hillary had won in 2008.

Did Democrats make a mistake by selecting Barack Obama as their candidate?  Did we go for the flash instead of the substance?  If “President Hillary” were in office, would things be different with the economy?

Some commentators still believe there’s a chance that the Secretary of State is pondering one more run for the White House even though she’s said, oh, about, a million times that she has no interest in another Presidential campaign. Maybe the American people can send a love letter?

The fantasy of  ‘she who could have been our first woman president’ is too GOOD to let go of.   It’s clearly been a trending hot topic — except when the talking heads want to criticize her for supposedly going all emotional when Osama bin Laden was killed, implying that maybe she would have been too weak to be Commander-in-Chief.

Even former Vice President Dick Cheney is getting in on the “I miss Hillary” conversation, but we all know that’s just part of his effort to ensure ongoing Democrat infighting to put any Republican (especially another one he can control) into the White House.  Ah — a true political love story if ever there was one.

There’s only one person in the world who has the ability to convince Hillary that a Pennsylvania Avenue address is better than the one she’s using in Chappaqua — and that’s Bill.  He’s loving his role as international statesman, but you know his arm wouldn’t have to be twisted too hard to have another chance at Washington, even if it would be as the First Dude.  So maybe I should start stocking up on the Hillary in 2012 paraphernalia.  Then we just have to sit back and wait to see what the prognosticators have to say about who her VP choice would be!  May I suggest Elizabeth Warren?

But even taking the usual presidential exhaustion into account, I can’t help but notice that Barack Obama just doesn’t seem to be himself lately.  His appearances seem forced and uncomfortable.  At televised appearances he looks like he’s just going through the motions and I keep wondering why.

And then it occurred to me that maybe Obama doesn’t want to win a second term in the White House.

Of course, he has to run — the last time a sitting president who was eligible to run for a second term decided he wasn’t interested was Lyndon Johnson.  He knew he couldn’t win in light of the Vietnam War, so for the sake of the party, he stepped aside. (Of course, it turned out that Johnson didn’t really do the Democrats any favors since we ended up with Richard Nixon).

Exhibit A in the “Obama isn’t going to run” argument?  He really didn’t seem to up for the whole debt ceiling debate with the GOP.  When he finally talked to the nation, there were no fightin’ words.  There was no sense of the Obama who fired up voters in 2008.  There was just someone who couldn’t believe he was having to convince us — again — that partisan gridlock wasn’t going to solve anything.

Then he sort of looked like Droopy the Dog as he backed off soon-to-be-enacted EPA regulations for cleaner air (which would only benefit our kids’ health, after all),  saying that was better for businesses and job creation.

He pretty much handed the media a week’s worth of pointless, but costly, criticism when he headed off on summer vacay.  No one piece of  evidence screams, “Get me back to Chicago!”  But when the President decided to take the family to Martha’s Vineyard, he set himself up for criticism that he was being all golf-y and elite again — conservatives love to reprise that one.  (FYI conservative media — lots of normal folks go there, too).  I get it that if he vacations at all he has to go somewhere a little remote and protectable — hence, an island!  But if he had really wanted to keep from doing any more damage to sagging his poll numbers, maybe he just should have stayed in the White House, watched some DVR’d movies with the kids and microwaved some popcorn.

But the piece de resistance in my hunch that maybe President Obama has a calendar with the heading, “Countdown to January 2012″ is a re-election slogan that appeared in an E-mail received by one of my friends  – “Let’s Do It Again.” Seriously? That’s a major come down from Hope and Change.  If he really wants to stay in the White House until Malia is in high school, his people better get to work on something with a little more spirit.

Collectively, President Obama’s recent decisions and actions have a feeling of hopelessness and ambivalence.  Sort of like he’s thinking that Jimmy Carter didn’t do so bad personally after just one term in the White House and he’s looking for Carter’s speed-dial to get some post-presidential tips.

Sure, the President seemed like the old, peppy Obama at the Labor Day rally.  And I’m sure that someone is going to tell him he needs to lose a little bit of the professorial demeanor for his jobs speech.  But if President Obama really does want to win in 2012 (and I’m not sure he does), he’d better dig deep.  Because after the GOP debate at the Reagan library, it’s clear that the group of candidates are collectively ready to take him down, regardless of which one of them lands on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Image via zimbio.com

As we are now firmly entrenched in the 2012 campaign, if you want to read something that will give you some real hope about voters and the whole process, please check out my new book, Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America (Bright Sky Press, 2011).

OK, there were about 200 other people in the room, too. But we were both eating in the same place at the same time!

Bachmann was at the National Press Club and, as a member, I was lucky to snag a couple of tickets so Mr. PunditMom and I could see and hear the Tea Party powerhouse up close and personal. No, it’s not our usual kind of date, but it is part of our theory on the importance of knowing what those on the other side of the political aisle are up to.  So when one of them is in your ‘hood, why not go?

Bachmann pretty much took the opportunity to give her standard stump speech — raising the debt ceiling is bad, President Obama is bad, Ronald Reagan was a saint, Constitution, God, Americans are scared.  You’ve heard it before.

But it was at the National Press Club.  So that means questions that aren’t planted or scripted.  Heh.

She refused to talk about the family business that supposedly helps gays pray away the gay.  “My husband isn’t running for President, I am, so I won’t answer that,” she said.  Although she did make a couple of references to she and her husband making the decision together for “us” to run for President.

Sorry — I didn’t mean to write something to induce nightmares.

When asked whether Speaker of the House John Boehner should resign if he can’t get a GOP-approved debt ceiling package passed, she didn’t comment other than to say, “I’m not running for Speaker of House.”  When asked how she felt about corporate campaign spending, she was right in there with her First Amendment argument that we should all be able to give however much we can, regardless of whether it’s a person or a corporation.

And, of course, when asked about how she combines her faith with her politics, she said if she is elected President, she will ask the Lord for His guidance every day about how to run the country and will pray every day for each and every American.

Mr. PunditMom had a headache when we left.  My stomach hurt, but I think maybe it was just the sauce they served on the fish.

Bachmann didn’t say anything that surprised me.  But I did come away with one unanswered question.  Two of her daughters were at the speaker’s table with her.  One is in high school and one is in college.  They didn’t speak, but they certainly seemed like lovely girls.  As I sat there nibbling that Tea Party cookie (I couldn’t help myself — nervous habit), I wondered what they think of their mother’s political positions.  It must be a heady thing to be a child and have your mom running for President of the United States.  I guess they might have to ask Chelsea Clinton about that.  But what if they don’t agree with their mother’s positions?

Bachmann was raised in a Democratic family and she said that the only Republican she knew growing up was her grandmother.  You know how they say things skip a generation?  I think that would be some pretty interesting dinner table discussion if one them announced they were switching back to the original Bachmann family party affiliation.

As for my new close, personal relationship with Bachmann, maybe I can get her to pop over to our house and I’ll autograph a copy of my book for her!