Lawyer Mama

Remembering Elizabeth Edwards

In the Summer of 2007, I attended my first BlogHer convention.  I had been blogging for about a year and had just begun flirting with writing about politics.  I had very firm opinions about everything from women's rights to foreign policy, but I wasn't a political blogger.  Oh no.  Why would anyone listen to what I had to say about politics?

But at BlogHer 2007, sitting in an audience of women (and a few men), I listened to Elizabeth Edwards talk about politics, her battle with breast cancer, and the power of women online, and all of that started to change.

I had supported John Edwards from my cozy armchair during his presidential run in 2004. I supported him again during the Democratic primary in 2008. And shortly after BlogHer in 2007, I heard that a group of women I greatly admire were starting a political blog for mothers supporting John Edwards for president. I asked pleaded begged to be a part of it.  And all of a sudden, I was a MOMocrat.

I don't want to revise history.  Despite the fact that John Edwards turned out to be a complete asshat and a poor excuse for a human being, leading up to the 2008 primary he was the only one talking about the issues that mattered most to me.  He was the first Democratic candidate to come up with a comprehensive health care reform plan and his talk of "Two Americas" brought the plight of poverty in the US to light.  Poverty isn't something that politicians like to talk about.  Not a lot of poor people are out there making political donations and their advocates don't have a lot of money either. But John and Elizabeth Edwards were acting as the voice for the people in this country who need it most.  I admired that.  I still do.

Elizabeth Edwards inspired me to write about my convictions. She inspired me to become a MOMocrat, to let my voice as a mother, a woman and a citizen be heard. I like to remember the time I had a chance to participate in a conference call with Ms. Edwards. (Some of my lucky fellow MOMocrats in California got to meet with her in person.)  Here's an excerpt from my blog post after the call:

Read the rest of this post on MOMocrats....

BlogHer Interviews Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

This morning, BlogHer's Morra Aarons Mele interviewed Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about health care reform.  BlogHer landed the interview late last week and then had to get the word out in the middle of Snowpocalypse 2009.  I'm really impressed that Secretary Sebelius kept the scheduled interview at 9:30am, even though the federal government was officially closed today because of the Winter storm.

You can see all of the questions posed by BlogHer members on the BlogHer website, including my own question regarding restricting access to abortion.  If you scroll down a bit after my comment, check out the comment by Cyn.  I think she asked the question far more thoroughly, and more coherently, than I did!

Secretary Sebelius answers my question, in part, at about 3:20.

Here is my question/comment in full:

I'm concerned about the possibility that several states will pass mini-Stupak amendments, severely restricting abortion access for many women.

It seems that the media, and even most politicians, have focused solely on the affect Stupak (on the national or state level) would have on optional abortions.  What seems to be missing from this debate is any knoweldge about medically necessary abortions - otherwise known as a D&C.  D&C's are frequently performed when a natural miscarriage is incomplete to prevent hemorhagging and infection.  

Perhaps I'm hyper aware of this because of my own struggles to have a child and the 2 medically necessary d&c procedures I've endured - both covered by insurance. But I am absolutely infuriated that a woman's health and future fertility could be put at risk by such an amendment.  I fail to see how this is any different from restricting access to medical treatment for any other condition.

Is the administration aware of this?  What will the administration do to ensure that women (and this does solely affect *women*) aren't put at risk by the willingness of politicians to serve up abortion rights as "compromise."  The reproductive health of so many women could be at stake.

For those of you who aren't aware, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) negotiated an amendment to the Senate version of the health care bill that would permit states to place further restrictions on funds used for abortion.  This will allow states to create their own mini-Stupak amendments.  The Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House version of the bill, restricted federal funds used for abortions in plans on the exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or the where the life of the mother is in danger.  There is no exception for procedures that are medically necessary to protect the future fertility of the mother if it doesn't rise to the level of risk of death.

Secretary Sebelius didn't address the more specific concerns that I mentioned in my question, but to be fair, the whole question wasn't asked. I understand why the more general question was asked.  Morra had a set amount of time and it's nearly impossible to ask someone in Secretary Sebelius's position to comment on individual situations.  I should have crafted my question more broadly to specifically address how restrictions will impact medically necessary abortion procedures.  

Don't get me wrong, even if the bill had been drafted more precisely, I'd still be annoyed.  Abortion is a legal procedure.  And it definitely needs to be.  A good friend, and fellow local progressive, became a nurse before abortion was legal.  She still shudders when she talks about what happened to some women forced to seek back alley or do-it-yourself abortions.

Unfortunately I think the concerns many women have about restricting abortion access are simply being ignored.  My fear is that restricting optional abortion access will lead to restrictions of medically necessary abortions, ensuring that only women of means will be able to obtain an abortion, whether optional or medically necessary. The idea that a legal procedure, one that is frequently necessary to preserve the future fertility of women, will be restricted, is infuriating to me. I don't see why the Nelson amendment couldn't have been crafted more creatively and specifically to prevent this.  Unfortunately, Congress is using an axe and a sledgehammer when they should have used a surgical knife to carefully carve out restrictions to a legal medical procedure.

Google, Abortion and Women's Rights

A few weeks ago Google made headlines when the Department of Justice urged the judge in a class action lawsuit against the search engine giant, brought by the Author's Guild and five major book publishers, to reject the proposed settlement between the parties.

The lawsuit arose over Google's plan to scan published books and make them searchable online through Google Book Search.  A Google press release has this to say about the program,

Google’s innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Google Book Search was launched in 2004, and today enables the full text searching of more than a million books online. More than 20,000 publishers and 28 libraries around the world currently work with Google to market their books through the service. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com and books.google.com.

The plaintiffs allege that Google is violating copyright laws. 

Google's consistent response to criticism of its Book Search program has been to laud the open flow of information that will result from making the world's libraries accessible online.  Indeed, Google's stated purpose as a company is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

So imagine my surprise when I read an article from AWID today reporting that Google is restricting ads for abortion services in 15 countries.  The restrictions come from an update to Google's AdWords policy from 2008.  The policy states that Google will no longer accept ads for abortion services in the listed countries.  If you aren't sure what AdWords is, go to Google and type in a search.  The links that show up along the right hand side bar and just above your search results are paid advertisements and they can be helpful if you're looking for a business or a service in your area.

There's been plenty of controversy over Google's AdWords program, or Google's restriction of certain ads.  In 2008, Google restricted ads that would name the companies who have donated to politicians.  So, this controversy isn't a new one.  Under the AdWords contract terms, Google can refuse to run any ad it likes.  I can't quibble with that.  But, considering the great power that The Google can wield with its search engine, I'm horrified that they're using that power to restrict, rather than expand, women's access to reproductive care information.

I suspect that Google began restricting these ads to appease some cultures and make it easier for Google to operate in certain countries.  Google was probably trying to avoid controversy.  But by restricting reproductive health care service ads, Google may as well be making a moral judgment for women in those 15 countries.  If Google is supposed to be dedicated to making information more accessible, then doesn't its restriction of abortion service ads directly contradict its purpose?

I think it does.  Google, shame on you.

Hear My Story: Health Care Stories from Mothers

I'm incredibly lucky.  I've never had to worry about health care.  You see, I was born into a military family and CHAMPUS, and then TRICARE, covered me until the day I got married.  (Note to naysayers of "government run" health care: TRICARE covers all active duty military families.) 

Then I was on my husband's employer paid health insurance through law school and up until I started working full time as a lawyer.  As you may imagine, working for a law firm provides excellent benefits.  In fact, my first law firm covered 100% of my health insurance premium and a very large percentage of my husband's and then Hollis's premiums.

When we moved down to Southeast Virginia and I left my law firm with the fabulous benefits, we switched to T's plan offered through his company.  It was basically the same plan offered by my new law firm, but we were required to pay less of the premium.  So, we had a lot of choices.  Either way, we always knew that our family would be covered.

When I was pregnant with Hollis I developed gestational diabetes.  I had a high risk pregnancy and many complications, one of which resulted in twice weekly ultrasounds, constant biophysical profiles at the hospital and an emergency c-section on a day I certainly wasn't planning to have a baby.  The bills for my pregnancy, surgery and our hospital stay easily topped $70,000.  With Holden, we went through the same routine but the high risk care and constant monitoring started even earlier because we already knew what was going to happen.  So with Holden, I probably easily racked up $80,000 in bills. 

Out of the $150,000 or so in pre-natal and hospital care I received, we paid maybe $1000.  And I'm erring on the high side in my estimate.  Feel free to hate me, but I know how lucky I am.  Never once did I have to worry about how I would pay for my medical care.  Never once did I have to choose between paying my mortgage or paying for the ultrasounds that ensured my babies were healthy while housed in my flawed, diabetic body.

When I read stories like Sophie's, I realize just how lucky I am.  I never had to worry about a choice between healthy children and bankruptcy, or owning a home, or buying groceries. Those are choices a mother should simply never have to make.

In response to all of this, MOMocrats is running a series called "Hear My Story."  With this series, we'll be highlighting the stories of mothers, real people like all of us, and their experiences with our current health care system: mothers like Natalie, who has fought tooth and nail and given up career advancements to ensure that her daughter can remain insured; mothers like Karoli, who lives in fear that her husband has undiagnosed heart disease that they simply can't afford to have diagnosed; mothers like Sheila, who have discovered that something as simple as an ear infection can render us "uninsurable;" mothers like Jennic, who have survived cancer only to discover that insurance companies won't touch her with a 10 foot pole.

If you'd like to participate, grab the button code below and share your story.  We'll be collecting your stories and hand delivering them to key elected officials in Washington, D.C. 

Our goal is to make Congress listen, without screams and angry signs, but with the words of the mothers of this nation who are worried about keeping their families healthy.  We're doing this, not just for our children, but for every child and every mother in America. No mother should ever worry about whether she can afford to keep her children healthy. No mother should ever have to choose between bankruptcy and adequate health care.

<a href="http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/"><img src="http://momocrats.typepad.com/hear.jpg/"> </a>

As an added bonus, I'm one of the lucky 1% or so of gestational diabetics who become full fledged diabetics during pregnancy.  It's the gift that keeps on giving.  While it's great for guilt tripping the kids when they get a little older, it's a little terrifying to think of what could happen. I'm now self-employed. If my husband loses his job or his health insurance, no insurance company will touch me with a 10 foot pole.  I am completely uninsurable under an individual policy.

So, yes, I have to say again that I am incredibly lucky.  But I don't think that "luck" is the basis for good public policy.  Our families deserve more.

Rachel Maddow Hands Pat Buchanan His Rear End (Again)

Just a little update from my post last week about the "debate" between Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow over the Sotomayor hearings.

Would Women Rather Have Equal Pay or a Prayer Caucus? Hmmm....

Please welcome Progressive Gal, a dear friend of mine who blogs at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife. She's been my political partner in crime since she cyber-stalked me and we met for the first time in July of 2008.

Although you probably wouldn't know this from reading my political posts at MOMocrats, Glenn Nye is not really my congressman.  My actual congressman, Randy Forbes, is a right wing Republican.  He was also running against a Democratic candidate in 2008 who didn't have a bat's chance in hell or two nickels to rub together.  So PG and I threw our efforts into the congressional race in the 2nd District between Thelma Drake and Glenn Nye.  Sometimes we like to pretend that we live in his district but, alas, we do not.

When PG wrote our actual congressman about his vote regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he wrote back an email that pissed us both off. We had to reply, and so we wrote this response together. 

Snark by PG, wonk by me.

***************************************************

With the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by both the House and Senate, we wanted to take the time to share the rationale of one Congressman who voted against it. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) is one of the 171 Congressmen who voted against equal pay for women. Here is an excerpt from his (or apparently a less able staffer's) lackluster rationale to defend his vote against women along with our critique of his arguments. The short version is: I really care about fair pay, really I do. I just don't want to take any measures that actually ensure any regulation. You'll just clog up the court system when they need to be concentrating on other things like ensuring my rights to use taxpayers' time and money to host Congressional Prayer Caucuses. It's all about family values, dontcha know?

Here is his response:

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a vote of 247 - 171 without my support. This bill would allow employees to file charges of alleged employment discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged discrimination. By permitting such claims to be brought within 180 days - not of a discriminatory pay decision, but of a paycheck affected by that decision - the measure would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations on such cases. While this bill's stated intention was to improve pay equity, this ill-advised provision would almost certainly encourage the filing of claims that are not timely, and thus add to the already considerable burden on the courts. There is no evidence to suggest that the current statute of limitations has resulted in any demonstrable prejudice against claims by employees for pay discrimination.

Well, Congressman Forbes, let's talk about your "problems" with the bill.

1. Statute of Limitations

Congressman, you state that permitting claims to be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck affected by that decision would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations. Ummm, we're not seeing how. Once an employee leaves the company, she has 180 days to file suit. Looks like a pretty clear limitation to me.

Moreover, the "statute of limitations" effectively set by the Supreme Court case the Ledbetter legislation overturns, only permits women to recover for pay discrimination in the 180 day period before they file an EEOC complaint, no matter how long the discrimination has occurred, how the company concealed it, or how egregious the violation. This limitation effectively nullifies the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most people don't openly discuss their salaries, particularly when starting a new job. In fact, some company policies prohibit employees from discussing their salaries with other employees. If that's the case, no employee could ever discover that they had been discriminated against in a salary decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, effectively places the burden on the employee to prevent the pay discrimination. This burden should be on the company not the employee. The company is the only party with all of the pay information. Placing this onus on the employee effectively permits companies to discriminate at will. Is that what you mean by wanting to "ensure that businesses are able to operate in an environment where they can grown [SIC] and thrive."

2. Overburdened Courts

You also claim that the new legislation will "encourage" untimely pay discrimination suits and increase the burden on our court system. Let's talk about what "untimely" means. If a suit is filed within 180 days of a paycheck affected by a discriminatory decision, how is that untimely? See paragraph #1 if you're still confused about why it is that employees can't jump on the lawsuit bandwagon immediately after a pay decision.  Pay discrimination often adds up in small increments over time, only become noticeable or "lawsuit worthy" after the period set by the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter case.

You are correct that the intent of the new legislation is to increase pay equity. Without this legislation, pay inequity will almost certainly continue. The easy fix for this is, of course, for companies to carefully consider the basis for their pay decisions and to ensure that inequity doesn't result from gender bias. You may find this surprising, but most companies don't change their practices unless they will suffer financially if they do not.  Therein lies the "motivation" behind much of our country's workplace legislation.

Following your line of reasoning, perhaps we should stop prosecuting claims of civil rights violations, or maybe we should let rape and murder slide. After all, our courts are awfully busy. Where do we stop? Where is the line? When exactly is it acceptable to discriminate? Congressman Forbes, I guess you have decided the line is drawn right before women get equal pay. Thanks so much. Professional women and girls across America thank you for attempting to prevent our judicial system from becoming overburdened.

3. No Evidence of Demonstrable Prejudice

Congressman, you really saved the best for last, didn't you?  You state that there has been "no demonstrable evidence" of employees prejudiced by the current statute of limitations.  Amazingly, you did this without a hint of irony given the personal moniker of the Act. Who do you think Lilly Ledbetter is, Congressman? We've read her court cases. We know that the trial court did indeed find that Ms. Ledbetter was discriminated against by Goodyear in pay decision after pay decision. The 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the statute of limitations, effectively limiting Ms. Ledbetter's recovery for 20 years of discrimination to pay decisions made in 1997 and 1998. I'd call that prejudice.

Oh, and Mr. Congressman, the fact that you responded to our initial query with an email addressed to "Mister," assuming the writer was a man, does perhaps explain your indifference to women's issues. Perhaps you also assume that the absence of a "Women's Issues" link on your website's issue page is compensated for by having a "Family Values" link. Or, maybe you just don't want to highlight your dearth of support for your women constituents and hope we'll all be satisfied by you praying for us at one of your prayer caucuses or writing letters in support of funding abstinence-only sex education.

Whatever the case, we can assure you that women can, and do, follow the issues. We also read court cases, legislation, and voting records. We also happen to campaign against those politicians we feel don't share our value systems. And, we do all this while being wives and mothers.

We know you have two years until your next election, Mr. Congressman, but this is your warning notice. You've seriously pissed off these two constituents. First with your vote and then with the thin, unsubstantiated response you provided. Perhaps you don't care about the voices of two women, but we should warn you that we have big mouths, a political network of progressive women (many of whom happen to live in your district) and the motivation to make sure you aren't in office in 2011.

Sincerely,
Progressive Gal &
Lawyer Mama

P.S. Please teach your staffers how to proofread if you want to be taken seriously.

Cross posted at MOMocrats, where Lawyer Mama joins other powerful lady bloggers in using her voice to call out politicians like Randy Forbes, and at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife, where Progressive Gal does the same.

In case anyone is wondering, Glenn Nye voted for the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.  Yet another reason why we are his political "groupies."

MOMocrats = Genius

Procrastinating today, I found this website that will tell you the reading level of your blog.  I saw it over at Vivian's blog, The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife.  Her blog is college level.  And I?  Am an intellectual snob.  So, of course, I had to punch in Lawyer Mama.

Oy.  This is poetic justice in action, I guess.

TV Reviews

Well, I do have a fondness for potty humor. Maybe that explains it.

So then I tried out MOMocrats.  You know, those fantastic ladies who let me spout off about politics and gush over Glenn Nye?  I knew there was a reason I loved them all so much!

Movie Reviews

So does this mean that I'm a genius by association? Or does it just reveal the poor judgment of the founding sisters who let me in?  Wait.  Don't answer that!

Oh & I have an actual semi-substantive post up on MOMocrats.  I'm waxing on about Glenn Nye again, only this time it's Congressman-elect Glenn Nye!

A Letter to My Sons: Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

I got the idea for this post from the beautiful and wise City Mama.  "Thanks, my dear.  If your daughters grow up to be half the woman you are they will be lucky indeed. - LM."

Dear Hollis & Holden,

Tomorrow is November 4, 2008.  That date doesn't mean much to you now, but I'm hoping that someday it will.  You'll learn the date that the United States elected the John F. Kennedy of my generation.

It's hard for me to explain to you both, at 3 and 4, just what this election means to me.  All you know right now is that Mommy hasn't been home a lot and you wish I could put you to bed more often.

You see, once upon a time I was young and idealistic.  I wanted to help people and change the world.  But then I discovered that putting yourself out there can hurt, really hurt, when you fail.  I became an arm chair activist, donating money instead of my time, and talking and writing about social justice instead of taking action.

Then I had the two of you.

You see, voting isn't just about me and who I'll get to rant about for the next four years.  Now, my vote is about your future.  I want the world you live in to be free from racism and hate.  I want our country and our leaders to take the issue of poverty seriously and to listen to the people they govern.

It's not that I won't be able to give you the world.  You two are incredibly lucky.  You were born white, to two educated, professional parents.  We may tend to hover a bit, but we'll do whatever we have to do to make sure you get the best education and the best opportunities in life.

So why do I care so much?  Because I want every other child in this country to have that as well.

When I became your mother, I became A Mother.  When I see a child without a coat on in 30 degree weather I shiver for him and look around for a coat, just like his mother would.  When I hear about a child harmed I cry the tears her mother will.  When I learn that 14,000,000 children in this country don't have health insurance, I get pissed off and I want to change that, just like those 14,000,000 mothers do.

I hope to teach both of you that we are all inextricably intertwined as human beings and Americans.  We can't turn our heads and pretend we don't see the problems of others.  I don't want you to grow up making excuses for your privilege and the poverty of others, attempting to justify a system of haves and have-nots. 

You may work hard as a soldier or lawyer or accountant, but so do our trash collectors and our teachers and yes, even our plumbers.  Yes, you will encounter people who don't work as hard as you, who can't hold a job, who have too many children and not enough money.  But I want both of you to realize that you are no more entitled to the necessities of life than they are.  You've just been very, very lucky through happy accident of birth.

Barack Obama, more than any public servant of my life time, seems to understand this and all that I want you to learn.

I didn't start out as a Barack Obama supporter.  But as I've researched his policies, spoken with his wife, his vice presidential pick, and too many surrogates to name, I've become convinced that he is the perfect man to unite our divided country.  And so, because I want to change our country, I got involved in a political campaign for the first time in my life.

It's not just me either.  There are so many mothers and fathers and grandparents and students and first time voters getting involved.  They, like me, see something in Barack Obama that is different, that stands for hope and the promise of better things to come.  I haven't seen people united in such a cause since the days after 9/11, and that ended quickly enough.  This time, I'm hopeful that people will stay involved.  I'm hopeful that people will see that they can make a difference and that they did make a difference.

I'm hopeful that people will keep getting involved and keep trying to change the world and keep fighting for justice for all the other people that inhabit this country, this world, this third rock from the sun.

In what I believe will be one of history's most remembered speeches, Barack Obama reminded us all that we have to fight not for ourselves, but for others.  He shared a story of a campaign organizer named Ashley, sharing why she'd gotten involved - because of what her mother had gone through when she got cancer and lost her insurance and her ability to support her family:

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

It isn't enough for me to just feed and clothe and take care of the two of you, my boys.  It may not be enough for me to vote, knock on doors, do interviews, write articles, and make phone calls to get Barack Obama elected.  But it is where I, and so many others, start.  We're doing it for you and all the other people in this country because "that is where the perfection begins."

Yes.  Yes, we can.

Love,
Mommy

Photo by Heidi Kulberg. (That's Hollis on the right.)

My Michelle Obama Day

Yesterday was an Obama day for me.

I meet Michelle Obama.  And immediately begin running my mouth non-stop.

As some of my regular readers know, I was originally an Edwards supporter.  I switched my loyalty to Barack Obama only days before the Virginia primary.  Since that time, as I've gotten to know more about Barack and Michelle Obama, their backgrounds and policies, I've grown to like Barack, and what he stands for, more and more.

I've written recently about the disparity between Senator McCain's vocal support for veterans and military issues and his abysmal record when faced with legislation that might actually back up his empty words.  In contrast, Obama's voting record shows clear support for the military. Still, I've wanted to hear more about how Obama intends to bolster our flagging military and morale.  Yesterday, I had the chance.

I had the opportunity to meet Michelle Obama at an invitation only event for the spouses of active duty and retired military members. 

After some inspiring remarks by Congressional candidate Glenn Nye, Michelle participated in a round table discussing the issues facing military families today.  The roundtable featured Claudia Kennedy (a retired 3 star general), Bud Buccha (a  Medal of Honor winner and Obama campaign adviser), Virginia Delegate Joe Bouchard (a retired Navy Captain), Stephanie Schiffman Marushia (a military wife and disabled veteran), Beth Robinson (a Marine Corps officer's wife who is living with MS), Amanda McBreen (wife of a Marine Corps officer and activist for Blue Star Families for Obama), Elaine Guishard (Navy wife and breast cancer survivor) , Sandra Stockard (wife of a retired Navy man and mother of a Navy daughter), and Tammy Linton (Air Force wife).

Beth Robinson introduces Ms. Obama

Michelle ... I'm sorry, I have to call her Michelle.  Calling her Mrs. or Ms. Obama seems too impersonal for such a warm woman.  Michelle showed a deep understanding for the struggles of military members and their families, despite some local concerns that she couldn't possibly understand where we're coming from.  (You know, being an "elitist ivy leaguer" and all.)

Make no mistake.  Michelle gets it.  In a way I don't think that Senator McCain, or Cindy McCain the heiress, could get it in a million years.

Many people look at the military and see only the surface: the man going off to war or to sea.  Most politicians like to visit the soldiers, pose for photos, land on an aircraft carrier and declare "Mission Accomplished."  Most politicians, hell, most people, don't see behind the pomp and circumstance to the women (and increasingly, men) who put on a brave face and keep the family going.

You don't always see how the family struggles financially because a spouse, moving every 8 months or 6 months or 2 years, can't advance in a career and sometimes can't even find a job on a base in the middle of nowhere.  You don't see the children uprooted from schools and friends constantly.  You don't see the long wait lists for childcare and housing and the families starting over at the bottom of the list every time there's a move.  You don't see the money they lose on selling a house in a housing slump because the Army says it's time to go.

You don't see the small children struggle to become reacquainted with a parent they don't remember.  But Michelle has seen it.  She's taken the time to see it.

In her opening remarks, Michelle spoke with passion about the military spouses she's spoken to and the problems they face in their marriages, professional lives, and lives as mothers:

I am amazed at how you do it. You struggle with all this and more. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from these roundtables, it’s that when our military goes to war or deploys at sea – their families go with them.

You become everything at home while your spouse is away. You’re running the checkbook. You’re Mom, you’re Dad; you’re the disciplinarian. You’re making dinner and doing homework; and when the bills keep piling up, and that list of chores seems endless, you find yourself with yet another job: worrying late into the night.

And you don’t just struggle with the economic downturn like everyone else; it’s often more difficult for you to find jobs. I’ve heard from military wives who enter the job market with solid resumes, but find themselves fighting for jobs that pay seven dollars an hour. Employers look at your resume and wonder why you can’t keep a steady job – even though it’s only because you’re already doing your job as a military spouse by moving from base to base.

One spouse, former military herself, told me she gave up looking and went back to school to become a nurse – but now faces staggering student loans and $500 in monthly child care costs. Others have children stuck on base waiting lists, or face rules that don’t allow them to use on-base child care.

And I know your marriages face unique challenges. Your husbands or wives may be deployed for months at a time, working 16 hour days or more, in the toughest conditions imaginable. They sometimes come home with problems you’re simply not equipped to deal with, and there can be a stigma attached to asking for help. Or they come home, life is good, but it’s a readjustment period – and as soon as you get back to where you were before he or she left, the bags are packed for another deployment.

One woman told me, "For better or for worse, in sickness and in health…but it is tough sometimes." Another said that during the day, she puts on her pretty clothes and her bold face and holds her head high and holds the fort down. But at night, she lies in bed and cries.
You end up taking care of each other on base – from babysitting to delivering bad news – but you’re rarely trained or prepared for any of it.

I hear these stories everywhere I go, from women doing everything that’s asked of them and more. These women aren’t asking for much. They’re not asking for government to solve all their problems. They’re just asking for a Washington that understands what’s happening to our military families, and the variety of challenges they face as part of their extraordinary commitment to our country.

That's it.  That's it exactly.  We aren't asking for much, but we do want our military members and families to be appreciated.  We want the Veterans Administration fully funded so that soldiers can get the care they need when they return and when they leave the service.  We want support for military families struggling with educational, health, and childcare problems.   We want adequate time between deployments so that families can heal and bond.

The military spouses in the roundtable, and audience members, brought up many similar concerns, from health care, antiquated medical record systems, and simultaneous deployments of two military parents, to deployment readiness groups and fostering a culture of service to our country.

Vivian, a former Navy officer, wife of a deployed Navy officer, mother of two, and PhD student in public administration, asks Michelle Obama how we can begin to create a broader culture of service in our society.

The Obama campaign's new initiative, the Plan to Support Virginia Military Families, addresses all of these concerns and more.  The campaign is also kicking off Blue Star Families for Obama, a grass roots organization started by military families supporting Obama because of his positive plans (and past votes) for veterans, military members, and families.

(You can read Michelle Obama's full remarks, as prepared, here.)

When I consider Barack Obama's voting record on military issues, his proposals to help military families and Michelle's visit to Norfolk, I'm convinced that he will be the best candidate to support our military families.

Aside from the political purpose of the event, I was struck by Michelle's warmth, candor, and sincerity.  I'll save the content of my conversation with Michelle, which was personal in nature, for my personal blog, but it only made me determined to do everything I can to get Michelle Obama's husband into office.

She's a hand clasper.  I like that.  Notice the mouth is STILL running.

Maybe after Barack and Michelle make it into the White House, I can exchange the MOMocrats Powerful Blogger Lady hat I gave her for a new MOMocrats Powerful Blogger FIRST Lady hat!

In true Lawyer Mama "fashion," I also took a photo of her shoes:

Stylish as always.

Later that evening, I also had the opportunity to hear Michelle speak at a fundraiser featuring Bruce Hornsby at the Harrison Opera House in Norfolk.  But I'll save that for Part II....

Cross posted at MOMocrats.

I've Been Dumped

Dear John Patrick,

I was so flattered when you first contacted me.  You turned my head with words like "bipartisan," "open dialog," and "access to John McCain."  You plied me with access codes, teleconference numbers, and the promise of question and answer sessions.  Then you whispered sweet nothings like "health care," "economics," and "equal pay" into my ears.

You knew I couldn't resist.

I should have known it was doomed.  In that first email you mentioned McCain's health care plan.  For a brief fleeting moment I thought that I was witnessing history: a Republican who actually gave a damn about the uninsured.  But I was wrong.  You were just like all the others.  Spinning an agenda designed to benefit no one more than the corporations that pay your campaign salary and donate trucks full of money to the RNC to circumvent John McCain's fruitless campaign finance laws.  Oh, the irony.

I decided I was done with you.

Read More....