Mother Talkers

Hillary Proposes Flextime for Parents

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 02:19:23 PM PDT

It's as if she had written the Motherhood Manifesto herself. Sen. Hillary Clinton offered a comprehensive family leave and flextime policy to families, including money to let low-income parents stay home with their children, according to details sent to MotherTalkers by the Clinton campaign.

To give all parents more time with their children, Hillary is proposing:

--Having all states give family leave by 2016. By “family leave,” she means time off for workers to care for their parents, children, spouses, or immediate family. To achieve this goal, she is committing $1 billion a year in start-up costs and matching funds for states to implement family leave through disability, unemployment insurance, business tax credits, “At Home Infant Care” and similar programs.

--Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to give employees at companies with 25 or more workers 12 weeks of job-protected leave. The change from 50 employees (current law) to 25 would benefit 13 million workers at small companies.

--Guaranteeing at least 7 sick days per year -- up from the typical 5 days allotted by most employers.

--Promoting workplaces with flextime and telecommuting policies by providing grants and highlighting businesses that offer such perks. She will also require federal agencies to set specific telecommuting goals for their workers and allot up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives.

--Ensuring higher quality childcare by helping states improve and enforce licensing and safety standards of childcare centers, supporting public and private partnerships to increase the supply of affordable, high-quality childcare to working families and expanding the Child Care Development Block Grant to allow "qualifying low-income" families to stay home with their children. Currently, the block grants can be used only by parents who work outside the home.

--Making it illegal for businesses to discriminate against families for pregnancy or care-taking duties.

  • ::

The total cost of her work-family initiative is $1.75 billion per year. Clinton plans to finance it by recovering the money from questionable -- or even illegal -- tax shelters.

Of course, the Republican spin will be that she is raising taxes. You can’t win with them no matter what sensible reform you propose to the tax code.

But, I am excited that Hillary has laid out a much-needed, but realistic, goal to come up with flextime for working families. She is a smart campaigner. She recently spoke to an audience in New Hampshire about her days as a working mother, according to an AP story:

Clinton described her own experience as a working mother, recalling that her law firm colleagues didn't know quite what to make of the firm's first pregnant lawyer.

"I just kept getting more and more pregnant, and the lawyers kept walking down the hall looking the other way," she said.

Clinton said she relished the time she took off after her daughter Chelsea was born, and that even though she was lucky to have help when she returned to work, she can empathize with the struggles many parents face.

"I've been fortunate to have so much support as a working mother, but I understand what it means to pulled in a million directions at once," she said, describing a hectic morning when both Chelsea and her baby sitter were sick and Clinton was due in court.

"It was just that gut-wrenching feeling," she said. "I was lucky enough to have a friend who came over and watched Chelsea while I ran to court and ran back home. But I know that happens every day, and there are so many pressures on young parents."

Beyond family leave, Clinton proposed requiring all workers to be given seven sick days a year that could be used to care for themselves or their children. Clinton's plan also would require employers to at least consider requests for flexible work schedules.

She also would increase funding for child care subsidies and allow them to be given to parents who stay at home with their children rather than only to those who send their children to daycare.

"Why should we pay for other people care for your children but not give you the support to stay home do it yourself?" she said.

One minor correction: the grant would apply only to "low-income" families, whose income has yet to be determined, the Hillary camp told me.

Still, this plan by the senator reminds me of a clip in the Motherhood Manifesto documentary, in which Republican consultant Frank Luntz says the candidate who runs on a platform on how to give more “time” to families, will win. Which one of us doesn’t need more time? It’s a bold and smart move on her part and it’s smart for businesses who don’t want to lose their best female employees.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Motherhood Manifesto, flextime, FMLA, family leave, daycare, block grants (all tags)

Permalink | 56 comments

  • hmmmmm . . . . (0 / 0)

    I'm interested in her proposal for paid family leave.  None of these points says 'paid'.  She alludes to it when she discusses the transition to FMLA by 2016, and offering 'family leave' through unemployement and disability.  Is she afraid of the word 'paid'?

    I'm also curious, though, why not a national plan?  Does this have to be a State thing?  Does this have to be an incentive thing?  I've never given it much thought, but it seems like those of us in particularly stingy States will still face scroogish policies long after 2016.  Is she proposing it this way because she thinks it is the only thing that will fly?  Is she afraid of business' reaction?

    I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that she has to tiptoe around the issue.  WE WANT NATIONAL PAID FAMILY LEAVE!  Why is that so hard to talk about?  Why tiptoe around it and leave the republicans room to put a spin on it for you?

    • Amen! (0 / 0)

      I had to read through this a number of times before I could determine what was leaving me cold.  These all seem to be changes on the margins which leave the fundamental problem unaddressed:  low-income women cannot afford to take FMLA or even 7 days of sick leave if its NOT PAID.  Period.  

      Also, I'm happy to see the block grants for low income families(which will really only help a small portion), but allow me a selfish moment--where the hell is paid leave FOR ME?

      Am I startlingly ignorant?  I thought it was already illegal to discriminate against pregnant women.

      And not to be too terribly, since I'd love to see these issues take a more prominent place in the debate and therefore am glad she's brought them up, but I do wonder a tad bit if she's going to back away from this like the savings bonds for newborns.  ;)

      • nope... (0 / 0)

        it's actually okay in some states to ask women if they have children. I know MomsRising was really active in PA to prohibit this practice, which discriminated against especially single mothers. It would be nice if we had a federal law prohibiting this practice.

        You would be surprised how hard it was to pass even unpaid family leave in the '90s. When I took it in 2003, I remember reading websites in which employers were asking how they could get out of it -- how they could fire their female employee for "absenteeism." The fact that she wants to extend this to companies with as few as 25 employees is huge as more and more Americans are hired by small companies. Surely, a small company is going to feel the impact of this -- and will grumble about how it is hurting the bottom line.

        Also, I believe there will be some compensation -- maybe not your whole pay -- in the way of disability or other state funds.

        Yes, I wanted more. But I do recognize that even this small step -- and drawing attention to it! -- will bring on the ire of the Republicans. And the block grants will help the people who most need it: those WalMart moms who must work in retail and other ridiculously low paying jobs just to even get it. It doesn't make sense to me. I'll take this over silence from the other candidates.

        • Although... (0 / 0)

          I agree with you that I would like a federal paid policy and not to leave it up to the states.

        • And companies still work (0 / 0)

          to make it as difficult as possible for families to use FMLA.  Several years ago, when our kids were small, my husband kept FMLA papers on file because there were many days in which I was too sick to care for my small children.  Employees with chronic illnesses themselves were keeping the paperwork on file, too...well, it didn't take long before the requirements changed.  One now has to have their doctor fill out and sign the paperwork on a monthly basis.

      • Well, honestly, I suppose (0 / 0)

        the being "paid to stay home" would apply to those women making minimum wage...why give money to a childcare center just so the mother can make the same amount working at Burger King?  However, if we are going to subsidize daycare for middleclass parents, I would like to see those of us who choose to stay home get some kind of break, too...and if this happened, more women might actually be able to make that choice.

        And why on earth isn't she including healthcare in all of this?  So many parents I know work full time JUST for the benefits...a lot of these people had much rather work part time, but can't due to insurance eligibility.

      • I'm happy its being addressed (0 / 0)

        I know its Dodd's 'issue' but he will be more effective pushing for it in the Senate in 2009.  I really wanted to see some candidates come out strong on this issue.  I wish this was a little stronger, but I'm glad we're having this conversation!!!

    • I think it's actually clever (0 / 0)

      I agree with you that out-front calling it "paid family leave" would make me happiest, but by saying it's through unemployment and disability, she makes it seem as though it's just an extension of existing programs, which may be more palatable to swing voters.

      • I guess I get tired of the deception (0 / 0)

        its so republican.  I understand 'it's politics' but she seems to 'politics' to me.  Too ready to play ball and really bow down to big business whining.  As far as swing voter, I wish there was a poll on this issue.  I live in Nebraska, and I don't know a mom who wouldn't support this.  In other words, I don't think this language is meant to appease the middle.

  • have to say (0 / 0)

    reading her personal anecdote did hit me on an emotional level. I spend a lot of time dreading Hillary as a candidate for what the Repubs are going to rain down on us all, but the fact of the matter is, she is a deeply impressive woman who has accomplished a hell of a lot during a career where it was far more difficult to be a professional and a mother at the same time. Reading about her experiences as a working mother, I kinda went "Oh, yeah. She lived it." She may not be my favored candidate and I don't agree with some of her political choices, but damn, I give that woman respect. She has earned the right to be where she is.

    • I do too (0 / 0)

      She's walked the walk as well as talk the talk, at least on this issue. And policy aside, if she wins next year, it will be a great day for women everywhere, in terms of normalizing the idea of women as leaders.

    • I still have reservations, (0 / 0)

      but I have to admit that I am impressed by the skill she's demonstrated on the campaign trail.  And if it turns out that she's our nominee against Rudy, well, it could be worse...their personal/marital lives should work to cancel each other out.

      • Of course if she wins the primary (0 / 0)

        I'd support her.  I'm a Barack fan for now, however, and do hope he wins.  Something just rubs me the wrong way about having a husband, father, son, wife (bush clinton bush clinton) representing 24-28 years of politics in the US.  What is this, a dynasty?  

        I also don't like the deception, and the playing politics.  She's been in the game for too long IMHO.  I do think she's smart and would make a fine leader, however, so please don't take my criticism to mean I dislike Hillary.  Just not my top choice.  

        • I'm a John Edwards supporter myself. (0 / 0)

          She isn't my first choice or my second choice.  However, I think I can deal with her being the nominee.  I, too, am bothered by political dynasties...and honestly, it goes further than just Clinton/Bush.  So many of our democratic politicians are part of such dynasties, and I do find it troublesome.

          • Edwards for me, too (0 / 0)

            But I'd be happy with either Edwards, Obama or Gore on top of the ticket. I swear, a Gore/Obama ticket is my current idee fixee.

            • I just watch Edwards... (0 / 0)

              ...on TV last night, and founding myself very caught up in what he was saying about healthcare, the environment and taxes.  I could vote for Edwards.  I'm not holding out any hope for Gore getting in the race.  Would love it if he did, but I'm not expecting it.

    • Agree (0 / 0)

      I'd like to hear more of those.

      I was really impressed when I heard her answer a question about education at YearlyKos. She had a depth I had not previously appreciated - she's spent a lot of time not only thinking about education but down in the trenches at a local level.  She said "I could talk all day about this" - and she could have, and it all would have been interesting. That's not a feeling I typically get from politicians. :-)

      • What I've appreciated most about Hillary (0 / 0)

        in the debates are her unscripted jokes.  She made one about Dick Cheney being a diplomat, and I sh$t you not, this joke is what made me not close the door on voting for her in the Primary.  I try not to be superficial, really I do.  

        Of course, her vote on Iran has basically eliminated her for me now, but at the time, that off the cuff snark kept my interest for awhile.

        This FMLA strategy is not what I've been looking for, but at least its something.  I hope Barack doesn't let me down on this issue, I'd like to see him come out and give this much detail on FMLA.

        • The beauty of it is (0 / 0)

          that if one candidate comes out supporting these policies, they all will have to take a position on them and/or come up with a competing agenda.  Its all good.

          • thus far (0 / 0)

            that seems to have been the case. This is what I love about "our" bench - there are at least three or four very well detailed, logical and substantively different policies for each of the major areas under discussion for this election. They're well thought out, substantively debated and grounded in solid policy goals. Compare that to the Repubs... or not - why waste time!?

  • Good! (0 / 0)

    All sounds good, or at least better than what we have now.

    I like this part,

    She also would increase funding for child care subsidies and allow them to be given to parents who stay at home with their children rather than only to those who send their children to daycare.

    "Why should we pay for other people care for your children but not give you the support to stay home do it yourself?" she said.

    How many people she can appeal to with that will depend on the income cut though.

    • At Home Infant Care (0 / 0)

      is genious.  It is just plain stupid to pay a chilcare provider hundreds a week, and force a young mother to work minimum wage.  We wonder why our breastfeeding rates are so low.  The welfare to work is so stupid when it means separating moms from children so they can work some dead end job.  Many times, they are dissuaded from pursuing education in leiu of this crappy employment.

      And really, its not fiscally responsible anyway, which always blows my mind about republicans.  We might as well save that childcare dough and give it right to mom.  They're just so goddamn worried that somebody is getting paid for doing 'nothing', but we all know that moms taking care of infants is the HARD work.  Why shouldn't a Mom be paid just like a childcare provider would be paid.

      • asdf (0 / 0)

        Why shouldn't a Mom be paid just like a childcare provider would be paid.

        I'm not sure I'd go that far... I'm curious, should a mom only be paid for the time spent parenting from 9-5? Because I work pretty damn hard as a mom and I have a full time job AND I pay a day care provider. Day care is JUST expensive enough to be a burden, but not quite expensive enough to make sense for me to quit my job, and I'm not sure how much government subsidy would make up for my salary. I understand what you're saying about low-income jobs, but I could also see how paying a woman to stay with her kids and not go back to work is something that will NEVER fly in this country.  

        That said, I definitely am on board with allowing for the same tax credits that apply to working moms to be acceptable for SAHM (ie- FSA. I can get behind a working parent being able to take out the same tax-free $5000 for the SAH parent) and whatever child-care credits are available should be available across the board.

        As I'm writing this, I realize THIS is why Hillary had to be so careful. Here I am, a mom who really believes in making the workplaces a better place for families, and I'm a bit ruffled by the notion that a SAHM has a job that is more taxing or valued than my mothering job. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but when I initially read the post it was the first thought that came to my head. So the rhetoric of this stuff is really, really important.

        • That's an interesting reaction (0 / 0)

          From what I know of AHIC(not a lot), it's focused on low-skill new mothers.  Welfare to work basically forces these new moms to hand over their children from 9 to 5 (and pay for it) to put them in a program that costs money (return to work) but with little real notions for helping these young mothers actually improve their skills in the workforce (i.e. letting them pursue education instead of a min. wage job for example).  Basically, it cuts costs by allowing them to stay home while their child is young (<12 months), if they choose, and their work caring for that infant has a (albeit, I'm assuming pretty meager) monthly allowment.  I'm for it, not because I'd benefit (and trust me, I want the currently unpaid work that I do everyday to be valued too!) but because I think it would be good for the health and well-being of children and moms who are very low income.  </p>

          Obviously, we're all under pressure, but I've seen many moms who live in poverty who could get a much better start if they had a window to just be moms after the birth of a child.  We all want that window, we all deserve that window, and I know many working people who don't get it, but I don't see the benefit of forcing these moms out on the street in jobs that couldn't sustain childcare (let alone food, shelter) if they weren't subsidized heavily to do so?  And for what?  So nobody has a 'free ride'?

          • Welfare to Work (0 / 0)

            Is a significantly flawed program, I completely agree and think it harms families more than it helps them. I also believe that aid programs to help lower income families is something we need to seriously look at. I don't think anyone should live in poverty. I'm more of a socialist in that I think that taxes should be higher for the rich, that government programs should take care of the poor, and that our country's value should be judged by how we treat the lest of us.

            That said, I am in support of programs that allow education to be attainable for lower income persons- not just moms. I would support tax credits and no-cost child care for families under a certain bracket. But I still cannot see a policy that pays for lower-income women to be moms for 12 months benefits the group as a whole. I'm not even sure how that works other than to push back issues for 12 months- I got NOTHING  done the 3 months I was home- I was tired, I had no idea what I was doing... if there had been pressure on me to not only take care of my kid on a small stipend but also educate myself? I don't know it would get done.

            Group childcare facilities where women share in duties and allows for timer enhancing parenting skills, workforce skills, etc. would be a "welfare to work" program that makes sense- not shipping moms out to do dead end jobs 2 hours away from home. I don't think it's either or.

            • I like the idea (0 / 0)

              of combining work with learning parenting skills.  So maybe one option would be for moms to work in childcare centers, under skilled supervision.  They could bring their kids, who would be clients of the center, while the moms got a chance to practice positive parenting techniques.

              • It takes a Village... (0 / 0)

                I really find a lot to love about community outreach centers- working within the system to take care of yourself and other people, learning skills through community sharing, benefiting from and sharing your own knowledge with neighbors. There is so much benefit to working together as a community, tribe-like almost, but I think we shy away from programs like that because we're taught, as a society, you should be able to take care of yourself, at all times, and if you can't, it's your fault. It's actually an insane approach to life, if you think about it- operate alone, and you're successful.
              • I find that just a bit condescending... (0 / 0)

                we're assuming that a low income mother doesn't have the same parenting skills as a higher income mother.

                • Parenting skills (0 / 0)

                  why would you assume someone who takes a class like that has bad skills in the first place? All we're saying is that it would be an option, something a new mom could do. I would have killed for some classes in the beginning. A lot of people learn their parenting skills from their community, their parents, etc. Creating a community that fosters knowledge isn't condescending, since you're not saying it's a requirement or anything?

                  • I think offering community courses is fine... (0 / 0)

                    but if its made into policy in order for low income women to get paid leave then I do think its condescending.

                    • notice I mentioned is as "one option" (0 / 0)

                      You're right, mothers of all income levels can be skilled or unskilled.  I'm not suggesting that all welfare-to-work eligible moms "need" parent ed (though I think almost everyone who's open to it can benefit from it.  I'm in a weekly parent ed group right now and getting a lot out of it).  

                      I like the idea of mothers of young children who would like parenting support being able to combine that with their paid labor, especially those mothers who would otherwise mourn time away from their children.

                      • I think that's fine... (0 / 0)

                        and I have actually known women who purposely sought out such work because it allowed them to be with their small children.  In fact, one of my sons' mothers just had a "surprise" baby two years ago...she's close to my age and her youngest child was 10 at the time, and even though she had been out of the workforce for many years, she recently took a job in a daycare center for just that reason.

                        • yes (0 / 0)

                          I got so much out of belonging to a co-op preschool, which is something most working parents can't participate in.  I learned so much from observing how the teachers worked with the kids, and also from watching other parents interact with their kids.  I really had no good models to work from, so it helped me out a lot.  

        • comment (0 / 0)

          I agree with anarchist mom's comment below about the low-income moms.

          And I agree with you about the tax care credits, SAHMs should be able to claim the same amount as a working mom.

          Also, SAH parents should be able to stay in the Social Security system, especially for the disability insurance.  In my mind, that is the number one way that our country tells stay at home parents that you don't matter and we don't give a crap about you.

          For me, all of the other stuff above from Hillary doesn't really apply to me because I will probably never use it.  Do I still want it, because I think it's the right thing to do?  Yes.  So I think throwing in something for parents who are at home is the smart thing to do politically, and the right thing to do.

          • I guess I see (0 / 0)

            these policies as being "worker friendly".  Workers rights have so eroded in the past couple of decades.  I'm thrilled to see suggestions that imply we're thinking about turning that trend back.  

            My kids are grown or almost grown, so none of these policies would effect me.  However, it would be nice to think my kids might have more options when they have families of their own.  This has been something that's been on my mind a lot.  I'm very worried about how their lives are going to be.

            • I still (0 / 0)

              I still think they sound great even though I don't see myself using them anytime soon, because they could affect me one day, or people I love, or just simply because they are the right thing to do.

              However, I think that throwing something in for at-home parents is a smart move politically, and also the right thing to do.  Make it for the middle class and not just poor families, even a smarter political move.

              • Very smart politically. (0 / 0)

                And if we're serious about giving families options, then its the way to go.  It might not be a politically correct thing to say, but right now, the group most left out are married parents raising children.  Until we recognize that this group might also benefit from more options, its difficult to keep asking them to support these options for others.

        • If you're paid more than your childcare (0 / 0)

          Then great! The market has spoken. You get your credit, you go to work. But if you wanted or needed to stay home with your child, having the same credits for child care available to you would probably help you swing it financially. What if your child had been born premature and thus shouldn't be in daycare?

          I don't think anyone is talking about paying a woman to stay home indefinitely.

          • Not indefinitely (0 / 0)

            but for me, the impact it would have on breastfeeding rates for this most vulnerable group is enough to win me over for the first 6 months to a year.  The impact would be amazing!

          • I addressed it above (0 / 0)

            but I don't see how that really helps to do anything except delay the inevitable struggle for 12 months, except, as anarchist mom said, with breastfeeding rates. I think that is a definite benefit. But it's a benefit that can be achieved with something like I outlined above.

            If you're paid more than your childcare (0 / 0)
            Then great! The market has spoken. You get your credit, you go to work.But if you wanted...

            So the market determined my wanting to stay home or not? No, my bills did. If Lily hadn't been able to get into daycare, the life changes would have been pretty huge- sell the house, move closer to my parents, rent or purchase a smaller place, and pray, a lot, because our household relies on my income to function. My biggest nightmare was twins. I couldn't afford them in any way I saw. I am fortunate I have the option of relying on family. Which is again a reason I would support the development of community centers for mothers to participate in, the benefit of having a support group to help care for children. Since my income is so much higher than my husbands, no, I don't believe the child credits could have saved our house. Hard choices, definitely. I think a lot is doable with the right help.

            I don't think anyone is talking about paying a woman to stay home indefinitely.

            Then what is the end game result for a program like this?

            • Leave (0 / 0)

              A paid family leave, for up to a year, let's say like Canada's where I think you get 55% of your pay up to a certain level, would help lots of moms stay home, at all levels of the income spectrum.  Ok, that's not even on the list here, but a girl can dream.

              Even moms who don't go back to work in the end would get at least a year paid, and those moms who do go back, would have at least gotten a year paid to be with their babies, which I imagine many would appreciate.

              I don't get your point that it would only delay the struggle for twelve months.  Isn't 12 months better than 3 or 1 or nothing?

              • Make me dreamer #2 (0 / 0)

                because a Family Leave makes a lot of sense to me, and I don't think there should be full time / part time restrictions on that.

                What I'm saying is this: if the goal is to increase education, make moms who want to stay home the first year able to do so and get back in the work force AND help lower income families afford infant care, I do not see how a 12 month program that pays a mom helps in the long run. It helps for 12 months, and of COURSE that's better than 1 or 3, but if you're trying to lay out a plan that is acceptable, truly helps mothers and the community as a whole (because having a healthy, work-able community helps everyone) I don't see how the endgame is any better. Having a 1 year old whose daycare you cannot afford isn't much better than having a three month old. PLUS you're out of the workforce for a year now, which makes being rehired all the much harder, especially for lower income families, because you're now pegged through your work history as a mom of a young child and employers know that there will be dr. visits and scheduling conflicts... again, all things that are not fair, but exist.

                If instead, you had YMCA like facilities supported by government funding, run by community outreach workers AND by members using the program can serve to give moms a community, it allows for child care through sharing of chores and has education courses that allow for mothers to "work" in the program while still being moms- breastfeeding and caring for their kids, etc.Well, that makes more sense to me. The end result is a lot clearer to me.

                • Dreams (0 / 0)

                  Back on the dreams ala Canada, it would have to be a job-protected leave.

                  So let's say it was a job-protected, paid leave for one year, would you be against that?

                  In the end, I think a one-year paid, job-protected leave is better than a three month leave.

                  • No, I wouldn't be against that at all. (0 / 0)

                    I'm not following, I don't think.  My disagreement with what anarchist mom's original post said was that a mom who could not afford to work and care for her child would be paid to stay at home. My argument is that 12 months later, that same mom is no better off than she was.

                    If you have a job, but want to stay home for the first year for a multitude of really good reasons, and can't afford to do that without a paycheck, than paid family leave ala canada makes a LOT of sense to me. But it doesn't solve the original problem, which is people with low income jobs that do not support childcare payments.

                    • Got it (0 / 0)

                      Got ya.

                      Canada also has some sort of gov't/provincial daycare system with a sliding scale payment schedule, which would help take care of the problem you mention.  And I believe they also threw in a direct payment to parents who don't use daycare recently.

                      Oh Canada.

  • Annnd... I'm for Hillary now. (0 / 0)

    Seriously, I understand a lot of the complaints above, but really, really, really. It's being ADDRESSED! It's being DISCUSSED! There is a PLAN. It's not just about Moms and Dads silently fuming, it's on the National Level in a way that has not existed to my knowledge before. THIS IS SO GOOD.

    WE WANT NATIONAL PAID FAMILY LEAVE!  Why is that so hard to talk about?  Why tiptoe around it and leave the republicans room to put a spin on it for you?

    There has to be care taken in the terminology. She is so fricking smart, her people are smart, and I can have faith in that. You can't start flaunting ideas for "PAID CARE" without right wingers fuming and cussing- even if it will help them. As for why it starts with the lowest income- it starts somewhere and that is the most important place for it to start, period. Like anything, change takes time, and riding her for not being ready to lay out a comprehensive, fix-it-all plan is kind of silly, IMO. Politics is just that, and I'm more than content with a starter plan that can evolve.  

    • I have no problem with (0 / 0)

      "framing".  I happen to be a huge fan of George Lakoff.

      I have to admit that I'm feeling better about Hillary as our candidate.  Frankly, I can go for electability, and she's showing herself to be a worthy candidate in that regard.

  • 7 days of sick leave instead of 5 (0 / 0)

    That sounds nice, but unless there's a federal law stating that employers must allow employees to use their sick leave for the care of a sick child, it's pointless.

    I have 90 hours of sick leave saved up, but when Eli was throwing up in March, I had to take a vacation day.

    I'm fine with Hillary, not thrilled with her war stance, obviously, but would be comfortable with her as our candidate.

  • Small steps (0 / 0)

    I think this is a good small step, like her healthcare plan.  We liberals aren't going to everything we want right away with any of the current candidates.  It'll take time to more toward paid leave and universal healthcare for everyone.  

    I'm definitely leaning towards Hillary now...especially with General Clark's endorsement.  A lot of us Clarkies have had a tough time with some of her policies, but I think she's a strong candidate.  I agree with Wes that she's tough and smart... two things that'll take her a long way in this campaign.

Permalink | 56 comments