Lawyer Mama

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....

Pot, Meet Kettle - I Mean Harry Reid

I'm sure you've all heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's really stupid comment from those book excerpts that are floating around.  He apparently said that people would support Barack Obama for President because he was a "light skinned" African American who didn't have a "Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."  Now, don't get me wrong, that was, in hindsight, kind of a stupid thing to say for someone who lives his life in the spotlight as the U.S.'s most visible senator.  But racism?  I don't see it.  What I do see is a lot of Republican spin.

I was floored by the Republican Party's response.  Sensing weakness, Republican leaders have decided to try and take Reid down.  I find it amazing that Republicans and TeaBaggers are apparently allowed to say anything they'd like about our President, including calling him a Communist and saying that he hates America. (Listen to the story on NPR).  Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) even loudly called Obama a "liar" during his State of the Union speech. Apparently the standards applied to Reid don't apply to Republicans, who have suddenly become self-proclaimed guardians of racial sensitivity in this county.

Michael Steele couldn't help himself and engaged in some righteous indignation, stating that Reid should step down as majority leader because of his remarks.

Really, Michael Steele?  Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.*

I frequently refer to Michael Steele as the "gift that keeps on giving" to the Democratic Party.  I look forward to his public statements on a daily basis.  Every day seems to bring new treasure caused by the vomitus of the mouth Steele seems to have.

How can anyone forget that Steele recently said, "Our platform is one of the best political documents that's been written in the last 25 years. Honest injun on that?"  Steele also famously indicated that he would reach out to black voters by offering them fried chicken and potato salad. 

I think that Steele's "honest injun" comment was extremely insensitive.  It's akin to stating that you "got gypped" or that someone "jewed you down" in price.  So Michael Steele should definitely tone down the anti-Harry Reid rhetoric before that one bites him in the ass. Despite Steele's inability to self-censor, however, I don't think that his fried chicken comment was racism or some sort of self-loathing.  Steele was using a stereotype about black people to a largely black audience to get a laugh.  He meant it in a, "You know, those crazy white people think we just eat fried chicken.  Ha ha," kind of way.  It wasn't racism.

What Harry Reid said wasn't racist either.

My friend Gunfighter has a great post over on his blog today about the whole debacle.  Go read it.  In his post, GF wrote this:

What I can tell you with all of the certainty that I can muster, is that Harry Reid's recent comments described above, don't prove that he is a racist.  Indeed, his statement proves that despite the unpleasant things I just said about him, Harry Reid knows a little something about the American political process and the pulse of the American electorate.

I think Gunfighter is right on the money.

People have missed an important distinction here.  If Harry Reid had said that *he* would vote for Obama because he was light skinned and didn't speak with a Negro accent, that would be a racist remark. Simply stating an opinion that other people would vote for Obama because of his light skin and speech patterns is not racism. It's political candor. 

* I'm using this statement to make a point.  Because, black, in the pot and kettle sense, does not refer to race.  But I'm sure a good Republican strategist could have the FNC crowd frothing at the mouth over  it in no time at all.

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.

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....

Moms Inspired to Change History

8 Women Making a Difference

by Joanne Bamberger aka Pundit Mom

They refer to us as soccer moms. TV commercials still show mothers, not the fathers, as the ones wiping up spills and wiping noses. As important as parenting is, plenty of mothers have more on their agendas -- they're finding their own ways to make their mark and change the world. Here are eight we found particularly inspiring.

Stephanie Himel-Nelson and Vivian Greentree, Blue Star Families
Stephanie Himel-Nelson and Vivian Greentree, each a mother of two young sons, were never political activists until the 2008 presidential campaign. Both had connections to the armed services, though, and wanted to help highlight the many issues faced by military families. From the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, both women played integral roles of Blue Star Families for Obama (BSF4O) -- Greentree as the group's director for leadership, and Himel-Nelson as deputy outreach director.

Read more at MSN....

Now personally, I think Joanne should have included herself in this article.

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....

Follow the Returns & Did You Vote?

Steal this button from Blue Star Families for Obama to show how you voted on your blog. 

Here's the code:

<a href="http://bsf4o.com"><img src="http://www.lawyermama.com/lawyermama/images/2008/11/03/ivoted_star3.jpg" /></a>

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.)

The Virginia Military Vote in the 2008 Election

Photo by Heidi Kulberg. BSF4O members at Obama rally in Virginia Beach.

I mentioned in yesterday's post that I was recently interviewed by RTE - Irish Public Radio and Television - about Virginia's military vote in the 2008 election.  I've finally figured out how to post these clips, so bear with me!

I've had quite a few interviews during this election season, the vast majority of them as the Deputy Outreach Director for Blue Star Families for Obama.  To keep track of them all, I've started a Press Clippings section in the sidebar.  I am, after all, a legend in my own mind.  Enjoy!

In case no one's figured it out, I've decided to do NaBloPoMo again this year!  What better way to get back into blogging than to jump in and completely drown myself?  Since I'll have no time right around the election, I've got a backlog of posts ready to go.  Please forgive me for cheating.  I'm doing it for the U.S.!