Below is the version published on The Broad Side; please click on the link at the bottom to see the story in its entirety.

—–

Who’s getting in our way when it comes to women in elective office? Ourselves, in many cases.

Whether it be doubting that we can win, not wanting to leave our young children at home in the care of others while we’re on the campaign trail or in office, or whether we just don’t think we have what it takes – women are often their own biggest critics.

It’s in our nature to sow feelings of self-doubt, despite the fact that of all people, WE should know better. WE should know that not only can we run for office – and win – but we can literally change history by adding that feminine touch to hot-button policy item and issues that matter most to our communities. After all, don’t most of us hold down demanding jobs while raising kids, making sure school projects and homework are done, keeping the house from looking like a tornado tore through it, attending PTA meetings and soccer practice, and volunteering in our communities, and maintaining family finances?

During an recent event in New York City presented by 92Y and Glamour Magazine, women helping to make inroads in this arena challenged other women to embrace their ambition and not be dissuaded by the critics.

“If you just look at the numbers, it’s not that encouraging, but it IS encouraging … I can tell you, from the feel and the atmosphere and response, there is endless potential for women to be elected in New York City and New York State, in my opinion,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “I don’t see at all, any evidence, that gender holds us back. I think what holds us back is ourselves. We decide what we can’t do. We decide what we can’t risk.”

What makes us not take that risk? A 2011 American University study notes that men are 60 percent more likely than women to think of themselves as “very qualified” to run for office, whereas women are more than twice as likely as men to rate themselves as “not at all qualified.” Plus, we’re not the gender amped up to jump into the ring and draw blood.  Being a target of media scrutiny and criticism isn’t exactly a turn-on to many women.

One of the difficult decisions to make is to “be that target” for people’s criticism, said Amy Holmes, news anchor for GBTV’s Real News at the Blaze, former CNN contributor and speechwriter for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. “For women, I think that can be a little more difficult decision than it can for men.”

Men like to put “scalps up on their wall” and enjoy the competition, she added, but “to be a woman in public life certainly is not easy – you have to have a very thick skin and be prepared.”

Sandra Fluke is a woman who has such a thick skin.

Click here for the entire article on The Broad Side

My upcoming article will focus on how New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s model for reforming teacher pay and education could serve other states well, so stay tuned at The Broad Side…

Here’s an excerpt from my first article, which was based on a town-hall even I attended last week in Kearny, N.J., at which I asked Gov. Christie a question about the contraception debate raging in the national – and state- political arena. Please click on the link to The Broad Side for the article in its entirety. Thanks for reading!

—

The contraception debate has caused women to sit up and take notice of the presidential race, if they weren’t already paying attention. I realize it’s a little hard to get excited about this primary season. But mess with a woman’s reproductive rights and you stir up a hornet’s nest. It has served as fuel for Democrats’ fire and that of organizations such as EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood, as they continue to hammer away at the Republican presidential hopefuls for their various stances on whether federal mandates on health insurance should cover contraception. The “War on Women” has to be stopped, they argue. Vote Democrat.

The Republican National Committee has fought back with a new ad  called “Obama’s War on Women,” featuring female media personalities like CNN’s Erin Burnett skewering Obama administration and campaign officials about Bill Maher’s remarks about women (like calling Sarah Palin the c-word and referring to a FOX host as a “blonde twink”), given that he donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC. The ad also notes journalist Ron Suskind’s book “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” released last year, which highlighted tensions between the Obama administration and women working in and around the White House.

But some high-profile Republicans are saying “move on.”

Click here for the entire article on The Broad Side

Meghan McCain

Meghan McCain thinks New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie can inject some life into the thus-far blah Republican presidential primary.

“The Republicans need someone to excite younger people, independents, Hispanic voters and the disenfranchised. I think if Chris Christie is the vice presidential nominee we can change the weather and have a very good chance of beating Obama,” the Daily Beast blogger and MSNBC contributor told Playboy. “I love that he’s no bullsh-t.”

McCain also said the 2012 election cycle has been “so lame.”

“So many debates, so much blather, so much over saturation.”

Watch: Meghan McCain – ‘I Just Love Any Sort of Ballsy Women’ 

She also talks about Bristol Palin, what it would have been lack had her dad, Sen. John McCain, won the 2008 election against Barack Obama, and being single.

Generally speaking, a “swing voter” is a voter who could support any candidate in an election or party, is not affiliated with any particular party and may vote across party lines. This group is viewed as being able to make or break certain candidates.

An “independent voter” is a swing voter, but pollsters and political experts argue that independent voters are more likely than swing voters to inherently lean left or right, and are more likely to be no-shows at the polls.

“Ignore Swing Voters at Your Peril!” warns William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic.

“Even in these hyperpolarized times, there are lots of voters who remain open to a politics of persuasion—more than enough to determine the outcome—and campaigns ignore them at their peril,” Galston says.

Linda Killian, a Washington journalist and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, recently published her book, The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. An excerpt on The Atlantic highlights the undeniably increasing power independent voters have, noting that 30 percent of all American voters now consider themselves independent – the largest number of independent voters in 70 years, and a bigger group than those who say they are either Republican or Democrat.

Fed up with the hordes of money that goes into campaigns that put campaigns into office that aren’t necessarily representative of their constituents, and the increasing polarization of the parties today as the economy, education and other aspects of our society struggle, they say enough is enough.

“Every election since World War II has been determined by voters in the middle,” Killian writes – Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. “The margin by which Obama carried the independent vote in crucial swing states around the country was one of the significant factors in his victory and will undoubtedly be critical to whether or not he is reelected.”

Killian highlights 4 types of independent voters who could swing the 2012 elections: NPR Republicans (Socially moderate, fiscally conservative who have become disenfranchised with GOP extremism but also aren’t thrilled with their vote for Barack Obama in 2008, if they crossed party lines), America First Democrats (formerly Reagan Democrats who are largely male, working- and middle-class voters mostly in Middle America who are feeling the effects of the flailing economy), The Facebook Generation (voters 35 and under, including the Millennial generation, who trust groups online more than offline, were wowed by Obama in 2008 but are sick of the partisan gridlock and Obama’s inability to deliver), and the Starbucks Moms and Dads (suburban or just-outside-the-city voters, most with kids, who are skeptical of big government, socially moderate, concerned with education, national security and the national debt, and totally turned off by political extremism).

During the primary season, candidates are expected to focus on their base in order to whip up a frenzy of support to gain their party’s nomination. Voters in the middle are virtually ignored (it doesn’t help that independents can’t vote in primary races in about half the U.S. states) until the general election, when the candidates know they have to woo the middle in order to be able to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home.

As much as politicos and pollsters may try to make it sound as if this group of voters doesn’t care, isn’t engaged, etc…perhaps they should also ask “why?”

I’d wager that perhaps more independents don’t turn out to vote because they don’t see any one candidate who they believe represents them or mainstream America. Give America some better options and you may just be surprised at who turns up at the polls.

Howard Dean

It’s not very often I find myself in complete agreement with Howard Dean.

But today, during his on-air MSNBC commentary about the Republican presidential candidates and how they have “completely alienated the independents in this country,” I found myself sitting there nodding my head. “Yes!”

In their effort to curry favor with that all-too important conservative base, any of the candidates who may have even a whiff of independent-thinking in them on social issues, in particular, have said what they think conservatives want to hear. GOP candidates are currying favor with the ”very far right social agendas,” Dean said. Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod was pushing a similar message to reporters this week, so this is clearly part of Obama’s strategy – to paint his potential opponents as so far out of the mainstream one couldn’t possibly vote for them.

Up until recently, many would agree that of them all – Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul – Romney had the biggest independent streak of them all. Then the contraception debate reared its ugly head, and Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke stole the spotlight away from issues Romney would rather focus on, like jobs and the economy.

“He could have redefined himself on that one thing,” Dean, said of the Fluke-Limbaugh ordeal; that was Romney’s chance to call Limbaugh out for the [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE CHOICE WORD FOR LIMBAUGH HERE] that he is and, at the very least, make some gesture that said “this guy doesn’t represent my beliefs.”

But he didn’t. And he didn’t make a strong, pro-woman stance in the broader contraception debate, either.

Romney’s latest lean right seems to be paying off.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll released this week shows Romney gaining support among voters who identify themselves as “very conservative;” his favorability rating among that group rose from 38 percent in late February to 50 percent this week.

As more proof to Dean’s point: Among customarily swing-voting independents, everyone but Paul are seen more unfavorably than favorably.

Dean asked: “How do you convince women they should vote for a Republican after all of this?”

Conservative women are essentially left to decide between the lesser of four evils. There are few issues as important to NOT mess with as a woman’s reproductive rights. Any woman who considers herself an independent or swing voter who may have been on the fence as to who they will support come November may very well have had her mind made up by this latest GOP embarrassment.

“People want someone to stand unto extremes – Romney hasn’t done that,” Dean said.

There is no shortage of polls and news stories conveying the message that the American people are sick of the polarization and the extremism they see in this year’s election. I recently took a quick informal poll of my Facebook friends to see just how many would be interested in voting for an independent candidate, if given the choice.

Here are the results:

• 18 people said yes, they would vote for an independent candidate if they thought he/she was the best one for the job; 1 said they would vote for a third-party candidate only if they thought he/she would win; 2 more said a third-party would be healthy
• 8 said they would not, that they are firmly a Republican or Democrat and would vote for their party’s nominee
• 1 person said anybody but Obama. “Would not vote for 3rd party if it meant4 more yrs. of Obama”
• 1 person said yes, political parties should be abolished.

Aside from the fact that I DO have many more Facebook friends than this poll suggests;) … double the number of respondents said they would support a third-party candidate than those who said they would just vote for their party’s candidate.

The problem is only going to get worse as the Republican presidential hopefuls head south for the next batch of primaries to try to capture the evangelical vote.

It’s time to wake up and take notice of America’s “middle.” I’m not talking about geography, but about the slew of Americans whose votes are still up for grabs this election year. Looking forward to the day when more candidates lean toward the middle to listen to what this largely ignored voting bloc has to say.

During a talk on education in Fort Lee, NJ, on Friday with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and former Washington, D.C. School Chancellor and founder of StudentsFirst Michelle Rhee, Christie was asked by someone in the audience what his plan was on gay marriage.

“I think marriage is between one man and one woman,” Christie said. “Let’s put it on the ballot.”

Christie has taken heat for wanting to put the issue to voters via the ballot, instead of passing a law through the state Legislature. Earlier this week, Christie vetoed legislation to legalize same-sex marriages.

“if the majority of people want to have same-sex marriage, then vote for it,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s a decision that should be made by 121 people in Trenton alone.

“I’m willing to be governed by the will of the people of New Jersey.

Putting the issue on the ballot can be seen two ways:

1) It actually could serve as a way to really execute the will of the people, instead of the political leanings of a 100 or so lawmakers that may not be in touch with their constituencies.

OR

2) It’s the easy way out for Christie, if there aren’t enough people in New Jersey who would actually vote in favor of gay marriage on the ballot and the measure is defeated. Many argue that the fate of such an important issue should not be decided via this method.

But there IS support, and Christie has to know that, thereby decreasing fuel for the argument that he only wants to put it on the ballot because he thinks it will be defeated by the people. At the same time, there is always the fear that gay-marriage opponents will be louder.

A Quinnipiac Poll released March 1 shows that support for same-sex marriage in New Jersey has reached a new high, 57-37%, but voters split 48-47% on whether Christie did the right thing in vetoing same-sex marriage legislation.

They also approve, 67-28%, Christie’s proposal to put the matter on the November ballot.

What do you think states should do about gay marriage?

Make it a ballot issue or send it to the state Legislatures for a vote?

Chip Scutari, a former Arizona Republic political reporter-turned political consultant who makes up one-half of Scutari and Cieslak bipartisan public relations firm, told MSNBC today that he was in no way, shape, or form, in love with any one of the Republican presidential hopefuls: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul.

“When I look at these four candidates, it’s like going to a seventh grade dance and all the pretty, popular girls went skiing for the weekend and we’re left with the rest of the crowd.”

As voters in Michigan and Arizona go to the polls today, the former could be a make-or-break state for Romney, in particular. But even if Romney loses Michigan, he’s signaling that doesn’t mean he’s dropping out of the race.

“This is not going to be over in a day or two,” the Michigan native said today.

Scutari isn’t the only one voicing the consensus that no one is really feeling the love with any of the candidates. And a story on the Detroit Free Press Web site this afternoon backs up that claim. Headlined “Low Michigan Turnout Blamed on Little Interest, Ballot Confusion,” the Free Press reports that Grandville, MI, Clerk Mary Meines said she had not seen many signs of intense interest in the primary, despite several local appearances by Romney, Santorum and Paul. What’s even more depressing – as a testament to the state of the primary race, that is - fewer voters in the Sterling Heights, MI, community requested absentee ballots for the GOP primary than they did for last November’s local mayor and city council race – the city council race?!

Meanwhile, as of 2:30 p.m. this afternoon, voter turnout had been light in some Michigan counties considered key players in the GOP primary race, even in at least one county that supported Romney in his 2008 presidential bid. Although, I should note that in other precincts like Tittabawasee Township, voter turnout was higher, in part, because people felt compelled to vote because the country’s “the worst it’s ever been.”

And yup, here it is folks… My own senior prom picture from the Class of 1996.  I’m the one in the green dress, third girl in from the right. Guys, don’t hate because you’re in the photo – someone posted this on my Facebook wall so it’s all public anyway;)

I was reading a recent issue of New York magazine and came across an article that offers hope for a real third party one day soon. John Heilemann, the magazine’s national affairs editor, recently spoke with Kahlil Byrd, who  is CEO of Americans Elect, the organization striving to launch an actual independent presidential candidate in 2021 via online voting, bypassing the traditional nominating process.

I already knew about Americans Elect but was wondering why it hadn’t captured more attention until now. Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman made headlines in the New Jersey papers here in December when she joined Americans Elect. The group plans to pick its nominee in June after an online nominating convention in which anyone can participate.

As of today, leading presidential candidates topping the Americans Elect chart are: Presidential candidate Ron Paul, former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Many think Stephen Colbert, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and other high-profile figures should also run on the Americans Elect ticket, as well.

The time is undoubtedly ripe for a group like Americans Elect to push for a ticket that includes candidate from different political affiliations, given voter dissatisfaction with the major political parties and government in general. As we just saw from Rick Santorum’s trifecta in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, Mitt Romney has an attraction problem in that he can’t get Republicans psyched about him taking on Obama, yet one would be hard-pressed to find more people jazzed about a possible President Paul, Santorum or Gingrich. Heilemann points out that as much as 46 percent of the electorate identifies itself as independent, and that pro pollsters have found that a good percentage of voters would choose an independent presidential candidate over a Republican or Democrat, if given the choice.

During a talk in Summit, NJ, here late last month, Whitman made a strong argument for the existence of Americans Elect, saying, “You see us driving wedges” between the parties and it becomes a case of “not only don’t I like you, I won’t work with you.”

“Almost every issue is being judged by a partisan political prism” in Washington these days, she continued.
The result of this is extreme partisanship in which “We as Americans are getting short changed.”

Can anyone disagree with her?

Americans Elect has already collected more than 2.4 million signatures; more than half the number needed to put the party on the nationwide ballot. The presidential ticket would be whomever the voters themselves choose via the online voting process; the vice presidential pick, however, has to be someone from a party other than your own. Any registered voter can participate.

Would you support Americans Elect and an independent ticket – or, at least, the option to choose an independent ticket – in November? It will be interesting to see who the American people pick in this study of e-democracy.

In an interview with FOX News Thursday, Stearns noted that while Planned Parenthood has been around for 50 years, this is the first time Congress has really tried to look at its finances. There is concern that federal money is being used by the organization to help pay for abortions.

“We’re doing a financial oversight investigation,” Stearns said before Komen reversed its decision [video below]. “Planned Parenthood gets roughly $487 million – roughly half a billion dollars – a year from taxpayers and all I’m saying is, where is this money going?’”

Stearns has asked Planned Parenthood for 10 years of  records dealing with more than 80 of their affiliates. “It’s a reasonable request and it’s an ongoing investigation,” he added.

He noted that many states have fined Planned Parenthood for fraud – overbilling and Medicaid abuse, among other issues. Stearns also said he has several employees who used to work for Planned Parenthood who witnessed such abuses.

He said Komen made “the right decision based on the history and court cases.”

UPDATE: Susan G. Komen has decided to continue funding Planned Parenthood’s breast exams after a huge public outcry that led to a windfall of donations to Planned Parenthood.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation said in a statement.

“We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

Some, however, wonder if there’s just enough wiggle room for funding to still be cut off, pointing to this part of Komen’s statement: “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

A group of more than 20 U.S. senators plan to send sent a letter to the Susan G. Komen Foundation asking the breast cancer advocacy organization to reconsider its move to pull future funding from Planned Parenthood.

Sens. Patty Murray, D-WA, and Barbara Boxer, D-CA, along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey – my adopted state, it seems – will sign signed their names to the letter. Murray and Boxer were on MSNBC Thursday, calling the congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood a “partisan witch hunt” that should be disregarded by Susan G. Komen.

A House committee launched a probe last September into whether Planned Parenthood’s has complied with federal restrictions on public money being used for abortions.

The letter will ask them to “reconsider this terrible decision,” Murray said of Komen.

Boxer noted that Komen’s funding has served 170,000 women via Planned Parenthood over the years, saving lives. Just a few days ago, she said, Komen’s spokespeople said the reason future funding was pulled was because of the investigation, and that they are now changing their story and saying the move is because of a refocusing of grant priorities, and putting themselves in the middle of that “political witch hunt.”

“I was not born yesterday … I’m reminded of the McCarthy-era” where lawmakers say they are investigation certain groups so funding should be halted, Boxer said. “What’s next? Are they gonna attack the American Lung association, the YMCA, the YWCA? This is so sad.”

“This is not a political decision,” said SGK Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker, stressing again that the grants were simply revised to adhere to Komen’s mission to bring real care to vulnerable populations.

I listened to Brinker’s YouTube video several times as she explained the move, referring to Komen’s grant process and how she wants to make sure “donor dollars make the biggest impact possible.”

“Wherever possible we want to grant the provider who is actually providing the life-saving mammogram,” she said, adding more “stringent criteria” will be applied to the grant process.

Facebook and Twitter are chock full of Komen slamming and Planned Parenthood lovefests.

Planned Parenthood’s Action Fund @ppact is asking Twitter followers to “Please RT: Women’s lives can’t afford to be caught up in political battles. Add your name if you #standwithPP: http://bit.ly/wjkV0F #komen“