Lingual Tremors

The Big Fat Hillary Post You've Been Asking For: I'm Not Ready To Make Nice

I get it.  You want to know what I think about Hillary Clinton conceding the Democratic party's nomination for president to Barack Obama.  You can stop with the "whaddaya think" e-mails already.  Here goes.  I'm angry. I'm not ready to make nice.  And I'll vote for whomever I damn well please.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the picture from today's concession speech:

Hillary is smart.  Hillary is tough.  And, Hillary is an inspiration to the generations who follow in her footsteps.  For those of you who cross country ski, you know that breaking a trail for those who follow you is a tough role to have on a trip.  Hillary has created a fine trail for the rest of us to follow.

But as we watched her do so, her struggles mirrored our own struggles.  The sexism she confronted was our own battle for equality, our own battle to be taken seriously, our own battle to break through all of the glass ceilings that lie in our way, our own battle to demand a government that represents us, or own battle to feel truly represented. 

How can you truly say thank you to Hillary for that? 

In her concession speech yesterday, Clinton said:

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of.  I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers. 

The 2008 contest for the Democratic nomination was eye-opening at best, and a horrific testament to our current misogyny as a nation at its worst.  On one level, I feel like I just watched a woman get bitch-slapped by the world for 16 months.  The great "Hillary smack down" took the form of:  the sexist husbandry of the media, the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of "equality" and "change," the farce of a liberal community that fought dirty on-line battles, and the rampant verbal diarrhea that exposed a national fabric built on resentment of women and the gains women have made in the twentieth century.

Moreover, the nomination revealed a deeply fractured feminist community split by race, age, political affiliation, class, sexuality, and relationship to motherhood.  We are not a sisterhood united for a better world.  We are a bitchy sorority willing to sacrifice one of our own to the gods of popular opinion.

And all of the "wow, Hillary's just swell!"  and "Didn't she run a great campaign" news items of the past week aren't going to assuage my anger any time soon.  It's a disingenuous attempt to pander to the angry feminist vote.  Those bloggers and news commentators and fellow candidates who now seek to compliment Hillary on a campaign well run after trashing her in one of the dirtiest election seasons ever can, in my humble opinion, take a long walk off a short cliff, leaping to their own deaths like the bunch of lemmings they are.

I think it's going to take some time to digest the election, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

Too Little. Too Late.

Hey sweeties!  Headline, earth shattering news:  SEXISM IS A PROBLEM.

Really?

Um.  I love Howard Dean.  I voted for him.  Long after he dropped out.  However, give me a break.  This just occurs to you now, Howard?  File this under TOO FRIGGIN' LATE.

via TGW

Howard Dean: There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media. We'll leave present company excepted, because I think that's true. But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired.

So that's a big issue. And there are a lot of women in this country who -- there's two issues here. One is one candidate is ahead and one is not. That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that. What you don't get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States.

Morning Misogyny Watch

Dear "Sweeties,"

I seriously don't think I have the energy to really engage with this week's news about the campaign.  From "sweetie" to Edwards' endorsement to the Democratic Party's STFU message to women, I feel utterly disenfranchised.  Basically, those of us who voted for Clinton (what the hell--it's still almost a 50/50 split, but Obama has "won"?) just don't "count." 

Check out this morning's misogyny round up.

Lambert has a nice overview of recent analyses of sexism in the campaign.
Egalia has a piece called "Little Sweeties Threaten to Boycott Obama".
Riverdaughter has a call to action.
And, yes, sweetie.  Not once (wait for it at 32 seconds).  But at least twice.
Thank you, Scott Ross, for this discussion of why "sweetie" is a problem.
And, of course, Melissa's "Hillary Sexism Watch Part Ninety-Goddamn-Two"

P.S.  Everyone is quoting this:

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars.
-- Marie Cocco, WaPo

While I appreciate Cocco's sentiments (and the whole article is quite good, especially for WaPo), I want to say, "really? Because you think the silence and the sexism are going to get BETTER?"  I don't.  I think we're doomed to continue on the path of rampant misogyny in this country.  Sigh. 

Excellent Article on the Misogyny of this Election

Take a few moments to read Eric Boehlert's fabulous analysis of the misogyny of mainstream media coverage.  The piece, "For Chris Matthews, Misogyny Pays Handsomely" really puts media coverage in perspective.

Some Quick Thoughts on Last Night's Debate: Voter Ennui

Like other academics, I have been crushed by the weight of the spring semester & blogging has definitely taken a back seat this term.  But, the warmer weather promises the rapidly approaching summer and time to write and read and knit and generally return to my human existence.  While I've been keeping up on the election, my thoughts on issues like Wright's controversial remarks & the sexism of the campaign & Obama's speech on race & many other moments have passed me by. Perhaps I'll return to them later, even though the blogosphere is done dissecting them.

In a few spare moments, however, I would like to comment on last night's debate.  Like many others, I was angry about the facile nature of the questions and the 90 minute waste of my time and energy.  As much as I am cheering for Clinton, I have no desire to see Obama caught in the same net of ridiculous rhetorical agressiveness that has plagued Clinton for much of the campaign.  I don't really care if or why Obama chooses or does not choose to wear a flag pin.  I don't particularly care if Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's church.  I'm not interested in censoring a President's reading or intellectual inquiry any more than I am having my own intellectual inquiries censored.  Frankly, and more on this later, I think it was a moment of weakness for Obama to dissociate himself with Wright.  Because that is not what we're voting on.  What I wish is that both Obama and Clinton would be more forceful--for themselves and one another--in the format and focus of the debate, forcing the moderators to focus on the questions that matter--the war, the economy, education, health care and the like.  These questions didn't arise until almost 45 minutes into the debate.  So, just as Obama was perceived to have "won" debates where Clinton was criticized in the form of "questions," so too has Clinton "won" this debate where Obama faced the same type of questioning Clinton previously had.   And we all lose when we don't have the opportunity to have the candidates provide thoughtful responses to provocative and interesting questions about their proposed policies.

Maybe this stems from the U.S.'s soundbyte culture.  We're not actually interested in reading and listening to a long and well-thought out answer to anything.  Wouldn't it be interesting, instead of debate, to have a panel of questioners.  So, if we're talking about the war, why not have a leading group of generals and military specialists alongside leading pacifists and social justice experts asking the questions?  Why not have a panel of conservative and liberal economists ask questions about the candidates' economic policies?  How about doctors and health care administrators and patients and insurers and academics who analyze health care policies asking the questions about health care?  What would that forum look like?  An exchange of real ideas, revealing the candidate's actual depth of thought on an issue?  But no, the U.S. media thinks the American public would rather talk about flag pins.  Really?

Here's the thing:  the American media thinks it needs to pander to the American public and I agree with Obama that the public is smarter than that.  So, what are we to make of the relatively scarce moments in the debate devoted to actual issues?  Almost nothing.  There was no new information, no new clarification of policies, in fact, nothing much of real interest at all.  The only thing I can point to is Clinton's assertion that, if you want to read about her economic policies, go to her website where she has written them all out in detail.  On the very same question, Obama waffled about his economic plan and whether it applied to people making less than 250,000 or 200,000 dollars.  As I've maintained from the beginning, Obama is unwilling to put serious policies into print.  And, I continue to read this as his escape clause later when he wants to steer away from what he's said on the campaign trail.

The only other mild amusing moment in the debate was when Clinton said "I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House."  Amen, sister!

So other than that very small moment, what to make of this vapidness?  I think this debate demonstrates the problem that the primary has gone on for too long, that we are all tired of it, and that it's time to come to a close.  Here, I am not arguing for the disenfranchisement of those states and territories who have not yet voted.  Instead, I am restating my desire for a national primary.  How many times do we really need to see and hear Obama and Clinton saying the same thing?  Despite tailoring their messages for "local color", they are still saying and presenting the same information.  Ho hum.  And the U.S. Democratic populus (and the free-riders in states where people did not have to be Democrats to vote in the primary) is still divided. 

Writer's Strike at Daily Kos: Losing My Election--Divisive Democratic Politics

Just a few months ago, the blogosphere was atwitter with the fact that the election belonged to the Democratic party.   No contest.  While Republicans lamented the poor slate of candidates from which to choose, the Democrats boasted one of the healthiest and most interesting group of candidates in years. 

And now?  The great Obama/Clinton divide emerges.  And smart Democrats everywhere are beginning to fear the "Losing My Election" anthem.  John McCain is probably doing a happy dance everyday in his merry Republican bus.  What more could he ask for?

Here's one small snippet of how nasty things have gotten.  Alegre, formerly of the Daily Kos, is on strike from the famously centric site for all things leftist in the blogosphere.  Alegre asserts that the Daily Kos, in its support of Obama, has become a negative and abusive site to Clinton bloggers.  From Alegre:

I've been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year.  Over the past few months I've noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I've put up with the abuse and anger because I've always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world.  No more.  DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community. 

I've decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution.  I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately.  I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate - a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.

                          

Read the full story here.  Update here.  More commentary on The Moderate Voice,  Tom Watson,  Marc Ambinder.  Even if you're not so interested in all things blogospheric, this is yet another indication of bad things to come.  Both Clinton & Obama need to work on their campaigns.  The more they foster negativity against one another, the more the animosity festers among their supporters.  Talk about going viral.  TGW is running a poll right now that shows her pro-Clinton readers are disinclined to vote for Obama if he gets the nod.  Others in the Obama camp are making similar arguments about Clinton.  So, if Democratic voters stay home in November because they are angry, the Republicans win.  Howard Dean needs to step in and get the party together.  Yet again, the Democrats are poised to shoot themselves in the foot.

Hilarious Hillary: Campaign Reporting is in the Toilet

No, that's not a metaphor.  I'm actually serious.  Hillary put her traveling press corps in a men's bathroom in Texas.  Hat tip to egalia over at TGW. 

Photo over at CNN
The Huffington Post
Daily Kos

The Compleat Presidency (not a typo...)

Regular readers of this blog know that I am having a hard time stomaching the Obama campaign--particularly when it comes to women's issues.  The Obama campaign has made Michelle Obama out to be the "anti-Hillary."  She's taking a break from her career, supporting her husband, and focusing on her children:  in short, every successful man's dream.  And, in wide contrast to Bill Clinton's first campaign when Hillary's first feminist utterings became the stuff that people still remember today--" I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life," Clinton said in 1992.

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama has taken a break from her career to help Obama on the campaign trail.  Without a doubt, Michelle Obama has had a forceful career and has a lot to say about balancing work and family concerns (it would seem, she has a lot in common with Clinton).  If you haven't done so, you should read about Michelle Obama's career.  In many ways, I find her a much more compelling figure than her husband.  She's well-educated, down-to-earth, and has held a high level career that means she's good at what she does.  Oh, yeah.  And she's a mom.  Yet none of this comes across in the media.  Instead, in articles like this, the focus is one sided--Michelle as mommy.  It's a theme that comes up over and over again.  One could imagine Michelle making those cookies, but the truth is that both she and Hillary are closer to "having it all" than most women in the United States.  So, why does Michelle repeatedly soften her image on the campaign trail?  Because it takes votes from Hillary. 

So, check out this fascinating article in today's Guardian on the "compleat" woman study, done in 1987 and comparing it today's woman and what it means to "have it all."  Why not do something totally crazy and elect Hillary and Michelle--together:  the "Compleat Presidency..."???

Tina Fey Rocks the Casbah

Thank God the writer's strike is over.  Bitch is the new black, baby:

Meh.  I had posted a link to YouTube where you could see the clip, but the clip is mysteriously (hee hee) down.  Probably because it was illegal.  So, here's a transcript of the very end, via Salon, which also has a link to the NBC clip (not YouTube):

TINA FEY: Maybe what bothers me the most is that people say that Hillary is a bitch. Let me say something about that: Yeah, she is. So am I and so is this one. [Points to Amy Poehler]

AMY POEHLER: Yeah, deal with it.

***TINA FEY: You know what, bitches get stuff done. That's why Catholic schools use nuns as teachers and not priests. Those nuns are mean old clams and they sleep on cots and they're allowed to hit you. And at the end of the school year you hated those bitches but you knew the capital of Vermont. So, I'm saying it's not too late Texas and Ohio, bitch is the new black!

Financial Donations to Superdelegates

Reader Kim asks "Did Obama donate $800,000 to the Superdelegates (their campaigns?)".  According to the Boston Globe, both Obama and Clinton have given money to superdelegates' campaigns:

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Yikes!  I hadn't read about this before, but I'm not entirely surprised.  It seems that the superdelegates will be playing a large role, if Obama and Clinton continue to be so closely tied in the race for delegates... 

Is the Blogosphere Just a Little Tired?

Have you seen The Insider?  (If you saw it in 1999, when it was released, do you remember it?)  I just rented it over the weekend and was surprised at how much of the film was not about Jeff Wigand, the tobacco insider who went public, but about CBS and the fight to get Wigand's interview aired on 60 Minutes.  It's a spunky, well-acted meditation on corporate media and the ways in which our everyday world is perpetually manipulated by the images and sound bytes carefully selected FOR the public.  Talk about the god in the machine...

But as I began thinking about this post, I also began thinking about what I used to get from the blogosphere and what I'm not getting right now.  I was among the large contingent of left, progressive bloggers who came on line later, after the last Bush "election."  I was politically frustrated and angry and wanted to find some community and relief from the daily news that just kept getting more and more depressing.  I found blogging to be an incredible political high because I found people who believed what I believed and together, we were a powerful counter narrative to what the government fronted everyday.  There was something sexy about being a renegade.  There was something sexy about logging on every night and joining in the cacophonous left-blogosphere in critiquing Bush's policies.  We were united; we were a community; and, it felt like some vestige of the Clinton era, when you would listen to the news each night and largely like what you heard (with some notable exceptions...).

Enter the current election and the utter division in the blogosphere that, I fear, weakens Democrats more than unites them.  The current election is being played out in the media--with our own democratic influence on the process coming down to a choice between Clinton or Obama.

And hence, my wonder:  is the blogosphere losing its credibility?  Instead of adding snarky, well-written, and incisive critiques, the left-blogosphere's gotten a little shriller these days, pretty evenly divided between those supporting Clinton and those supporting Obama.

I was talking to a good friend the other night and she asked why I hadn't blogged more about John Edwards dropping out of the race.  In part, I felt like others had already said what I had to say;  and, given a very hectic schedule at the moment, I also didn't "get to it" until too late--I had missed the chance to jump on the bandwagon.  And also?  It felt like it just didn't matter any more.  Regular readers of this blog know that I went in heavily for Edwards once I read all of his policy statements on his site.  You also know that I find Obama troublesome, particularly as a feminist.  But for the first time since I started blogging, I also felt like it just didn't matter what I thought.  Edwards was pushed out of the race by corporate media, who have carefully scripted this race as "woman" vs. "black".  And inherent in that scripting is the emotional toll of a nation, forced to choose between erasing the legacy of racism or the legacy of sexism.  And everyone has a role to play out in this drama.

But I also feel like it's not totally corporate media.  This race has been divided from the beginning--and we did it to ourselves:  white vs. black, latino vs. black, women vs. men, young vs. old, urbanites vs. suburbanites, Iowans vs. the rest of the country, poor vs. rich, liberals vs. conservatives, corporate media vs. bloggers.  And my point is:  everyone is involved in this divisiveness, from Clinton to Obama to every one of us writing on this issue.  We are a party divided.  And that's a problem because in seeking to advance the nomination of one candidate over another, the way forward has been through divisive and nasty rhetoric, tearing one another down, and making the dream seem just a little less wholesome.

For my part, one of the reasons I find Obama problematic is that he has made it his personal cause to tear down the one dream that kept many of us going over the last 8 years.  With his constant barrage of critiques and barbs aimed not at Hillary, but at Bill and his legacy, Obama has torn into the fantasy of what made it possible for me to survive the past 8 years.  There was a chance that after all of this craziness that we could elect a candidate who would inspire a nation and lead us forward.  The thing is?  Obama isn't the answer to what I've been lacking, and the way he's going, he's not going to sway me.  And I know others, who support Obama, feel the same way about Clinton.

And so we arrive a little worse for the wear in a presidential election that was ours to win.  In the end, if Obama is the nominee, there's no way I'm going to feel good voting for him.  For others, if Clinton is the nominee, there's no way they will feel good voting for her.  And frankly, the blogosphere hasn't helped...

Erin Trahan on the split among Democrats, Feminists
Liza on the Oppression Olympics
Tennessee Guerrilla Women on Hillary's Polarizing Influence
Echidne on Corporate Media

Barack Obama: Plagiarism is Cool, Kids!

In a move that has teachers across the United States groaning, Barack Obama apparently plagiarized part of a speech he gave in Wisconsin over the weekend.  Not only did he lift the words from Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts, he also lifted the rhetorical style with which he delivered the speech.  In response, Obama said:

"I'm happy to give Deval credit, as I give credit to a lot people for spurring all kinds of ideas," he said. "But I think that it is fair to say that everything that we've been doing in generating excitement and the interest that people have in the election is based on the core belief in me that we need change in America."

All across the U.S., college students supporting Barack Obama cheer as they can now lob "if it's okay for Obama, it's okay for me" at their plagiarism-weary instructors.  How do these "framing instructions" sound for the next time I assign a research paper?

Well, students, since you are writing bland, boring research papers on cliched and overly researched topics with absolutely no possibility of originality, you need to learn to document all of your sources properly.  But if you're running for president and want to bring real change to the world, you don't have to. Oh yeah.  Way to set a stellar example.

Linky Linky

Jennifer L. Pozner at Women in Media & News has two really thoughtful posts on the current election.  I like Jennifer's writings and I found these two posts very thoughtful in analyzing the cacophonous buzz in the mediasphere.

Why Media Forced Edwards Out of the Race

and

Shocker--There's No Feminist Kool-Aid

I just noticed that in posting links of late, I keep using the word "thoughtful."  I think that's what I'm looking for--to get beyond the emotion & bald and meaningless rhetoric.

John Edwards's Indelible Mark

Matthew Yglesias at The Guardian.  Lovely.  Poignant.  Bittersweet.

Robin Morgan's "Why Hillary" Post

Well, I've done the deed.  I had a moment of silence in front of the Edwards lever and then I pulled the Clinton lever all the way down. 

Although I was an early supporter of Clinton, I was really swayed by Edwards' message of real change and real help for the working and middle class.  With him out of the race, it wasn't difficult for me to decide between Obama and Clinton.  I voted feminist.

What does that mean?

For those of you who read my earlier critique of Obama's website & YouTube "Women for Obama" piece, I really feel that his campaign has continued to wage a silent war on smart, articulate, working women.

Looking at the Democratic race, Obama had a considerable challenge to convince women voters to vote for him.  He had to sway people who were inclined to vote for Hillary--and those who were undecided--to vote for him.

Instead of finding a way to talk to those voters about important issues, I think he presented himself as the soothing "daddy" candidate.  In the ads, where women are interviewed, they talk about Obama almost as they might an emerging relationship--we can "trust" him to do "what's right" for "me and my kids," "to honor feminine values," to treat women with "a real sensitivity."  I'd be more convinced if they talked in real, concrete terms about WHAT he is going to do and HOW he will do it.  I also think it's telling that few of the things he talks about on the campaign trail are written down on the site in clear & concrete terms. 

Instead, it seems to me that his ads and soundbytes and campaign are aimed at reinforcing traditional gender boundaries.  In a roundtable in Connecticut, his wife talked about the fact that her children were her most important job--what happened to her role as a strong, black woman with her own career, carefully balancing work & family?  Her role as a strong feminist has been erased so that her "stay at home mom" presence can be a soothing contrast to Clinton's "I don't bake cookies" feminism.  Why isn't Michelle running for president? 

I think Obama is using women strategically as a foil to Clinton's strong, and sometimes controversial, presence.  When I read his policies on line--particularly with respect to women's issues--there are very few clear & specific proposals.  Obama lists what he has done in the past & what he "encourages" or "supports."  None of those are clear & specific proposals.  They just aren't enough to get my vote.

I really find this appeal to men & women voters who are afraid of Clinton, and what she represents, offensive.  So, I voted feminist. 

Here's Robin Morgan's "Why Hillary" post.  Interesting.

The outcome will be interesting...

Reviewing the Clinton Presidency

eriposte at Left Coaster has a really interesting review of the Clinton Presidency, examining some of the arguments that are being made about how regressive Bill Clinton was.  eriposte concludes that a lot of what's in the air right now is all spin & doesn't really give credit where credit is due.  Read it!

Update on Obama and Ex-Gay Ministry

The Politico has been following the developing story with Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell.  Among other things, the article says:

By Monday, Caldwell’s church, Windsor Village United Methodist in Houston, scrubbed its Web site of any reference to the gay conversion program, Metanoia Ministry.

In a Politico interview Tuesday, Caldwell said his 14,000-member church – one of the largest United Methodist congregations in the country – is not affiliated with Metanoia.

If you're interested in this issue, you should read the whole article, which raises a number of questions.  Among the more interesting things is that Caldwell has served as a spiritual advisor to George W. Bush.

Barack Obama is Not a Very Cool Dancer.

I'm sorry.  I'm trying to restrain myself.  But really?  Have you seen this?

Obama Makes Jerry Falwell Proud.

(Tennessee Guerilla Women)

and

The Company You Keep As You Reach Out for Votes
(Pam at Pandagon)

This stuff just writes itself:

Obama wants to be your Christian president!

Obama campaigns with gay-haters! 

Reagan Republicans for Obama! 

Obama!!! The First Real Republican Democrat!

The man is a demopublican.  Emphasis on publican (as in REpublican.  Get it?)  Only without the alcohol.  Maybe that's a Recrat.  Or a Redem.  Or something.

Read UPDATE here.

Roe's My Favorite Bitch. I Mean. Blog for Choice, 2008.

So, it's 35 years of Roe v. Wade today.  Here in the feminist blogosphere, we're all thinking about what voting pro-choice means.

And, let's face it.  Nothing brings out the feminist manifesta in me than Blog for Choice Day.  Nothing gets my cervix in a knot more than waking up to NPR's "homage" to Roe (i.e. the latest set of attacks against Roe).  So, grab a cuppa joe and settle in for a little classic LX ranting (yes, mom, this is a rated "R" post...).  'Cause hey:  if I can't say it here, where can I say it?

So, all day today, I've been lightly dreading this post.  Regular readers here at Chez Lingual know that I am, without question, a feminist, pro-choice blogger.  (Newbie visitors!  Welcome!  Regarding the previous sentence:  please see the categories of "Radical Uterus" and "Stepford Wife in Training" to your left for further evidence...)  But, how many more ways can I say it?  Oh, sure, I can lean lightly over to the bookshelf of feminist wisdom and quote everyone from Margaret Sanger to Kate Michelman, but at the end of the day:  who is really listening?  Do you really want me to quote Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale AGAIN?  AGAIN?  AGAIN?

And see, on the very surface of things, this is where I find Barack Obama attractive.  Aren't you sick of the continual clash of the left and the right?  Aren't you sick of FOX News vs. NPR vs. The New York Times vs. The National Review vs. Pacifica vs. NBC?  Wouldn't it be great if we could all get along?  Wouldn't it be great if Obama and McCain brought beer?  A really great beer with bottled beer taste in a can?  (Oh sorry--that's another post...)

But here's the thing:  abortion isn't like an eco-friendly Hummer (okay--we all know that an eco-friendly Hummer isn't really eco-friendly, but you get the point). 

Let me say that again.  Abortion isn't an eco-friendly Hummer. 

There's no real place to meet in the middle.  Taxes?  Maybe.  War?  Possibly.  Health care?  The Economy?  Sure!  We agree that those are serious, vote-worthy issues, even though we don't agree how to address the.  But abortion?  The two sides of the abortion wars are perpetually divided, a political schism the size of the San Andreas fault running through the very foundation of this country.  We can't just all get along.   

Over at Salon.com, Rebecca Traister writes in the introduction to her interviews with feminists on the importance of Roe:

I wish it were possible to raise a glass, give a birthday toast, and claim that Roe didn't look a day over 29, but alas, this is a bittersweet bash. A mere three and half decades after her birth, Roe shows her age: She's been weakened, knocked around, had big bites taken out of her.

Now, I take umbrage at the fact that 35 is old.  Those of us in our 30s know that we're just hitting our stride...  But here's the thing:  America is a cruel and perverted daddy ready to encourage us to show a little skin and then to beat us for having sex.  America is peering through the keyhole of our bedroom, enjoying what he sees, and getting ready to lecture us about it later.

America likes its little girls full of sexual promise.  Think about Jonbenet Ramsey's already sexual pout, hands on hips, full of intent.  Want a poster child for what's wrong with women's roles in the United States?  Look at the Britney Spears debacle of motherhood.  When she was in her naughty school girl uniform, showing just enough skin America drooled in front of the television.  While she was slithering around 3/4 naked on stage with a snake, America licked the screen.  When she graduated to leather, America jacked off in the corner.  And now that she's a mother?  An unfit mother?  She's bitch-slapped with every insult possible.

The fight over choice amounts to this:  America wants you to have sex.  No lap dances.  No titty fucks.  America wants you to have good, old fashioned, full penetration sex.  Lots of it.  And then America wants you to pay for it.  Literally.

It's all well and good that the conservative movement wants to talk about "pro-life" and saving babies.  But at the end of the day, is any compassionate conservatism actually motivated by some real sense of biblical justice?  I ask this, with all sincerity, who would Jesus bomb? 

So, here's my point:  sure, we can talk about patriarchy.  We can talk about women's rights over their own bodies.  We can talk about the woman's body as a public possession.  We can talk about when life begins.  We can talk politics.  We can talk religion.  We can talk philosophy.  Those are all valid points.  Those are all important points.  But, perhaps, we also need to talk about money.  Because really, aren't conservative arguments in the U.S. always about money?  Here's a tagline for you:  Ain't nobody nowhere making Enron-style money off of an abortion clinic.  Ain't no off shore bank accounts accruing "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" kinds of cash from the economics of abortions.

Here's the question:  why vote pro-choice?  For the same reasons that you vote for things like national health care plans or to end the war or to really fund education.  Because no one is going to give you those things.  We live in a capitalist country run by money.  And nothing talks money like a beautiful, bouncing baby.  MSNBC offers helpful tips on "Raising Your Quarter-Million Dollar Baby."  Here's a chilling quote:

For 2004, the newest data available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend a whopping $269,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West spend the most, $284,460.

Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $184,320 for families earning $41,700 to $70,200 and $134,370 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,000 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $65,800 -plus income bracket. As your child ages, he or she gets even more expensive, topping out at $15,810 from ages 15 to 17. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves visits to, and interviews with, about 5,000 households, four times a year.

That's for 1 kid, to age 18.  Read:  no college.  It's in the conservative best interest to have middle-class families making as many babies as possible.  Think:  bigger houses, more bedrooms!  Health care premiums!  Diapers!  Formula!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Private School Vouchers!  And don't forget about the strollers!  (You will die if you don't buy the best buggy in town...).  Don't even get me started on student loans.  I could go on and on and on...

Now, I'm not actually saying you shouldn't have kids.  If you want kids, go for it.  Do it.  Be a good parent.  Be good parents.  Be intentional.  Be loving.  But, here's the thing:  your government wants you to have a kid only because it's good for the economy.  If we lived under a government that really cared about kids, then kids would have universal health care.  Kids would have great schools.  Parents would have good day care programs or wouldn't have to have two parents working just to scrape by.  Children's services would be functional and well-funded.  Parents would be supported. 

But here's my point:  we don't live in that world.  And in the same way that you can't really have an eco-friendly Hummer, you can't have a world where kids don't have health care, but you have to have a kid. 

When you vote, the issues are all connected.  And, at the end of the day?  It's the poor and the middle class, brandishing their swords against the rich.  We may talk a good game of democracy and hope and change.  But, no one is going to change the world for you.  You're going to have to get up, go to the voting booth, and do it with everyone else who believes what you believe. 

You're going to have to stand and fight because at the end of the day, it's not in America's best interest to let you make your own decisions.  It's much better to dupe you into thinking that, in post 9/11 Bush eloquence, that the single best thing you can do after a horrific terrorist attack literally stops the nation, you should shop.  Or have a baby.  Whatever.  Just keep that money flowing.

Why am I voting pro-choice?  Because I believe that America needs sexual rehab.  America needs a reality check.  I have to fight to make America about more than money.  I want to get America off the couch and into the soup kitchen.  I want to get America into a philosophy course.  An ethics course.  I want America to stop bombing things.  I want a truly changed America.  And for me, that's an America where every kid is a wanted kid.  That's an America where parents want to be parents.  I want an America that really cares about its kids.

You remember your high school self.  You might have had good SAT scores.  Maybe you were a National Merit Scholar.  Maybe you were average.  Maybe you were a band geek.  Maybe you were a prom queen. Maybe you dated the prom queen.  Whatever.  The point is:  we all had our mirror-obsessive moments of "am I cute enough?"  "Will they like me?"  But, that's the stuff of childhood.

The great thing about 30 is that we've all learned a lot.  Men, women.  We're smarter in our 30s than we were in our 20s, in our teens.

So, hey.  Let's rewrite Roe.  Let's make her sassy, with a touch of gray in her hair.  Let's make her old enough to say what's really on her mind.  Let's make Roe the proud mother of 2.  Let's make Roe bold and strong.  Let's make her a leader.  Let's make her a bitch.  Let's help Roe with a new motto:  "Let's fuck shit up."  Let's make Roe a Margaret Thatcher "winner takes all" kind of woman.  Let's take Roe all the way, baby.  Let's make Roe a grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma who loves to wear purple and escort women into clinics.  Let's vote Roe president.

Happy birthday Roe.  You're my favorite bitch in town.

Kisses and hugs,

Lingual X

Read on!

New Faces:

• The Curvature
• Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome
• Canned Peaches
• Kittywampus
• Inspired Faith, Effective Action
• Stinky Lulu

The Feminist Faithful:

• Angry Black Bitch
• Feminist Law Profs

Aw, heck.  Just go read them all for yourself!  The WHOLE List of 2008 Blog for Choice bloggers...

And, check out Salon.com's special feature on 35 years...

And, of course, a trip down memory lane:
My 2006 Blog for Choice Post
My 2007 Blog for Choice Post

Huckabee: Your Man for God's Standards... & Lingual Tremor's "Idiot of the Week"

Oh, do go to The Daily Kos for this rewrite of the Constitution.  You know, written according to "God's Standards."  Disturbing.  Disturbing.  Disturbing.

So, are we rewriting the Constitution in Greek?  Aramaic?  Hebrew?  Talk about No Child Left Behind.  The U.S. will need a major curricular rewrite...

Obama? Clinton? (Edwards?)= The "We're Already Sick of You" Democratic Campaign

Super Tuesday is still a ways away here in New York.  We have yet to actually get any candidates campaigning here.  Instead, we get to hear about campaigning in other states.  So, here's where we are--cynical New Yorkers that we are.

We've gone from a campaign where Democrats were so excited about the wide field of candidates--endless dinner parties and water cooler conversations about how great it was to have a choice--to this.  I'd say "Mad TV" pretty well sums up how many of us are feeling...

People are FINALLY Talking About Obama's Lack of Real Change!

Thank you Ken Silverstein.  Watch the full commentary from Ken Silverstein of Harper's Magazine, questioning how much "change" Obama would bring.  At last!  Real commentary!

Me and Michael Moore: So Happy Together

Me and Michael Moore baby.  Looks like making a choice is on everyone's mind.

Let's Talk Politics, Folks: Who Are You Voting For? Why?

Here in the Empire State, we don't vote for over another month yet.  Yet, given what will undoubtedly be the early buzz of "the contenders," after the caucuses in Iowa tomorrow, I decided to spend some serious time today (about 16 hours) reading through all of the candidates websites.  But first, I wrote down what my priorities are as a voter and I evaluated their campaign promises against my own priorities.  It was an eye-opening and surprising experience.

As we head into the real primary season (rather than the long, long, long corporate media build up to the primary season), I really wanted to challenge some of my own assumptions about the candidates.  Regular readers of this blog know that I was an early proponent of Hillary Clinton (here and here) in the 2008 presidential race and have diligently followed her campaign and her proposals.  I like Clinton, but I'm not passionate about her.  I find it difficult to counter arguments that other people raise when I say that I will probably vote for her.  I early on dismissed Edwards over the "feminist blogosphere debacle."  And Obama?  Well, despite being part of the age group he is fervently targeting, I'm just not that impressed.  But, my opinions of Obama and Edwards, in particular, have been based more on sound bytes and quick headlines rather than a deeper understanding of what they are supporting.  I watched several of the debates, but came away struck by the ways in which, rhetorically, all 3 were similar and disgusted by the ways in which they were attacking one another.  After the debates, Edwards and Obama slid down below the other candidates for me.  So, I could have just been satisfied and cast a vote for Clinton.  In fact, in October, I wrote this:

I'm still voting Hillary because I do think she can get things done. I'm also voting for Hillary because on the simple platform that I reject all of the fundamentally sexist and patriarchal responses to her candidacy. Cleavage my ass. She's tough as nails and I think it would do this country good to have a woman as president. All the better if Obama would be her vp and have some real experience before actually running for president himself. That said, I'm not holding my breath for the transformation of the democratic ideal. We're still going to be in Iraq, folks. We're still going to be arguing over S-chip. And, a whole lot of us are going to continue to be unhappy. Maybe just a little less unhappy.

But, as the months have drawn on, I find myself at social events saying things like "I'm voting for Hillary because she's the smartest candidate in the race" and "I just don't like Obama."  I'm also driven by the fact that I want to see a woman in the White House.  While I'm enthusiastic about having an African American president, I'm not convinced that Barack Obama deserves my vote just because he would break that barrier.  My gut reaction is that I'd rather vote for Oprah than for Obama (so why doesn't she run?).  I've decided my own "gut" reactions just are not good enough.  I'm reacting, like everyone else, to the sound bytes I'm being given by a media that's driven by image. 

Think about it:  how much do you actually know about the candidates?  I was surprised, as I started reading, by how little I actually knew.  So, this is a long post--with lots of links and research.  The problems with the campaign so far is that it's too sound-byte driven.  So, set some time aside and read on.  Read deeply. 

The Seriously Undue Influence of Iowa

Tomorrow we will all awake to the actual start of the 2008 presidential race.  And, already, many of us are sick of the unrelenting media coverage (and I have to say, among the most insipid was NPR's coverage of "Iowa Caucuses and Pie".

Like many other bloggers, I'm a well seasoned politico;  every four years, the Iowa caucuses frost me because I can't figure out why Iowa holds so much sway.  (Cue the "Tradition" music from Fiddler on the Roof and you're probably closer to the real reason than anything else.)

It's time for a little math here at chez Lingual:

Number of Registered Voters in New York State (according to the 2006 New York State Board of Elections Annual Report):
11,669,573
Population of New York State (according to the U.S. Census Quickfacts):
19,306, 183

**You can do this state by state by going to their board of elections.  I focused on New York, since that's my home state.

Number of Registered Voters in Iowa (according to Voter Registration Statistics):
2,054,843
Population of Iowa State (according to the U.S. Census Quickfacts):
2,982,085

How many people caucus in Iowa? (via Daily Kos)
"Kleiman figured that since turnout for the Iowa caucuses in 2004 was about 125,000, and that was considered relatively high, a candidate could "blow the field away" by turning out 100,000 supporters."

Spending on the Iowa Caucuses (via the International Herald Tribune):

The Democrats are spending by far the most on television advertising here, and smashing records in the process. Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.

Over the last week, all of the Democratic candidates have spent about $565,000 on television advertising, for a total of $23.7 million this year. In the 2004 race, Democratic candidates set a record by spending a combined $9.1 million for the entire campaign in Iowa.

and

Republican candidates - Romney, Fred Thompson and Huckabee - have spent a total of $9.5 million so far on Iowa advertising. President George W. Bush did not face opposition in Iowa in 2004.

Romney has spent by far the most, $6.5 million on more than 8,000 spots, though his considerable and early investment has not helped him maintain his initial lead in public opinion polls; Huckabee now appears to hold the lead, and he and Thompson have each spent just over $1 million on advertising.

So, that's about 18.6 million dollars spent (on television advertising alone--we're not counting all of the other costs) for about 125,000 people in Iowa.  We are repeatedly told on the news that Iowa will "set the stage" for the presidential contenders.  My question is why?

Why should 1 small state get to exert such undue influence on our political system?  And, more to the point, while candidates have spent months and months in Iowa, those states where voting will take place later have yet to see any serious campaigning.  Here in New York, we've seen no political ads yet (nor heard them on the radio)--okay, that's not totally true.  I've seen Ron Paul billboards, but those were in Second Life and I don't think my avatar is voting :-).  We've only heard snippets of different ads in analyses of the campaign IN IOWA.  I'm just saying:  New York is just another 1 of the 50 states.  I'm not saying New York should be privileged over Iowa because of size or prominence in the world's financial market.  I'm saying Iowa, and its 2,054,843 voters shouldn't be unfairly privileged over other the voters of other states.  As I traveled over the holidays to different states, I was very aware of how wide open the field is.  People haven't made up their minds--Republicans or Democrats--and I think a little more aggressive campaigning in other states would be a good thing.  We've had a few visits, but certainly nothing the likes of which Iowa has seen.  I'd like to hear more about the candidates--from the candidates themselves.  I'd like the opportunity to ask a few questions and hear the answers.  (And I'd like something back from the candidates' web sites other tha