MOMocrats™

How is Breastfeeding Related to Politics?

Did you hear about the flap in the Blogosphere when Facebook removed photos of women breastfeeding from their site and then banned one woman who continued to post them?  How about the recent nationwide breast-in at Applebee's restaurants? How about when Bill Maher compared breastfeeding in public to masturbating in public?

Breastfeeding in public continues to be a hot button subject in our society.  Everyone seems to agree that "breast is best," the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, even our Department of Health and Human Services.  But breastfeeding rates in the U.S. are abysmal.  Why?  Because no one wants to see mothers actually doing it and our government, employers, and fellow citizens aren't willing to give mothers the time and the respect they need to successfully breastfeed.

Apparently we're supposed to lock ourselves in our homes for 12 months and never emerge.  Never visit the doctor, or the dentist, go the grocery store, the mall, or a playground.  And heaven forbid a breastfeeding mother enters a restaurant and actually attempts to feed her child.  She's likely to be the subject of stares, recrimination, and discrimination.

Breastfeeding is protected by statute in one way or another in the majority of states in this country.  Despite this, discrimination against breastfeeding mothers continues to happen.  In response to this, The League of Maternal Justice formed to support mothers.  The women of The LofMJ created a lovely breastfeeding montage in response to Facebook's banning of breastfeeding photos.  They put it on You Tube, where it became one of the most watched videos.

YouTube banned it, stating that it was "inappropriate."  No further explanation.  Here's the press release from The LofMJ:

For immediate release 11/27/07

Youtube Bans Protest Video
Video Depicted Breastfeeding Moms

A mom-produced internet protest video attacking Facebook's banning of breastfeeding pictures was itself banned by the popular video sharing service Youtube after gaining recognition as the top-five most discussed of its day.  The email from Youtube stated that it was due to the video's inappropriate content/inappropriate nature.  A group of moms called Youtube's action hypocritical and harmful, and pointed to dozens of sexually explicit and harmful videos currently allowed on the service.  The moms also pointed to a number of state laws specifically stating that public breastfeeding was not inappropriate.

You can view the video, the press release, and contact information in full on The LofMJ if you want to see what all the flap is about.

Now you're wondering: How the heck is breastfeeding related to politics?

It's simple.  Attitudes towards breastfeeding mothers and mothers in general are a symptom of something wrong with our society.  We don't value motherhood.  Not really.  If we did, paid maternity leave would be a no brainer.  Mothers would have more guaranteed time with their children after birth.

John Edwards has some wonderful ideas for making the U.S. more family friendly.   He has proposed universal health care coverage, affordable child care for those who need it and expanding FMLA to provide 8 weeks of paid family and medical leave.

The U.S. fails to fund the minimum of six weeks of maternal leave recommended by doctors for both mothers and newborn children. Many parents must rush back to work, leaving their newborn babies in suboptimal or ad hoc care. In many states, day care centers are prohibited from accepting children that young due to the risk of infection. By not guaranteeing any mothers paid leave, America departs with a worldwide consensus of 169 countries to stand with only five countries including Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland. [ACOG, 2007; NPWF, 2003; IHSP, 2007]

None of these steps will individually change how mothers, and the essential role that they play in our society, are viewed.  But to change attitudes we need new policies, popular or not.  I believe that John Edwards is the candidate who will work hardest for mothers.  Maybe in 10 years women breastfeeding in public will be applauded instead of vilified.

Jesse Jackson Says Edwards is the Only Democrat Paying Attention to African-Americans

Jesse Jackson, the former presidential candidate and President/Founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, has an interesting column in the Chicago Sun-Times entitled, "Most Democratic Candidates are Ignoring African Americans."

Jackson thinks the candidates are ignoring the important votes of the African-American community because the contenders assume that black voters will cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate over a Republican.

But as I was reading, I had to raise my eyebrows in surprise, because he saved some praise for one candidate and not the one I would have guessed.  There is only one Democratic candidate who is the exception, in Jackson's mind, and that candidate is John Edwards.

"... [T]he Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority."

Jackson's commentary is a grim reminder of the challenges many in the African-American community in our country face -- historic and institutionalized patterns of discrimination, discrepancies between inner city schools and those in the suburbs, and inequities in the criminal justice system, just to name a few.

While Jackson is not giving any of the Democrats a pass, John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate he mentions by name as having made issues important to African-Americans central to his presidential campaign.  The absence of the names of any other Democrats is, quite frankly, shocking to me, since Jackson is on the record as endorsing Barack Obama and his son, Jesse Jackson, Jr., has recorded radio spots for Obama.

So one has to ask -- where do the others stand on these issues?  And if they haven't been answered to the satisfaction of one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, isn't it time they got started?

You can also find Joanne thinking about politics over at her place, PunditMom.

Why, Oh Why, Oh Iowa

I spent the better part of 2004 being ticked off at the state of Iowa. It was Iowa's fault, I thought, that the Democrats chose Kerry, a relative unknown factor in the primary race up until Iowa.  I wasn't paying close attention back then, but liked John Edwards and Howard Dean, both for different reasons.  I was ticked off that by the time the California primary rolled around in March, it was a foregone conclusion that Kerry had the nomination locked up.  So, I was mad at Iowa, since somewhere in those crazy caucuses, somebody decided to go with the safe choice, rather than the best choice.

I'll admit, I wasn't terribly involved in 2004.  I didn't know anything more than I wanted Bush out of office. The Democrats could have nominated an orangutan who knew sign language and I would have voted for him.  So, we got Kerry, the guy with the incomprehensible, super-rich, ketchup-heiress wife.  The guy who spent his entire life in the Senate being...Senatorial.  The guy who was about as inspiring as cold unsweetened oatmeal.  It may be good for you, but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow.  The one thing he had that made him stand out against George Bush was his record of service in Vietnam. Even that got "swift-boated" into oblivion by the end of it all.

My husband and I resigned ourselves to Kerry and even went to a fund-raiser at some estate in Woodside, where we hobnobbed with Democratic politicos, including a few former mayors, a future state senator. We sipped Chardonnay and munched on organic appetizers in the garden, which looked like someone was trying to replicate the gardens of some palazzo in Italy, or maybe the Alhambra, with rows of hedges and long, skinny fountains.  While we watched a video about Roe v. Wade, I sat, chin in hand, and thought, "We're doomed."

Iowans Are Inscrutable

I'm not quite sure why anyone is paying attention to polls about the Iowa caucuses. 

Caucusing is not like voting.  If you're lucky, at voting time you spend a few minutes waiting in line, a few minutes voting and then you're done.  Not too much of a time drain on your day.

But agreeing to show up for the caucus in Iowa is a commitment of hours.  So it's harder to predict who will make that time commitment this far out.

There's discussion, there's debate, there's back and forth. And when the time comes to "vote," if a candidate doesn't get 15% of the support of the voters in attendance to move on to the next phase,  it's back to the debate to see who can be a consensus candidate.

A tad inscrutable, if you ask me. 

So, who can really know what's going on in the minds of Iowans at this stage of the game?  As I learned in college, you can get just about any result you want out of a poll, depending on the question and how you ask it.

My gut says that a lot of Iowans are like my dad, a small family farmer in Pennsylvania.

My dad may tell you he's going to do one thing, but if he senses that you're trying to play him or dissect this thoughts in a way he doesn't like, he's going keep his cards close to his coveralls (I've never seen him wear a vest!)

I am sensing from what's happened in past elections that long-time Iowa caucus-goers are the same way.  Sure, they might tell a pollster who they think they'll support today, but the caucuses are six-weeks away -- an eternity in this election season.

And things change.  Minds change.  Or maybe they just don't think the pollsters should be privy to their thoughts on the candidates until they're really done hearing from all the candidates. So I'm pretty skeptical about where things are trending in Iowa at the moment, even though many are proclaiming a new direction. 

I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of talk about the candidates around the turkey this week when Iowa families are together.  I wouldn't be surprised to see yet another shift in the polls next week after a little Turkey Day pre-caucus action!

One question I read in the most recent The Washington Post/ABC News poll, in a story titled For Democrats, Iowa Still Up for Grabs,  may deserve some attention and be a bit more reflective of where things really stand in Iowa at the moment.

When those who have participated in the caucuses in the past (so are believed to be more likely to participate this January than people who haven't) were asked who they thought they would support:

Obama -- 27%
Edwards -- 26%
Clinton -- 21%

Looks a little different than some of the other results we're hearing, doesn't it?

So I say even though we're creeping up to the end of November, it's still too early to count anyone out or in for Iowa.

But whoever wins, just promise me no screaming!

Cross-posted from Joanne's blog, PunditMom.

Elizabeth Edwards on Homeschooling and Education Policy

Sunday I had the privilege of talking with Elizabeth Edwards about homeschooling and education in the U.S. I was curious if their experience homeschooling their young children, Jack and Emma Claire, had shaped their views on education and had any impact on John's education proposals. Here's what Elizabeth had to say:

Is homeschooling your youngest children, Jack and Emma Claire, something you had contemplated before the campaign began?
Well, we knew that from our previous experience campaigning was going to require a lot of time away from home. And taking several months for campaigning and seeing the children only every few days, it was not ideal for us. And the way we'd be able to see them more, include them more, let them be part of the experience..., you know they were young the last time, it was easier to pull them out, but in public school, in 2nd grade and 4th grade, you shouldn't be pulling them out willy-nilly just because that's a convenient time for you, even if we could get away with it, it would leave the impression that our children were entitled to special treatment and we do not think that.

So, we thought it was a better idea to just take them out of that environment entirely, although I'm going to put an asterisk next to that word (environment), and home school them for the duration of the campaign, so that they could come with us. They could campaign if they wanted to, or they could see parts of the country if they wanted to while we were campaigning. The asterisk is...that they're not entirely removed from their school. The kids do go over, they periodically have lunch with the classes which they were assigned, they actually visit with their classmates, they still have play dates and things like that that you would normally have whether you were homeschooled or in public school. But they have them largely with their public school friends. So we're trying to keep them in contact.

We're also using the curriculum from [the school] that their assigned teachers have for the year, so that they stay on course. Frankly, I think because [the children] are getting a much more intense experience, they're actually sort of going through the material more quickly than the class itself is. And it has made the traveling not so much of a big interruption in terms of what they can accomplish during the school year.

Do you employ a tutor? How did you choose him/her?
Because we're on the road so much, I could do some things when I'm at home, as I was for most of last week, I can be engaged in things. Or when they're on the road with us, I can be engaged in things, but in terms of somebody there when we're not at home -- which of course is the problem with campaigning. We have employed a certified teacher to teach them. We found someone who uses experiences inside the classroom and outside the classroom... because we thought that was an ideal combination for this experience and he has done an incredible job.

For example, we live on an old farm outside of Chapel Hill, North Carolina and they go out into the woods. A lot of the old farmland is overgrown so they'll go out and catalogue the different plants that are there or take pictures of the different insects and animals and make molds of the footprints or little paw prints they see in the woods. I think it's been an incredible experience for them to have this wide range of ways in which they learn. I don't think it's impossible to translate some of these things into a public school setting, but it's been a little easier of course, because it's just the two children and the teacher who can walk out the door.

power to the people (who need it most)

I often wonder what might happen if all the working poor, impoverished and homeless men and women in our country decided to back a candidate and use their voting power.  Some of us have tried to harness this energy in the past, bringing polling places to shelters and holding voter registration meetings.  But what I haven't yet been able to do is bring a candidate to the people, my offers to host a debate or a speaking engagement have fallen on deaf ears in campaigns past.

When I ask the folks on the street why they do or do not vote the answer is simple:  they've been so marginalized and are so desperately living hand to mouth it's difficult to mobilize beyond a given day.  Especially if it feels hopeless.

That's why I think it's critical this year that we reach these constituents and show them hope is alive.  That there are candidates who want to improve the quality of life for those below the poverty line.  Edwards professes this hope and has taken this message across America.  But I often wonder if he is still missing the audience who needs to hear it most, the ones hardest to reach yet who have so much to say.

I invite John and Elizabeth Edwards (or any candidate for that matter) to hold a town hall meeting inside a homeless shelter, one open and welcoming to the homeless and impoverished communities so they too can lend their voices and their votes.  Candidates are forced to focus on raising funds for their campaign, an obviously important goal and yet one that can sadly exclude those who cannot afford the entrance fee and once again, their voices are lost. And what a shame, considering you'd get some of the most honest questions you could hope for, ones that aren't shiny and policy wonked, ones that come from the heart and where the stakes are high.  We could all learn from those who are actually living the issues we are trying to fix.

I recently asked an old-timer if he was following the presidential races.  He looked at me and laughed and shook his head.  Don't have much reason to think those folks care what I have to say or will work hard for us anyways, can't see how it matters much to me. 

Let's show him and so many others that this time is different.  That this year there is a reason to believe. That there is a candidate ready and willing to fight for the alleviation of suffering. If you could make time for us Senator Edwards, I'll promise you a packed house.

Cross posted at one plus two.

MOMocrats Meet John Edwards in California

As MOMocrat CityMama wrote, she and I had the opportunity to meet John Edwards on Friday night at a private home in Los Gatos, California.  My husband, Stefania and I carpooled down to the event, which was held in a lovely Victorian-style home.  We arrived early, and staked out a spot in the room where we thought he might speak, then mingled with some of the other guests.  We saw a few familiar faces from some of the prior events we have attended, and saw former San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales among the 70 or so people in attendance.

As before, he arrived and immediately started mingling with the crowd, shaking hands, posing for pictures, answering questions.  He came over to our group immediately, shook hands, and let us take a few pictures, before getting sidetracked over to talk with other people. 

Eventually, he made his way over and announced that he was sorry to be so late, and wanted to get right into the discussion.  He started talking about Iowa, and how he, Hillary, and Obama are in a dead heat. He thinks this is fine because they have been on television in Iowa for months, and he has just started.  The fact that he is dead even with them, without TV ads, he thinks is a good sign.  He attributes to the fact that Iowa has 99 counties, and he's been in all 99 counties twice.  He quipped that he and Elizabeth were at a stop sign in Ottumwa, Iowa, and she said, "You know, I think if someone asked me, I could give directions here."

He mentioned that the Hillary plant story is getting a lot of coverage in Iowa, and really rankles Iowa Democrats.  He said that the Des Moines Register ran a cartoon showing Hillary campaign workers pointing teleprompters toward the audience, to make it easier for them to feed questions to the audience.

Edwards gave a brief primer on how the caucuses work, which I found to be particularly instructive.  People have meetings all across the state, and at the beginning, are sorted by who they support.  If a candidate fails to get 15% of the people present, those people must choose another candidate, and that's when the politicking and persuasion begins.  It's critical, therefore, for the polls to look at who the second choices are.  He rates highly with Biden and other lower-tier candidates' caucus-goers.  It sounds like part political rally, part three ring circus, if you ask me.  I'd love to see it, but I think it would probably give me a migraine.

Meeting John Edwards: Like meeting a good friend if only your friend were running for president

(Cross-posted on CityMama)

John Edwards right in front of me

John Edwards passed through the San Francisco Bay Area last night, fresh from the lively Democratic debate the evening before and spending the day in Los Angeles supporting the striking TV writers (the only candidate to do so in person).

As I approached the event location (a house in Los Gatos, CA) with fellow MOMocrat Glennia Campbell and her husband, I suddenly felt very tired. I wasn't in the mood for socializing and hoped to duck into a corner with my wineglass and my Blackberry until Edwards' arrival. But then I thought about his schedule. How mentally exhausting preparing for a presidential debate must be. How all that traveling would wear me down to a nub. How difficult it is to be away from your spouse and your children. And how, through it all, he would still want to come to a house he's never been to to meet people he doesn't know to talk about the things that are important him. I decided to buck up and stop my internal whining.

We got our wine and had some snacks and starting meeting fellow Edwards' supporters. At one point in the evening, I found myself standing next to a man who asked me "What's the one thing about Edwards that convinced you he was your candidate."

One thing.

Hmmm.

Restoring confidence in democracy

Once again, John Edwards leads the democratic candidates in his plans to engage U.S. voters in government participation and restore our confidence. In this video from the Why Tuesday Candidate Challenge, Sen. Edwards talks about the Citizen Congress he proposes, the importance of paper ballots, taking on voter suppression, public financing and making voting more convenient by considering a change in the date from a weekday.

Voting on a Tuesday effects many working families, unable to visit their polling place due to work, school or other already established family commitments. While many of the answers of the other Dem candidates in this challenge gravitate toward a pitch for their own candidacy as the singular means of increasing turnout, Sen. Edwards takes on the glaring problems of the voting process head on.

Crossposted at Modern English

LiveBlogging CNN's Democratic Debate: Live from Las Vegas

In true MOMocrat style, I am liveblogging the debate while my kids are in the tub and a kielbasa is grilling on the stove.  I hope the major bubblebath I drew for them will hold them for at least 30 minutes so I can get some bloggin' done.

Wolf Blitzer is moderating. John Edwards walks out first to thunderous applause.  Next comes Chris Dodd, Barack Obama (also lots of applause), and Hillary Clinton (again, plenty of applause).  Kucinich is out next followed by Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.  All the candidates are lined up on stage in front of the podiums giving the photogs their photo opp.

Analysts predict a tough night for Hillary Clinton.

The candidates take their spots behind the podium.

Blitzer explains that the debate will be in two halves. The first hour will be spent answering questions from CNN anchors Campbell Brown and John Roberts.  The second hour will be spent answering questions from undecided Nevada voters.