Women's Equality Day

Today is Women's Equality Day!

The California Commission on the Status of Women joins the Nation in celebrating the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Equality Day. Each year Women's Equality Day is celebrated on August 26th to commemorate the 1920 passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. Congress designated this date in 1971 to honor women's continuing efforts toward full equality. Spearheading the effort was U.S. Representative Bella Abzug (D-NY).

Women winning the right to vote was the culmination of a massive, peaceful civil rights movement by women that had its formal beginnings in 1848 at the world’s first women’s rights convention, in Seneca Falls, New York. In addition to celebrating the voting rights of American women, Women’s Equality Day also symbolizes the continued fight for equality, justice, peace, and development for women from various nationalities, ethnicities, cultures, religions, economic and political backgrounds.

The Commission on the Status of Women encourages you to celebrate and reaffirm women’s right to vote – and honor the heroic suffrage movement that won that right for all women - by making sure you are registered to vote in your next election, and then by going out to vote!

Troubled and Puzzled

 Warning: political views ahead.

I just do not get the controversy about Americans building an Islamic community center on private property in New York City.  I understand that certain bigoted and politically-motivated people want to stir up a frenzy about it.  But objecting to building a private religious institution on private property – even if it is near Ground Zero – seems fundamentally anti-American to me.  I’ve read what people have to say about it, and I’ve certainly heard a lot of commentary about it on tv and radio, but I still can’t see the objections to the mosque as anything but reflecting ignorance and religious prejudice.

I thought that, despite a lot of original misinformation, it’s pretty clear now that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.  The attacks weren’t the acts of muslims following well-accepted and mainstream tenets of their religion; they were made by radical fundamentalists who were motivated by sheer hatred and the desire to inflict damage on the US in return for American’s military actions in their corner of the world.   Even George W. Bush (and lord knows I don’t agree with much from him) noted after 9/11 that it is important to distinguish between radicals committing criminal violent acts and people who happen to be Muslims practicing their faith in a peaceful way.

So why is it offensive or inappropriate or insensitive to build an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan?  Don’t we preach freedom of religion, and rebuke other countries when their governments oppress minority religious groups?  Don’t we want to encourage the peaceful understanding of Islamic culture and the muslim religion?  Wasn’t our country founded, in part, on the desire for citizens to be able to worship when, where, and how they choose without oppression from others?  

If having an Islamic community center is somehow inappropriate, then wouldn’t it be similarly inappropriate for Southern Baptist churches to exist in communities with large African-American populations?  The Ku Klux Klan is largely made up of Southern Baptist extremists – so shouldn’t those same folks objecting to the Islamic cultural center in NYC also be concerned at how “insensitive” and “inappropriate” the presence of Southern Baptist churches would be to the black communities around them?

What about the religious fundamentalists who, following their religious beliefs, zealously promote their anti-abortion stance by bombing health clinics and killing doctors?  Should their religious institutions be banned from communities housing doctors and health clinics?

Of course these are ridiculous arguments.  The Baptist religion isn’t responsible for the offensive and often criminal acts of the KKK, just Christian churches can’t be blamed when fundamentalist zealots use their Christian beliefs and biblical interpretations as the reason to kill medical workers.  There are masses of peaceful Southern Baptists, just as there are huge numbers of peaceful people who decry abortion and even based their views on their religious beliefs, but we don't shun them or run them out of communities for the actions of the few crazed criminals who use their beliefs to justify their crimes.

So why is it conceivable to target peaceful muslim Americans and followers of Islam by running them off of a piece of real estate in Manhattan?  It shouldn’t be.  To me it seems  wrong, and ignorant, and deplorable.  That bias flies in the face of the religious tolerance and liberty on which our country was based.  Thomas Jefferson’s words address this:  “From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." (Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545). 

If there’s a place where a peaceful Islamic cultural center is needed, maybe it’s precisely near the World Trade Center site, so certain people’s misunderstanding about the role of Islam in that national tragedy can be rectified, and the religious rights of peaceful muslim Americans can be respected and honored.

Speaking of the Secretary of State...

Madeleine Albright is one of the women I admire most in the world. She's smart, she's funny, she has common sense, and she has clear ideas about how to help women throughout the world. She also has the ability to make complex ideas sound simple, but not simplistic. So I was delighted, recently, to find her newest book, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership on my library's sale table for $2. I snatched it up, and I've been reading it since then.
I'm not usually one to read political books. But this is easy reading -- still thought provoking, still instructive -- but a very accessible look at US political history, where we are now, and what the president elect will need to understand and do to get us headed in the right direction. It's actually uplifting -- in part, because it's reassuring to know that people DO understand the complexities of the multitude of global issues, and of course because we know that Obama will be taking the reins and things can only get better.
And it's funny. I've found myself laughing aloud several times. Here's a favorite line: "The men who wrote the Constitution did remarkably well, considering the absence of female guidance."

In any event, it's a surprisingly enjoyable book to read. And for an overview of the issues, you can watch a recent, wide-ranging talk by Madeleine Albright, here:

We Can, We Did, We Will

I am so happy, and so relieved, and so hopeful.

(Aaron Sorkin couldn't have scripted that speech any better.)

We can change history today

And yes we will!

Please VOTE!

You've Just Gotta Love John Cleese

Here's to you, Sarah

Roger and I have been looking forward to tonight for weeks. It's the long awaited debate between the vice-presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Call me an optimist, but I expect that the evening will finally and fully reveal Sarah Palin to be severely underqualified for the VP job, and demonstrate just how poor McCain's judgment has been in choosing her. We have a video for Caroline to watch upstairs, we're doing take out pizza and a bottle of a favorite red, and we're eating in front of the TV. I don't want to miss a moment.

Of course, I can't help but see any thing that comes out of Sarah Palin's mouth these days as more comedic fodder for Tina Fey and SNL. As if Palin weren't funny (in a depressing sort of way) enough all by herself.

In law school, the popular drinking game was watching reruns of the Bob Newhart show, and swigging a gulp of beer anytime anyone said "Bob!" And I was thinking -- the appropriate game for tonight, I think, would be taking a swallow every time Sarah says "maverick." I'm guessing that'll be her "safety" word.

Wanna bet how many times she says it?!?!

SNL Nailed It!

This is SO worth watching!

A wolf in sheep's clothing

Remember Phyllis Schlafly? Anti-feminist, foe to the Equal Rights Amendment, who believes that a woman cannot have a career and raise a family at the same time? She thinks that Sarah Palin is an excellent VP pick, and has recently said that Palin is exactly right on all the issues.

Yep. They're ideological twins.

They both believe that intelligent design and creationism should be taught along side evolution.

They believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and oppose abortion. Palin has even said that the only exception to a ban on abortion she'd support would be if childbirth would be fatal for the woman. She would not support abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape, even.

Both Schlafly and Palin oppose gay marriage.

Both Schlafly and Palin oppose explicit sex education in public schools.

They both support banning stem cell research.

They both oppose gun control.

They both think prayer in public schools would be fine.

They both pooh-pooh the concept of global warming.

I suppose Palin can one-up Schlafly, in that as far as I know Shafley doesn't go around killing wildlife, and shooting creatures from helicopters.

I would have researched their similarities further, but I've become too sick to my stomach to go further.

I'm Not Ready to Make Nice

There are an awful lot of us who know what it feels like to live with the double standard of being female in male-dominated environments. We’ve earned less pay for doing the same work as men. We’ve been criticized for leaving work early to care for a sick child, while the man down the hall is praised as a "great dad" when he leaves early to watch his son’s softball game. We’ve been interrupted by men more often, and we’ve had our opinions disregarded because we speak with softer voices. We’ve been told we’re too friendly with the secretaries, and we’ve been criticized for being cold or snooty when we don’t join in the girl talk in the lunch room. We’ve fended off comments about appearing too feminine or seductive at the office, and we’ve been mocked for trying to dress "like a man" when we downplay the shapes of our bodies or wear more practical pants suits. We’ve been passed over for raises or promotions in favor of the man in the next office, who "needs" the increase "more" because "he’s supporting a family." We’re weak and hormonal if we cry, and we’re cold and unemotional if we don’t. Having seen how men behave in the workplace, we emulate their behaviors and are called hard and emasculating and bitchy.

We know how impossibly hard it is to be a strong, smart, outspoken, and competitive woman in a setting men are used to controlling. It’s an uncomfortable and difficult balance to achieve, especially with constant grace and humor and level-headedness. Most of all, we know how it feels to be expected, without question, to sit down and be quiet and stop complaining and instead defer to a man sitting next to us at the conference table... even if he is younger, less qualified, less knowledgeable, or less experienced.

So it’s no wonder that a lot of us are angry as this primary race is coming to a close. It has been discouraging and saddening to watch this same double standard play out so plainly as two qualified, ground-breaking presidential candidates have made this primary race one of which we should have been proud.

Tonight, even as Barack Obama was being feted for being the first african american to win a major party’s candidacy – which to be sure is a momentous, wonderful, historical event – I cannot help but chafe at the open hostility directed at Hillary Clinton for her failure to give in, sit down and shut up.

As journalist Steven Stark pointed out recently in the Boston Phoenix, a candidate has never been vilified for continuing a candidacy the way Hillary Clinton has. To the contrary, past candidates have been praised for their perseverance as they’ve taken their fights all the way to the conventions. As Stark summarized:

"• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the "certain" nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod."

At the culminating point of one of the closest races in modern history, the election results aren’t official. The delegate count has been affected by bizarre, unprecedented "guess-timating" wholly unrelated to actual vote results, a certainly troubling and possibly unconstitutional result with far-reaching implications for future elections.

And nevertheless, people are expressing outrage that Hillary Clinton didn’t see fit to "give the night" to Barack Obama.

I’m proud that our country (the democratic half, anyway) can put forward a smart, passionate, and idealistic candidate like Barack Obama, and I recognize that it’s a significant and hopeful moment in our country’s race relations.

But I’m angry and sad and ashamed that so many in our country can’t celebrate the rise of the first significant black candidate without simultaneously (and almost gleefully) trying to stomp the first significant female candidate down.

We’ve come a long way, baby ... but apparently we’re not good sports if we expect to make it over the finish line.

Those 27 People

Just a brief update to say I was very interested to hear the DNC committee proceedings today. I was impressed at how the speakers presented such cogent, clear, and reasoned positions -- and I was struck at how difficult the situation is and how people were really trying to do the right thing. So many competing interests to balance.

I'm not sure how I feel about the result. I think it was appropriate to seat delegates from both Michigan and Florida, and the half-vote thing seems right, given that that was the penalty originally stated in the rules. I'm still pretty troubled about the allocation aspect of the decision regarding Michigan, because it means that 27 people decided to give an arbitrary number of delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot, and in so doing they took delegates away from the specifically designated "uncommitted category" which is supposed to mean "uncommitted."

I don't get the basis for giving the pledged delegates only half-votes and giving the superdelegates whole votes (that feels a bit like giving preference to the party insiders over the citizen voters) but I missed chunks of the hearing and maybe someone had some rationale for that.

So, it'll be interesting to see where it goes from here. I can appreciate why Clinton might appeal further -- the allocation of delegates does seem arbitrary and sets a very troubling precedent of ignoring actual votes to pick some number to benefit one candidate over the other. So aside from the political ramifications in this race, I can see how it could be important to address the principle that was derailed in that aspect of the vote.

But we'll see. It's definitely a fascinating inside look at party politics.

And I'm really gonna try to get back to more fun stuff. Fabric! Quilts! Art! Food! Books! Friends!

I Love Jeffrey Toobin

I've always loved Jeffrey Toobin, legal writer in New Yorker and CNN analyst. But I was proud to be a fan of his last night, when I saw this during CNN's coverage of the Kentucky and Oregon primary results:

And as for that Alex Castellanos guy? Would be be back on CNN as a commentator if he said it was okay to call Obama the "N" word?

A Deafening Silence

I feel like I've been shouting into a void of sorts as I've repeatedly gotten upset at the sexist, hate-filled language used when well-respected, mainstream media types talk about Hillary Clinton. I've SO appreciated the comments and emails I've gotten in response to my rants here, and I'm glad to know that many of you feel the way I do about how harmful to all women this sort of talk is.

So I was especially gratified to read a well-written piece from May 15, 2008 in the Washington Post by Marie Cocco about this very issue. She said it better than I ever could:

Misogyny I Won't Miss

By Marie Cocco

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Marie Cocco is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

A thoughtful discussion of race, gender, and politics

I've always liked Bill Moyers, and if I'm cruising the tv to find something to watch before bedtime, I'll check out "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS to see who he's talking to.

Last night, I found him interviewing two UC Berkeley law professors, Christopher Edley and Maria Echaveste who also happen to be husband and wife. Edley is a senior advisor to the Obama campaign, and Echaveste advises Hillary Clinton. So the discussion focused on their views of the candidates and how race and gender issues are playing out in this campaign.

It was an amazing, common sense and informative discussion of the candidates -- I was so impressed at both of these people, and the calm, humorous and down to earth way in which they talked about how race and gender have affected people's views of the candidates.

It's well worth the 30 minutes to listen to this interview, which you can watch here or download from Itunes.

Does ANY Woman Deserve to be Talked About Like This???

I keep telling myself that I'm not going to post anything political here. But then something comes along and I just need to talk about it.

I continue to be troubled and hugely dismayed at how sexist and mean people's comments about Hillary Clinton tend to be. Have you noticed how many people -- women included -- make derogatory comments about her that involve her hair, her clothes, her femininity or her marriage?

Regardless of how you feel about Hillary Clinton as a person, a politician, or a candidate, watch this video and pay attention to the derogatory language used to talk about her by the mainstream media. Notice the words used, and think about what the comparable words would be if they were talking about a man. (And imagine how people would react if mainstream female broadcast celebrities were talking about any male candidate in similarly inflammatory language.) I'm not asking you to support Hillary, agree with her, or like her at all. I'd just like you to look at how a smart woman who has achieved success is being treated by our mainstream press, and ask yourself whether this is acceptable to you for any woman to be talked about this way.

Personally, I find it offensive and shocking ... and most of all depressing that this doesn't bother more people. As consumers of the press, and as women, we deserve better.

Obama or Clinton -- but not McCain

I've been shocked to hear a number of friends say that if Obama doesn't win the Democratic nomination, they won't vote in the national election, or they'll consider voting for McCain -- anyone but Clinton. And I've also heard various people say that if Hillary Clinton isn't the nominee, they'll stay home, or they'll vote for McCain, but not for Obama.

Frankly, these statements seem downright ridiculous to me. Do folks vote only on personality, and not on the issues? The reality is that Clinton and Obama are pretty darn close on the issues, and either Democrat's agenda in the White House is going to be vastly superior to any Republican's. (Does anyone actually think that Karl Rove and the Christian conservatives are just going to fade away?)

I get that people have various levels of personal discomfort with either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for various reasons. But it seems to me that those folks are missing the obvious: a vote that Obama or Clinton doesn't get in the national election is effectively a vote FOR McCain.

And why wouldn't someone who supports Obama's or Clinton's positions on the issues want McCain -- who is working awfully hard right now to persuade the far right that he is THEIR man -- to be president?

Here's the most convincing argument of all, in my view:

"The day the next president takes office, five of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. John Paul Stevens will be 88; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75; Anthony Kennedy, 71; Stephen Breyer, 70; and ... Antonin Scalia is 72.
The next president will probably pick one or two of their replacements; maybe more, if he or she is reelected. McCain, who favors the repeal of Roe v. Wade, promises conservative audiences, "We're going to have justices like [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito."

This Dan Payne of the Boston Globe writing here. You can read the full editorial here.

Iron Your Own Damn Shirts

I've been thinking today about the news report that yesterday, two hecklers at a Hillary Clinton rally interrupted her speech by yelling "Iron my shirts!" and holding up signs that said the same thing. (You can watch the incident here.) Clinton handled the situation very well, I thought. I'm sure she's had her share of practice at dealing with sexist comments over the past umpteen years in public life, and I'd think her advisors would have been foolish not to rehearse with her how she could handle things if sexist heckling did occur at a public event.

But I'm dismayed by a few different aspects of this event. Mainly, I'm surprised at how little mention it has received in the news, overall. This is probably due to the fact that it was the day before the NH primary, and those events have eclipsed that story. Still, the news have found time to repeatedly air the bit of Hillary getting teary when asked about how strongly she feels about running for president. Why is it that her showing genuine emotion gets a lot of negative press, while her addressing immature sexist heckling is downplayed? If someone heckled Obama by saying "Pick my cotton! Work my fields!" I'm guessing that episode, and Obama's reaction, would be all over the place. It's hard not to conclude that the mostly male press would rather project the image of a woman who -- gasp -- might get emotional and is therefore -- of course -- probably too weak to run a country, than a strong, confident woman who can competently and with humor handle a couple of backwards hecklers.

Here's the other thing: how many people apparently conclude that those hecklers "must have been" plants. Turns out, I understand, that they're talk radio guys known for sexist and jerky behavior. Lord, how people don't want to see a strong woman succeed... it's mind-boggling.

One more thing that has been on my mind. I've been watching the democratic debates all along, and was particularly interested in the debate the other night from New Hampshire. Now, I really like Obama and Edwards as well as Clinton. But I was surprised and dismayed at how even those two included subtle sexist stereotypes in their comments about Hillary Clinton. Both of them, for example, kept referring to Clinton as part of the "status quo" as if she is interchangeable with her husband (and as if Clinton was "status quo" compared to the last 7 years anyway, but that's another quibble). The concept that women are just pale alter egos of their husbands went out a long time ago, but no one has called Edwards or Obama on the way that concept underpins that challenge to Clinton. When Edwards was asked to comment on Hillary Clinton getting teary-eyed (of course, we MUST know what the MEN think of a woman crying), he replied by saying how America wants a president with "strength and resolve," and that being president is "tough business." He was smart enough to leave the point of that response unspoken, but the fact that he said that as response made the message clear: a woman who cries isn't tough enough to be president.

Don't get me wrong -- I think Edwards and Obama and Clinton are excellent candidates and I'd be proud to have any one of them as President. But I'm sure dismayed at how widespread the subtle and not so subtle displays of sexism are. And I'm really irked that it seems to be acceptable to an awful lot of people, liberals included.

Women are Never Front Runners

Gloria Steinem has an op-ed piece in today's New York Times about gender in the presidential primary and the different standards applied to Hillary Clinton versus the male candidates, especially Barack Obama. Like her, I think both are excellent candidates and I'd be thrilled to have either of them in the White House. But thank you, Ms. Steinem, for so clearly pointing out how race and gender are being treated so differently in this race. Women should pay attention, because this affects all of us.

Primary Thoughts

I've really been missing New Hampshire lately. I lived there for 11 years, from just after graduation from law school until Caroline was 2 1/2. I really loved living there, but we decided to return to California because both Roger's and my families are here and we wanted Caroline to know her grandparents and aunts and uncles and all.

Still, I miss New Hampshire, and especially at this time of hear. Maybe it's typical of displaced Californians, but I never tired of the snow. I LOVED the snow. (Roger, on the other hand, hated it... so it's unlikely we'll return for more than short visits. Dang.)

When I first got to New Hampshire, I had very little interest in politics. Sure, I read the paper and voted and tried to keep myself reasonably informed to make choices about candidates and issues. But in New Hampshire, politics are all around you all the time, and no more so than when the national primaries roll around every 4 years. It seemed silly to me at first -- what was this little teeny state doing, thinking it was such a big deal? But then I saw how people in New Hampshire feel directly connected to the political process. They are proud of their participation in the process and genuinely believe that their showing up at rallies and talking to candidates and getting out to vote will make a difference. And in New Hampshire, I realized that I could meet candidates I wanted to meet. During campaign season, the local paper ran a daily column listing who was where, so you could find the candidates you wanted to see. I worked in the state capitol, and I remember how right before the primary it got so I'd watch out for big clumps of people on the street when I was dashing out to get lunch, because it meant there was a candidate hidden in a crowd of press people.

Watching the new coverage of the New Hampshire primary right now reminds me that it was that time in New Hampshire that really taught me the power of individual participation in government. Because of my time there, I still feel that I can make a difference. It may be a bit harder to get access to government here, but now I know it's possible and that it's just a matter of making an effort to seek people out. I've learned that when it's possible, meeting face to face with someone can make a huge difference. I've called up school board members and city council members to make appointments to talk face to face when I'm concerned about something.

Anyway, today I'm thinking of my friends in New Hampshire braving the cold and the crowds of reporters to get out and vote. I wish I were there today. It'll be a few weeks before we here in California get to vote. But I'll be right there at the polling place, checking my boxes.

The Best Rant Ever

I can't imagine summing up the Bush Administration's "legacy" better than Keith Olberman at MSNBC here.

Really, you must go listen to this.