Welcome to this site, which focuses largely on the upcoming presidential election.  Those of you who have read my blogs on Huffingtonpost.com, books or articles (see bio below) will find this site at times an elaboration and extension of some of those views.  At other times separate discussions.

Click on VERBAL SPARRING above for examples of political versatility.

June 17, 2008 -- Michelle Obama as First Lady

I just posted a blog on Huffington Post about the reported plan to alter Michelle Obama’s image.  In that I described “slippery criteria” used to keep women and minorities from being promoted or achieving their goals.  Essentially they’re sent off to prove themselves in ways that lead nowhere -- simply keep them busy.  Each time they meet one criteria, that one is no longer important and another one is presented.  It doesn’t happen everywhere as a means of derailing people, but those of us who have studied how this is done see it often enough.

So how should a woman or minority or anyone targeted for this political game fend it off.  You have to do research.  You have to know how it’s been done to people before where you work.  This is where being alert to politics is crucial to success.  If you know, for example, that there is a certain job type given to people who don’t stay long, you can avoid it.  If you’ve seen others try desperately to please their bosses only to get exhausted and make mistakes that are then used against them, then you don’t do that. 

Getting the criteria for your advancement or acceptance in writing is a good idea.  It can be done casually by e-mail (e.g., “So from our meeting I’m concluding that when I do B, the promotion is mine.  That’s correct, right?”)

There are times when right on the spot it’s important to come back with a statement that lets them know you know what they’re up to.  You say, “I’ve seen several people take that route -- late nights, low-visibility projects, being constantly available -- and they’re gone now.  How do you suggest we avoid that outcome for me?”

Another option is to say, “That committee is career suicide around here. I know you don’t want that for me.  Let’s discuss another option.”

Occasionally it’s even useful to say, “I can’t believe you’re suggesting that.  That’s how we lost the other women who reached my level.  You’re supposed to be helping me.”

Sometimes you just have to let them know you’re awake -- that they can forget using slippery criteria on you.  You’re just too alert for that!

June 3, 2008 -- CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBAMA AND TO HILLARY CLINTON

They both made history tonight, Hillary as a woman and in winning the popular vote and Barack Obama for clinching the nomination.  They were both gracious to each other.  Hillary did not look like she just lost the nomination.  She looked strong.  She left a small window open -- as is her right -- perhaps in order to be the democratic vice presidential candidate.

Clearly if the goal is to win in November -- to beat John McCain -- it isn’t just Hillary who needs to look at priorities.  If her supporters can be told that if they don’t vote for Barack they’ll be handing the election to McCain and if they and Hillary are supposed to care enough about that outcome to support Barack, then he should feel the same way.  He should want to beat McCain so much that he will ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate.  Why argue that Hillary supporters who don’t vote for him are giving the election to McCain unless we also apply the same logic and argue that Barack supporters who oppose her as the vice presidential candidate are doing the same? 

I wrote about this on Huffpo as “the question that cuts both ways”.  If Barack chooses someone else, which is his prerogative, it will be another slap to Hillary supporters now considering whether to vote for him.  He needs to think about that.  If we need to rise to the occasion no matter how difficult, doesn’t he need to do the same? 

May 31, 2008 - WHERE WE ARE NOW?

I didn’t view the entire meeting of the Democratic National Committee Rules And Bylaws Committee, but what I did see was scary.  No doubt the members were spent by the process as they mentioned fatigue a few times.  But they generally seemed to be more pleased with the outcome than many outside their inner circle are likely to be -- especially Hillary Clinton’s supporters like me.  Did they do the best they could with a bad situation?  Were I a voter in Florida or Michigan I’d feel they’d robbed me of my vote.  In fact, you don’t have to be a voter in one of those two states to feel that this small, tired group of people was playing God with democracy and that even if many of them feel pretty good about their win, many of them are seething over their loss.  I’m more concerned about our loss.  The election of a president has becomes too much of a behind the scenes process peppered with political machinations by strangers positioning themselves for power -- especially the media.  The Democratic Party can and should be doing better than this even if things are going as their leadership appears to have planned.  Is this one of those cases of winning the battle only to lose the war. 

May 20, 2008 -- WHAT ABOUT THE MATH DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOT UNDERSTAND?

Hillary Clinton’s decisive win in Kentucky should be giving pause to all those who criticize her and her supporters for not understanding the math.  We’re told she can’t win.  Well, if you look at that same math, he can’t either -- not the general election.  When candidates are this close, the nomination is still up in the air.  But even if Barack Obama wins the nomination, he can’t win the election without her supporters.  And while he has been more gracious to her than many who support him and many in the media, the numbers indicate that if Obama takes the nomination and she is not on the ticket as vice presidential candidate, Obama will likely lose.  And it will be because rather than take a hard look at the math, the same math the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign have used in attempts to push Hillary Clinton out of the race, they have preferred to push their own agenda.  The math says this race is too close to just dismiss one of the candidates and blame her for giving McCain a head start.  That’s absurd.  The popular vote math is saying people are not pleased and don’t want Hillary Clinton to exit the race.  There is no clear winner.  And if anyone is giving McCain an edge it is the Democratic Party leadership by their unwillingness to credit Clinton as she deserves.

Hillary supporters aren’t angry at Obama.  They’re angry at the Democratic Party that stood by when she was belittled and refused to celebrate her victories as those for women as well.  They either ignored her or participated in trying to push her out.  Only late in the nomination race did they essentially begin to say, “Oh, of course she can stay in.”  We’re supposed to think that was sincere.  We’re supposed to think she needs the permission of people who call themselves “leaders” of the Democratic Party who have done everything they can to offend Hillary supporters as not the young, interesting people.  They’ve allowed this myth of her being a racist to stand, despite her record as a champion of civil rights.  And they’ve failed to address and denounce the sexism that even CNN analysts who support Obama have, as of today, begun agreeing has been prevalent and mean. 

Racism and sexism are despicable and so is throwing those terms around without evidence and hanging them around the necks of people who don’t deserve them.

Look at the math.  Hillary supporters are speaking to you “leaders”.  And they aren’t only women.  Wake up, act like leaders, stand for values of the Democratic Party which include civil rights and equal rights for women and stand against vicious people who use those as weapons against either Democratic candidate, or it will be four to eight more years of a Republican president.

May 14, 2008 -- SO THIS IS WHAT UNITY LOOKS LIKE

You know, this whole unity thing is beginning to look like a sham.  Hillary Clinton wins in West Virginia 67% to Obama’s 26% and the very next day, not a few days later to give her a moment’s victory, out comes John Edwards and NARAL kicking her in the teeth.  Is this the Obama unity group that will be looking for women like me to jump on their wagon?  What kind of sweet talking is that going to involve?  Let me count the ways.  None will work if this doesn’t stop.  It may already be too late.  The endorsement by Edwards, who I was beginning to regard as being about more than himself -- not a circle the wagons kind of guy -- and NARAL deciding the day after Clinton’s win to endorse Obama drives the wedge deeper.  Why such gratuitous acts if Obama is going to win anyway?  Why the rush?  And they say Clinton is dividing the Democratic Party.  Some people are forgetting that what goes around comes around.   Where will “unity” be in November?  Are these the actions of a winner?  And we tell kids to be good sports -- gracious in victory and defeat.  What hypocrisy.  The Republicans must be having champagne every night now.

May 13, 2008 - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WEEK MAKES

Last week after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, the pressure for Hillary Clinton to drop out became intense.  The words “Surrender” was placed over her photo by CNN only a day ago.  Yet West Virginians went to vote in record numbers today and said, “Hold on there.”  And if you just saw Hillary Clinton’s speech you  know she is not only still in the race, she believes she can win.  As a social scientist I know numbers aren’t everything.  The human factor enters all calculations, especially those relevant to elections.

I said last year that Clinton and Obama should run together before most had considered it and I’m saying it again when so many say “It can’t be done.” 

Hatred has been prevalent in this race.  But people who hate don’t represent the best of America.  They represent a small portion, many with very loud mouths who are very short on wisdom.  John McCain plans to nominate more of the same type of Supreme Court Justices that George W. Bush nominated.  This can’t happen.  It isn’t just the presidency that is at stake.  Far more is.  The checks and balances our forefathers had the wisdom to create is being threatened.  Democrats and concerned voters need to wake up.

May 10, 2008 -- HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY

I decided this past week to read “A Remarkable Mother” by Jimmy Carter.  Since I listened to it on CD, Jimmy, I should say President Carter, read it to me.  It’s a short book but the kind that gives you a break in the middle of the pandemonium that is our presidential election process and can remind you of your own mother as there are things about Lillian Carter, truly impressive things, that are true of most mothers.

Since Mother’s Day is upon us, I was also thinking about how fortunate I’ve been to have had a remarkable mother of my own.  She was the kind of person who upon hearing one of her children make an unkind remark about someone would reply, “You don’t know their lives.”  If you looked puzzled, she’d add, “It’s easy to criticize when you know so little about someone.”  She did a lot for other people, like Lillian Carter did when she worked tirelessly for the Peace Corp in India.  My mother, Elizabeth (Betty) worked hard, laughed a lot, could spell anything, and you didn’t want to cross her.  Despite her only being 4’11”, she was a force to be reckoned with if you tried her extensive patience.  She was always in my corner.

My husband, Chris, took this photo of Lillian Carter circa 1976 in Georgetown, Ct.  He has always treasured it.

Happy Mother’s Day

May 3, 2008 -- DON’T GET SICK

The responses to my blog on huffpo, “Whatever You Do, Don’t Get ‘Too Sick’” are interesting and show the kind of discussions we need to have to assure that there will be universal healthcare -- that it doesn’t fail because we have not adequately considered issues that may arise to which opponents may point and claim it can’t be done.

Right now there are many issues distracting us from pushing the candidates to tell us how they will deal with ethical challenges that will arise if there is not enough money.  I was talking to  someone today who said she and her colleagues resented having to pay more for health insurance after their boss contracted cancer.  I mentioned that people who are well often think they’ll always be well, but their time may indeed come. I was surprised that they were told that their boss’ illness was the reason for a small hike in costs for all, as that was likely only part of the reason. 

In any case, her sentiment about carrying the burden for someone else’s health problem is the type of response I mentioned being concerned about in the blog.  Health elitism and health antagonism are quite possible outcomes.  We need to prepare for this, to explain to people that universal health care does mean sometimes carrying some of someone else’s burden.  But it’s also a genuinely humane thing to do.  It’s also protection for each of us should we discover a tumor or suddenly find ourselves not as healthy as we thought -- through no fault of our own.  Also if presidential candidates find ways to spread the burden, no one should feel deprived.  So let’s have that discussion now and get some good solutions on the table.

May 1, 2008

Today I’m focused on healthcare.  I was reading bills and discovered that wearing a heart monitor costs $390 a day.  These things are gadgets with little to recommend them as advanced technology.  Yet I was charged $390 a day for two days to wear one of them.  What about people who don’t have insurance?  Obviously they can’t get a two-day or even one-day in many cases monitoring of their hearts.  It’s outrageously expensive.

An office visit to a nonspecialist for what’s called “well care’ can be $155. Some of those visits require long waits and result in short shrift once you’re in the office.  Insurance companies reduce the fees to what they consider reasonable, but what if you don’t have insurance?  Mine reduced the $390 a day for a monitor to $177.  We think gasoline is expensive, try being ill.

Unless some control is placed on medical expenses, it’s hard to believe that even the best of healthcare plans will pass through congress.  It’s one thing for presidential candidates to propose ways to provide accessible healthcare, but until they grapple with escalating prices for fairly mundane forms of care and testing, it’s just a pipe dream.

April 23, 2008

What Precisely Is An Attack Ad? And How Negative Is Too Negative?

We’ve heard a lot about attack ads. Some have called for a moratorium on them.  But who really knows what they are?

There are many terms tossed around in elections as if we know what they mean.  It’s not too different from George W. Bush’s “victory”. We don’t know what that is but a lot of people tell us we need it.

Negative ads have been used successfully and have been dismal failures when taken too far in previous elections.  Yet, it could be argued that were “negativity” entirely removed from election ads, they’d provide little or no information.  Where’s the line at which a critical ad, or for that matter a campaign, becomes an attack?  How is a candidate to clarify how his or her health plan, for example, is better than that of other candidates without some degree of criticism?

What if the Democratic Party leadership were to insist that Senators Clinton and Obama refrain from any personal insults?  Who would determine the parameters?  Where’s the line?

I’m more concerned about false than about “negative.” 

So, what’s the answer?  And is there really a problem in the first place?   Pat Buchanan said last night that he doesn’t see anything wrong with what the candidates have been saying about each other – that their criticisms are part of politics?  Paul Krugman of the New York Times likens it to badminton compared to what the Republicans will dish out this fall.  Whether you agree or not, we should ask ourselves what we mean about an ad or criticism by one candidate about another being too negative.  Civility and honesty are important.  And candidates should use those as standards.  But they shouldn’t decline to inform us of what they see as inaccurate, unlikely to work, not effective leadership, and unfair to them.

Why is it considered “going for the jugular” when Clinton asks if Barack Obama can “take the heat in the kitchen”?  That’s how this ad was referred to on CNN tonight by Candy Crowley who usually strives for objectivity.

None of us should be negative simply to garner attention, but we should stand up for what we believe in.  Sometimes that means being critical.

April 16, 2008

On my way from Washington, D.C. to New York with two friends and my daughter.  We’re planning to attend The White House Project EPIC Awards event.  So our minds are on the advancement of women to leadership positions, including The White House.  We’ll be sharing some of our thoughts on this and the election in general. 

We’ll start with Barack’s controversial comments this week.  Here is what he could have said that would have captured the sentiments he has said he intended:

“When people are facing the kind of economic pressures common in America right now, especially among people who’ve lost jobs and homes or are facing those outcomes, it’s natural for them to be frustrated and angry.  They must, by necessity, focus on getting by, day to day.  The election, for them, is of interest but their primary focus must be on finding a way to make do with far less than they deserve.”

This has a tone of empathy, not evident in Senator Obama’s words even if he intended otherwise.  It casts no aspersions and doesn’t demean in order to rise the speaker.  And that’s part of what he needs to learn to do.  People are not simply members of categories.  He has made quite clear that he does not respect such facile orderings and yet that is what he did to many in Pennsylvania. 

He may have misspoken but he should have known that referring to people as “bitter” and clinging to religion and guns is extraordinarily derogatory.   It lacks empathy and understanding of what they are going through.  That is why he is paying a political price.  All of the candidates make mistakes, but his, for many, validated a hovering perspective, derived from observing his nonverbal actions that suggest a degree of distance and a sense of superiority.  Is it a Harvard thing?  Does it derive from having been a debater -- from learning to intellectually annihilate the opposition with, if necessary, demeaning detraction?  Could be.

Whatever the reason, Obama needs to rethink his frames of reference with regard to people less fortunate than he or this will  surely happen again.

Two of us were wondering if his words were intentional, that they actually were said to elicit support from like-minded people who Obama wants to reach.  Did those words, actually carefully chosen, backfire in one sense but also generate considerable defensiveness among people who dislike those who supposedly cling to their guns and religion.  In other words, is he having it both ways?   After all, Obama is very “well packaged” and his campaign well organized.  And he’s clever and smart.  His staff is impressive.  You have to wonder.

Was he taking a swipe at Republicans and missed and hit a larger group?  Were his words “bitter,” “clinging” ones chosen and practiced but missed the mark?  Or did they?  Sometimes the counterintuitive is reality.

April 11, 2008

Planning to attend The White House Project event next week had me thinking about why a woman has not yet been president and whether there is a chance a woman will be soon.  On Huffingtonpost.com I wrote about this.  To elaborate, it’s going to take women and men not afraid to speak up in support of women candidates, not willing to apologize for attempting to help a woman become president, unwilling to cower when the term “feminist” is applied to something they say, or worse, “feminist angst.”  Angst can be a good thing.  Too much of it isn’t.  Misdirected it isn’t.  But directed at the right issues and targets, it is often just what’s needed. 

Even if you aren’t  Hillary Clinton supporter, it’s hard not to notice how biased the media has been against her.  Time to demonstrate some angst by writing e-mails to those in the press and their corporate owners refusing to provide at least some semblance of balance.  Even Campbell Brown on CNN had three pro-Obama, so-called experts on the other day.  They were bashing Clinton around with glee until Brown mentioned that they might be “ganging up” on her.  If they were doing that to Obama, it would be equally despicable.  Time to turn to other stations or turn off the television when that happens.  Personally, I’m sick of it.  It’s subverting the democratic process with misinformation and bias.

April 9, 2008

After General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified on Capitol Hill yesterday, we still didn’t have a definition of victory in Iraq.  What is the definition of success?  What did John McCain mean when he said rather than retreat with “terrible consequences,” the U.S. should try to “turn things around”?  Isn’t that what we’ve been trying to do?  What would be different?  What cost in “blood and treasure,” as Senator Clinton asked is the U.S. willing to accept?  What would be too much?

And is there any answer forthcoming to Senator Obama’s questions about standards for success.  So much talk, so few real answers.  And the excuse is that we can’t give away our thoughts to the enemy.  But, despite how reasonable that sounds does it preclude being at all explicit about what needs to be accomplished -- at a minimum, adequately and ideally?

_______________________________________________

Dr. Kathleen Kelley Reardon is a Phi Beta Kappa, Professor at the USC Marshall School of Business and for years served on Preventive Medicine faculty.  She received her Ph.D. "with distinction"  from  UMASS, Amherst.  She was co-author and researcher of the feasibility study that launched Starbright -- serving critically ill children -- chaired by Steven Spielberg and now conjoined with Starlight.  Her more recent work focuses on government politics and international negotiation.

Books:

Persuasion in Practice (Sage, 1991)

Gift-Giving Around the World used by Chiefs of Protocol to guide presidential and diplomat decisions on gift customs in negotiation

They Don’t Get It, Do They?  1995

It's All Politics (Currency, Doubleday 2005)-"Top 100" -Amazon

The Skilled Negotiator (JosseyBass, 2005)

The Secret Handshake (Currency,Doubleday, 2000) Amazon Best Seller

(www.amazon.com:.webloc)

Dr. Reardon is also the author of the Harvard Business Review reprint bestseller, "The Memo In Every Woman's Desk" and more recently "Courage at Work."  She is a Trustee with First Star(www.firststar.org) a nonprofit endeavoring to better the lives of children in foster care and those at risk for abuse and neglect.

Her books have been translated into Chinese, Korean, Portuguese and Arabic.

She is a painter (not yet willing to say artist) of oils and watercolors and has developed a website for those injured in war or dealing with difficult illnesses so that they might also enjoy learning to paint - “Painting Doc” (www.bardscove.com/Site_2). And a charity gallery where painting proceeds go to charities “webmastered” by Chris Noblet.  Accessed via “Painting Doc” site

_________________________________________