How can working people get a fair deal in America?
As usual, Kathy G is all over the problem and some answers.
July 31, 2008
Britney and McCain: The Dream Ticket?
Oh, and the Hilton family members are BIG donors to McCain as well!
July 29, 2008
Hey Sen. Stevens, prison is like a series of tubes
NYTimes.com:
Alaska Senator Is Charged With Failing to Disclose Gifts
By DAVID STOUT and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican senator in United States history and a figure of great influence in Washington as well as in his home state, has been indicted on federal charges of failing to report gifts and income.
Mr. Stevens, 84, was indicted on seven felony counts related to renovations on his home in Alaska. The charges arise from an investigation that has been under way for more than a year, in connection with the senator’s relationship with a businessman who oversaw the home-remodeling project. ...
July 27, 2008
Send Karl Rove to Jail for Contempt of America, Decency, Humanity (or at least Congress)
July 24, 2008
"What do we fight for in Iraq?"
July 23, 2008
A helpful catalog of McCain's foreign-policy stupidity
From Politico.com.
This guy actually thinks he should be president!
Tim Pawlenty : He likes to watch
As unlikely a figure as Hüsker Dü drummer Grant Hart -- Pawlenty classmate from South St. Paul -- admits to having wrestled with the mystery. "I knew the guy for years," Hart once told columnist Jim Walsh, "and it's still like heâs a cipher. He's Chauncey Gardener (the idiot philosopher in the comic novel and film Being There) with a lot less Zen."
July 18, 2008
John McCain losing all grasp of reality, dignity
The Carpetbagger Report:
In the modern political era, voters have come to expect presidential candidate to be, well, presidential. There’s an expectation of respect and decorum. Candidates are going to go on the attack on occasion, but Americans have a reasonable expectation that would-be presidents aren’t going to fly off the handle and lose their cool. After all, if a candidate can’t conduct himself or herself with dignity and class while on the campaign trail, how would the candidate perform in the White House, when the pressure’s on?
With that in mind, it seems, with each passing day, that John McCain is starting to lose his cool. It’s one thing to go on the attack; it’s another to get reckless. As much as I understand McCain’s desire to be president, I can’t help but notice that his desperation is beginning to cloud his judgment.
Yesterday, for example, during an interview with the Kansas City Star, McCain suggested Barack Obama is an “extremist,” and possibly even a “socialist.” The Jed Report posted this gem:
McCain insisted that Obama’s “voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” When reporter Dave Helling asked if McCain believes Obama is a socialist, McCain said, “Oh I don’t know,” as if it were a distinct possibility.
And that, oddly enough, was just the tip of the iceberg.
McCain, bordering on delusion, then accused Obama of reversing course on comprehensive immigration reform, which is hysterical, given that McCain reversed course on comprehensive immigration reform and Obama didn’t. But more importantly, it led to this fascinating exchange:
Q: But you flip-flop a little bit too.McCain: No, I didn’t.
Q: You flip-flop on drilling, on tax cuts…
McCain: Actually, I didn’t. Actually, on the drilling issue, when gasoline reached $4 a gallon, we’ve got to do things that we otherwise haven’t done in the past. I have not changed my mind on any other issue. On immigration, I said we need comprehensive immigration reform, it failed twice, so we’ve got to do what’s going to succeed.
Q: But you were against the tax cuts, now you’re talking about making them permanent. Isn’t there flip-flopping on both sides?
McCain: Actually, no.
Now, if McCain wants to justify his reversals, that’s fine. He can explain why he changed his mind on various policies, and hope that voters understand. But McCain has instead decided to pretend that he’s never flip-flopped at all. Reality just didn’t happen in McCain’s odd worldview.
“I have not changed my mind on any other issue.” Senator, I’ve counted all of your flip-flops — and at last count, there are 64. At least try to stick to reality here.
McCain relies on the bogus National Journal rankings, after they’ve already been debunked. McCain says he hasn’t flip-flopped on anything, after we’ve already found several dozen examples to the contrary. McCain says Obama hasn’t “reached across the aisle,” after we’ve found plenty of instances of Obama doing just that. McCain just keeps lying, over and over again.
But that “socialist” line is pretty extraordinary. McCain, no matter how wrong he was on a given issue, used to conduct himself with a little more class. Even when one disagreed with him, it was easier to at least respect him as a senator.
But Candidate McCain has become reckless, and frankly, kind of an embarrassment to himself.
Two related thoughts. First, McCain worked for many years to develop a solid reputation in the political establishment, as a credible guy who took policy matters seriously. It’s a shame to see him throw this reputation away as part of a win-at-all-costs crusade for the presidency.
And second, I wonder what the media reaction would be if Obama attacked McCain with this kind of ferocity. Imagine if someone asked Obama if McCain were a fascist, and Obama said, “Oh, I don’t know.” Consider the response from news outlets if Obama called McCain an “extremist,” and began making things up.
We’d hear, I suspect, an endless barrage about Obama “cracking under pressure,” and “losing his cool.” McCain’s attacks yesterday, though, will almost certainly go by unnoticed by anyone except bloggers and blog readers.
Let's go to the video:
July 17, 2008
John McCain's America
July 16, 2008
More on McCain's top economic advisor: Phil Gramm, R-Enron
Nation.com:
... While the destruction Gramm has caused is felt across the country, little is known about the seedy business schemes that preceded his political career. Before Gramm joined the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed to call for the defunding of the NEA, before he attacked an opponent for taking money from a gay rights group, and before he was interviewed by the white supremacist Southern Partisan magazine, Gramm was an avidly active investor in soft-core pornography movies.
Gramm's journey into porn began in 1973, when his brother-in-law, George Caton, rushed to tell him about an exciting low-budget soft-core production called "Truck Stop Women." A promo poster for the film boasted of its buxom stars: "No Rig Was Too Big For Them To Handle." Caton, who was in charge of fundraising for the production, asked Gramm to become an investor. To entice his brother-in-law, Caton showed him scenes of Playboy Playmate of the year Claudia Jennings displaying her bare essentials (she is naked throughout much of the film).
These scenes "really got Phil titillated," Caton told journalist John Judis in 1995. Gramm enthusiastically cut Caton a check for $15,000. Because the film was oversold, however, Caton returned his brother-in-law's money, offering him an investment opportunity in an upcoming feature.
The following year, Gramm sent Caton a check for $15,000, this time to finance the production of "Beauty Queens," a soft-core flick about pageant judges having sex with contestants. But at the last moment, the director of "Beauty Queens," Mark Lester, decided to shelve his production to make the sequel to his "Tricia's Wedding," a comedy starring the drag queen troupe, The Cockettes.
Gramm contributed at least $7500 towards the sequel, a satire of the Nixon White House called "White House Madness" that featured the crazed president wandering around the White House in the nude. Gramm never saw that money again. Shot in ten days on a soundstage crudely modeled after the Oval Office, "White House Madness" tanked at the box office.
Like the rest of Gramm's endeavors, his soft-core porn career was a complete disaster.
July 11, 2008
McCain hates Social Security, Media ignores it; Limbaugh Racist goon, NYTimes forgets
Here is what I wrote yesterday on Media Matters:
... On to serious matters. It's been two days since the presumptive nominee of a major political party declared the most popular and successful government program in American history to be "a disgrace." Pierce brought it up first yesterday here on Altercation. But I thought we should take another moment and reflect on what a monumental statement this was.Here is what John McCain's declared: "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."
Is McCain's statement about Social Security any more stunning, revolutionary, revealing, and just plain wrong than, say, President Ford declaring that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination?
Yet still, two days later, I have yet to see McCain held accountable for these statements in a major media outlet. The Washington Post, in its typical cynical voice, focused a four-inch inside story on the gaffe on McCain's feeble attempts to back off the comments. But where is the front-page attention? Where is the 24-hour-news obsession? When his opponent made a reasonable statement that he would revise his plans for withdrawal from Iraq after visiting with commanders -- something that we would expect any semi-competent commander to do -- he generated searing headlines in every major newspaper in the land -- as if he had actually said anything different from what he has been saying for a year. But McCain, never one to decline the benefit of the doubt on misstatements and gaffes, got a free ride on a declaration of war on Social Security.
No, it's beyond an attack on Social Security. It's a revelation that McCain has no clue how Social Security works and is willing to reveal his stunning ignorance in a public forum, knowing he will pay no price for it. Once again, the watchdogs are sleeping.
Read the great Todd Gitlin on the matter here.
Our good friend Boehlert already told us about the Dittohead fluff job that The New York Times Magazine did on Rush Limbaugh last Sunday. But did you notice the section on Rush's sensitivity to being labeled a racist? Apparently Rush takes accusations of his racism very seriously, if we are to believe the article.
Amazingly writer Zev Chafets never mentioned the incident in 2003 when Rush, sitting in with his pals Chris Berman and Steve Young on ESPN's NFL GameDay, said of Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Donavan McNabb:
Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.Limbaugh said this about a first-round pick who had already made three Pro Bowls, been to two NFC Championship games, and had been the runner-up for MVP. He said this years after Doug Williams had won a Super Bowl and earned the MVP award. He said it years after Warren Moon and Randall Cunningham had excelled at every level. After Rush's diatribe, which left Young and Berman speechless (they criticized him later that night after their partner, Tom Jackson, scolded Limbaugh harshly), McNabb went on to beat the Buffalo Bills and a season later lead his team to the Super Bowl, only to lose barely to a team that illegally spied on opponents' signal systems.
Limbaugh? He got busted for drugs. Nice work.
How could you write a comprehensive account of Limbaugh's influence on American culture and politics and slight his overt racism? How could the Times' editors have allowed this?
Are you as exhausted as I am of fighting for some basic intelligence and fairness in this media environment?
July 8, 2008
Lessig on how the Obama campaign is "swiftboating" Obama
Larry Lessig puts much faith in personal connections and faith of character. I often wonder if he's right about that. I can't help remembering back during Bush v. Gore when he maintained that his old boss Scalia would stand up for his conservative judicial principles and refuse to hear the case. Oh well.
Still, I think Larry is right about the damage that the surveillance bill and telecom immunity will do to Democrats generally and Obama specifically.
June 24, 2008
Tracking the racism/sexism attacks
Shakesville is a good place to start.
June 20, 2008
Obama broke my heart already
Obama Backing FISA bill that grants immunity to telecoms for spying on us:
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."
Ugh. There was no need for this. Shame on him.
June 19, 2008
The funniest political ad ever
No, no. It's serious.
June 14, 2008
Who would win in a McCain vs. McCain contest?
June 12, 2008
"I'm voting Republican"
Justice.
Three of the five justices who voted in favor of the Constitution and rule of law are likely to retire in the next four years. Think about it.
The United States of Forced Labor
They sold their homes. They said goodbye to their families. After paying recruiters $20,000 for visas to take part in this nation's H-2B guest worker program, they traveled from India to Pascagoula, Miss. There, the Indian welders and pipe fitters were promised good jobs at the Signal International shipyard and the chance to bring their families here.
Like many of our relatives, they came to the United States in search of the American Dream.
Yet, what they found was modern-day forced labor. They were forced to live in a cramped space with two dozen other workersâand pay more than $1,000 per month for the privilege. Toilet and shower facilities were few, and they were not allowed off-site to purchase groceries to replace the company's intolerable food.
In April, I described here how the workers left the shipyard and traveled to Washington, D.C., to seek help from Congress in a struggle that resembled the battle for human dignity throughout the civil rights era. The Indian workers described their journey to Washington as a âsatyagraha,â or truth action, in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi.
They met with members of Congress and staff, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. They discussed the need for Congress to make fundamental changes to the H-2B system.
But they wanted to take an even bigger step, one in keeping with the momentous move they made giving up everything to seek the American Dream. So, on May 14, several of the workers went on a hunger strike. They camped out in Lafayette Park, just steps from the White House. The hunger strike led to a commitment by congressional leaders to hold a hearing on Signal's complicity to human trafficking and a visit to the United States by members of the Indian Parliament. Except for a few union blogs and other small media outlets, their sacrifice generated little press until publication of an article in The New York Times a few days ago.
On the eighth day of the water-only hunger strike, Christopher Glory was rushed to the hospital for strike-related health problems. In all, five of the hunger strikers were hospitalized, including Paul Konar, who went without food for 23 days.
The men took their action to the Indian Embassy, where they remained until yesterday, the 40th day of their hunger strike. We joined them in a rally at the U.S. Department of Justice to demand they are given full protection while the investigation into their charges is completed. Because while the corporate media may have ignored them, the eye of Big Brother has not. ...
This is an amazing story -- and all too common.
Maureen Dowd's gender problem
Report: Maureen Dowd repeatedly uses gender to mock DemocratsSummary: A Media Matters for America review of Maureen Dowd's columns since the beginning of 2007 reveals that Dowd frequently characterized Sen. Hillary Clinton as masculine, while portraying Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards as feminine. By contrast, Dowd rarely feminized the all-male Republican field and, during the period Media Matters reviewed, has never feminized Sen. John McCain, whom she has referred to in one column as a "tough guy[]."
Winning.
Poll: Obama Leads McCain, Dominates In Key Demographics
By Eric Kleefeld - June 11, 2008, 6:52PM
Barack Obama leads John McCain 47%-41% in the latest NBC/Wall St. Journal poll, just outside the the ｱ3.1% margin of error and consistent with other polls giving Obama a post-primary bump.
More importantly, Obama is ahead with key demographics where his electability had previously been questioned. Obama leads among women 52%-33%, with Catholics 47%-40%, among independents 41%-36%, and even 47%-42% with blue-collar workers.
And contrary to the idea that his poor primary performances among Hispanics reflected an electability problem, he now leads 62%-28% with that group -- well ahead of John Kerry's 53%-44% advantage in 2004.
John McCain's big advantage is with white men, where he leads 55%-35% -- the only reason the race is as close as it is, according to the pollster's analysis.
Good thing the right-wing Supreme Court prevented this woman from voting!
Crooks and Liars ｻ 97-Year-Old Arizona Woman Disenfranchised by Voter ID Law
BTW, she was born before women were allowed to vote. And she was born before people born in rural Kentucky were issued birth certificates.
So the Republicans have finally moved our country back to 1919, when they liked it.
Well done, sirs. Well done.
La. Gov. "Bobby" Jindal can cast out demons!
This is a guy whom John McCain is seriously considering for Veep.
... As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns (see update), in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer.
Reading the article leaves no doubt that Jindal -- who graduated from Brown University in 1991, was a Rhodes Scholar, and had been accepted at Yale Law School and Harvard Medical School when he wrote the essay -- was completely serious about the encounter. He even said the experience "reaffirmed" his faith.
Jindal's affection for battling demons never surfaced during Jindal's failed run for governor in 2003 or his successful one in 2007. The state Dems did make an issue in 2007 out of Jindal's extreme Catholicism and his view of Protestant tenets as heretical, but the effort provoked a backlash among voters who thought the assault was religious bigotry. So Dems didn't make an issue out of Jindal's experiment. ...
Wow! How could we not invite such talents into the White House? Dick Cheney invites demons. Jindal casts them out. Perfect!
Fox News calls Michelle Obama "baby mama"
June 10, 2008
What's $200,000 per year worth? Or; Are there no rich people in America?
First, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson made a fool out of himself and caused a lot of laughter at a debate held at a small college in New Hampshire by claiming that a married professor couple at that college probably makes $200,000 per year.
Then he used that $200,000 figure a few weeks later in another debate while asking about Obama's tax plan.
Now CNBC's Maria Bartoromo is doing the same thing -- calling $200,000 middle class and "not rich." Think Progress reports that the McCain Campaign agrees with her.
Here is the problem with that:
•The 2006 census showed that an income of $174,012 put an American household within the top 5 percent of income earners.• A report by the Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that in 2008, âonly 3.2 percent of taxpayers will have adjusted gross income (AGI) greater than $200,000 and only 2.1 percent will have AGI over $250,000.â
• A 2007 Wall Street Journal article placed earners who make $277,000 in the top 1 percent of all income earners.
Now, as a former New Yorker, I can attest that a $200,000 annual salary would not go far in Manhattan. It would put one squarely in the middle of the income spectrum. Needless to say, that's the main reason that Melissa and I moved to Virginia. We could no longer afford the place. We did not come close to the middle. But still, New York and three or four other cities are the exceptions. They are not the norm. Why don't reporters actually understand what Americans make and spend?
BTW, the median family income in the United States is $48,451.
Why do women give McCain a zero?
We should have listened to Carter
Doesn't he sound completely reasonable and right these days? I thought so. Too bad we were not grown-up enough to take action and sacrifice back when he asked us to.
A tribute to Ann Richards
June 9, 2008
Virginia going blue!
He could've picked Ohio. Or Florida. Or any one of the dozen or so traditional swing states that have decided American presidential elections since the dawn of time (or at least 1992). But for his first official stop on the trail to November, newly minted Democratic nominee Barack Obama visited a place last week that hasn't voted for a dreaded Democrat since the slightly more Southern Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas triumphed there in 1964. The special state? Virginia.
Sure, Virginia is for lovers. But is it for Obama? If past is prelude, the answer is no. In 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore there by 7 points, and four years later, the president expanded his margin, trouncing John Kerry by 8; before LBJ, no Democrat had won the commonwealth since Harry Truman in 1948. But the Obama campaign is confident that it can turn the tide, citing the Old Dominion as part of a new generation of swing states. "We want to campaign here and we want to win here," Gov. Tim Kaine, Obama's top Virginia backer, told the Associated Press. Even John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, admits the longtime Republican stronghold is now in play. "I think it is a battleground state," he told The Washington Post. "I know they are targeting it, and we are certainly targeting it."
Neither Gore nor Kerry fought hard for Virginia—much like Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern and Humphrey before them. So why the unprecedented push now?
The electorate is diversifying—and it's heading in a Democratic direction. Between 2000 and 2006, northern Virginia's Washington, D.C., suburbs grew 15 percent; they now account for a third of the state's population. Meanwhile, the ring of exurbs farther from the capital has exploded. Thanks to an influx of middle-class, well-educated voters, Loudoun County, for example, is now the fastest-growing swath of the country: since 2000, it's gained more than 100,000 people, a 60 percent increase. ...
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hehehehe. Ahem. Hahahahaha
June 4, 2008
Never Forget: Massacre in Tiananmen Square
BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square:
1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square
Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.
Tanks rumbled through the capital's streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.
The injured were rushed to hospital on bicycle rickshaws by frantic residents shocked by the army's sudden and extreme response to the peaceful mass protest.
Demonstrators, mainly students, had occupied the square for seven weeks, refusing to move until their demands for democratic reform were met.
The protests began with a march by students in memory of former party leader Hu Yaobang, who had died a week before.
But as the days passed, millions of people from all walks of life joined in, angered by widespread corruption and calling for democracy.
Tonight's military offensive came after several failed attempts to persuade the protesters to leave.
Throughout the day the government warned it would do whatever it saw necessary to clamp down on what it described as "social chaos".
But even though violence was expected, the ferocity of the attack took many by surprise, bringing condemnation from around the world.
US President George Bush said he deeply deplored the use of force, and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was "shocked and appalled by the shootings".
Amid the panic and confusion students could be heard shouting "fascists stop killing," and "down with the government".
At a nearby children's hospital operating theatres were filled with casualties with gunshot wounds, many of them local residents who were not taking part in the protests.
Early this morning at least 30 more were killed in two volleys of gunfire, which came without warning. Terrified crowds fled, leaving bodies in the road.
Meanwhile reports have emerged of troops searching the main Peking university campus for ringleaders, beating and killing those they suspect of co-ordinating the protests.
Sexism is a threat to ALL women, not just candidates for office
UPDATE:
Ann did a great job on this issue back in late May, and I am ashamed to say that I missed it then. Serves me right for trying to catch up too sloppily. -- Siva
UPDATE TO UPDATE:
Your host here at Sivacracy is so dumb that he did not even read his own blog. -- Siva
======
Kathy at the the G Spot ponders about the troubling case of Michelle Obama and the silence of the feminists:
... As Tami notes, the feminist blogosphere has largely ignored the extremely nasty racism, sexism, and character assassination that has been targeted at Michelle Obama. Worse, some "feminists" have themselves gleefully joined in the Michelle-bashing. Tami quotes one Hillary supporter who wrote a vitriolic post about Michelle with the charming title, "God Damn Michelle Obama"; among other things, the writer takes a cheap shot at Michelle's physical appearance. Tami also cites a post by another Hillary supporter who attacks Barack for somehow being less than a man; it's the typically vicious, catty, and extremely sexist Maureen Dowd dealio.
This kind of crap from people who, like Michelle, are Democrats and feminists saddens me. That the right would pull this kind of shit was a no-brainer, but it's more painful when it comes from people you think are your allies. I guess it shouldn't surprise me, though. When I wrote an earlier post about the attacks on Michelle, I got a couple of troll-riffic commenters who more or less said that bashing Michelle was a-okay with them, and as best I could tell, those commenters were Democrats.
I have to say that the manipulated news video that we talked about here a few weeks ago, in which Michelle Obama was falsely accused of criticizing Sen. Clinton for her husband's indiscretions (when Obama clearly did no such thing yet was accused of it by sleazy and incompetent local news casters who like to make stuff up) is a great example of this. Falsely pitting women against women for the sake a cheap points is shameful.
The fact is, there was more than one feminist in this race for the nomination. There was more than one victim of sexism as well. In fact, we all suffer from it. Sexism diminishes us all.
The deplorable treatment of women in American politics (not to mention real life) is nothing new and not likely to end soon. No one should be surprised that Chris Matthews or anyone on CNN or Fox "News" embraces sexism as their default rhetorical position. No one should be surprised that otherwise liberal male bloggers revert to sexism as well. But the fact that sexism pervades everything, including liberal and Democratic loudmouth culture, should not be an argument for or against any particular candidate.
It's not about the candidates.
As Echidne of the Snakes writes:
The sexism is not bad, because it might hurt Hillary Clinton, just as the racism is not bad, because it might hurt Barack Obama. Not really.
That is a narrow and cramped and, dare I say it?, elitist view of what is going on, a view which revolves around the people in power and their political strategies and tactics. It is also a view which ignores the real problem altogether, this:
The sexist comments and the racist slurs are bad, because they are being washed, re-clad in Armani, presented back in high society, made to look innocent, and after all this they will be cropping up much more frequently everywhere, aimed at everyone who qualifies to be their victim. THAT's what is bad about them.
How can I make that any stronger and clearer? It can be any of us women or any person of color or both that will suffer from the new domestication of sexist and racists taunts. Any Of Us.
I have not written about the sexism in these Democratic Primaries in order to protect Hillary Clinton. She looks fairly well equipped to protect herself. I have written about it because sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere.
Gah. Perhaps what I'm talking about is still totally unclear. But if you read widely on this topic on blogs you will find that even many feminists have this view that the sexism is not really deplorable, because Hillary Clinton really is a monster bitch. That the dangers of the sexism really have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton should be made much more obvious. And no, voting for someone else will not save a woman voter from that sexism that is being incubated right now.
Cathy Davidson: Feminism in Obama-Time
... although I myself am a 100% die-hard Barak Obama supporter, I understand those who are weeping at what may be the end of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid and who have made the slippage from "feminist politics" to "political identity politics" so passionately. She's a woman, therefore feminism. It's not a logic I buy--but I get it in those who do, I understand the impulse even though I don't share it. Here's some history:
Several weeks ago, I talked to my first real mentor, almost an intellectual mother to me, the novelist E. M. Broner, now in her early eighties and still a political activist. I have picked up more than one newspaper over the years featuring Esther's photograph, involved in some major activist movement on behalf of feminism, peace, anti-Semitism, Israeli-Arab understanding, civil rights, anti-racism, or other causes--with feminism being the one enduring focus. She and Grace Paley were chained to more than one fence in protest of more than one war over many tireless decades of struggle. Esther's feminist seders and her feminist spirituality are the stuff of legend. And of all the great joys of my last year, high on my list was learning that her novel, Red Squad, will be published later this year, a roman a clef about Jewish Leftist intellectuals, feminists too, in Detroit in the anti-Semitic McCarthy Era. Esther and I wrote a series of essays and edited a book and a journal issue on "Mothers and Daughters in Literature," back in the day, when I was starting out in this profession, when feminist criticism was still relatively new, and I was captivated by this amazingly beautiful, vibrant, wild, passionate, and yet endlessly productive and dedicated playwright, poet, novelist, intellectual, essayist who redefined, for me, the limits and boundaries and strait-jackets of a profession that was (to my young eyes) astonishingly conventional. Esther, with her wild raven hair and flashing eyes, taught me that it was okay to fly (even on the way to tenure) as long as one understood how high and how to fly steady and well, sometimes avoiding the live wires and other times ignoring them (and knowing the cost and knowing which is which). It is a complex lesson in professional and personal aviation that I've never forgotten.
After the New York primary, I called my friend Esther and asked how she voted. She refused to tell me. She said she had waited all her life to vote for a woman presidential candidate, had fought for feminist causes for decades. Now she had that chance to vote for a woman, perhaps the first and only chance in a life of activism. And, she said, politics is about the future and Barack Obama is the future. Esther said, in that profound way that she says everything: "I won't say which way I voted. But I will say that after I voted, I wept."
I repeat that story because I myself don't have that impulse to weep. "Woman" does not equal "feminist" for me. Margaret Thatcher proved that. And, for me, "the Clintons" are too much of a duo for Hillary to be the feminist choice in any clear way. She's had to give away far too much, not only for this election, but also for her time in Congress when she has disappointed me many times, and also for the legacy of her smiling First Lady face in the wake of her husband's NeoLiberalism and his Neanderthal sexual/personal politics (however unfairly he was pilloried for them). My students tell me they learned about oral sex, as preteens, from watching hearings for a Presidential impeachment. Grotesque! I don't want that again. Any of it. That is not good for feminism, that's for sure! I don't want Hillary's own continuing vacillation on this terrible war. And I hate more than I can say the snide, under-the-breath racism that is being vocalized more and more as we get closer to the Convention in Denver. I do not feel that Hillary Clinton is good for Politics or for sexual feminist politics. Right now, to my mind, Hillary is giving feminism a very bad name. She'd still be my choice over someone who wanted to implement more of the devastating Bush economic and international politics. But why take that choice when there is a shining candidate, a once-in-a-generation symbol of hope, Barack Obama, who stays astonishingly steady and clear despite it all?
My friend's weeping was after the NY primary, and lots of unsavory things have happened since then--or, at least, the media has reported many unsavory things on Hillary's way toward the nomination. I am positive that much of this is blown out of proportion in the same way that Reverend Wright was---that is the way of the media these days. I actually think Hillary's campaign, although a death match, was more civilized than that of many, many close races in the past. That said, I'm still utterly disgusted by what I've seen. And what I've seen (even if distorted and blown up by the media) is not about the kind of "feminism" I embrace.
Obama for me is hopeful. Living in Italy this Spring, I was shocked by how often I heard Europeans say that he is the hope not only for America but for the world. Some reminded me of how many European Union countries have taken a turn towards ultra-Conservativism and anti-immigrant racism that borders on neo-fascism. They consider the Clintons part of America's wars of aggression and yet still maintain a kind of shining hope that the U.S. can show a leadership that can help reverse a world trend in the wrong direction. Obama, for them, is that symbolic turn that will have influence and impact at a moment of despairing reactionary neo-fascist violence.
I find it so depressing that Hillary Clinton did not withdraw, not even this morning, when the nomination has now been clinched. She needs to withdraw not just with dignity but with power and assume a position of leadership and power for the next Democratic administration. There are many ways to have power and influence and moral authority without being president. Look at Jimmy Carter, post-Presidency. Hillary Clinton could be statesperson extraordinaire, and, not bounded by politics, perhaps even be a real feminist and a visionary, with principles. Maybe. Maybe. It's never too late in politics. Again, look at Jimmy Carter's post-Presidency leadership role in the national and international scene. No one would have guessed it.
Have I given up feminist hopes and dreams? Not for a second. Do I believe one can be anti-racist and feminist at the same time? Not only is that answer a resounding "yes" but, for me, it is a mandatory "yes," in both directions. Thus I understand why (at least back earlier this Spring) my brilliant, passionate, political writer friend, at 81, could come out of a voting booth with tears in her eyes. What a crappy choice to have to make! And yet, to reverse it, what an amazing choice? I asked Esther, "Did you ever, in your lifetime, think THIS would be your choice?" "No," she said, "Never. And that's what makes me smile."
For all my friends who understand what this post was about, who feel sad that we will not be seeing the first woman president, I include the most adorable url ever. It is a very clever and beautifully done compilation of all of eight-year-old Lisa Simpson's most feminist moments. It will make you smile. http://jezebel.com/5012847/lisa-simpson-feminist-hero
June 2, 2008
Scott McLellan's Greatest Hits
There were very few Bushies I respected less that Scott McLellan. I respect him less now. He was always a spineless, unprincipled twerp. Now he has proven he can't even stay bought!
I knew him slightly back in the Austin days, although I knew his brothers and mother better. They deserve all the ridicule this nation can throw at them.
So I enjoyed this, via Talking Points Memo.
May 22, 2008
It's sad when you have to turn to Al Jazeera to get the truth about America
May 8, 2008
Why do all these Republicans hate America?
May 6, 2008
Republicans rallying behind Clinton-McCain Gas tax scam!
Back when economists mattered ...
And today, as Clinton leaves the reality-based community:
On top of all of this, Clinton said she would break up OPEC. Huh? She and what army?
She has definitely lost all credibility.
Well Played, Supreme Court
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.
Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."
Amazing. What has become of my country?
Ok. A little more Clinton Bashing over the Gas Tax Holiday and the "problem" with economists
Enough Clinton bashing -- let's count McCain's lies and sins!
Update: Through a spokesperson with the colorful name Tucker Bounds, McCain has denied telling me he didn't vote for Bush in 2000. "It's not true," Bounds told the Washington Post, "and I ask you to consider the source."My sentiments exactly -- because John McCain has a long history of issuing heartfelt denials of things that were actually true.
He denied ever talking with John Kerry about his leaving the GOP to be Kerry's '04 running mate -- then later admitted he had, insisting: "Everybody knows that I had a conversation."
He denied admitting that he didn't know much about economics, even though he'd said exactly that to the Wall Street Journal. And the Boston Globe. And the Baltimore Sun.
He denied ever having asked for a budget earmark for Arizona, even though he had. On the record.
He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with comely lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.
And those are just the outright denials. He's also repeatedly tried to spin away statements he regretted making (see: 100-year war, Iraq was a war for oil, etc.).
So, yes, by all means, "consider the source."
Original Post: At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. "I didn't vote for George Bush" the man confessed. "I didn't either," his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).
The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush -- both literally and metaphorically -- he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000.
McCain's fall has been Shakespearean -- and really hard to watch for those, like myself, who so admired and even loved him. His nobility and his true reformer years have given way to pandering in the service of ambition.
But a large portion of the electorate hasn't noticed the Shakespearean fall. How else to explain The 28/48 Disconnect -- wherein only a die-hard 28 percent of voters still approve of Bush, but 48 percent say they'd vote for McCain, who is running on the "more of the same" platform?
The thing is, these voters clearly still think of McCain as the maverick of 2000, a straight shooter who would never seek the embrace of a man he couldn't bring himself to vote for, nor accept the regular counsel of Karl Rove, the man behind the vile, race-baiting attacks on him during the 2000 campaign.
And the main reason for The 28/48 Disconnect is the mainstream media's ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society. They too continue to party -- and report on McCain -- like it's 1999.
Look at the slack they cut him after his infamous stroll through a Baghdad market was revealed as an utter sham. James Frey was eviscerated for far less. Or the slack they cut him after his repeated confusion of Sunni and Shia. Or the slack they cut him when his promise to run a "respectful" campaign ran aground on his sleazy attempt to connect Barack Obama and Hamas.
Every time McCain screws up, the media jump all over themselves to make it better, as if grandpa had said something embarrassing at the dinner table and it needed to be smoothed over as quickly as possible.
The latest example came late last week when the Straight Talk Express hit an oil slick and skidded off the road. Click here for the blow by blow, but, in short, McCain implied that Iraq is essentially a war for oil, then tried to take it back, explaining that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War, then, when pressed, denied that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War.
And, by and large, the media gave him a pass. Chris Matthews called the original war for oil comment "an astounding development," but most everyone else was too busy picking over the bones of the Wright/Obama carcass to give it much play.
Interestingly, McCain's mental meltdown over the reason we invaded Iraq was prompted by a comment from a McCain supporter who said he hoped a group called "Swift Boats for McCain" would be formed to help McCain in the campaign.
The gentleman needn't worry. The group already exists. It's called "the media." And they are very well-funded, and highly motivated. The Swift Boat Media for McCain are, for instance, going to make sure that we hear a lot more about the nuances of Obama's decision to not wear a flag pin on his lapel than about McCain's ideas on a little thing like the Iraq war.
Witness the reaction to McCain's repeated declarations that he thinks we should be in Iraq for "100 years." The DNC had the gall to use McCain's own words in an ad, causing McCain to flip out: "My friends, it's a direct falsification," he said, "and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion."
So, to review: using a candidate's own words against him is off limits, but making disgraceful insinuations about Hamas and Obama isn't.
But instead of nailing McCain on the "deterioration" of his ethics -- to say nothing of his logic and reasoning -- the Swift Boat Media dutifully repeated his talking points, as in this AP lede claiming, without reservation, that the DNC ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."
McCain tries to wriggle away from his "100 year" comment by saying that he wasn't talking about a hundred year war, but a very long term commitment of U.S. troops, like we have in Germany or South Korea. Maybe so, but the last time I looked no one was blowing up American soldiers in Wiesbaden.
The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg, a writer who hasn't drunk the It's Still 2000 Kool-Aid, sums up McCain's Strangelovian "vision": "McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."
The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of "agents of intolerance" Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not "in good conscience support" them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife's jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the "safe" neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor... and the embracing of the disastrous policies of a man he so abhorred he would not vote for him.
What will it take for the Swift Boat Media to realize that John McCain jumped the shark a long, long time ago?
May 5, 2008
The cravenness continues: I could not have said it better
From a letter from a Democratic fundraiser to Talking Points Memo :
... I agree with your posts from about a month ago about how irrational it is for a Democratic voter supporting the losing primary candidate to defect to McCain in November, since Clinton and Obama are so close on the issues compared to McCain. But I have to say, as someone who was marching in New Hampshire in 1991 for Bill Clinton, who ran the campus Democrats for his '92 campaign, who interned in his White House, who argued against impeachment at every turn, who even defended the pardons, who has been an enormous and unwavering admirer, and who has been disgusted with his own parents for their seemingly irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton, there is something about the way she has run this campaign. From having people on her campaign raise Obama's drug use, to her jumping on the bandwagon for every right-wing cheap shot, to her new populist, "got no truck with economists" stance, its been craven. More craven than I could possibly imagine.
If somehow against all odds she got nominated, I'd vote for her, but I'd do so utterly unconvinced that the quality of her leadership wouldn't bring about disastrous results no less than the disastrous results that McCain's wrongheaded policies and own cravenness would bring about. Yes, her policy positions would be much better than McCain's. But if she's this divisive, this self-preserving, this craven, I think the results can still be horrible, even with policy positions that are much closer to mine. At this point I feel like it would be the hardest vote for a Democrat I'd ever cast.
Now, I'm a Democratic fundraiser. And as detailed above, a very long time Clinton supporter. If I'm this repulsed, if it seems this craven to me, and I'm this pessimistic about her leadership, can I be alone? That doesn't even factor in the breach with younger voters, netroots activists, and African-American voters a Clinton nomination would bring about at this point.
Had to get that off my chest.
I could not agree more. As angry as I have been about Sen. Clinton's Republican tactics of late, I found myself even more disgusted Sunday when she dismissed the judgment of almost every decent economist in the world by sticking with her profoundly cheap gas tax holiday plan.
Clinton no longer believes in facts, expertise, or empiricism? Could she BE more Republican?
Catherine and Ann have written in the comments to previous posts that Obama and perhaps other Democrats have also adopted Karl Rove's playbook this year and in the past. But they offered no examples.
I honestly cannot remember another national Democrat left-baiting and lying like this in the past 20 years. I remember some conservative Democrats doing stuff like this to liberals back when there were conservative Democrats. But that's been a long time. It's 2008. Sen. Clinton spent her life dodging the worst possible lies generated by the right-wing hate machine. And now she is recycling what they come up with to attack Obama. This isn't new? This isn't significant? This isn't disgusting?
Can anyone name one example of Rovian tactics administered by the Obama campaign? Has he linked her to radicals? Has he refused to quash rumors that she is a Muslim? Has he called her an elitist? Has he adopted a profoundly stupid tax cut for the sake of a cheap primary victory and then used it to bludgeon his opponent for not caring about working people?
How about by the Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Bradley, Clinton, Tsongas, Gebhardt, Dukakis, Jackson, Hart, or Mondale campaigns? Did they do anything like this? I can't remember anything like this from any of them. And I have never seen a Democratic primary battle in which so many good Democrats grew so disgusted with a major figure in the party, someone we all respected so much for so long.
Have I missed something?
A year ago I stood ready to defend Sen. Clinton against all critics, as I have since 1992. As late as 2006 I wrote glowing accounts of her service in the Senate and her abilities to stand up to the Republican hate machine with strengths that Gore and Kerry could only dream of. When friends tried to raise tired arguments with me about how she was hated and would be divisive, I punctured those attacks with accounts of her abilities to reach out to all New Yorkers. She showed the best of her talents and judgments in New York while running for Senate and serving with distinction.
She worried me when she voted for the Iraq war. But so did Kerry and Edwards. So I could not really dismiss her because of that (even though the others were wise enough to apologize).
Now she has disappointed me like no other politician has. I take that back. Bill Clinton disappointed me more. But that was another story.
There are plenty of good reasons to support Sen. Clinton for president. And there are plenty of good reasons to question Sen. Obama's policies and preparedness. But she has abandoned all the good reasons and sunk to the lowest depths of political cynicism.
This country deserves so much better than Sen. Clinton is willing to offer.
The McCarthy Era lives on at CSU-Fullerton
May 2, 2008
Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath
A lecturer at California State University at Fullerton has been fired because she refused to sign a loyalty oath to âdefendâ the U.S. and California Constitutions âagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic,â the Los Angeles Times reported today.
Wendy Gonaver, a Quaker and a lifelong pacifist, was set to teach American studies at the institution this academic year. She told the newspaper that she had offered to sign the oath if she could attach a short statement expressing her views, but Fullerton wouldnât allow that.
In February another instructor at Cal State was fired because she altered the oath by inserting the word ânonviolentlyâ before signing it. However, the news-media attention surrounding her dismissal resulted in her being rehired.
Voters added the oath to the state Constitution in 1952 to keep Communists from getting public jobs. âAudrey Williams June
NYU had a similar oath requirement when I started working there, believe it or not. I just "forgot" to sign it for a while. Then I asked them for a copy of the New York Constitution so I could check if I was really ready to defend it. They had no copies. I never heard back about it again.
May 2, 2008
More on Clinton's exploitation of right-wing tactics, lies, and rumor
Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama:
... Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.
But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.
The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor." ...
Disgusting. Simply disgusting.
The shame of the campaigns
Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays Race Card:
By Betsy Reed, The Nation. Posted May 2, 2008.
In the face of raw, media-driven misogyny, Clinton resorts to playing the race card and loses some women's support in the process.
In the course of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the White House -- in which she became the first woman ever to prevail in a state-level presidential primary contest -- she has been likened to Lorena Bobbitt (by Tucker Carlson); a "hellish housewife" (Leon Wieseltier); and described as "witchy," a "she-devil," "anti-male" and "a stripteaser" (Chris Matthews). Her loud and hearty laugh has been labeled "the cackle," her voice compared to "fingernails on a blackboard" and her posture said to look "like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." As one Fox News commentator put it, "When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, take out the garbage." Rush Limbaugh, who has no qualms about subjecting audiences to the spectacle of his own bloated physique, asked his listeners, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Perhaps most damaging of all to her electoral prospects, very early on Clinton was deemed "unlikable." Although other factors also account for that dislike, much of the venom she elicits ("Iron my shirt," "How do we beat the bitch?") is clearly gender-specific.
Watching the brass ring of the presidency slip out of Clinton's grasp as she is buffeted by this torrent of misogyny, women -- white women, that is, and mainstream feminists especially -- have rallied to her defense. On January 8, after Barack Obama beat Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, Gloria Steinem published a New York Times op-ed titled "Women Are Never Front-Runners." "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House," Steinem wrote. Next came Clinton's famous "misting-over moment" in New Hampshire in response to a question from a woman about the stress of modern campaigning. For that display of emotion, Clinton was derided, on the one hand, as calculating and chameleonlike -- "It could be that big girls don't cry ... but it could be that if they do they win," said Chris Matthews -- and, on the other, as lacking "strength and resolve," as her Democratic rival John Edwards put it, in a jab at the perennial Achilles' heel of women candidates. Riding a wave of female sympathy, Clinton won New Hampshire in what was dubbed an "anti-Chris Matthews vote."
Thus, feminist opposition to the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton has morphed into support for the candidate herself. In February Robin Morgan published a reprise of her famous 1970 essay "Goodbye to All That," exhorting women to embrace Clinton as a protest against "sociopathic woman-hating." In the Los Angeles Times, Leslie Bennetts, author of The Feminine Mistake, wrote of older female voters fed up with the media's dismissive treatment of Clinton: "There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up -- and she's not in a happy mood." A recent New York magazine article titled "The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave" described how "it isn't just the 'hot flash cohort'...that broke for Clinton. Women in their thirties and forties -- at once discomfited and galvanized by the sexist tenor of the media coverage, by the nastiness of the watercooler talk in the office, by the realization that the once-foregone conclusion of Clinton-as-president might never come to be -- did too."
The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.
Yet what is most troubling -- and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement -- is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right -- in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country -- seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many non-white and non-mainstream feminists crying foul. ...
I don't see much of the Clinton attack strategy since the South Carolina low point being racially motivated or even that obviously aimed at generating racial reactions. After all, Clinton had nothing to do with Wright's re-emergence.
Clinton's great campaign sin is trying to misrepresent Obama in classic liberal-bashing terms -- elitist, cosmopolitan, unpatriotic, possibly aligned with radicals and terrorists, etc. That's bad enough. She should be ashamed of herself for that.
It's important when looking at the disgusting elements of these last few months of politics to separate what the campaigns can and cannot control. Obama has no influence on Tucker Carlson or Keith Olberman (although, as Ann has pointed out, we should expect him to call these guys on their sexism). And Clinton's campaign has had little to do with the racist stuff flowing around the media as well.
But the fact remains that the Clinton campaign has been virtually Republican in its craven opportunism. Of course, that matches her Republican voting record on Iraq. So I guess we should have expected it.
It's clear from all this that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on a willingness to exploit racism and sexism. It's really sad. It could have been a proud moment for this country. Instead, it shows how far we have to go.