:: What a Vile Human Being

Obama's campaign continues to be a vehicle through which some truly vile people vent their anger towards - and disgust with - white women

I had heard Obama had replaced Rev. Wright with a different spiritual advisor. As it happens, it was merely Obama's church inviting a guest speaker, who just so happened to have strong political opinions, and just so happened to share his opinion about Hillary. But because I don't pay that close attention, it wasn't until today that I learned this guy is some kind of bizarre Catholic priest - WWF wrestler hybrid. There's video, so I won't go too far in depth here. I'll just say that:

1) a very angry man screaming at the top of his lungs about how much he resents someone - how novel. A very angry man in a collar screaming at the top of his lungs about how much he resents some powerful woman - wow, I'm shocked.

We've all seen this plenty of times, from priests and non-priests, and it is always ugly. This guy sounds like one of those professional wrestlers when they go off on some diatribe about Jim McMahon. Except those guys are actually trying to act like steroid-addled freaks.

2) I'm glad to know that because not one of my ancestors had zip, zero, anything to do with slavery, I'm off the hook regarding contemporary racism. What a relief. Can't say the same for Scientist-at-Large though. He should be spending the rest of his life on his knees in abject apology for things his ancestors probably did.

3) Every presidential candidate believes he or she deserves the presidency. Why is this only evil when its a woman who believes in herself? And as for entitlement... there is no precedent for a woman becoming precedent. W felt entitled simply because of who he is - a member of the Bush family. Hillary had to fight her way to the top.

Okay, so I started to go in depth. Here's the link to the video; for the moment I've forgotten how to the do the embedding thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

This guy is disgusting. And look at that flock of sheeple getting off on his anger. Its like Church of the Living Dead in there.

Vile.
Read more!

:: OT: Blogging from the Apple Store

Before I begin, I have to say (with pride) that I am actually LIVE BLOGGING for the first time! Very exciting. (How do you write that anyway? Live blogging? Live-blogging? Liveblogging??)

What is not exciting is that I've come to believe that Young People have never learned any manners. I despair. I sat here for ages before anyone checked to see what I was doing, if I was being helped, if they could point me in the right direction. And not coincidentally, the only one who asked was the only woman behind the "Genius Bar"! Does being a genius mean that you do not have the capacity to make eye contact? They seem to be very nice to the people they are actually helping.

The other example of this sad trait was the woman who pushed up next to me when her name was called without even saying "Excuse me." I heard her speaking to the tech -- sorry, I mean, "genius" -- and she seems to speak English. Perhaps even as a first language. But apparently, "Excuse me" is not in her vocabulary. Sigh...
Read more!

:: A Remarkable Thread

Go read these stories over at Feministing.com

Feministing.com has a post up called "Feminist Poll Funtime: What Was Your "Click" Moment?" The poll is no biggie, but the comments - 86 and counting - are riveting. I don't know when I've seen so many personal stories written so well - so direct, so spare, so authentic. Go see. In fact, the less you feel you want to, the more you probably should. It'll be good, I swear. Go on now.
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!

:: Unfairness Totally Sucks

Sexism and misogyny have impacted the presidential primary, no matter what the chattering class claims.

I just followed an information trail that led me to a very sad and angry place. And of course, if it is sad and/or angry, it belongs on the Canary.

It started at Pollster.com with a cool item from the recent annual conference of public opinion wonksters, regarding a September 2007 paper called "Social Desirability Bias in Estimated Support for a Black Presidential Candidate." I immediately printed it out at someone else's expense, because I'm like that. Information should be free! You can't put a price on knowledge! and all that. Okay, so it looks terrific and I can't wait to read the whole thing. But first I did a search through it to see if gender was mentioned, because, you know, so much has been written about it, just reams and reams already, but I still wanted more.

Surprisingly, I did find a reference right away to a study from 2007 called "Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President." Yay. It can be downloaded here.

Now here comes the point. These few sentences from the first report compare its findings to those in the second report. Reading this made me very, very upset, in that multivalent, polymorphous way that, I'm sorry to say, often leads to an outburst of some sort (I'll let you know when it happens). Here it is:

"Likewise, true support for a black presidential candidate increases monotonically as the level of education increases, a finding again at odds with existing literature and recent experimental evidence. In a similar list experiment, Streb et al (2007) recently reported that respondents with a bachelor's degree are more likely to express anger about a female presidential candidate than respondents without this degree. Our findings, on the other hand, suggest that respondents with higher levels of education are more likely to express support for a black presidential candidate. In other words, our findings are the opposite of those reported by Streb et al (2007)."

But, you know, only race is a factor in the election. So I think this is top, top secret information or something. So make sure you don't discuss it or anything. In fact, if asked, just respond that this information does not exist! Only race matters, god dammit!

I'm sure both papers will yield more interesting pull-out quotes. I'll just finish with part of the abstract for the second paper, the one on gender:

"Using an unobtrusive measure called the "list experiment" we find that public opinion polls are indeed exaggerating support for a female president. Roughly 26 percent of the public is 'angry or upset' about the prospect of a female president. Moreover, this level of dissatisfaction is constant across several demographic groups."

Shhh. Stay invisible. Don't mention sexism. Don't talk about what a "change" a female president would be. Don't talk about sexism shaping voters attitudes, and certainly don't talk about its influence on media coverage. Its not happening. It never happened. Shhh.

[fyi, I continue to think a vote boycott in November is a fine idea. ]

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!

:: NARAL Jumps In Hole; Digs Deeper

Could NARAL get any more pathetic?

I know you don't have to be a rocket scientist to "do" advocacy, but I didn't realize the standards had dropped this low. These women are rock-solid stone stupid.

Perhaps you saw the New York Times article on the endorsement. Here is the link. I will share with you the dumbest moment, because I wouldn't want you to miss it. I've never met Elizabeth Schipp, and after this I hope I never have to.

Ms. Schipp also said there was a feeling on the board that endorsing a black man at a high-profile juncture might help Naral shed its image as an organization for white women only.

“Has it been in the past?,” Ms. Schipp asked. “Yes. Do I think the face of the choice movement is different today and do I hope Naral plays a role in that? You bet.”

Wrong. NARAL is NOT an organization for white women only. It is an organization for MORONS only. Or at least it is now.

There are no words. There are too many words. How many ways can you say stupid? How many synonyms? In how many languages? How about antonyms for "smart"? There are a lot of those, too. I could fill pages with them. I could add new ones. From now on, the term "to pull a Nancy Keenan" will mean "to defeat your own purpose in one spectacularly stupid gesture."

Tomorrow at 3pm there's a "web chat" that I guess you can access from their website. I'm going to watch it if I remember (that's a big IF, I know). I want to see how many false-positive comments they plant. This has the potential to turn into a virtual auto-da-fe, which would make me very happy.

There are quite a few so-called feminist leaders who share the blame for this, but NARAL really jettisoned to the head of the pack - in one season, they have pissed away all the clout we have worked to accrue for women voters. Gone. These so-called leaders have demonstrated that a candidate doesn't need to talk about women's issues, doesn't need to have a strong record, and doesn't need to commit to anything - and you can still get the support of women's groups. And, if for some reason you don't, no matter - because you can win without the women's vote. Just move forward talking about real issues with real voters - the women will come along eventually (they always do).

Incredible. NARAL should not continue to exist as an organization. They need to fold up the tent and send the circus clowns home.
Read more!