Women Who Run

Let's all do an experiment.

Tell us about your childhood.  Were your parents around often enough?  Too often?  And when you were a teenager, did you have a lot of friends?   Did you follow the rules?  Were your mom and dad too strict?  Now tell us about dating -- how many partners?  How serious?  Did you "fool around?"  When you got married, whose idea was it?  Who was in charge?  Who paid the bills?  Who made decisions about the kids?

Now part two of this experiment is to find a bunch of snoopy journalists with nothing better to do.  They will take way too much time to contact everyone you knew way back when and compare notes.  Then, when they find inaccuracies, for example, about how many partners you had, they will publish it.  And then there will be lots of debate and accusations about whether you are a liar.

This is the boilerplate for women who run for office.

Wendy Davis, who has been unassailable in what she has accomplished as a state senator, now has to quibble about how often she saw her daughters when they were in Texas and she was at Harvard, and whether her husband paid for her education.

I could swear that when I moved away from my home state at age 26 I drove the eight hours to visit my parents every two months.  But I'll bet someone out there can prove me wrong.  And just ask my kids if I was around enough when they were growing up.

But this nonsense doesn't happen when it's a man running for office.  Rand Paul, not a brilliant or motivated student, was a prankster who abducted a woman because he and his buddies thought it would be a riot.  Yet last week he went after Hillary for Bill Clinton's misbehavior with women.  He never had to mention Hillary, just had to say that a candidate who took money from Bill was against women.  How twisted is that???

What is amazing is just how much play the debate over Wendy Davis' history has gotten.  Really???  Do we really have nothing better to do than research how many weeks Davis lived in a trailer park?  Or whether she herself earned the paycheck that paid the Harvard tuition versus was married and had joint funds that paid for her education while she -- imagine this -- commuted from her Texas family to Boston and did the work of getting a law degree from Harvard.  Those of us who have also done this, and even those of us who have not, understand that all that time she was hanging out with friends in Boston was not spent planning pranks.

Wonder why we aren't hearing from the media about the issues?  I for one am tired of women being subjected to family values critiques from the media, and from voters being quite happy ringing in on women candidates' personal decisions.

Now I don't know if Greg Abbott, Wendy's opponent for governor of Texas, is even married, what kind of husband or father he might be, because, after all, he is a man and nobody in the media has thought it relevant.  We do know, however, that he is wheelchair bound.  This happened when a tree fell on him as he was jogging some thirty years ago.  Now this in itself is not a character or political issue.  What is relevant however, is that, although Abbott has benefited from  Americans with Disabilities Act laws that require ramps and other means of accessibility, he has as Texas attorney general, repeatedly blocked handicapped people from suing the state for violations of the ADA.

Wendy will no doubt bring this up, because it is an important aspect of Abbott's political philosophy and how he would implement his beliefs as governor.  The question is, will the media pursue issues like this anywhere near as passionately and persistently as they have explored Wendy Davis' parenting decisions and ability?

It depends, in large part, on whether we citizens will continue to allow these distractions to occur.  It is up to us to force the candidates to address the issues that will determine their paths in office, and force the media to report on those stances.  Until we do, the messages of good women like Wendy Davis will be suppressed, and we will be stuck with yet another election cycle dominated by gossip and irrelevance. 

Raimondo in Rhode Island

I was pleasantly surprised when I learned about Gina Raimondo, who is running for Governor in my home state of Rhode Island.  She's smart, innovative, and compassionate.  She understands just how Rhode Island has been hit by this tough economy and as treasurer, she knew just what needed to be done to fix it.  She has also served the community, on boards that work to fund homeless shelters for women and other non-profits.

So it comes as no surprise that she is popular.  And also that her opponents are taking potshots at her.

Yesterday I learned of a smear campaign, both ridiculous and ugly, that had been making its way around You Tube, brought to you by your friends at the gun lobby, comparing Raimondo to Hitler because of her strong position for gun control.

And today the big buzz is about millionaires who live out of state and have contributed to Gina's campaign.  Not just any out-of-stater, but an "ex-Enron trader."

What we have going on in the country is a situation where the Supreme Court has given the nod-and-a-wink to big money to speak in campaigns.  The purpose of that big money is to keep the status quo -- the wealthy and powerful -- in power.  When someone comes in who is not going to play that game, she's not supposed to get that big money.  And when she does, those hypocrites swoop down for the attack.

Since we're talking Rhode Island and not South Carolina, it looks like the candidates are all willing to agree to limit the amount of out-of-state money.  And since we're talking Rhode Island, there's a pretty good chance the people will have their say and Gina Raimondo will get elected.

But meanwhile, I'm just going to wait and see what they come up with next.