If you’ve ever wondered how to get in touch with your member of Congress or your Senator or how to leverage your voice as a voting constituent, then this will be for you. Or you can come and watch me hem and haw my way through how a bill becomes a law and maybe I’ll sing a little School House Rock for you. Either way, this is my seventh time attending a BlogHer conference and I’m nervous. So if you’re nervous too then we can have a big nervous party together. It’ll be fun.

That was until my second morning in Austin when I met up with a few Coloradans (a proud group, they are) and started chatting up a guy who does Internet marketing out of Boulder. First of all, I had no idea the amount of interest generated just by telling people that you’re a lobbyist. The intrigue is strong, I suppose because a) I’m at a conference for tech folks and b) the only image of a lobbyist people have ever seen is Nick Naylor of Thank You For Smoking fame. After I tell people that I’m not a tobacco/gun/alcohol lobbyist or as they say a “good” lobbyist, they, of course, are naturally curious. But then why was I there, at SXSW, eating chorizo breakfast tacos instead of out lobbying in my power suit and enjoying a $45 steak for lunch?

I’ve long asked myself the same question where I allow the two things I am most passionate about – politics and social media – to come together. Inside the Beltway types and social media types are both my people but I’ve found that no matter how mainstream Twitter has become, the two sides are reluctant of one another. It used to be that conversations about politics were kept under wraps. To discuss ones political leanings at a dinner party was grounds for being escorted out by the host. But now that we live in a world where every federal agency, Senator and pundit can write in 140 characters or less, it gives way for constituents and citizens to communicate with those who make the laws. Which is huge. Whereas people used to turn on the evening news and then it would end and so would the conversation, now we can have 24 hour discussions about issues that most affect our friends and families. I continue to be amazed by the power (the people powered revolution as the folks from the David All Group discussed) that people can harness to stop or advance legislation. People are talking. People are engaged. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

So why did I take my wee blog to SXSW? Because I want to know what’s next. I want to hear more about Votizen and Americans Elect. I still want to talk about voter apathy and why women feel so disengaged and that fine line between open discussion about politics and boring people to tears. Techies attend SXSW to start a dialogue or keep it going and now us politicos – however few and far between – are there to do the same. That’s why.

Image of Vice President Al Gore and Votizen investor Sean Parker courtesy of CNET

There’s an episode of Arrested Development where patriarch George Bluth is explaining to his son, Michael Bluth, that he has been set up by the British. He’s a “patsy” he says and he’s worried that a photo of him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein will ruin him. Michael says, “Not in every occasion” as a photo of then Special Envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, flashes across the screen. The joke being that Donald Rumsfeld once took the hand of Hussein and continued to have a long and successful career.

I was reminded of this episode and the joke after a social media freak-out of sorts between the Brietbart Empire and Liberals. All of ‘em. Even if you’re at home minding your own business, they’re after you. Andrew’s final project was to start vetting the President’s past (#Vettheprez on Twitter) as the “leftist” main stream media were too busy sitting in the administration’s pocket causing journalists to fail at their job of giving all of the facts. First Team Breitbart posted what came down to President Obama seeing a play about a radical community organizer. The second part of the series would be the earth-shattering and formerly hidden videos of Barack Obama the student at Harvard University. Long story short; parts of the video were leaked by BuzzFeed and a moment left out. Conservatives jumped all over reporter Ben Smith for his selective editing as once again the media was hiding something treacherous about our Commander in Chief. What was left out? A hug. A student hugging his professor. But you guys! You don’t get it! This film from 1991 shows President Obama hugging someone from the “radical left” and we should all be rendering our garments and storming the White House because the President might hug someone else!

Rolls eyes.

Oh my God. I am so bored. Like, I fell asleep while writing this. I’m betting that as a reader you’re bored too and thinking, “That’s nice. Barack Obama hugged someone and then saw a play”. But for Team Breitbart it’s a gotcha moment and a reason for why the title of President should be stripped away from Barack Obama. If I find myself scratching my head and scrunching up my face in confusion as to why we’re supposed to be up in arms about what someone did in college, then I cannot imagine what Joe Smith watching this play out on the news or Twitter thinks. I’m assuming something along the lines of, “This? Really?” or as Piers Morgan said best, “WHAT ABOUT JOBS?!”

It’s Politics 101 that what moves people to civic engagement is something personal or a connection to an issue. To drive average citizens to policy discussions, said policy has to have some sort of direct impact on their lives or families. While I can appreciate Team Breitbart wanting to carry on Andrew’s legacy in his quest to hold the press accountable, the way they have gone about keeping the flame lit under Conservatives comes with a heaping spoonful of hysteria. The public are left saying “Huh?”. The more I watch the more I notice that there is nothing personal behind what they do. At least not personal in that they are trying to do something for the citizens of this country. Unless of course ‘doing something’ involves asinine scare tactics and having people wonder when they will get to the point. Right now they have a man who at worse had ‘radical’ views in college and it is something that has already been acknowledged by the man himself. So what?

A lesson to Conservatives: No one cares about the President hugging someone. No one is going to take the effort to Google President Obama’s former professor unless that former professor will help pay their mortgage, lower gas prices, lessen the price of health care, find cheaper child care or find any hardworking individual a job. Really. Unless the aim was to get the ultra-right fired up well then good job. They can toss about their Birther theories. Focus on real things. Real problems that real people have. But if you want to show just how out of touch the right continues to be then I applaud you. I cannot wait for Part III.

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza did a fantastic piece and following video on what is at stake for this Super Tuesday! And from iVillage, Everything You Need to Know About Super Tuesday! (exclamation point mine).

Now go forth and vote!

*applause*

I decided to go for it because while all I really need is a place to house my words and faux-punditry, it should also look pretty. Let’s face it; this is not your typical political blog and I think that things should look nice and be (SPOILER ALERT!) colorful even when delving into the appropriations process. So within the next few weeks you will see the change and it will be fun and enticing and it will totally keep you from drooling all over your keyboard while I discuss the GOP contenders for the umpteenth time.

The second thing I wanted to mention is a thank you to all of you who took the Poliogue Poll that wasn’t really a poll but a survey but I like the alliteration. What has been most important to me since deciding to start this site has been how to talk to people about politics in the following ways a) Without talking down to them; b) Fostering discussion; c) Finding out what issues people are really thinking about because Lord knows y’all don’t spend your free time contemplating earmarks; and d) Getting people to acknowledge current events and the electoral process without being all inside baseball. According to pretty much all of you (your checks are in the mail) I’ve been finding that balance very well thus far which is good to hear. Others have requested a primer of sorts and a continued focus on real issues while still doing the whole ‘Inside the Beltway’ thing. Your wish is my command.

Starting tomorrow and every Friday I’ll pick a topic (and of course you are more than welcome to suggest something) and do a brief explanation of what it is and why it is (or isn’t) a big deal. Tomorrow we’ll start with EARMARKS!

*pops confetti*

I know. Try to contain your excitement.

It started with a Virginia bill that would require a transvaginal ultrasound before allowing a woman to have an abortion. To which a conservative commentator said that a TVU is just like sex and when someone else repeated her words back to her she (commentator) then referred to that person (a male) as a pervert and, bonus! A child molester and then the rest of the Internet got really mad and several progressives expressed their hope that the commentator be raped only to be followed up by referring to said female commentator as a CUNextTuesday. And as I am typing this all out I just keep rolling my eyes more and more dramatically and whoops! One just popped out.

This situation doesn’t deserve to be called a ‘debate’ or ‘discourse’ as those who engaged from the commentator to her foes on the other side of the aisle are adult enough to have participated in actual discussion. I returned to my computer after 18 hours of true engagement on how to help communities of color and promptly stepped into a Twitter feed of WTF. One of those moments where you’re looking back at who said what and when and for God’s sake, WHY? I was turned off. It has nothing to do with who in this argument was wrong or right and I would be remiss not to say that I do not agree with giving women transgavingal ultrasounds or any other ultrasound before allowing her to have an abortion. I do not agree with a growing sentiment that women who want to use contraception are ‘sluts’ or that rape and incest are things that women should just roll with. And I am most certainly not OK with men treating my body as if it is their own and their very manly way of assuming that because they have a penis they know what is best for everyone. Unless you are my gynecologist you have no business being all up in my uterus. Thank you very much.

While the above makes me shake with rage that hasn’t been the root of my concern over the past 48 hours. My dismay is not just because I am a woman (a woman who can make her own choices about her body but thanks for the faux concern) but as a person who has spent much of her time encouraging debate and pleading with friends and family to take an interest in what happens on all levels of government. I am constantly asked how to get women involved in politics and I have stayed true to saying that ALL women, no matter their ideology, should voice their concerns and be aware of what is happening in the world around them. To come home to a Twitter feed of progressive women being referred to as ‘pro-abortion’/'pro-murder’ and the response being calls for rape made me quite literally hate everyone. How can I suggest to women to get involved when voicing their opinion means being called a cunt? How am I to say with a straight face that discourse is a good thing and that democracy and difference is why we are able to have real discussion but in the event that someone disagrees you will be threatened with rape? How?

I literally shrug and sigh deeply as I type these words because I feel defeated as I ask for conversation to happen and then I see that women don’t want to be involved in politics because they will be threatened with bodily harm. Women don’t want to be involved in politics because of the above. Because discourse can turn to evil. Because no one can focus on REAL issues. Because it’s all about besting the other person instead of conversation.

And I don’t know what to do.

Thanks!

HB

P.S. If you have trouble viewing you can also fill out the survey/form/thingamajig here: Poliogue Survey 2012

P.P.S. You look nice today.

I ask because I have a little secret for you: There is no perfect candidate. There is no perfect President.

You won’t find him (hopefully one day *her*) in this election or the next. To think that there should be a President with whom you can agree on every topic is not only naive but it also goes against the basic tenets of democracy. There should always be something the leadership is doing that pisses you off, gets you fired up, and makes you want to voice the need for one change or another. I’d much prefer to say that though I choose Barack Obama as my candidate for 2012 that there are things about his policies with which I disagree. Hell, there have been moments of anger but it is my belief that having any of the Republican contenders in office would be detrimental to the country and our relationships around the world.

I keep running into angry conservatives because of the choices they have been given during this primary. It seems that there is nothing that pleases them: Mitt Romney is a RINO and don’t forget about “RomneyCare”. Sure Santorum is a social conservative but the former Senator is also a “big Government” conservative and there is nothing they dislike more than the already bloated bureaucracy. And one cannot be a “real” conservative if they aren’t willing to board the “let’s get rid of the Department of Education” bandwagon. Despite Santorum’s wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri on Tuesday evening, many are left to wonder whether or not he has the infrastructure to campaign seriously all the way to the convention in August. Newt Gingrich is fun to think about but this is a serious Presidential race, correct? With Paul we are privy to the thought that Civil Rights is a ‘mistake’ and severely isolationist foreign policy. While he could play to the ultra-right his ability to be elected leaves much to be desired. He’s like your crazy uncle who gets invited to Thanksgiving: you nod and smile but you run away as quickly as possible. Huntsman worked for Obama, Tim Pawlenty couldn’t handle it and Perry turned out to be a dud. I picture Conservatives walking around aimlessly until the contest arrives to their state then just closing their eyes and placing a finger on someone…anyone. I wonder what it is that Republicans are looking for and who would be their idea of a good, quality candidate.

Then there is the President. When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, there was a thrill in the air. He did what he could to keep people working and the same goes for the Education Jobs Fund. Then came the events in Wisconsin and Ohio last spring where his leadership left much to be desired when it came to the union workers who helped to get him to the White House in the first place. That said having a ‘Right to Work’ proponent in office would send me screaming for the hills. I’ve often wish that he could be stronger and take a harder line on issues instead of just sitting on the sidelines. Taking issue with his leadership came up again during the work of the SuperCommittee. I know that it was technically congress’ responsibility but a little nudge to work harder and better would have been far more helpful than a match with Eric Cantor and John Boehner. My point is that this President isn’t perfect and I never expected for him to be. He was voted to bring hope and change. Not hope, change and being infallible.

It’s not just the angry Conservatives but the annoyed Progressives that cause me to scratch my head. For the latter I wonder what exactly they were expecting? For Barack Obama to enter the West Wing, snap his fingers and suddenly everyone has free healthcare and a job? Did we not expect change to take years and realize that it was the hope that it can one day happen? It is to both Tea Partiers and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats that ask: What do you want in a President? Is there a ‘perfect’ choice?

At the time of Judy’s death my knowledge of breast cancer was fairly limited and I cannot say that all these years later I am any wiser. I knew that it could be a fast killer and that in some cases there is a genetic factor. I also knew that early detection of the cancer can give patients a higher survival rate. Of course during the month of October there were marches and runs and every store I entered proudly displayed pink products on behalf of breast cancer research but I am amazed at how little thought I gave to any of this. I purchased items because it was a good cause. Because I was doing something and contributing to breast cancer research. I contributed and bought Yoplait containers with pink tops because it felt like the right thing. Ignorance is bliss, my friends and no one told me otherwise.

Even when finally faced with breast cancer and to watch what it does to a person and a family, I felt even more empowered that years of pink crap was doing something for the overall good. Giving to the Susan G. Komen foundation would lead to prevention and a cure, I thought. They were doing good work. I type these words now while shaking my head. Feeling duped. How could I be so stupid? How could I believe that “pink washing” buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken would lead to a cure? How could I be so stupid to believe that an organization whose mission is to educate and inform the public on breast cancer would not fall into the political fray. This is what I wonder now. There was a fantastic interview after the Komen foundation pulled its funding from Planned Parenthood with Andrea Mitchell and Komen founder, former Ambassador Nancy Brinker. The way that Andrea – recently diagnosed with breast cancer – keeps pushing and digging at Ambassador Brinker with questions of why Komen changed their grant process, why underinsured or uninsured women shouldn’t be allowed to have their services and potentially life-saving early detection; there’s this urging and pain coming off of Andrea Mitchell. Not that she’s just pissed but that so many people believed in the Komen foundation and now that trust is gone.

There is something about death and the grieving process where we feel the need to do something, try harder and do better. When Judy died I wanted to go all in and at the time the Komen foundation was what I knew. Now I know different. Thank God. I will not give to them anymore not just because of this ‘scandal’ but because to honor those that have died from this terrible disease would not be to give blindly but to learn more. It’s not about covering shit in pink it’s about continuing the education and assisting groups and organizations that give more than lip service to the detection, prevention and the cure. I cannot end this without stating that it doesn’t make me a socialist to think that all women (and men), no matter their financial situation, should have the right to mammograms and early detection. It makes me human.

***

The wonderful, beautiful and amazing Susan Niebur passed away yesterday after a five year battle with inflammatory breast cancer. A rare and aggressive form of the disease. In lieu of flowers her family has asked for donations to the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Please consider giving.

***

By defunding Planned Parenthood the Susan G. Komen foundation betrays women

What breast cancer has taught me

Social Media Acts as a Catalyst for Policy Change

National Breast Cancer Foundation

the American Cancer Society

Avon Walk for the Cure