Lawyer Mama

Pundit Mom, Friendship, Politics, and Motherhood

When I first started blogging, I was incredibly lucky.  One of the first commenters I had (that wasn't related to me) was Joanne Bamberger.  I had been stalking her blog for awhile because I so admired her mix of smarts, motherhood and politics on her blog, Pundit Mom. When she We had so much in common, but Joanne also challenged some of my views about politics and feminism. She's made me examine my own biases through a critical lens and she does with a deft hand. (Plus, Joanna is also a recovering lawyer.  Although I didn't know it at the time, we would also eventually have the "recovering" part in common as well.)

Joanne has done so much for me professionally.  When I wouldn't call myself a "real" writer, she smacked me upside the head.  (Virtually, of course.)  She introduced me to others in the bloggy world of moms and politics.  She was my entree into the DC Metro Moms blog and we both joined MOMocrats at the same time.  She's been a loyal cheerleader and an amazing friend over the last 5 years.

In the same time, Joanne has done some wonderful things.  When we met, she was already an accomplished writer and blogger, but now her name is always mentioned as one of the top female political bloggers. She's debated conservatives on CNN, Fox and others.  She's had policy discussions with our country's legislative leaders. She works tirelessly to do all of this with civility and respect for others, something that is often lost in politics.

Now, my dear friend has written a book. Now, this post isn't a review.  I haven't read the book yet. Although, yes, I pre-ordered it on Amazon like, the moment it was available.  But I already know that it's a must read.  You see, the book, Mothers of Intention, takes its name from the series of guest posts from Joanne's blog.  On Pundit Mom, she's been running the Mothers of Intention series for several years. (My post for the series appears in February of 2008.) She features women writing about politics, bt she doesn't just feature political writers.  Joanne has managed to talk women (conservative and progressive) who swore they knew nothing about politics to open up and realize, well, HECK YEAH, maybe I DO have some opinions!  And yes, those opinions matter.

The book also brings Jo's always thoughtful analysis to the topic of how women and social media are revolutionizing politics on both sides of the aisle.  It's not just the boys' game anymore and Joanne knows it.  I can't wait to read it.  I hope you'll read it too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should tell you that I'm a contributor to the book, although it's not the post linked above.  But I'm just one of many, many thoughtful voices in the book.  I'm actually amazed to be included with such wonderful women and I have Joanne to thank for that.

You can preorder Mothers of Intention now!

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....

Becoming a Real MOMocrat: 2010 Election Night

My husband and I have taken our sons to vote every year since they were born.  It's important to both of us that our boys know and understand that voting isn't just a privilege, but a responsibility of citizenship.  We want them to pay attention to politics and what is happening in their country and seeing us vote was a good way to start out.

Of course, Hollis and Holden are incredibly lucky little boys. There have been no shortage of politicians in their short lives. Hollis still talks about seeing Barack Obama and the time he met Vice President Biden.  With our close proximity to DC, they've visited the White House several times and love to visit the "Capitol City," singing "I'm Just a Bill" from School House Rock all the way.  With the parents they have, it will also be difficult for them to miss the political screaming matches vigorous political disucssions that take place in our home.

But I think we took it to the next level today.

A good friend and I took our 6 year olds to a local watering hole for dinner with the intention of watching the election returns.  They very nicely turned one of the 50 or so TV's to MSNBC for us and we settled in to watch.  Unfortunately, we were getting frustrated with the lack of local coverage of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District race.  We both campaigned for Congressman Glenn Nye and I even appeared in a commercial for him.  We asked the eatery to change another tv to a local station and they said no.  "No more politics."  (Buffalo Wild Wings in Chesapeake, Virginia, I'm talking to you!)

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

Bob McDonnell's Republican Response to the SOTU: A Military Misstep

Last night, the MOMocrats hosted a live blog of the State of the Union address and the Republican response.  It was an inspiring speech by Obama and, I think, one of his best.  The Republican response, however, had me out of my seat hollering at the TV, and not in a good way.

The State of the Union is, I think, a marvelous example of how inspiring our political system can be.  I never fail to be moved when I hear the Congressional Cryer yell, "Madame (or Mister) Speaker, the President of the United States!"  It doesn't matter whether the President in question is a Republican or a Democrat; it's always a thrilling experience.  The State of the Union is required by Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...." Since 1790, the State of the Union has been delivered approximately every 12 months.

All members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, are present, as are some of the Supreme Court justices, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's Cabinet, with the exception of the designated survivor. (As an interesting side note, the designated survivor for last night's address was Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.)  While Congress invites the President to attend, it is typical for the White House to invite guests as well.  Last night, several military service and family members were in the box with Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden. 

There are many perks to being President, one of which is having the military and military backdrops at your command.  This use of the military and its service members as props became much more common during the term of George W. Bush. The most prominent being Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier and then speaking with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.

Make no mistake, the State of the Union, while definitely a political event, is not a partisan political event.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff and invited military guests attend as part of their service to our country.  The rebuttal to the State of the Union is another animal entirely.  It is completely partisan, begun only in 1966 and traditionally given by a representative from the party not currently occupying the White House.

Virginia Governor (of only 11 days) Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response from the Virginia capitol building in Richmond.  McDonnell had an audience of mostly regular people. (Oh, and some Virginia Republican legislators.  Bob apparently failed to invite any Democrats until about 2 hours before the drop dead RSVP time on the afternoon of the speech.)  There were even people behind McDonnell on risers as if it were a political rally.  The setting was a smart move on the part of Republican strategists.  It gave McDonnell and audience responding to him, giving the speech a much more "official" and emotional appeal than canned studio speeches given in the past.

The content of McDonnell's speech was not surprising.  It was rendered somewhat irrelevant by most of President Obama's speech, but that tends to be par for the course when you're responding to a speech you haven't yet read or viewed, with pre-loaded teleprompters.  Plus, I read the rebuttal before the State of the Union began, so I knew what was coming. No, what surprised me was the individual sitting behind McDonnell and to our left.

Continue reading this post on MOMocrats....

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.

Sarah Palin: When Reality is Irrelevant

By now you've all heard about, and possibly read, this month's Vanity Fair piece about Sarah Palin by Todd S. Purdum, It Came from Wasilla.  (If you haven't, go read it!)  It's an expose about the train wreck that was the McCain-Palin campaign in the final few months.  But this time, we hear a bit more than leaks about Sarah Palin being a "whack job," a "diva," or "going rogue."  My favorite revelation?  Apparently Palin's handlers started calling her the "Little Shop of Horrors" within a week.

There's a nice follow up article in Politico today about the Republican infighting generated by the Vanity Fair piece.  Bill Kristol, an adviser to the McCain campaign and someone rumored to have been responsible for McCain's selection of Palin as a running mate, started off the bitch fest with a post on The Weekly Standard's blog criticizing the Vanity Fair article.  Since then, he and Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, have basically traded school yard insults, dragging in Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign policy adviser.  Keep it up, boys.  We really don't care who leaked all the stuff about Palin during the campaign or whether one of you suggested she might have post-partum depression.  It's all good for the Democrats!

Here's a sampling of the pissing match:

“Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory,” Schmidt said. “He’s in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism.”

Responding to Schmidt’s counterattack, Kristol directly fingered Schmidt: “It’s simply a fact that when the going got tough, Steve Schmidt trashed Sarah Palin, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists. This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick when, at first, he thought it made him look good. John McCain deserved better.”

At this, Schmidt unloaded in a lengthy telephone interview, suggesting that Kristol was carrying out a personal vendetta based out of anger over the attempt to fire Scheunemann in the final days of the campaign.

Man, it doesn't get much better than this.

Finish reading Sarah Palin: When Reality is Irrelevant on MOMocrats....

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."

Forfeiting the Golden Ticket

I'm one of the lucky few.  I have a ticket to Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20th.  Actually, I have 2, along with tickets to the opening ceremonies and the Mid-Atlantic ball.  I could be there Tuesday morning, along with 250,000 of my closest friends, standing in the security lines for hours on end and freezing my tush off, awaiting a glimpse of history.  But I won't be.  You see, I'm giving my tickets away.

I was very involved in several Democratic campaigns this election season.  I joined a group called Blue Star Families for Obama and became involved in the leadership and in developing social media for the group.  I was thrilled to go to the Democratic National Convention with the MOMocrats. I met Michelle Obama on several occasions. I met Joe Biden twice and actually have a fabulous picture of him carrying my son Hollis around.  I've seen Barack Obama speak four times, and each time moved me to tears. I've had so many wonderful opportunities and memory making moments over the last year.

Read More at D.C. Metro Moms Blog....

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!

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.