It’s hard to believe that this week is the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country. 

Six years can feel short and long at the same time.   As someone who lives just outside of Washington, D.C., I have somehow been able to exist in a state of blissful denial about the danger that comes with residing within miles of the the White House and the Pentagon, yet I recall like it was yesterday the constant buzz of F-17 fighter jets circling overhead my house for weeks after the attacks – their sounds streaking through the sky became a sort of white noise that I stopped noticing out of mental self-preservation until it was gone sometime in October that year.

As we approach the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and anticipate the release of the General Petraeus report about the status of the war in Iraq, I found myself thinking, as I was driving back from a relatively carefree weekend at the beach, that the things that could really make us safer here in the “homeland” just haven’t been done.  And I have to wonder, “Why?”

We don’t need commissions or brilliant thinkers to anticipate where the next targets could be or how to protect them.  Where are the safeguards for the country’s power plants, nuclear and otherwise that were promised?  What’s been done to secure our dams?  Should I still be worrying about the trains that carry toxic waste past the Capitol?  What about the subways?  And Amtrak?  Are we really safer when we take our shoes off passing through the security checkpoint at the airports?

For some reason, our lawmakers have not been able to find the time in the last six years to solve these seemingly easily fixable issues.  Is it really so hard to find a way to anticipate where terrorists might want to attack us next?  Or are they in denial as a way to get through the day, like me?

The more I think about questions like this, the more it looks like our leaders aren’t leaders at all. 

To lead suggests being proactive.  Yet, those who are supposedly on watch in Congress and the White House seem to be capable only of playing defense.  While that might come in handy on the football field, it isn’t really helpful if you’re fighting those who have turned imagination into a dirty word.

I know that supposedly we’re fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” but that’s not working out so well.  I have a bad feeling that we may not have to wait another six years to see what’s going to happen to the “homeland.”  Isn’t it time our lawmakers aren’t tuned in to that likelihood?

In the past week, lots of people (including myself) have weighed in on the blogosphere brouhaha about whether Elizabeth Edwards is a good mother by being on the Presidential campaign trail with her children or whether, in light of her current cancer diagnosis, she should be home spending time with her kids.   It was more of a Mommy Wars thing than a political one, but it’s been getting a lot of play.

I’m not going to get further into the substance of the post that started it all.  There’s plenty to read about it here or here, or the other links above, including the original (but slightly edited) post.

As I’ve said before, I will defend the author’s right to say whatever she wants on her own posts — we all want to be able to do that, right?

However, I’m still wondering why the author, Rebecca at Silicon Valley Moms Blog, decided to edit her original words to tone down her opinion a bit in the post that’s currently up?  (For full disclosure, I also blog at DC Metro Moms Blog, the sister site to SVMoms).  Rebecca says that after further reflection, she changed her mind and decided that Elizabeth Edwards wasn’t a bad mother after all.

Is that fair?  If the post had been written as a newspaper or magazine article, the original words would still exist, even  if the author decided it was prudent to backtrack a bit.  But here in the blogosphere, with the click of a mouse, we can, if we want, reshape and rewrite.  It’s easy to erase the evidence of our first pass on a topic.  It’s a great thing if we make a factual mistake or a typo or even if we decide we’ve shared something a little too personal from our own lives — no need to issue a “correction,” you can just fix it or take it down and go on.

But if you throw an incendiary device into the blogosphere, should you be prepared to stand by your words, even if that means you start taking fire yourself?  Or is it OK to alter the original text if, as an author, you’ve had a genuine change of heart?

It’s not a pleasant thing to voice an unpopular opinion and have criticism and unwanted publicity rain down on you.  It takes a certain amount of bravery and confidence in one’s own views to put them out there for all to see and comment on.  But for me, I think once you’ve walked out on that ledge, you’ve got to find the inner strength to stay there.

What say you?

Sunday, ABC hosted the latest in the 18-gazillion scheduled Presidential debates, this one for the Democrats.

For the fashionistas, Hillary wore a tan suit, so there were no comments about whether the color was right for her under the TV lighting.

But the voter question that bothered me the most wasn’t about the candidates’ attire — it was about the candidates’ position on prayer.

Call me crazy, but didn’t this country get founded because we didn’t want the government to be all wrapped up with the church?  I’m not so naive to think that the candidates don’t have personal views on God and faith and religion.  But that isn’t something that figures in to my decision on who to vote for in the Presidential election. 

Apparently, though, from the voter question that was posed to the candidates, there are those who feel that it’s fair game to ask what the candidates believe, not only about God, but about how they think the power of prayer figures into stopping Category Five hurricanes and other natural disasters or bad things that happen to our families.

I was sad that most of the Dems took the bait and tried to directly answer the question about the importance of prayer in their lives. 

For me, I don’t care whether the President prays or not.  I want to know whether the person who is sitting in the Oval Office has a grasp on the conflicts around the world and the hard issues that face us as Americans — Iraq, Social Security, health care, education, the environment.

If they feel that praying helps them come up with the best solution for all of us as a nation, that’s great.  But that’s not the first criterion I look to when deciding how I’m going to cast my ballot.  And I’m just a tad concerned if there are voters out there who put religion first as a way to decide who should be running the world and what’s  best for us as a nation.  It doesn’t seem like it’s worked so well for us in the current administration.

I say all that knowing there are many voters who will disagree with me about the role of religion in the Oval Office, but that’s how I feel.

What do you think?  Is it fair and relevant to ask the candidates what they think about the power of prayer and the role of religion in the White House?  Or should the leader of the free world be making decisions based on facts and not beliefs?

Mothers, however we define ourselves in terms of our employment, are not viewed by the world at large as opinion makers.

I had this sad revelation while the PunditMom family was away on vacation last week and I continued to stew about the lack of coverage or interest the media and the presidential candidates had when it came to this year’s BlogHer conference, the largest conference of women bloggers in the world.

We are the acknowledged spenders of household income.  We’re the demographic that advertisers want.  Exhibit A?  The huge Butterball turkey sitting on one of the exhibitors tables throughout the event.  So they want our opinions on Thanksgiving dinner, but not on one of the most important presidential elections of our time.

Only two presidential candidates deigned to send representatives to BlogHer, one of them being Elizabeth Edwards.  Yet, when it came to the mostly middle-aged white male blogging conference the following week, the media couldn’t get enough and the Democratic presidential contenders were out in full force.

So my question this morning in my jet-lagged fog is:

Are there any ’Mommy’ opinion leaders? 

If so, our voices don’t seem to be reaching any sort of critical mass.  Even the one woman running for President was more interested in attending the Yearly Kos conference and making nice to the white men than she was in meeting with women bloggers.  The lone representative Hillary Clinton sent to the BlogHer conference wasn’t that interested in making contact with the bloggers — she kind of hovered in the back of the political discussion rooms.  When I introduced myself and told her I had a somewhat well-read political blog, she gave me the cold-shoulder brush-off. 

OK, I’m no Kos or Arianna Huffington, but there’s a perfect example of the amazing short-sightedness of the candidates and the way women are viewed in the blogosphere.  So what do we do about that?

Maybe part of the problem is how we, as women, view the world.  

We’re great at starting and having conversations.  Mulling, considering, sharing.  Yet, many times we don’t want to force our personal views and opinions on others.  Now could be the time we need to put them out there in the blogosphere and not hold back. 

We don’t have to get into a whole big row about it.   As women, often we do have a different filter on issues that cover the front pages of newspapers and take up the first minutes of cable news shows.  Maybe it’s time to be less reticent and less fearful about putting other women off and start stating our case for those views in a way that would make the candidates and the main stream media perk up and pay some attention.

If a few of us put our toes in those political opinion-making waters, would other women follow? 

Aside from meeting so many great women bloggers whom I have admired from afar, the highlight of BlogHer 07 was getting to hear Elizabeth Edwards speak.  I’m sad I didn’t get to meet her, but getting to be in the same room as her for an hour or so where she shared her thoughts on many issues was inspiring and refreshing.

Even though I do like the candidacy of her husband, I think perhaps the wrong Edwards is running for President.

Aside from being able and willing to share her own views on the campaign issues, a few of which she has publicly disagreed with her husband on, she shared this tip — she is addicted to making connections.

Edwards admits that she learned very early on the power of connections in our lives, especially during times when our lives don’t seem so perfect.  After her son died in a car accident, she reached out to others online for support.  She admits to using online groups to help her through her breast cancer and other issues and confessed to having something in excess of 30 Google alerts on various topics.

But it was clear that she came to speak to the 800+ women attendees of BlogHer (and a few brave men!) because reaching out to make connections and create communities is a very natural thing for her.  As I listened, it seemed that the unspoken lesson was that for women to have a greater voice in creating the political agenda, we need to do more of what we do naturally in our daily lives — reach out, connect, become addicted to making connections that can advance the issues we believe are the ones that should be focused on and that will make our country a better place for everyone, not just the “haves.”

It seems like pretty easy advice.  Think we can do that? 

Also, I’m off on a little family vacation later today, so the spinning will slow down here for a couple of weeks.  But fear not — the punditry wheels never stop turning.  I’m sure I’ll come back all refreshed and ready to take on some new topics!

A bientot!

Hillary’s cleavage?  John McCain’s “gay” sweater? 

I’m trying to sort out my feelings about two articles in major newspapers this week about the presidential candidates and their physical attributes, as well as the contents of their closets.  Initially, I thought that no one would include personal grooming habits in the calculation of whether a candidate should be President of the United States, but I could be wrong.

The Washington Post weighed in on Hillary’s cleavage this week and the New York Times tackled the weighty subject of the candidates’ wardrobe selections.  I had no idea there was a “gay” sweater look that John McCain was sporting!  Of course, just for the sake of fun, I can’t leave out John Edwards YouTube hair crisis as long as I’m talking about outward appearances.

If this is what campaign reporting is going to be about in the coming months, then it’s time for me to tune out.  But, on the other hand, there is yet another Democratic “debate” scheduled for this week, and you know that someone will ask about whether Hillary’s low V-neck wardrobe choice was simply a nod to the summer heat or whether she was trying to make a power statement — maybe someone was doubting that she really was a woman under those sensible suits she’s been sporting?

Discussing some of these things at dinner Saturday night, one friend, when he found out that I like John Edwards as a candidate, asked me if I had seen the YouTube video of Edwards’ hair grooming episode.  Of course I had read about it, but I hadn’t taken the time to click over to watch.  It just seemed to silly to spend my time on.  This friend said that as a result of that two minutes of candid pre-interview primping, he would not consider voting for Edwards and claimed that I would immediately reverse my stance if I saw it, saying, “No one who spends that much time on his hair would ever get my vote to be President of the United States.”

Well, I watched and I still like Edwards.  Presidential candidates are people too, complete with quirks and idiosyncracies.

But I’m now more worried than before.  I’m not casting my vote based on Miss America criteria.  But apparently many in the news media think that we do and at least one voter in my part of the world is doing just that. 

So if that’s the case, here’s my solution — replace the Electoral College with the Queer Eye guys — they’re the experts on all the fashion do’s and don’ts, and I bet they have some interesting things to say on the issues, as well!

News accounts abound about increasing numbers of women who have been refused a variety of medical services because the health care providers had moral objections to the services, like:

1. an emergency room doctor who refused to prescribe emergency contraception to a rape victim;

2.  an ambulance driver who refused to drive a woman to the hospital for an abortion;

3.  an internist who refused to perform a routine medical exam on a woman who was adopting as a single mother, and needed the physical for her adoption paperwork, because the physician believed a child should have two parents, or

4. an ob-gyn refusing to prescribe birth control pills to an adult woman because he considered it against his religion.

Disagreeing with another person’s life choices is certainly everyone’s right. But when did it become OK for a doctor to refuse either emergency care or a routine physical exam because of their own religious beliefs?  Did I miss the part where someone declared that a patient’s rights take a back seat to a health care provider’s religion?

This is not going to change anytime soon, I suspect.   If it doesn’t, women are going to have to work harder to find doctors, nurses and pharmacists who have a similar life-outlooks as their own in order to protect their own health interests.  Maybe if we don’t take our business to doctors who pass moral judgments and withhold medical treatment because it offends their religious sensibilities, soon enough economics will win out.

As increasing numbers of people try to force their religious views on others in the name of their medical moral conscience, how far down that slope is it until the Taliban seems reasonable? 

Many lobbying groups have been working diligently in the last few years to get laws passed that would protect doctors who refuse to provide treatment for personal religious reasons.  But who is out there working to make sure women patient’s don’t lose the right to access the medical care they need?

And isn’t it interesting that you don’t read about men’s health services being denied because of someone’s religious beliefs?

The current big issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign is obviously the war in Iraq.  Everybody’s got a view — stay vs. go, reduce the troops gradually vs. get ‘em out now.

I have to say, even with the few moments of debates I’ve watched, I’m ready for some fresh conversation on other neglected issues that will benefit us as a nation here at home.  Someday we won’t be in Iraq, and then whoever is President is going to have to deal with all the other problems that got shoved to the back burner.

Some candidates already realize that there are voters who want to hear more and one of them is Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.

His mission?  To create a comprehensive national community service program.  Sure, an idea like his is bound to make the conservatives howl.  But isn’t it at least a little bit inspiring to think that we could do more as a nation to help provide teachers through programs like Americorps and have mandatory high school community service requirements? 

Sure, a lot of teens already do some volunteering to help others,  but mandating some form of community service for every high schooler in the country could drastically change the focus of generations to come from one of ‘what can I get’ to ‘what can I do?”

I’ve been wondering when would be the right time to really start introducing PunditGirl to the world of community service.  Sure, as a first-grader, they’ve made sandwiches to go to the homeless shelters and donated toys at the holidays, but she and her friends are very shielded from actually seeing the homeless people.  They don’t see the children who literally have nothing.  They don’t really grasp the grim realities that so many families face, like going to bed hungry or not even having a bed.

I want her to fully realize how lucky she is and get her to understand how much she has compared to what others don’t have.  Sure, I can help her in that direction as a parent.

But wouldn’t it be great to have a leader who is passionate about and inspired by getting everyone to do a little to help others?

What do you think of Senator Dodd’s plan?  Think we’re ready, as a country, to set aside some of our ‘me’ time to help the world?

Last week, Work It, Mom!’s very own Nataly Kogan wrote an essay for The Huffington Post about mommy stigma – in the business world, if you’ve got an idea that sounds like a good one, it can die a quick death if it’s got any relation to the world of mommies.

Similarly, think about the derision that befalls those of us who are labeled “mommy bloggers.” 

OK, many of us are mothers and we blog, so technically the term fits.  But so many in the blogosphere are quick to write off what we say because of how we’ve been labeled and that label has been deemed as something less — less worthy or less important. 

So while some PunditMom readers commented about trying to embrace the term and create our own definition of it,  I wonder if we will ever be able to use the word “mommy” in any setting, other than with our children, in conjunction with efforts that will be taken seriously?

I love the word mommy.  When I hear my seven-year-old daughter call that name from another room in the house or as she’s still sleepy in the morning, my smile is instantaneous.  And I know that soon enough she will abandon the name that comes tripping so sweetly from her lips and I will become “MO-om!”  So I don’t talk about abandoning ”mommy” in that context.

But do any of you find yourselves being taken less seriously in the world outside your home when others feel free to characterize you as a ‘mommy’ or question your dedication to your non-home life because of your motherhood status?  If so, what are your thoughts on how we can change that?

They tried it two years ago, and it went nowhere.

Now Congress is trying it again.

In inside the beltway lingo, you can call it House Resolution 2392.  For the rest of us, you can call it the Family and Workplace Balancing Act of 2007.

 The gist of it is this — encating a law to provide families with the help they need to keep all the plates spinning — paid leave to care for newborns, attend school events and care for sick family members; after-school programs; preschools and establishing family-friendly workplaces.

But here’s my question — why do we need a law to promote what ought to be a common-sense approach to the workplace?

Yes, I know there are the arguments against providing these programs because of the cost to business owners.  But I have seen few reports on the money that’s saved for employers when workers’ loyalty is cultivated when they work in an environment that lets them breathe just a little easier, knowing that they can be there for their kids, whether that means when they’re sick or when they’re starring in the third-grade play.  Plus, isn’t any parent more likely to stay in a job, rather than leave the workforce, if they know they don’t have to be looking over their shoulders every time they need to take a child to the pediatrician or check in on an elderly parent?

I wish we didn’t need a law to cut parents, both mothers and fathers, some slack when it comes to dividing their time between the boss and the kids and other family responsibilities.  But it’s clear from all the news reports and books and magazine articles that we do.

So what do you think?  If we want to “balance” our lives, do we need a law to help us do it?