Mojo Mom Podcast with PunditMom, Joanne Bamberger

This week on The Mojo Mom Podcast I get to talk with PunditMom herself, Joanne Bamberger. Joanne raises a political voice for mothers through several platforms across the blogosphere, on outlets including her own PunditMom blog, with her Mothers of Intention feature, MOMocrats, blog talk radio, and BlogHer. Joanne was also selected to be a member of the inaugural class of the Progressive Women's Voices program offered by the Women's Media Center.

And, I am very proud that Joanne has joined my latest project, as one of our team of Courageous Parents, Confident Kids anthology contributors.

So I hope you'll listen in to this week's Mojo Mom Podcast, which is part book discussion; and then gets into our personal opinions and a bit of group therapy for (currently) discouraged Democrats trying to get our mojo back.

Listen to the podcast now:



Amy Tiemann continues her series of interviews with "Courageous Parents, Confident Kids" anthology contributors, this week by talking politics with Joanne Bamberger, creator of PunditMom blog.

In Joanne's book chapter, she talks about what it means for parents to connect with their political voices, and proclaim their opinions, often using blogs as an outlet. Here Joanne and Amy get right into it, sharing their own opinions about their frustrations with the Democratic Party, politics, and the seeming inability to get anything done, even when one party has the Presidency and majorities in the House and Senate.

Hear what's on Amy and Joanne's minds, and then feel free post a comment here to let us know what is on yours!

Obama/Clinton through a cognitive scientist's eyes

Political linguist/cognitive scientist George Lakoff is brilliant. I've been a fan of his for a few years now, and I'm going to get to hear him speak at a sold out event in the Triangle this weekend.

But you can hear him right now, interviewed on WUNC radio's program The State of Things. Lakoff talks about politics in a unique way, discussing frameworks, values, and how progressives and convervatives have failed or succeeded in getting their point across.

In the final third of the half hour segment, Lakoff lays out the essential differences between Obama and Clinton's political approaches.

Lakoff's specialty is putting into words what we may have felt in our hearts but not been able to articulate. I recommended this interview to a friend earlier today and he emailed back, "Thank you for that, it was the best 30 minutes I will spend this week."

This segment is a must-listen. The Obama-Clinton comparison is in the last third of the 30-minute segment. If you have ever wondered why Obama is really the change candidate, rather than Clinton, you owe it to yourself to listen to this segment.

You can listen for free through your computer or download to an MP3 player:

What's the storyline in South Carolina?

I know this is somewhat off-topic for Mojo Mom, but I have to write about the Democratic South Carolina primary today. (I had started a political blog last year but wasn't able to keep it up. Today I really need an outlet for that mojo!)

I am a Democrat, a big John Edwards fan, but I see good things in Obama and Clinton as well. I have been very frustrated by the mainstream media forcing storylines on a primary season that is just starting to unfold. The best analysis I have seen of the insistence on "horse race" coverage is "Why Campaign Coverage Sucks" by Jay Rosen, originally reported on TomDispatch.com, and reposted to Salon.com.

Today on CNN.com, as the primary is underway, the headline says, "Obama's legitimacy on line in South Carolina." Oh really? Who says? I am worried that the media has painted Obama into a racial box in South Carolina: on the one hand, Obama needs to show strong from African-American support. As CNN's Bill Schneider says, "Obama's support among African-American voters gives him more legitimacy. Obama has been doing well with young voters, independents and educated upper-middle-class liberals -- the NPR vote. Winning the black vote by a solid margin means Obama has standing with the Democratic Party's base."

But on the other hand, what if Obama wins South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, but lags behind in the white vote? Will the man who was once questioned for being "Black Enough" now become marginalized as "The Black Candidate," even though he won in lily-white Iowa and got 37% of the vote versus Clinton's 39% in New Hampshire? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton gets only beneficial bonus points for winning the black vote but obviously can't be marginalized as the White Candidate for scoring too many points in her demographic.

The gender card is its own mine-field. Of course Hillary Clinton faces the double-bind of being tough enough yet likeable and relatable. I am concerned about both of these fine candidates being pigeonholed unfairly, and I was really upset by the squabbling this week between Clinton and Obama. I did get the impression personally that Clinton's campaign has unleashed some unfair attacks against Obama, that Hillary has tried to appear to be rising above that fray yet sends her surrogates (Bill and others) to do the dirty work. Some call that politics, some call it hardball, I call it unfortunate. I will consider this election a failure if our unconscious racism and sexism are used as weapons by candidates against each other. I guess that brands me as a hopeless idealist, because of course this is already happening and will happen between parties [and memo to Broadsheet, a blog that I generally respect, your growing fascination with this drama is making it worse] but it crushes me to see candidates whom I like and respect going after each other that way.

As for the narrative of the Democratic Primary, Obama won Iowa, Clinton won New Hampshire, and although both "beat expectations" in each race, it's pretty close between the two of them. Why do we have to have this huge back-and-forth drama after each race? Both Clinton and Obama have more support in their party than any individual Republican has in his party. These are two viable candidates, and we should let the voters rather than the media decide who will end up on top.

What do you think? Am I on to something here, and am I also missing something? I am open to the possibility that I am adopting storylines without being conscious of them. My favorite political pundit is definitely Jon Stewart, who is not afraid to call the media out on its bullshit. He deftly skewered pollster John Zogby for the fact that all the predictions about the Democratic New Hampshire primary were just WRONG. Zogby didn't have a good answer for what went wrong, or Stewart's common-sense question about why can't we just wait a couple of days and see what the voters say?

Maybe because it would put the pundits out of business....? For a rare glimpse of sanity on CNN.com, read University of South Carolina School of Law Professor Danielle Holley-Walker's commentary, "Issues -- not gender or race -- on minds of voters," and stay tuned for the voice of the voters in South Carolina and beyond.

Living in North Carolina, I am happy to think that my vote in the Primary on May 6th could actually mean something.

For more background on this topic I recommend Drew Westen's book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Race and gender touch deep buttons in all of us, and it would be a shame if we let manipulation of these frameworks determine the outcome of our election. In 2000 we seemed to pick based on the guy we'd rather have a beer with, and look where that got us. We need to really think things through this time and make sure we're guided by our better angels rather than our unconscious comfort zones or prejudices.

Must "Vote for Mom" = soft and domestic?

The New York Times political memo stating Women Feeling Freer to Suggest 'Vote for Mom' sets up the age-old stereotype of domestic softie vs. qualified leader.

"For a long time women seeking high office, particularly executive office, were advised to play down their softer, domestic side, and play up their strength and qualifications. Focus groups often found voters questioning whether women were strong enough, tough enough, to lead."

The Times suggests that the latest generation of voters is able to overcome reluctance about electing women, but I still feel that the piece reinforces the limited notion of motherhood as a sentimental, soft cushion of domesticity.

The American Prospect Online goes all out to bash female politicians for using motherhood as a qualification for leadership in The Mommy Mantra: What female politicians lose when they brand themselves as mothers.

Dana Goldstein criticizes Hillary Clinton's appearance on The View by saying, "It was a new articulation of the mommy mantra -- the idea that what qualifies women for politics isn't their intelligence, their experience, their policy proposals, or even their character, but rather their inherent identities as feminine caretakers."

I realize that when we try to bring motherhood into the political sphere, we are going up against age-old gender roles and stereotypes such as the Victorian "Angel in the House." But let's not be content to stop there. Let's insist on rewriting these images. I believe that the experience of motherhood is valid life and leadership experience that will inform public policy, that shapes character, in a very legitimate way.

I want leaders who have done the down and dirty work of family management and caretaking. Not studied as a white paper, but lived with all the complexity of family life, budgeting, and prioritizing. I would argue for a much higher diversity of experience in our government. What do we lose if our representation is overwhelmingly drawn from the legal profession? What would we gain if we had more doctors, farmers, teachers, nonprofit leaders, or pastors who went into public service at some point in their lives. And yes, MOTHERS, fathers, and primary caretakers.

Even if it's an urban legend that former President George H. W. Bush was amazed when he was shown a supermarket scanner in 1988, you can be sure it's been a long time, if ever, that any of our Presidents have bought their own groceries and cooked a meal. I would love to see more leaders emerge from families who have had to stretch to buy enough groceries to last until the next paycheck, to navigate the maze of insurance carriers in a health crisis. Military families who have children serving in the armed forces. Families for whom the stakes are high.

Nancy Pelosi has raised five children. She entered Congress in 1987 when her youngest was a teenager. So even though it's been a few years since she's run a household, and even though she was from a financially secure family, I believe her experiences as a mother inform her leadership in a profound way.

Motherhood is a sentimental idea in our culture, but it is not a sentimental day-to-day existence. The Women Hold Up Half the Sky image in this blog posting is from the page of facts about Women at Risk, from the Rehydration Project. The illustration of a day's work for most poor women is an important reminder of the resources that most American women have access to.

For me, motherhood has been the most politicizing force in my life, as I wrote about recently on Literary Mama and the final chapter of Mojo Mom. This issue also recalls for me the first blog posting I ever wrote, What Does A Mojo Mom Look Like? back in September 2003 that described my search for an image that would illustrate the new concept of a Mojo Mom.

In my world of ideas, VOTE FOR MOM can = "Vote for experience, intelligence, power, and competence." We just need the right translator.