:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.

First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:

Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.

Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:

For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it. Read more!

:: The Curious Case of the Contradictory Comments

A Tiny Mystery at our Very Own Doorstep

[New! See update below!]

I just want to point this out in case you missed it. Take a look at the two comments posted in response to the previous blog entry.

At 2:57pm, "onelight321" makes a critical but entirely rational-sounding and polite comment.

He even writes, "if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign."

At 3:19pm, "onelight321" is a total freak.

As in "I'm sorry your deeply flawed, unscrupulous, despicable candidate lost. Ok, I'm not really sorry, as she is an insane sociopath."

So here's the mystery.

What could have happened in the intervening 22 minutes?

- Could a fellow student at the computer center, or a fellow inmate at the prison library, have jumped on, read the screen onelight123 left open, and taken advantage of onelight321's still-logged-in blogger identity?

- Did he post a comment before reading the item, only to read the item and become angry as all get-out - prompting the second, crazy comment?

- Is it a case of subconscious rage breaking free of the chains of repression? A Jeckyll and Hyde kind of thing?

- Might Obama have distributed different talking points during those 22 minutes, and onelight obediently switched gears?

- Crack? That stuff works pretty fast. Or so I'm told.

- Could both comments have come from two members of the same family? Meaning, perhaps onelight #1 is the mother, and #2 is her drain-bamaged 22 year old son? I'm talking likely demographics here people.

I fear this mystery may never be solved. Cool beans, though. I'd love to hear your theories (all three of you).

And no, of course I did not miss the irony of a guy posting two comments that actually demonstrate precisely the point I'm trying to make. Comment #1: how to blame Hillary for everything but in a polite and conciliatory manner. Comment #2: how to blame Hillary for everything in a way that confirms why I don't want to be part of a club that has people like that as members (and neither should you).

Feeling rather smug, I am.

UPDATE: As much as I don't want to spoil the fun, I think I've figured out at least one thing that happened in the past 22 minutes. It seems our new, demented friend spent time reading the rest of the posts, leaving comments similar to #2 (above) hither and yon.

So this what I think happened.

The Obama campaign sent out new talking points to their little blogger buddies telling them to be nice and giving them some suggestions. Phrases like "authentic human voice" sound exactly like what you'd get from a media hack. But onelight123 couldn't hold it together, for the very reasons I point out in my post. He couldn't stand to see someone - a girl, no less - disagreeing with him. He had to assert his moral superiority.

And that's what so much of this all comes down to, isn't it. Narcissistic - or insecure - guys who can't stand it when girls 'refuse' to agree with them.

Well, sucks to be them.

Read more!

:: We Should Not Vote for Obama

If we do something, things still might stay the same.
If we do nothing, we KNOW they will stay the same.

I didn't think I could get any more disgusted. But here we go again.

This is tonight's edition of the New York Times' Opinionator, written by Chris Suellentrop. Here's the link, but I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Emphasis added:

Maybe it was her night after all: Hillary Clinton decided not to withdraw from the presidential campaign tonight, and the liberals in blogville are not happy about it, to put it mildly.

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic begins his blog post on Clinton’s speech by writing, “I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different.”

He continues, "I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll."

At The American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Dana Goldstein calls Clinton’s speech “troublesome.” “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama,” Goldstein writes. “Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party’s supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait uses even tougher language. “I’d say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama,” he writes at The Plank, TNR’s staff blog. Chait also writes of the speech:

“Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn’t concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he’s won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama’s campaign on its “achievements,” but barely musters a single good word about him.”

Chait’s colleagues at The New Republic are almost as exercised. Isaac Chotiner, also writing at The Plank, calls the speech “combative and petty” and headlines his post, “A Total Disgrace.” He concludes, “If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.” Noam Scheiber says the speech was “outrageous,” “delusional,” and “inflammatory.” Scheiber writes at The Stump, TNR’s campaign blog:

“What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they’re clearly going to say “keep going.” If she actually does keep going, that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn’t, you’ve just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn’t accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you’ve encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it. What a disaster.”

End quote.

So, according to these geniuses, the number one priority is healing the rift in the party and bringing Hillary's supporters over to Obama. So say Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam.

In fact, they criticize Hillary for being "petty," "combative," and "inflammatory."

And yet it's Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam who go out of their way to insult Hillary, her staff and her supporters. They cannot muster one gracious word. They can't stifle one petty, combative, inflammatory comment. Apparently they just can't help it. Their nastiness - their hatred just brims over.

And that angry, angry Bill Clinton! Why, Obama's bully boys would never show anger! No, Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam are the very picture of cool and conciliatory thinking.

And they wonder why we don't want to join them.

Can they not hear themselves?

Are they stupid?

Or are they still so high off the past six months of proclaiming how much more intelligent, more ethical, more strategic, more educated and more wealthy they are than those lowly Clinton supporters that they've burnt out a critical mass of brain cells?

Are they addicted to the ego boost?

Is Obamamania the political equivalent of crack? And are these guys too far gone to be saved?

The answer to all those questions is "yes," especially #3.

These guys have breathed in - and out - the fumes from so many self-congratulatory Obama homages and ego-boosting anti-Clinton bromides that they have lost their critical faculties.

Political crackheads. That's what we're left with.

Well, I'm not having it and I don't think you should either.

As the video I posted earlier says, we loathe Ronald Reagan for having tacitly allowed the so-called Southern Strategy to drum up racist support for his 1980 campaign.

Barack Obama has tacitly allowed a - what shall we call it? Testosterone strategy? That doesn't even do it justice. Its an insult to testosterone. What do you call it when a candidate walks on stage to Jay-Z's "[I've got] 99 Problems [but a bitch ain't one]"? A Prick Strategy? Well, that will have to do.

To get elected, Reagan benefited from the racist Southern Strategy. He never denounced the racism drummed up on his behalf.

To get elected, Obama benefited from the sexist, misogynist Prick Strategy. He's never denounced the sexism and misogyny slung on his behalf.

And I doubt he ever will.

Look, we don't need to agonize over this. Obama and his supporters don't want support from feminists. They don't respect us. This is not a hard decision.

In November, I will vote down-ballot. But I won't vote for President. (Forget doing a write-in, no one counts them). And then I will look for the total numbers of votes cast, and the total numbers of votes cast for President. Subtract the total number of votes cast for President from the total number of votes cast for a down-ballot item. The remainder is the protest vote.

Say No in November.

We can do it!


Read more!

:: A few thoughts on tonight

Why do I strongly doubt everyone would feel so "offended" about a candidate not conceding and supposedly not showing signs of grace tonight if that candidate weren't female? (Isn't it amazing that even when you're running for the highest office in the land, it's all about whether you're nice enough? Women are just expected to be nice in a way that men aren't, and it is so embedded in our culture that people can't even see beyond it.) The woman still won a freakin' primary today - today, when it's all supposed to be over, and people are still voting for her. And after she won a primary by over 30 points on Saturday. I just don't remember Mike Huckabee getting the same amount of scorn from the MSM even when it was over on the Republican side (and not nearly as close), but he was still in the race and still winning primaries. He could take his sweet time and make sure his supporters felt respected.

The MSM, the Obama campaign, and the DNC better wake up fast to the amount of bitterness there is out there among Clinton's voters, and it's not just some kooky old white women and ignorant racist rednecks, as the media keeps trying to portray. And the more they act like they did tonight, they more I just want to stay home in November. If this party and this campaign thinks they can win without the women and other voters who supported Clinton, we can certainly try to test that premise, but I don't think it's going to work so well. And while I'm glad Obama finally acknowledged his grandmother tonight and tried to acknowledge Clinton's contributions to the race, it's going to take a little bit more than that.

I am also sure that I am not the only woman who was stunned at how much sadness I felt tonight realizing that we aren't going to see a woman president any time soon, how that dream is just gone for now. It took 24 years after Geraldine Ferraro to get to this point. How long is it going to take to get back here? It's 2008, I'm going to be 31 years old tomorrow (and how sad was I to hear that I share a birthday with Dorothy Rodham, who will also face tomorrow filled with a sense of what could have been, though so much more so), and it feels like time, and I hate that that is gone. As if the bitterness of this race isn't enough, I think that's a reality as well. I knew what was going to happen tonight, and yet watching it slip away was unbelievably painful. Yes, it's a historic night, but can we also acknowledge the loss that so many of us also feel?
Read more!

:: Yes, I Will Not Vote For Obama

Watch this and tell me that despite this, its worth it to vote for this man. I'll take my chances with four years of McCain.

Well, kids, I've fallen a bit behind. I only watched this today, though its been out for weeks if not months. And lord knows its not because I've been working so hard.

I don't need any reminders to stimulate my antipathy towards Obama. But months from now, maybe it'll begin to fade - I doubt it, but maybe - and that's when I'll return to this video.

You have to watch the whole thing for the impact to settle in, because the cumulative effect is the whole point. Would that I had the ability to re-cut it and add some additional material that needs to be in there: the "tea in exotic locales" comment (Obama), the "specious claim to experience" comment (Kristof), the verbal vomit of Father Pfleger. [Also to correct that one typo!] More than any other time in my life, I want to learn video editing.

Read more!

:: Why She's Still Fighting

Yes, its for the principle - and because she wants Democrats to win

Just thought I'd share a few poll numbers with the three of you. If you have any doubt about why Hillary is still fighting for the nomination, let these figures be your guide.

Quinnipiac University
Florida
McCain 45, Obama 41
Clinton 48, McCain 41

Ohio
McCain 44, Obama 40
Clinton 48, Mccain 41

Pennsylvania
Obama 46, McCain 40
Clinton 50, McCain 37

Rasmussen Reports
Florida
McCain 50, Obama 40
Clinton 47, McCain 41

Survey USA
Missouri
McCain 48, Obama 45
Clinton 48, McCain 46

North Carolina
McCain 51, Obama 43
Clinton 49, McCain 43

I'll be the first to say "snapshot" head-to-heads are pretty useless in terms of predicting the eventual results. That said, these numbers are pretty bad for Obama with regard to the argument of the moment.

Now, in related business, let's check in with our favorite constituency - those white female swing voters - the compassionate conservative women - who should be the holy grail of any Democratic presidential campaign. You know, one of the constiuencies Obama ignores.

Gallup has some new research to share.

May 21, 2008
Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among
White Voters
by Frank Newport

Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, will likely enter the general election with more of a handicap among white voters than would have been the case if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee, based mainly on Clinton's stronger performance among white women.

A new Gallup Poll analysis of Daily tracking data collected between May 1 and May 17 shows that Clinton's edge among white voters is not, as some have hypothesized, based on Obama's problems among blue-collar white men, but reflects more the fact of Clinton's strength among white women.

White Male Voters

In general, Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton lose to McCain among this group by 21-point margins, 36% to 57%.

There has been discussion of Obama's presumed problem among blue-collar white males should he win the Democratic nomination. The current analysis shows that relative to Clinton, however, Obama does not suffer from a large "blue-collar male" deficit as has been hypothesized. Obama loses to McCain in a hypothetical matchup among non-college-educated white men by 25 points, while Clinton loses by 20 points.

Additionally, Obama has a compensatory strength among white-collar men, defined here as those with a college education. Among this group, Obama loses to McCain by 13 points while Clinton loses by 22 points.

All in all, these data suggest that the Democrats' probable nomination of Obama rather than Clinton does not mean Democrats will enter the general election with a bigger deficit among white men than they would have if Clinton were the nominee. The data from May suggest that Clinton may have done only slightly better than Obama against McCain among blue-collar white men, and that this slight advantage likely would have been offset by Obama's slight advantage among college-educated men.

White Female Voters

Among non-Hispanic white women, however, there is a significant difference in the way the two Democratic candidates perform against McCain.

While Obama loses to McCain by 16 points among non-Hispanic white women with no college, Clinton ties McCain. And while Obama does manage to squeak out a four-point advantage over McCain among college-educated white women, Clinton has an 11-point margin.

Although there has been a great deal of discussion of the problems that await Obama among white men should he win the Democratic nomination, this analysis suggests that while McCain certainly has a strength among this group, it is no more of a strength against Obama than it would be against Clinton. Clinton's slight advantage among blue-collar white men is offset by Obama's advantage among white-collar white men.

The bigger issue appears to be Obama's problems among white women, when compared to how Clinton would perform among this group.

Obama loses to McCain by nine points among white women, while Clinton wins by three points. Clinton does better than Obama among both blue-collar and white-collar white women.

All in all, although both Democrats are to a degree handicapped against McCain among white voters, Clinton would perform better than Obama in a general-election matchup among non-Hispanic whites. Combining white voters of both genders, the current analysis shows that McCain wins over Obama among whites, 53% to 38%, and beats Clinton by a considerably smaller 51% to 42% margin.

It is important to note that Obama runs about as well vs. McCain as Clinton does, and both Democrats currently maintain a slight advantage over McCain in general-election trial heats. So any weaker relative performance for Obama vs. McCain among a demographic group (such as white women or lower-educated voters) is made up for by a stronger relative performance among another group (such as blacks or higher-educated voters).

This would not be so much of a problem if the Obama campaign did not appear to be pathologically unable to reach out to any constituency that does not catagorically prefer him. Okay, that was not well put. I'll try it a different way. He hasn't done a single thing to reach out to white women specifically, even thought the campaign knew he had a problem there as far back as the New Hampshire primary election night, and Axelrod talked about writing off working class whites, saying they never vote Democratic anyway.

This is echt Obama. Remember how he ignored Hillary at the SOTU? His body language at the last three-way debate? When Obama feels dissed, he disses back. He tries to cut the person / group off. He shuns them. He disengages. He's the opposite of Senator Clinton, who carefully and systematically won over her many of her enemies by engaging them on substantive matters. She is a fighter. He cuts his losses and turns his back, literally and figuratively.

My prediction: lowest gender gap among independents since 1996, advantage goes to McCain.

Read more!

:: My baloney has a first name; it's N-A-R-A-L

This was so amazingly lame I felt it deserved it's own blogpost and not just a comment on ciccina's. Here's the transcript from the web chat NARAL held yesterday in response to the tremendous backlash that followed their endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Some of the questions seem pretty clearly planted by members of the NARAL staff. But most questioners really tried to get NARAL to be straightforward about why they were jumping on the Obama bandwagon at this late date.

Craig:

Was it really necessary to endorse Sen. Obama before the primary ended when both candidates are pro-choice? Can't NARAL criticize Sen. McCain's record on choice without having to simultaneously support only one Democrat?

Elizabeth Shipp:

The vast majority of voters still don’t know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don’t know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman’s right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a “moderate” and a “maverick” so assume he must be pro-choice.

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people’s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends.

Sadly, no matter how many different ways the questions was asked, Shipp and Keenan stuck to their unsatisfying talking points. The comments on the chat reflect that readers found it as unsatisfying as I did:

By Hillary or Bust on May 16, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow...that chat was just...scary. I don't know if you are just rationalizing, naive, or downright stupid. And I don't believe for a minute that you thought carefully enough about the potential for backlash in your decision.

By Sarah Taby on May 16, 2008 9:12 PM

I just read the transcript of your contrived web talk. That was rediculous. Your organization and Nancy made no sense and continue to make no sense. Why can't you confess that you made a huge mistake? I think the many people who have expressed their anger at your endorsement should join together and protest in front of your headquarters until you accept your mistake and acknowledge our feelings in a more real and less paranizing manar. I want one of you talking heads to really address our disgust and anger!

A number of the commenters were appropriately ticked by Keenan's response to POLITICO, basically telling angry Clinton supporters (and even Obama supporters) to get over themselves. "In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their 'broken hearts.'" Oh, yeah. That'll bring 'em back to you, Nancy! The article is a fine read. NARAL may have been trying to ensure their place in the new administration, but they have succeeded in pissing off a number of women leaders on the Hill. Good job! That should help the movement! Read more!

:: Shame on NARAL

With one despicable endorsement, Nancy Keenan puts the last nail in NARAL's coffin.

First, let's get one thing straight: NARAL is irrelevant. Those of us within the movement who have had the misfortune of attending their yearly galas know its more like a wake than a celebration. Gone are the clusters of members of Congress and celebrities.

Gone are the tables featuring the big-dog presidents of major organizations. What's left are a bunch of interns and low level staff sent to fill up the seats at the tables their employers paid for. NARAL has virtually no grassroots and they've been invisible so far in the presidential race. We all knew that when Kate left NARAL was going to go D-List. But I didn't think things would end in such a embarrassing way.

As I'm sure you know, they've endorsed Obama. I could not be more disgusted. I guess they forgot that they are supposed to support champions for choice, not just the guy who fills out the questionnaire okay. I guess they have forgotten how important ICPD is, VAWA, SCHIP and so on. I note that in NARAL's endorsement statement they don't list any substantial accomplishments Obama has made on women's issues.

Apparently none of that matters.

And apparently Obama's squirmy position on choice has been forgotten too. So let's refresh our memories, shall we? I'll point back to three previous entries at the Canary that discuss this problem.

First there are his answers at last month's Compassion Forum in Gratham, Pennsylvania. To be clear, he refers to himself as pro-choice. But he also uses language that should worry women's rights advocates. It should worry them because the point of using waffle language like this is to imply that you would be willing to deal around the edges. He sounds very uncomfortable - like he's trying to squirm around the questions.

"I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

There is also this answer to a question about life beginning at conception:

"What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Pondering moral issues is fine in the context of personal decisions. When it comes to legal frameworks, "moral weight" sounds a lot like something you balance against a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Actually, it reminds me Justice Kennedy's dreadful opinion from the last time SCOTUS took this up.

How about this, from the RH Reality Check candidate questionnaire:

Question: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama's answer: Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

Again, every restriction we have on the books has been considered by the Supreme Court to be consistent within Roe's framework.

Again, not a leader. Not a champion.

And neither is NARAL. Say goodnight, Nancy.

Read more!

:: A Good Man

Do read this essay, "Go, Hillary, I'm With You!" by Dr. Syed Manssor Hussain, published in the Daily Times, "The Leading News Resource of Pakistan." Not only is it a thoughtful piece that brings up a few points that would never see the light of day in a U.S. publication, its quite lovely to see a man self-identify as a feminist. But you get this kind of thing when our issues are discussed in an "international" context... the U.S. is falling further and further behind in addressing women's issues.

I take issue, however, with one point that Dr. Hussain seems to make - that feminism has diminished in relevance as more women's rights have been realized. While it is certainly true that we have made enormous progress, the sense that its "mission accomplished" is largely a product of the sexism and misogyny of our public discourse. The major area where this is clear is violence against women. As a nation, we take it for granted that sexual violence is persistant and that women are "natural victims." We have no national strategy to combat sexual violence, and in general, the discussion of the topic is rife with horrific bias and scorn (much of which is directed at male victims, especially those who are incarcerated). As a matter of policy, we are uninterested in the high level of sex crimes that go unreported because of lack of faith in the legal system and the fear of shame and stigma.

And we seem to have no problem that certain areas, at certain times, are as "off-limits" to women as they would be in a developing country. When you consider the number of places that a woman cannot go, unaccompanied by a male, for fear of gender based punishment, the reality of our lives doesn't look all that dissimilar to those of women in more obviously oppressive situations.

Like I said, this is all taken for granted as a "natural" state of affairs. There are no large scale policy initiatives or programs. We're supposed to accept that this is our lot in life - to be wary of walking alone in a parking lot, to know if you've been drinking its quite possible someone could sexually abuse you without legal repercussions.

No, the feminist agenda is by no means irrelevant. But it has been fragmented by stupid decisions (supporting Barack over Hillary, for one) that minimize its clout and all but silenced by the media. Read more!

:: Obama on Choice - "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework"

The only way Barack could give a more weaselly answer on choice would be if he were an actual weasel.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both asked about their position on reproductive choice at a recent candidate forum. Didn't hear about it? Maybe that's because the political chattering class has decided, once again, that "women's issues" don't matter - no suprise there. Maybe its also because this time around, women's groups aren't clamoring after the candidates to clarify their positions and raise the profile of these vital issues.

This time around, most feminist leaders are silent. Perhaps that's part of the reason even dedicated feminists like myself only come across items like this from specialized news clipping services (aka the kid in charge of the clips).

The following statements by Clinton and Obama on reproductive choice are excerpted from a CNN transcript from the "Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, on April 13, 2008.

Let's start with Clinton's section, because it reflects the gold standard in statements of this nature. She addresses the legal, moral and public health aspects of the issue and places it in global context.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON:

I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I think we have to do even more.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.

And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and '80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.

So, you know, when I think about this issue, I think about the whole range of concerns and challenges associated with it and I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number and to improve and increase the care for women and particularly the adoption system and the other opportunities that women would have to make different choices.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Nicaragua mentioned in her answer, because everyone needs to hear over and over again that the end-point of the "pro-life" doctrine is the real death of real women, and moreover, that this end-point is considered acceptable in the "pro-life" moral framework. I would also like to hear the First Amendment / Establishment Clause argument brought up, because people seem to forget that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from privileging one religious viewpoint over another. But that's me. Overall, Senator Clinton's answer is fine.

Later in the forum, Senator Obama responded to similar questions.

QUESTION:

Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA:

I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.

I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA:

This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on.

I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.

What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Where to begin. He does self-identify as pro-choice (see bold text). That is good. He does it as part of a statement that props up the canard that pro-choice people haven't been sensitive to moral issues - that we're concerned with rights while they are concerned with values - but, whatever. He's bringing us together.

Then Obama does something unexpected - he raises the morality bar. Its not enough to prevent the need for abortion - we should prevent circumstances "that might even lead somebody to consider" abortion. But, you know, whatever.

Obama then states that he trusts the judgment of the woman - and her entourage: "Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family."

I know that's the configuration that polls the best - but really, that's quite a lot of people to all squeeze into an examination room. And what if you don't have a pastor? Maybe the court can appoint one for you. But things like spousal consent, mandatory lectures, waiting periods and so aren't really up for discussion. So, like, whatever.

And here's the doozy: "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

Now that's what I like to see - a hard and fast commitment to upholding the right to privacy, the right to control one's own reproductive processes without government intrusion. I mean, what part of "I think we will continue to suggest" doesn't say "you can count on me"? And what does "at least" mean? "At least" now, until we can come up with something better? Or "at least" until we all agree on this? Perhaps "at least" now, until we have 100% sexual responsibility, no mishaps, no genetic anomalies, no adverse life-changing events? I am truly curious.

The next bit, "this is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on" just strikes me as funny. Is he not sure whether he's resolved for himself whether life begins at conception? Maybe he should ask himself. No wait, he just did. [sigh] I think if you're not sure whether you've come to a firm resolution, its pretty safe to say that you've haven't come to a firm resolution.

But what follows is not funny: "What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates." Taking "moral weight" into consideration sounds very much like what Justice Kennedy did in the last major Supreme Court decision on choice.

If these words were spoken by a Republican candidate, we all know what we'd conclude. But somehow, with Obama, we're supposed to just accept that what he says is not what he means, or what he will do. We're all supposed to understand, as Samantha Power put it in her BBC interview, that there are some things you say on the campaign trail that don't carry over into governing. But why? Senator Obama - the Man With the Golden Tongue - is all about words.

What bothers me the most about these words is that they reek of stigma. He sounds almost ashamed to be pro-choice, like he needs to defend and explain, couch and coddle his way around a very unpalatable stance.

He sounds tentative, timid, apologetic. Not at all like the champion he purports to be, the champion that - for pity's sake, after all these years! - we women deserve.

Read more!

:: Screw You Guys - I'm Going Home

Obama's campaign has become part of the problem, not the solution... and I'm not going to let it slide.

I’ve haven’t posted comments anywhere for a while, not only because my foster dog ate the internet, but because I’m sick of the Obamamites. However a comment I saw today on http://www.pollster.com/ really inspired me. The comment was this:

As a under 50,000, 50 year old part of the throw away class of women you are speaking of, let me just reassure you I am college educated and I can recognize a load of male bullcrap when I hear it I will not be voting dem if your dream guy get the nomination. Oh and by the way I have never voted for a rep before, but; I guess there is always a first time. Posted by: vera t February 21, 2008 10:45 PM

This really struck a chord with me. I think its also in line with Buffy's post about "invisible women." In response, I wrote:

"I just want to express my appreciation to Vera T for her comment about being "part of the throw away class of women" in this election. That is EXACTLY how I feel.

I noticed last night that once again, Obama mentioned the need to inspire the American people to "go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions.” He seemed to go out of his way to not mention gender (just like, for example, in his MLK day speech when he mentioned racism, “occasional” anti-semitism, homophobia but not misogyny or sexism).

Now the party line from Obama supporters is the Hillary should drop out, despite the fact that the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.

Clearly, the votes, values and interests of people like myself (and Vera T) do not matter to the Obama campaign, nor to the most outspoken Obama supporters. This has been demonstrated in a number of ways, from the content (or lack thereof) of his speeches, to the content (or lack thereof) of his website, and in the strategy that says the votes of my cohort basically don't exist or shouldn’t count.

I have been involved in Democratic politics for my entire career, working exclusively as paid staff for progressive interest groups and Democratic candidates. And I say this now from my heart, not as some sort of veiled threat, but absolutely from my heart - I honestly think that if Obama is the nominee my protest will be to not vote in the general.

Over the course of this campaign, I've heard Hillary's experience minimized and ridiculed, heard every comment parsed for even a hint of exaggeration, I've seen her denigrated for her clothes and her laugh, I've seen her accused of using "feminine wiles" by "turning on the water works" when the fact is she never shed a tear on the campaign trail, I've heard my own vote denigrated as mere sympathy rather than fact- and value-based, I’ve heard Hillary’s daughter called a whore by a prominent newscaster for campaigning with her mother (but nary a word about Mitt’s boys) (believe me, if that newscaster had said Barack was “pimping out” Michelle, he’d be fired and NO ONE would be coming to his defense). I’ve heard Hillary called “ambitious” as if there is something wrong with that, while the obviously equally ambitious male candidates are not criticized. I could go on and on. And who raises a protest? No one. Does Obama say one word about fair play? Never. Is he the beneficiary and sometimes the instigator of this unequal treatment? Obviously.

I'm not going to go into the ways misogyny permeates our culture. I've traveled and lived outside of the United States and I've observed overseas development programs that address gender inequality, so I know whereof I speak. Many countries have national programs that address, for example, violence and discrimination against womenand programs that make it easier for women (and men) to accommodate work and family. Not here. Here, apparently, no one beyond Hillary and her supporters think this is a problem. And no one, outside of Hillary and her supporters, thinks this is worth addressing.

Call my opinion irrelevant, or see me (and Vera T) as canaries in the coal mine. Not only do I not have any enthusiasm for Obama, but I've come to see his campaign as part of the problem. I’m sorry to say it, but as for this longtime Dem activist and one of the “throw away women,” if Obama is the nominee, you boys are on your own."

Before you say it - I know. The Supreme Court. Our foreign policy. The environment. I know, I know. But you know what? I'm sick of it. I'm not going to compromise my principles this time. We survived 8 years of Bush, we'll survive whatever happens next. The fact is, I don't think Obama will be able to beat McCain anyway (I heard MULTIPLE things come out of Obama's mouth in last night's debate that would make excellent negative ads against him). And I'm not sure Obama would be much better than McCain on a lot of issues. Obama has already ceded universal health care. We don't know whether he'd appoint a strongly pro-choice Supreme Court justice, or a "moderate" that appeals to both parties. He has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy - who knows what he could get us into.

And I don't think the Democratic Senate will treat the young new guy any better this time than the Democratic Senate did in 1992 - 1994 with the young new guy Bill Clinton. The first time he doesn't jump when Teddy tells him to, he'll get clobbered. Furthermore, I think he'll reap a whirlwind from the conservatives that will make the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons look like nothing.

If Obama's the nominee, I'm going to take a cue from his campaign and vote with my heart - and my heart says stay home.

Read more!

:: "The Daily Dish" (of hot, steaming crap)

Andrew Sullivan stars in his own horrorshow: "I Am Moron."

Who would have thought that celebrity gay blogger Andrew Sullivan would ever find a point of agreement with Saudi fundamentalists on a social issue?

Long story short: Sullivan's latest column argues that Hillary's candidacy violates the spirit and intent of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. That's the one that limits a President to two terms of office:

We also confront the issue of the 22nd amendment. I don't like it, but it's there. In fact, we may have the 22nd Amendment to thank for our current predicament. Bill Clinton should have been able to run for a third term in the full light of day under traditional democratic rules. Instead, we now have to grapple with re-electing him to a third (and even fourth) term via his wife. Yes, they narrowly fit the letter of the Constitution, but they sure do violate its spirit and intent.

Because, as the Saudis know so well, wives are not individual people. They are simply an extension of their husbands (or fathers, or oldest male relative). Legal rights apply to the man of the house; the little lady falls under his jurisdiction. Women don't need identity cards or passports, because it would be redundant - they are already listed as part of the nearest male's collection of chattel. And running for office? If you have a husband / father / brother in office, its redundant as well. You belong to him; he's an office-holder; therefore if you were elected to office it would mean your owner is occupying two political seats. And that just wouldn't be fair now, would it?

But maybe Sullivan has a point with regard to Constitutional intent. The 22nd amendment was added in the 20th century, but if you think about the Framers' Intent (cue dramatic music) you'll remember that they saw no reason for women, or slaves, to have the right to vote. Why bother, when they would only be reflecting their master's will? To allow a man's property to vote would be to violate the principle of 'one man, one vote.'

And so, in America's greatest throwdown on the role of women in society in the last thirty years, Sullivan enters the fray riding an enormous pig - a sexist pig.

Bareback, of course.

*photo, left: Andy and the pig he rode in on

Read more!

:: How She Move

An off-hand sexist comment about Hillary
turns out to be my last straw.
Behold my fury.

The setting:

I have become dependent on the website Pollster.com. I love that site. It has poll numbers. All the poll numbers. It has great analysis. It has none of the bombast that makes sites like Politico unbearable. The pollster who runs it, Mark Blumenthal, seems like a really good guy. He shares - for free - expertise that we used to have pay a lot for, and even after paying, sometimes didn't get (Mr. Garin). It doesn't have a very active comments area, but the comments that are posted are usually very brief and on topic. Active campaigning (Ron Paul Rulez!) is discouraged.

Now, join me as I relive my brief foray beyond the brink.

The trigger:

A totally ordinary post about the latest South Carolina poll numbers. Several comments were posted, including this one, from a fellow named "Joseph":

I think ultimately the votes will tell. There is still a considerable amount of racism and sexism in the south so I guess we'll just see which is more prevalent. I like Obama myself, as I've never seen Hilary as qualified as anything except a sellout in the cause of women having their self respect. She only stayed with Bill because her political boat would sink without being able to be towed by his political tug boat.

I've pretty much had it with anti-Hillary folk insulting huge swaths of women... this is in fact a peeve of mine with regard to Obama supporters. They seem to think that proclaiming, for months, at the top of their actual and virtual lungs, that Hillary is against change and akin to GWB, is not "negative," and they generally won't acknowledge that this is divisive messaging that is insulting to Hillary supporters, namely me. But more importantly, the god damn frigging omnipresent sexism! Anyway, I tried to be good:

To Joseph, who wrote: "I like Obama myself, as I've never seen Hilary as qualified as anything except a sellout in the cause of women having their self respect. She only stayed with Bill because her political boat would sink without being able to be towed by his political tug boat."

It sounds as though you think any woman - or man, I presume - who sticks with a spouse after infidelity has no self respect. That's very insulting to an awful lot of people who have gone through a wrenching situation not (generally) of their own making. Just fyi, keep this in mind the next time you say this. I'm sure you don't mean to be insulting, but people can take this sort of thing awfully personally - particularly older women, for whom divorce was greatly stigmatized, especially if there were children, and who might have had limited employment opportunities, less ability to borrow money or get credit, etc.

Also, its really a pretty bad thing to define a woman solely or primarily by her marriage. Are we saying Giuliani, McCain, etc. have sold out men with their marital behavior? Are we saying they shouldn't be president primarily because of their marital conduct? Of course not. We recognize them as multifaceted individuals, even if we disagree with their politics.

Well, same goes for women, my friend. Each of us is defined by more than just our relationship to a man. As it happens, Hillary is a US Senator, which makes her at least as qualified for the office of President as Barack.

Last, I'd like to suggest that you shouldn't purport to know the interior motives of anyone who is part of such a long term relationship. Especially someone you don't personally know.

I hope you take these comments as no more than an attempt to share a different perspective.

Joseph replied:

To reply to Ciccina, I didn't really find it necessary to expand my point, but Hilary isn't one of these classic examples of a woman who would face shame and social dismissal because of divorce. She seems to me to be a woman who continues with a marriage of political convenience for the sake of her own political career. Their child, Chelsea, is grown and has her own life now so I don't think she's staying with Bill for her sake.

It may be that they have this undying love for each other, speaking about Bill and Hilary, but I don't think this is the case. Certainly, a respect and a truce of sorts, but that would be the majority.

I wouldn't presume to make assumptions about other peoples reasons for staying with someone who cheats on them. I've stuck it out myself once so would not be inclined to pass judgement on someone for doing so.

A question to ask yourself though, would a divorced wife of the former President Bill Clinton have suceeded in her bid for office in the New York senatorial race? Not to say that she wasn't qualified as she would seem to be at least well qualified for a senators position if judged by the character and intelligence of her counterparts. I simply don't like people who stay together out of political expedience and use their relationship as a mechanism by which to attempt to win elections.

As for the other candidates, I think each individual can vote or not vote for who they choose for whatever reasons they have. Guilianini was a bit of a disgrace to office pre-9/11, but came out of it all dipped in gold. Would I vote for him? Unlikely, unless he was facing Hilary. Then it's the lesser of evils.

Character assasinations don't work if everyone whose voting only voted based on a person's political merits. We already know how effective these types of tactics can be though.

I personally, find that the character a person displays in their personal life "almost" inevitably leads to the character with which they will conduct themselves in their business or political life be it in the open or behind closed doors.

I recognize your response as a diffrent opinion and only offer this as an expansion of my own original cliff noted opinion. :)

Hmm. Not really what I expected. Mixed messages there. He totally didn't get it. A commenter named Paula di Lauro (paesan!) picked up on this:

So, in a post about the latest poll numbers, we get the following remarks:

"I like Obama myself, as I've never seen Hilary as qualified as anything except a sellout in the cause of women having their self respect. She only stayed with Bill because her political boat would sink without being able to be towed by his political tug boat."

"I simply don't like people who stay together out of political expedience and use their relationship as a mechanism by which to attempt to win elections."

"Would I vote for him (Guiliani)? Unlikely, unless he was facing Hilary. Then it's the lesser of evils."

And, of course, the writer goes to some lengths to persuade us that he's neither a lame sexist, a Republican shill, or a pathological Clinton-hater. No, just another of those terribly virtuous folk who live to tear the scales from our eyes when it comes to the Clintons, especially Mrs. Clinton.

She was far pithier than I was, or would be.

The next relevant comment was from a fellow named Henry, who had posted a long (but not as long as mine! I win!) comment speculating about what would happen next with South Carolina poll numbers, actual votes, and subsequent bounce going into Super Tuesday. He was not happy that no one had addressed his points. He wrote:

First, Re: Paula di Lauro (above),

Yes, and we also get comments actually analyzing the poll numbers, such as mine above. But apparently it's more important for you to highlight these comments that you deride than those which you purport by inference to prefer. Then you proceed to make broad cynical assumptions about what you feel are someone's intentions.

How unfortunate all of this is for the relevant discussion at hand.

He then restated the high points of his previous comment. Apparently the irony of criticizing someone for their "broad cynical assumptions about what you feel are someone's intentions" in response to a comment that was noting someone's broad cynical assumptions about someone else's intentions was lost on Henry. Still, I felt kind of bad that he was ignored, so as usual I picked out the parts I disagreed with and replied with the most respectfully candidate- neutral language I could muster:

Dear Henry,

I thought your post was intriguing, but I didn't feel I had anything to add to it. But this would have been (and now is) my response.

With regard to: "it would seem that much of Clinton's voter base is composed of less [politically] educated folks who are supporting her because, to grossly over-summarize, they recognize the name the most and remember Bill Clinton with some relative fondness."

As surveys of likely voters go, my guess is that voters over "a certain age" can compare the regimes of Reagan / Bush I to Clinton and know what a difference the Clintons made. Even though you acknowledge this as a gross oversimplification, I still think its way too reductive to call this name recognition + relative fondness. In my case, this is a politically informed, considered (albeit disagreeable to many) position. By contrast, the twenty-something Obama supporters, who became sentient (as I like to say) in their teens, can't compare the Clinton years to the economic depravity and asocial zeitgeist of the 80s (IMHO, of course). To them the Clintons are year zero, the pre-existing status quo. So in that sense one might say that they are less politically educated than older Clinton supporters.

Further, Obama's supporters skew upper income, so you could hypothesize that they are more insulated from the impact of income inequality, lack of health care, loss of jobs - hell, even on reproductive rights, its lower income women who pay the price of the anti-abortion "chipping away" strategy (24 hour waiting periods, driving rural providers out of business, defunding Planned Parenthood); for upper income women who periodically publish their anti-Hillary opinions in Slate, for example, its more of an esoteric issue. So one might say that upper income voters are *less* politically educated in terms of the true impact of policy positions; the evidence for this would be their failure to assign the appropriate value to pragmatic, if prosaic, policy solutions (again, IMHO).

Which is just to say that there are a lot of ways to interpret the numbers.

re: "On the other hand, it seems that as people become more knowledgeable of who Obama is as a candidate and a person (or the same for Edwards), they see him as more relatively attractive compared with Clinton."

Again, I differ. I don't want to harp on Obama here but I'll point to two items making the media rounds right now, post debate: his statement about supporting universal health coverage paired with the video clip of his 2003 AFL speech, and the meme that *both* candidates are now mudslinging (which undermines the message that his is a "different" kind of politics). The latter puts Obama in a real bind - as every errant child knows, "she started it" will only take you so far, and "I have to stoop to their level to win" isn't a great message either.

The complaint his campaign made to the Nev. democratic party will keep alive in the press counter-examples of inappropriate behavior by overly enthusiastic Obama supporters (they must be 'fair and balanced,' after all). Also Rezko is being covered more, paired with the news that Obama's camp held on to some of that money until relatively recently. At a minimum this mishegas steps on Obama's message that contributions, subsequently returned, from Hsu or other nefarious evil-doers are evidence of Clinton's corruption / poor character.

Clinton's decision to walk away from SC is the ultimate in lowballing expectations. And Obama, by leaning so hard on imagery that implies he is the inheritor of Dr. King's legacy, has paved the way for a media storyline that says SC black voters "only voted for him because he was black" (which is just as insulting and demeaning as the "NH women only voted for Hillary because she cried" BS). But I guess the press would have gone there anyway, eventually. Either way, its wrong, but some people will hear it and that's not a positive development (for anyone).

Of course I can point to no data to back any of this up, thus defeating the purpose of posting these overly long comments in a blog dedicated to polling.

Bask in my wisdom, you three. Did you catch the reference to Kate & Frances? I enjoyed that.

But keep reading... I wasn't finished yet. I also posted the following, an outburst of the frustration that's been simmering inside me for months....

But while I'm at it...

Joseph:

Surely you can see Paula's point about the double standard?

No one says that McCain's decision to cheat on his first wife, a former model who suffered a disfiguring accident while he was in Vietnam, with a beautiful 17-years younger millionairess, whom he subsequently married with the knowledge that her socially prominent father would bankroll his political career, reflects poor character that proves he is unqualified to be anything but a spokesperson for selfish male behavior.

Further, no one even says that this is a major blemish to his character. Nor does anyone ever say that McCain got to the position he's in now because of his wife, though we all know how important early money is to a novice candidate. It wouldn't be out of line to say that without that early money and social support - because of the person he married - McCain wouldn't be where he is today - but no one ever says that about him, do they?

Almost no one says that Giuliani's appalling performance as a husband - the cousin-marriage, the tele-divorce, the galavanting around town like a priapic - dare I say it - ferret, proves he's unqualified to be anything other than the poster child for a freakshow. You yourself say you'd vote for him over Hillary because of her character - and Hillary isn't even the one who cheated!

Even Dr. King is said, by sources including David Garrow, to have cheated. No one says this invalidates his status as a paragon of morality - because that, after all, only concerns his marriage, not his public life. And lord knows that among those who believe this, no one, but no one, says Coretta Scott King lacked self respect because she stayed with him. What really matters are his civic contributions, his leadership, his ideas - not the alleged personal misbehavior.

Your claim to know Hillary's inner motivations doesn't wash. This isn't about your special insights into her psychology; its about the different value placed on the personal behavior of women relative to men.

This is what I mean by defining a woman - even a woman as accomplished as Hillary Clinton - first and foremost by how she relates to a man, while simultaneously defining a man by his achievements, not by his relationship with his wife / girlfriend / 2nd cousin. Which is patently sexist, and, in case it needs to be said, wrong.

This goes right along with all those disingenuous folk who claim Hillary has no real experience other than her time in the Senate. Because of course before then she was "just a wife," right? And wives never do anything important - they just fritter away their time pouring tea, right? Never mind her legal work in the area of children's rights. Never mind her accomplishments reforming education in Arkansas. Never mind everything she delivered for women as first lady, nor her work in establishing S-Chip. That doesn't count because she was "just a wife" and not an elected office holder.

Meanwhile, its okay to crow about Obama's time as a community organizer and "civil rights lawyer"; Edwards is praised for his prowess as a trial lawyer standing up to the big corporations; Romney is praised for his business acumen, or his executive hair, I'm not sure. None of which, except possibly the hair, happened while they held elected office.

That's the double standard in action; a pristine example of sexism.

Sorry to go on about this, but like homophobia, anti-semitism, racism, etc., I think there is value in confronting this sort of thing in situ.

I was pretty sure as I posted this that I'd probably get myself banned from pollster.com for abuse of the comments section. But hell, its worth it, I thought, in the spirit of a thousand charred bridges. Luckily subsequent comments, so far, haven't called for my banishment.

But really, the freaking god damn fucking sexism is just unbearable. And not only that, but the invisibility of the sexism - i.e. the active and tacit support of it - is overwhelming. Have any of you noticed that when Obama talks about bringing Americans together, about how none of our hands are clean, he'll mention racism, homophobia, anti-semitism... and never sexism or violence against women? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to be right about this. Has anyone pointed this out? I'm asking this for real, because I can't bear to read Broadsheet and other feminst-ish sites lately.

Regardless of whether you prefer the policy positions of Edwards, Clinton, Obama or whomever, we are neck-deep in the biggest public throwdown on how our society judges women since 1973. And most of our feminist leaders - the old guard represented by Kate & Frances and the cooler-than-you "third wave" crowd - are completely AWOL. The groups, such as they are, are silent. Would it kill them to say that people of good will could disagree on the policy issues etc. of the candidates, but this sexism we will not abide? On one side of the divide you have women in the trenches - blue collar women, the women who shaped policy during the Clinton administration; on the other side you have our insanely sexist media and a sizable cadre of young and middle aged Democratic men who are supposed to be beyond this; and off to the side, babbling among themselves, the feminist dilettantes complaining that Hillary is either too mannish (Kate & Frances) or too girlish (Kate & Frances). It really makes me feel like I've wasted my time cohorting with some of these people. Read more!

:: Comeback Kid, Part 2

Well, there will be time for us to analyze it tomorrow, but for tonight, I'm just savoring Hillary's surprising win in NH. I was so prepared to have NH break my heart again, and somehow they came through. Many kudos to Buffy for all her hard work getting those women out to vote - we know they were the backbone of this victory.

It's a real race now, and that's a good thing. Let's have the chance to really judge the candidates and decide who we think the strongest one is. I've made up my mind, but I'm glad for a true primary process on both sides - this is what democracy is all about. Let's not be in such a rush to cut it off too quickly.

Can't wait to hear Hillary give her VICTORY speech! Read more!

:: 2008 and the Politics of Divorce

The language of hating Hillary belongs in a
divorce court, not a political contest.

First, a confession. I've been spending way to much time following the comments over at the New York Times "blog" devoted to the Iowa caucuses; for the most part, that's the material that informs my impressions.

Okay then.

I've noticed a distinct variety of Hillary-hating that seems to come mainly from people who purport to be Barack supporters. I say "purport" because I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these nutters turned out be provocateurs deliberately trying to play up resentment against Hillary and Barack. Really, who knows.

The theme is typified by commenter "Denise":

[Hillary] lacks the qualifications for the job, and the only way she will get elected is to align herself with Bill. That’s just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.

Every time Bill moves up (think Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (think Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up again (think President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (think US Senate). See the pattern, women?

Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:

• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary’s election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary’s need to ride Bill’s coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in “it’s my turn and Obama should wait his turn”) makes me doubt her capabilities.

• Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in “Mrs.” Clinton and walk all over her?

• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.

Here's another, from "MT":

I don’t think most of us are claiming that Hillary is not intelligent. My issue with her is that she has uses her intelligence repeatedly for personal gain while someone clearly loses. I am a professional female with two advanced degrees - I would like to see a female in the White House. But HRC is the complete opposite of the kind of female who furthers women’s causes (yes - I am sure by her words she will claim to have done more than her share but as with anything, actions speak louder than words).

1. She is where she is today purely b/c, whether one likes him or not (I do not), her husband is a master politician and has given her instant name recognition and “history” in this country. This is not to say that she would have accomplished nothing on her own but she would clearly not be where she is today without him. Riding on the coattails of a man only reinforces the stereotype that a woman cannot achieve success on her own.

2. She more than anyone else skewered the women that Bill Clinton pursued. Paula Jones was far from perfect but she was denigrated in the media while she sought her claim against him. Hillary was also in full attack against Jennifer Flowers. All these women had very little power and Hillary used her status and influence to degrade and intimidate them. Hillary could have chosen to stay out of all that but she was front and center in taking these women down. That is not someone who walks in solidarity with other women.

I am sure that in her mind Hillary is a feminist. But if we are to judge her on her actions, she has shown to be otherwise. Intelligence is not the only requirement for the presidency. She has shown herself to be a calculating, self serving politician. There is a reason she has such high negatives - there is no smoke without some fire.

It is time to move on. So that is why I am supporting Barack Obama - he has not only proven his intelligence(president of the Harvard Law Review takes some brilliance) but a look at the diverse political make-up of his supporters (I am a Republican) tells you that he has already done what he said he would do - he will unite this country.

I could share lots more similar comments, but then someone would have to kill me. Instead, here's a short take on the commonalities - with a pronoun shift, as addressed to a fictional judge:

• Your honor, she hasn't worked for what she's got! I did all the hard work, and she just wants to cash in on the rewards. Please don't make me pay!
  

• Your honor, she feels entitled to her lifestyle just because of who I am and what I've accomplished, with no help from her. Its not fair!
  

• Your honor, she's a scheming, plotting, cold-hearted, calculating bitch. She doesn't deserve a cent!
  

• Your honor, she'd be nothing without me!
  

This isn't the language of politics, its the language of an ugly divorce. Apparently a significant number of people out there are reviewing their personal psychodramas through the prism of national politics.

A simple check of Hillary's Wikipedia entry provides enough material to verify that she is an intelligent, capable and accomplished individual - even if you discount all of her Arkansas and White House years. Yes - her pre-marriage years plus her post-White House years add up to more experience in public policy and public service than the entire careers of Barack and John.

Nevertheless, the hysterical, angry language keeps coming. It is simply not possible, these voices claim, to be a married woman and still be your own person. A married woman is a satellite of her husband. Anything different is profoundly, disturbingly wrong.

And things are only going to get weirder. Read more!

:: Girl Power

Why we say women don't vote -
and why we may not want to talk about it

There is another great post by Margie Omero at www.pollster.com. “Why Women (Are Assumed to) Fail to Vote" looks back at a number of media stories that claim (a) women are less likely to vote than men, and (b) the reason they vote less is gender-specific.

Of course we know by now that women are more likely to vote than men, and that this gap increases in each subsequent presidential election - a fact that makes me do a happy dance if I think no one is watching.

Omero doesn’t suggest reasons why the media likes this storyline, and writes “It's unclear to me why it helps women to suggest they are uniquely challenged by voting.” I have great respect for her restraint: a less scrupulous writer could have indulged in any number of unfounded hypotheses.

I, however, am a stranger to concepts like restraint and scruples, and thus will offer a hypothesis of my own. (And sorry, Buffy, Ladybec, and Zippy - I'm going to give the drawn-out version of a story you know quite well, just in case someone other than us four are paying attention. Unlikely, I know, but possible).

We all know that there are 501(c)(3) organizations and foundations with charitable, social missions who see, clear as day, that the lions-share of Republican elected officials hurt the most vulnerable members of society. They spend a lot of their resources trying to mend the damage caused by the GOP after the fact. Obviously they know that it is ethically preferable as well as more efficient to prevent the damage from occurring in the first place – and the most expedient way to do that is to prevent these sociopaths from being elected in the first place.

However, we also know that partisan electoral involvement is proscribed for 501(c)(3)s and foundations. This leaves a lot of caring, thinking people with a conundrum: they are charged with improving the lives of the most vulnerable, but prevented by law from using one of the most expedient strategies to do so.

What to do? Well, 501(c)(3)s and foundations are permitted to engage in a very, very limited range of election related activities designed to increase voter participation. Encouraging the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups such as minorities and women fits within those parameters.

We also know that minority and women voters tend to oppose candidates who model themselves after the God of the Old Testament. But you don’t need to say that. Instead, you just need to make the case that women are under-performing and that it’s in the general social interest to promote the engagement of this traditionally disenfranchised group in the political process. Thus, the impetus is created for the storyline that women don’t vote as often as men for a range of gender-specific reasons.

There. I've spilled the beans. Beans: everywhere.

Of course, when it comes to media coverage, this storyline depends on the reporter’s perception that women lag behind men in all things – education, income, and so on. The reality is changing, but not all of us are keeping up. Some of us have lost the thread.

My question is: do we want reporters who easily lose the thread when it comes to gender filing more stories on women voters – or are we better off just keeping on keeping on, until the day comes when America wakes up to find that women hold more top leadership positions, earn more and are better educated than men? I mean, do we really want to tip our hand this soon?

I jest, of course. Really, I just don’t want to read any more Robin Givhan-esque style-section pieces on the new woman voter. I don’t want to hear any more Chris Matthews tirades about which candidate women should be voting for. And I sure has hell don’t want to hear about any more cocktail / yoga / Pilates parties designed to lure giggly gals into the twisted labyrinth known as voter education. Please, anything but that. Read more!

:: Lost and Found

Some recommended reading…
There are two fascinating items at http://www.pollster.com/ about the preferences and performance of female voters. The first is “Anxious About ‘Single Anxious Women.’” Here’s the topic sentence:

It's almost official. Single women are poised to be the "Security Mom" or "Soccer mom" of the 2008 election. They even have their own easy to remember moniker: the "Single Anxious Female." At first blush, it seems like a good thing for women. A woman top-tier candidate, a focus on women's issues and women's voters - it must be a good thing, right?

It alludes to a stumper of a forced-choice question: do we want more coverage of women’s issues, knowing that the coverage will play to outrageous stereotypes – or, given the numbskull pundits we have to deal with, should we consider the less said, the better?

The second item is “The Gender Gap in Turnout is Likely to Widen.”

[With] women across marital status groups voting at a higher rate than men, this gender gap in turnout has existed for years, and is poised to widen further.

Not only does this article have charts, beautiful charts, but it is also the best news I’ve read in a long, long time.

These items bring me back to a much-discussed article in Salon called “So Long, White Boy.” It discusses the gender gap in a less rigorous way, but does articulate an interesting question: should the Democratic party give up on targeting white independent male voters? This topic is also discussed in "HuffPost Forum: Should the Dems Love White Guys, or Dump Them"

The idea, in sum, is that black male voters are solidly in the base; a good chunk of white male labor voters are in the base; white gay, jewish, enviro and/or committed progressive male voters are in the base – so does the party really need to waste time trying to persuade the remaining male voters (straight, white, Christian or atheist men for whom progressive issues are not salient)?

I think of these guys as Howard Stern voters. They are conceivably, and temptingly, persuadable. They self-identify as rebels, iconoclasts, mavericks or libertarians, though they think "civil liberties" boils down to their right to gamble, listen to Howard Stern and consume as much porn as they can manage. They hate conservative evangelical candidates, for the evangelicals are the enemy of gambling and Howard Stern and porn. And the enemy of our enemy is our friend, no?

No. For one thing, they love macho foreign policy and posturing in general (Dennis Miller and Bill Maher are their patron saints; Rudy would be their ideal candidate if not for that Times Square thing) and they will never let go of the notion that the GOP is the party of kicking ass and taking names. The Dems could distance themselves from "mommy" issues, keep feminists and gays at arm's length, bray about the rich screwing the working man and stomp their feet about being pro-gun and pro-NASCAR all they want, but these guys will always see the Dems as the catcher to the GOP's pitcher.

Besides, theirs is the politics of selfishness, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the New Deal / Great Society spirit that animates the Democratic party’s progressive agenda. We’re much better off trying to persuade an ever-larger share of female independent and Republican voters with choice, health care and the environment– a goal that can be accomplished without stooping to the buffoonery of macho chickenhawks who live in a cocoon padded by sports, misogyny and sycophantic media.

Moving right along, the National Conference of State Legislators devotes a section of its website to the analysis of electoral system issues, including proposals to move to a national popular vote, districting reform, the initiative process (with database of initiatives by state) and so on. Talk about feeling like a kid in a candy shop.

A very interesting article in the LA Times captures the complexity of the debate surrounding the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and TB and GAVI. It has the unfortunate title “The Unintended Victims of Gates’ Generosity”but don’t let that stop you. It’s filled with interesting facts related to evidence-based benchmarking of success, the interconnectedness of causes of mortality, and the pros and cons of different types of aid. One interesting quote:

Pregnancy-related deaths often have been the highest in nations where most aid has gone to treat AIDS, TB and malaria, said Dr. Francis Omaswa, special advisor for human resources at the WHO. "People find it easier to talk about AIDS, about malaria."

To end on a positive note, this is from National Journal's Hotline "On Call" blog:

Hillary Clinton took to the streets of Manchester Saturday,seeking to seal the deal with some local voters during the last weekend before the holiday season. She found a mostly supportive group of voters, as well as a few rambunctious canines.

En route between homes, Clinton stopped to greet the Roukey family, who was enjoying a walk with their brand new dog, Samantha. "I get to meet Samantha on the very first day!" Clinton said as the excited pooch jumped up to greet her.

"Samantha, I will be a good president for dogs," she told the animal.

Read more!