• Three out of four American grandparents (75%) strongly agree that in the upcoming Presidential election, they will vote their grandchildren’s long-term interests, as well as issues that affect them personally in the near term.
• Surprisingly, grandparents consider the impact on their grandchildren even when asked about powerful senior voting issues. About three-quarters of grandparents (73%) stated that their views of Social Security and Medicare were influenced by the interests of their grandchildren. Only 26% said they make up their mind on Social Security and Medicare mostly on the basis of how it will affect them in the short-term.

The national survey, commissioned by GrannyVoter.org and conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs from October 15-18, 2004, found that an overwhelming majority of America’s 70 million grandparents—some 86%—were registered to vote in the 2004 election, which is significantly higher than both non-grandparents (76%) and the general public (79%).

Pat Schroeder, a former Congresswoman and GrannyVoter.org founder, said,

“Politicians who are perpetuating the myth of the Greedy Geezer Voter may want to rethink how they appeal to the important older voter. Even on the issue of Social Security, the supposed third rail of American politics, only 1 in 4 grandparents said they were voting their own interests. It’s time that politicians understand that having been blessed with a long life, we have great respect for the long-term view.”

On other key voting issues, the GrannyVoter poll finds that grandparents were slightly more likely to put their grandchildren’s interests ahead of their own:

• When thinking about the nation’s budget deficit, 20% of grandparents said they made up their mind on their grandchildren’s interest, compared to 17% who did so mostly on the basis of their own interest.
• On the environment, 16% of grandparents made up their mind mostly on the basis of their grandchildren’s interest and 15% did so mostly on the basis of their own interests.

The GrannyVoter poll found that the general public shared this strong inclination toward considering the future impact of policies when making their voting decisions. Almost three quarters (74%) of the general public said that in the upcoming Presidential elections, they would vote on issues that have long-term implications for future generations.

According to Mary Catherine Bateson, a cultural anthropologist and GrannyVoter.org founder, “A GrannyVoter is anyone whose voting decisions are influenced by the interests of their grandchildren and future generations. According to our poll, America is becoming a nation of GrannyVoters. Led by a new generation of grandparents, voters are thinking more long-term than the politicians give them credit for.”

The Ipsos-Public Affairs poll of 1161 adults was conducted October 15-18, 2004 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 for all adults and +/- 4.1 for grandparents. It was the first poll to ask how grandparent status influences voters’ views. It was also the only poll in the 2004 election season to ask, “Are you a Grandparent?”

Press Release Source: GrannyVote.org

The relationship between women and the Democratic Party started out as a fairy tale. Women have always made up the overwhelming majority of grassroots organizers and volunteers, and in return the Party courted our votes by supporting the battle for the Equal Rights Amendment and pledging to protect our right to choose. In 1984, after significant lobbying from women’s groups in pursuit of a Vice Presidential nod, Geraldine Ferraro was tapped as the nation’s first female Vice Presidential nominee. Women and the Democratic Party were wed.

 But upon that commitment, things suddenly began to change.

 In 1987, the New York Times reported:

But the election ended with a sound defeat of the Democratic ticket and a round of recriminations within the party, much of it directed at such organized interest groups as labor and feminists that played a key role in Mr. Mondale's nomination. Many women countered that Ms. Ferraro and her feminist supporters had been scapegoats for a defeat that was inevitable.

 Needless to say, the marriage became strained and women began to feel ignored.

Three years into the post-Ferraro era of Democratic politics, the party's Presidential candidates are campaigning for women's votes in a manner that has aroused debate and complaints from some women that feminism is being neglected.

The approach of the 1988 Democratic candidates in seeking women's votes is markedly different from that of the candidates of 1984, according to a number of Democratic strategists, politicians and feminists.

The shift in approach has prompted charges from many women that the Democratic candidates are neglecting their votes and their issues, a point made forcefully this week by Eleanor C. Smeal, the departing president of the National Organization for Women. Representative Patricia Schroeder, the Colorado Democrat who is pondering her own race for the Presidential nomination, agrees: ''There seems to be Washington-Potomac wisdom that they did women last time.''

But many women at the time were willing to give the party the benefit of the doubt, arguing that the party was “demonstrating a new subtlety and sophistication, recognizing that voting women are neither monolithic nor solely concerned with a narrowly defined range of ''women's issues,'' like abortion rights or pay equity.”

However, with this new strategy it became clear that now that the party “had us” it didn’t feel the need to be as vocal about choice or equal pay, preferring instead to discuss non-controversial issues like childcare.

Issues like day care are significantly less divisive than abortion rights and the equal rights amendment, in the view of many political professionals. The perception that such issues have taken a back seat outrages some feminists, like Ms. Smeal, who noted in her speech to the National Press Club this week that a recent 1988 agenda produced by the Democratic Leadership Council contained not a word on abortion.

Further, at the time, there was a belief that Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was gaining support for a run for the Presidency precisely because the party was taking a detour from women’s concerns.

This dissatisfaction is building support among many feminists for a Schroeder candidacy. ''I don't think Schroeder's candidacy is a result of this,'' Ms. Lewis said. ''But she has been greatly encouraged by the response she's gotten. And one big reason is that there's a kind of unsatisfied yearning by women to have a champion in the field.''

 Well, the party lost the presidency in 1988, and they also began to lose women.

In 1991, with the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill testimony, party lines took a backseat to the blatant sexism in politics and a lack of female representation to usher in the Year of the Woman in 1992.

By and large, the ‘90s represented a better time in the marriage of women and the Democratic Party.  Bill Clinton, as President, appointed more women to his cabinet than any other President in history or since, and nominated Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court. It could be said that policy wise, this was a honeymoon period for women and the Democratic Party.

Then came 2000. Al Gore, while he had a stellar record on women’s issues such as abortion and equal pay, had a mixed record when it came to his campaign. He needed the female vote and fought hard for it, so hard some viewed it as blatant pandering, but he had to be forced to put more women on his campaign. (insert links) 

When it came to being vocal about his support of choice, he had no troubles mentioning it in private events with mostly women, but, Martha Burke, a political psychologist and author of Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What Can Be Done About It noted back in 2005:

Every time George Bush said to Al Gore, “I don’t trust the government, I trust the people,” Gore had the perfect opportunity to counter with “except for women in making their own decisions about their own bodies.”  He never once took that opportunity.

Then things took a turn for the worst in 2004. 

In 2004, the Dems avoided “women’s issues” at every turn, even taking the Equal Rights Amendment out of the platform for the first time in 40 years.  When their own internal polling showed the pay gap as one of the top concerns for women, the candidate didn’t want to talk about it publicly. 

 Kerry won the female vote by 3 percentage points, the smallest margin for a Democrat since the 80s. Why?

…the erosion of women’s support for Democrats was also a result of the Kerry campaign strategy. The Kerry campaign shied away from talking to women at all, choosing instead to go for the white male warrior vote. Women’s advocates were alarmed about this from the beginning, when the Democrats refused to fund a strategy to get women to the polls, while the Bush team had a person in every precinct who was responsible for turning out the female “W” vote.

~snip~

According to the Votes for Women 2004 project, Republican women’s events were about how much the campaign valued women, while Democratic women’s events were about extracting money from female donors to use on general campaign themes. Significantly, among women who stayed away from the polls, homeland security ranked third behind the top concerns of jobs and economic security and health care security.

 Sadly, instead of realizing their mistakes and trying to fine-tune their message for women, or even have a  message at all, Howard Dean blamed the loss on “being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion,” expressing his desire to “strike the words ‘choice’ and ‘abortion’ from the Democrat’s lexicon.”

Quickly, the Democratic Party was abandoning women, taking our votes for granted, and worse, effectively blaming us for their losses.

But in 2008, when Hillary Clinton announced her bid, it seemed as though things would change. This time it was going to be different. We had a candidate, and the most qualified and electable one to boot. We finally had a voice, and rejoiced at our sudden importance on the national stage. It seems as though everyone was vying for our votes.

As Hillary Clinton said at one of the CNN debates:

“I think it is terrific: We're up here arguing about who's going to be better for women, because isn't that a nice change for everybody to hear..."

But then it began: the steady undercurrent of sexism rose up. Hillary Clinton began to be ridiculed because of her seeming unbridled ambition (something always unseemly in females), her laugh or “cackle” was discussed ad nauseum, she was called “Shrillary,” a “she-devil,” her “fat ankles” even made news, Hillary “Nutcrackers” were manufactured and sold online and even in airport “News” stores, she was called a “white bitch” and when some protested they were assured the characterization was accurate, she was characterized as “everyone’s first wife standing outside of a probate court,” she, along with Geraldine Ferraro, was called a “big fucking whore” by a “liberal” radio host. In short, this happened:

And if that weren’t enough, the powers that be, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a host of Obama’s surrogates tried to forcibly remove Hillary from the race; something that never would have been propagated against a male candidate. Women were shocked, offended and angered.

We had always been there for the Democratic Party, and when the media and even some of Democratic candidates started throwing sexist barbs at her, we thought for sure the Democratic Party would stand for equality and protest.

The silence was deafening.

In accordance our protests became louder. We protested the media bias and demanded that every vote be counted, but still we were ignored and the deafening drumbeat of sexism was allowed to continue unabated. But like faithful spouses, we waited diligently, hoping that the superdelegates and powers that be would come to their senses and confirm Hillary Clinton’s claim to the nomination.

Then came March 31^st, the Day Democracy Died. We were sure that, finally, justice would prevail. Surely the Rules and Bylaws Committee would adhere to their rules and properly seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in a manner that fairly reflected the will of the voters. Again, our faith was misplaced. What we witnessed was a two-faced, public hijacking of the nomination. In scene one, Howard Dean emerges, and reluctantly, and begrudgingly names the elephant in the room: sexism. However, he does not dwell on it, nor acknowledge the DNC’s complicity in the misogynistic attacks on a fellow Democrat, dedicated Senator and former First Lady. Instead he immediately plugs the election buzzword of racism, and is quick to deliver a foreshadowing anecdote about forgiving the party after everything it’s done to you. We should have known then what was coming. It was going to be swift, brutal, and worst of all, public. But still, many of us watched with hope that the party we had committed ourselves to for years would uphold the principles of Democracy and fairness. And then, it became clear, the fix was in. The RBC arbitrarily handed "The Chosen One" 55 delegates that did not belong to him and then stole 4 delegates from Senator Clinton, effectively stealing the nomination from Hillary Clinton and handing it to the “selectee.”

That was the last straw.  There could not and would not be unity. The abuse and betrayal had become too much. Women and men everywhere vowed to treat the DNC the same way they treated us. But the powers that be and media punditry assumed that once Senator Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama that we would follow along with her. How wrong they were.

Then, the second round of abuse began and continues to this day. The DNC and Obama’s supporters began behaving like an abusive husband who had just come home to see his wife and kid’s luggage sitting beside the door. We’re leaving, and they’re having none of it. A mix of half-hearted apologies, verbal abuse and intimidation begun. PUMA voters were  called “bitter bitches,” “immature babies,” “whores,” “racists,” etc. You can find a more complete list here.

We’re told to stop being selfish and stay for the kids (SCOTUS!!!). We’re told we were “cutting off our noses to spite our faces.”

 And yet, possibly the worst insult, is that after all of this, they assume we’ll come back. Why? Not because they’re sorry, not because they are promising to do better, not because they offer us anything substantive, but because “there’s nowhere else to go.”

In just one glaring example, Keith Olbermann’s boss, Phil Griffin while summing up the exact feelings of women and men everywhere who are fed up with the media and the DNC, adds his assessment that we’ll come back:

But, just as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true. But I do think they’re going to come back. There’s nowhere else to go.”

Perhaps, because they assume we’re all “angry women” they hold to the stereotype that women are self-sacrificing, that we’ll let the abuse go and accept the hollow apologies.

News Flash: We’re through sacrificing for the party only to be abused and ignored.

If they think we’re going to come back, like battered wives forced to return because they have run out job prospects and couches to sleep on, they’re terribly mistaken. 

If women and men “fall in line” behind Obama they sanction the actions of the DNC and the media and give them free reign to do it again.

I am a firm believer that you teach people how to treat you, and the DNC needs a new lesson. 

As Susan B. Anthony said, "No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex." 

The topic was CLOUT! Power, Influence and Authority for Women Leaders. Based on interviews with executives across the country, I shared 10 Behaviors that Undermine Clout -- and 10 Behaviors that Add Clout.

One of the points was the power of lightening up instead of tightening up.

Many of the male decision-makers I talked with told me they feel women in upper ranks tend to take themselves too seriously. Perhaps they're so intent on proving themselves, they lose their ability to take a a joke.

I illustrated the advantage of rolling with the punch-lines rather than taking offense with the following example.

Have you seen the movie Charlie Wilson's War with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts?

Charlie Wilson was a Texas legislator. As a Washington Post article revelaed, Wilson arrived in Congress with his cowboy boots and big booming laugh. He soon met another freshman Democrat -- Colorado feminist Patricia Schroeder -- and sent her a gift. She opened it and found a picture in a pink frame which showed a tombstone that read "Wife of Davy Crockett." He had included a note that read: "In Texas, we don't even let women use their first name on their tombstones."

Schroeder thought, 'Who IS this Neanderthal?" and stormed into his office to give him a piece of her mind. The second he saw her march in, Wilson burst out laughing. She realized, "He's spent his whole life figuring out how to pull people's chains -- and now he's pulling mine."

She started laughing too and they became fast friends. After that he called this high-profile feminist "Baby cakes" - except on formal occasions, when he addressed her as "Congressman Babycakes."

Pearl S. Buck said, "Perhaps one has to become very old before one learns how to be amused rather than offended."

Why wait?

If someone is trying to "get your goat," it's in your best interest to give as good as you get. Come up with a come-back so people can't push your hot buttons. Once you demonstrate you have the ability to take a joke, people will laugh with you rather than at you.

Just try the oft repeated admonition by some Democrats to blue collar voters, “How can they vote against their own self interests?” Intellectual logic to be sure. But this one question reveals an amazing lack of understanding of basic human behavior, regional culture and/or closely held religious and community values. And amazingly enough, very smart Democrats continue to be totally perplexed by the electoral answer that comes back again and again, election after election.

Just today I had lunch with two very thoughtful Democratic Party activists. There is little doubt they have all the “facts” right when it comes to predicting how the caucuses will turn out but their conclusions were totally wrong. For example, they honestly believe that Senators Edwards or Obama have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. You probably do to. But here’s the thing. Money always determines the result in our modern elective process. And more specifically for Democrats, Washington, D.C. money. Bet on it every time.

On the Republican side, bet on their core triad values of religion, capitalism, and national security. And then throw in the money. You’ll pick their candidate every time. My bet is Governor Mitt Romney. Go ahead, test my logic.

See here’s the thing. Our Party has lost its blue collar/middle class base to the point where we’ve lost the street smarts of past generations of great Democratic leaders. Leaders like Speaker Tip O’Neil, Congresswoman Pat Schroeder even Governor Pat Brown don’t exist in leadership roles any more. For the last 20 years, rich politicos who chase television coverage rather than deliberative discussion have successfully gotten our attention and sadly our votes.

My father-in-law astutely asked one night while watching Senator Barbara Boxer on the nightly news, “How much time does it take for her to get to that studio, do the interview and then back to her office and how is it that she does this almost every day?” It reminded me of a staff comment I heard years before while working on the Hill. The accepted view of then House Member Boxer was “She never met a camera she didn’t love.”

What's Senator Boxer being on TV all the time have to do with us thinking too much? Everything. We get sucked into her rhetoric and never consider the practical truths. People who depend on political leadership for food, education, and jobs, can't afford to over think. They live in the real world.

So fellow Democrats, don’t just rely on being smart. Befriend a hard working person who doesn’t drive a Beemer or live in a rich suburb and ask questions. Then really listen withholding judgment. You might just learn a thing or two. For that matter, me too.

**WHEN: Friday, November 30th, 1 - 6pm

**WHERE: NYCIP, 20 West 44th St., New York City

**RSVP TO: christopher@nycip.org

Sub-rights and foreign rights are an extremely lucrative additional revenue stream for independent publishers. At our first Mini-Rights Fair on the afternoon of Friday, November 30th, we hope to assist you by supplying essential information on how to increase your rights sales, as well as providing a collegial atmosphere to network with some of the movers and shakers in the sub-rights and foreign rights industries. Questions addressed will include:

• What are the different types of subsidiary rights?
• How can I increase sales to these markets?
• What are the best international markets for my books?
• Should I be attending international rights fairs?
• How does licensing actually work?
• Should I be granting electronic rights to my books?

Pat Schroeder, President of AAP will also be giving a keynote address to conclude the afternoon's program and kick off the Pre-Book Fair Cocktail Reception. Participation is currently limited to Book Fair exhibitors and is FREE. See below for program details.

• [1:00 - 1:45pm] Publishers set up a selection of books in the Library and Balcony exhibition spaces 
• [1:45pm] Brief Remarks on Copyright from Christopher Kenneally of the Copyright Clearance Center 
• [2:00 - 3:30pm] How to Get the Most out of Your Foreign and Sub-Rights Sales: A panel with some of the country's leading rights agents 
• [3:30 - 4:30pm] Network with Foreign Rights and Sub-Rights Agents
• [4:30 - 4:45pm] Keynote: Pat Schroeder, President of the American Association of Publishers (AAP), and former Congresswoman
• [4:45 - 6:00pm] Pre-Book Fair Cocktail Reception (Booksellers, Librarians and Industry Professionals will also be invited)

We hope that you will join us for this exciting landmark event! The Mini-Rights Fair precedes the 20th Anniversary Independent & Small Press Book Fair, held on December 1st and 2nd (for more info on how to reserve your space for the Book Fair, go to www.nycip.org).

The Mini-Rights Fair will take place on the ground floor Library and the Balcony of the NYCIP in the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen landmark building at 20 West 44th Street (bet. 5th and 6th Aves) in midtown Manhattan.

**Feel free to leave us a comment or a question on this post!**