Oregon Democrats Need: Women, women and women!
Paulie Brading
Emerge Oregon was founded in 2008 to address the growing concern that women's unique experiences and shared concerns are under-represented in the policymaking process in Oregon. Women all over Oregon are non-profit leaders, social entrepreneurs, have connections to resources, peers and potential supporters yet rarely envision themselves as achiever's in their political and community aspirations
It's as easy as making guiltless guacamole! Emerge Oregon believes the public, and more specifically public debate needs more women. Emerge Oregon helps women future leaders hone their political skills, expand their knowledge of local issues and connects them with mentors.
Emerge Oregon is sponsoring a first ever one-day workshop in Southern Oregon. The workshop will include training and resources for women who are potential campaign workers, issue leaders, advocates and future candidates for Southern Oregon. Together the participants will learn about political and community opportunties, discover the powerful tools of influence and networking skills and balancing public service with family. Getting more Democratic women in the pipeline means interacting with your community, rolling up our sleeves and remembering what brought us to the table in the first place. We want to learn together how to make a bold case for what we believe in, and make a difference. In the big picture, the U.S. ranks 84th in the world for representation of women in elected office.
Find out if you've got the juice!
For just $25 you can register for one of just 50 slots. The slots are filling up fast. Mark August 8th, 2009 on your calendar 8:30am-4:00 pm at the Rogue Community/Southern Oregon University Higher Education Center in Medford, Oregon. Following the workshop participants are invited to a networking reception from 5-7 pm at the Red Rock Italian Eatery in Medford. Free food, cash bar and several statewide political notables will be in attendance. Women and men will mix it up with Democratic candidates for governor, meet state Representatives, and more! You must be a Democrat to attend.
For more information contact Lynn Howe at 541-778-9600. She can register you! Scholarships are available.
No matter how modest, each of us are on this earth for better reasons than to serve our own selfish interests. Come to Southern Oregon, roll up your sleeves and sit at the table. See you there!
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 12, '09
Oregon Democrats need more women but just not any women. At the national level Democrats have women in high positions that we would be better without: Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Mikulski, Jane Harman. If Oregon Democrats want to improve the brand with women they should get people of the caliber of the unfortunately late Barbara Jordan, Sheila Jackson Lee and Barbara Lee.
Jul 12, '09
Sorry, I disagree on Nancy and Barbara. May not agree with everything the have ever done, but it takes someone like Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman Speaker. Vera Katz and Bev Clarno were the first women of their party to be Speaker, and both were women of steel not out to please everyone.
I remember how Barbara became a Senator, and the Reaganite woman she defeated.
In some ways, though, the same rules apply regardless of gender. Sara Gelser and Peter Buckley are my votes for rising star of the legislature (no slur on Brian Clem, but many of us knew him as a rising star before he was a legislator).
One thing we learned from 2008 is that people who chose the non-hierarchical candidate, the breath of fresh air candidate, the candidate who appealed to both young people and cynical former activists did not make that appeal on gender, but on how the campaign was run. Hillary ran a campaign which left much to be desired, as have other women in circumstances where they lost elections.
Never forget Margaret Carter on the list of women we need.
Jul 12, '09
"...but it takes someone like Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman Speaker..."
If people don't care that Pelosi shred the Constitution when it was politically expedient to do so, then it is understandable why they might admire her.
Jul 13, '09
I applaud the effort; but am dismayed by the entry requirements. The fastest growing group of registered voters in Oregon is NAV. Paulie, it dhould be a great event. it would probably have the greater impact for ALL women if it were open to those who had not appended the little 'd' to their name.
Who knows, it could even be an opportunity to recruit other women into the fold.
9:34 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Bill Bodden: If people don't care that Pelosi shred the Constitution when it was politically expedient to do so
Bill? You're not a Supreme Court justice, much less a judge, or even a lawyer. So please don't pretend that your phrase "shred the Constitution" is anything but a euphemism for "didn't follow my particular far-left ideology in some situation".
In particular, the Constitutional power to impeach is not the same thing as the obligation to impeach. There is no Constitutional obligation to impeach. Try to get that through your skull, OK?
9:58 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
It's actually a big "D."
Jul 13, '09
Mr.Maurer: I decided some time ago not to get down in the gutter with you, but for others who may wish to pursue my (or Maurer's) point I suggest they go to counterpunch dot com and search for "nancy pelosi."
Several months ago the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. When Jim McDermott (D-WA) led the house in the pledge he omitted "under God." The conservatives in the house created a ruckus over this and Nancy Pelosi called McDermott on the carpet, read him the riot act and ordered him to include "under God" when reciting the pledge. So much for the Ninth Circuit's constitutional opinion.
Jul 13, '09
Try another search for "nancy pelosi" at commondreams dot org.
10:29 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Bill Bodden: Nancy Pelosi called McDermott on the carpet, read him the riot act and ordered him to include "under God" when reciting the pledge.
<h1>1 Bill, you have been in the gutter ever since you started venting on this site. I have always responded to trolls (left wing and right wing) in exactly the same manner that they themselves behave. So if you don't like the derision in which I treat you, stop throwing out gratuitous insults. Like the one you used starting off with in this thread: your pretense that Democrats and all their supporters don't follow the U.S. constitution.</h1> <h1>2 Talkleft is a blog of hyperpartisan leftists. They often post screeds from people who, having lost the political argument, try to dress up their unpopular beliefs in fake legal language. This behavior is not at all dissimilar from their mirror image extremists on the right - the "income tax unconstitutional"/"obama birthers" - and it has about the same level of credibility (i.e. none at all).</h1> <h1>3 All Speaker Pelosi did was to explain to Mr. McDermott that he was creating a political problem for her (because atheism is highly unpopular with U.S. voters), and it might affect his committee assignments. He then chose, of his own accord, to say the pledge in a way to give the GOP the least political benefit. There was no jack-booted thug waterboarding him into saying "under God"; just a simple political calculation. No Constitution was harmed in the making of that oath of office.</h1>Again, Bill, your pretense about staying "above the gutter" when you start off a thread with gratuitous insults is, well, laughable. The sad thing is that I'm pretty sure that, like many extremists, you don't even recognize your own hypocrisy.
10:29 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
I'd rather encourage MORE people to participate, rather than less. Progressive litmus testing for this kind of stuff is completely counterproductive.
I'm all about getting more progressive women involved in politics. But I don't think we should play whack-a-mole in our advocacy in an attempt to keep the ones who just aren't quite progressive enough from participation.
Which is, I think, the logical conclusion drawn from some of the comments in this thread.
Jul 13, '09
"I'd rather encourage MORE people to participate, rather than less. Progressive litmus testing for this kind of stuff is completely counterproductive.
I'm all about getting more progressive women involved in politics."
I agree. Now tell us how progressive Nancy Pelosi has been.
Jul 13, '09
Since all men think alike and come to the same conclusions, we need more women.
By definition they will always come to a different decision than a man, thus you will have diverse viewpoints due to biology.
11:24 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Joe White: [trolling deleted]
It is absolutely unmistakable that men and women have different experiences that lead them, on average, to make different decisions. It is also unarguable that a combination of history, religion, prejudice, and hormonal aggression (when guided in a positive direction), has resulted in a disproportionate number of males in politics. Our nation would be more representative, and likely better governed, if there were more females.
Jul 13, '09
Steve,
Then why don't we simply mandate that 52% of our congress be women, 15% of congress black, and so forth?
Liberals always want more women in government......unless they turn out to be conservative and then it's not all that important that gender be considered ya know..........
How 'bout if we just look for the best qualified candidates and forget about their plumbing and their skin color? 'k?
12:05 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
It's interesting how it's always white men who invoke the "best qualified candidate" when non-white or non-men are running. You don't hear it so much when folks like John Ensign or Mark Sanford are running. Hmmm....
12:17 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
I agree. Now tell us how progressive Nancy Pelosi has been.
Why? So you and I can have a pissing match over the "enth" degree of progressiveness or not?
Exercises in futility aren't my bailiwick.
Jul 13, '09
Good point, Jeff! Thank you.
In the mean time, I welcome Messrs. "White," Bodden, and Chapman to quit bitchin' from the cheap seats and start your OWN organizations to train NAV's, the masses of disenfranchised white middle-aged men, uber-progressives, ersatz intellectuals, and left-handed haiku poets if you so desire.
Emerge OR trains Democratic WOMEN. Deal with it...or not.
12:48 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
I THINK I LOVE YOU, Sue Castner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJYSu2OVCGM
1:19 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Joe White: Then why don't we simply mandate that 52% of our congress be women, 15% of congress black, and so forth?
Because while life experiences are formative, they're not destiny. Many men discount female fears about rape, or even blame the victim ("she was asking for it"), and this occurs at a much greater percentage among men than it does for women, but that doesn't mean every man is heartless or every woman is an angel.
Still, to be blunt, Joe, we're not talking about mandating women to make up 52% of all our members of Congress. We're talking about forming specific groups to raise it above its current abysmal percentage of 15.2% (as of 2005).
How 'bout if we just look for the best qualified candidates and forget about their plumbing and their skin color? 'k?
Liberals have tended to notice a connection. To put it in layman's terms, when you've spent a little time as a second-class citizen in your own country, you're usually (not always, but usually) not quite so much of an a--hole. Because you know what it's like.
Still, I'll give you the color-blind society as an ultimate goal. Let's just hold off for another century or so. When all these interest groups actually get an over-representation of women and minorities - when white kids have as much a chance to get kicked out of the pool for changing the "color balance" - then I'll start to listen.
Jul 13, '09
Right on Carla!
I'm all about getting more progressive women involved in politics. But I don't think we should play whack-a-mole in our advocacy in an attempt to keep the ones who just aren't quite progressive enough from participation.
Which is, I think, the logical conclusion drawn from some of the comments in this thread.
I was yelled at in 1986 because ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SUPPORT MARGIE HENDRICKSEN DOESN'T SUPPORT WOMEN!.
I happen to think Peter DeFazio has been a better member of Congress than Margie ever would have been. If that means I am not "feminist", tough luck. If there are 5 women in a room, they are not all required to agree on who is the best candidate.
I am glad the Ways and Means Co-Chairs were Peter Buckley and Margaret Carter. The idea that they should both be women (or men) is absurd. Likewise, both our best and worst House Speakers have been women. Vera Katz and Bev Clarno had a fairly open public process and were able to hold conversations with ordinary folks. Minnis and Snodgrass were very closed-process, "we know best" types. But how can that be---aren't women supposed to be better than men?
In order to define "progressive" one needs a definition. If it is "you must support these 10 issues without question" then I am not a "progressive" because I believe in spirited public debate.
I believe in looking at individual candidates for their assets and liabilities. If a woman says "Vote for me because we need a woman in this office" and a man says "Here is my vision for the state, here are my most important issues, and I will be glad to answer your questions", I'm gonna be supporting the man. And no amount of money from EMILY or pressure from "feminist" groups will change that.
I currently have women legislators, and have supported the men who ran against them. Call me whatever name you want, I choose quality over gender.
Jul 13, '09
Ms. Castner, I began by applauding the effort and tried to encourage making the 'progressive' tent larger by not limiting it to branded democrat women.
Since this is one of your first posts (or first in a long time); and it began by inviting others to leave I'd respond by offering you the option to bugger off.
Jul 13, '09
"It's interesting how it's always white men who invoke the "best qualified candidate" when non-white or non-men are running. You don't hear it so much when folks like John Ensign or Mark Sanford are running. Hmmm...."
True on many occasions, but a review of this and other progressive web sites will reveal many white men being highly critical of other white men in the Democratic and Republican parties. Many white men were enthusiastic supporters for Obama and Clinton over McCain. I recall a number of white men recommending a vote for black, female Cynthia McKinney for president.
"I agree. Now tell us how progressive Nancy Pelosi has been.
Why? So you and I can have a pissing match over the "enth" degree of progressiveness or not?
Exercises in futility aren't my bailiwick."
Carla (or anyone else): Give us one or two examples of Nancy Pelosi being progressive since she has been speaker. If she has been progressive, then she deserves some defense with supporting evidence. I promise not to respond other than concede your point if I agree it is valid.
To be fair, given the history of recent speakers, it may be that politicians who want to assume that role have to make a Faustian bargain. Power is an aphrodisiac that gets the better of many people and has been gender-neutral for centuries.
Jul 13, '09
"In order to define "progressive" one needs a definition. If it is "you must support these 10 issues without question" then I am not a "progressive" because I believe in spirited public debate."
LT: Let me compliment you on the comment from which the preceding has been drawn. I agree with you completely.
How's this for a definition of a progressive? Someone who aspires to a nation where all people have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice, including economic justice. I can't claim this to be an original thought having the feeling I've heard it before but the sources escape me at this time.
4:45 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Emerge Oregon wants to find our next leaders among the layers of under-represented groups of women. It's about expanding the Democratic base of future women candidates. It's pretty amazing to read this discussion.
Jul 13, '09
"Since this is one of your first posts (or first in a long time); and it began by inviting others to leave I'd respond by offering you the option to bugger off."
I don't believe I invited anyone to "leave," Mr. Chapman. I DID, however, invite you to start your own training organization. It can be unlimited and therefore brand-free and I, in turn, would applaud your efforts. I'm sure it would expand the tent exponentially.
I also apologize for my ignorance regarding consistency or a minimum daily number of posts. Didn't know there was a requirement. I'd suggest a requirement that posts be substantive in nature. Sorry to have hurt your feelings.
"Bugger off?" Cute but not my style.
So, to circle back - Southern Oregon Women: join us for the Emerge training. And for the women (and the men who love them) not attending the training, we hope to see you at the Eatery.
Jul 13, '09
Ever since Congresswoman Hooley retired, all of the members of Oregon's congressional delegation are men. Now I'm all for elected the best candidates, regardless of gender... but still. Wouldn't it be nice to have at least one? Anyone have any thoughts on who might run someday? I could see Kate Brown, Sara Gelser, Suzanne Bonamici and/or Tina Kotek running, winning and doing a great job.
Jul 13, '09
"Ever since Congresswoman Hooley retired, all of the members of Oregon's congressional delegation are men."
I would love to see any woman, except maybe Karen Minnis or equal, replace Greg Walden."
10:52 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Carla (or anyone else): Give us one or two examples of Nancy Pelosi being progressive since she has been speaker. If she has been progressive, then she deserves some defense with supporting evidence. I promise not to respond other than concede your point if I agree it is valid.
Fine.
She voted against the ironically named Protect America Act.
She voted to increase the minimum wage.
She ran point on the Climate Change bill..brokering a deal between the moderates and the progressives..and then went on to whip the crap out of it.
She voted against the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq (2002) and has been a consistent and outspoken critic since.
Absolutely refused to participate in honoring Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Tom DeLay at a Capitol Historical Society event, calling them out for dishonoring the House.
Been a strong supporter of net neutrality before it was cool..and pushed the caucus to line up behind her on it.
Jul 14, '09
you can buy rs gold and buy rs powerleveling in runeup.com, it is safe.You can be at ease completely of shopping in here.
Jul 14, '09
Steve Maurer wrote:
"Still, I'll give you the color-blind society as an ultimate goal. Let's just hold off for another century or so"
Well at least you're honest that you really don't want a just society.
I always find it interesting that liberals who claim to wear the mantle of MLK actually reject his call for a color blind society NOW.
Sorry Steve, the days of racism as acceptable are over.
Your continued embrace of racism will set you apart as the dinosaur that you are.
Jul 14, '09
Jeff Alworth wrote:
"It's interesting how it's always white men who invoke the "best qualified candidate" when non-white or non-men are running."
I've opposed plenty of white boys in my day.
But not BECAUSE they were white, dig?
'Justice' Sotomayor's admission of racial bias doesn't bother the left a bit, but it should.
Shame on the 'liberals' who apparently have no shame.
If confirmed, she should be required to recuse herself on any cases having a racial component.
8:50 a.m.
Jul 14, '09
'Justice' Sotomayor's admission of racial bias doesn't bother the left a bit, but it should.
Since this isn't true, that would likely explained why the "left" isn't bothered by it.
Jul 14, '09
Carla:
I accept the points you made in support of Nancy Pelosi. They are valid and to her credit. I look forward to more of the same.
Jul 14, '09
Bill, thanks for the compliment, but I believe labels short-circuit thought.
I'd like to see full debate over issues regardless of label. I prefer specifics to generalities.
For instance, I disagree with at least 95% of what Mike Huckabee says. However, as a Gov., his views on school quality and school district governance were something I really appreciated. In a "meet the candidate" interview on Charlie Rose in early 2008, he was given a question about school quality and failing schools which was an invitation to bash the teachers union.
Instead, Huckabee said that when he was Gov. "when we had to take over a failing school, first we fired the Supt. and then we told the school board their services were no longer needed".
Management responsibility--what a concept!
Contrast that with Democratic legislators and staff who said that the state only funds school districts, it can't regulate the pay or actions of school administrators (Supt., asst. supt. etc. level) because it is against tradition, protocol, "the way things are done" etc.
If there is a candidate (regardless of gender, party, or anything else) who is closer to the Huckabee view of school administrator oversight than to the "it is against protocol and besides you don't know how the system works" view of too many legislators and staff, I am inclined to either support that candidate or give them a lot of respect ("can't support this person on X, but really admire the stand on school governance").
The idea that teachers and principals should be rigorously evaluated and their pay debated publicly but not even top administrator pay packages should be examined because the school board has infinite wisdom should not be true when so many other budget items are scrutinized.
2 new school board members have their first meeting tonight here in Salem. I have great hopes for them, and hope they don't disappoint. One man, one woman.
Bill, with regard to this: "At the national level Democrats have women in high positions that we would be better without: Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Mikulski,"
Do I agree with everything these 3 women have done? No. Have I campaigned for people I argued with and who I disagreed with on some issues? Yes.
I think Speaker Pelosi is doing an excellent job being the first woman Speaker. Perhaps in the future there will be a woman Speaker more to your liking, but I believe she is better than some of her male Democratic predecessors such as Jim Wright and Tom Foley.
Feinstein in today's Sotomayor hearings, and Mikulski in committee hearings (saw one on CSPAN last night where Sens. Burr and Coburn made a very intelligent presentation of their substitute health care bill and then Barbara took it apart piece by piece to the point Coburn was arguing "that's not what it says") are gems in my opinion.
Sometimes someone who isn't perfect gets defeated in a primary or a general election and then people wish later the original incumbent had not been defeated.
I'd like to see more debate about issues than about personalities. I don't fit any label other than "independent cuss"--I'm a "one from column A, 2 from column B" sort of person.
As for "we need a woman in Congress", Sara Gelser has a) a pretty busy family life b) great promise in Oregon politics--we need powerful women in this state, as well as nationally.
But "we need", I have news for you. Much as I admire Sara, if she tried to challenge Kurt Schrader in a primary I would support Kurt. If that makes me a traitor to my gender, tough luck.
Jul 14, '09
"Bill, thanks for the compliment, but I believe labels short-circuit thought. "
Again, LT, we agree. That was the point of my first comment. Paulie said we need more women, but I countered just not any women. I should have phrased that in a better and more balanced way as you did later. Paulie's point was valid, mine was valid, but we both should have amplified them with additional remarks to counter the one-sided aspects of the comments we made.
In the end, I would like to think we have all learned something.
1:12 p.m.
Jul 14, '09
Joe White: I always find it interesting that liberals who claim to wear the mantle of MLK actually reject his call for a color blind society NOW.
The reason why you find this "interesting" is because you're uneducated. Martin Luther King quite clearly stated that while the colorblind society was his dream, the hard cold reality of racism and the economic privilege based on that racism, required redress.
Or, to put it in his own words:
[the] "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life."
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."
He was also in favor of reparations, for both blacks and poor whites, from the descendants of people who inherited great wealth and land derived from the labor of slavery.
"No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries… Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law."
Sorry, Joe. The pretense that measures to redress racism, including present day (country-club/swimming pool) racism that is still being expressed today, are themselves somehow "racist" - is part and parcel with classic racist ideology. From the Klan on forward, racists like you avoid acknowledging their own bigotry by pretending that you gain no advantage from the color of your skin, and exaggerating the extremely mild actions taken to slightly even the scales.
You are no champion of equal rights. So stop pretending that you are.
Jul 16, '09
[Off-topic comment removed. Use Google to find what you're looking for. -editor.]
Jul 17, '09
So, Steve basically your position is that two wrongs make right?
So, what 'remedy' will you prescribe for those against whom your utopian quota system discriminates?
Can we go three wrongs?
Four?
How many rounds of discrimination and reverse discrimination are you up for?
Oh yeah that's right you already said you didn't want a colorblind society for at least 100 years.
Jul 24, '09
I love Sue Castner AND Carla Axtman...also Joe White whoever you are. As one of the So. Oregon Emerge workshop planners/presenter, I was just hoping to see some interest from women excited about coming to this event. I'm a lonely voice in the wilderness of Josephine County, where we would be happy to see ANY Democrat elected to ANY office, regardless of gender, sexual preference, or degree of progressiveness!
C'mon, if I can overcome my jaded and defeatist attitude to work on this darned thing, then any of you reading this from So. Oregon should get off your tuckuses and register today, or we'll never get any traction in this part of the state.
Jul 24, '09
Julie, sounds like you need to talk with the folks from Douglas County Democrats. Don't know how active they are now, but at one point they were very active. Don't forget there was once a Dem. Senate President from Douglas County!
Jul 25, '09
Julie - let 'em know that in 1914 voters elected the first woman to the Oregon House of Representatives - Marian B. Towne of Jackson County. Time to strut your stuff again, Southern Oregon!