Chris Van Hollen faced off with our Donna Edwards on Sunday at a forum run by Maryland NOW. Interestingly enough, the invitation to be part of the forum was offered to anyone who plans to run. Next year’s primary is on April 26th, so maybe it’s too early, but it seems rather odd for two contenders to have such a head start. We shall see if anyone else jumps in later on.
The forum ran from 1-2pm – unfortunately, Rep. Edwards had to leave early, which lost her some points from the audience. But NOW’s 4 big questions, and one main audience question got answered.
The forum started with opening remarks, and it was very interesting to hear the different messages. Van Hollen’s message; I’m not “A”, but I support “A”. He’s not a person of color, he’s not a woman, he’s not LGBT, he’s not disabled, but he supports their causes. Edward’s message was the counterpoint, a woman’s voice, a mother’s voice, makes a difference. Frankly, I think we have enough able-bodied, straight, white male voices in the Senate. And if we want a progressive voice, we’ve got Bernie Sanders. But what we don’t have enough of is women’s voices. So, I agree with Donna – it makes a difference.
The first question, NOW president O’Neill, took what’s happening in Baltimore and spun it toward violence against women and girls, asking what public policies could make a difference. I expected this to become a discussion of VAWA, but both Edwards and Van Hollen turned to economic and social justice issues, Edwards discussing the fact that people in prison tend to have seen violence in their homes, and that we need to reach out to them, Van Hollen talking about ending the war on poverty and the war on drugs.
The next question was on health care and abortion, and the current trend of limiting access instead of legislating outright bans that would get overturned by the Supreme Court. NARAL cause these “TRAP” laws, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. O’Neill also talked about how abortion is something that 1 in 3 women under 45 use at some point in their lives. Van Hollen talked about his fight to keep anti-abortion riders out of appropriations bills at the federal level, but could not discuss it on a personal level. This is not to say that Edwards has had an abortion, but the way she discussed it was different. She talked about the importance of using the word “abortion”, to not be afraid to name it as it is, because it is a real part of women’s lives. She also talked about the importance of access for poor and low income women, because they are the ones most affected. Personally, I believe that a wealthy woman can get to a clinic somewhere, can get around the access laws. But a woman who is taking off from work, who cannot travel. That is the woman who is affected most, that is the woman who’s right to access must be fought for.
The NOW president then asked about economic justice issues for women, not only that two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, but more importantly that 70% of tipped wage workers are women, and the tipped wage is $2.13/hour and in many cases, tips barely bring earnings up to the minimum wage. Edwards’ response was on-point. She talked about how not only do white women make 78¢ on the dollar, but black women only make 70¢ and Latina women only make 49¢. And so it is women of color that need Equal Pay for Equal Work the most. Edwards sponsored a bill to raise tip wages, but could not get co-sponsorship. Her hope is to eliminate the tip wage; something that would make a huge difference for millions of women. In contrast, Van Hollen’s take was changes to the tax code, and differences between those who make money from work vs. people who make money from mone. He talked about fees on trades and investing in education. Frankly, I could not see how his comments related to Equal Pay for Equal Work, and I was quite disappointed.
The last moderated question was about retirement, seniors who outlive their savings, and dependency on Social Security. The candidates were asked to comment. Van Hollen talked eloquently about protecting, modernizing and expanding Social Security. He talked about not cutting benefits, increasing the minimum benefit, giving credits for caregiving. What Edwards talked about was simple. That Van Hollen hadn’t always been on the bandwagon, that he was willing to consider Simpson-Bowles bill that included cuts to Social Security, whereas, she had never wavered in rejecting cuts, and she was determined to get regular cost of living increases.
The one question from the floor was on TPP. Edwards stated that she had been opposing TPP from the inception and only supports trade deals with strong worker protection. Van Hollen also said that TPP was a bad deal and that he opposed Fast Tracking it, but he could not say that he had always had this view.
Well, that was it. In my view, there were strengths and weaknesses shown by both candidates. And again, the choice is clear. Do you want someone who supports other people’s causes, or someone who represents those causes, understanding them personally? I think we need the personal voice.